Evolution vs. Creation

[greenburke]

I wasn't sure whteher to put ---Ivan after that quote.
And yes, I do realize that Dostoyevsky thought Father Zossima's ideas far out-weighed Ivan's cynicism. Dostoyevsky thought that Russia would be saved by the youth following Father Zossima's ideas and Aloyasha's care. Still, he wrote about Dmitri, Ivan and Alexey; they all had their own diverse, individual ideas.

I gave a quote, not a sysnopsis of the novel.

Still, science is rather convincing, I even get jazzed on the facts.
Luckily, my religous faith isn't based on me, or my emotions.
A promise is a promise despite my own passing emotions. Feelings are real, but they're not always true

[Noais_Dantes]

I like this. That sounds like a really interesting book.


Well, first, as an opponent of hunting for sport, I would take issue with anyone shooting an animal. :p Your argument seems to be rooted in the supposition that the life of an animal is not as important as that of a human being. I, who, even as a religious child, was always taught that human beings are a kind of animal, see no reason why that should make their lives less valuable. I see it as an unfortunate side-affect of the belief in Creationism, that some people view human beings as vastly superior to other kinds of animals, and therefore, when introduced to the idea that humans are also animals, are offended based on their belief that "animal" is an inherently negative term. If all living creatures are animals, then animals can't be "worse" than another form of creature, can they, being that there's only one? Unless you choose to believe that plants are superior to us.

But, secondly, I have to return to the point that has been made time and again in this thread: Why should the hypothetical truth of evolution/falseness of God negate the the importance of moral action? I understand, I think, the point that you're trying to make; that if morality is a God-given trait, and violence is a natural, or animalistic, trait, then the removal of God should leave no argument against our naturally violent tendencies. I would point out a common flaw of such reasoning, as I suggested earlier: you attribute morality and other "civilized" traits to religion alone, and assume that those who don't credit God with giving them to us would also reject the ideas themselves. Well, there are certainly *violent and cruel people on this earth who like to reject them to excuse their actions, but most people, religious or not, don't. I think that moral ideas are inherent to the human brain, then got attributed to God with the advent of religion. People who don't believe in God still believe in acting morally (*with the noted exceptions, which occur within the religious population as well). Being an animal doesn't mean being stupid. Human beings are intelligent, emotional animals, with an advanced notion of how to keep peace within their social circles, which often involves suppressing our more primative violent tendencies. Not shooting each other isn't a religious idea; it's a human idea. Although, there is mounting evidence that we may not be alone in that:

An old BBC article addressing animal sentience (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3014747.stm)
A cool, cool website about animal sentience (http://www.animalsentience.com/whatis_sentience.htm)
A Cool Social Morality Quiz (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/morals/index.shtml)

Well animals kill each other all the time. So if we are animals then why is it wrong to kill each other? Now you mentioned that we as humans have a moral that we KNOW it is wrong to kill each other....so...where did it come from if it didn't come from God? the only sensible explanation i can get is that God and ONLY God could have given it to us. you see animals and humans have noticably differantes. such as an animal doesn't talk. they make sounds. they do not have their own language or anything like that. but humans do! humans have a soul, animals do not, and animals have NEVER thought about right or wrong. they just act on instances. so how can there NOT be a God with all this delicate artifacts that He has left us, but believe in something totally confussing? oh, BTW, did you know that Hilter believed in evolution and here is his evolutionary scale of the last 2. Jews were all ape and blacks were mainly ape. (this is NOT my thinking but Hilter's. this does NOT reflect my beliefes that that last statement!) he considered the Jews worse ANY body and he just forced his beliefs on everyone he could. also don't forget how France fell.

[jamuscubed]

Greenburke,
Maybe it would help if you knew what the forces of speciation are..
1.) Non random mating (Consanguineous mating, Assortative mating)
2.) mutations
3.) migration
4.) natural selection (Fitness of offspring to reproduce)
5.) genetic drift (Alleles that no longer exist)

These are the forces that drive speciation, not just mutations.

I don't agree with most of the stuff you posted but I can't rebut now because i just saw something worse...

"ok someone who is an evolutionist please answer these questions... If we are animals then why are we being punished for acting like animals? Why are the public schools having problems with gun fights and the such when they have been taught evolution all their lives, meaning they are just shooting another animal? Please i am at a loss as too how to understand that you can say that we are animals, but when some acts like one they get in trouble."


:rage: WE ENTERED INTO SOCIETY, WE HAVE A SOCIAL CONTRACT TO FULFILL. WE HAVE FREAKIN LAWS!!!! :rage:


It's that simple. Common man, this isn't a real question...is it? Don't make me bring out Rousseau, John Locke, Neitzsche etc...

Kudos to emily for answering his question with a level headed approach. Very eloquent. I would say though that there is probably a heirarchy to the animal kingdom, as there is in human affairs. I don't know about the morality of it all though either but we are digressing fast. Morality to me is such an ugly term.

[starrwriter]

Now you mentioned that we as humans have a moral that we KNOW it is wrong to kill each other....so...where did it come from if it didn't come from God? the only sensible explanation i can get is that God and ONLY God could have given it to us.
Humans had morality long before monotheism. The earliest humans lived in small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers, valued cooperation over competition, shunned murder and violence and shared resources with each other. This was a moral system that didn't come from God.

[Logos]

such as an animal doesn't talk. they make sounds. they do not have their own language or anything like that.


Actually, if you've ever observed any two or more mammals for any length of time, you may come to realise that they do have a language all their own. Wolves in packs or horses in herds are easy examples. They use complicated systems of body language and sounds to communicate just fine.

Just because the world revolves around humans and our `intelligence' shouldn't negate other sentient beings' importance or worth.

I think most humans could expand their `intelligence' quota by understanding animals more :)

[B-Mental]

Animals communicate through body language also... Its amusing that many are similar to humans, such as the bluff, or signs of anger.


I think most humans could expand their `intelligence' quota by understanding animals more.
Logos that is a beautiful statement!

[Logos]

I've trained horses for 25 years, and I've learned +much+ about people because of :D and the similarities in body language are uncanny.

+ haha! ok so I'm a little biased +

[B-Mental]

Horses can read a human's personality, and take advantage if one is given. I used to live just outside Yellowstone. Its amazing that people can't see when an animal is telling them to back off. I worked with horses for a couple of seasons, and I couldn't continue. Some people just should not be around animals.

[atiguhya padma]

<Now you mentioned that we as humans have a moral that we KNOW it is wrong to kill each other....so...where did it come from if it didn't come from God?>

Co-operation is a benefit. Society relies on co-operation (as well as competition). For society to flourish, it needs to have moral codes endorsed by the population. It seems to me that morality is far more comprehensible as a product of social cohesion than as some gift from a man-made concept we call god. One might as well say that Santa Claus gave us morality. (Of course, the idea of Santa Claus could contribute to moral development, and some primitive concept like Santa from the depths of prehistory could have inspired the birth of moral development, but that wouldn't mean that Santa or his predecessors ever existed as autonomous entities)

[greenburke]

Greenburke,
Maybe it would help if you knew what the forces of speciation are..
1.) Non random mating (Consanguineous mating, Assortative mating)
2.) mutations
3.) migration
4.) natural selection (Fitness of offspring to reproduce)
5.) genetic drift (Alleles that no longer exist)

These are the forces that drive speciation, not just mutations.


Everyone has seen paintings in museums and textbooks of our "family tree," with its worms, birds, apes, and man shown in relation to how they evolved from one another. The impression is given that there can be no doubt that it really happened that way, for did not scientists prepare those charts?

"Delicate twigs, burgeoning in all directions, is closer to our current idea of evolutionary history."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution

All it really consists of is separate twigs, with each twig a separate species.

Classification is only the box species are put in, not the proof of evolution.

Chickadees. The Carolina Chickadee (Parus carolinus) and the black-capped Chickadee (Parus atricapillus) look just like each other in every way, and freely interbreed. Yet they have different songs! Although they have been classified as two different species, we have here one species with two alternate gene factors.

Wheat. Linnaeus classified spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L) as a different species than winter wheat (T. hybernum L). Yet they are both strains of the same wheat. They will cross and produce fertile hybrids. They should have been classified as sub-species.

Song sparrows. For over two centuries four species of sparrows in North America had been listed (Lincoln, fox, swamp, and song). Gradually this number increased as taxonomists moved westward and found additional sparrows. Soon we had lots of sparrow "species." But as more and more were discovered, it was recognized that they were but intermediates between the others! So the experts finally got together and reclassified them all as sub-species of but one species, the song sparrow (Passereila melodía).

Cattle. There are several different subspecies of cattle (Bos taurus L). Although the American bison (Bison bison L) and the European bison (Bison bonasus L) have a similar morphology (appearance), they will still generally crossbreed with cattle. In addition, it has been discovered that the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) also interbreeds with them—yet the bison and cattle have been placed in totally different genera.
Corn. One expert (*Sturtevant) categorized 6 species of corn (sweet, flint, flour, pod, dent, and popcorn), while other taxonomists acknowledge that they are all only varieties of one species.




Evolutionists point to changes WITHIN the species and call that "microevolution," and then proceed to tell us that such sub-species changes prove that theorized changes ACROSS species (which they term "macroevolution") must also be occurring.
But random gene shuffling within the species only produces new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is not penetrated. New plant varieties and animal breeds never cross the species barrier.

There are many different sub-species in some species while there are but few for others. A key factor seems to be the ability of the creature to travel (migrate) migrate whether by seed, spore, or in person.
For example, the tiny fruit flies cannot travel very far, so there are many varieties of them. The animal with the most sub-species appears to be the southern pocket gopher (Thomomys umbrinus) with 214 subspecies and, next to it, the northern pocket gopher (T. talpoides) with 66. Another highly isolated species is the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) with 66 subspecies.
"There is no evidence of the origin of a hybrid between man and any other mammal."—*Edward Colin, Elements of Genetics
Yes, variations are limited by the species barrier,—but immense variations are possible within a given species!
New varieties and new breeds are not evolution; they are only variation within the already existing species. There is no such thing as "microevolution." Changes within the true species are not evolution.

[greenburke]

LIMITS OF VARIABILITY-
"Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin had insisted that through gradual, continuous change, species could (in Wallace’s phrase) ‘depart indefinitely from the original type.’ Around 1900 came the first direct test of that proposition: the ‘pure line research’ of Wilhelm Ludwig Johannsen (1857-1927). What would happen, Johannsen wondered, if the largest members of a population were always bred with the largest, and the smallest with the smallest? How big or how small would they continue to get after a few generations? Would they ‘depart indefinitely’ from the original type, or are there built-in limits and constraints?

"Experimenting on self-fertilizing beans, Johannsen selected and bred the extremes in sizes over several generations. But instead of a steady, continuous growth or shrinkage as Darwin’s theory seemed to predict, he produced two stabilized populations (or ‘pure lines’) of large and small beans. After a few generations, they had reached a specific size and remained there, unable to vary further in either direction. Continued selection had no effect.

"Johnannsen’s work stimulated many others to conduct similar experiments. One of the earliest was Herbert Spencer Jennings (1868-1947) of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, the world authority on the behavior of microscopic organisms. He selected for body size in Paramecium and found that after a few generations selection had no effect. One simply cannot breed a paramecium the size of a baseball. Even after hundreds of generations, his pure lines remained constrained within fixed limits, ‘as unyielding as iron.’

"Another pioneer in pure line research was Raymond Pearl (1879-1940), who experimented with chickens at the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Pearl took up the problem . . [to] evolve a hen that lays eggs all day long.

"He found you could breed some super-layers, but an absolute limit was soon reached . . In fact, Pearl produced some evidence indicating that production might actually be increased by relaxing selection—by breeding from ‘lower than maximum’ producers."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution
Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)—but no exit through that wall.

"Darwin’s gradualism was bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection was useless."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution


LOSS OF FITNESS—Not only is there a limiting wall that will always be reached,—but as the researcher nears that outer wall, the subjects being bred become weaker. The variations made within those borders do not actually bring overall improvements in the corn, cows, and chickens. All of the apparent improvement is made at the expense of overall fitness for life. Gish explains why this is so:

"It must be strongly emphasized, also, that in all cases these specialized breeds possess reduced viability; that is, their basic ability to survive has been weakened. Domesticated plants and animals do not compete well with the original, or wild type . . They survive only because they are maintained in an environment which is free from their natural enemies, food supplies are abundant, and other conditions are carefully regulated."—Duane Gish, Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 34.

"Our domesticated animals and plants are perhaps the best demonstration of the effects of this principle. The improvements that have been made by selection in these have clearly been accompanied by a reduction of fitness for life under natural conditions, and only the fact that domesticated animals and plants do not live under natural conditions has allowed these improvements to be made."—*O.S. Falconer, introduction to Quantitative Genetics

[greenburke]

.
GENE DEPLETION—The scientific name for this loss of fitness through adaptation is gene depletion. According to this principle, selective breeding always weakens a species—and never strengthens it.

"[The original species came into existence] with rich potential for genetic variation into races, breeds, hybrids, etc. But so far from developing into new kinds, or even improving existing kinds, such variations are always characterized by intrinsic genetic weakness of individuals, in accordance with the outworking of the second law of thermodynamics through gene depletion and the accumulation of harmful mutations. Thus, the changes that occur in living things through the passage of time are always within strict boundary lines."—John C. Whitcomb

In addition, with the passing of time, genes are damaged through random radiation and mutations occur. Such mutations are also weakening, and gradually a genetic load is built up.

EVOLUTION WOULD WEAKEN AND NARROW—It is an astounding fact that evolutionary theory, if true, could only produce ever weaker creatures with continually narrowed adaptive traits. A Dutch zoologist, *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, explains that if man were descended from animal ancestors, "man should possess a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors!" (*J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology)

If we had actually descended from an earlier mammal, then we would have less genetic potential than they have! Our anatomy, physiology, brains, hormones, etc. would be less competent than that of our anscetors.

"Selection" requires intelligence, planning, and consistent effort by someone who is not the rose, corn, or cow. Random action is not "selection." Therefore "natural selection" is a misnomer. It should be called "random activity." The word "selection" implies intelligent decision-making. "Meaningless muddling" would better fit the parameters the evolutionists have in mind.
Selective breeding can provide no evidence of evolution, since it is intelligent, careful, planned activity; whereas evolution, by definition, is random occurrences.

Although random accidents could never produce new species,—neither can intelligent selective breeding! Selective breeding never, never produces new species. But if it cannot effect trans-species changes, we can have no hope that evolutionary chance operations could do it.

Selective breeding narrows the genetic pool; although it may have produce a nicer-appearing rose, at the same time it weakened the rose plant that grew that rose. Selective breeding may improve a selected trait, but tends to weaken the whole organism.

Because of this weakening factor, national and international organizations are now collecting and storing "seed banks" of primitive seed. It is feared that diseases may eventually wipe out our specialized crops, and we need to be able to go back and replenish from the originals: rice, corn, tomatoes, etc.

"Genetic Drift" is frequently spoken of as another "evidence" of evolution, but even confirmed evolutionists admit it proves nothing in regard to evolution. Genetic drift is changes in small groups of sub-species that, over a period of time, have become separated from the rest of their species. Oddities in their DNA code factors became more prominent, yet they all remained in the same species.

Frank Rhodes (Evolution) explains that all that "genetic drift" refers to is changes in a "sub-species" of a plant or animal (or in a "race," which is a sub-species among human beings). Even Rhodes recognizes that genetic drift provides no evidence of change from one species to another. All the drift has been found to be within species and never across them.

And all Consanguineous mating is, is A mating in which male and female are related by descent.

[jamuscubed]

Very Good,
I told you truth was empirical, and you say well then I see no truth!

The fossil record is put together by people fascinated with legos as a child, and you don't want to take their word for it now do you levar burton?

Australopithecus afasrensis, A. africanus, A. boisei, A. robustus....Homo habilis, H. erectus, H sapiens.

The question of the day is.... DO ALL THESE MICROEVOLUTIONS MAKE ONE GIANT MACRO EVOLUTION? Is lucy really the missing link...

Are these merely the twigs we place down to suggest relatedness?
Even if all these "species" are infact all subspecies of the homo, or even if they are the same species of homo, if you are so inclined to believe, they no longer exist. We are the living proof, because something caused them to go extinct. Maybe you shall argue that H. erectus cannot beget a homo sapien. I cannot prove you wrong, therefore if you are not wrong, then you must be right! Well no, you are just not wrong, yet..
It is only through your variance that so "weakens each species" that slightly different organisms occur. This is the only thing that has to be believed for the model of evolution to work. Slightly changing orgainism produce slightly different organisms. So called "sub species"... If the original organisms go extinct to leave only the slightly different ones what is the only blue print left life has to read from? Not the extinct model. Subspecies are proof of evolution because eventually with/with out human care, something will die off, leaving what is left behind as the blue print of what works in the present environmental conditions...Which happen to be fairly stable as of lately...

Microevolution is the most noticeable, and only observable evolution we have known to date. The galapagos finches are usually only separate in beak size/shape and body size. But they are different in: behavior/habitat on which they dwell/physically. We can say they are in the process of evolving, and possibly since they are intermingling so, they could never evolve totally from each other.

Size is usually considered a polygene, therefore why variance is high within a certain species. Although the studies, that greenburke cited, that tested the variance were brilliant in theory, they fall very short from what they are trying to imply.

At no time is size the defining characteristic of species. Although again with Darwins finches it is one type that some taxonomists use to sieve through species ( I don't agree). Yao Ming (basketball player, Houston Rockets) is the product of selective breeding in the era of communist China... Yao is quite a significant fellow, but he retains his humanity because of all the other factors he possesses. Yao will go on, if he breeds, to produce Homo sapiens.
But it is possible that his lineage will forever be tall, a slight microevolution.

Because human activity breaks a couple of the fundamental rules of speciation (Migration, "natural selection") humans may never evolve more unless a catastrophy of a huge proportion were to occur.

Lastly would you say that because penicillin is practically never prescribed (because it has been rendered useless) any more have many bacteria evolved? The answer is yes, because evolution trys to explain the changes organisms make or have... Unless god made them more resilient to penicilin over time...This is again an example of microevolution, and so I return to the begining where empirically a wolf does not beget a poodle. Until this is proven we have nothing to go on for macroevolution besides faith (ouch, couldn't I have used a better term?)...that time can show that many micro evolutions will infact create a macro.

[greenburke]

...Yao Ming (basketball player, Houston Rockets) is the product of selective breeding in the era of communist China... Yao is quite a significant fellow, but he retains his humanity because of all the other factors he possesses. Yao will go on, if he breeds, to produce Homo sapiens.
But it is possible that his lineage will forever be tall, a slight microevolution.


I read your whole post, I always try to read these posts carefully... sometimes hurriedly.

Anywho, the Yao Ming part caught my attention, so I looked him up om google. Very interesting story from TIME Asia. Long story, but very interesting.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/printout/0,13675,501051114-1126765,00.html

[Pendragon]

Just to make a point, not muddy the waters any, even some "inside the species" crossbreeds do not function so well. For example, breeding a donkey to a mare will produce a mule. They are strong, tough animals. The problem is they are born sterile, unable to reproduce themselves. Crossing a male lion with a female tiger creates a liger, a truly enormous cat. The same problem occurs. Since scientists thought the now extict Quagga a cross between an Onger and a Zebra, the crossbreed was attempted. Nice little Quagga-like result, but also sterile. But with active DNA from the hide of the last stuffed Quagga, they could possibly recreate the animal, using an Onger or Zebra as surrogate parent. Why does this sterlity occur? Maybe because these animals do not naturally crossbreed, I truly do not know.http://www.smileyville.net/hamster/horse.gif

[Noais_Dantes]

Humans had morality long before monotheism. The earliest humans lived in small bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers, valued cooperation over competition, shunned murder and violence and shared resources with each other. This was a moral system that didn't come from God.

well animals kill each other all the time and they don't have remorse. you can tell? i mean when one wolf kills another he/she will take over the pack and the other animals just follow along. they don't have love, fondness maybe, but now love. there is just NO way that humans are animals. there is no proof what so ever.

[emily655321]

well animals kill each other all the time and they don't have remorse. you can tell? i mean when one wolf kills another he/she will take over the pack and the other animals just follow along. they don't have love, fondness maybe, but now love. there is just NO way that humans are animals. there is no proof what so ever.
I'm beginning to feel that no matter what evidence might be introduced to you, you are unwilling to accept it. But that's different than the nonexistence of compelling evidence. You just refuse to feel compelled.

And yet, somehow, I feel compelled to continue appealing to your sense of reason.

You've observed animals kill one another without remorse, or at least have secondary evidence to that effect. It is by this logic that you argue human beings to be divinely imbued with a sense of love/remorse/morality, as evinced by the fact that no human beings—ever—kill one another without remorse, especially to gain power within their social group. And it is upon this reasoning that you base your argument against the empirical evidence gathered over the past two centuries to support the various theories of Evolution. Do you stand behind this argument? Because, if you change your mind, it will save me the minimal time and effort of tearing it to shreds. Although, if you will indulge me this bit of presumptuousness, at this point I fully expect that in such an event you would continue to regard said shreds as a whole.

[Pendragon]

Emily, as a person who does believe in a devine being, alow me to save you the trouble. If people think that people cannot kill others without remorse they have not studied the annuals of crime in any detail at all. May I suggest that they do so at once. They will discover that man can be the most unemotional, uncaring, unremorsful killer the world has ever seen. A single case will be sufficient. Nathan Lepold and Richard Loeb back in 1924. Both young men very wealthy, both highly intelligent, considered genius-level. They killed one of Loeb's cousins, Bobby Franks, on a lark, to see if they could commit the perfect crime. Neither showed remorse, only anger at their life sentence, which would have been death except for Clarence Darrow, their lawyer. :( :( :(
Don't take my word for it. Go read the article.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/loeb/index_1.html

[ChuckBukowski]

Nobody is really disproving Darwins 150 year old theory of evolution, but rather redefining what it means. We've obviously made great leaps in science and better understand how species develop and how genetics works. And does disproving Evolution prove Creationism? No. But I can end this argument without proving Evolution.....How do you explain dinosaurs? If the Judeo-Christian God supposedly created the universe, then divinely inspired men to write the Bible so that we may better understand his purpose and plan, why did he leave out the dinosaurs? Did God not think that we would discover the remnants of these creatures and start to ask questions? Some say that fossils are Gods way of testing our faith, I think that evangelicals are Gods way of testing my patience. Now I know someone is going to pull some ambiguous Bilbe verse out of their pocket and use it as "evidence" that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. I'm sure they are, any book with stories about being swallowed by whales, conversations with flaming shrubbery and apocolyptic flooding, is bound to have a story about a dinosaur in it. Theres probably one in there about a transvestite midget named Maybelline who rescues the Hebrews from famine by turning "tricks" into "matzoh". I believe it's written in one of those secret Dead Sea Scrolls kept locked away in the Vatican, probablly under the Popes mattress.

[greenburke]

...any book with stories about being swallowed by whales, conversations with flaming shrubbery and apocolyptic flooding, is bound to have a story about a dinosaur in it.

The word dinosaur, was made up until 1841, and the term dinosaur wasn't coined until 1842.

So no, their were no "dinosaurs" mentioned in the Bible.
The archaic word is dragon.
The word dragon is mentioned 37 times in the Bible. In Job 40 and 41 you will find descriptions of dinasours. Not under the pope's mattress.

Dragons are mentioned with other living creatures.

Job 30:29.
"I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls."


Their are no transitional phases of dinasours,
Dinosaurs are like everything else: distinct species.
All that extinct fossils—such as dinosaurs—prove is that animals can die out. Extinction is not evolution, and provides no evidence of evolution.

Dinosaurs are Extinction... for the most part.

In April 1977, a Japanese fishing vessel caught a 4,000 pound [1814 kg] dead creature in its nets off the east coast of New Zealand. It was photographed, sketched, carefully measured, and flipper samples were kept for tissue analysis. It has every appearance of being a Plesiosaur, or sea-dwelling dinosaur—which prior to 1977 had only been found in fossil form! Japanese scientists are convinced it was indeed a Plesiosaur. Japan even printed a postage stamp of the creature, in honor of the find. (A photograph and sketch of one is shown on page 107 of Ian Taylor’s excellent book, In the Minds of Men.)

Man lived with dinosaurs, dragons...

Glen Rose tracks: Children’s and adult footprints, up to 15 and 21½ inches [38-54.6 cm] in length, have been regularly found in Early Cretaceous rock throughout most of this century on the former riverbed of the Pulaxy River in Texas. Children’s tracks always accompany those of adults, tracks go across very large dinosaur tracks and have been found above them, and all tracks are running. These tracks are in Early Cretaceous formations, which date to 120 million years ago.


How old is man?

The time of the split between humans and living apes [Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes], the Hominoidea, used to be thought to have occurred 15 to 20 million years ago, or even up to 30 or 40 million years ago.---http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Yet, man walked around on 120 million year old Early Cretaceous rocks?
Evolutionists recognize that dinosaurs were destroyed suddenly.
Far more delicate creatures survived volcanoes, climate changes, and egg snatchers.

"One of the important contemporary scientific debates is about the causes of the mass extinctions at the close of the Cretaceous epoch, about 65 million years ago . . Scientists refer to this crucial, enigmatic transition in the history of life as the K/T boundary. The Cretaceous epoch is abbreviated as K to distinguish it from the earlier Carboniferous (coal-forming) epoch, abbreviated as C. Sedimentary rock layers above the Cretaceous, which include the fossil record of the Age of Mammals, are traditionally called Tertiary or T."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution

Some terrible catastrophe occurred that suddenly overwhelmed the earth! Fossil seashells have been found in the highest mountains of the planet, including the highest range of them all, the Himalayas, which reaches in an arc across central Asia.

Rapidly buried plant and animal life at some earlier time in earth’s history produced both petroleum and coal. But neither of them is being formed today. This is a great mystery to the scientists.

Coal forms less than one percent of the sedimentary rock strata, yet it is of special significance to those seeking to understand the geologic record.

The rock strata known as Carboniferous contains the most coal, but it is also found in other strata. Coal results when plant remains are compressed and heated by the weight of overlying sediments. Around the edges of coal seams is frequently seen the identifiable plants it came from. Enormous forests must have been rapidly buried in order to produce coal.

[Pendragon]

dead creature in its nets off the east coast of New Zealand. It was photographed, sketched, carefully measured, and flipper samples were kept for tissue analysis. It has every appearance of being a Plesiosaur, or sea-dwelling dinosaur—which prior to 1977 had only been found in fossil form! Japanese scientists are convinced it was indeed a Plesiosaur. Japan even printed a postage stamp of the creature, in honor of the find. (A photograph and sketch of one is shown on page 107 of Ian Taylor’s excellent book, In the Minds of Men.)

Mon ami, listen to me. I believe in a Creator. OK? I read my Bible and study it very much. Understand? But you are digging your own grave here. As it happens, odd phenomena is a bit of a hobby with me because I have the courage to question everything. This photograph you mention I have seen many times. It is in an advanced stated of decomposition, which is why only a photo exits to my knowledge, I know nothing of them keeping "flippers". When I read about this, the text stated "the whole carcass was thrown back into the sea." It was determined by photoanaylsis to be the carcass of a basking shark, which having few bones, does decay into something resembling a plesiosaur. You must know some viable facts to bring forward instead of something so easy to disprove. Take the time to learn. Trust me, if you really believe in God, nothing will ever destroy that. But can you not see that speaking of what you know nothing makes you look foolish? I'm not trying to discourge your belief but to encourge you to learn that you must know something before you put it forth as a fact. Even with science, just because someone said it doesn't make it right. Have a good day, buddy. God bless. :angel:

[greenburke]

But can you not see that speaking of what you know nothing makes you look foolish? I'm not trying to discourge your belief but to encourge you to learn that you must know something before you put it forth as a fact. Even with science, just because someone said it doesn't make it right. Have a good day, buddy. God bless. :angel:

I'm sorry if you think I was wrong.
Upon further research looking the decomposing carcass of basking shark is quite similar to this "sea-monstser."
Still, the Japanase scientist who observed the specimen first hand said "the neck is too long for a shark." And the group was baffled as a whole. Other supposed large "sea-monsters" were found on Claifornia's and New Zealand's shoreline, but those were just large (25-35ft.) basking sharks. So i do see where you are coming from.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/images/v23/i2/p50_bask.gif (-left, A Basking Shark)
This (decomposing) gives them a 'plesiosaur-like' appearance that has misled several creationists, as well as evolutionary cryptozoologists.
(Jerlström P., Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence, CEN Tech. J. 12(3)339-346, 1998; Letting rotting sharks lie: further evidence for shark identity of the Zuiyo-maru carcass, CEN Tech. J. 13(2):83-87, 1999.)

I disagree with your assumptions quoted at the top.
I do research, and checked at least four various sources on this "1970's plesiosoraus."
I started with an article, which sited various first hand sources.
This article was told by the on-hand fishermen and scientists' perspective.
The only way I could have known more, would have to be there myself, or watched the whole ordeal on video.

I don't judge you for questioning everything and I do respect that. I disagree with your opninions (on my research methods, my views on stereotypes and those types of posts). Not your faith, convictions, Bible quotes, or facts.

As a believer in God, I don't want to be lumped in with people who believe we are going to become gods, or people who believe aliens are inseperable from their brand of Christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
I think it's an accurate description and not a stereotype. The world can be fairly divided into religious believers and non-believers.

If I were you, I wouldn't pre-emptively call myself a jerk. atiguhya padma never used that word and it doesn't help you explain your position on this topic.

"Thank you. Even being in the "religious believers" camp does not blind me to the fairness of your statement. That's what we have long needed. Athiguthya and I have discussed things often and if we've disagreed, which we have, I don't ever recall it breaking out into name calling, which I have pointed out before futhers neither cause. This time I used humor to dispel any sign of hard feelings and we go on. Athiguthya has (her?) opinion on evolution and I have my own because I could use that extra hand! Thanks for peace keeping duties, Star. It's often a thankless job, but it does help when forum members try to remind each other that we are here for a discussion not a brawl. Cheers!" ---Pendragon

Especially when i saw this disimiliar statement,
But "The Church" doesn't represent even all of Christianity, much less all of religion. Please don't tar everyone with the same brush. ---Pendragon

Believing in God, doesn't mean I share the same views of the billions of other people who believe in higher life forms.
And I do hope most of us do realize that we are discussing, fighting, name-calling... or whatever over ideas, not the people themselves.

I disagree with you in this as well,
"You'll never meet someone like me, probably, someone who would still call you friend and mean it, and never give up on you even as you shove me away and call everything I believe foolishness,"---(Pendragon)

There are many Christians, Muslims, Atheists who get along with people with different opinions (there are many Christians, Muslims, Atheists who don't!) I also have friends with different beliefs. In fact, I became friends with one straight foward, cigar afficiando of a gentlemen through the following conversation.
"I believe in God," me.
He, "I'm one of those guys who is an atheist," and I admit he is probably much smater than me, and is attending UCLA right now.

[Noais_Dantes]

I'm beginning to feel that no matter what evidence might be introduced to you, you are unwilling to accept it. But that's different than the nonexistence of compelling evidence. You just refuse to feel compelled.

And yet, somehow, I feel compelled to continue appealing to your sense of reason.

You've observed animals kill one another without remorse, or at least have secondary evidence to that effect. It is by this logic that you argue human beings to be divinely imbued with a sense of love/remorse/morality, as evinced by the fact that no human beings—ever—kill one another without remorse, especially to gain power within their social group. And it is upon this reasoning that you base your argument against the empirical evidence gathered over the past two centuries to support the various theories of Evolution. Do you stand behind this argument? Because, if you change your mind, it will save me the minimal time and effort of tearing it to shreds. Although, if you will indulge me this bit of presumptuousness, at this point I fully expect that in such an event you would continue to regard said shreds as a whole.


I hate to dissapoint you, but you can no matter what disprove creationism as being truth. You have said that evolution has been proved for over the past 2 centuries, but Creationism has been proved from the begging of time. Also it has been around MUCH longer then evolution. If you will look into Chinese, Jewish, Hawiian, Azted, and other historic civilizations and you will see that they have one thing in common with the Bible. They all believe in a great flood and a huge boat with animals in it. How can so many different histories around the world have a common begging like that except for the fact that there had to be world wide flood.

Also evolution says that humans never coexcited with dinosaurs, but if fact they live STILL today! No not the large ones that we think of, but much smaller ones. Lizzards and reptiles are basically dinosaurs. Also in many different cave paintings there have been many drawings of dinosaus. Some pictures are on blankets, pottery, swords, jewelry, and much more. I have even seen a picture of a pot that had a dinosaur on it and the dinosaur had cicles all over it's body. You want to know why they put circles all over the dinosaur? Because a dinosaur has scalely skin that's why and they where able to SEE them to know. Also did you know that there is one sample of fossilized dinosaur skin that has been found? It had the circular patterns that you would see on a picture of a dinosaur on those cartifacts that I tould you about earlier. I could go on and on about dinosaurs, but I will let this go for now.

[Noais_Dantes]

Upon further research looking the decomposing carcass of basking shark is quite similar to this "sea-monstser."


Actually that wasn't a basking shark. That was a sea monser. It had fins that basking sharks do NOT have and like you said a neck that a basking shart does NOT have.

[greenburke]

here's a couple pics of the creature in question

http://www.gennet.org/art/yano2.jpg

http://www.gennet.org/art/yano4.jpg

[Pendragon]

I'm sorry if you think I was wrong.
Upon further research looking the decomposing carcass of basking shark is quite similar to this "sea-monstser."
Still, the Japanase scientist who observed the specimen first hand said "the neck is too long for a shark." And the group was baffled as a whole. Other supposed large "sea-monsters" were found on Claifornia's and New Zealand's shoreline, but those were just large (25-35ft.) basking sharks. So i do see where you are coming from.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/images/v23/i2/p50_bask.gif (-left, A Basking Shark)
This (decomposing) gives them a 'plesiosaur-like' appearance that has misled several creationists, as well as evolutionary cryptozoologists.
(Jerlström P., Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence, CEN Tech. J. 12(3)339-346, 1998; Letting rotting sharks lie: further evidence for shark identity of the Zuiyo-maru carcass, CEN Tech. J. 13(2):83-87, 1999.)

I disagree with your assumptions quoted at the top.
I do research, and checked at least four various sources on this "1970's plesiosoraus."
I started with an article, which sited various first hand sources.
This article was told by the on-hand fishermen and scientists' perspective.
The only way I could have known more, would have to be there myself, or watched the whole ordeal on video.

I don't judge you for questioning everything and I do respect that. I disagree with your opninions (on my research methods, my views on stereotypes and those types of posts). Not your faith, convictions, Bible quotes, or facts.

As a believer in God, I don't want to be lumped in with people who believe we are going to become gods, or people who believe aliens are inseperable from their brand of Christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
I think it's an accurate description and not a stereotype. The world can be fairly divided into religious believers and non-believers.

If I were you, I wouldn't pre-emptively call myself a jerk. atiguhya padma never used that word and it doesn't help you explain your position on this topic.

"Thank you. Even being in the "religious believers" camp does not blind me to the fairness of your statement. That's what we have long needed. Athiguthya and I have discussed things often and if we've disagreed, which we have, I don't ever recall it breaking out into name calling, which I have pointed out before futhers neither cause. This time I used humor to dispel any sign of hard feelings and we go on. Athiguthya has (her?) opinion on evolution and I have my own because I could use that extra hand! Thanks for peace keeping duties, Star. It's often a thankless job, but it does help when forum members try to remind each other that we are here for a discussion not a brawl. Cheers!" ---Pendragon

Especially when i saw this disimiliar statement,
But "The Church" doesn't represent even all of Christianity, much less all of religion. Please don't tar everyone with the same brush. ---Pendragon

Believing in God, doesn't mean I share the same views of the billions of other people who believe in higher life forms.
And I do hope most of us do realize that we are discussing, fighting, name-calling... or whatever over ideas, not the people themselves.

I disagree with you in this as well,
"You'll never meet someone like me, probably, someone who would still call you friend and mean it, and never give up on you even as you shove me away and call everything I believe foolishness,"---(Pendragon)

There are many Christians, Muslims, Atheists who get along with people with different opinions (there are many Christians, Muslims, Atheists who don't!) I also have friends with different beliefs. In fact, I became friends with one straight foward, cigar afficiando of a gentlemen through the following conversation.
"I believe in God," me.
He, "I'm one of those guys who is an atheist," and I admit he is probably much smater than me, and is attending UCLA right now.Well, greenburke, let us agree that we probably agree more than we disagree. I see you have done your research into basking shark decomposition, (the apparent long neck is an illusion, actually it's the spine and skull, sharks are mostly cartilage). And yes, that is the same pictures that went with the articles that I've read. Science and religion have one thing in common: If one says something is right, another will just as vehemently argue that it is wrong! I've seen it in churchs for years, one minister trying to tear down another. I have a quote in a book here where a famous scientist states "If one scientist says it can't be done, never mind that his name is Einstein, somebody is prepared to swear they can prove him wrong!" And begging the other gentleman's pardon, but since when do sharks NOT have fins? Anyway, I just am trying to help you see a wider picture. As I said, if you truly believe, nothing you take the time to study will ever shake that. But it may make you stronger. God bless! :angel:

[greenburke]

agreed. (got to make this post at least ten-characters!)

[rachel]

I remember once when I was an atheist. I was bugged about something and shouted out to God that I didn't believe in Him. Then I heard a quiet voice say to my heart "then why are you talking to Me?" Freaked me out. So I started grudgingly searching. There is a scripture that says : the fool says in his heart there is no God. That used to bug me. Now after searching and thinking and walking my walk I truly believe in creation. But how He did it I could care less. I can't even figure out certain receipes, how a bunch of flour with water and some wierd stuff called yeast are thrown together with some slippery stuff called oil and voila bread comes forth, yummy bread. But there it is. I take it on faith that bread will come forth, I don't need to know how. I just had to find out whether there was God. The rest is His business.

[jamuscubed]

Oh fun news...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/08/creationism.professor.ap/index.html

[IrishCanadian]

I hate to dissapoint you, but you can no matter what disprove creationism as being truth. You have said that evolution has been proved for over the past 2 centuries, but Creationism has been proved from the begging of time. .
I seldom post in this part of the forums now, but Is till like to read it. Anyway, I have to mention that strictly scientifically speaking niether evolution, nor creation has been proven. I am a practicing Christian, I believe in creation, I have some quams with evolution. Nevertheless, let it be known that despite some brillient rhetoric, facts, and hypothisese there is no scientific proof for either. At least none that i have ever heard as published.
Cheers!

[emily655321]

I hate to dissapoint you, but you can no matter what disprove creationism as being truth. You have said that evolution has been proved for over the past 2 centuries, but Creationism has been proved from the begging of time.
I didn't say I could disprove Creationism. I said your argument was flawed, and easily refuted. The only way for me to disprove Creationism by disproving your argument would be if your argument was direct proof of Creationism, when, in fact, it had nothing to do with the subject. I also said that, over the past two centuries, there has been evidence gathered to support various (read: not all) theories of evolution. This is in no way the same as proving Evolution as the singular origin of all life on Earth, thereby inevitably disproving the rival theory of Creation.

Please don't misquote me, especially when the quote itself is visible not two inches away. The word "prove" does not appear anywhere in my previous post. I take great care in choosing the words I use. Unless I say "prove," I do not mean "prove." Please read more carefully, if you wish to engage in an intellectual discussion.

You will find that I have great patience for intelligent arguments with which I disagree. If, however, you do not have the patience to even pay attention to the topic on which you are arguing, I do not have patience for you.


I remember once when I was an atheist. I was bugged about something and shouted out to God that I didn't believe in Him. Then I heard a quiet voice say to my heart "then why are you talking to Me?" Freaked me out. So I started grudgingly searching. There is a scripture that says : the fool says in his heart there is no God. That used to bug me. Now after searching and thinking and walking my walk I truly believe in creation. But how He did it I could care less. I can't even figure out certain receipes, how a bunch of flour with water and some wierd stuff called yeast are thrown together with some slippery stuff called oil and voila bread comes forth, yummy bread. But there it is. I take it on faith that bread will come forth, I don't need to know how. I just had to find out whether there was God. The rest is His business.
Please don't take offense at this, Rachel, but you don't talk to something unless you already believe it to be there. Talking to God, no matter what you say to him, is an admission of faith. I believe that any answer you get, you get because you're already expecting to hear one. Also, bread results from chemical reactions between heat and the ingredients. Understanding bread doesn't require a leap of faith.
Oh fun news...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/08/creationism.professor.ap/index.html
:( It takes courage and patience beyond my comprehension to be a teacher of science in Kansas.

[rachel]

I take no offense Emily. So GLAD you are back. No it was not because I already believed. It was because I was tired of people I knew talking to Him, I was being rude and mocking and so just said it. And the very fact that I heard what I heard made me stop being rude and just at least try to find out why i heard what I heard, was it just me or was it possible it was Him? Because of the life I had I couldn't see how there could possibly be a God, but if there was one I didn't like him. Well it is hard to explain but believe me I made quite a few enemies back then because I believed Darwin.

[nodia 4]

for all of you who think we evolved i suggest that you.
A. go get a bible.
B. go to church.
and C. learn about GOD!

[Loki]

I learnt quite enough about "god" while I was at school. I've been to a church, well, for a concert, but we had compulsory praying and stuff in chapel at school, RE classes, etc. and that was quite enough. Pure hypocrisy. And as to a bible...we already have two in the house, one from when I was at school and the second from when my father was at school. No thanks.

[jollyollie]

for all of you who think we evolved i suggest that you.
A. go get a bible.
B. go to church.
and C. learn about GOD!
My friends. There is no reason to debate. Some will drive themselves mad trying to convince some people that Darwin even existed. Some people think war is a necessary part of life, that we all must endure it, to preserve a limited edition of 'freedom'. It is some peoples lot in life to distract free thinking individuals from thier passions to debate the non debateable. Sit back, relax in the comfort of your homes and know the truth that evolution is proven fact. Aristotle is dead and has not been required reading in school since the 15th century, and it will always be so. Creationists/fundamentalists will fume as they grasp at straws and try to turn back the clock :rage: . So have a tea and breathe and have a look at the fossil record. Its not going anywhere soon. There is no debate.
Those of you evolution fans dedicated to trying to convince or sway the creationist converted, watch out for viruses on your emails. :banana:

[Loki]

Good point. :D
But they think there is...[a debate]

[Pendragon]

Since we had a little humor with the "Peanuts" cartoon on the "Christians Thread", and frankly I have used examples from "Peanuts" in sermons, please take the following poem, which I published in a Sci-Fi magazine once also as the humor it is mean to be:

Darwin Down the Drain

On the continent of North America,
in the mountains of the East,
an undiscovered species of Man was found
a-living like a beast!

The Government convened a panel,
whose duty was to ascertain
just who and what this poor being was,
and just from whence he came!

The committee was a varied one;
a Minister, a Scientist, and a Lawyer too;
a burley Sergeant of the Marines,
a Politician, and an Old Maid. (What’s she to do?)

The Politician looked at him,
and this is what he said:
“If he’ll vote for me, then he’s OK!
If not, I’ll bust his head!”

The Old Maid looked him up and down,
then proceeded to relate:
“We haven’t met. My name’s Matilda Brown.
Big Boy, how about a date!”

The Scientist said, “He can’t exist!
I’ll prove he isn’t real!”
And then he bopped him on the shins
to see if he could feel!

The Lawyer said to him: “Dear Sir,
you are bedecked with feathers from an eagle
in violation of Code 45, Section C.
Sir, I’m telling you—that’s illegal!”

The Sergeant ran an appraising eye
along the Wildman’s show of muscle.
Then he barked: “Tension! I could use youse, son,
Youse be great in a tussle!”

The Minister looked long at him,
his face was very grave.
He said: “Son, do you know that you are lost?
Or that you have a soul to save?”

But then the Aborigine burst out
In a voice both clear and loud:
“Yer d’sturbin’ maw fishin’, ye buncha fules!
Now, gear out afore I trow ye out!”

Pendragon

It was published under my initals, of course. Everybody loosen up and have a good day. And as for a debate, it only requires two sides of an issue. If it requires you to be able to PROVE one side or the other, we'd never have a Presidential debate.... :lol: :lol:

[jamuscubed]

for all of you who think we evolved i suggest that you.
A. go get a bible.
B. go to church.
and C. learn about GOD!

Wow, you solved the problem! and it only took 785 posts to come to that...great post nadia...

One quick question that maybe isn't addressed in your answer book. How do hindu's/bokononists/raelians (fill in a non-christian or jewish religion) feel about evolution? Oh yeah and you can consult your bible because it's an open book test.

[greenburke]

So have a tea and breathe and have a look at the fossil record. Its not going anywhere soon. There is no debate.



"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."—*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism"

Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?"—*Larry Azar

The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O’Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism and Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." —*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism"

It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." —George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.

[Pendragon]

A wise man said once: "Just when you think you've got it all figured out someone throws a spanner (monkeywrench) into the works!" This will never really end you know. People who refuse to accept a creator will continue to do so. People who refuse to accept evolution in any form will continue to do so. And persons trying to find middle ground will get bumped from both directions. The creations will say that we have denied the Bible and the Evolutionist will say we haven't gone far enough. Both camps seem to be in a get in or get out state of mind. There is room for a creator to set things in motion and evolution to shape it from there. I've said before, you cannot put God into time, it means nothing to him. Besides, everything was "formed from the dust of the earth" AFTER the seven (days, thousand years, whatever) of Creation was OVER. How long did that take? Time was never counted until after Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden. How long were they there? Anybody know? I don't, and I study the Bible. Hey. we know dinosaurs existed, so are they the dragons in the Bible or mabe Levaethian? Behemoth? Dragon legends exist in all cultures, as well as sea serpents. Is this the dinos? Questions--questions--questions. I don't think anyone truly has all the answers, but as Mulder always said: The truth is out there, somewhere... ;) :nod: :nod:

[greenburke]

I've said before, you cannot put God into time, it means nothing to him. Besides, everything was "formed from the dust of the earth" AFTER the seven (days, thousand years, whatever) of Creation was OVER. How long did that take? Time was never counted until after Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden. How long were they there? Anybody know? I don't, and I study the Bible.

The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
-Gen. 1:1
Not putting God into time, rather God created time.

Where in the Bible does it say everything was created from dust?
It doesn't.

Man was created from dust.
Once God created the sun, moon and stars a day would have been what it is today.
God made the plants the day before the sun , moon and stars. A thousand years without the sun's light is a long time for a plant to survive.

I do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden,
but the Bible says, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:"
-Gen. 5:3

So it was less than 130 years, and Adam had two sons before that, after he was kicked out of the garden.

Gen. 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day 6 in the Garden of Eden.

The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world.
.
.
.
1 Corinthians 15:45-47
45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

e. 1 Corinthians 15:45 Gen. 2:7

[jollyollie]

Forgive me, all, but I must insist on this. To force someone to appreciate something they have no intention on accepting or believing in is -------! Fill in the blank. Personally as a parent, I believe the scriptures belong in the church or sunday school. The debate is not, or should not be Darwin. Mr Darwin did his part in science. The debate is what do we believe our children should learn in school? Thankfully, my children learn that evoltution is the ticket to learn; you wont go far in Harvard developmental biology or genetics if try to tell your prof that the world was invented in seven days by a large handed fellow who doesnt like to be photographed. I think instead of picking on Mr Darwin, why not ask Dr. SJ Gould of Harvard University and see what his opinion on evolution is.
Now, dont get your feathers in a bonnet, because the point is teach your kids what you want, but dont force it on them, or someone elses kids. It is irresponsible and maybe theyll want to go to Harvard some day.
In the world of science there is no debate. Confusing rhetoric is just that.
Persons of aboriginal descent will agree with me when I say that ones personal beliefs should be honored, and persons who are different will always be different, and should be left that way. Not forced by violent means to embrace something they dont understand, or cant verify.
There is no debate, it simply doesnt exist. If someone tells someone who is different, to "go to church and read the bible" to discount evolution in science and education, that is fundamentally irresponsible. Take my words apart and twist them around all you want. But the point is there is no debate in scientific circles.
Maybe you should just change the name of this forum to.
"MMMM Boy, do I ever want everyone I meet to love Jesus"
and I love jesus too.
There is no debate :santasmil

[greenburke]

I think instead of picking on Mr Darwin, why not ask Dr. SJ Gould of Harvard University and see what his opinion on evolution is.

.
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].


"What good is half a jaw or half a wing? . . These tales, in the ‘Just-So Stories’ tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything . . concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me[I]."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, June/July, 1977.

"The Supreme Court said you can't force the teaching of creation science, but it didn't say that if individual teachers happen to want to teach it they can't." -*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution, Extinction and the Movies, " in Time, May 14, 1990, p. 19.

[jamuscubed]

I think instead of picking on Mr Darwin, why not ask Dr. SJ Gould of Harvard University and see what his opinion on evolution is.


The really sad thing is... Dr. "SJ" Gould has been dead for some time now, so way to stay up on the issue... Luckily as greenburke has pointed out he left enough for us to read.

Yeah he was an evolutionist... To his credit, he was semi unbiased in the fact that he could imagine evolution to be false...

So here's the thing that upsets me "jollieollie"... that I have to include you into my scientific circle.

there is no debate
.....really???? Because I'm pretty sure it's the Theory of Evolution and not... The LAW of Evolution....

The problem with some people is that they believe something to the point of it being infallable.

Don't get me wrong I believe in the mechanism of evolution. We have seen it. Evolution in the sense of adaptation. I have recently got intouch with an old professor of mine that happens to study invasive species. {classic example being the galapogos finches} Well her studies have shown that these invasive species she works on Eurytemora affinis, and she has shown that..."common-garden experiments revealed evolutionary shifts in osmotic tolerance and life history during freshwater invasions. Freshwater invasions are accompanied by evolutionary increases in freshwater tolerance and reduced saltwater tolerance".

http://www.zoology.wisc.edu/faculty/Lee/Lee.html

The problem is this is still a related species..to the original "wild-type" species.. You do the math from there Pathogoras..I don't want to explain the whole thing because I tire..

Greenburke, you sane bastard, I love your retorts.. I feel you are single handedly defending the creationist mind, and well for that matter. I wish I was doing an more exemplary job in my camp. (although I leave room to remind everyone... though I believe in evolution there is room for "anti" evolutional theories)....The question you ignored the other day that I wish you had answered.... The hominids...will these serve as an example for a transitional species????

[Pendragon]

The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
-Gen. 1:1
Not putting God into time, rather God created time.

Where in the Bible does it say everything was created from dust?
It doesn't.

I beg to differ. Genesis 2:19 "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

Try reading it before you tell me it isn't there please.


Man was created from dust.
Once God created the sun, moon and stars a day would have been what it is today.
God made the plants the day before the sun , moon and stars. A thousand years without the sun's light is a long time for a plant to survive.

I do not know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden,
but the Bible says, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:"
-Gen. 5:3

So it was less than 130 years, and Adam had two sons before that, after he was kicked out of the garden.

Gen. 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day 6 in the Garden of Eden.

I disagree respectfully, since the fowl were made on the fifth day of creation. Like I say, read it carefully. They were driven out of the garden, had Cain and Abel, then Seth, and that came to 130 years when the geneologies were given. No account of time spent in the Garden or how long Creation took for sure.


The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world.

The Bible says "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" Romans 14:5 You just jumped to two conclusions.

1. Gen. 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day 6 in the Garden of Eden.

2. The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have power to create

This is a circular argument, since one negates the other, since trees were created on the third day (just as fowls were on the fifth).


1 Corinthians 15:45-47
45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.

e. 1 Corinthians 15:45 Gen. 2:7This is Paul speaking of course, take the whole of the book and chapter. Paul is speaking of the coming of Christ to make the surpreme sacrifice. 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Thus we see that the scripture you quote speakes of Christ, the second Adam.

Genesis 1:26 God made man in His image and God is a Spirit
Genesis 2:7 God places the spirit into a body formed of the Earth, Creation and God's rest period is OVER! But you will believe what you can understand and see, and I will not tell you that it is wrong to do so. I admire any person who will stand on their own convictions, unless something causes them to change them. Because if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything...God bless you, my friend. :angel:

[jollyollie]

The really sad thing is... Dr. "SJ" Gould has been dead for some time now, so way to stay up on the issue... Luckily as greenburke has pointed out he left enough for us to read.

Yeah he was an evolutionist... To his credit, he was semi unbiased in the fact that he could imagine evolution to be false...

So here's the thing that upsets me "jollieollie"... that I have to include you into my scientific circle.

.....really???? Because I'm pretty sure it's the Theory of Evolution and not... The LAW of Evolution....

The problem with some people is that they believe something to the point of it being infallable.

Don't get me wrong I believe in the mechanism of evolution. We have seen it. Evolution in the sense of adaptation. I have recently got intouch with an old professor of mine that happens to study invasive species. {classic example being the galapogos finches} Well her studies have shown that these invasive species she works on Eurytemora affinis, and she has shown that..."common-garden experiments revealed evolutionary shifts in osmotic tolerance and life history during freshwater invasions. Freshwater invasions are accompanied by evolutionary increases in freshwater tolerance and reduced saltwater tolerance".

http://www.zoology.wisc.edu/faculty/Lee/Lee.html

The problem is this is still a related species..to the original "wild-type" species.. You do the math from there Pathogoras..I don't want to explain the whole thing because I tire..

Greenburke, you sane bastard, I love your retorts.. I feel you are single handedly defending the creationist mind, and well for that matter. I wish I was doing an more exemplary job in my camp. (although I leave room to remind everyone... though I believe in evolution there is room for "anti" evolutional theories)....The question you ignored the other day that I wish you had answered.... The hominids...will these serve as an example for a transitional species????
I pity your kids

[jollyollie]

.
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."—*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].


"What good is half a jaw or half a wing? . . These tales, in the ‘Just-So Stories’ tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything . . concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me[I]."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, June/July, 1977.

"The Supreme Court said you can't force the teaching of creation science, but it didn't say that if individual teachers happen to want to teach it they can't." -*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution, Extinction and the Movies, " in Time, May 14, 1990, p. 19.
Siting a bunch of quotes doesnt really address what it is that I am saying does it? You seem to be grasping a straws, young padawan. Fundamentalist bullies who cant speak for themselves have no place in open forum discussions. Take a pill and your brianwashing techniques someplace else.
People with different points of view have been persecuted for thousands of years. Quote this: First Nations people had pins stuck through thier tongues to integrate them into " civilised society", to punish them for not speaking english, thier children separated from them by thousands of miles in lame attempts to poison thier cultures and destroy the languages of thier ancestry. All in the name of God? and Jesus? You people fight so hard to preach your faith and punish those that are different.
You are dotards. Show some respect for other ways of thinking and keep your personal religious belief out of our public schools.

[jamuscubed]

First of all don't pity my kids. Pity is such a christian/religious ideal, and since you obviously have no room for religion, why bother putting forth half the effort.

Secondly why would you pity my kids? Because they would be cognitively (and dont forget sexier!!!) better off than jollie ollie produced children...Oh wait, that's envy..

Thirdly, so a "fundamentalist bullie" has no right in an open forum, but someone that coins "dotard" is? You had to be the captain of the debate team.

Fourthly. Evolution isn't an anti-Christian theory. Did you remember there are other religions out there?

5. Golden Rings

6thly- Citing peoples' work obviously shows that there has been research into the idea. Since maybe possibly you are omniscient, you should gather all your ideas by spontaneous clairvoyance. Us "dotards" will use data, feelings, beliefs, research...etc. to compile ours.

7thly - Why am I taking issue with you, since I believe in evolution? Lately I feel I have been in the creationist camp defending them from people like you.

8thly - Don't quote the whole passage, what a waste of time for us that actually CAN READ, and do read what people post.

Lastly - My @#$%ing point is... Science has error, as the best judgements do. You are a fool to believe in something so passionately that could ultimately be wrong. If you are a "Scientist" as you claimed earlier you would atleast allow others to say evolution isn't bulletproof, because all the evidence isn't quite there yet.

[Loki]

Guys, guys, I know it's hard but do you have to be so...hot-blooded? I mean, after all, arguing about it on the internet is hardly going to change anyone's ideas...


.....really???? Because I'm pretty sure it's the Theory of Evolution and not... The LAW of Evolution....

Let's compare...


THEORY: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.


LAW: A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met

So basically, theory is a set of statements that is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. A law is a statement describing a relationship between phenomena in certain conditions.

They end up meaning practically the same thing.

Of course theories (and laws) can have, and do have flaws; but these flaws are almost uniformally tiny nitpickings in the details, nothing major...the basic idea in a proven theory is right.

Just my two cents.

Loki

[rachel]

I think when you believe something or in Somone passionately it is rather hard to then be completely dispassionate about the topic. For me to not believe in INtelligent Design can no longer happen after years of research. Take the eye for example. If we started first from some cosmic thing then from the sea for example as a simple blob of whatever how without any intelligence whatsoever did we know to grow this and that and how did we with no knowledge of science or such develop this limb or that. And supposing we got to the point that some of us crawled out of the sea then how did we decide we even needed eyes or what they were or how to go about it. Scientists, brilliant people cannot create these things or else we would not have transplants we could just create them exactly and pop them into a waiting body. I read of an experiement in a university where scientists believed they had duplicated sea water perfectly. they put fish into a tank filled with it. The fish died. They they added just a couple of tablespoons of real sea water into that tank of artificial stuff. the fish lived.
Sounds like Intelligent Design, a grand Creator to me.and on and on and on.....
And if we started with cosmic this or that where did all that come from, someone made it I am sure.

[Loki]

Rachel, please read River out of Eden by Richard Dawkins. He has a whole chapter about "intelligent design" and atheists who convert because they think "wow look at this, this could have never come into being by itself!"

It's not like that. "Intelligence" and eyes and every other natural wonder on earth came into being through a mix of necessity and pure chance. If evolution happened a second time, life could be entirely different (if there was a lot of pure chance in the mix) or quite similar (if there was a lot of necessity in the mix). Paul Davies in Big Questions explores this issue.

For a view from both sides, you can visit http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html.

For something a bit different, go to "Our Mission" at http://www.betterhuman.org/

Flaws in "Intelligent design" - http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/intelligent-design-flaws.htm

[Ulalume<3]

Evolution, the modern Geocentric Theory.


My point is Science cannot always be trusted as truth. If we laugh at what people half a centry ago believed to be "scientific" truth (such as influenza being caused by the stars), imagine what they will be laughing at us for in a hundred years at the rate we are going.

[greenburke]

Very Good,
Are these merely the twigs we place down to suggest relatedness?
Even if all these "species" are infact all subspecies of the homo, or even if they are the same species of homo, if you are so inclined to believe, they no longer exist. We are the living proof, because something caused them to go extinct. Maybe you shall argue that H. erectus cannot beget a homo sapien. I cannot prove you wrong, therefore if you are not wrong, then you must be right! Well no, you are just not wrong, yet..
It is only through your variance that so "weakens each species" that slightly different organisms occur. This is the only thing that has to be believed for the model of evolution to work. Slightly changing orgainism produce slightly different organisms. So called "sub species"... If the original organisms go extinct to leave only the slightly different ones what is the only blue print left life has to read from? Not the extinct model. Subspecies are proof of evolution because eventually with/with out human care, something will die off, leaving what is left behind as the blue print of what works in the present environmental conditions...Which happen to be fairly stable as of lately...

I liked your post and agreed with it Jamuscubed. The ideas about micro-evolution are good. I like the term adaptation, but that's just a matter of nit-picking. It would be cool if those finches could micro-evolve so much that looked look like creatures from "Where the Wild Things Are," these thoughts inspire the imagination.

Mircro-evloutions
Wolfs, coyotes, springer spaniels, poodles- all dogs. The cross-breeding issue is fun to observe, but there are limitations. Those dogs as big as horses, mastiffs, they retain dog qualities. They get as big as horses, but will they ever turn into a clydsdale, or a mast-dale? No. Coakroches, are becoming resillent to bug spray, will the coakroach ever be hammer proof? No. There are boundaries limitations. Animals and plants are pre-packed with a bunch of information, so they can adapt, but they won't ever take on new "blueprints". Animals and plants work with the DNA they have. The sub-species are just re-aranged data, and the sun-standard of the orignal version. Sub-species wouldn't become new species, but they can be a remnant of the original extinct species.

"If the original organisms go extinct to leave only the slightly different ones what is the only blue print left life has to read from? Not the extinct model."--jamuscubed

Not only would an animal have to borrow blue-prints to cross-species, but, "Each successive speciation change would require a totally new and different—but highly exacting code to be in place on its very first day of its existence as a unique new species." -(evolution-facts.org)

A teacher once told my class about these parrots (i think they were parrots), down in South America. These parrots were isolated from the other parrots so over time their features became more and more original and bizzare. I raised my hand and asked, "Isn't this just a case of lots and lots of inbreeding?" He seemed flustered, the question was a bit straightfoward for a science disscussion... and of course the parrots were all still parrots.

DNA
When evolutionist try to explain away DNA with answers like the following theory, they move away from the definition of the word theory (theory-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.)

"All the complicated DNA in each life-form, and all the DNA in every other life-form—made itself out of dirty water back in the beginning! There was some gravel around, along with some dirt. Nearby was some water, and overhead a lightning storm. The lightning hit the dirty water and made living creatures complete with DNA. They not only had their complete genetic code, but they were also immediately able to eat, digest food, move about, perform enzymatic and glandular functions, and all the rest.

"Instantly, they automatically knew how to produce additional cells, and their DNA began dividing (cells must continually replenish themselves or the creature quickly dies), their cells began making new ones, and every new cell could immediately do the myriad of functions that the first creature, an amoeba, can and must do.

"That same stroke of lightning made both a male and a female pair and their complete digestive, respiratory, and circulatory organs. It provided them with complete ability to produce offspring and they in turn more offspring. That same stroke of lightning also made their food, with all its own DNA, male and female pairs, etc., etc." -(evolution-facts.org)


Boundaries
"'The transfer of information from nucleic acid to nucleic acid, or from nucleic acid to protein may be possible, but transfer from protein to protein, or from protein to nucleic acid is impossible."—*Francis Crick, "Central Dogma," quoted in *Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 77.

"The Central Dogma is an important scientific principle and means this: The complex coding within the DNA in the cell nucleus decides the traits for the organism. But what is in the body and what happens to the body cannot affect the DNA coding. What this means is this: Species cannot change from one into another! All the members in a species (dogs, for example) can only be the outcome of the wide range of "gene pool" data in the DNA, but no member of that species can, because of the environment or what has happened to that individual, change into another species. Only changes in the DNA coding can produce such changes; nothing else can do it." -(evolution-facts.org)

"Normal variations can operate, but only within a certain range specified by the DNA for that particular type of organism. Within this range are all the possible variations to be found within each species.

"Domestic and wild animals have produced interesting and sometimes useful (to man) hybrids. Successful crosses have been made between cattle and bison (‘beefalo’), turkeys and chickens (‘turkens’) and horses and zebras. Usually, the male offspring of these unions are sterile, and the females are either sterile, show reduced fertility or produce offspring that do not live long."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 231.

"DNA, THE BARRIER—Genetic scientists tell us that all variation occurs in living things only within each type, and never from one type to another. It is the complicated DNA code within each plant and animal type that erects the great wall, which cannot be crossed." -(evolution-facts.org)

[Pendragon]

A teacher once told my class about these parrots (i think they were parrots), down in South America. These parrots were isolated from the other parrots so over time their features became more and more original and bizzare. I raised my hand and asked, "Isn't this just a case of lots and lots of inbreeding?" He seemed flustered, the question was a bit straightfoward for a science disscussion... and of course the parrots were all still parrots. An excellent point! One that should have been considered by your teacher. There exists a race of people, that due to extreme inbreeding now have feet shaped like that of a bird. This came from National Geographic. The scientists recognize that this is the result of inbreeding causing a genetic deformity, so your parrots probably were the same.


"Domestic and wild animals have produced interesting and sometimes useful (to man) hybrids. Successful crosses have been made between cattle and bison (‘beefalo’), turkeys and chickens (‘turkens’) and horses and zebras. Usually, the male offspring of these unions are sterile, and the females are either sterile, show reduced fertility or produce offspring that do not live long."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 231.

"DNA, THE BARRIER—Genetic scientists tell us that all variation occurs in living things only within each type, and never from one type to another. It is the complicated DNA code within each plant and animal type that erects the great wall, which cannot be crossed." -(evolution-facts.org)You can add to that list mules (cross between donkeys and horses), ligers (cross between lions and tigers, and the failed attepmt to recreate the extinct Quagga by crossbreeding Zebras and Ongers (wild asses). The usual problem greenburke mentions, unable to reproduce. Of course, science has progressed to the point where I believe that by artificial gene splicing they might find a way around this, they did clone after all, so who knows? It just is unlikely to happen naturally. I use that word because that sneaky one in a million or even a billion chance that is possible but not probable, CAN still occur, it's just highly unlikely. But the chimp I mentioned in a previous post was real enough, one in a million, but he came through. However, he didn't pass on his extra chromosone to any offspring. ;)

[greenburke]

"Intelligence" and eyes and every other natural wonder on earth came into being through a mix of necessity and pure chance...life could be entirely different (if there was a lot of pure chance in the mix) or quite similar (if there was a lot of necessity in the mix).


"Modern evolutionary theory holds that evolution is ‘opportunistic,’ in the word of paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson. At any point, it goes in the direction that is advantageous, often reshaping old structures for new uses. It does not know its destination, nor is it impelled to follow one particular direction."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 345.

How can randomness select that which is necessary? The "coin doesn't have a memory," so to speak.

"When the probability of different events is not independent, the probability of future events can change based on the outcome of past events. An example of this is cards drawn without replacement. It's true that once a jack is removed from the deck, the next draw is less likely to be a jack and more likely to be of another rank."
--(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy)

These occurances would not be random if the only affected the advantageous.
"Evolutionists call that culling out process "survival of the fittest." But all that actually occurred was that misfits produced by mutations or accidents are eliminated, thus returning the species closer to its pure pattern. "Survival of the fittest" accomplishes the opposite of evolution! The hardships of life cull out the weakened forms of each species, and thus keep each species very stable. There is nothing in this process that has anything to do with evolution, which is evolving from one species to another...

"Evolutionists strictly maintain, as part of their creed, that the evolutionary process is not reversible. Part of this irreversibility idea requires that when one creature has evolved into another,—the new creature cannot evolve back into what it used to be!

"Now that has serious implications for our present study. Evolutionists present various subspecies changes as their only actual evidence of evolution. Yet these are all changes back and forth. --(evolution-facts.org)

"...T.H. Morgan, famous American geneticist, said that the idea of natural selection is a tautology, a case of circular reasoning. It goes something like this: If something cannot succeed, it will not succeed. Or, to put it another way, those things which have succeeded were able to succeed."—Lester J. McCann

"The very terms, "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest," are actually circular reasoning! They are tautologies. "Change is caused by what causes change." "That which is fit survives, because it is the fittest." -(evolution-facts.org

[ChuckBukowski]

Well heres something to ponder, and maybe I'm stoned, but theoretically, if every animal/insect/creature died, except for field mice, and the earth went on for another 2million years, would the only living animal still be field mice? Or would their be all these species that evolved from the field mouse?

[dark_182_88]

Guys, ofcourse evolution took place, but how did evolution start in the first place? Mankind should have a start, and that is where creation comes in. Evolution could have happened afterwards, and it surely did, but it all starts with creation and then evolution takes place.

[Scheherazade]

A US court decision to ban the teaching of "intelligent design" has been hailed by anti-creationism campaigners. A judge ruled in favour of 11 parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, who argued that Darwinian evolution theory must be taught as fact in biology lessons.

School administrators had argued that life on Earth was too complex to have evolved on its own.

Intelligent design activists criticised the ruling, saying it would marginalise beliefs based on religion.

For those fighting the policy of the Dover school board, the judicial ruling offered a boost to the constitutional separation of church and state.

A majority of US states have seen some form of challenge to the pre-eminence of Darwinian evolution theory in the curriculum of publicly-funded schools since 2001.

"We have a federal judge ruling that intelligent design is in fact non-science and that it is religion," said Rob Boston of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

"That's going to be extremely useful as we combat intelligent design in other states."

'Breathtaking inanity'

The BBC's James Coomarasamy, in Washington, said the decision by Republican judge John Jones was a landmark ruling and represents quite a blow to religious conservatives.

In his ruling, Judge Jones demolished assertions by members of Dover's former school board, or administrators, that the theory of intelligent design (ID) was based around scientific rather than religious belief.

He accused them of "breathtaking inanity", of lying under oath and of trying to introduce religion into schools through the back door.

The judge said he had determined that ID was not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

In a 139-page written ruling regularly studded with criticism of the defendants' arguments, the judge said: "Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

Peter Briggs of the Family Research Council, a conservative group, described the ruling as a dangerous precedent.

"That's a terribly slippery slope if we're going to say in a democracy, in a free country, that people who are motivated by religion are excluded from the public script."

Wider issue

The ruling is not binding for schools outside Dover, but it is expected to have an impact in the wider debate over ID and the more overtly religious theory of creationism, which has long been banned from US schools.

Earlier this year, the state of Kansas passed into law the requirement that students be told that the theory of evolution was "controversial" when studying biology.

In Georgia, a federal court has been considering whether stickers questioning evolution placed on biology textbooks at one school are unconstitutional.

ID has also received backing from US President George W Bush, who has said schools should make students aware of the concept. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4547734.stm

[jollyollie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4547734.stm
Thankfully, Galieo Gallilei did not die in vain. To all you creationists, touche (thats french). As I said before, I wish to reiterate the FACT that
THERE IS NO DEBATE. Enjoy your tea :banana:

[Scheherazade]

You see, people will debate whether there should be a debate or not if nothing else. There will always be a debate; alwaysway (that's Pig Latin).

:p

[Diadem]

I believe that God is responsible for our creation, but I do not believe creationism, or something akin to it, should be taught in public schools due to the separation of Church and State prescribed by the second amendment of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

Pfew...that was a long one.

[jollyollie]

You see, people will debate whether there should be a debate or not if nothing else. There will always be a debate; alwaysway (that's Pig Latin).

:p Ofcourse. but unforunatelythe ramications of reopening a debate on evolution v creationism sets a dangerous precident that aims to undo what others have sacrificed thier freedoms and thier lives to defend. To carelessly reopen a debate on this subject throws sand inthe eyes of those most impressionable with the most to lose, our kids, and incapable of weighing a hypothesis that has been tested by time. Ignorance is a dangerous weapon, particularily when it is aimed at our children and the weapon of choice is our public schools. I say, admit the debate has been over for hundreds of years, debated by those who have lost much to see that our children know its lessons. Lets debate how to stop hunger, or war. Lets choose a subject that does not try to reinvent the wheel. Also, our role models in our societies, revered practioners of the sciences and leaders of our collective countries are unanimous in that there is no debate on creation v evolution, and there is no need for one. Lets emulate the wisdom of giants by throwing down this subject and tackling one that needs our care and discretion.
There is no debate :santasmil

[greenburke]

I believe that God is responsible for our creation, but I do not believe creationism, or something akin to it, should be taught in public schools due to the separation of Church and State prescribed by the second amendment of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

Pfew...that was a long one.

The First Ammendment... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#The_Amendments

"The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here."
--http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm

Government run public schools are worried about Intelligent Design being taught as fact.

While the "creationism" camp is worried that government taught evolution will seep into their religion. Evolution did seep into Christianity, via the Gap Theory, introduced by Thomas Chalmers in 1814.

Even Christians debate "old earth" versus "new earth."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree that "there is no debate;" scientists themsleves debate this theory, and have done so for hundreds of years. Scientists debate the plausibility of the theory as a whole, they also debate the finer details of how evolution occured scientifically.

Darwin thought natural selection breeded life on earth, then recanted, turning back Lamarckism. Darwin was also upset by a lack of linking species found in the dirt.

Neo-darwinists believed that natural selection and random mutations would do the trick.

Even more modern evolutionists like Stephen Gould disagreed,
"What good is half a jaw or half a wing? . . These tales, in the ‘Just-So Stories’ tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything . . concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, June/July, 1977.

Gould turned to the "hopeful monster" theory introduced by Richard Goldscmidt, "that every 50,000 years two animals are born within a close parameter and mate creating a new species." (evolution-facts.org)

"Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958). The same year that *Clark wrote his book (1930), Goldschmidt gave up also. An earnest evolutionist, he had dedicated his life to proving it by applying X-rays and chemicals to fruit flies at the University of California, Berkeley, and producing large numbers of mutations in them. After 25 exhausting years, in which he had worked with more generations of fruit flies than humans and their ape ancestors are conjectured to have lived on our planet, Goldschmidt decided that he must figure out a different way that cross-species evolution could occur. For the next ten years, as he continued his fruit fly research, he gathered more evidence of the foolishness of evolutionary theory;—and, in 1940, he wrote his book, The Material Basis of Evolution, in which he exploded point after point in the ammunition box of the theory. He literally tore it to pieces (*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried, 1974, p. 152). No evolutionist could answer him. Like them, he was a confirmed evolutionary atheist, but he was honestly facing the facts. After soundly destroying their theory, he announced his new concept: a megaevolution in which one life-form suddenly emerged completely out of a different one! He called them "hopeful monsters." One day a fish laid some eggs, and some of them turned into a frog, a snake laid an egg, and a bird hatched from it! Goldschmidt asked for even bigger miracles than A.H. Clark had proposed! (*Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979, p. 159)." -(evolution-facts.org)

"Return of the Hopeful Monster (1972). *Stephen Jay Gould, a highly respected paleontologist at Harvard; *Niles Eldredge, the head paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City; and *Steven M. Stanley, of Johns Hopkins University, have led out in resuscitating *Richard Goldschmidt’s "hopeful monster" theory—and demanding that the community of evolutionary scientists consider it as the only possible mechanism for trans-species changeovers." -(evolution-facts.org)

Debates and questions about evolution have been happening in the scientific community for the last couple-hundred of years; to say "there is no debate," shows a lack of study into the scientific community and their research.

[Pendragon]

Pardon me just a moment here while I try to let this settle in. Are you saying there is no debate because the GOVERNMENT recognizes evolution as science and has stated that creationism is religion? Or rather, a constantly changing body of people, The Supreme Court, whose decisions so often hang on the opinion of one person, i.e., a 5-4 vote, have made their interpertaton of the Freedom of Religion admendment into something called "Seperation of Church and State" which no one has yet shown me anywhere in the Constitution? There is no debate as long as people agree with the evolutionist is what you are saying. If one chooses to believe in a Creator, even if one then thinks evolution shaped everything, as I do, one must be considered at the least suspicious? 5-4 votes. Shouldn't a vote that is of that magnitude at least have to be 6-3, that is more than a tie break? Because then, after all, in a government where it is supposed to be majority rule, on a tremendously serious vote one person actually made that decision for the rest of us. Think about it. :nod:

[jollyollie]

The First Ammendment... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#The_Amendments

"The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here."
--http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm

Government run public schools are worried about Intelligent Design being taught as fact.

While the "creationism" camp is worried that government taught evolution will seep into their religion. Evolution did seep into Christianity, via the Gap Theory, introduced by Thomas Chalmers in 1814.

Even Christians debate "old earth" versus "new earth."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree that "there is no debate;" scientists themsleves debate this theory, and have done so for hundreds of years. Scientists debate the plausibility of the theory as a whole, they also debate the finer details of how evolution occured scientifically.

Darwin thought natural selection breeded life on earth, then recanted, turning back Lamarckism. Darwin was also upset by a lack of linking species found in the dirt.

Neo-darwinists believed that natural selection and random mutations would do the trick.

Even more modern evolutionists like Stephen Gould disagreed,
"What good is half a jaw or half a wing? . . These tales, in the ‘Just-So Stories’ tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything . . concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, June/July, 1977.

Gould turned to the "hopeful monster" theory introduced by Richard Goldscmidt, "that every 50,000 years two animals are born within a close parameter and mate creating a new species." (evolution-facts.org)

"Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958). The same year that *Clark wrote his book (1930), Goldschmidt gave up also. An earnest evolutionist, he had dedicated his life to proving it by applying X-rays and chemicals to fruit flies at the University of California, Berkeley, and producing large numbers of mutations in them. After 25 exhausting years, in which he had worked with more generations of fruit flies than humans and their ape ancestors are conjectured to have lived on our planet, Goldschmidt decided that he must figure out a different way that cross-species evolution could occur. For the next ten years, as he continued his fruit fly research, he gathered more evidence of the foolishness of evolutionary theory;—and, in 1940, he wrote his book, The Material Basis of Evolution, in which he exploded point after point in the ammunition box of the theory. He literally tore it to pieces (*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried, 1974, p. 152). No evolutionist could answer him. Like them, he was a confirmed evolutionary atheist, but he was honestly facing the facts. After soundly destroying their theory, he announced his new concept: a megaevolution in which one life-form suddenly emerged completely out of a different one! He called them "hopeful monsters." One day a fish laid some eggs, and some of them turned into a frog, a snake laid an egg, and a bird hatched from it! Goldschmidt asked for even bigger miracles than A.H. Clark had proposed! (*Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979, p. 159)." -(evolution-facts.org)

"Return of the Hopeful Monster (1972). *Stephen Jay Gould, a highly respected paleontologist at Harvard; *Niles Eldredge, the head paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City; and *Steven M. Stanley, of Johns Hopkins University, have led out in resuscitating *Richard Goldschmidt’s "hopeful monster" theory—and demanding that the community of evolutionary scientists consider it as the only possible mechanism for trans-species changeovers." -(evolution-facts.org)

Debates and questions about evolution have been happening in the scientific community for the last couple-hundred of years; to say "there is no debate," shows a lack of study into the scientific community and their research.
You are going nowhere fast.
It is obvious to me that you havent the foggiest idea what the definition of science is. I am a student and a practitioner of the sciences, and for someone to blandly string quotes, as I stated earlier, doesnt stimulate a healthy discussion. All you have succeeded in doing is vainly attempt to insult me with your arrogance. Why dont you look at the words Ive written instead of trying to bully me and everyone else into your narrow minded view. Watch and learn;
Judge Jones: "Breathtaking inanity", "lying under oath", "trying to introduce ID religious thought through the back door", " ID not science".." cannot uncouple itself from its creationist and thus religious antecedents", and finally, " unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school classroom". Question: do you want your children to subscribe to these traits?
Not me. My experience is that when I attempt to "discuss" this issue with narrow minded bigots I am insulted and the evidence that I present scientifically is ignored. Therefore, this is the last post from you that I will respond to, unless of course you have something intelligent to share on this issue.
Last: I spend six hard earned years studying biology in a university. I dont need your approval. If youre so smart, why couldnt you tell that? There is more to a scientific discussion than simply throwing around quotes that are not backed up, misdirected and ill begotten. You could at least explain yourself in your own words.
Ask the real scientists; there is no debate. It only serves the creationist rhetoric to try slip ID "through the back door" by force feeding unecessary debates down peoples throats. Go back to bible study, and leave the scientific discussions to the pros.
nIce to meet you. :lol:

[greenburke]

My experience is that when I attempt to "discuss" this issue with narrow minded bigots I am insulted and the evidence that I present scientifically is ignored.

.
I'm sorry you've had upsetting :rage: experiences in the past.
I don't doubt that you know a lot about the sciences.

.
.
Happy Holidays :santasmil

Auld Lang Syne and all that jazz.

[jollyollie]

.
I'm sorry you've had upsetting :rage: experiences in the past.
I don't doubt that you know a lot about the sciences.


Auld Lang Syne and all that jazz.
Happy Holidays :santasmil
lol ! :lol: dont patronise me. My experiences and your defintion of "rage" :mad: are not at issue here.
You seem to have sidestepped the gist of the point, once again. I dont think youre a bad person, but ill equipped to recognise the seriousness of this issue.
Do any of you remember what I said about Gallileo? Do you know what the church did to him for pouring water into columns from his upstairs bedroom window to make a simple public demonstration on fluid mechanics, contrary to Artistotlean assumptions? They excommunicated him and threatened to torture him to death if he did not publicly admit he was wrong. And he did, and the church gave him house arrest FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE, all for speaking out in the name of science and progress, for your kids and mine.
And what of Newton? He secretly despised the role of the church in science. If he had spoke his mind about his rage :mad: we would have no Newtonian Physics, because the church wouldve made sure he was utterly ruined, and he knew this so he wouldnt speak up about his true beliefs while at Kings College. And he did this for your kids. And so did Copernicus, by the way.
And Darwin? Do I have to educate you all on him? And how he paid to have his theory heard? He survived that debate after they ridiculed him in the newspapers, compared him to a monkey or an ape or whatever.
But his truth endured. And it will endure you nice folks, because the debate has been over since the early nineteenth century, and you cant change history. Ernst Zundel is still trying to change history. This is why I say there is no debate.
Silly debates on scientifically proven subjects especially evolution only mean to turn back the clock of collective knowlege, to put it politely. There are few things that are classified as scientific truth and this is one of them. You choose to debate the non debateable. This is why I said earlier, call it a discussion. Dont call it a debate. The debate is over. There is no debate. Darwin did that already.
Now, if there is no debate, why am I seemingly debating it? Because, Im not. Im discussing and sharing with you fine folks, out of the goodness of my heart. It is worth it, because this is important And I think of it as a holiday gift of wisdom to all of you nice folks. Seasons Greetings to you all! And to all a good night. :santasmil
You can go back to your tea, now.

[emily655321]

Please say, perhaps, that there are no grounds for debate, but please stop saying "there is no debate." It's... very irksome. Also, just a general plea to everyone to not sling personal remarks. Ollie and Greenburke, you may have missed it since you joined the debate (yes, I said it) later on, but we're trying to keep the debate (hah, I said it again ;)) as respectful as possible. The first rule of any civil discussion is to respect the opposing viewpoint, even while attempting to change it. I know few people who are positively influenced by outright disdain for the view they hold.

[Pendragon]

The simplest way to begin is to say "Hello." There, that wasn't bad or threatening at all , was it? Now, I wish to say just a few words about your post, having you bear in mind that I believe in a Creator for a beginning, but evolution for the shaping of the world and all forms of life since.


Do any of you remember what I said about Gallileo? Do you know what the church did to him for pouring water into columns from his upstairs bedroom window to make a simple public demonstration on fluid mechanics, contrary to Artistotlean assumptions? They excommunicated him and threatened to torture him to death if he did not publicly admit he was wrong. And he did, and the church gave him house arrest FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE, all for speaking out in the name of science and progress, for your kids and mine.
And what of Newton? He secretly despised the role of the church in science. If he had spoke his mind about his rage :mad: we would have no Newtonian Physics, because the church wouldve made sure he was utterly ruined, and he knew this so he wouldnt speak up about his true beliefs while at Kings College. And he did this for your kids. And so did Copernicus, by the way.
And Darwin? Do I have to educate you all on him? And how he paid to have his theory heard? He survived that debate after they ridiculed him in the newspapers, compared him to a monkey or an ape or whatever.
But his truth endured. And it will endure you nice folks, because the debate has been over since the early nineteenth century, and you cant change history. Ernst Zundel is still trying to change history. This is why I say there is no debate.

Yes, this despicable type of thing did happen. "The Church" as you call it does not exist in the same form today, nor represent all of Christianity, not to mention the many other religions worldwide. I myself have told people on this very forum to learn, that if they truly believe in God knowledge cannot destroy that but it may help them understand a lot of other things. I do not condone ignorance as a way of life. I just don't like being called a fool for trying to find middle ground. Evolution had to occur in some form, that much is evident. I just don't buy into something like "a string of accidents" as I heard a scientist say yesterday on a TV special on how evolution develops. I base that on mathematics, the laws of chance would prove astronomical. So I believe in a Creator. The atheist problem of how long it took based on Biblical record, I say, I do not know. You can't put God into time. It would be irrelevant to such a being. The genelogies count time from after Adam was cast out of the garden. So how long did it take? I don't know.


Im discussing and sharing with you fine folks, out of the goodness of my heart. It is worth it, because this is important.

Then, please discuss without rancor, or judgemential statements. You make good points, stick to them. As I told greenburke, I will admire anyone who will stand on his own convictions, even if I disagree. You must stand for something or you fall for anything.... God Bless. :angel:

[jollyollie]

The simplest way to begin is to say "Hello." There, that wasn't bad or threatening at all , was it? Now, I wish to say just a few words about your post, having you bear in mind that I believe in a Creator for a beginning, but evolution for the shaping of the world and all forms of life since.



Yes, this despicable type of thing did happen. "The Church" as you call it does not exist in the same form today, nor represent all of Christianity, not to mention the many other religions worldwide. I myself have told people on this very forum to learn, that if they truly believe in God knowledge cannot destroy that but it may help them understand a lot of other things. I do not condone ignorance as a way of life. I just don't like being called a fool for trying to find middle ground. Evolution had to occur in some form, that much is evident. I just don't buy into something like "a string of accidents" as I heard a scientist say yesterday on a TV special on how evolution develops. I base that on mathematics, the laws of chance would prove astronomical. So I believe in a Creator. The atheist problem of how long it took based on Biblical record, I say, I do not know. You can't put God into time. It would be irrelevant to such a being. The genelogies count time from after Adam was cast out of the garden. So how long did it take? I don't know.



Then, please discuss without rancor, or judgemential statements. You make good points, stick to them. As I told greenburke, I will admire anyone who will stand on his own convictions, even if I disagree. You must stand for something or you fall for anything.... God Bless. :angel:
OK,Ok! Listen, I am sorry for going off a bit on you, greenburke, and I am very moved by the above. I appreciate your goodwill you have asserted in this discussion.I also greatly appreciate you addressing a couple of the points Ive raised. You all seem like good people and I hope I havent offended anyone here. If I have, please accept my regrets. I am very passionate on many things, and this is one of them.
Now, Im not telling you folks what to believe; you should do likewise. As long as you call this a debate, I can no longer participate. There is no debate. for me. for many.
Blaming the govmt is irresponsible, dont you think? Take some time and try to find a middle ground. I did.
Some physicists believe that some form ID may have played a role in big bang theory. Who knows. Myself, I dont believe in fate.
I am religious but in a very personal and scientific way. I really like hinduism and buddha, and I pray to Jesus now and then. Im just not big on the whole creation story. At one time, It answered alot of questions for alot of people. My OPINION is that creation is not plausible, and is outdated. I think in time some of us grow out of the story, and search for more meaning. Not saying its not a nice story, it just doesnt fit anymore, for me or my kids in school. Everthing is going to be OK.
Thank you for your patience, if this applies.
Have a super christmas everyone. Peace on earth.
Long live the three spine stickleback and the last remaining few caelocanths. Rock and Roll
and no more war.
Im editing in a link that I found. You will all please note the word debate is in parentheses, so the bbc put it in there, not Science.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4552466.stm
have a gooder :santasmil

[Pendragon]

You're a big man, jollieollie! :D :angel: :santasmil

[Miss Darcy]

Just a quick read on terminology for those who think "evolution is a theory, not a fact": http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/theory_of_evolution.html

[Pendragon]

One quick question. What is the binding force that keeps an atom together? We have learned to split one, with catastropic results. But why should it stick together in the first place? One of the laws of electricty is "like particles repel each other." The nucules is made of protons and nuetrons, with electrons orbiting. All protons are postively charged and should repel each other. So why do they not? What keeps them together, especially if all it takes to split the atom is to fire a rogue proton through it? Technically speaking, by the law of electricty, it should never hold together in the first place... :brow:

[emily655321]

I think at least one person would disagree with you:

http://www.16pi2.com/binding_energy.htm

I suuuuck at chemistry, and I sucked in Chemistry in school. But the one thing I was fairly good at (when I remembered how to do them) were those chemical equations, where you draw diagrams of the atomic symbol with little dots or dashes around them to represent the number of electrons. Lewis Structures! I rocked the socks off of those things. From what I remember, electromagnetism (i.e. electrons) is a repulsive force when the atoms share the same number of electrons, but when one atom has too few electrons they can't neutralize the atom's protons' attractive force, and so the additional electrons of another atom compensate for the missing electrons of the first, binding the two atoms together. It's like plugging electrons into a socket, the socket being the space empty of electrons. Most atoms are in themselves deficient of some electrons, which is why the world isn't just a big old swirling mass of individual atoms. They are drawn together into molecules by their complimentary electrons/protons, and react rather violently when mankind attempts to split them apart.

Good old Wikipedia can explain it better than I can:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_Dot_Structure

[Pendragon]

Well, Emily, I respect the scientific viewpoints you point out. I have a slight problem with two things in the first one:

1. Neutrons are neutrally charged, neither positive nor negitive, so I fail to see how they factor in the "binding force of the neutron."

2. The word "possible" in the last line of the equation. Newton's laws of electricty are fairly straightforward when it comes to attraction and repulsion. With the amount of study done in the field of physics, there should be a "there is a variation due to proton discharge" or "no proton discharge of any measurable effect occurs."

I always loved physics myself and I often use this example. Physics lets me know that there is enough space between the molecues of a solid, such as my desk, and those of my hand, for them to pass through each other and not touch. Why can't I do it? I don't believe I can do it. As the sensi used to say, the difference is in your mind.

But it was just a question to turn our minds to science, because in this case, I think the first answer you give plausible. It doesn't quite feel right, but you don't base science on a feeling. Take care.

[jamuscubed]

I am having one huge issue with our little quibble here. There is alot of quoting going on and why should we take these sources to be legitimate? No more "ethicalATHEIST" dot com quotes for sure.

Jollieollie vs. Greenburke
Jollieollie is correct that science accepts evolution as fact and we are working from there. I've seen many studies that make it hard to believe evolution isn't working. Therefore likewise as a scientist with a B.S. in biology and pursuing a Ph.D. in genetics I am in the camp that evolution exists and shapes species.

Greenburke is correct that evolution isn't bulletproof, and there are scientific minds, RECENT scientific minds, that believe it to be false. Though we choose not to listen to them as science always does.

Implications
I am going to assume that the debate is pretty much limited to chrisitan AMERICANS because i haven't noticed any other demographic really posting.

Has anyone read Nietzsche? Let me use him...
"God is dead, and you killed him" From The AntiChrist ~1888

Ok three points

1. If you want to be a creationist: you are an orthodox christain and you can't believe in evolution because it undermines the very foundation that christianity is set upon. That we are from adam, yadda yadda sin.. yadda yadda jesus. yadda yadda redemption.

2. If you want to be a evolutionist: you are an orthodox darwinian and you can't believe in creationism because it, well, it makes no logical sense now does it? Probably means you have to be agnostic otherwise you undermine darwin......

3. If you want to be in the middle, and I urge you never to be middle, but nevermind this is america, by the middle, for the middle, I will digress later about middle, you prescribe to the doctrine of Intelligent Design. What a happy little hybrid we play with here.. God created the species to freely evolve because we know they do evolve. The products we see were always something God conceived. Note:Orthodox Christian beware (refer to 1.)

So out of the three points we have only one option really left for a christian to believe.

Religion is screwed, and it's only natural for them to fight back. Jollieollie was wrong to congratulate Newtonian Physics, @#$% Sir Newton... To steal Decartes( in italian, because I don't know french or latin): "Esiste quindi lo sarà scoperto" ..It exists therefore it will be discovered *found!"

Religion cannot do that. Unless God comes down from Heaven and speaks to the masses as he likes to do in the first testament, religion has nothing for validation. I suppose I should wait for the day of Revelation to come...It might exist it might not...but in the end there is only faith.

Only Zarathustra shall read on
I have no problem with teaching religious things in school. Let them become privy to both sides! Let them weigh their evidence, and for themselves make their own decision! Do we raise SHEEP or do we raise children? Well then if it is infact children I propose to suggest that many are intelligent beings. Sure Sure, the middle are the impressionable and OH no if we lose their minds...To steal from Aldous Huxley.. they are off to be deltas and epsilons anyways...
At the same time I would not recommend trivializing anyones individual life. That's not the point. The point is that at the edges lies the best in society, somewhere I am sure that even I am not included. These are the people that will shape our ideas, religion, societies in the future.
These people are not the pedantic rabble, like us. ON this front Let there be orthodox religion and orthodox evolution... these are the opposing forces that keep the balance. It is opposing forces that MAINTAIN the precious middle that americans covet, and not only that... inspire CREATION. (i.e. cold war)

Sorry I'm ranting.. one more thing

no we are not going to go argue about more important things. @$%^ war, it is a necessary evil. Will you say that war is bad? Name a war, and i'll find something good from it! Plus I have just reread Sun Tzu and really ache to quote it...Let us argue beyond good and evil because nothing is more vague.

[emily655321]

Just a couple things... :banana:

1. Neutrons are neutrally charged, neither positive nor negitive, so I fail to see how they factor in the "binding force of the neutron."
I didn't say "neutrons," I said "protons." Neutrons prevent the protons from repelling each other... or something... they stick them together somehow. This is where I start sucking at chemistry. :D


Physics lets me know that there is enough space between the molecues of a solid, such as my desk, and those of my hand, for them to pass through each other and not touch. Why can't I do it? I don't believe I can do it. As the sensi used to say, the difference is in your mind.
Mm... Well, I'm no scientist (as previously established), but instinct/reason/something tells me it has less to do with believing and more to do with the attractive forces binding the molecules of your hand and those of the desk, respectively. If they were all just swimming around in the atmosphere, enough for the hand-atoms to pass through the space between the desk-atoms, I don't see why they should be stuck together as hand and desk in the first place. Atoms are stuck together by electromagnetism, and they aren't just stuck together willy-nilly; one type of molecule won't just break apart to go swimming through another type of molecular bond, like your hand-through-desk example. If that were true, there would be an atomic explosion every time you touched your desk. The force holding the atoms together is too strong to break apart simply by touching another object.

Some scientists also speculate that the so-called "space" between atoms isn't space at all, but is made up of a forth kind of subatomic particle, neutrinos, which cannot be observed because simply looking at them produces enough force to move them; but I believe this theory is still being debated.

[Pendragon]

Just a couple things... :banana:

I didn't say "neutrons," I said "protons." Neutrons prevent the protons from repelling each other... or something... they stick them together somehow. This is where I start sucking at chemistry. :D

Ah, no, Emily, you didn't say "neutrons" at all. The guy at the site you posted for an example did. It was not you, m'dear, but he that I was questioning. He was giving neutrons a charge in his equation, but I've always learned they have none.



Mm... Well, I'm no scientist (as previously established), but instinct/reason/something tells me it has less to do with believing and more to do with the attractive forces binding the molecules of your hand and those of the desk, respectively.

Whoa-up! You are dangerously close to basing someting on a feeling! :lol: That's faith as I have been told ad nauseum, not science.


If that were true, there would be an atomic explosion every time you touched your desk. The force holding the atoms together is too strong to break apart simply by touching another object.

That's kinda my point. Why doesn't it? No real reason why they shouldn't.


Some scientists also speculate that the so-called "space" between atoms isn't space at all, but is made up of a forth kind of subatomic particle, neutrinos, which cannot be observed because simply looking at them produces enough force to move them; but I believe this theory is still being debated.

Not to be difficult, but they have passed solids through each other in the lab, at etreme speeds without damage to either. And please, I mean absolutely no offense, I just wish to point something out. If I speak of God, whom I cannot see nor prove but speculate about what I believe He has done, is this so different from someone asking me to believe in "neutrinos" which they cannot see only speculate about, because just looking at them is enough to move them? :nod:

[emily655321]

If I speak of God, whom I cannot see nor prove but speculate about what I believe He has done, is this so different from someone asking me to believe in "neutrinos" which they cannot see only speculate about, because just looking at them is enough to move them? :nod:
It wouldn't be if you took the neutrino theory purely on faith, which I would discourage anyone from doing. There are tests which can, and must, be done before that idea will be accepted by the scientific community. The way we know electrons exist is not by seeing them, but that many experiments have been performed in which their behavior has been recorded. Their behavior can be predicted and reproduced again and again under laboratory conditions. This is the closest human beings can get to proving the existance of something so small, but the data suggests that it is so probable as to negate any reasonable debate on the matter. I find the idea of neutrinos to be intriguing, but I haven't heard of any such experiments regarding them. I do not place "belief" in them, and think such assumptions generally hurt the credibility of those scientists who would seek to test the hypothesis. There is a difference between speculating on an interesting idea and placing blind faith in it. If God would deign to participate in multiple lab experiments wherein his behavior could be predicted and reproduced again and again, perhaps then I would be more open to the idea. :p

[Pendragon]

As I have told others, I respect those who stand for what they believe. I've said my own piece on this topic long ago, and I'm sure not about to change my mind. As the game show says, "It's my final answer, Regius!" I believe that it took a creator to start things, not a series of accidents, but that everything from the smallest microbe to the largest lifeform has been forced to adapt to a changing world. That is what I call evolution. As for how long the creative process took, I simply don't know. I think that trying to place God into a timeline is not going to work. As far as I'm concerned, Biblical recorded time starts with the genelogies, after Adam and Eve left the garden. The time before that who knows? And I bow out of the conversation, still standing on what I believe. But science has it's place and it's function--to explore the unknown. Science you learn in school. I said before and I'll say again, if the churchs would do their job, teach the young about the Bible, about Creation, they would not have to argue about the private sector doing it for them. God bless you, one and all. :angel:

[Pendragon]

As I have told others, I respect those who stand for what they believe. I've said my own piece on this topic long ago, and I'm sure not about to change my mind. As the game show says, "It's my final answer, Reigus!" I believe that it took a creator to start things, not a series of accidents, but that everything from the smallest microbe to the largest lifeform has been forced to adapt to a changing world. That is what I call evolution. As for how long the creative process took, I simply don't know. I think that trying to place God into a timeline is not going to work. As far as I'm concerned, Biblical recorded time starts with the genelogies, after Adam and Eve left the garden. The time before that who knows? And I bow out of the conversation, still standing on what I believe. But science has it's place and it's function--to explore the unknown. Science you learn in school. I said before and I'll say again, if the churchs would do their job, teach the young about the Bible, about Creation, they would not have to argue about the private sector doing it for them. God bless you, one and all. :angel:

[emily655321]

Pendragon, I also respect your assertions, and I respect you as a person for standing firmly on the belief which your gut tells you is right. You seem very knowledgeable in both religion and science, and I'm impressed by your ability to use your powers of both spirituality and reason so harmoniously in your approach to life, or at least to forum discussion. :D Peace, dude.

[Pendragon]

And peace be with you also, Emily. Perhaps, one more post. Long ago I was faced with being asked questions about things like evolution, and I soon learned that if you know nothing about the subject, it takes about ten seconds for someone to make you look foolish. So I decided then and there to learn about every controversy out there, from philosophy, science, or whatnot. In doing so, I learned that sometimes what we thing is so wrong is just the truth told in a different method. And I learned about the thing with which I disagreed, so that I could talk about them from a standpoint other than one which would be immediately rejected as "narrow-minded". Knowledge did not destroy my Christian belief. Any General who goes into war, even any sports team that is going to play another, first scouts the other out. You need to know. That why I'm never surprised that an Athiest has read the Bible. You need to know what the other will probably say. If you know nothing on the subject being discussed, you're just "a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal" I Corinthians 13:1. And to all a Happy New Year! :D :thumbs_up :nod:

[Doctor Boogaloo]

Well, I certainly came in on the tail end of a fascinating discussion.
I support the evolution camp.
Teaching 'intelligent design' in biology classrooms is an utter waste of everyone's time. Preach it in religious schools. Call it 'biblio-historical-cosmological-pseudo- science' or whatever you like. And while the 'Red States' continue to pore over ancient texts for the latest in scientific discovery, let the 'Blue States' simply get on with teaching the facts.
It has been eighty years since the Scopes trial.
Unfortunately, not all of us have evolved.

[jollyollie]

There is no debate. I see its been pretty dull around here since early January, recently after the US supreme court ruling. It appears that the dogmatic fundamentalists have run for cover amid the overtone that creationists cannot create or recreate everything or everyone in thier own image, whenever or wherever they want. Take a chill pill and realise
there is no debate. :banana:
I call myself jolly ollie because I know happily that there is no debate. the ollie part has nothing to do with oliver north; it is for Gandalfs name in Illuvitar, given to him by Eru the one.
ID has no place in science and I have come to lead you to a new debate; one that exists. Global warming, proliferation of the use of fossil fuels to the ultimate destruction of us all, creationists and evolutionists alike from the destruction of the ozone layer.
Under the misconception of ID the research in the following link would not be possible because the evidence would have never HAPPENED.
Try driving your gas guzzling sports utility vehicle through this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm
CO2 and methane emissions have not been so high in 650,000 years. CO2 emissions are 30% higher, methane 130% higher. mean temperatures could rise as much as 6 degrees celcius in the next century, sea levels will rise 2mm every year.
The evidence is more than 645,000 years older than Moses

[niteskytwilight]

[QUOTE=Xamonas Chegwe]
When a catastrophic change occurs in the world environment, and certain humans are more suited to survive it than others, there will be an evolutionary step made. Currently, we are merely diversifying our genetic mix, widening the pool of phenotypes. This is the normal process according to Darwinian theory.
xxxxxx

I would have to assume that you have read "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, and I respect that. I am also assuming, however, that you haven't read anything that disproves the Darwinian Theory. Now, being the year 2006, you can go to any sixth grade Life Science class (around the world) and every text book will state the Darwinian Theory wrong.

Since Darwin's time (a very simple time I might add) science and the understanding of life has advanced, far beyond what Darwin thought he knew by observing with only his eyes. We are capable of decyphering the code of a human DNA strand now, and with the knowhow of that it makes evolution, in anyway, shape, or form impossible.

The weak link simply does not survive, there is no evolving about it.

[jollyollie]

[QUOTE=Xamonas Chegwe]
When a catastrophic change occurs in the world environment, and certain humans are more suited to survive it than others, there will be an evolutionary step made. Currently, we are merely diversifying our genetic mix, widening the pool of phenotypes. This is the normal process according to Darwinian theory.
xxxxxx

I would have to assume that you have read "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, and I respect that. I am also assuming, however, that you haven't read anything that disproves the Darwinian Theory. Now, being the year 2006, you can go to any sixth grade Life Science class (around the world) and every text book will state the Darwinian Theory wrong.

Since Darwin's time (a very simple time I might add) science and the understanding of life has advanced, far beyond what Darwin thought he knew by observing with only his eyes. We are capable of decyphering the code of a human DNA strand now, and with the knowhow of that it makes evolution, in anyway, shape, or form impossible.

The weak link simply does not survive, there is no evolving about it.
Oh my!
SO WHAT?
The issue here is not whether mother goose or Bobby Friggin Brady read the bloomin essay, dude( origin of species). You are getting yourself bogged down in useless jargon.
My point, if you had read it, is that this is an antiquated issue. Why not concentrate on the real debates that exist, like Alito on Abortion, US Wars in Iraq and abroad, crimes against humanity and specifically your role in destroying the ozone layer. What can you do to HELP, or are all IDer s too preoocupied with selfcentered gluttinous contempt for any version of nature that is not a cookie cutter copy of your King James bibles version. Have you read the origin of species? WHO CARES. Iam here only to lead the open and willing AWAY from this dumbass debate and on to greener pastures that yearn for inquirer minds.
The issue is ignorance, and how its unfair and sinister to people unbeknownst to it vile curses.
How little some evolve, even when they are spawned from pond water.

[Logos]

Some posts have been edited/or deleted due to flames/inflammatory content.

jollyollie, if you think this is such a "dumb" debate, please refrain from responding to it if you can't dredge up some amount of respect for what other individuals are trying to say.

[jollyollie]

I am entitled to my opinion, and I dont appreciate the vulgarity of stanislaws remarks, nor the blatent disregard for like responses to outlandish claims made by IDers. If they can flaunt science, why am i restrained (censored)for responsibly replying to this inadequacy? My aim here is not to insult anyone, but to push the envelope on some of these creationists who abuse thier rights of free speech and seek to punish those who do not fully echo thier sentiments. Hmm?
If you can be more specific as to what exactly it is that you dont want me to say, I will either oblige you, or no longer participate on this thread, should I feel that my free speech is being denied as a result of the camp which I choose to occupy. :brow:

[everyman]

To my limited knowledge, David Hume defeated the argument from design in his work, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hume uses the problem of evil as the main discrepancy that rules out the logical possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent (the three teleological characteristics of God in the monotheistic religions) being as creator of the universe.

Some major points include:
Evil manifests itself in the struggle between creatures for survival. Prey live in constant threat and vulnerability to predators and likewise predators continually hunt for the flesh of other beasts to feast on. The cycle of conflict in nature; the conquering of the strong over the weak, exemplifies evil’s presence where relentless domination and submission of lives is merely a means of living.

Humankind is susceptible to violent tendencies which are made known in war, the oppression of peoples, criminal activities, and numerous other acts in which they harm each other. Human wickedness is an aspect of life to which no person is escapable and everyone experiences throughout their lifespan.

[jollyollie]

Everyman Indeed!
I applaud thee.
My work is done here. :banana:

[Whifflingpin]

"Hume uses the problem of evil as the main discrepancy that rules out the logical possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent ... being as creator of the universe"

This problem does not, of course, rule out dualistic views, such as the Zoroastrian view that the world is created by the Wise Lord in order to provide an arena for the cosmic conflict between good and evil.

.

[Pendragon]

Well, I certainly didn't "run and hide". It simply became obvious that people were not interested in my views, and I do not believe in trying to cram anything I believe down someone else's throat. Too much of that goes on now, to the deteriment of various causes. If you believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering, I have respect for that. To stand for what one believes against all odds gains my respect every time. I have more respect for an Atheist who is firm in his/her belief than a wishy-washy religous person, who is in today and out tomorrow. God bless. :nod:

[atiguhya padma]

<If you believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering, have respect for that.>

Why? Surely your respect for someone who believes the above is detrimental to that person. It also demeans the value of your respect.

I'd say that anyone who would <believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering>, needs to see a doctor, preferably a specialist in mental health problems.

The problem with believing nonsense, whether it be puff the magic dragon as creator, or vrigin births or assumption in to heaven or human-like lizards ruling the earth or anything that is irrational and non-sensible is that if you wish to appear reasonable and if you wish others to respect your nonsensical beliefs, you have to allow all nonsense equal respect.

[Stanislaw]

"Hume uses the problem of evil as the main discrepancy that rules out the logical possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent ... being as creator of the universe"

This problem does not, of course, rule out dualistic views, such as the Zoroastrian view that the world is created by the Wise Lord in order to provide an arena for the cosmic conflict between good and evil.

.

Zoroastrianism is not a dualistic religion, it is infact quite monotheisitic. According to zoroastrian beliefs at the end of time all those who are evil will be cleansed and reunited with those who were righteous.

As for calling a virgin birth, or assumption nonsense is incredibly disrespectfull to people who believe in the christian tradition.

[everyman]

This problem does not, of course, rule out dualistic views, such as the Zoroastrian view that the world is created by the Wise Lord in order to provide an arena for the cosmic conflict between good and evil.

.

In citing Hume, I am referring to a philosophical argument, which is grounded in logic and reason rather than faith or belief. Relating to Zoroastrianism is thus an attempt to bring the debate back into the realm of religion, to which we can then discuss other beliefs, but would obviously stray from the topic at hand. Furthermore, this thread involves discussing creationism, which is generally held as a Christian idea and movement that attempts to merge religious belief with scientific fact. The Zoroastrian story of creation (that I am not familiar with) is an individually distinct belief that is separate from creationism.

[Whifflingpin]

From Stanislav
"Zoroastrianism is not a dualistic religion, it is infact quite monotheisitic. According to zoroastrian beliefs at the end of time all those who are evil will be cleansed and reunited with those who were righteous."
I think that among Zoroastrians there are those who believe in "cosmic" dualism, namely that Ahura Mazda and Ahriman are good and evil powers in a sphere that is outside the created universe. There are also those who believe in "ethical dualism," that is to say, good and evil are in conflict only within the created universe, or more particularly within mankind - I think that this is the predominant view among the Parsees who may be the largest grouping of Zoroastrians at the present time.
I don't think there is a definitive Zoroastrian belief about the ultimate fate of evil people. Of course, the religion is one of the oldest, and has undergone many changes and reactions in its history.

Everyman - I understood (or misunderstood) your citing of Hume as a philosophical argument to nullify a certain religious belief. I merely showed that it was not an argument that could be used to nullify all beliefs in a Creator. The title of the thread, the first post and the poll do not limit the discussion merely to views that can be refuted by Hume.

[everyman]

I understood (or misunderstood) your citing of Hume as a philosophical argument to nullify a certain religious belief. I merely showed that it was not an argument that could be used to nullify all beliefs in a Creator. The title of the thread, the first post and the poll do not limit the discussion merely to views that can be refuted by Hume.

My argument, as you have already noted, was stated only in relation to creationism. The contention that I was attempting to "limit the discussion merely to views that can be refuted by Hume" is unfounded.

[atiguhya padma]

Stanislaw said: <As for calling a virgin birth, or assumption nonsense is incredibly disrespectfull to people who believe in the christian tradition.>

I disagree. I am attacking a belief, not a person. The only way I can see that anyone can feel that I am attacking them in those statements, would be if they overidentified with their beliefs. There is a great danger in silencing criticism of a belief or a system, merely because it offends those who cannot separate their self-identity from their beliefs.

[Pendragon]

<If you believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering, have respect for that.>

Why? Surely your respect for someone who believes the above is detrimental to that person. It also demeans the value of your respect.

I'd say that anyone who would <believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering>, needs to see a doctor, preferably a specialist in mental health problems.

The problem with believing nonsense, whether it be puff the magic dragon as creator, or vrigin births or assumption in to heaven or human-like lizards ruling the earth or anything that is irrational and non-sensible is that if you wish to appear reasonable and if you wish others to respect your nonsensical beliefs, you have to allow all nonsense equal respect.
Well, I certainly didn't "run and hide". It simply became obvious that people were not interested in my views, and I do not believe in trying to cram anything I believe down someone else's throat. Too much of that goes on now, to the deteriment of various causes. If you believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering, I have respect for that. To stand for what one believes against all odds gains my respect every time. I have more respect for an Atheist who is firm in his/her belief than a wishy-washy religous person, who is in today and out tomorrow. As usual, you jump right to something to argue about and ignore the gist of the point. Did you read the last line? That means that I respect YOU for sticking to what YOU believe. Do you see any remarks about nonsense? No. How I feel about what YOU believe is unimportant. For the record, I disagree with some, not all, of evolution. My stance on these things is on record in this thread. But I will not demean a fellow human by questioning their intelligence for what they believe. Is the Puff the Magic Dragon example so much different from the Earth is on the back of a turtle, or the shoulders of Atlas, or that mankind crawled out of a hole in the ground? People devoutly believed these things. :nod:

[falling*moon]

Good God!!

dude.....i think u are losing me in that subject..!

i know that God created Adam first... then Eve,.....then he sent them down earth ... etc...

[Taliesin]

Interesting.
How do you know?
Were you present?

[Pendragon]

Good God!!

dude.....i think u are losing me in that subject..!

i know that God created Adam first... then Eve,.....then he sent them down earth ... etc...Sorry for confusing you. Everything in my post about Puff. etc. is metaphorical. Since you obviously came in late, once more, I belive in a Creator to start things, then evolution as in adaptation of each species to changes in their environment. Without these changes, evreything would have died out long ago. Of course, some things survived without changing, exceptions to the rule. Which is why I said I disagreed with some, not all, of evolution. Follow me now? I was just pointing out that I have respect for anyone who will stand up for what they believe and be unwavering in that belief, not this way today and that tomorrow. Believe what you will, but have the grace to stick to it and respect the others who stick to theirs. To them, what YOU believe may not sound with the ring of truth, just as YOU find cracks in their belief. Mutual respect can find something to talk about that both can contribute to. :nod:

[Ted2525]

Here are a couple of links to the subject of "synthetic biology" which I haven't seen discussed on this thread yet. The importance of synthetic biology is that the scientists are trying to use the "tools of evolution" to create "life without god". They are close to making that happen. The second link goes into the 12 criteria that define synthetic life at the cellular level.

If it is possible for the scientists to set up the conditions in the lab for natural elements and natural processes to form new life where no life existed before, then it is possible that those same conditions once existed on earth and that life on earth started then.


http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/18836/ (http://)

http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/1/1/30/1/ (http://)

[jollyollie]

"Hume uses the problem of evil as the main discrepancy that rules out the logical possibility of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent ... being as creator of the universe"

This problem does not, of course, rule out dualistic views, such as the Zoroastrian view that the world is created by the Wise Lord in order to provide an arena for the cosmic conflict between good and evil.

.Does "Zorro" come from there?

[atiguhya padma]

<Did you read the last line? >

Yup. Your point is?

When Mark Chapman had a firm, unwavering belief that he was John Lennon, did that put him in a position to be highly respected do you think? Can't you see that firm belief and unwaveringness are not automatic passports to respect? Plenty of evil despots in world history have had firm and unwavering belief. Neither is the type of belief a cause for respect. I see no reason why a religious belief is somehow more due respect than a philosophical one or sociological or political. It is the content of belief that is surely important, and if your belief is illogical, unreasonable and just plain doesn't fit into what we know of the world, then it deserves to be treated in the same way we would or should treat other delusions.

[Hazel-Ra]

Wow, this topic, along with 'Do you belive in god or not...explain' have got to be among the most popular and interesting discussions of all time. I love discussing this with others. I agree with Jester. Logically it just makes too much sense for me to believe anything else.

[Pendragon]

<Did you read the last line? >

Yup. Your point is?

It is the content of belief that is surely important, and if your belief is illogical, unreasonable and just plain doesn't fit into what we know of the world, then it deserves to be treated in the same way we would or should treat other delusions.My point then is this: If you will not allow me to respect you for your stand which I find illogical, mathematically improbable on the basis of the statistics of chance, and so forth; and you continue to brush aside my beliefs as "delusional", then I respectfully refuse to partipicipate in your own delusion that you are somehow having respect for the other person's beliefs. I only wish to find middle ground. If I can partially accept evolution, that took a lot of study and thinking about things and how they might HAVE to be, not how I might have been TAUGHT to perceive them. I went with an open mind, realizing that truth is never what we think it is. When you have everything all figured out something comes along to spoil the equation. Always. The truth is a learning process. I believe what I believe, call it nonsense or delusion or whatever. But I won't back down. I extend an olive branch and say "Our quarrel is not so great that we cannot yet have peace." Your move, my friend. Cheers.

[atiguhya padma]

<then I respectfully refuse to partipicipate in your own delusion that you are somehow having respect for the other person's beliefs>

Pendragon,

Have I actually stated that I have <respect for the other person's belief>? If I have, then I apologise for misleading you. After all, blanket respect for everybody's belief is pointless, it lacks value and is probably harmful anyway. So I would say categorically that I respect beliefs that are worth respecting, those that aren't I tend not to respect. Of course, as I have said elsewhere, that in no way changes my attitude towards respecting people. People and beliefs are separate, and there is no contradiction in respecting someone who's belief you openly criticise and cast as meaningless.

BTW, in case you thought I was singling you out, I would like to add that my statement that you quoted <and if your belief is illogical,> etc, I used the term 'your' in a general sense of anyone's rather than yours in particular.

[falling*moon]

sorry dear but when u said :'People and beliefs are separate'

you were totalllllly wrong..!

i'm what i believe....

you what u believe too.......like it or not..




Thank u Pendragon for being polite..and rational

[atiguhya padma]

And people wonder why there is so little peace in the world. When everyone says that you attack my belief you attack me, then how can there ever be peace. Either we grow up and differentiate existence from belief or we kill each other over stupid ideas or we live in silence.

Thankfully, some of us can differentiate.

[Pendragon]

sorry dear but when u said :'People and beliefs are separate'

you were totalllllly wrong..!

i'm what i believe....

you what u believe too.......like it or not..




Thank u Pendragon for being polite..and rationalI appreciate that, Falling Moon. I strive to be so. The olive leaf is still waiting, atiguhya, as I myself find it foolish to kill people over beliefs and ideas with which you don't agree. Sadly, a lot of that goes on, and persons should know by now that it solves nothing. It just strengthens the other person's resolve to have nothing to do with that sort of belief. Olive branch?

[Whifflingpin]

"Olive branch?
__________________
And an arm rose above the waves and grasped the sword..."

Scary

[Scheherazade]

Please don't offer an olive branch... They might use it as a weapon to attack each other!

:p

Please remember that these threads are here to discuss religious ideas and learn from others' experiences, not to force them to chenge their views. Declaring views which are different from ours wrong and attacking other members personally do very little to develop a valid argument.

[atiguhya padma]

Pendragon,

What do you mean by offering me an olive branch? I am not in any conflict with you. I am against your beliefs. I am against the idea that people's beliefs are to be respected no matter how ridiculous they are. I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my being. In the eyes of Falling Moon this makes me in conflict with you, but not in my eyes.

Many people totally change their beliefs in the course of a life. If the Christian of yesterday becomes the atheist of tomorrow, does that really mean they are two different people? or does it just mean that they have changed their beliefs?

Furthermore, do you ever hear atheists say that you should respect their atheism? Respect of belief is an argument for people who cannot justify in reasonable terms what they believe. Do scientists ask others to go easy with them for believing what they do? If belief is to be protected as something too precious to attack, then belief should be personal and therefore exiled from the public arena. If belief is to be publicly debated then it cannot have protection from criticism, it cannot have undue respect, the kind of respect not issued in other debates about other things that we believe.

So thanks for the offer, but I am in no need of an olive branch.

[Pendragon]

Furthermore, do you ever hear atheists say that you should respect their atheism? Respect of belief is an argument for people who cannot justify in reasonable terms what they believe. Do scientists ask others to go easy with them for believing what they do? If belief is to be protected as something too precious to attack, then belief should be personal and therefore exiled from the public arena. If belief is to be publicly debated then it cannot have protection from criticism, it cannot have undue respect, the kind of respect not issued in other debates about other things that we believe.

As I recall, when Madylin Murray O'Hara went to the surpreme court to sue to have prayer removed from public schools, she used her son, Bill (who by a stroke of fate is now a Christian Minister), claiming his rights were being invaded by the prayers, since he was an Atheist. So, yes, Atheists do expect me to respect their belief, or at the least, their righ to their belief which I do. I will even defend that right, since to take away that right would be the begining of taking away everybody's right to believe what they wish to believe. Anytime they move against one group, they target us all. As the man said "...They came for the Jews and I said nothing because I wasn't a Jew. Finally they came for me and there was no one left to stand up for me."

[Amra]

What do you mean by offering me an olive branch? I am not in any conflict with you. I am against your beliefs. I am against the idea that people's beliefs are to be respected no matter how ridiculous they are. I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my being. In the eyes of Falling Moon this makes me in conflict with you, but not in my eyes.

How do you define your being then and how do you define your existence? Is your existence just the physical composition of your body? Is your being your mind and your reason? If you claim that your being is not synonymous with your existence, then it means that your body can exist on its own. It means that you can separate one, your being (mind, reason, soul), from your physical existence (body). However, if you accept that a human being consists of both of those compoments, and that one cannot exist without the other, then your claim is absurd.

[atiguhya padma]

Pendragon,

It seems to me your example is confusing. The atheist in this case is demonstrating the necessity of freedom from having religious views shoved down your throat, which is a claim for democracy. I don't see any claim about special protection from criticism of atheism.

[atiguhya padma]

Amra,

First let me say that I did not intend to say I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my being. What I meant was that I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my belief. Maybe that is all that needs to be said.

As far as I am concerned, the Universe arose from one substance. All that exists today is as a result of a singularity. Therefore, it appears to me, that mind and soul and spirit are all substance. When we have thought processes, we are experiencing physical processes. Experience is therefore no more than physical. The division between mind and body is only a matter of degrees of physicality.

[atiguhya padma]

Falling Moon said:

<sorry dear but when u said :'People and beliefs are separate'

you were totalllllly wrong..!

i'm what i believe....

you what u believe too.......like it or not..>

OK let's say someone believes they are a seagull. Can they now jump off a building and fly? Methinks not. I know plenty of people who believe they are experts on a variety of topics. I can assure you they are not.

It seems to me that when we analyse who we are, we have to refer to the limitations placed upon us by 1) the laws of nature 2) the picture of who we are that is created by other people's opinions of us and of the world; and 3) how we feel about ourselves. Maybe you could say that there are three types of environment: the universal; the local and the inner, and we are a combination of influences from all these environments. To assume that our existence depends solely on the status of our inner environment is to be at best an idealist, at worst a solipsist.

[Amra]

First let me say that I did not intend to say I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my being.


I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my being.


What I meant was that I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my belief. Maybe that is all that needs to be said.

:goof: Would you agree that your being is synonymous with your beliefs?


All that exists today is as a result of a singularity.

Therefore, it appears to me, that mind and soul and spirit are all substance. When we have thought processes, we are experiencing physical processes. Experience is therefore no more than physical. The division between mind and body is only a matter of degrees of physicality.

Don't you think you contradict yourself with stating this and at the same time claiming that your existence is not synonymous with your beliefs. If it is all a a result of singularity, doesn't that entail, by default, that it is all one and the same..in other words, synonymous with one another?

[atiguhya padma]

<Don't you think you contradict yourself with stating this and at the same time claiming that your existence is not synonymous with your beliefs. If it is all a a result of singularity, doesn't that entail, by default, that it is all one and the same..in other words, synonymous with one another?>

That's a bit like saying the planet Pluto and myself are one and the same. And in a sense they are, because we are both made up of matter. But there is also difference. And it is in the difference, the way we are both differently assembled from the same type of components, that individuality and diversity occur. So I would say that in the most general sense both myself and Pluto are the same, but in a more accurate and detailed way we are vastly different. You can create a whole world out of lego, and everything in it will be lego, but that doesn't mean everything in this world is the same.

[Amra]

OK let's say someone believes they are a seagull. Can they now jump off a building and fly? Methinks not. I know plenty of people who believe they are experts on a variety of topics. I can assure you they are not.

If you believed to be a seagull :D , you would be considered crazy based on the social norms we live by. If it wasn't like that, if people were not judged by what they believed in, if their beliefs were considered separate from them, then no one would have the right to deduct from the beliefs the state of mind/being of that person. Right? However, we certainly do that all the time. I agree with you that we are constrained by other factors in expressing our beliefs, but they still do express who we are, and are synonymous with your being. It is just a matter of social norms and time we live in that influences how these will be interpreted and judged by others.
However, you are confusing your being and your existence. In your initial statement you claimed that your being is not synonymous with you beliefs, and then you digressed from that. When falling moon answered, he was most likely referring to that statement, and commenting on it. In that context, his statement is correct, because our beliefs do tell who we are as human beings . However, no one claimed that your beliefs could change your physical existence. If your beliefs go beyond the social and natural norms, then you would be judged accordingly (in this case, you would be considered crazy). Also, what the society thinks of your beliefs is something to be considered separately. What you think of yourself is one thing, that what the society accepts or rejects and the criteria it uses to do so, is another.

[water lily]

Perhaps we should change the subject of this thread to Dualism vs. Monism.

This entire controversy began with this comment:


So I would say categorically that I respect beliefs that are worth respecting, those that aren't I tend not to respect. Of course, as I have said elsewhere, that in no way changes my attitude towards respecting people.

Then the question arose: is a person separate from his or her belief? Or by not respecting a person's beliefs, is one not respecting the person? That spurred the question of physical boundaires between the mind (beliefs) and the body, which I find doesn't truly answer the initial question. Because, say we make a distiction between them, doesn't that then mean that when one is respecting the person, one is respecting merely their physical existence? So for me, though the subject of "singularity" is interesting, it isn't entirely subject to this question.

Rather than examining biological/physical factors, I think we need to examine the issue of one's sense of identity. If a person's belief is central to his or her sense of identity, then disrespecting that person's belief may in fact be disrespecting the person, despite more noble intentions.

I hope all that was clear. Cheers.

-Water lily

[Whifflingpin]

"If a person's belief is central to his or her sense of identity, then disrespecting that person's belief may in fact be disrespecting the person"

Not so, but the person may feel less respected, which is a different issue. Depending, of course on what is meant by "respect."

It seems to me that if we have to "respect" everyone, then that simply means acknowledging their human rights, including their right to hold and express a belief. It certainly does not mean that we have to agree with their beliefs, or refrain from criticising their belief.

If "respect" be used in the sense of "admire," then, of course one might have less respect for someone with absurd beliefs - but one would still accord the right to hold and express those beliefs.

[Pendragon]

If "respect" be used in the sense of "admire," then, of course one might have less respect for someone with absurd beliefs - but one would still accord the right to hold and express those beliefs.And thank you, Whifflingpin, for that definition. That is exactly what I was trying to say. No one is saying you have to agree with the other person, or even think that they have a prayer of being anywhere close to right-- give them the same right to hold an opinion as yourself. Do you ever notice how the Science Fiction of yesterday becomes the science of today? Jules Verne wrote of men going to the moon-- complete nonsense in his day, a fact in ours. I don't think that my example was that far off-- Murry had been given several compromises, nothing was being "crammed down her or her son's throat"-- she wished to have Atheistism recognized as a legitimate way of belief. And, she won her case. I have talked to many atheists, and they all will respect my belief provided I respect them and don't try to force my ideas on them. So I refuse to do so. It's a big universe. You ask yourself the question: Do I truly believe that every thing is, at the least, possible? That kinda puts the brakes on a lot of arguments... ;)

[atiguhya padma]

My replies to Amra:

<If you believed to be a seagull :D , you would be considered crazy based on the social norms we live by>

I could believe myself to be a seagull and yet it might be the case that no-one would know of my belief. People in my immediate environment would know or at least have the potential to know of my being. But they may well not know of my belief. Belief is not synonymous with being. Being is the whole shebang, the physical and mental, the beliefs and the behaviours of the individual. How can belief be synonymous with being? Belief plays only a small part in being.

Furthermore, I would be considered crazy if I thought I was a seagull, not because of social norms, but because that belief conflicts with reality: I am not a seagull.

<If it wasn't like that, if people were not judged by what they believed in, if their beliefs were considered separate from them, then no one would have the right to deduct from the beliefs the state of mind/being of that person.>

You are more than your thoughts. You are greater than your beliefs. For any given thought or belief, you can, should you wish, take a third party observation of your thought or belief, and evaluate and criticise your belief or thought, you can nurture it, prune it or weed it out, and surely this is how we change what we think and what we believe. In doing so, you are not criticising, demeaning or showing any lack of respect to your self. Throughout the academic world this happens all the time.

If you believe that your beliefs are not separate from your being, then I presume you also believe that your beliefs are as determined as your genetic structure, for instance. If your being is synonymous with your beliefs, than you have no control over what you believe: as long as your state of being is xyz then your beliefs are xyz or vice versa. Yet have you never known a time when your belief changed and yet you were the same person you always were? For one moment I believe it will snow, the next I believe it won’t snow. Am I a different person in the space of two moments?

<because our beliefs do tell who we are as human beings>

I think our actions tell us far more about who we are than our beliefs do. How would you explain cognitive dissonance? When we act in a contrary way to our beliefs, are we acting according to our being or not? Are we acting in a way that tells us who we are, or is who we are unchanged despite the fact we are acting against our beliefs? Is it not the case that our beliefs have to be modified after cogntive dissonance because it becomes plain to us that what we are and what we believe often conflict, and that we therefore have to revise what we believe to maintain the integrity of our identity? Would it make sense to put this theother way round and say that we can revise our being to protect the integrity of our belief? I don't think it would. Belief is not synonymous with who we are.

Finally, if the world is to become a more peaceful place to live in, we will all need to approach our beliefs in a more dispassionate and objective way, objective in the sense that I think Thomas Nagel uses, an ideal that leads us towards objectivity, rather than something actually obtainable.

<Also, what the society thinks of your beliefs is something to be considered separately. What you think of yourself is one thing, that what the society accepts or rejects and the criteria it uses to do so, is another.>

How society views you and how you view yourself are closely connected. Your views and your attitudes and beliefs don't just arrive from nowhere in your brain.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear - George Orwell

[The Unnamable]

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear - George Orwell

"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities."
Voltaire

[jollyollie]

<Did you read the last line? >

Yup. Your point is?

When Mark Chapman had a firm, unwavering belief that he was John Lennon, did that put him in a position to be highly respected do you think? Can't you see that firm belief and unwaveringness are not automatic passports to respect? Plenty of evil despots in world history have had firm and unwavering belief. Neither is the type of belief a cause for respect. I see no reason why a religious belief is somehow more due respect than a philosophical one or sociological or political. It is the content of belief that is surely important, and if your belief is illogical, unreasonable and just plain doesn't fit into what we know of the world, then it deserves to be treated in the same way we would or should treat other delusions.
What on earth are you trying to say?
Sounds like alot smoke and mirrors to me. You sound pretty mixed up. Also, it sounds like alot of BS. Fundamentalists like hiding thier true intentions under a veil of colourful words and petty phrases. It only serves a selfish aim to foreward thier own inititives at the expense of someones free right to share openly.
Listen. I like Zorro, the fictional character. But we are talking about whether it is responsible or not to allow science and its educattion to get broadsided by the archaic beliefs of unilateral thought. The deliberate elimination of languages and cultures practiced by aboriginal persons throughout the globe has fundamntalist missionaries to blame exclusively for this loss to our cultural fabric. This still goes on today.

Also, You use words, but you really dont Say anything, other than offer a generally unpalatable and rude statement to ineffectively counter my attempt to demonstrate that this debate is trivial, compared to other issues that demand the attention of foreward thinkers, unlike yourself.
Global warming, crimes against humanity, the gap between the rich and the poor. These issues deserve OUR attention.
Just a bit of construcive criticism for you there, Don padme.

[Pendragon]

What on earth are you trying to say?
Sounds like alot smoke and mirrors to me. You sound pretty mixed up. Also, it sounds like alot of BS. Fundamentalists like hiding thier true intentions under a veil of colourful words and petty phrases. It only serves a selfish aim to foreward thier own inititives at the expense of someones free right to share openly.
Listen. I like Zorro, the fictional character. But we are talking about whether it is responsible or not to allow science and its educattion to get broadsided by the archaic beliefs of unilateral thought. The deliberate elimination of languages and cultures practiced by aboriginal persons throughout the globe has fundamntalist missionaries to blame exclusively for this loss to our cultural fabric. This still goes on today.

Also, You use words, but you really dont Say anything, other than offer a generally unpalatable and rude statement to ineffectively counter my attempt to demonstrate that this debate is trivial, compared to other issues that demand the attention of foreward thinkers, unlike yourself.
Global warming, crimes against humanity, the gap between the rich and the poor. These issues deserve OUR attention.
Just a bit of construcive criticism for you there, Don padme.I'll take this, atiguhya padma, don't worry about it. Jolly, this was addressed to me. atiguhya is an atheist, for your information. I had stated that everyone's belief should be respected even if it was totally absurb. I am the one who believes in a Creator to start things, then evolution from that point on. And I do not think that they need to be taught together in a school, but that churches need to do their job as they did when I was a boy and teach kids about the creation (which BTW, I am very uncertain of a timeline, as I do not see how you could put God into time). So if you must jump someone, leave MS padma out of it, as this was directed to me. I assure you that smoke and mirrors is not what I hide behind. Read my posts and see. Dragon out.

[Scheherazade]

Please carry on your discussions within the rules of common courtesy, without resorting to personal attacks. If you feel unable to respect beliefs and opinions which are different from yours, you might like to consider staying out of this part of the Forum.

[jollyollie]

<If you believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering, have respect for that.>

Why? Surely your respect for someone who believes the above is detrimental to that person. It also demeans the value of your respect.

I'd say that anyone who would <believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering>, needs to see a doctor, preferably a specialist in mental health problems.

The problem with believing nonsense, whether it be puff the magic dragon as creator, or vrigin births or assumption in to heaven or human-like lizards ruling the earth or anything that is irrational and non-sensible is that if you wish to appear reasonable and if you wish others to respect your nonsensical beliefs, you have to allow all nonsense equal respect.
On this we agree, and probably on much else.

[emily655321]

...my attempt to demonstrate that this debate is trivial, compared to other issues that demand the attention of foreward thinkers, unlike yourself.If you think this debate is trivial, why don't you just go away? Are you trying to gain recognition as someone who devotes their time and energy to the discussion of something totally meaningless?

Also, P.S., you admitted it is a debate. Ha. :p

[XXdarkclarityXX]

I think what Jolly is doing is using participation of this argument to show its stupidity. Sort of like an individual who runs for a political office for the sole purpose of resigning once they are elected. However, stupidity within an argument is usually dependent upon the participants of it. A debate can be either intellectually rich or a wealth of stupidity based on the individuals involved.

I'll admit that arguing in a debate in order to prove its pointlessness is inherently pointless itself, and therefor selfdestructive. However, I think its acceptable for use. Just my opinion.

[retrowilde]

Personally, I don't think that evolution is a theory. I believe that it's a fact. You can clearly see how different species can evolve or change.

It's the "why" that gets everyone upset. I also don't think that evolution is necessarily antithetical to creationism. Yes, evolution happens, but there could very well be a guiding hand. Now, I well know that this is a science fiction novel and not often considered literature, but has anyone read Calculating God?

[jollyollie]

If you think this debate is trivial, why don't you just go away? Are you trying to gain recognition as someone who devotes their time and energy to the discussion of something totally meaningless?

Also, P.S., you admitted it is a debate. Ha. :p
lol! I love this. Youre a cutie! :thumbs_up
If they had a heart smilie, itd be your from me! :nod:
If I left then I wouldnt havew so much fun with yall.
You and sword mouth debate, so its a debate.
i criticise your use of the language. Thats no debate. Im allowed to use the word. But If I said that I was participating in this thread as a debater, then you re either mistaken or I was out of context. You can debate it all you want. I still think your a cutie :cool:

[water lily]

Personally, I don't think that evolution is a theory. I believe that it's a fact. You can clearly see how different species can evolve or change.

It's the "why" that gets everyone upset. I also don't think that evolution is necessarily antithetical to creationism. Yes, evolution happens, but there could very well be a guiding hand. Now, I well know that this is a science fiction novel and not often considered literature, but has anyone read Calculating God?

Evolution IS a theory. The problem arrises when people are misinformed as to what a theory is. "Theories are general hypotheses that have been tested and subjected to verification through accumulated evidence" (Intro to Physical Anthropology, Jurmain). Therefore, calling something a theory is actually a positive suggestion, rather than a negative one. It means that it has survived the test of time and hasn't been falsified.

And as you say evolution is not necessarily antithetical to creationism. In fact, today the official position of the Catholic Church is that evolutionary processes do occur but that the human soul is of divine creation and not subject to evolutionary processes. At the same time, I can see how believers would see Evolution as contrary to their beliefs, because if evolution is true, then the Creation story is not. The Creation story is the bible, so does that then call into question the validitiy of the rest of the bible? This is a question I myseld have struggled with.

[jollyollie]

Evolution IS a theory. The problem arrises when people are misinformed as to what a theory is. "Theories are general hypotheses that have been tested and subjected to verification through accumulated evidence" (Intro to Physical Anthropology, Jurmain). Therefore, calling something a theory is actually a positive suggestion, rather than a negative one. It means that it has survived the test of time and hasn't been falsified.

And as you say evolution is not necessarily antithetical to creationism. In fact, today the official position of the Catholic Church is that evolutionary processes do occur but that the human soul is of divine creation and not subject to evolutionary processes. At the same time, I can see how believers would see Evolution as contrary to their beliefs, because if evolution is true, then the Creation story is not. The Creation story is the bible, so does that then call into question the validitiy of the rest of the bible? This is a question I myseld have struggled with.
No.
I think the bible was written during a time when the authors didnt expect alot from the readers, in terms of comprehending the underlying themes.
Its a mis mash of many authors bringing thier stories all together with wee bit of embellishment. behind the scenes, the bible is all true. but across the sands of time the story has MUTATED to meet the aims of a mere few. but not all of it is like this.
I think alot of the true bible has been sensored out long ago by people we will never learn about, maybe. Even on the walls of the tombs of the great pyramid lies the truth about some of the stories that lie therein.
Fret not fair lass! keep reading and looking for clues...
they "threw the baby out with the bathwater" in its sensorship

[jollyollie]

Id like to clarify something, dear water lily. ;)
Evolution definately is not a theory anymore. Itwas surely, back in Darwins time, when it was new and being debated by scientists in a scientific forum. This is no scientific forum. And you can ask any scientist that is an EDUCATED PUBLISHED Doctor of Philosophy in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics: the "true" sciences they are called.
True scientists do not waste thier time discussing evolution as a theory because its not a theory. it has entered the realm of what we scientists call Scientific Truth. Hence, it is no longer a theory as it shows great disrespect to Darwin who successfully debated it and proved that evolution was agreed to be scientific truth. There are few scientific truths. Evolution is a gimme when it comes to being a scientific truth.
If it was a theory then scientists would be debating it still. Currently there are no reputable scientists debating evolution because they would be laughed at because there is NO DEBATE> ITS IS SCIENTIFIC TRUTH> As I stated earlier, the debate ended about 150 years ago. lets move on. THERe IS NO LONGER A DEBATE.
If you want to discuss it here interms of creatinist dogma, then you will find that the creationists will be discussing it with themselves! No reputable scientists will participate in debating something that has been accepetd as scientific fact for 15 decades or more.
Hence my point, all you people who want me to go away. There is no debate. There is no debate there is NO DEBATE!
You just make yourselves look silly by flinging insults and abuse at me because I want to set the record straight for those of you who are misinformed.
Abroad, in the news, do the headlines say Scientists debate evolution? No. ID ers rather dictate that there is one, so that the bible will be taught in american public schools.
Debate sensorship, or the patriot act. Or nuclear non proliferation. Dont try to remake the wheel.
Thank you all for your patience and have a good night and a pleasant tomorow.
peace :bday_2:

[water lily]

dearest jollyollie,
Evolution is a Theory. My point was that calling it a theory is not an insult but a compliment. No, scientists do not debate it, they all believe in Evolution as a truth, but they will all agree that ini scientific terms it is a theory. Having taken a biology course last semester, and beeing in a human origins class now, I feel confident that I am not mistaken. I agree with the idea you're trying to express, but feel that you misunderstand the scientific definition of a theory.

[niteskytwilight]

If everyone would, please, take lightly to a little criticism... Everybody in this thread who debates over evolution or creation, beliefs, respect, and whether it's wrong or right to fight for your beliefs (or should I say for the RESPECT of your beliefs), needs to realize that half the argument is contradicting "the argument" in itself. One argues that only some beliefs are worth respecting and others are not (that type of outlook, by the way, will cause conflict), while another feels that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and that their beliefs should be respected (no matter how bazaar), and then there is the belief that beliefs should not be taken so personal because taking offense and fighting because of it is pointless. However, as I read on I can sense strong beliefs, offense, bitterness, aggression, and most important angry confliction. The fact that a lot of the argument is the belief that beliefs should not be fought over is a contradiction in itself. I BELIEVE that the only rational direction is to respect everyone’s beliefs and in turn get respect for your own beliefs. In that case your beliefs can be personal, and it's difficult to be offended by respect.

(addressed to Atiguhya Padma below)
Also by who's and what standards would you consider a belief to be respectable. In my opinion that is an extremely arrogant, stubborn, and narrow minded thought process. I don’t think that you are any better to judge which beliefs are worthy and which are not than the next person. I can say one thing for certain, I'm sure most will agree, the sure way to get disrespect is to give disrespect, and I feel that you have disrespected everyone (and their beliefs) in this debate. :mad:

[The Unnamable]

If everyone would, please, take lightly to a little criticism... Everybody in this thread who debates over evolution or creation, beliefs, respect, and whether it's wrong or right to fight for your beliefs (or should I say for the RESPECT of your beliefs), needs to realize that half the argument is contradicting "the argument" in itself. One argues that only some beliefs are worth respecting and others are not (that type of outlook, by the way, will cause conflict), while another feels that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and that their beliefs should be respected (no matter how bazaar), and then there is the belief that beliefs should not be taken so personal because taking offense and fighting because of it is pointless. However, as I read on I can sense strong beliefs, offense, bitterness, aggression, and most important angry confliction. The fact that a lot of the argument is the belief that beliefs should not be fought over is a contradiction in itself. I BELIEVE that the only rational direction is to respect everyone’s beliefs and in turn get respect for your own beliefs. In that case your beliefs can be personal, and it's difficult to be offended by respect.

Although this is an articulate and passionately argued contribution, I think there are problems with it. I know that you define your position as a belief but you are offering an approach, which I think is open to challenge, on the basis of that belief. While I have nothing to say about your belief per se, I do find your suggestion that “the only rational direction is to respect everyone’s beliefs and in turn get respect for your own beliefs” very difficult to accept. Doesn’t it mean that we must respect the views of racists, psychopaths, the mentally ill and so on? Perhaps you realise this and would say ‘yes’. In which case are such people also entitled to offer a 'direction' as you have done? Surely, by simple logic, not all of these differing beliefs can prevail: either we decide that murder is acceptable, in which case we allow it, or it isn’t, it which case we try to prevent it. If, however, you say ‘no’ then aren’t you yourself deciding that some beliefs are unacceptable in the sense that you would try to ensure that they are not acted upon?

While not respecting someone’s view might bring conflict, that view itself can be seen to invite conflict. If someone makes an outrageously racist remark, then surely the responsibility for any ensuing conflict lies with the holder of that belief, and not with anyone who doesn’t respect it?

Is there no situation in which you feel disrespect is ever justified? Do you respect the Nazis in their view that the entire Jewish race should be exterminated in gas chambers?

[Whifflingpin]

"Is there no situation in which you feel disrespect is ever justified? Do you respect the Nazis in their view that the entire Jewish race should be exterminated in gas chambers?"

Godwin? end of thread?

[atiguhya padma]

niteskytwilight said:

<(addressed to Atiguhya Padma below)
Also by who's and what standards would you consider a belief to be respectable. In my opinion that is an extremely arrogant, stubborn, and narrow minded thought process. I don’t think that you are any better to judge which beliefs are worthy and which are not than the next person. I can say one thing for certain, I'm sure most will agree, the sure way to get disrespect is to give disrespect, and I feel that you have disrespected everyone (and their beliefs) in this debate. :mad>

Is this supposed to be an attitude of respect for my beliefs niteskytwilight? You believe that all beliefs should be given respect. I do not. It is therefore your duty to respect my belief is it not? It is certainly not my duty to respect yours if I think it is nonsense. Were you to believe the sky is a gigantic pudding bowl that covers the earth, I certainly wouldn't give your beliefs any respect for that. With your attitude though, you would feel that you must respect all my beliefs no matter how ridiculous they are. The statement that I quote above seems a funny way of walking your talk.

The sure way to get disrespect is to go around talking nonsense and expecting people to respect your for it.

[Logos]

"Is there no situation in which you feel disrespect is ever justified? Do you respect the Nazis in their view that the entire Jewish race should be exterminated in gas chambers?"

Godwin? end of thread?

Well, not quite yet :) If somebody starts making +personal+ insults about some other member being a Nazi, then they would get deleted.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Well, not quite yet :) If somebody starts making +personal+ insults about some other member being a Nazi, then they would get deleted.

You can delete people? Wow! That's power. :nod:

I will be more careful around you in future. Although I can't help thinking that you should really be using this power to delete the nazis, not their opponents. Where were you in the 1930s? ;)

[Amra]

gotta love this freedom of speech concept.. :D you can say anything you want unless it is against things we decided to tolerate/like/support... :lol: Hypocrisy all over the place... :brickwall

[Logos]

You can delete people? Wow! That's power. :nod:

I will be more careful around you in future. Although I can't help thinking that you should really be using this power to delete the nazis, not their opponents. Where were you in the 1930s? ;)

That would be great if I could just vaporise some real people in just a few clicks :lol:

What I +meant+ was that a flaming/naming post à la Godwin would be edited or deleted.

Amra, there is no "true" freedom of speech here. Admin is the benevolent dictator, he formed the rules for his site and the Mods oversee that they are followed. It's pretty simple. I'm sorry that you see "hypocrisy" when some people are just trying to do their job.

I wonder if it's possible that this topic will get back on track? :)

[Xamonas Chegwe]

That would be great if I could just vaporise some real people in just a few clicks :lol:

I have a list. :nod:


I wonder if it's possible that this topic will get back on track? :)

Well I suppose, it being a religious forum, you could try prayer.:angel: It's probably your only hope. But I suppose it might be interesting to speculated whether the thread just evolved into this state or if there was some guiding purpose to it's off-topicness? ;)

[XXdarkclarityXX]

A journey changed may still be a journey home. Alternate routes are completely capable of leading to the same goal, are they not? Ahhh, "The answer has arisen!", says I! The topic has expired, for the enthusiasm for such discussion is dwindling into that of a flickering candle in an evergrowing breeze. Have no sadness, for atheism has been explored to its utmost potential in the very place it should have been. However, that which begins must also terminate...speak not of this topic any longer upon this thread. Create anew a discussion which piques the interest of those who may share, who may learn! Relight the candle and enlighten once again.

[Whifflingpin]

"The topic has expired, for the enthusiasm for such discussion is dwindling into that of a flickering candle in an evergrowing breeze"

I think that is the condition in which Godwin's Law is fulfilled.

If I recall correctly, the law does not relate to flaming, but states that sooner or later any internet discussion will descend to the Nazis et al, at which point it may be deemed that everything worth saying on the original topic has been said, and the thread may as well be closed.
.

[Theshizznigg]

Maybe we are Evolved from lesser beings, tell you what. When we die, we'll find out which of us were right after all.

"And the same to you."
A man who complained his Banana tasted like a banana.

[kilted exile]

.
For more info check out this site.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/
It is absolutely chocked full of good solid information.

Unfortunately, however it is also incredibly biased, and as a result no use from a objective research standpoint.

[XXdarkclarityXX]

Let's even the playing field then. www.atheists.com

[meddle_some]

My, how fast the topic of biological evolution gets turned into theism versus atheism. The origination of life is an interesting concept whether the aspect of a creative divinity is thrown in or not.

[Truth_Told]

My, how fast the topic of biological evolution gets turned into theism versus atheism. The origination of life is an interesting concept whether the aspect of a creative divinity is thrown in or not.
the origin of life is only interesting because it has the aspect of creative divinity, without it ppl would just belike: Oh, so this is life....Cool, bland and boring. everything in this universe needs an opposite.

[jollyollie]

dearest jollyollie,
Evolution is a Theory. My point was that calling it a theory is not an insult but a compliment. No, scientists do not debate it, they all believe in Evolution as a truth, but they will all agree that ini scientific terms it is a theory. Having taken a biology course last semester, and beeing in a human origins class now, I feel confident that I am not mistaken. I agree with the idea you're trying to express, but feel that you misunderstand the scientific definition of a theory.
Oh come on. Go ask your introductory biology teacher what the definition of theory is.

[jollyollie]

gotta love this freedom of speech concept.. :D you can say anything you want unless it is against things we decided to tolerate/like/support... :lol: Hypocrisy all over the place... :brickwall
Darn tootin!

[jollyollie]

you should try to back up your staements with some kind of justification.
Im a pro golfer. Im going to tell you all how good I am at GOLF. Theres no way youcan stop me. Ya ready? Here goes/Im as good as TIGER.
How can I prove it to you with out any evidence? Prove evolution is not scientifc truth. this post was sensored

[jollyollie]

I accuse the moderator of sensorship to posts that are directly related to the topic. The moderator is BIASED.
Its a christians only debate on science and evolution? Im disgusted

[Scheherazade]

Ollie,

Please do not make any unfounded accusations. You do not know anything about my religious/cultural background OR beliefs.

Your posts have been deleted or edited only because they intend to flame and aggravate certain members for their beliefs/opinions rather than contribute constructively to the on-going discussion.

*edit*

Dear All,

The topic of discussion in this thread is Evolution vs Creation. Please try to avoid from posting off-topic messages as they are likely to be deleted.

If you have any personal grievances with other members OR moderators, please address those through PMs, not to distract the present discussion.

Thank you.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Evolution is impossible, simply by the laws of thermodynamics which, something left over a period of time will go from bad to worst.

Do they?


First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy. A watchspring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some energy will dissipate as heat. Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die.

So you are right, but only as long as creature's stop eating each other!


Also I state to those that support evolution that the theory has just as many if not more fall throughs, and inconsistencies than those puported to belong to Chrisitanity or other beliefs.

Really? And your evidence for this?


Also Darwin father of Evolution in theory on his death bed claimed that the theory could not possibly be truem and that he had published the theory to beat another scientist who would have gotten all the grant money, instead of Darwin.

Which 'other scientist'? Again evidence please?


the scientist community has been trying for the last hundred years to prove evolution does not exist, and yet are no closer to proving it.

Actually, it's the religious community that have been trying to prove that - you are right that they have failed!


There are no set fossils, NONE that tie a purported creature to its supposed evolutionary ancestor.
Yet the existance of living fossils has been porven, in both animal and botanical creatures, and what has it proved.
At the same moment in time that we humans were supposedly evolving these creatures lived in their natural states, and yet for some minor detrimentle differences they haven't evolved in any form.
In England one the last surviving groups of Jurrassic Pines live in a sustainable enviroment, not having changed for the last 180 million years.

Evolution only occurs when environmental stress selects one genetic variant over another (according to the theory), where there is a relatively stable environment, with no dramatic change, there is no natural selection and species can remain virtually unchanged for aeons. Please take the trouble to understand the theory before you give counter-examples that are in fact no such thing.


Evolution is merely a sham, that the scientific community desperately lings to because they don't want to acknowledge the existence of something else, whatever it is, that created the universe.

Scientists are people, and as such, hold just as many faiths and beliefs as the rest of us. It is extremely simplistic to label all scientists as atheists. Many scientists are christian and find no trouble at all in reconciling their faith with the theory of evolution. In fact, many non-scientist christians can also happily believe in God and Darwin. Your argument is unsound here.


If you don't believe me look at Galilaeo, the earth is round he said, but the scientific community at the time thought it mere heresy, since the Earth had been flat since time and memorial, they even managed to push Galilaeo into admitting publicly that his theory was scrap, even though he swore by it til his end.
Who was right in the end?
No the science community only clings to the ideals, because the are afraid to admit they were wrong.

Actually, it was the church that disagreed so much with Galileo's ideas that they executed him, not other scientists. Check your facts please.


I appreciate both the Criticism with which this message will undoubtedly meet, but I'm sorry guys, Evolution is a failed theory.
For more info check out this site.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/
It is absolutely chocked full of good solid information.

I am in total agreement with kilted exiles opinions on this site.

Nothing can be proven one way or the other, but you really don't help your cause by posting such unfounded and erroneous 'evidence'. I respect your right to your opinion but I advise you to base it on a sounder foundation if you wish to convince others of your views.

[water lily]

Originally Posted by Theshizznigg
Also Darwin father of Evolution in theory on his death bed claimed that the theory could not possibly be truem and that he had published the theory to beat another scientist who would have gotten all the grant money, instead of Darwin.

[QUOTE=Xamonas Chegwe]
Which 'other scientist'? Again evidence please?
[\QUOTE]

Xamonas Chegwe, Theshizznigg, is not totally unfounded in this declaration. Darwin had been developing his theory and gathering evidence for it. By 1844, he had written a short summary of his views, but didn't publish, because he didn't beleive he had sufficient data. Furthermore, he was disturbed, becuase his wife, Emma, saw his ideas as counter her strong religious views and knew that his thoery would cause controversy. So he hesitated.

Meanwhile, Alfred Russel Wallace, a man intent on collecting plant and animal specimen, who had gone on several voyages to the Amazon and other parts of the world, independly came up with the theory of Natural Selection as well. In 1855, Wallace published a paper expressing his views. This spurred Darwin's friends to encourage him to publish. Darwin quickly put together a paper of his own, and then in 1859, Darwin published the origin of species.

Darwin is mostly credited with the idea of NAtural SElection, because he had a more comprehensive collection of data to back up his ideas. And technically he came up with the idea first even though he didn't publish first.

I don't know either way about a research grant. Hope that this info was helpful.

-water lily

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Which 'other scientist'? Again evidence please?


Xamonas Chegwe, Theshizznigg, is not totally unfounded in this declaration. Darwin had been developing his theory and gathering evidence for it. By 1844, he had written a short summary of his views, but didn't publish, because he didn't beleive he had sufficient data. Furthermore, he was disturbed, becuase his wife, Emma, saw his ideas as counter her strong religious views and knew that his thoery would cause controversy. So he hesitated.

Meanwhile, Alfred Russel Wallace, a man intent on collecting plant and animal specimen, who had gone on several voyages to the Amazon and other parts of the world, independly came up with the theory of Natural Selection as well. In 1855, Wallace published a paper expressing his views. This spurred Darwin's friends to encourage him to publish. Darwin quickly put together a paper of his own, and then in 1859, Darwin published the origin of species.

Darwin is mostly credited with the idea of NAtural SElection, because he had a more comprehensive collection of data to back up his ideas. And technically he came up with the idea first even though he didn't publish first.

I don't know either way about a research grant. Hope that this info was helpful.

-water lily

Thank you WaterLily, but I really wasn't questioning Thistleneck's facts, more the way he stated them with nothing to back them up. Had he explained it like you just did, I would have been quite satisfied that he was at least partially right on this point (having checked the details, of course.) Darwin's deathbed confession is most likely complete hokum though. Here is Wikipedia's version:


Charles Darwin recounted in his biography of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin how false stories were circulated claiming that Erasmus had called for Jesus on his deathbed. Charles concluded by writing "Such was the state of Christian feeling in this country [in 1802].... We may at least hope that nothing of the kind now prevails." Despite this hope, very similar stories were circulated following Darwin's own death, most prominently the "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915 which claimed he had converted on his sickbed. Such stories have been heavily propagated by some Christian groups, to the extent of becoming urban legends, though the claims were refuted by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.


I know which version I favour.

[water lily]

Ooo, very interesting. By the way, Im in love with the name "Erasmus". But that is beside the point.

I feel inclined to side with you, Xamonas, because as I understand it, Darwin was never particulary religious. I've read that he was rather indifferent to religion in fact, despite the fact that he did study theology at Christ's College, Cambridge (actually his emphasis during his Cambridge years was in botany and natural science). But I don't think it really matters if the deathbed story is true or not to either support or refute Evolution. Darwin's evidence was in fact very limited at the time (for example he didn't know where new variation came from on which natural selection acted. Which today's scientists account for through mutation), so that it was natural for him to doubt himself. Rather I think we should examine the evidence of today, rather that that of the 1800's.

[Theshizznigg]

I will not retract my statement about the pine it was just and the feelings true. I feel nothing but pride that these little guys managed to beat the odds. ;)

And I also have the information concerning the Jurassic Pine
which are now being raised for sale in the UK.

"The young specimen at the botanic garden is no more than 18 inches tall. Its needles look more like blades of grass, deep green and packed close together. Its trunk and branches are green, but will one day grow into a dark, mottled brown. It looks more like a fern than a pine tree.
However, nobody knew what it looked like, or that it was even alive, until 1994. Before that, it was just a fossilized imprint, known only to paleontologists and presumed extinct for at least 2 million years. But when a park ranger in New South Wales ventured into an undisturbed canyon in Australia's Blue Mountains, about 100 miles west of Sydney, he came upon a tree that neither he nor anyone else had ever seen."
"A lot of people sort of think there's nothing new," said Christine Flanagan, botanic garden public programs manager. "Everything's been done, everything's been seen, except for what happens, maybe, in a test tube. But here, this thing's growing in the wild within two hours of 4.5 million people, and nobody knew it was there."

"Scientists later confirmed that the newly discovered plant was of a species that dated back at least 90 million years - and possibly even further, into the Jurassic Period - and was thought to have been extinct. They regarded it as having found a dinosaur still roaming around in the backyard."

"It is truly a living fossil," Flanagan said. "You'd think with that kind of proximity to Sydney, Australia, it'd have been found."

"The tree's rarity and isolated location prevented that. Fewer than 100 adult trees exist in the wild, all of them in Wollemi National Park, a preserved area with hundreds of remote, untouched canyons. The trees' exact location has been kept secret for fear that visitors would cause damage or introduce pathogens to which the trees have never been exposed."

:banana:

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I feel inclined to side with you, Xamonas, because as I understand it, Darwin was never particulary religious. I've read that he was rather indifferent to religion in fact, despite the fact that he did study theology at Christ's College, Cambridge (actually his emphasis during his Cambridge years was in botany and natural science). But I don't think it really matters if the deathbed story is true or not to either support or refute Evolution. Darwin's evidence was in fact very limited at the time (for example he didn't know where new variation came from on which natural selection acted. Which today's scientists account for through mutation), so that it was natural for him to doubt himself. Rather I think we should examine the evidence of today, rather that that of the 1800's.

Exactly.

Darwin's theory is an absolutely incredible leap of intuition.

Nowadays we know the mechanism of genetics. We understand chromosones and DNA, genes and heredity. Darwin, we must remember, did not.

In fact, in his time, his theories and those of Gregor Mendel (founder of genetic theory) were considered contradictory. Both ideas developed independently, in isolation, at around the same time (Darwin's "Origin of species" published in 1859, Mendel's "Experiments on Plant Hybridization" in 1865). Chromosones were not proved to be the mechanism of heredity until 1902. In the intervening 40 odd years, scientists argued the toss between the 2 theories, not realising that one (Mendel's) was describing the fine detail of the other (Darwin's).

Darwin's evidence was limited but he managed to infer his theory of evolution without knowing the details of molecular biology that we take for granted today. This is tantamount to inferring Einstein's theory of relativity without knowing Newton's laws of motion. The man was without a doubt a genius of the highest order (and they lampooned him as an ape!)

The difference between Einstein's theory and that of Darwin, is that the theory behind Einstein's was proven without question by the bomb that dropped on Hiroshima - it can't be denied. Alas, the timescales in genetics are far longer, making the evidence less immediate.

Realistically though, evolution can be seen in process in the adaptation of bacteria to resist antibiotics. New strains evolve much faster than with higher species such as mammals, because the time-span of a generation is much shorter - minutes rather than years. The genome (genetic code) for such microbes is known and can be seen to be changing and evolving by the simple process of resistant bacteria surviving exposure to antibiotics and passing on their resistance to the next generation.

Why is the same process so difficult to accept when played against the far longer timescales of human development? To me, it is obvious. Take the time to really understand the underlying principles and it is impossible to deny, at least not without recourse to assertions involving God interfering with the available evidence so as to conceal his presence (like the way he deliberately planted fossils to confuse the faithless!)

Evolution does not conflict with the existence of God. Many believe quite happily in both. What it does conflict with is the dogmatic belief in every single word in the Bible, Qu'ran and other holy books describing creation in terms of divine intervention.

The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproved, it is a matter of faith. The absolute truth of holy books is another matter. I submit that it has been disproved already, to the satisfaction of all but the deliberately dogmatic.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

zoliaon asmikarliaons

There is a difference between speaking in tongues and spouting gibberish. Neither impresses me.

[Theshizznigg]

How constructive of you all.

"Welcome all to the new united church of voodoism, my name is Tenbo"
Bill The Galactic Hero

[greenburke]

Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Savior of the world.
He died for our sins, and was raised to life for our justification.

[Pendragon]

There are times on this thread when I am convinced that regardless of evidence produced and what it might portend to either argument, it will be basically of the same value as a roschet test. In other words, to the hard-core evolutionist, it will be absolute proof of no Inteligent Design. To the hard-core creationist, it will be absolute proof that any form of evolution is complete nonsense. Each will see what they expect to see, just as with a roschet test, each person finds something personal in the inky blots. The question I have to ask is this: If you go into an investigation with your mind already made up as to what the outcome is going to be, do you have an open or closed mind? http://www.smileyville.net/mellow/mf_sherlock.gif

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Theshinzznig,

Firstly, did you realise that you posted the second half of 'your' argument first? Probably not, because it is copied wholesale from the website that you linked to a few threads back (and without credit, I might add). There is a point made about such activities in the rules of this section of the forum. Mods please note!


No you cannot copy and paste huge tracts of text, you shouldn't need more than a few sentences, or maybe one paragraph in reference to the discussion.

If you are going to refer to or use content from other sites, you must include a link for it. You cannot copy and paste entire articles from other sites as that is copyright infringement, and contributes nothing to discussion. Posts or topics doing such will be edited, deleted, closed, or removed, not always with warning.

I seriously doubt that you actually bothered to understand the concepts behind what you say. You certainly didn't take the time to rephrase them in your own words. You were not even particularly selective in the parts you cut and pasted. As an example (one of many):


Pliocene - the period that from about 2-5 million years ago.
All of the well-known fossils believed to be missing links for humans come from Pleistocene layers.

The Pliocene and Pleistocene are two different epochs (not periods, they are both contained in the noegene period in fact), the pleistocene epoch occurred roughly from 1.9 million years ago to about 10,000 years ago. Why you describe the timeframe of one epoch and then describe events from another can only be explained by either a lack of understanding, or an attempt to deliberately confuse the issue.

I, among others, have already made my feelings about this website known. Those opinions won't be changed by your quoting huge swathes of it.

For the record, my objections to this site include the following (with examples):
1. It is biased, deliberatly ignoring facts which don't fit it's pet theories (such as the incredible rarity of fossils of land based animals. The conditions for such fossils to be produced are so specific that it is a wonder that there are any at all. Using the absence of 'missing link' fossil evidence as an argument is thus disingenuous.)
2. It gives undue emphasis to others that do (the Coelocanth for example, a single species example of a once diverse group of fish that was believed to be completely extinct. In fact, they are very rare fish, living in waters that are not commercially fished.)
3. It distorts other facts. (Such as it's attack on carbon dating. This method is not as accurate as once thought but nowhere near as inaccurate as it would need to be for dinosaur fossils to really come from a flood only a few thousand years ago.)

Please have the courage to formulate your own arguments, not just copy those of others without checking the facts of them.

[Whifflingpin]

"After all, if the theory of evolution is correct, why should brain capacities (which presumably according to evolution, get larger as humans “evolve”), suddenly become smaller after Neanderthal?"

In the words of Arthur Koestler, from "The Ghost in the Machine:"

"The capacities of the computer inside the reptilian and mammalian skull are exploited to the full, and leave no scope for further learning. But the evolution of man.s brain has so wildly overshot man's immediate needs that he is still breathlessly catching up with its unexploited, unexplored possibilities."

"We have still only learned to utilize a very small fraction of the potentials of its estimated hundred thousand million circuits."

"It is entirely unprecedented that evolution should provide a species with an organ which it does not know how to use; a luxury organ far exceeding its owner's immediate primitive needs; an organ which will take the species millennia to learn to put to proper use - if it ever does."

Maybe where we are going is a more significant question than where we came from.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

There are times on this thread when I am convinced that regardless of evidence produced and what it might portend to either argument, it will be basically of the same value as a roschet test. In other words, to the hard-core evolutionist, it will be absolute proof of no Inteligent Design. To the hard-core creationist, it will be absolute proof that any form of evolution is complete nonsense. Each will see what they expect to see, just as with a roschet test, each person finds something personal in the inky blots. The question I have to ask is this: If you go into an investigation with your mind already made up as to what the outcome is going to be, do you have an open or closed mind? http://www.smileyville.net/mellow/mf_sherlock.gif

Mine is open.

I do however believe in the scientific method. Observation of available facts. Basing theories upon those facts. Testing those theories by experimentation. And most importantly, adapting (or even in extreme cases abandonning) the theory, if facts are discovered that do not fit the original model.

In my opinion, the evolutionary theory has undergone this process. It has been adapted over the years, although it's basic premise is still seen as sound.

Evolutionary theory per se is not to be confused with the exact evolutionary paths of individual species and groups of species. Evolution describes the process by which new species come into being, not the exact line of succession in specific cases. Curiously, most arguments against evolution attempt to pick holes in exactly that, usually in the specific evolutionary path of our own species.

The creation theory has not been subjected to any such rigour by it's advocates. They point to what they see as holes in evolution as if this proves their case, as if there were only the 2 choices to pick from - "It's not black, so it must be white!" - this ignores the full spectrum in between. What they never do is point to direct evidence for their own theory (except that it is contained in holy books - which is hardly rigourous proof by measurable experimentation).

I am open to persuasion on anything, but I believe that the burden of proof lies with the creationists.

[Logos]

Theshizznigg, please do not copy and paste any more material from clarifyingchristianity.com, unless you are actually Harold Joss to whom the site is registered to?

[The Unnamable]

to the hard-core evolutionist, it will be absolute proof of no Inteligent Design.
What is the difference between an evolutionist and a ‘hard-core’ evolutionist?


If you go into an investigation with your mind already made up as to what the outcome is going to be, do you have an open or closed mind?
Does this apply to any investigation? Is the discussion an ‘investigation’? Does every idea deserve/require open-minded investigation? If I am unwilling to consider the possibility that the moon is made of magic cheese, does that mean I have a closed mind?

[Xamonas Chegwe]

What is the difference between an evolutionist and a ‘hard-core’ evolutionist?

I think that hard-core evolution has a techno sound-track.


Does this apply to any investigation? Is the discussion an ‘investigation’? Does every idea deserve/require open-minded investigation? If I am unwilling to consider the possibility that the moon is made of magic cheese, does that mean I have a closed mind?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Magic cheese - love it!

[The Unnamable]

I think that hard-core evolution has a techno sound-track.
Now it's my turn. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

FYI, magic cheese is similar to ordinary cheese but it's more useful in debates.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Most people would have just said 'cheese', or maybe 'green cheese'. The magic bit just made me laugh out loud. Thanks.

[Logos]

Asiago d´Allevo in large amounts induces hallucinations!

[The Unnamable]

Asiago d´Allevo in large amounts induces hallucinations!
Why do you think I am such a fan of cheese? :D

[Pendragon]

What is the difference between an evolutionist and a ‘hard-core’ evolutionist?There are evolutionists that will agree that evolution does not rule out a devine being. Then there are those who state that evolution proves that there cannot be a devine being. The latter are what I call hard-core, unbending. The others will at least concede the possibility, even if they do not believe that said being had anything to do with the formation of life. Just as I am not hard-core creationist, for I will accept that man, animals, plant life, etc. has evolved since creation, and that this evolution has shaped us into what we are today, and that church is where you should teach creationism. A hard-core creationist would never do this, they would consider it blasphemy.



Does this apply to any investigation? Is the discussion an ‘investigation’? Does every idea deserve/require open-minded investigation? If I am unwilling to consider the possibility that the moon is made of magic cheese, does that mean I have a closed mind?No, and this is the second quote of mine that has been blown out of context. The first was my statement that people's beliefs were to be respected even if you felt them ridiculous. Suddenly, I am asked if I would respect the Nazis extermanition of the Jews! We're talking about creationism and evolution here. I disagree with and certainly do not feel I must respect any belief that takes away another's right to even exist! Unnameable, we have been to the moon and KNOW it not to be made of ANY type of cheese, so no, I would not call that a closed mind. But when dealing with many things, science closes its mind until something has to jar it open, then they'll believe it. Sadly, so do many religious people, to be perfectly fair. They'll deny sciencetific fact, such as the Earth is round. That's closed minded also. I don't believe they will ever prove a spieces changes into another. I've said before, you can create a mule, but it cannot reproduce itself. But change within the species is a proven fact. Take care.

[The Unnamable]

There are evolutionists that will agree that evolution does not rule out a devine being. Then there are those who state that evolution proves that there cannot be a devine being. The latter are what I call hard-core, unbending.
In that case, I don’t think there is that great a difference. For both types of evolutionist, the fact of evolution is primary. The existence of God is a secondary issue. Some might say there might be a God, others that there isn’t. I seriously doubt that either camp is interested in evolution primarily because it either disproves or allows for the existence of God. The application of the phrase ‘hard-core’ serves to represent certain beliefs as extreme and to equate them with other extreme views. In your post you wrote, “to the hard-core evolutionist, it will be absolute proof of no Inteligent Design. To the hard-core creationist, it will be absolute proof that any form of evolution is complete nonsense.” Surely this equates the two positions in terms of what is considered extreme? I don’t feel that they are. An evolutionist who feels that there cannot be a God by virtue of his or her understanding of scientific processes doesn’t strike me as any more extreme than someone who doesn’t believe in leprechauns for the same reason. It’s not as if he or she is setting out to disprove the existence of God. Someone who denies the validity of the facts does strike me as extreme.


No, and this is the second quote of mine that has been blown out of context. The first was my statement that people's beliefs were to be respected even if you felt them ridiculous. Suddenly, I am asked if I would respect the Nazis extermanition of the Jews! We're talking about creationism and evolution here.

First of all, I was replying to niteskytwilight when I asked the question about respecting Nazism (if that is what you are referring to).

I’m sorry that you feel your comments were taken out of context but surely you yourself remove them from their immediate context when you make generalised statements or analogies? You are not saying that only Creationism should be respected but that views that could be considered ridiculous should be respected. This implies a general principle. You seek to gain acceptability for a theory by invoking such a principle. If you use that approach, surely those principles are open to scrutiny and I am allowed to ask about flaws I see in those principles. Similarly, you didn’t say “if you go into this investigation with your mind already made up” but “If you go into an investigation with your mind already made up.” For your principle to be valid it must apply to a situation other than the one you wish it to. Your approach relies on the idea that made up minds are closed. Whether you wish it to or not, such a statement has implications beyond the context in which you applied it. Firstly, you are assuming that the issue is about having an open mind. Secondly, if someone has a closed mind in this particular instance, then that does not therefore mean they have a closed mind generally, which you certainly were implying. Personally I think having a closed mind about certain ideas is sensible and consider it unfair that you suggest that people who have researched, read about, considered and dismissed certain possibilities are closed-minded.

[Pendragon]

Similarly, you didn’t say “if you go into this investigation with your mind already made up” but “If you go into an investigation with your mind already made up.” For your principle to be valid it must apply to a situation other than the one you wish it to. Your approach relies on the idea that made up minds are closed. Whether you wish it to or not, such a statement has implications beyond the context in which you applied it. Firstly, you are assuming that the issue is about having an open mind. Secondly, if someone has a closed mind in this particular instance, then that does not therefore mean they have a closed mind generally, which you certainly were implying. Personally I think having a closed mind about certain ideas is sensible and consider it unfair that you suggest that people who have researched, read about, considered and dismissed certain possibilities are closed-minded.Touche, amigo. I did not set out to offend you or anyone else. Thus we see the truth of "It depends on your point of view." Please accept my apologies and thanks for a lesson in logical dessertation. Have a wonderful day. :nod:

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Unnameable, we have been to the moon and KNOW it not to be made of ANY type of cheese, so no, I would not call that a closed mind.

There are many that say we never went to the moon and that it was all filmed in Hollywood. Some even believe this as strongly as creationists & evolutionists believe in their respective ideas.


But when dealing with many things, science closes its mind until something has to jar it open, then they'll believe it. Sadly, so do many religious people, to be perfectly fair.

Scientists perform experiments to prove their theories. Sadly, some ignore ambiguous results or even falsify evidence to keep their pet theories going. But this is a minority. The history of science is one of continuous refinement of theories, each one fitting the world better. Science only 'closes it's mind' to theories that do not fit the facts.

Religious people perform no such experiments, they just point to the bit in the bible where it says, "Though shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." (or the equivalent in whatever book they believe in - I'm not singling out christians here) and look smug.

Lastly, the scientific community contains the same proportion of religious people as the rest of society. To discuss the 2 as somehow separate is disingenuous.


They'll deny sciencetific fact, such as the Earth is round. That's closed minded also.

Actually, the Earth is an oblate spheroid (http://regentsprep.org/Regents/earthsci/units/introduction/oblate.cfm). Flat-Earthers come into the absurd category in my book.


I don't believe they will ever prove a spieces changes into another. I've said before, you can create a mule, but it cannot reproduce itself. But change within the species is a proven fact. Take care.

Where do new viruses and bacteria come from then? The process of evolution is much easier to see in these little critters because the timescales are much shorter. Was the H.I.V. virus hanging around, not infecting anyone, for thousands of years? No, it evolved. Whether naturally, from a monkey disease in Africa, or artificially, in a CIA lab in a bunker in the Mojave, I have no idea.

Similarly with bird flu. At present, human to human infection does not occur. Should we just assume that God created this bug at the beginning of time, to attack avian species only, and take no precautions?

[Pendragon]

Where do new viruses and bacteria come from then? The process of evolution is much easier to see in these little critters because the timescales are much shorter. Was the H.I.V. virus hanging around, not infecting anyone, for thousands of years? No, it evolved. Whether naturally, from a monkey disease in Africa, or artificially, in a CIA lab in a bunker in the Mojave, I have no idea.

Similarly with bird flu. At present, human to human infection does not occur. Should we just assume that God created this bug at the beginning of time, to attack avian species only, and take no precautions?Well, XC, despite their evolving, and note that I say that they have, they are still viruses and bacteria. They haven't bumped up the evolutionary chart into something different entirely, like, say, an ameoba. Certainly we should take precautions. I said once that somewhere on this planet is a cure for every illness. But science has to find it, and that takes a lot of work. I saw a research scientist the other day on TV talking about how hard that is to do. He was standing in a snowstorm and said "Only one of these snowflakes will be the right forumla to cure a disease and be able to be taken by humans. We have to find it." That put things into perspective. Similiarly, the very DNA codes discovered by science make it harder for me to accept chance evolution. For example: They print out a DNA code for a certain man. It comes out as a sequence of bars, kind of like a bar code. Now, here in VA, a man was up for execution for the rape and murder of his sister-in-law--happened about 100 miles from here. It made National news as he swore he was innocent. He had given blood for a DNA test, then had his lawyer block it. On the day of his execution, the Governor gave him a final chance--a lie-detector test. He failed, and was executed. People protested. They finally did the DNA. It was 1 in an number to big to write against them executing the wrong man. He had a rare signature in his DNA which they said there was probably not another match for in the whole USA. That's unique. Can chance produce human DNA, given that every line has to come up true? Given enough tries, yes. Possibe, but unlikely. But I concede it's possible.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Well, XC, despite their evolving, and note that I say that they have, they are still viruses and bacteria. They haven't bumped up the evolutionary chart into something different entirely, like, say, an ameoba.

Are you saying that all bacteria are of the same species? All Viruses? In that case, why not all birds? All mammals? Are humans just a variation on shrews?


Certainly we should take precautions. I said once that somewhere on this planet is a cure for every illness. But science has to find it, and that takes a lot of work. I saw a research scientist the other day on TV talking about how hard that is to do. He was standing in a snowstorm and said "Only one of these snowflakes will be the right forumla to cure a disease and be able to be taken by humans. We have to find it." That put things into perspective.

Do you mean a 'natural' cure, already in existence? Or that a cure can be developed by medical science? If the former, is there also a cure out there for the diseases that haven't evolved yet? Or has the cure yet to evolve too?


Similiarly, the very DNA codes discovered by science make it harder for me to accept chance evolution. For example: They print out a DNA code for a certain man. It comes out as a sequence of bars, kind of like a bar code. Now, here in VA, a man was up for execution for the rape and murder of his sister-in-law--happened about 100 miles from here. It made National news as he swore he was innocent. He had given blood for a DNA test, then had his lawyer block it. On the day of his execution, the Governor gave him a final chance--a lie-detector test. He failed, and was executed. People protested. They finally did the DNA. It was 1 in an number to big to write against them executing the wrong man. He had a rare signature in his DNA which they said there was probably not another match for in the whole USA. That's unique. Can chance produce human DNA, given that every line has to come up true? Given enough tries, yes. Possibe, but unlikely. But I concede it's possible.

I really don't follow your argument here. What do you mean by, "Can chance produce human DNA, given that every line has to come up true?" Chance didn't produce human DNA, evolution and natural selection did. The exact DNA sequence is unique to each individual, in every species. A species is merely a group of individuals with sufficiently similar DNA, that they can breed and produce viable offspring. There are 23 pairs of chromosones in every human cell. Every single one of these can be inherited from either the father or mother. The number of possible different individuals produced by combining the chromosones of the same parents is 25,852,016,738,884,976,640,000. That is the chance of you having the same genetic code of your sibling (unless you are an identical twin.) When you multiply this by the number of possible parents in the world, the numbers get really big and scary.

[Pendragon]

Are you saying that all bacteria are of the same species? All Viruses? Not at all. Just still all bacteria and still all viruses. They did not become something else entirely.



Do you mean a 'natural' cure, already in existence? Or that a cure can be developed by medical science? If the former, is there also a cure out there for the diseases that haven't evolved yet? Or has the cure yet to evolve too? Developed from things already here by medical research. And perhaps, if the disease is caused by a viruses that has mutated or evolved, a plant or something may have to evolve also for the cure to be found. I'm flexible to a certain extent, since I do believe we evolved since the dawn of time and continue to do so as new things arise for us to either adapt to or perish.




I really don't follow your argument here. What do you mean by, "Can chance produce human DNA, given that every line has to come up true?" Chance didn't produce human DNA, evolution and natural selection did. The exact DNA sequence is unique to each individual, in every species. A species is merely a group of individuals with sufficiently similar DNA, that they can breed and produce viable offspring. There are 23 pairs of chromosones in every human cell. Every single one of these can be inherited from either the father or mother. The number of possible different individuals produced by combining the chromosones of the same parents is 25,852,016,738,884,976,640,000. That is the chance of you having the same genetic code of your sibling (unless you are an identical twin.) When you multiply this by the number of possible parents in the world, the numbers get really big and scary.That scary number, called "helliacious" by my math prof., is why I discount chance as the begining of the evolution process. That is what I meant. Actually trying an experiment with primorial soup an infinate number of times could beat chance. To prove a theory, however, I was always taught that you must be able to discount random chance. My own opinion.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Not at all. Just still all bacteria and still all viruses. They did not become something else entirely.

Actually, there is a greater similarity between the genetic makeup of a human and a cat than there is between some species of bacteria and others. The two mammals share over 75% of their DNA. Two separate bacteria species can have less than 10% in common. Which species evolved most? Saying that because they are still bacteria, they haven't 'become something else entirely' is inaccurate.


That scary number, called "helliacious" by my math prof., is why I discount chance as the begining of the evolution process. That is what I meant. Actually trying an experiment with primorial soup an infinate number of times could beat chance. To prove a theory, however, I was always taught that you must be able to discount random chance. My own opinion.

I don't follow your logic here. That hellacious number is exactly why chance must be involved. With such a incredible number of possible outcomes from every successful mating, species are bound to diversify.

But what I really don't get, is how this ties in with the origins of life. No-one is suggesting that humans sprang from the primordial soup fully formed. The first 'life' was probably more akin to viruses. These can contain as little as a few dozen genes.

And exactly how long did the original experiment with primordial soup last? How many times was it repeated? I don't know, do you? No-one has any idea how long the conditions were right for life to begin before it finally did - Maybe it happened really quickly, say 10,000 years; maybe 100s of millions of years, that's time enough for a lot of experimenting.

[Green Lady]

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


Hey, here's a loop for ya. I believe in both creation AND evolution. I tried to explain this to one of my friends but she's a little close-minded when it comes to stuff like that. Okay, the scriptures merely say, and God made this and that but it never says HOW he made anything. There's the whole made them from the dusts of the earth somewhere, but I don't think it was exactly dirt. The scriptures are very old, written before anyone knew what DNA was or molecules so wouldn't they put what they saw and heard the way they understood it with what little knowledge they had back then?

So, God made this and that by using a chemistry set far more superior than any known to man... (okay, I'm being a bit sarcastic). He used these molecules and those and put them together to make different things (Okay, again, a little sarcastic and far more complicated than I'm putting things) . If you don't want to believe in a God or higher being, just use the same "they explained things the way they understood it with what little knowledge they had" idea again just say natural occurances brought across creation.

Okay, and where does evolution fit into this whole belief of mine? As far as I'm concerned, evolution can also be referred to as change. Humans have changed over the years. They've gotten taller (except for me :mad: ), things have changed a bit. We're not talking about evolution like X-men super-human evolution, just minor changes over the years that have added up to a slightly different appearance of humans over time. For example, my parents have/had wisdom teeth but lo and behold... I wasn't born with any. So, there ya go. Evolution, in a small way.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

We're not talking about evolution like X-men super-human evolution, just minor changes over the years that have added up to a slightly different appearance of humans over time. For example, my parents have/had wisdom teeth but lo and behold... I wasn't born with any. So, there ya go. Evolution, in a small way.

Wisdom teeth are so-called because you don't grow them until you are older (and presumably wiser, although that is not always the case). Were you born with any teeth at all for that matter? That would be evolutionarily interesting!

[Green Lady]

Wisdom teeth are so-called because you don't grow them until you are older (and presumably wiser, although that is not always the case). Were you born with any teeth at all for that matter? That would be evolutionarily interesting!

Must...control...laughter.... :lol: ..........
.......
.........
Okay... I was going to look up the technical term for wisdom teeth but I'm too lazy to do that even though it would probably be a simple google away. I've heard that story about wisdom teeth though. I can assure you that I wasn't born with teeth already sprouting but I did after awhile get baby teeth and then my permanent teeth, though my mouth is so messed up (I blame it on my father) that I'm still waiting for one tooth to come down and I'm almost 18. I have to agree though, being born without any teeth whatsoever would be intriguing though annoying.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I didn't get my first wisdom tooth till I was about 20. But I was real wise like way before that! ;)

[beer good]

So if you have your wisdom teeth pulled, does your wisdom drop instantly or do you gradually devolve?

[Theshizznigg]

What a cute little demoniod that Cthulhu is.
Actually I find the evidence, and myth surrounding the elder gods extremely interesting when held up against the teachings of Christianity.

[water lily]

I wish that there was an unbiased collection of evidence somewhere that one could examine oneself and come to ones own conclusions. But it seems like whenever there's an anti-ecolutionary book out there it's written by someone with strong and unwavering religious convictions. And on the other side, "hard-core evolutionists" (if I may borrow Pendragon's terminology) don't seem to be willing to aknowledge the possibility of the other side, and their very belief in evolution causes them to automatically discount any "evidence" that may go against it. Us humans have the ability to rationalize anything we want to. And it just seems to me like everyone chose their side on the issue and then looked at the evidence.

Anyways, there's my speel. I was just reading through all this, and had a big moment of internal conflict. I've learned so much more about evolution recently, and have leaned towards accepting it, as my past posts may have suggested. But right now I'd really rather forget about it all, and live in a state of perpetual indecision. Blah!

I got my wisdom teeth removed in the summer, maybe they're the key to all of this. Maybe with them, everything would seem clearer. Maybe its some massive conspiracy of the dentist industry. They want to be the only "wise" ones, so they can make smart investments and things and dupe the rest of us into paying for oral surgery.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Water Lily,

You seem to be falling into the trap that so many have found in this thread. You assume that there are "the religious" on one side and "the scientists" on the other. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many scientists hold deep religious views. Many christians (and those of other faiths) can quite happily hold both a belief in evolution and a belief in God. My arguments in here have never been directed against those believers and I doubt that those of others have either. The argument is against dogmatic, literal belief in the creation legend, as laid out in the Bible.

I also refute the claim that the minds of those that believe in evolution are closed to any evidence against it. Science doesn't work like that - if it did, we'd still be living on a flat Earth. Science demands proof of it's theories. Religion doesn't.

I suggest that you seek out the views of someone that shares your religious convictions but also believes in evolutionary theory. I'm sure there are many websites offering those kinds of views.

You are completely right about dentists though - they are all evil!

[Christian]

What about evolution? Is there any way evolution and the Bible can both be true? The answer would depend on your definition of evolution. The simple answer is no! If one takes as his or her definition the full-blown atheistic version of evolution, it might go something like this. From some early inanimate environment on the earth, a living thing spontaneously arose by some sort of random, natural process without any interference by any supernatural power. The atheistic version of this theory would continue to claim that this one-celled initial life form was transformed into every species of plant, animal and so forth which has ever inhabited through a process of organic evolution.

This definition is really more a dogmatic, semi-religious assumption than a provable scientific hypothesis. Nevertheless, if it is true, then there is absolutely no way that the atheistic full-blown neo-Darwinist evolutionary assumption can be reconciled with the Bible. Genesis chapter one, and indeed the entire Bible creates the clear impression that life was created by the supernatural command of God. Genesis one further seems to imply that at different times, God created various "kinds" (to use the non-technical Hebrew term) of plants, animals and so forth. Again, this is absolutely irreconcilable with the atheistic definition above.

So the radical atheistic formulation of the evolutionary concept is incompatible with the Bible. A better question, perhaps, is whether some sort of limited evolution is compatible with what the Bible teaches. The answer would depend on one's view of Genesis one (see question 1). If one interprets Genesis chapter one to imply an earth only a few thousands of years old--one which was created in six literal twenty-four hour periods, then the answer is again no. There is no way that any really significant evolutionary change could occur in such a short time frame. Perhaps a dog could have been "evolved" from wolves in that time frame, but certainly humans and chimps could not have evolved from some common primate ancestor in that amount of time, never mind mammals from fish.

If, on the other hand, one allows for the "days" of Genesis chapter one to represent great periods of time for God's creation, then perhaps some sort of limited evolution may become possible. The question of the actual mechanism by which evolution occurs would still remain, but that would be something for the scientists to solve. The fact is that the fossil record is quite consistent with a forest rather than a single tree of evolution. In other words, the fossil record would be consistent with the possibility that a creator produced various species at various times in the distant past of the earth, followed by some sort of evolution of those created species. In fact, Darwin himself, in his earlier editions of Origin of Species allowed for the possibility that there may have been a number of different original species. The most famous example in the fossil record of species seeming to appear virtually out of nothing on geological timescales is what is known as the Cambrian explosion. At a point in the very distant past, every major body form appears in the fossil record, seemingly with no obvious precursors, in virtually zero time. Naturalistic evolutionary theories struggle mightily with the fossil record.

Do cats and lions have a common ancestor? Perhaps. Could all fish have evolved from some sort of original created fish? Possibly. Did the original one-celled organism evolve into human beings? The Bible clearly seems to say no! The fact remains that the Bible does not answer each of these questions in detail. Therefore it would be wise for individuals to investigate the question carefully and reach their own conclusions, but to not be overly dogmatic about areas which are debatable.

[Christian]

I believe the evidence for creation of life and the recreation by our saviour Jesus Christ is overwhelming, and that the evidence for godless evolution is questionable.

[Christian]

But you owe it to yourself to at least examine the evidence that stands to say that this is a matter of life and death and determine for yourself whether it is or not, if you look at it from the Adventist(now this is the church that I belong to but by no means is salvation restricted to a particular church, the best knowledge regarding it however does seem to be) perspective accompanied with an objective outlook you will become a Christian. Prove me wrong, I dare you, it will simply be heaven's gain if you try, for you will come to find you have eternal life if you but reach for it

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Christian,

You make a very big assumption.

You assume that all christians believe in Genesis chapter 1, or indeed in any of Genesis. I know many devout christians who hold that it is nothing more than it appears to be; the attempt by technologically simple people to describe the origin of the world around them. A legend, nothing more. I quite agree that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Genesis; that is the whole purpose of this thread!

I would also question why only 'limited' evolution would be possible if the 'days' of Genesis were in fact great periods of time? Kindly explain these limits.

Scientists have explained the mechanism of evolution. Or do you deny the existence of DNA, that characteristics can be passed down from parents to offspring and the occurence of mutations? This was not part of Darwin's original theory. For many years, the genetic theories of Gregor Mendel were deemed incompatible with Darwin's own. The two were only merged at the turn of the 20th century. DNA was not found to be the 'stuff' of heredity until the 1960s (by Watson & Crick) and the exact mapping of the human genome has only been completed this century.

Science has happily adapted it's theory to fit all of these new facts. Each one has proved to reinforce Darwin's ideas. That he developed them without the knowledge that we possess now is remarkable. That there are those that still refuse to accept his theories, I find more remarkable still.

And, one final point, the Cambrian explosion marks the point at which the first hard shelled, marine creatures evolved. These fossilise relatively easily. Prior to that, all living things were soft bodied, with neither shells nor skeletons. These do not fossilise because their bodies rot completely, or are eaten, before they getr the chance. Fossils from before this period do exist, but they are extremely rare. There is no mystery here.

And there is no struggle with the fossil record, only in the minds of those desperate to force it into an ancient model of thought.

I have read the Bible. Please consider reciprocating and read a decent modern biology textbook. Base your ideas on evolutionary theory on what the theorists actually think rather than on the half-baked rantings on some fundamentalist christian website.

And the Bible doesn't answer all of the questions in detail because they didn't exist when it was written. Jesus himself had a lot of positive things to say aboiut the way that human beings should treat each other. The rest is just myth and legend; smoke and mirrors.

[Pendragon]

May I ask one simple question without hopefully angering anyone? Most people that have posted have at one point or other made a stand as to how they believe. I have myself, several times, stated that I belive in a Creator (not necessarily the exact way Genesis is written, see XC's statement above)
and in Evolution that continues to this very day. Others have stated no Intelligent Design, just Evolution, period. Some have stated Creationism only. Fine. Isn't this horse dead enough yet? We keep beating on it with the same round-robin of arguments like it's going to get up and walk. It's fossilized by now from being buried in the retoric of cessless arguments. If you are happy with what you believe, stick to it like glue. But in all reality, this has been argued for years with no end in sight. With that in mind, and still standing firm on what I believe, which in no way affects my friendship with those with opposing views, I'm going to bow out now, keeping my dignity intact. Good luck to everyone and may you find your own answers to the question a rock to stand on and be proud to defend. Pendragon, always a friend to anyone and everyone who needs a friend... :nod:

[Orionsbelt]

ust sharing what I think.

The bible story is a poem. A wonderful poem written by a man trying to grasp what we all try to grasp. The stanza is repeated in poetic effect. "and the evening and the morning were the ..... day" Listen closely and hear him cry out in awe at what his soul has apprehended. There are thousands of these poems in the bible and religious texts all over the world. This is an example of the heart speaking to the mind. The science is poor, the world here just appeared... magic... but it is of no consequence. A deeper need is being expressed.

Science is not the same thing. Science is based on evidence. If you postulate the existance of a creator, then you must be able to perform a test, an experiment, to prove the hypothesis. You need to find direct evidence ot the creator. Not indirect evidence like creationism or intelligent design attempts to do. In law it would be called circumstancial evidence. Science is the study of nature. God is supernatural ... beyond nature... not scientifically testable... Evolution is a theory or nature, hypothesis with evidence to support it. However more than anything else evolution is a discovery. There is a dynamic for change. Would you honestly believe that an intellegent being would create a static unchanging place? Would you? If you believe in God... it is simply a choice and nothing more, be at peace with it... then is it possible that evolution was built into the natural world by the supernatural inventor as a natural mechanism for change. Hmmm new hypothesis. No evidence. Does it matter? At the most fundimental level we don't understand life. We have studied the mechanics very well. The chemicals interact according to the patterns written in the dna and in complete accord with natural law. When however a cell dies what is missing? The chemicals are present, the RNA, DNA, water are all still there at the moment of death. The mechanism stops. Sometimes it stops because something in the mechanism is broken. Like a car that has been drive too many miles. Sometimes not. What force, energy, compulsion has gone? where has it gone. We still don't know.

So my hebrew friend and I both cry out where did you go my friend? Why have you left me? What truely were you anyway? Who may I petition to understand? Evolution is science. It simply says this is what we have observed to support our speculation. This is the mechanism of nature. The mechanics of biology. If you believe in God doesn't this make it all more amazing than ever? If you study science you will be compelled to the same level of awe as the hebrew poet. You will then understand the meaning of a truely religuous experience. Ask John Glen.

[Green Lady]

Isn't this horse dead enough yet? We keep beating on it with the same round-robin of arguments like it's going to get up and walk. It's fossilized by now from being buried in the retoric of cessless arguments. If you are happy with what you believe, stick to it like glue. But in all reality, this has been argued for years with no end in sight. With that in mind, and still standing firm on what I believe, which in no way affects my friendship with those with opposing views, I'm going to bow out now, keeping my dignity intact. Good luck to everyone and may you find your own answers to the question a rock to stand on and be proud to defend. Pendragon, always a friend to anyone and everyone who needs a friend... :nod:


This forum is a microcosm of the world. The arguing never stops completely... I wish people would "stop beating the horse" though. It won't happen until some dramatic, solid proof proves one belief and one only.

[woeful painter]

*sigh* another thread, like ones in forums i previously had joined...another argument...another debate...another winding road to nothingness...

[XXdarkclarityXX]

::looks at the smoking wreckage and dead bodies which lie upon the intellectual battleground:...yeah, we're done here. I'm calling a draw, anybody disagree?

[Theshizznigg]

Christian,
XGM
You make a very big assumption.

XGM
You assume that all christians believe in Genesis chapter 1, or indeed in any of Genesis. I know many devout christians who hold that it is nothing more than it appears to be; the attempt by technologically simple people to describe the origin of the world around them. A legend, nothing more. I quite agree that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Genesis; that is the whole purpose of this thread!

SHG
As for those who believe in the theory of biblical evolution, they should ask themselves, why would God do that? I mean really why would he evolve us when he could create us? I personally can't agree with you beliefs because the bible offers no reasons to support them, neither can I imagine a omnipotent God evolving his creations when he could just make them.
We are humans, not pokemon.

XGM
I have read the Bible.
Base your ideas on evolutionary theory on what the theorists actually think rather than on the half-baked rantings on some fundamentalist christian website.

SHG
Ouch! Hurtful, yet these people are simply stating their theories which is the point of this little forum isn't it. Yet you are saying that their theroies could not have any possible signifigance because it is not your own belief, or what you believe is true. Thats not very understanding of you, is it? And unfortunately portraits you as extremely ignorant to biblical theory.
Hence the reason I apologized when I realized that I too was being forceful instead of simply stating biblical fact and other information.


As for you reading the bible, so have I, and everytime I open it again I find something new, or something that I missed, or didn't understand.
The bible is only useful to those who study with belief and conviction, otherwise its a very boring book about a fictional god, who had a carpenter for a son, and thus tried to change the outlook of man throughout the ages.

XGM
And the Bible doesn't answer all of the questions in detail because they didn't exist when it was written. Jesus himself had a lot of positive things to say aboiut the way that human beings should treat each other. The rest is just myth and legend; smoke and mirrors.

SHG
WTF? Smoke and mirrors, your comment here doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that the enitre bible is smoke and mirrors? Or the old testament? or just Genesis? Because to state that its just smoke and mirrors would be extremely ignorant of you. Because, by saying that your saying that, Sodom and Gommorah didn't exist, yet they've found the plains where they were, which I might add still don't grow anything on them due to salt, brimstone, and sulphur impacts in the ground.
Or that King David didn't exist, or that Solomon was a fictional character? How can you possibly state this, when old records of other histories are showing the bible to be historically accurate?
Didn't Xerxes exist, and rule the persian empire? Didn't he fight the Greeks, and was defeated.
Are you saying then that the Greek histories are all fairy tales, smoke and mirrors?
You cannot possibly state, (without looking like a very ignorant person) that the bible isn't based on historical fact, because it has been proven through the ages, again, and again that it is both historically accurate, and well detailed for a book of its time.

Shaking my head at you XGM.
Something YOU ALL NEED TO REMEMBER ABOUT GENESIS! Is that the book of Genesis was created and written by the largest contributor to the old Testament, MOSES, and that Moses merely wrote Genesis as a quick summary of the things that had happened so far.
Hence the lack of great details, like what Adam was wearing, what he looked like, how big Eves bust size was, yadi yah yah, don't appear in the book of Genesis.
Moses was catching up on thousands of years of human history, simply stating to the followers of Israel, this is what happened so far in order, and its signifigance to the Israelites.
Adam's line begat Noah, Noah's line begat Abraham, Abraham's line begat Israel, Israels children = Present day Jews, so on and so forth.

And as for it being a fairy tale, I'd like to remind you that almost every culture no matter how primitive even by todays standards, has a story of a great flood, and many also have tales about the first man, who as I've read was born from mud, spittle mixed in dirt, tear drops mixed with dust, and has had such wonderous names as Adam, Adamus, Adamanti, Eman, Amani, Oman.
Yet even more amazing is that all of these different cultures have had absolutely no pyshical interaction with Jews, Christians, Moslems, or any other culture that follow Genesis as truth.
So, how exactly do you explain the co-incedences of different mythologies and histories, not contradicting the biblical theory yet supporting it?

As for my views on evolution, I refuse to waste my precious time constantly arguing about something to people who won't believe a word, (won't even consider my arguements,) I say, regardless of how knowledgeable it is. Such is human nature. So I say this, lets agree to disagree, and those are my final thoughts on the subject.


Take care everybody.
Shizz.

"Bye bye daddy, have a wonderful day." Perfect Prudence.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I was preparing a long rebuttal of most of what you posted Thzng. But why bother. Search any of the subjects you mention above on Wikipedia, or try the Encyclopaedia Britannica at your local library, if you consider wiki too biased. Either way, you'll get a more balanced view of all the possible interpretations than from your friendly neighbourhood christian propoganda site.

One thing I'll point out for free though - Brimstone is Sulphur.

;) XC

[Green Lady]

::looks at the smoking wreckage and dead bodies which lie upon the intellectual battleground:...yeah, we're done here. I'm calling a draw, anybody disagree?


*Looks up at previous post* Looks like someone's disagreeing about calling a draw :( . Please!!! Stop the carnage!

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Since when did a score of 53.85 to 36.81 constitute a draw? I claim victory for evolution! And a very respectable runners-up score for the creationists.

It's the 9% that don't know what to think that worries me. Are they waiting for someone to tell them? Or do they just prefer not to think?

And why have we heard nothing from the 'none of the above' faction? I'm sure they have lots of interesting theories as to how we got here - why didn't they share them?

Anyway, if we stop now, someone'll just start another similar thread in a week or two. May as well just keep going and avoid the déja vu. ;)

[Evergreenleaf]

It's the 9% that don't know what to think that worries me. Are they waiting for someone to tell them? Or do they just prefer not to think?
They might prefer not to think. They might also be weighing their options still, looking at evidence and trying to figure out what is most compelling. It was a long time before I figured out what I believe.

I used to think that there was no beginning, that everything just always was and always would be, but that was when I was a little kid and the present was all that mattered. Ah, those were the good days.

Well, not really. I prefer knowledge to ignorance, even blissful ignorance.

So if anyone is wondering, I go with evolution.

[atiguhya padma]

There seems no reason to believe in Creationism. All evidence seems against the idea of the Biblical account. I was holding an ammonite in my hands only yesterday thinking, how incredible it is that anyone with any sense could imagine this to have lived less than 6000 years ago. But, of course, though we live in a world that has had 400 years of science and 3,000 years or more of philosophy, society is still ruled by irrational superstition.

[Green Lady]

And why have we heard nothing from the 'none of the above' faction? I'm sure they have lots of interesting theories as to how we got here - why didn't they share them?


I put 'none of the above' and I gave my opinion. I couldn't just pick one (creationism, evolution) 'cause I believe in both.

And I do believe we should call it a draw, even if another thread is brought up. This one's getting so long it's giving me a headache.

[falling*moon]

l believe in the two ..too.. i guess

[Xamonas Chegwe]

So,

Green Lady & Falling Moon,

I guess what you're sayng is not "None of the above" but "All of the above" - an obvious oversight by the thread's founder. I can respect that (while disagreeing of course). :nod:

Do we have any "Prefer not to think"s out there - will they own up?

[jollyollie]

Excuse me if "hijack" the thread and make a comment about creationism and natural diversity. that is the topic here is it not?
I think that it is absolutely naive for anyone to selfishly consider the planet earth to be a christians only mechanism, where all the creatures and resources on the planet were created to benefit one species that christians chauvanistically call "man".
Were all the animals were created to be used or eaten by "man"?
Were all the trees were created by a supreme entity for the exclusive use of "man"?
the earth may be polluted, raped and destroyed just as long as 'man' is benefitting from this outcome?
maybe god is in the form of a cockroach who created "MAN" for the sole purpose of carelessly discarding pizza boxes, so that the cockroach race, created by the cockroach god in His likeness, would have free food to eat forever, and "man" is just a supporting character, insignificant and disposable? Hmm?
there are too many genetically unique species out there to think selfishly that everything was created for "mans" exclusive use and abuse alone, regardless of the needs of the millions of other threatened species that are forced to share the world with "man"; the taker, the destroyer.
Creationism is antiquated sentiment, just like the idea that the earth was created in less than a fortnight.
this idea is disrespectful to the creatures with whom we share this planet, and who's destiny is ultmately our own.
om

[TodHackett]

I just got back from a talk given by Dr. Pigliucci at EKU, so I'm revved up for this one!

Creationism or evolutionism? First off, it's a false question. Science is a method that is applied to certain questions that can be answered empirically. And frankly, being a lit-hack-wannabe, I'm amazed that there seems to be this attitude out there that if something isn't science, it isn't worth studying. Out of the whole pie of human knowledge and experience, that which can be called "science" is a tiny sliver!

Still, the Creationists, at least the hardcore ones, want "Intelligent Design" taught as science. Well, it isn't science 'cause you can't empirically prove or disprove the existence of God. And that's not saying that the idea of Creationism isn't worth studying. It's saying it isn't science, which is totally different. And to me, as a lit-hack-wannabe, the question of "Why was it so easy for Iago to make Othello jealous over Desdemona on such flimsy evidence?" is WAY more interesting than science. So is the whole "is there a God?" thing, though nothing groundbreaking has been done on that since the Existentialists. And so, for that matter, is the question of "Intelligent Design".

So, that's me on my fourth beer. Man, I'm gonna be **** at work tomorrow! And why the **** can't I sleep?!?

[jollyollie]

Pretty dag nab quite round here. Must be that there is no debate (imagine that). We can once again hoist the victorious on our shoulders.
Darwin rules from beyond the grave!
Excuse me while I gloat.

[Theshizznigg]

Oh my, why debate?
If you are Christian be content that God made you, if not be content that apes appropriated you.
And if your an Anarchist be in-content with everything.
The more you tell either that they are wrong, the harder they will stiffen their resolves toward their ideals.
It like beating the waves of the sea with a bat.

[jollyollie]

Oh my, why debate?
If you are Christian be content that God made you, if not be content that apes appropriated you.
And if your an Anarchist be in-content with everything.
The more you tell either that they are wrong, the harder they will stiffen their resolves toward their ideals.
It like beating the waves of the sea with a bat.
Just as long as you dont beat any people with that bat.
What if someone doesnt have a category? Does one have to be christian or not christian? Antichrist? Is there another choice? You got somethin against apes? you refute your prehistoric ancestry for what? So that you can wear your hair like a god? I spose its easier for someone to torture a primate in captivity if they refute thier genetic similarity. Fish dont have feelings right? So givem another bash with your bat.
I am a part of this earth, related to rock and stone, bee and fluff, ape and man. A book of scriptures doesnt make me better or worse than a wombat or a slug. we all share this earth in union with all its living creatures. when we place ourselves above other tenants here, we ultimately are alone and alien, unforgiven for our destrutive capabilities. Part of the entropic process: Part of the problem.
How many molecules of carbon dioxide did you liberate last year?

[jollyollie]

Just as long as you dont beat any people with that bat.
What if someone doesnt have a category? Does one have to be christian or not christian? Antichrist? Is there another choice? You got somethin against apes? you refute your prehistoric ancestry for what? So that you can wear your hair like a god? I spose its easier for someone to torture a primate in captivity if they refute thier genetic similarity. Fish dont have feelings right? So givem another bash with your bat.
I am a part of this earth, related to rock and stone, bee and fluff, ape and man. A book of scriptures doesnt make me better or worse than a wombat or a slug. we all share this earth in union with all its living creatures. when we place ourselves above other tenants here, we ultimately are alone and alien, unforgiven for our destrutive capabilities. Part of the entropic process: Part of the problem.
How many molecules of carbon dioxide did you liberate last year?
looks like ther is no debate. Victory is ours!

[woeful painter]

you know...there IS a good solution for this....would someone create a time machine to send a group of people back in the beginnings of time and see, feel, hear, smell err...taste..(uh whatever) just experience it all with his five senses?...and then when they come back with the info we can all relax while battering one another yelling "I told you so!" :lol:

[Geochelonian]

Hmmm...It seems like this whole question has a lot to do with another thread in this forum, about what was before God...

The basic questions which neither evolutionists or creationists can answer are
1. If God created everything, where did God come from?
2. If the universe was created by the eruption of the 'cosmic egg', where did the cosmic egg come from?

If you consider it, the questions are identical: Where does the beginning begin? Something creates something else. Why not postulate a God? It's as logical as a cosmic egg... ;)

[jollyollie]

Hmmm...It seems like this whole question has a lot to do with another thread in this forum, about what was before God...

The basic questions which neither evolutionists or creationists can answer are
1. If God created everything, where did God come from?
2. If the universe was created by the eruption of the 'cosmic egg', where did the cosmic egg come from?

If you consider it, the questions are identical: Where does the beginning begin? Something creates something else. Why not postulate a God? It's as logical as a cosmic egg... ;)
Yeah. Hmmm.
Anyways, what is the right thing to teach children in a world that has more than one religion? DO you teach them in science class that God made the earth in six days? DO you teach them in English class that the bible is the only worthwhile read? If dolphins could talk, would you convince them to adapt to ID? Is this responsible? Would they believe you. And what if they didnt, what could you do? SO much for the dolphins. Maybe theyre just stupid anyways right?
This is the point here. It is not a discussion for the hell of it. There are people out there who need to know what scientific thought is based on. Linear thinking sets dangerous principles.
The earth and the universe are unique opportunities to observe and learn about things we have no idea about. To lump all mysteries into the "ask god" categaory is kinda silly. We need to teach our next generations to speculate effectively about things we accept as truth without fear of recrimination. This is a shared responsibilty.

[Geochelonian]

You seem to read a lot more into what i said than i actually said. And, of course this is a conversation just for the hell of it! All conversations on this site are just that, since no one here has the power to do anything.
Children need to be taught science as science. Unless the school is a religious school, religion should not be taught. But that's very different from ignoring what's probably the most influential text in Western literature - the Bible.
Ultimately, and no matter what they've been taught, they will believe what they want to believe, what they choose to believe. But they must be taught to think . Unfortunately, education - especially in college - is often more a matter of indoctrination than teaching. And too often, science has become something of a religion in itself, with the general public believing, without serious questioning on their part, what a prominent scientist says, just because he is a scientist...and prominent. Consider Piltdown Man...

[Stanislaw]

I have to disagree that religion should not be taught in schools, I think it should. Learning the religion of another group of people is the best way to understand secular thinking of that culture. I think a world realigion class should be on the curriculum for highschool, even if you don't believe in the religion, it still is important to realize the different points of view.

I like what you said about post-secondary indoctrination. nice choice of words. :thumbs_up

[Geochelonian]

It's a very good idea to teach religion as an information class, as long as it's kept as pure information. When I was young, it was very common for public school teachers to expound on their religious views (all Christian) and even to attempt to use their postion in an intimidating way. I had a Jewish friend back then, and I knew this bothered him.

[jollyollie]

You seem to read a lot more into what i said than i actually said. And, of course this is a conversation just for the hell of it! All conversations on this site are just that, since no one here has the power to do anything.
Children need to be taught science as science. Unless the school is a religious school, religion should not be taught. But that's very different from ignoring what's probably the most influential text in Western literature - the Bible.
Ultimately, and no matter what they've been taught, they will believe what they want to believe, what they choose to believe. But they must be taught to think . Unfortunately, education - especially in college - is often more a matter of indoctrination than teaching. And too often, science has become something of a religion in itself, with the general public believing, without serious questioning on their part, what a prominent scientist says, just because he is a scientist...and prominent. Consider Piltdown Man...
This is the nature of the discussion. This is the reason that it went before the supreme court in the first place, and the reason IDers lost. ID has no place in public school.It is the law ( inthe states)

[Mentor]

Aristotle, the father of all modern logical thought, spoke of an "Unmoved Mover" as the center of all creation. While his underlying logic is different from today's usage, the concept is appealingly simple. Can't we leave it at that?

As for the teapot tempest today about how things came to be as they are: The debate is fueled by those with poorly-hidden agendas, unahppily bigoted and vicious. It's no more than that.

In simple (but not simplistic) terms, it's a matter of Faith and Reason, two faces of one coin. There can be no valid argument about supremacy of one or the other, since Faith and Reason speak on two different levels of discourse. We can easily live with two different views of how things came to be "evolved" and/or "created": How lacking in significant difference are these two world views!)

A sense of Wisdom would let the matter rest in peace (RIP). After all, aren't there simply too many REAL problems that need to be faced in daily life, problems for each of us individually and collectively, problems that are frighteningly global in scope? Now, is the "tempest in a teapot" perhaps a mechanism to avoid thinking about what's TRULY important: Peace, justice, an end to violence and to hunger and to all the miseries all too real in our world? Obsessing on other topics pales into selfishness by comparison.

[Stanislaw]

This is the nature of the discussion. This is the reason that it went before the supreme court in the first place, and the reason IDers lost. ID has no place in public school.It is the law ( inthe states)


Why are those not in favour of ID afraid to teach it in public schools, shouldn't the children be allowed to choose what they think is right? to teach that it is the only option is as much as a crime as to not teach it at all.

[Geochelonian]

Because ID, and any other theory which can't be demonstrated by the known laws of the physical universe can't be "taught". Any such teaching would, ultimately, devolve into dogmatic indoctrination into the beliefs of the teacher.
The other side of the coin is that the non-existence of a deity, or deities, should not be taught either. Science should be taught as science, religious dogma as religious dogma. This should not, however, preclude the use of religious texts in education. Wht shouldn't I be able to use the story of the snake in the Garden of Eden as an example of a nature myth that teaches a moral lesson, as much as I use the story of Prometheus to teach essentially the same point (obedience to authority)? And how could I teach the origins of Luther's rebellion against the Church without referring to the Scriptural passages that are the points of difference between Catholics and Protestants?

The whole problem lies in the extremists on either side (fundamentalists vs ultra liberals) who insist on making a major issue (the already referred to tempest in a teapot) out of what shouldn't even be an issue.

[elpidi26]

While many people find a problem with the fact that evolution couldn't occur because it violates the scriptures rendering of God's creative works being completed in seven days, I'd like to make a note on the word "day" and the implications it irrevocably intimates. There are seven days and God's early creative endeavors are complete (Of course, He rests on the seventh day).

It's interesting to note that the stars aren't created until the fourth day. Our sun is a star. What I am assuming here is that the light in "Let there be Light" isn't the sun. The sun is created along with the rest of the stars in day four. Now, if that is the case, and if we base our solar mean days on the spinning of the earth on its axis with the sun as a reference point(e.g., light-day/dark-night/back to light=1 day), how were the days prior to the sun being created (i.e., days 1-3) calculated? They couldn't be.

This poses an interesting question? What does the word "day" mean then. Interestingly enough, the original Hebrew word is "yom," which can be translated day (literal day). However, it can also be translated aeon, or age. Think about this. 7 yoms or 7 undisclosed periods of time through which God effects reality and everything in it (universe, space, time, light, etc.) Now we can go back to each day and surmise what is being said

[ASIDE: The Bible is neither a book of history nor science (though both can found therein), i.e., it was never intended to written as a scientific or historical work. According to Christians, it is the exhaustive story of the redemptive work of God for man. Also the original Hebrew language of the Old Testament is extremely poetic. These are writers writing with their own individual personalities emanating from their work.]

Day one-Darkness, emptiness, and a mysterious water (no one knows)

"Let there be light"-big bang perhaps?

The rest can be perceived as the story of evolution from the first forms of energy being converted into mass, according to Einstein's E=m(c squared). First formations of stars via interstellar media. Planets evolving from dead star matter...and then Darwinian evolution.

According to the Bible, the first organisms aren't created until the fifth day (yom). The first vegetation was created on the second day. Who knows how long this actually took and how it was effected. Note that the Bible never says. Why could God not have chosen to use evolution as His creative apparatus. And the rest of the story, all the way to the emergence of man in verse 27, follows the same train of thought.

I find this to be the most plausible theory in amalgamating the belief of the scientific erudites and the religious community that affirms creation.

The psalmist addresses God, "Lord,...You turn men back to dust, saying, 'Return to dust, O sons of men.' For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night" (Psalm 90:1-4).

This may seem bizarre and fanciful language to some, but most theologians well affirm that God exists "out of time." That is, they believe that God is not bound by the constraints and confines that time exerts; as time is a creation of God, God necessarily remains unfettered by time's trappings. While this seems a bit mystical and speculative to some, self-avowed atheists who are thoroughly acquainted with the principles of Relativity would have no problem with this maxim of theology. For they note that if something can travel fast enough, space and time can be literally manipulated to any scale (Time dilation & length contraction for those that care).

Theoretically, if someone traveling in a space ship travels to a distant star 20-ly's away (ly-light year, where one light year is defined as the distance light travels in a year--approx. 6 trillion miles, i.e., 6x10^12 miles) with a velocity of 80% of the speed of light, by the time the person in the ship made the round trip, people on earth will have aged 50 yrs., whereas the crew aboard the space ship will have only aged 30 yrs. The math is simple algebra and the explanation is a bit technical, but the idea, famously called the twin paradox, denotes that the faster one travels, the slower time becomes. Again, theoretically if one could travel at the speed of light, time would cease to exist. This is what occurs at the event horizon of black holes (the beginning of curvature toward the black hole's singularity--the escape velocity to escape the pull [gravity] becomes so great that even light at an amazing speed of 186,282.860 miles per second (299,792.458 km/sec) can't escape it).

I have a point with the science lesson, I promise. Most, if not all Christians posit that God possesses attributes which separate Him completely from anyone/anything else. He is omniscient-knows all things. He is omnipresent-everywhere at all times. He is omnipotent-can do all things (ASIDE: all things that do not violate His moral/righteous nature, e.g., God cannot lie or do evil). The last point on His Omnipotence is important. If He can do all things, he can travel infinitely fast if need be to be everywhere always. While I am not stating that this is the case (Most theologians state God as spiritual and not corporeal---though if he wants, he can adopt a corporeal nature, e.g., Jesus Christ's kenosis), I am simply stating He could do this should He so choose. This inevitably leads to the conclusion that if He were bound to the constraints of time/space, He could break free and slow time, freeze time, and/or travel back in time (think about what might happen if, when traveling at the speed of light-time stops, what would happen if you traveled faster than the speed of light. Therefore, the relativity learned atheist would tell you this kind of God could stop time. Then they would tell you He doesn't exist.

Conclusion. Of course a day in God's "time frame" is different from ours. Because God is not bound to time in the sense that we are, it is exactly possible, in fact, more plausible to believe that the enumerated days of the Genesis story are not literal 24-hour periods.

Further food for thought on the matter. Where did the moon come from? Do a little reading and you'll find that the leading theory promulgates that early Earth, in its early formative years some 4.5 billion yrs ago (at this stage, the smaller Earth is called a planetesimal), collided with another smaller planetesimal. Early Earth absorbs much of this colliding planetesimal's matter due to gravity (This augments Earth's mass to its current spherical size) but much of the debris from the collision flies off in all directions which eventually forms an orbiting ring reminiscent of Saturn's rings. Eventually the debris coalesces into a giant satellite we call the moon. At this time, the moon is so close to Earth (39,000 miles away) that the gravitational tidal forces (the same forces that create high/low tides in the ocean) literally squeeze the earth as it spins on its axis. This literally produces an effect like spinning a merry-go-round. Earth spins faster. At the arrival of the moon, the earth made one revolution in six hours. That's right. One day lasted six hours. The reason for our current 24-hour day (actually 23.93 hrs [called a sidereal day] as opposed to the solar mean day of 24.00 hrs) is because the moon has slowly drifted farther away from Earth. It is currently about 239,000 miles away (and drifts about 1.5 inches farther away every year) and therefore exerts less of a gravitational force than it did in the beginning. This means that our 24-hour day will eventually become a 25-hour day, a 26-, 27-, 28-, you get the point. Puts a new perspective on the Genesis story doesn't it? A literal 24-hour day? Not likely, but not a problem for the creationist argument.

[Mentor]

Hey, you Creatures of Creationist Belief:

All you folks quoting "Scripture" or "Bible": Have you really Evolved some kind of Intelligent Design that tells you the "True" Word"?

How often are you in personal touch with the Author and Publisher of a single Bible containing The One and Only Truth? Have you rationally and/or spiritually done some fact-checking?

Or, in your terms of reference, "If God had intended that all men would know Truth, wouldn't He have given us this Supreme Gift so that we would all be able to live by His Word peaceably?

(Consider: Bibles and Scriptures galore have been promulgated by all us Earthfolks. You guys out there doing all this arguing: The hatefulness that you preach against has filled your entire Beings!

Would it not be more productive to Humankind if you devoted ALL devoted your every waking hour to simply following the Golden Rule (working to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, decrying with every breath against the promulgators of the Iraqs and Darfurs of this world). If you were to do these things, then, in your own terms, you might be worthy of a Revealed Truth, replace the petty notions on which you now so shamefully spend your energies? (Or, dreadfully, are you the Spiritual Onanists you certainly seem to be?)

[Mililalil XXIV]

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

Belief, in the sense of Biblical belief - that is, the kind of Belief posited by the Doctrine of the Bible - involves a thing very much misunderstood by all that do not have it: Faith. What is this thing? It is actually sure Knowledge. It is the undercurrent of bedrock to Knowledge, that doesn't waffle with varying illusions. One can be in a relationship with a perfectly devoted lover [I am not meaning an adultery partner by that term], and yet, for lack of Faith, despite every sensible evidence of being the object of Perfect Love, may never rest in that Knowledge, but holds it together with doubt, due to lack of Faith.


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

No it is not. It is but a theory that its own most qualified proponents admit has so little evidence as to cover a table top. Those that wrote the Bible already believed in the CREATOR. The idea of the belief in Spirit has no perfect explanation apart from the underlying Reality. There is evidence that certain markings all over what was long accepted as the dwellings of "cave men" actually functioned as grammatical writing systems. There is also lack of evidence that a great many caves full of "primitive" paintings were actually lived in by the artists, who more than likely were youths at their usual cave hangout, whose artwork, rather than matching that of better artifacts found in the same vicinity, were equivalent to today's squeegy crowds' subway graffiti. I will say much more at a more convenient time - I'm eating and typing!

[Mililalil XXIV]

(Consider: Bibles and Scriptures galore have been promulgated by all us Earthfolks. You guys out there doing all this arguing: The hatefulness that you preach against has filled your entire Beings!

Would it not be more productive to Humankind if you devoted ALL devoted your every waking hour to simply following the Golden Rule (working to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, decrying with every breath against the promulgators of the Iraqs and Darfurs of this world). If you were to do these things, then, in your own terms, you might be worthy of a Revealed Truth, replace the petty notions on which you now so shamefully spend your energies? (Or, dreadfully, are you the Spiritual Onanists you certainly seem to be?)
Not all present a case for one and the same reason. Not all things are equal. For my part, I have borne great abuse from atheists and agnostics for several years, even from those I had never spoken a word of my Faith to, and never did I base my Charity toward them on what they believed, nor my Graciousness to them on how well they treated me. But I do hate to see a lack of Love, and it is painful and irksome to see worthless behavior from falsely so-called "Christians". I hate conflict, but have many a time had to do my uncomfortable duty to challenge ways not of CHRIST manifest by those unworthy of the name "Christian". On the other hand, though, I strive to present a strong case for the Faith I know, not for the sake of conflict, but for the service of all that are seeking for answers, and who may benefit from something that gives my soul solid Peace.

[jollyollie]

Aristotle, the father of all modern logical thought, spoke of an "Unmoved Mover" as the center of all creation. While his underlying logic is different from today's usage, the concept is appealingly simple. Can't we leave it at that?

As for the teapot tempest today about how things came to be as they are: The debate is fueled by those with poorly-hidden agendas, unahppily bigoted and vicious. It's no more than that.

In simple (but not simplistic) terms, it's a matter of Faith and Reason, two faces of one coin. There can be no valid argument about supremacy of one or the other, since Faith and Reason speak on two different levels of discourse. We can easily live with two different views of how things came to be "evolved" and/or "created": How lacking in significant difference are these two world views!)

A sense of Wisdom would let the matter rest in peace (RIP). After all, aren't there simply too many REAL problems that need to be faced in daily life, problems for each of us individually and collectively, problems that are frighteningly global in scope? Now, is the "tempest in a teapot" perhaps a mechanism to avoid thinking about what's TRULY important: Peace, justice, an end to violence and to hunger and to all the miseries all too real in our world? Obsessing on other topics pales into selfishness by comparison.
IM belly laughing! lol wont do!
Im not here to educate anyone, just to shed a responsible example.

[Stanislaw]

All scientist are morons, and have no proof that the bible is 100% correct, in fact I think we should burn all of these heretics and their heretical literature. I am so sorry, you are wrong scientists and believers in Darwin, but you are all just arguing a moot point, God is the answer, genesis occured to the letter, and all you who don't see it are following archaic notions blindly.

...Sounds stupid doesn't it. Science and religion can work together, but probably won't for another couple of hundred years, untill the extremests on both ends learn to play together fairly...that Or kill every muther ****er who believes in christianity...is that your end goal?

[Geochelonian]

"Genesis occurred to the letter." ??? Do you mean you take it literally ?
If so, how do you explain the obvious contradictions? For example, Genesis 1.26 says: "Then [obviously on the 6th day, since all the plants and animals had already been created] God said,'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let him rule over the fish of the sea..." etc. But, in Genesis 2.4: "When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth...the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life..."etc. Since there were, at that time, no plants, and plants were created on the 3rd day (Genesis 1.11), man must have been created on the 3rd day or earlier.
The Bible is full of contradictions like this. While I admire the Bible as a great work of literature, which teaches us much about moral behavior and the best way to lead our lives, I cannot accept a blind, literalist interpretation of it as a whole. One has to recognize that the Bible is many things, drawn from many sources. It was put together by human beings and, as such, will contain the failings of those human beings. Also, attempts to rationalize Biblical writings with current scientific theory are futile. That too, is a human failing.
Again, accept the Bible for what it is and enjoy it, learn from it. But don't try to degrade its value by believing it offers an explanation of how the universe functions.

[Stanislaw]

All scientist are morons, and have no proof that the bible is 100% correct, in fact I think we should burn all of these heretics and their heretical literature. I am so sorry, you are wrong scientists and believers in Darwin, but you are all just arguing a moot point, God is the answer, genesis occured to the letter, and all you who don't see it are following archaic notions blindly.

...Sounds stupid doesn't it. Science and religion can work together, but probably won't for another couple of hundred years, untill the extremests on both ends learn to play together fairly...that Or kill every muther ****er who believes in christianity...is that your end goal?


I was being extremely sarcastic, and perhaps incredibly rude.

[jollyollie]

It is not my place to try to dissuade people from thier faith. not everyone will agree, but if someone wants to pray to buddha, or mohamed, or jesus, or even to the tranformers, it is thier business. I personally think that some people take religion too far and there would be alot less war on the earth if religion was just left out of the equation.
You can talk about the burning bush any way you want. But when it comes to science and teaching and learning sciences like math, calculus, physics, biochem, leave god out of it. in only a very few circumstances does god come into play when physics professors dicuss big bang THEORY. but evoltution is done deal. there is no debating scientific truth, as few scientific truths as there are.
Example.
your having a birthday cake and theres no almonds in it. You really want almonds in it. YOU CANT UNMAKE THE CAKE just so you can have almonds in it. Maybe next time you can have your precious almonds. But to dissect the cake and manually insert the almonds and patch it back togegther again is not going make Iron Chef Kenichi hapi, is it now. He sgoing to known someone messed up the cake. Evolution is the cake; ID is the almonds. period.
Evolution and its role as scientific truth is a done deal. This is why I say it not debateable. Sensorship of science goes on to this very moment when we attmept to have a clear description of how the planet is responding to all those greenhouse gases. the truth is that scientists have bigger fish to fry than trying to convince bad mannered christians that ID has no place in science class. Scientists are too busy making sure the next generationn of scientists know what they are doing and get it right the first time. they are not trying to change the way the bible was written or restate what it was Aristtotle said 2500 or so years ago. IDers: let it go.
It seems every time I bring up global warming someone swoops in and says a bunch of borderline dumb things in a vain atttempt to smokescreen the truth of the matter. Some of you should thank your lucky stars that scientists have warned us about any of this. without our ozone layer we are toast. we wouldnt know anything about it if it wasnt for "heretical" scientists.
Last: there is no possibility of a partnership between ID and science. they cannot coexist. and will not ever. its trying to put the round peg in the square hole.

[Mililalil XXIV]

You seem to read a lot more into what i said than i actually said. And, of course this is a conversation just for the hell of it! All conversations on this site are just that, since no one here has the power to do anything.
Children need to be taught science as science. Unless the school is a religious school, religion should not be taught. But that's very different from ignoring what's probably the most influential text in Western literature - the Bible.
Ultimately, and no matter what they've been taught, they will believe what they want to believe, what they choose to believe. But they must be taught to think . Unfortunately, education - especially in college - is often more a matter of indoctrination than teaching. And too often, science has become something of a religion in itself, with the general public believing, without serious questioning on their part, what a prominent scientist says, just because he is a scientist...and prominent. Consider Piltdown Man...
I think there should be an added class to a child's schooling, on teaching itself, demonstrating the different reasons things are propagated, tracing all current schools of thought to the parties that passed them onto the present school system, and tracing fields of study to those that first hypothesized them, while encouraging a well-rounded manner of investigation, requiring the personal interest in seeking truth needed to sift through theories to get at it.

[The Unnamable]

I think there should be an added class to a child's schooling, on teaching itself, demonstrating the different reasons things are propagated, tracing all current schools of thought to the parties that passed them onto the present school system, and tracing fields of study to those that first hypothesized them, while encouraging a well-rounded manner of investigation, requiring the personal interest in seeking truth needed to sift through theories to get at it.
This exists in schools that teach the International Baccalaureate. The course is called ‘Theory of Knowledge’. It only begins at post 16 level however, as the concepts are rather difficult for those younger. I would say though that all good English teachers would always try to encourage students to question not only the facts offered to them but also the authority by which they are offered.

[Adelheid]

This thread has gone far since I last visited it. :nod:

I think it's now debating about whether Evolution and religion should be taught in Schools? Do correct me if I am mistaken.

Mililalil XXIV is right in the sense that we are only debating, there is really nothing any of us here can do, unless of course, we are part of a country's legislation, or a school's principal. (But even then, a Principal must follow rules, unlike the days of Roald Dahl where they can do pretty much what they liked.) :D

[Mililalil XXIV]

This exists in schools that teach the International Baccalaureate. The course is called ‘Theory of Knowledge’. It only begins at post 16 level however, as the concepts are rather difficult for those younger. I would say though that all good English teachers would always try to encourage students to question not only the facts offered to them but also the authority by which they are offered.

You are right, Unnamable. I did, however, as I think you caught, wish aloud for the whole process of schooling to begin with some such elucidation running concurrent with it. For example:

in grade 1, the very basics being taught, I agree that it is not yet time to say much except that a warning be given that here at school, new ideas will be encountered. In that grade, however, things that are still widely considered mere theory, and not proven fact, ought not to be passed into the consideration of such unprepared little minds so early on. For example, mention dinosaurs, their skeletons, various fossils, and locations of finds, but not yet theories about how they died off, what all of their flesh was like, and other complexities that need verification requiring personal perception skills. Wait until you can go over the means to determine such things.

By grade 6, the ground work for students tending to their education more watchfully can be rather full-speed ahead. Instead of mentioning the analysis of geological strata in passing, then asserting the prevalent ideas concerning their evaluation, let the students hear from the beginning who first eyed these layers, where on earth he did so, and how the layers there compare to those elsewhere. I've met high school kids that entered the workplace thinking they knew everything simply because they had never really thought for themselves. Rather than explain things like self-motivated erudites, they used one-liners memorized at school, to block any thought that went against their artificial education.

Rather than memorize the names of great cultures in a row, from Egypt to Rome, they should be told that the chronologies of all are far from settled, and be shown what the definite limits of knowledge about those civilizations are.

[myself]

hi, i believe that god was the one who created us, i am a muslim and i dont really know what other people think and the theory behind it. i would like to know and explore other believes.

[Pendragon]

It is not my place to try to dissuade people from thier faith. not everyone will agree, but if someone wants to pray to buddha, or mohamed, or jesus, or even to the tranformers, it is thier business. I personally think that some people take religion too far and there would be alot less war on the earth if religion was just left out of the equation.
You can talk about the burning bush any way you want. But when it comes to science and teaching and learning sciences like math, calculus, physics, biochem, leave god out of it. in only a very few circumstances does god come into play when physics professors dicuss big bang THEORY. but evoltution is done deal. there is no debating scientific truth, as few scientific truths as there are.

Evolution and its role as scientific truth is a done deal. This is why I say it not debateable. the truth is that scientists have bigger fish to fry than trying to convince bad mannered christians that ID has no place in science class. Scientists are too busy making sure the next generationn of scientists know what they are doing and get it right the first time. they are not trying to change the way the bible was written or restate what it was Aristtotle said 2500 or so years ago. IDers: let it go.

It seems every time I bring up global warming someone swoops in and says a bunch of borderline dumb things in a vain atttempt to smokescreen the truth of the matter. we wouldnt know anything about it if it wasnt for "heretical" scientists.
Whoa, Jollie! You started out your argumement great, let evrybody believe what they want. OK. (I bolded a few of your statements.) Then you express your own belief. Also fine. Even if I do not agree, it is still your right to feel that way, and you express it very well.

You blame all war on religion. Hummm. As a descendant of the Native Americans, I will have to point out that greed is a grand cause for war. Even land they never use or couldn't use they took from us just because we had it and they didn't!

But then you call Christians "bad mannered" in a sweeping generalization. I have seen posts on this forum where I thought the religious person rude, and I have even said something about it. I have said that calling names and insulting each other was detrimential to both sides. I do not think a Christian has a right to judge anyone on what they believe, and to think that is being very self-righteous. But not all of us are that way. so please do not generalize.

Then you speak of "borderline dumb things", but I have read enough of your posts to read between the lines when you don't want censored. As a Christian, I do not advocate ignorance as a way of life. Science had to be there. When it became a requirement for man to survive, he had to learn. How do crops grow? What can I eat? If I get sick, what do I do about it? Man discovered how to make many things that had not existed, from things that did. And man began to question, to wonder, why does this stone attract metal? Why just certain types? What's out there, across the water? In the sky? Where did I come from? For many, God was no longer the sole explaination. There had to be more. God resisted proof, man wanted that proof.

Now they have evolution. I believe in it only as far as species adapting and changing to suit their changing environment. I do not believe an ape becomes a man, no matter how long a timeframe you give it. Now, we have the problem of what is called "proof." Much of it would never be enough to base a murder case upon. Fragments of skulls, in one case, a single tooth (built up scientifically into an man-like animal), in one case, a admitted fraud--(modern human skull fitted to an ape jaw, that still shows up on the charts at times), etc. I will not call it wrong. I will but say it doesn't convince me. And I, who am I? One man, who of course, could be wrong. But I will believe that God started things by creation, then evolution has shaped the world. Others may believe what they will. But will they, like myself, admit to the possibility that they could be wrong?

In friendship, JollyOllie,

Pendragon

[Green Lady]

Wow, this discussion hasn't been closed yet? Well, I put my opinion early but I think I'll state it again in a more orderly fashion than before. I believe in both creation and evolution and that they can both convene flawlessly one day in the future when scientific discoveries prove and disprove a few things. I do not believe that we came from apes, and that theory itself has been disproved already anyway. The earth was created, and who isn't to say God couldn't have used the big bang method in creating it or some other highly advanced science process? The scriptures may say seven days, but it is seven days according to Him, not us. It says in Genesis 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Now, Adam lived for about one hundred years or more, which means that when God said in the day after eating the fruit he would die, He was refering to His own days. It is estimated that the average persons life on this earth -say 80-90 years- is merely 8 minutes to God. So seven days is thousands or years according to us.

I believe all living creatures on this earth need to evolve and it is unavoidable. Creatures need to evolve to adapt to their environments and changes. Also, just like the adapting of machines and anything created people begin to change, look different. New thoughts come into the world that make the change of machinery possible, and new stuff in DNA comes up after a while. I'm not saying that people are machines, just an analogy of sorts. We all change, people get taller, shorter, hairier, etc.

[toddhill]

I'm jumping in here without having read all the previous posts. Please forgive me. I'll read more when I get the chance. The thing that bothers me most about this topic is the lack of objectivity. Most people cannot approach the topic objectively. They are emotionally involved and biased and unable to look at the opposing side fairly. This makes the topic extremely hard to debate. But if we want to be taken seriously, we must take the other side seriously. This seems to rarely happen. Pendragon, I really like your tone and I like what you have to say. You seem to be a very level headed, objective thinker. Todd

[toddhill]

This is a quote by Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University (one of the world’s leading spokesmen for evolution) on a recent television broadcast in the UK. The broadcast was called “The root of all evil?”. I got this quote from a periodical we receive.

“I’m very concerned about the religious indoctrination of children. I want to show how faith acts like a virus that attacks the young and infects generation after generation…

It’s time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. And I want to show how the scriptural roots of the Judeo-Christian moral edifice are cruel and brutish.

What in the 21st century are we doing venerating a book [the Bible] that contains such stuff?

The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction—jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic cleanser urging His people on to acts of genocide…

When it comes to children, I think of religion as a dangerous virus. It’s a virus which is transmitted partly through teachers and clergy, but also down the generations from parent to child to grandchild. Children are especially vulnerable to infection by the virus of religion.”

These are not the words of an objective thinker. Can you imagine sitting down with this man and having a civil, intellectual debate about the origins of the universe? I’d be scared the man would jump on me and try to strangle me if I wasn’t an evolutionist. I’ve lived long enough to know that when people get this defensive and irrational, there’s something worth investigating in the target of their hatred, probably something good. When I hear and see people act like this, I automatically don’t take them seriously and I automatically give the other side the benefit of the doubt. That’s just what my experience has taught me. Is religion really such a threat? Why? How? Don’t the religious espouse peace and goodness? The differences I see between creationism and evolution are in the implications, the logical fruit or outcomes of each belief. Either there is a God who is to be feared (respected and obeyed), or there is no God and we can do whatever we like (which may be good, but may be otherwise). I think it was most aptly put by Flannery O’Connor in “A Good Man Is Hard To Find.” The Misfit says, “Jesus was the only One that ever raised the dead…and He shouldn’t have done it. He thrown everything off balance. If He did what He said [raise the dead, create the universe], then it’s nothing for you to do but throw away everything and follow Him, and if He didn’t then it’s nothing for you to do but enjoy the few minutes you got left the best way you can—by killing somebody or burning down his house or doing some other meanness to him.” Sorry for the long post. Todd

[Xamonas Chegwe]

The difficulty in having an objective debate on evolution / creation is that, while evolution is based upon objectively observing the world around us and making deductions based upon those observations, creation is based upon believing a thousands of years old book without question.

Where is the objectivity in fundamentalist religion?