Am I a right wing, radical, nut case?

[MacDawg]

Read some more, then. :rolleyes:
I'm sure the inhabitants of London would be delighted to hear that the 500 V2s which landed on them were unfinished.
My mistake for letting my fingers get ahead of my brain. I probably should have said perfected, which is what I meant by "finished".

All of these systems, including the last, have produced good government at one time or another.
I was kidding about the Democrats! Honest! :o
And a benevolent dictator, etc. is the exception.
Actually my point was that I prefer it, not that others can't work. :)

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[skunk]

if the ruskies were so great, why was the US sending them supplies in the lend lease?
Great business, huge proxy army.

[MacDawg]

the so called "wunderwaffen" were far away from deciding the war..if the germans would have scrapped all those futuristic weapon projects and focused on producing more average equippment the war easily would have last 1-2 years longer and thus resulting in a A-Bomb being dropped on berlin
Very possible.

to sum it up: the war was decided on the 20 june '41... and at the end of august 41 when the first snowflakes of the (thanks god..) early Russian Winter ..
Hitler's decision, against all advice, to fight on 2 fronts, and to challenge the Russian winter was definitely the death knell.

But again, so many factors, so many decisions. Hard to hang your hat on one thing.

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[MacDawg]

Great business, huge proxy army.
Feeding the 600# gorilla to take on the monster.
Makes a lot of sense to me! :o

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[stubeeef]

Well, back on topic, I vote Hitler was a nut case!!!! :D

[MacDawg]

Well, back on topic, I vote Hitler was a nut case!!!! :D

Another write in vote!!
Hmmmm, we may have to investigate the voter irregularities found here! :o

Currently the vote looks this way...

don’t panic
intelligent design......................nut
exclusive “right” religion............nut
no prayer in school...................reasonable
no abortion..............................reasonable
overturning of roe vs wade.........right wing
no embryonic stem cell..............right wing
oppose homosexuals.................nut
flat tax...................................right wing
agnostic on iraq.......................reasonable
voted for bush.........................right wing

the verdict:
you are a reasonable right winger with a nutty aftertaste

blackfox
I do not think you are a nut-case. I just see some bleeding of your emotional/ideological priorities into the more reasonable part of your thinking. That is the case, to some degree, with everyone. If you felt that you learned something in the discussion here, then I would say you are fine. If not, then at least your insanity is mild-natured.

I do think you are right-wing. Still, you strike me as pretty Centrist. Basically, you are my favorite type of Right-Winger, in that you seem to have a somewhat open mind and do not exclusively vote party ideology. The vote for Bush hurts you though. Bigtime.

stubeeef
Whether or not you are a nut job or not, you are in the majority as far as the us popular opinion on many of your subjects. I guess you will have to choose, macadamian or walnut? Peanut is ok but so lower class.

ugg
Yes to all but the 'nut case' bit. I would use "misguided under the pernicious force of interpretive religion for political purposes." I tried to shorten it but nothing else seemed to fit what you have to say about all the issues you brought up.

jefhatfield
only maybe because from where i see you, you have the right wing and radical down, but i don't consider you a nutcase, but more of a conservative republican

wowser
As a Brit, I would say you were simply a moderate who has an interest in Religion. And this is coming from someone who has lived in the Bay Area

skunk
With regard to - and with some grudging respect for - MacD's arguments, I'd vote for "moderately nutty" (though not by American standards), but unplaceable on a political spectrum which would mean anything here. We simply don't have a Religious Right in England.

stubeeef
Well, back on topic, I vote Hitler was a nut case!!!!




Woof, Woof - Dawg

[jefhatfield]

Lived through it, but didn't read the book till last year. Found the book very interesting. Never saw the movie though. I would be more interested in the movie now than I would have been when it came out.

I was not old enough to vote in either of his elections, (but was old enough to have been drafted at the end of Viet Nam, but wasn't). However, I am certain I would have voted for him and not McGovern. And yet that does not mean I advocate all he did, nor did I know all he would ultimately do. He was a very paranoid man for some reason.

Makes for some interesting questions though... about how the world would be different in certain scenarios. Maybe the topic of another thread though.



no doubt nixon was sick, or at least super paranoid

though i am a democrat, i admit he did more than any gop president to take down the foundations of communism...but yes, communism would have fallen apart by itself but nixon divided the house of communism and got us in good with china, or vice versa...and this helped lead to the fall of the iron curtain sooner

...world trade with the communists was set up because of his policies and ford, reagan, carter, geoge hw, bill, and jr all benefited from tricky dick's friendship with china...big positive move and watergate does not erase his foreign policy smarts or achievements...it's just all a shame, otherwise, nixon would have been one of the greats along with washington, jefferson, and lincoln

[dsharits]

Well, there's the Law of Entropy, that says that everything is gradually running down and becoming less organized. In order for evolution to be possible, everything would have to be gaining energy and becoming more organized. Then there's the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Evolution would have to create energy to come from a few small cells and become complex organisms, don't you think? Oh, and pseudobrit, I don't pay attention to trolls who have nothing better to do than to cut and paste other posts. To answer your question, though, where does science not point to intelligent design? If you found a pocket watch on a beach, would you think it just put itself together over time? Absolutely not. You would assume that someone designed it and put it together. How then can you assume that a human body, infinitely more complex than a watch, can put itself together over time? BTW, Christianity, if you did some research, is actually not a religion. It is a relationship between the God of the universe and those who choose to follow Him. However, secular humanism is a religion, and it is the only one allowed to be taught in public schools.

Daniel

[zimv20]

Well, there's the Law of Entropy, that says that everything is gradually running down and becoming less organized. In order for evolution to be possible, everything would have to be gaining energy and becoming more organized. Then there's the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Evolution would have to create energy to come from a few small cells and become complex organisms, don't you think?
this is a classic example of "give someone a little knowledge..".

you clearly have no real understanding of scientific principles, beyond the short description of those laws, then attempt to use them to undermine the very science which produced those laws. it's not real science you're engaging in here, it's wordplay. it's like that cheap technique of dismissing the bible because you've found a typo.

congratuations on being a symptom of the educational decay in the US.

[Ugg]

Then there's the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Evolution would have to create energy to come from a few small cells and become complex organisms, don't you think?

However, secular humanism is a religion, and it is the only one allowed to be taught in public schools.

Daniel

Nope to the first. Solar energy is the reason for such a huge transformation. It was always hitting the earth but if there was nothing on it to utilize it then it was wasted energy.

Nah, you and a whole lot of other people want Secular Humanism to be a religion, but it isn't and can never be so. It's just a way of trying to put horns and tails on those who disagree with you. Secular Humanism is simply a manner of realizing now that we know so much about the world and are beginning to understand how things work, we no longer need to sit around the campfire at night and make up stories about how the sun was created or why men have a missing rib, or why the coyote is so cunning. It's so sad when people can't see the forest for the trees.

[pseudobrit]

Oh, and pseudobrit, I don't pay attention to trolls who have nothing better to do than to cut and paste other posts.

A troll? If my posts lacked any substance, I can honestly say it's not my fault

To answer your question, though, where does science not point to intelligent design? If you found a pocket watch on a beach, would you think it just put itself together over time? Absolutely not. You would assume that someone designed it and put it together.

Unless I observed that the watch used to be alive and that other watchlike organisms were living in the area.

How then can you assume that a human body, infinitely more complex than a watch, can put itself together over time?

WTF? You think we were all made out of clay or the stork brought us, or that God just makes us up in a poof of smoke? I'd say the human body kinda puts itself together starting from conception and continuing with building and repairing itself until it's dead. I'd love to see you argue with that last sentence.

BTW, Christianity... is not a religion...secular humanism is a religion

Only in bizarro world.

[skunk]

BTW, Christianity, if you did some research, is actually not a religion. It is a relationship between the God of the universe and those who choose to follow Him. However, secular humanism is a religion, and it is the only one allowed to be taught in public schools.
The most tragic assertions of a sad, sad post.
Please get a clue.

[stubeeef]

re·li·gion n
1. people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
2. a particular institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine
3. a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by
4. an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
5. life as a monk or a nun, especially in the Roman Catholic Church

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

[dsharits]

The human body does kind of put itself together, but it has to have a "blueprint" to follow. Where did the design of the human body come from?

So what you're saying about the watch is that if it was found to be more complex and more of them existed in the area, then you would assume that they just formed there?

As far as the laws go, where did the sun and its energy come from? Scientists tell us that the sun is gradually running out of energy, and it is actually growing smaller. If you were to follow this pattern back millions of years, wouldn't the sun be much too large and powerful for life to exist, much less create life? Where did the matter that collected that energy from the sun come from? How about the earth's magnetic field? It has a half life of about five thousand years. Take that back millions of years, and it would be much too powerful for life to exist. Furthermore, where is there any proof of anything being millions of years old? How can they tell the age of rock layers of the earth's crust is millions of years?

Daniel

[zimv20]

As far as the laws go, where did the sun and its energy come from? Scientists tell us that the sun is gradually running out of energy, and it is actually growing smaller. If you were to follow this pattern back millions of years, wouldn't the sun be much too large and powerful for life to exist, much less create life? Where did the matter that collected that energy from the sun come from? How about the earth's magnetic field? It has a half life of about five thousand years. Take that back millions of years, and it would be much too powerful for life to exist. Furthermore, where is there any proof of anything being millions of years old? How can they tell the age of rock layers of the earth's crust is millions of years?

geez, dude, stop embarrassing yourself and either go take some science classes or read some books. just because you can't grasp the concepts doesn't invalidate science.

good luck.

[dsharits]

Just because you don't have an answer for it, it's wrong? These are all facts that I have stated. Maybe you are the one who should take a science course, since you believe in a miserably inept and outdated THEORY.

Daniel

[zimv20]

Maybe you are the one who should take a science course, since you believe in a miserably inept and outdated THEORY.

my degree is in science. though apparently, everything i've studied is miserably inept and outdated. of course, the onus is on you to prove how miserably inept and outdated that scientific theory is, not for me to give you a primer on basic science. and you might have a go at the scientific method, too, since it produced modern theory. are you, in fact, familiar w/ the scientific method? beyond a 10 word definition, of course.

again, you're playing word games w/ your sloppy use of the word "theory." get yer butt into a classroom and try these games. at least, by giving money to a university, you'll be doing something useful.

[blackfox]

The human body does kind of put itself together, but it has to have a "blueprint" to follow. Where did the design of the human body come from?

So what you're saying about the watch is that if it was found to be more complex and more of them existed in the area, then you would assume that they just formed there?

As far as the laws go, where did the sun and its energy come from? Scientists tell us that the sun is gradually running out of energy, and it is actually growing smaller. If you were to follow this pattern back millions of years, wouldn't the sun be much too large and powerful for life to exist, much less create life? Where did the matter that collected that energy from the sun come from? How about the earth's magnetic field? It has a half life of about five thousand years. Take that back millions of years, and it would be much too powerful for life to exist. Furthermore, where is there any proof of anything being millions of years old? How can they tell the age of rock layers of the earth's crust is millions of years?

Daniel

You are just ********* with us right?

I am hardly an expert in Scientific Fields, but I do know that our Sun is a middle-aged Star, approximately 5 billion years old. It is currently a yellow star, burning hydrogen fuel and will probably continue to do so for another 5 billion years. After that point, the sun will burn Helium as fuel instead and become vastly inflated - what is known as a Red Giant. It's atmosphere will rapidly expand, eventually extending to the Orbit of Mars. Earth, being at this point entirely within the world's atmosphere, will be consumed. The point being is the Sun's evolution does not merely go from big and powerful, to small and weak.

I hesitate to comment on your other assertions, as I fail to see your point, beyond trying to state the Science is bulls***. What are you suggesting as an alternative? Can that be proven any more definitively?

I leave you with a quote that to me, describes what science (and philosophy) is all about:

" The known is finite, the unknown infinite; intellectually we stand on an islet in the midst of an illimitable ocean of inexplicability. Our business in every generation is to reclaim a little more land."

Btw, you are correct (imo) that Secular Humanism is in many ways comparable to a Religion. I am not sure I see your point of bringing that up, however, as Humanism is more a reaction to Science than Science being a tool of Humanism. Please feel free to clarify what you mean.

[pseudobrit]

Just because you don't have an answer for it, it's wrong? These are all facts that I have stated.

I saw a bunch of misconceptions and nonsense. You seem very confused.

I didn't see a single fact.

Maybe you are the one who should take a science course, since you believe in a miserably inept and outdated THEORY.

Dude, you've proven your complete ignorance on the subjects of planetary science, biology and physics. You'd do well to stop embarrassing yourself. It's shameful.

[takao]

You are just ********* with us right?

I am hardly an expert in Scientific Fields, but I do know that our Sun is a middle-aged Star, approximately 5 billion years old. It is currently a yellow star, burning hydrogen fuel and will probably continue to do so for another 5 billion years. After that point, the sun will burn Helium as fuel instead and become vastly inflated - what is known as a Red Giant. It's atmosphere will rapidly expand, eventually extending to the Orbit of Mars. Earth, being at this point entirely within the world's atmosphere, will be consumed. The point being is the Sun's evolution does not merely go from big and powerful, to small and weak.

as far as i was told in my astronomy lecture i have this year, earth (according to actual stats) won't be consumed and for venus it's not quite sure ... but it will get unpleasant here in 500-1500 million years already so i doubt we will get to see it ;) (the sun emits about 30% more energy than in the beginning)

and after being a red giant the Sun will become "small and weak" ;) ... a white dwarf (approx. 12.3655 billion years)


sidenote: 2.8 million years ago a supernova exploded in 4.2 lightyear distance to earth and increased the amount of cosmic radiation which hits the earth significantly... for around 50.000 years..in which more clouds were resulted from the increased numbers of ions in the atmosphere..which resulted again in a drop in temperature
aren't the first found bones/traces etc from "humans" (better their ancestors) 2.8 million years old as well ?
take that for speculation ;)

[pseudobrit]

as far as i was told in my astronomy lecture i have this year, earth (according to actual stats) won't be consumed and for venus it's not quite sure ... but it will get unpleasant here in 500-1500 million years already so i doubt we will get to see it ;) (the sun emits about 30% more energy than in the beginning)

and after being a red giant the Sun will become "small and weak" ;) ... a white dwarf (approx. 12.3655 billion years)

I self-educated pretty heavily in astronomy, planetary science and astrophysics when I was a kid.

What you're talking about is the Sun exhausting its hydrogen supply, which triggers a red giant stage. The Earth would at least come close to skimming the Sun's outer edge as the Sun pulsates slightly. It will wholly consume Mercury and Venus. It will freely shed high amounts of gas. Eventually, it'll also consume its helium and retreat to retire as a white dwarf: a superdense moon-sized sphere, and if you wait long enough, it'll cool completely to die as a black dwarf. Don't think you could stand on it though; the gravity would be so heavy as to crush you.

We only have 5000 million years to invent interstellar travel. But we're not going anywhere if our population and civilisations start to ignore and scorn science.

[blackfox]

We only have 5000 million years to invent interstellar travel. But we're not going anywhere if our population and civilisations start to ignore and scorn science.
Wouldn't it have been easier to say 5 billion instead of 5000 million?

In any case, ultimately, mankind will have to deal with the end of the universe. If you are a fan of superstring theory, we may be able to escape to a parallel universe to avoid destruction, otherwise, our time will come.

If course, I have serious reservations about us lasting another fifty years, let alone 5 billion.

Where's Daniel? I am waiting for him to tell me how full of sh** I am.

[pseudobrit]

Wouldn't it have been easier to say 5 billion instead of 5000 million?

As the -illion increases, it becomes less tangible. It's easier to say and less easy to comprehend.

The most important part of understanding astronomy is not losing touch with the observations and theorum. If you don't understand Idea 1, it's hard to progress to Idea 583. Most people (including me and anyone else without a doctorate in astro- or advanced physics) reach a threshold where they lose the ability to comprehend some of the more complex workings of the universe. Usually it's due to the comlpexity of the mathematics and subatomic interactions going on. In fact, there are some things no one has an explanation for, so it's safe to say we all hit this wall at some point.

When we reach this threshold, we can do three things:

1) Trust that the scientific community who can comprehend the finer details have verified the theory and accept it without actually understading it. I often fall into this category. Just because I'm not smart enough not to figure something out doesn't mean it's impossible that others do.

2) Get frustrated with not being able to understand what the theories are about and refuse to believe that something which is outside our personal mental grasp can be accurate.

3) Think harder and figure it out. I struggle to be in this category as often as possible.

Where's Daniel? I am waiting for him to tell me how full of sh** I am.

Let's hope he's out buying a telescope.

[takao]

What you're talking about is the Sun exhausting its hydrogen supply, which triggers a red giant stage. The Earth would at least come close to skimming the Sun's outer edge as the Sun pulsates slightly. It will wholly consume Mercury and Venus. It will freely shed high amounts of gas. Eventually, it'll also consume its helium and retreat to retire as a white dwarf: a superdense moon-sized sphere, and if you wait long enough, it'll cool completely to die as a black dwarf. Don't think you could stand on it though; the gravity would be so heavy as to crush you.

complete agreement your preaching to the choir ;)
except that you perhaps forgotten the massive lost of mass combined with the Sun becoming a red giant... and the resulting bigger orbits of the planets might 'save' the earth and even the venus ... the orbits don't stay the same ;)


We only have 5000 million years to invent interstellar travel. But we're not going anywhere if our population and civilisations start to ignore and scorn science.

you should say: 5000 million years if we are _lucky_ and develop lots of thing to compensate for increased temperatures ;-)

1500 million years are already very optimistic... (with not taking human stupidity into account... only from the influence of the sun)

[pseudobrit]

you should say: 5000 million years if we are _lucky_ and develop lots of thing to compensate for increased temperatures ;-)

1500 million years are already very optimistic... (with not taking human stupidity into account... only from the influence of the sun)

I'd always heard 5000. Maybe you're using metric years.

[takao]

I'd always heard 5000. Maybe you're using metric years.

i think this is the only reason why astronomers are thanking god: "thank god that the british empire never brought the imperial system outside of the atmosphere" ;)

edit: the NASA learned that "the hard way" (http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19991212) like we all remember with a smile on our face ;)

[MacDawg]

Alright, break it up guys... guys... guys...
Now move along... nothing to see here...

I told everyone to clear the streets, that a name calling fight was about to break out!!

Gee, I leave for one afternoon to go to two Christmas parties that my wife made me go to, and look what happens! :rolleyes:

Tsk, tsk, tsk... shame on everyone.
And I don't want to hear who started it either. :)

dsharits
I don't pay attention to trolls who have nothing better to do than to cut and paste other posts.

Maybe you are the one who should take a science course, since you believe in a miserably inept and outdated THEORY.

zimv20
you clearly have no real understanding of scientific principles

geez, dude, stop embarrassing yourself and either go take some science classes or read some books.

again, you're playing word games w/ your sloppy use of the word "theory." get yer butt into a classroom and try these games. at least, by giving money to a university, you'll be doing something useful.

congratuations on being a symptom of the educational decay in the US.

pseudobrit
Only in bizarro world.

I saw a bunch of misconceptions and nonsense. You seem very confused.

Dude, you've proven your complete ignorance on the subjects of planetary science, biology and physics. You'd do well to stop embarrassing yourself. It's shameful.

Let's hope he's out buying a telescope.

skunk
Please get a clue.

Blackfox
You are just ********* with us right?

I hesitate to comment on your other assertions, as I fail to see your point, beyond trying to state the Science is bulls***.

Where's Daniel? I am waiting for him to tell me how full of sh** I am.



Woof, Woof - Dawg ;)

[stubeeef]

I am no expert in astrophysics or astronomy, I do love to take my kids to the planetarium though. I make them go out and look at lunar eclipses, and made my entire cul-de-sac on Guam get up before 5 am and hike up the biggest mt on the island and watch the summer of 91 solar eclipse. It was an eclipsed sun rise, looked like a shark fin, so cool, shot the video with welders glass over the lens. I have been to the top of Mauna Kae (spelled way wrong I'm sure) in HI, my cousins Husband was with the brit observatory there, it was too cool, they were still building Keck at the time.

Anywho, I often see science proving my beliefs, and would love to here some secular discussion on DARK MATTER.

Also getting ready to teach Sunday School, am subing for all things, the science class! today.... :D

[zimv20]

[...] I do love to take my kids to the planetarium though. [...] made my entire cul-de-sac on Guam get up before 5 am [...] my cousins Husband was with the brit observatory there [...] getting ready to teach Sunday School, am subing for all things, the science class!
your post made me imagine a scenario in the US where learning and doing science was actually cool for the schoolage population. and that concept is just so alien to me right now. what a shame.

[dsharits]

I ask again, where is there any proof that the sun, or anything for that matter, is millions of years old? Why do evolutionists think that something impossible becomes possible when the element of time is added?

Daniel

[blackfox]

I ask again, where is there any proof that the sun, or anything for that matter, is millions of years old? Why do evolutionists think that something impossible becomes possible when the element of time is added?

Daniel
What is your point man? So everything is impossible? Are you the arbiter of what is or is not possible? What do you consider possible in this context?

I have no clue what you are on about. You obviously don't give much credence to evolution, but what do you give credence to?

[stubeeef]

your post made me imagine a scenario in the US where learning and doing science was actually cool for the schoolage population. and that concept is just so alien to me right now. what a shame.


:confused:

[takao]

I ask again, where is there any proof that the sun, or anything for that matter, is millions of years old? Why do evolutionists think that something impossible becomes possible when the element of time is added?

Daniel

1.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qage.html

2.
google: "Hertzsprung Russell Diagram" "main sequence"

3.
obtain a good physics book

[MacDawg]

So, back on track here... :)

The question was am I a right wing, radical, nut case?

How about this for a suggested reference point?

Right wing = a position anywhere from center/majority(?) to the right
Radical = a more extreme, logical(?) conclusion of that position
Nut case = the passion/zeal with which the position is held

For instance:

Right wing = pro life, i.e. opposed to abortion
Radical = opposes abortion in all cases including rape and incest
Nut case = shoots abortion doctors and bombs abortion clinics

Right wing = supports the right to bear arms
Radical = supports the right to own assault type weapons
Nut case = moves to the mountains, builds an arsenal and declares independence

Whattayathink??

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[skunk]

The question was am I a right wing, radical, nut case?

How about this for a suggested reference point?

Right wing = a position anywhere from center/majority(?) to the right
Radical = a more extreme, logical(?) conclusion of that position
Nut case = the passion/zeal with which the position is held
For instance:

Right wing = pro life, i.e. opposed to abortion
Radical = opposes abortion in all cases including rape and incest
Nut case = shoots abortion doctors and bombs abortion clinics
You seem to be giving your own verdict. I would take issue with your language, though: "pro-life" to me is a deliberately and unjustifiably loaded phrase. Does that make anyone who disagrees with you "anti-life"? And whose life are you "pro"? If you oppose abortion in all cases, including when the mother's life is in danger, then whether you are "pro-" or "anti-life" becomes rather a moot point. If you are planning to shoot and bomb to prove your credentials, then clearly you are only "pro" some life. You seem a reasonable enough mutt, however, so I assume that you are playing Devil's Advocate. If not, then you're an inconsistent RWRN.

Right wing = supports the right to bear arms
Radical = supports the right to own assault type weapons
Nut case = moves to the mountains, builds an arsenal and declares independence
Is this your plan? It's not got much to recommend it politically speaking. Sounds more like paranoid fantasy to me. Off the scale.

Whattayathink??
I think you need some serious therapy. :rolleyes:

Woof, Woof - Dawg
See? Completely barking...

[pseudobrit]

I ask again, where is there any proof that the sun, or anything for that matter, is millions of years old?

Okay, let's go it your route, since you seem to have no concept of anything relating to science.

Where is your proof that God made and sustains the Sun?

[pseudobrit]

I can't believe I'm actually having to argue this; it's quite a sad situation, really

[MacDawg]

You seem to be giving your own verdict... You seem a reasonable enough mutt, however, so I assume that you are playing Devil's Advocate. If not, then you're an inconsistent RWRN.

Well, the polls were very slow, and nobody was voting, so I decided to stimulate the argument a little... and yes, by playing Devil's Advocate. I am not necessarily advocating these positions personally, esp. the 'nut case' position.

Right wing = pro life, i.e. opposed to abortion
Radical = opposes abortion in all cases including rape and incest
Nut case = shoots abortion doctors and bombs abortion clinics

Right wing = supports the right to bear arms
Radical = supports the right to own assault type weapons
Nut case = moves to the mountains, builds an arsenal and declares independence


Woof, Woof - Dawg

[Xtremehkr]

So, the eye, evolutionarily impossible?

Doesn't it bother you when religious types distort things?

[Taft]

I ask again, where is there any proof that the sun, or anything for that matter, is millions of years old? Why do evolutionists think that something impossible becomes possible when the element of time is added?

Daniel

You HAVE to be kidding. You and the rest of the forum need to clear something up: what in blue blazes do you consider proof? As an example of what OTHERS consider proof, you might want to check out an explanation of the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) and what the word 'theory' really means in the context of science.

But how else would we seek to "prove" thing if not through scientific process? Through historical records? Would you not admit that historical records most often have a lot of problems? First and foremost among them: how do you know an historical account is accurate? How do you know the person writing the record didn't inject bias, misinformation, etc. into the record?

Given that you can accept the scientific theory as being a sound way to go from observable fact to theory (in the scientific definition of the term), you should really read up on a few subjects.

How do we know that a layer of rock is X years old? Through radiometric dating. Info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

How do we know that a bug fossil lodged in that layer of rock is X million of years old? Through radiocarbon dating. Info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

How do we know the sun is about 5000 million years old? Through nucleocosmochronology, which uses principles related to radiometric dating. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleocosmochronology

All of these dating techniques are widely accepted in the scientific community and by the general public. But if you can show experimentally that radioactive isotopes don't have a predictable half-life, I'm sure there are a LOT of people who would want to hear that information. :rolleyes:

Taft

[Taft]

I can't believe I'm actually having to argue this; it's quite a sad situation, really

The question I have is whether this opinion is widely held. I can't really figure out if this is a case of ignorance of scientific principles or abondonment of scientific methods and principles in favor of some other ideology. But either way: how many people out there really believe that approximate dating of geological/organic matter is impossible?

Taft

[dsharits]

Well, for one thing, the Bible tells the story of Creation, and the entire account has not been disproven by anything that scientists have found yet. All evidence supports the Genesis account. In fact, the Bible is the one book that countless people have tried to disprove for centuries, and everyone has failed. In many instances, there was no historical evidence for some things in the Bible, outside of the Bible itself. However, in each case, evidence has since been found to prove the Bible correct, once again. So, the Bible claims to have been written by God, and it has never been proven wrong. Until it is proven wrong, it is a valuable piece of evidence against evolution and for Creation.

Here's another interesting tidbit. Did you know that natural selection actually works against evolution? Take the tiny flagellum of a bacterial cell, for example. The motors that drive the flagella are actually tiny electric motors, and they are made up of several different parts. Each part serves a different function, and without any one of those parts, the motor would not work, therefore rendering the flagellum useless. By definition, natural selection only passes the advantageous genetic characteristics on to future generations. If a cell has a useless flagellum and partial motor, natural selection would not pass it on to the future generations, since it is not an advantageous genetic characteristic. However, we find that the cells of today indeed do have flagella, therefore making a strong argument against the theory of evolution. This is just one tiny example, and there are many, many more with much more complex organisms, such as the human body.

Daniel

[Xtremehkr]

Well, for one thing, the Bible tells the story of Creation, and the entire account has not been disproven by anything that scientists have found yet. All evidence supports the Genesis account. In fact, the Bible is the one book that countless people have tried to disprove for centuries, and everyone has failed. In many instances, there was no historical evidence for some things in the Bible, outside of the Bible itself. However, in each case, evidence has since been found to prove the Bible correct, once again. So, the Bible claims to have been written by God, and it has never been proven wrong. Until it is proven wrong, it is a valuable piece of evidence against evolution and for Creation.

Here's another interesting tidbit. Did you know that natural selection actually works against evolution? Take the tiny flagellum of a bacterial cell, for example. The motors that drive the flagella are actually tiny electric motors, and they are made up of several different parts. Each part serves a different function, and without any one of those parts, the motor would not work, therefore rendering the flagellum useless. By definition, natural selection only passes the advantageous genetic characteristics on to future generations. If a cell has a useless flagellum and partial motor, natural selection would not pass it on to the future generations, since it is not an advantageous genetic characteristic. However, we find that the cells of today indeed do have flagella, therefore making a strong argument against the theory of evolution. This is just one tiny example, and there are many, many more with much more complex organisms, such as the human body.

Daniel

Do you realize that the questions in your post have already been addressed?

I was criticized earlier for using the word "fanatic" (or close to it), but at this point, I feel that there is a complete rejection of solid knowledge in lieu of faith. At what point can I use that term and not be considered unreasonable?

I know it is considered highly to be tolerant, but at what point do you stop and consider the situation for what it is? In some instances, faith seems to trump reason, what do you do then?

Just because the Bible incorporates real events doesn't prove anything. I could write religious text today that incorporates real events. Would that make it true as well?

[skunk]

Well, for one thing, the Bible tells the story of Creation, and the entire account has not been disproven by anything that scientists have found yet. All evidence supports the Genesis account. In fact, the Bible is the one book that countless people have tried to disprove for centuries, and everyone has failed. In many instances, there was no historical evidence for some things in the Bible, outside of the Bible itself. However, in each case, evidence has since been found to prove the Bible correct, once again. So, the Bible claims to have been written by God, and it has never been proven wrong. Until it is proven wrong, it is a valuable piece of evidence against evolution and for Creation.

Here's another interesting tidbit. Did you know that natural selection actually works against evolution? Take the tiny flagellum of a bacterial cell, for example. The motors that drive the flagella are actually tiny electric motors, and they are made up of several different parts. Each part serves a different function, and without any one of those parts, the motor would not work, therefore rendering the flagellum useless. By definition, natural selection only passes the advantageous genetic characteristics on to future generations. If a cell has a useless flagellum and partial motor, natural selection would not pass it on to the future generations, since it is not an advantageous genetic characteristic. However, we find that the cells of today indeed do have flagella, therefore making a strong argument against the theory of evolution. This is just one tiny example, and there are many, many more with much more complex organisms, such as the human body.

Daniel
The words "hook", "line" and "sinker" spring to mind.

[pseudobrit]

Well, for one thing, the Bible tells the story of Creation, and the entire account has not been disproven by anything that scientists have found yet. All evidence supports the Genesis account.

Carbon dating tells us the planet alone is older than the Bible allows.

You're wrong.

In many instances, there was no historical evidence for some things in the Bible, outside of the Bible itself. However, in each case, evidence has since been found to prove the Bible correct, once again. So, the Bible claims to have been written by God, and it has never been proven wrong. Until it is proven wrong, it is a valuable piece of evidence against evolution and for Creation.
[chomp]

The ************ density of your post is just... ****ing astounding. Bravo.

[Taft]

Well, for one thing, the Bible tells the story of Creation, and the entire account has not been disproven by anything that scientists have found yet. All evidence supports the Genesis account. In fact, the Bible is the one book that countless people have tried to disprove for centuries, and everyone has failed. In many instances, there was no historical evidence for some things in the Bible, outside of the Bible itself. However, in each case, evidence has since been found to prove the Bible correct, once again. So, the Bible claims to have been written by God, and it has never been proven wrong. Until it is proven wrong, it is a valuable piece of evidence against evolution and for Creation.

Here's another interesting tidbit. Did you know that natural selection actually works against evolution? Take the tiny flagellum of a bacterial cell, for example. The motors that drive the flagella are actually tiny electric motors, and they are made up of several different parts. Each part serves a different function, and without any one of those parts, the motor would not work, therefore rendering the flagellum useless. By definition, natural selection only passes the advantageous genetic characteristics on to future generations. If a cell has a useless flagellum and partial motor, natural selection would not pass it on to the future generations, since it is not an advantageous genetic characteristic. However, we find that the cells of today indeed do have flagella, therefore making a strong argument against the theory of evolution. This is just one tiny example, and there are many, many more with much more complex organisms, such as the human body.

Daniel

I like to think of myself as a fair person; one who is open to hearing the arguments of those who really disagree with me. I also think most people are good honest people. So I am trying, in good faith, not to start a flame war with you here.

However, if we are to engage in any sort of conversation on this topic, you need to listen to me, too. So please go read the links I sent you on radio-dating methods and then, if you still believe them to be incorrect, tell us why.

Then, when you've tackled that, please read the information on this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html It explains why Bacterial flagella are not really an argument against evolution in any way.

Thank you for playing fair.

Taft

[pseudobrit]

So please go read the links I sent you...

Thank you for playing fair

I'll wager he won't do either. Oh, I almost forgot to check just how fatuous his post was. Hang on, let's see...

[pseudobrit]

Well, for one thing, the Bible tells the story of Creation, and the entire account has not been proven by anything that scientists have found yet. All evidence refutes the Genesis account. In fact, the Bible is the one book that countless people have tried to prove for centuries, and everyone has failed. In many instances, there was no historical evidence for some things in the Bible, outside of the Bible itself. However, in most cases, evidence has since been found to prove the Bible incorrect, once again. So, the Bible claims to have been written by God, and it has never been proven. Until it is proven, it is a worthless piece of evidence against evolution and for Creation.

[blackfox]

"Faith is a fine invention for gentlemen who see; but microscopes are prudent in an emergency." -Emily Dickenson

[Don't panic]

Well, for one thing, the Bible tells the story of Creation, and the entire account has not been disproven by anything that scientists have found yet. All evidence supports the Genesis account. In fact, the Bible is the one book that countless people have tried to disprove for centuries, and everyone has failed. In many instances, there was no historical evidence for some things in the Bible, outside of the Bible itself. However, in each case, evidence has since been found to prove the Bible correct, once again. So, the Bible claims to have been written by God, and it has never been proven wrong. Until it is proven wrong, it is a valuable piece of evidence against evolution and for Creation.
Daniel

:D:D:D:D:D

Do you also believe in

a) Santa Klaus
b) Harry Potter
c) The Matrix

Why not? Can you prove that they are not correct?

[Taft]

Well, for one thing, the Bible tells the story of Creation, and the entire account has not been proven by anything that scientists have found yet. All evidence refutes the Genesis account. In fact, the Bible is the one book that countless people have tried to prove for centuries, and everyone has failed. In many instances, there was no historical evidence for some things in the Bible, outside of the Bible itself. However, in most cases, evidence has since been found to prove the Bible incorrect, once again. So, the Bible claims to have been written by God, and it has never been proven. Until it is proven, it is a worthless piece of evidence against evolution and for Creation.

You both present such flawless arguments! Who to believe?

:D

Taft

[zimv20]

You both present such flawless arguments! Who to believe?

they're both correct! woo-hoo!

[mactastic]

The words "hook", "line" and "sinker" spring to mind.

Also the words 'bridge' and 'Brooklyn'.

[dsharits]

Fine. Name me one time that the Bible has been proven incorrect.
Earlier in the 1900's, people thought that the Bible had a significant error in it by referring to a civilization in the Middle East called the Hittites. No other historical documents showed any evidence that the Hittites actually existed. Finally, a great civilization was found in the exact area described by the Bible, and it was found that the civilization was that of the Hittites. The Bible also contains several scientific principles that were not even known about when the Bible was written, along with references to men living at the same time as dinosaurs.

Also, I've refrained from using this cheap shot at evolution,until now, but where are all of these missing links that should be found in great abundance all over the earth? Don't you think that if evolution was true, there would be at least ONE transitional form found somewhere? Why are the links still missing? Darwin himself said that if no transitional forms could be presented, his entire theory would break down.

Oh, almost forgot, carbon-14 and radioactive dating have been proven to be unreliable. I read your links, so please read mine. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Daniel

[Xtremehkr]

Your link lacks specifics, like the names of authors and good information like that.

Despite the vast amount of information provided already I guess it would be too much for you to research anything yourself.

[zimv20]

Oh, almost forgot, carbon-14 and radioactive dating have been proven to be unreliable. I read your links, so please read mine. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
l
from the article:

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant -- for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

they're going to have to substantiate that, rather than just assert it. as you claim, it's not actually been "proven."

if the assertions are true, then yes, carbon dating would be suspect. but how do plants "discriminate" w/ the kind of C they're taking in?

the C14/C12 ratio is tiny. i don't see any evidence that atomic bomb testing and human fossil buringing activity changes that ratio. regardless, why would that affect any plant material > 200 years old?

the bottom line is that the article started out by saying that science is contradicting the bible, therefore the science must be adjusted. talk about taking a non-scientific approach to one's problem...

[blackfox]

Fine. Name me one time that the Bible has been proven incorrect.
Earlier in the 1900's, people thought that the Bible had a significant error in it by referring to a civilization in the Middle East called the Hittites. No other historical documents showed any evidence that the Hittites actually existed. Finally, a great civilization was found in the exact area described by the Bible, and it was found that the civilization was that of the Hittites. The Bible also contains several scientific principles that were not even known about when the Bible was written, along with references to men living at the same time as dinosaurs.

Also, I've refrained from using this cheap shot at evolution,until now, but where are all of these missing links that should be found in great abundance all over the earth? Don't you think that if evolution was true, there would be at least ONE transitional form found somewhere? Why are the links still missing? Darwin himself said that if no transitional forms could be presented, his entire theory would break down.

Oh, almost forgot, carbon-14 and radioactive dating have been proven to be unreliable. I read your links, so please read mine. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Daniel

So are you saying the Israelites had to deal with being chased by Egyptians and Tyrannasaurus Rex's. Rough deal.

Daniel, how do you explain Neanderthals, Homo Erectus and other more primitive man? Are they not transitional forms of man?

Also, what version of the Bible do you read. As I understand it, the Bible's content, meaning and potentially accuracy depend highly on the version.

The word of God, in these instances, was only as good as the translators. I have heard the Greek version is significantly different (and considerably more beautiful.). Even more so, was the Earlier Hebrew version, where a considerable error was made:

. The Old Testament talks about almah(young woman), not bethulah (virgin.)However, the scholars in the 3rd century BC translated the Hebrew almah as parthenos in Greek. Thus the 'young woman' in Hebrew metamorphosed into a 'virgin' in Greek—and she has remained a virgin ever since in translations across the world. The notion of 'virgin birth' was born, thanks to a mistranslation.

Considering the oldest sections of the Bible (the first five books which comprise the Torah) were transcribed around 1000bc and went through several subsequent revisions, the last of which happened 600 years later.

In AD 367, Christians canonized the New Testament.

The Original Bible (OT) was written down from oral traditions, and no copy survives. It's existence is known, as it is mentioned in later versions. A group of 70 rabis working from an Aramaic manuscipt, translated the Septugagint Bible into Greek, nearly 1000 years after the first King David version, itself gleaned from oral stories (since relevant writing technology did not exist yet).

So to recap. The Bible was written (and revised) over 1000 years (OT) originally from oral storytelling to Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. There were considerable differences in the substance and sophistication of these particular languages, which implys a certain difficulty in accurate translation of words and concepts. Even today, with modern, developed language, a German word such as "zeitgeist" has no comparable English translation. The New Testament, also went through multiple revisions.

So, you must consider, even if you have absolute faith in God's perfection, that man is fallible. In fact, your assault on Science and humanism seems to strongly imply such a feeling.

naturally then, you would have to admit the fallibility of man to accurately translate the word of God, thereby corrupting the validity of that written in successfully later editions, especially English versions, written much later. These errors are easily verified by comparing various translations of the text. This is not even considering the reliance on human faculties to interpret to vaguely defined process of documenting an oral tradition into words, or the mutable nature of oral tradition itself.

So the Bible is wrong. God may have been right, but he/she should not have left it to 35 generations of man to transcibe his/her message, as they were bound to make a mistake.

I happen to think the Bible is a great book. Unquestionable Genius. I do not think, however, that it is literally fact. It is often a book of wise metaphor and of Philosophy. I feel you denigrate it's beauty by insistence on looking at it as factual truth, which it cannot be because of the involvement of men.

[zimv20]

further, given how (to pick just one example) the bush administration tailors its view of religion to fit its agenda, should it be at all impossible to consider that, over 1000 years, others may have reinterpreted the bible to suit their own agendas?

look at how textbooks are revised to remove war crimes against native americans, or how dodgy science makes its way to students. sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's just incompetence. there's just way too many variables to take anything in the bible as literal or factual.

[Xtremehkr]

Some Biblical Inconsistencies (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml)

Biblical Inconsistencies concerning the Genesis Creation Story (http://www.nmsr.org/essay6a.htm)

A good list of things to consider about the Bible (http://atheism.about.com/od/errorsinthebibl/)

I'm getting tired of beating this horse though. What fascinates me is how faith can grip a person with so little real evidence to go on. How does it do it?

[blackfox]

I'm getting tired of beating this horse though. What fascinates me is how faith can grip a person with so little real evidence to go on. How does it do it?
Well, Faith is believing without evidence (or much of it). Care to rephrase?

[Xtremehkr]

Well, Faith is believing without evidence (or much of it). Care to rephrase?

What fascinates me is how a person can continue to believe when provided with so much evidence to the contrary.

Better :o

[Xtremehkr]

But Daniel, how does it make you feel when you find out that some of the things the Chruch claims are not be true?

And despite being shown this knowledge they continue to make erroneous claims?

Isn't that wrong?

[themadchemist]

from the article:

they're going to have to substantiate that, rather than just assert it. as you claim, it's not actually been "proven."

if the assertions are true, then yes, carbon dating would be suspect. but how do plants "discriminate" w/ the kind of C they're taking in?

the C14/C12 ratio is tiny. i don't see any evidence that atomic bomb testing and human fossil buringing activity changes that ratio. regardless, why would that affect any plant material > 200 years old?

the bottom line is that the article started out by saying that science is contradicting the bible, therefore the science must be adjusted. talk about taking a non-scientific approach to one's problem...

Some of the things that this article suggests are possible, even plausible. I have read in other sources that recent artificial radioactive emissions may make future carbon dating problematic (they won't really affect old stuff though, which is what we're interested in right now). Also, though I don't know of the evidence, it seems reasonable that carbon levels could have changed causing some problems...However, if the method is still being used, then I'm pretty comfortable that this has been thought about and refuted.

And definitely, carbon dating cannot be used to date things beyond about 50,000 years...However, the article omits the fact that other compounds, like potassium, also exist in multiple isotopes and may be used for more ancient dating because of longer half-lives. I believe the unstable potassium isotope's half life is around 1.3 billion years.

Finally, here's the reason that I place more trust in methods that have been vetted by the scientific community, especially common ones like radioactive dating, even if I haven't had a chance to read the literature.

Science, as a body, does not have a political, social, or moral agenda. Individuals may, but science on the balance is composed of individuals whose common thread is a pursuit of knowledge. If a tool is bad, then scientists have a vested interest in discarding it because it hinders their discipline's motivation: Discovering new truths.

So science starts with the problem and then formulates a hypothesis to answer it.

On the other hand, religious zealots and creation "scientists" start with an answer and look for evidence to corroborate their take on the problem. This creates an inherent bias in the field that clouds it from seeing alternate perspectives.

While particular scientists (the real sort) may believe strongly in evolution, it is because the evidence to solve the problem of life's origins and changes seems to point to evolution. Moreover, the body of scientists do not have a cohesive interest in preserving evolution. No, science sees evolution as a model that will persist as long as it is useful. No matter what the biases of individual scientists to try to forward their hypotheses, science promotes debate over the possible answers and the methods to achieve those answers and thus negates the overall bias quite effectively.

Therefore, science can exude impartiality in a way that creationism never can. The fact that creationism's method excludes the search for unknown knowledge (instead of presuming knowledge and searching for its evidence exclusively) makes it a non-science and nothing more than a side-show that brings up interesting (though usually questionable) counterpoints to evolution that real science may then explore and often debunk.

Science with a theoretical agenda is not science and if you don't want to see the end of scientific discovery and success in this society, you won't teach agenda-based evidence investigation as science.

Don't violate the sanctity of science, my science, your science, with this utterly non-scientific escapade.

[pseudobrit]

Fine. Name me one time that the Bible has been proven incorrect.

Even the Catholic Church recognises the Bible is littered with factual errors. The Church maintains the Bible is the Word of God exclusively as it pertains to matters of faith.

"they contain matters imperfect and provisional" Part One, IV, 121: Old Testament, Catechism of the Catholic Church 1997

[mactastic]

the bottom line is that the article started out by saying that science is contradicting the bible, therefore the science must be adjusted. talk about taking a non-scientific approach to one's problem...

The great irony here is that many of those (not all of course) who would argue that the industrial revolution had such a profound effect on radiocarbon dating and therefore makes the argument for evolution invalid would also argue that global warming hasn't been proven and that man couldn't possibly be affecting the earth in any significant way.

[Xtremehkr]

The Industrial Revolution (http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html) has been considered.

[Xtremehkr]

I like how religion will both try to undermine Carbon Dating (http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/carbon/se_carbon.html) and try to use it (http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/9/7) to prove that the Bible is accurate.

Like so many things in the Bible, when something becomes useful, you just make up a new quote from God and everything is good.

I was up late reading last night and came across a quote, it's from a fictional character, but I liked it.

Fanaticism is always a sign of repressed doubt. - Iblis Ginjo.

[dsharits]

Every one of those supposed errors or contradictions are not valid. I read every single one of them in the links, and every one of them is either taken out of context, the timeline is not considered, or it is just plain wrong. Obviously, I don't have the time to write a reason for each one being false, but, if you would like to pick out any of them that you would like to know about, I would be happy to correct the information that is being given.
The Bible was written in two languages, true. However, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek. The New Testament was never written in Hebrew. Each book in both divisions was hand copied with unbelievable pains taken to ensure the most accuracy. The Bible also says that, "One jot (the smallewst letter of the Hebrew alphabet) or one tittle (the smallest difference between some letters of the Hebrew alphabet) shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Once again, since the Bible has never been proven wrong, you cannot prove it wrong with something that it says that has not been proven wrong either.

Pseudobrit: The Catholic Church is not a part of the Christian church. The Catholic Church is actually more of a cult than a church. So, by saying that the Catholic Church discounts the Bible, that is like saying that it is not true because the Mormons say it isn't. The doctrines of Christianity and Catholicism are night and day differences. For example, the Bible teaches salvation by faith, but Catholicism teaches salvation by works. Not to mention the fact that you are supposed to confess to a priest, when God is the only One who can forgive sins. I can go on and on about this, but I think I've made my point clear enough.

Actually, scientists do have a cohesive interest in preserving evolution. The reason that Charles Darwin even came up with the theory, is because he wanted to free himself of responsibility to authority. People want answers other than Creation, because they want to be free to do what they want. They know that if Creation is true, they will be held responsible for their actions by God.

Lastly, no, Neanderthals, Homo Erectus and others are not transitional forms. Just like Australopithecus ramidus, these last two can be laid to rest.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4371gc8-28-2000.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0322_Homo_erectus.asp

Even if they were real transitional forms, where are all of themissing links for all of the countless animal species?

Daniel

[Lz0]

If the fundamental basis of all of you believe is in "an intelligent Designer", then all you say after that must be flawed.

[mactastic]

Actually, scientists do have a cohesive interest in preserving evolution.

And do you doubt that the Church has an interest in preserving creationism?

[blackfox]

Daniel, I never said the New Testament was written in Hebrew. I made passing reference to it, so as not to leave it out. I concerned myself with the Old Testament since it was relevant to the discussion surrounding Creation.

The OT was actually in Three languages: Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek (later English, German etc), as I made pains to mention. You did not address any of my basic points, except to state that the Authors' (there are at least four for the OT) of a certain version (you did not make clear which) said they were accurate. Well of course they would try to be. I am not saying they purposefully mistranslated, I am talking about the natural deficiencies in the ability of language and the fallibility of man to transcribe events perfectly over 1000 years.

I am sure many Catholics would love to hear that they are not Christians, but a Cult. There are some who say that Christianity itself is merely a Cult, that happened to have fortuitous timing and circumstance.

What does it matter though, you are impervious to any reasonable discussion here, and your arguments (I use that term loosely) are poorly-defined and/or circuitous.

where do you get your information from? You seem to have made yourself the final arbiter of what is or isn't true, so why bother trying to discuss anything with you. Which denomination are you?

In any case, may God have mercy on your soul.

[skunk]

I am sure many Catholics would love to hear that they are not Christians, but a Cult. There are some who say that Christianity itself is merely a Cult, that happened to have fortuitous timing and circumstance.
I blame it on the mushrooms.

Which denomination are you?
"Christian", obviously. Get a clue, man.

In any case, may God have mercy on your soul.
If there is one (of either).

BTW, Daniel, your Neanderthal Man is made of straw...

[themadchemist]

Actually, scientists do have a cohesive interest in preserving evolution. The reason that Charles Darwin even came up with the theory, is because he wanted to free himself of responsibility to authority. People want answers other than Creation, because they want to be free to do what they want. They know that if Creation is true, they will be held responsible for their actions by God.


That's a loaded statement...In more ways than one. "Scientists support evolution because they are immoral, godless heathens." Interesting. Usually I hear it the other way around: "Scientists are immoral, godless heathens because they support evolution."

So what's Pat Robertson's excuse?

Oh, and by the way, science would like penicillin, electricity, and pasteurization back...We don't want to taint you with our atheist, irresponsible, hedonistic pleasures.

[zimv20]

it occurred to me today that we see evolution at work at all the time. when virii and bacteria mutate and become resistant to drugs that fight them, that's evolution.

[themadchemist]

it occurred to me today that we see evolution at work at all the time. when virii and bacteria mutate and become resistant to drugs that fight them, that's evolution.

Yeah, but most creationists buy into what they call "microevolution," just not "macroevolution." The two terms are kind of silly. Mechanistically, the process is continuous. The rate of change and time scale are incidental to the theory, as are the actual changes that occur.

[themadchemist]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4371gc8-28-2000.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0322_Homo_erectus.asp

There is imperfection to all of this evidence because it's old and indirect. What's more interesting is the reproduction of experiments that show that the basic mechanism of evolution, nucleotide mutation, is an appropriate and practical model for such a process. As I said in my previous post, if the mechanism works on a small scale, then it can work on a larger scale given the time.

There is no other demonstrable mechanism by which the change of life could have happened.

Creationists, certainly, propose nothing in the way of scientific evidence to show the biochemical, molecular biological, and cell biological foundations of their hypothesis. The field seems to be nothing more than anti-evolutionism, instead of a real effort to discover the origins of life.

There are no "evolutionists" or "creationists" (two terms concocted and used by creationists almost exclusively). There are only scientists and those who pretend to be.

[takao]

cardinal Ratzinger ,actual prefect of the "congregatio pro doctrina fidei" (formely known as "sacra congregatio sancti officii" and founded in 1542 as "congregatio romanae et universalis inquisitionis" ),right-hand of the pope and perhaps the hardliner number 1 in the catholic church said "that the big bang and evolution theories are fully compatible with the christian faith" not so long ago

if the inquisition can accept evolution then i can live with it as well ;)

EDIT: i'm surprised no one posted the famous Darth Vader Picture "I find your lack of faith disturbing" yet

[dsharits]

it occurred to me today that we see evolution at work at all the time. when virii and bacteria mutate and become resistant to drugs that fight them, that's evolution.

But they never change species. Sure, there are many changes within a species, but organisms never become a different species.

Daniel

[skunk]

There is no other demonstrable mechanism by which the change of life could have happened.
Whoa! Now we're moving to an entirely different topic! :D :eek:

[Xtremehkr]

But they never change species. Sure, there are many changes within a species, but organisms never become a different species.

Daniel

Never? there were never species at one point. Life will adapt to it's surroundings and continue to expand into new areas that require further adaption.

Come on, do a little research for your own knowledge.

[blackfox]

But they never change species. Sure, there are many changes within a species, but organisms never become a different species.

Daniel
I could make a compelling argument that you and I are different species.

Which one of us is making Jesus cry?

See you on Judgement day.

[skunk]

Two questions for the literalists among us:
1
IN the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Why did God forget the firmament s/he'd already created on Day One?

2
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Where did the carnivores come from?

[jefhatfield]

Every one of those supposed errors or contradictions are not valid. I read every single one of them in the links, and every one of them is either taken out of context, the timeline is not considered, or it is just plain wrong. Obviously, I don't have the time to write a reason for each one being false, but, if you would like to pick out any of them that you would like to know about, I would be happy to correct the information that is being given.
The Bible was written in two languages, true. However, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek. The New Testament was never written in Hebrew. Each book in both divisions was hand copied with unbelievable pains taken to ensure the most accuracy. The Bible also says that, "One jot (the smallewst letter of the Hebrew alphabet) or one tittle (the smallest difference between some letters of the Hebrew alphabet) shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Once again, since the Bible has never been proven wrong, you cannot prove it wrong with something that it says that has not been proven wrong either.

Pseudobrit: The Catholic Church is not a part of the Christian church. The Catholic Church is actually more of a cult than a church. So, by saying that the Catholic Church discounts the Bible, that is like saying that it is not true because the Mormons say it isn't. The doctrines of Christianity and Catholicism are night and day differences. For example, the Bible teaches salvation by faith, but Catholicism teaches salvation by works. Not to mention the fact that you are supposed to confess to a priest, when God is the only One who can forgive sins. I can go on and on about this, but I think I've made my point clear enough.

Actually, scientists do have a cohesive interest in preserving evolution. The reason that Charles Darwin even came up with the theory, is because he wanted to free himself of responsibility to authority. People want answers other than Creation, because they want to be free to do what they want. They know that if Creation is true, they will be held responsible for their actions by God.

Lastly, no, Neanderthals, Homo Erectus and others are not transitional forms. Just like Australopithecus ramidus, these last two can be laid to rest.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4371gc8-28-2000.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0322_Homo_erectus.asp

Even if they were real transitional forms, where are all of themissing links for all of the countless animal species?

Daniel

i am a christian and my point of view is colored by the fact i went to seminary and i belonged to groups in college promoting evangelism

a few points...first of all, there are contradictions in the bible, or at very least major disagreements among the body of christ...otherwise we would have had one church from the beginning and few or even one denomination of christianity

science has proved things like the sun being the center of the solar system, the earth being round, the earth revolving around the sun, and the earth being older than a few thousand years old...i will take carbon dating because it has confirmed the dead sea scrolls, writings by josephus, archealogical findings that support the bible, and many other previously unknown facts by the secular world that christians have taken in faith

spreading the faith with faith, hope, and love will win people over to christ, not engaging in obviously faulty arguments that the world is a few thousand years old...my ancensty, japan via china, is proclaimed false by some christians who like to promote a european world view but the fact is there were many cultures in the world up and running at the supposed time of adam and eve 2000 to 4000 years before christ...i know this doesn't mesh with the geneaology that is written in the bible, but the geneaology of the bible doesn't account for the written record of the supposedly more ancient chinese civilization that pre-dates anything previously known by western man

so let's say that science proves genetic homosexuality, and alcoholism being genetic, and the earth being millions or billions of years old? so what?...nothing changes the fact that there was this man, who before he was born even, fulfilled scores of prophecies made hundreds of years, or more, before his birth...and that while he was alive, fulfilled the rest of the prophecies, and came back from the dead...jesus is who he said he was and that is all that really matters in the christian faith

one cannot win people to christ through fuzzy math and fuzzy science...it's ok to educate yourself with science and know it the best you can and accept facts that don't mesh with the bible...it doesn't make you any less of a christian...it's ok to be a christian and also be educated...it is not a sin to realize the world is round, that evolution does exist, and the world is very, very old

christ died for our sins...period...and promote that, not an image that makes people think you have absolutely no common sense or education...some non christians believe you have to be a biggot, an idiot, and only a republican to enter the gates of heaven

in reality, nobody here deserves heaven and nobody can attain it...and nobody will be one inch closer to it by trashing the theory of evolution either...one cannot also reach an understanding of god with his logical mind...it's through faith and believing christ died for us that makes us worthy...by accepting the one who was perfect

so lose the anti-darwin talk because it only draws people away from christ

[skunk]

in reality, nobody here deserves heaven and nobody can attain it...and nobody will be one inch closer to it by trashing the theory of evolution either...one cannot also reach an understanding of god with his logical mind...it's through faith and believing christ died for us that makes us worthy...by accepting the one who was perfect

so lose the anti-darwin talk because it only draws people away from christ
A breath of fresh air!

[blackfox]

excellent post Jef.

Thankyou.

I had lost my patience.

[Sun Baked]

I had almost thought the Political Section has sprouted a Bible School... :eek:

Which would have made the later debate over whether it should be a Democratic or Republican values Bible School a bit much. ;)

[MacDawg]

As far as the original purpose I proposed for this thread is concerned,
I think it has strayed from its roots and outlived its usefulness.
I am sorry (but somewhat amused) to see that it has resulted in the very thing that I wanted to avoid. :(

I have not posted in this thread for a while,
but thought I would post an article that I found to be relevant to the thread.

Food for thought...

Link to news article (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976)


Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence

Excerpts from the article...

Dec. 9, 2004 - A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.



Woof, Woof - Dawg

[Xtremehkr]

He's free to believe whatever he wants to believe.

[dsharits]

Wow, jefhatfield, that is so far off base. Where did you go to seminary? Creation is the foundation of the Bible and God's salvation of man. Evolution only seeks to take God out of the picture, it CANNOT be incorporated with the Bible. I've dealt with this argument before, and I know that it's a growing trend. It really is sad to see people trying to work evolution into the Bible. Evolution and Creation are complete opposites of each other, with each one trying to achieve separate goals. By rejecting the foundation of the Bible and choosing to believe that it is not the inspired Word of God, you will, as the Bible says, "be swayed by every wind of doctrine." Saying that it's okay to believe that there isn't a God, does not draw people to Christ. Rejecting the very Book that tells the way to salvation absolutely does not draw people to Christ. How on earth do you think that you can choose to reject parts of the Bible and accept other parts as being the truth? If you discount any part of the Bible, you have to discount the whole thing.
Also, there are different denominations, because there are disagreements on how to interpret scripture, not contradictions in the Bible. For example, baptism is a big one. Some chruches believe that baptism is to be done by sprinkling, others believe it is to be done by immersion. Either way, it is not a pivotal belief, and it will not discount your salvation by believing one way and not the other, because it is by trusting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior that you are saved. Denomination differences are based on different interpretations of the Bible or on traditions followed for centuries. Whichever one, they do not indicate contradictions in the Bible.


Why did God forget the firmament s/he'd already created on Day One?


There was no firmament created in day one. The firmament that it is referring to was a water canopy that filtered out the sun's harmful rays, kept the air at a constant pressure (higher than it is today) and created a greenhouse-like effect to keep the entire earth at one moderate temperature. This was created on day two, like it says. When it rained and caused the Flood, the firmament supplied much of the water, as it "collapsed" around the earth. Remember, before the Flood, it had never rained. The earth was watered by a mist that came up from the ground (See Gen. 2:6). The water supply for the mist also contributed to the Flood waters.

Where did the carnivores come from?

Before the fall of man (the first sin), everything was vegetarian. After sin entered the world, animals became carnivorous. It wasn't until after the Flood that God told man that he could eat meat (see Gen. 9:3). This was because the protective water canopy was gone, and the body would be depleted by the harmful rays of the sun and the lowered air pressure. Therefore, man needed extra protein and nutrients the rebuild the body and keep strength.

Never? there were never species at one point. Life will adapt to it's surroundings and continue to expand into new areas that require further adaption.


True, life will adapt to its surroundings, and it will change slightly to fit it's environment. However, even though they do change, they do not become a different species. Let's say that a certain species of lizard is green, but lives in a brown colored environment. The lizard will eventually turn brown to blend in with its surroundings, but it will still be a lizard. It will not grow wings and feathers and become a bird, so it can eat the other green lizards that haven't adapted yet. :D That just sounds rediculous, but evolution teaches that if the element of time is added to those same circumstances, it will happen. Something that is impossible now, somehow becomes possible if millions of years are added? It The bacteria adapting to resist drugs is just like your body acquiring an immunity to a disease. Some immunities are hereditary, which would be the case for the bacteria. Even if two species are bred together, they will not continue beyond that one animal. If a horse and a donkey are bred to make a mule, that mule is sterile.

Daniel

[zimv20]

It wasn't until after the Flood that God told man that he could eat meat (see Gen. 9:3). This was because the protective water canopy was gone, and the body would be depleted by the harmful rays of the sun and the lowered air pressure. Therefore, man needed extra protein and nutrients the rebuild the body and keep strength.
many people lead perfectly healthy lives w/o consuming animal products of any kind. does that defy god's will?

or is it possible that the bible changed to fit people's habits?

[dsharits]

No not in any way. It just wasn't really advantageous for humans to eat meat before the Flood. Especially today, with all of the technology and newly discovered uses for different plants, it is fine to be a vegetarian. Back then, the would not have known what nutrients they needed to stay healthy, and there obviously weren't any nutrition labels on the foods. God simply knew what was best for them at the time, just like He did with the Israelites later on, when He told them not to eat certain animals that were later found to cause disease without the proper cooking method.

Daniel

[zimv20]

so you're saying that, as long as meat is properly cooked, it doesn't cause disease?

[skunk]

No not in any way. It just wasn't really advantageous for humans to eat meat before the Flood. Especially today, with all of the technology and newly discovered uses for different plants, it is fine to be a vegetarian. Back then, the would not have known what nutrients they needed to stay healthy, and there obviously weren't any nutrition labels on the foods. God simply knew what was best for them at the time, just like He did with the Israelites later on, when He told them not to eat certain animals that were later found to cause disease without the proper cooking method.

Daniel
You're making this up as you go along. Which Holy Book does this come from?
I assume then that lions ate grass until the Fall, and the fact that their digestive systems wouldn't handle it was irrelevant. Or maybe they EVOLVED into carnivores. Which one is it, Daniel? You, of all people, should know about lions...

[skunk]

Wow, jefhatfield, that is so far off base. Where did you go to seminary? Creation is the foundation of the Bible and God's salvation of man.
What a hateful philosophy yours is. Your method is well practised, though: make up a load of utter twaddle, say it's GOD'S WORD, and that anyone who doesn't believe you is damned. You're going to be a lonely man in your "Heaven". You have so far excluded the entire scientific community, the Catholic Church, all Muslims, all Buddhists, all Hindus, all Zoroastrians, all animists. Who's left? Probably just a congregation of gun-toting, fundamentalist, racist bigots: enjoy your afterlife.

[mactastic]

How on earth do you think that you can choose to reject parts of the Bible and accept other parts as being the truth? If you discount any part of the Bible, you have to discount the whole thing.

Does this all-or-nothing deal apply only to the Bible, or to everything? If I feel that the ancient Greek idea of democracy was a little flawed what with the attitudes towards young boys, women, and slaves, must I reject democracy entirely, or can we pull from it the parts that are good and reject that parts that are not?

Obviously God wanted us to have democracy, right? As is frequently mentioned, these are unalienable rights granted to us by our creator, correct? So why was the original democracy flawed? Why was it not as perfect as man was? And why did God hold out on us for so long before allowing us to have democracy?

Oh, and as to Dawg's original reason for this thread: Dawg, you are now a left-wing radical nut case by comparison.

[pseudobrit]

Chug that Kool-Aid, baby!

[skunk]

I think he's chugged quite enough already.

[jefhatfield]

some christians like me have no problem with science and evolution...some christians believe in pre tribulation while others think christians are going to suffer a major persecution on earth...some christians believe in the gift of tongues while others don't...some christians find it necessary for salvation to have works and/or baptism...some christians believe condoms are a form of abortion, some are ok with it in the context of marriage...some christians believe that the catholic church is a large denomination while others think that it is the big false religion...the list goes on an on

i understand some parts of the bible more than others and the older i get (age 41) and the longer i am a christian (since age 15), the more i realize how deep the bible is...my bible schooling was through calvary chapel, a southern california based evangelical church which does not get into petty denominational controversy but seeks to find a commonality of faith in the four gospels...some members are democrats and some are republicans, some speak in tongues and some don't, and basically the church does not fit into any easy stereotype...my evangelical training was through intervarsity christian fellowship (christian union in uk) and campus crusade for christ and i did work in london and belfast (where some christians were killed and continue to lose their lives working for peace) and i attribute my style of evangelism a lot to the navigators ministry also...educationally, i have attended graduate school at a secular university with a right wing emphasis...my undergraduate education came largly from secular education with a left wing emphasis...i am also a product of the public school system in california who at times seemed hostile to christian points of view...so basically, from kidergarten through grad school, i have seen a wide variety of points of view

while i have my point of views on secular and political matters, my religious point of view comes down to god loving the world and sending his his son to die for us for our salvation

my simplicity in point of view i have on christianity was formed in a second when i touched foot in belfast and had machine guns pointed at me all the time...before that i used to get heavily involved in minor issues in an around christianity but becoming a missionary in a dangerous setting really strengthens one's faith...my cousin went to an eastern block nation where she had her life in danger due to her christian point of view and like many missionaries before her, and me, there is spreading the gospel and hoping to stay alive one more day to spread the gospel...dsharits, i urge you, after high school or college to go out into the world and bear your cross...believe me, after third world disease or bloodshed/hatred in front of your eyes, you will spend more time sharing the gospel to non christians than pushing them away from christ with unpopular points of view on evolution/creation...much the way christians used to jail and kill people who believed the earth was round and that it revolved around the sun (a capital offense in much of europe in the time of galileo)...if you can't go to belfast, bosnia, or a war torn nation in africa, do god's work in the worst corner of your big city...see junkies pushing needles into their arms or dealers flashing pistols in front of your face while trying to spread the gospel...i believe, like me and many before me, you will come to a more simplified and unifying version of christianity and use your words wisely in defending your faith

dsharits, when i was your exact age, i had a world view much like yours and i don't expect you to think much differently either...christ was simple and direct as are modern day evangelists like billy graham who do not delve into politics or fine points of christianity...everything is about people who accept christ based on christ's actions and people who don't and there are many who don't so his life's work is cut out for him

while it seems there are parts of the faith i don't agree with dsharits on, i assume he/she would agree the basis of christianity is christ the messiah...in other words god coming down to earth in the form of man to save us from our sins...it's the basic foundation of catholicism, orthodox christianiy, and protestant christianity and it's where i base my faith on

-daniel
aka jefhatfield on macrumors

[skunk]

Good of you to share all that stuff, Jef. But as far as I'm concerned, the basis of Christianity is loving thy neighbour.

[jefhatfield]

Good of you to share all that stuff, Jef. But as far as I'm concerned, the basis of Christianity is loving thy neighbour.

that is the whole synthesis and idea of the ten commandments when christ preached to the saduccees and pharisees...and yes, it's very important

love god, love your neighbor-including your enemy

love is the answer and the ultimate act of god's love was to make himself a person, preach the gospel, and then die for it so we could have a way into heaven...god did this every second of every minute of every hour of every day with love in mind

the minute a christian acts for the gospels for pride, money, spite, anger and any other emotion that is not love, then the "good act" is useless and a "bad witness" of the faith...all good works should be done in love and if one accepts christ as their savior, they will have the love in them

when one accepts christ, they become perfect in christ's eyes and worthy of heaven, but on an everyday basis chrisitans will sin like anybody else...the major difference is that they are forgiven of all sins past, present, and future

and why is that? because, coming back to my simplistic view of christianity, it's because christ (god in the form of man) came down here and died for our sins so we could have a savior and a role model

if i go around spouting that science, evolution, and darwin are all hogwash to non christians, i believe it may turn them away from being receptive to the message of the gospel (good news) of christ...call creationism a foundation if you may, but realize that convincing a person that the earth is very, very young will not help a person realize that there was a jewish carpenter 2000 years ago who also had another job title on his resume...that of god

god is powerul and personally i believe he could have made the world in seven seconds if he wanted to but i think he created a world many millions (or more) years ago and the process of evolution unfolded, a process so complex and beautiful it could only come from a higher power with intelligence far beyond of that of any human being...if anything, the processes of evolution, science, and the weird and wonderful order of the planets and stars only reinforces the beauty and majesty that was of a simple carpenter named jesus of nazareth

in his letters to the regional churches, btw, the apostle paul refers to jesus as the creator of the universe so as far as creationism goes, christ did it (created it) all...whether the seven days in genesis were 24 hour periods or not is not of major concern to me...like i said i believe he could have done it in seven seconds...what concerns me, and everybody on the planet, is how you view his crucifiction and resurrection

...was that a solitary act that led to a dead carpenter or was it god in the flesh redeeming a sinful mankind?

[skunk]

You'd better come up for air.

Your evangelism is running away with you! ;)

[themadchemist]

Creation is the foundation of the Bible and God's salvation of man. Evolution only seeks to take God out of the picture, it CANNOT be incorporated with the Bible. I've dealt with this argument before, and I know that it's a growing trend. It really is sad to see people trying to work evolution into the Bible. Evolution and Creation are complete opposites of each other, with each one trying to achieve separate goals.


Gee, you really don't understand, do you? Evolution doesn't have goals. Scientists who study the development of life don't have some hidden agenda about the Bible or God or anything.

They just see a problem and they wish to answer it. They look for evidence and based on that evidence, they formulate a hypothesis. They find more evidence and that hypothesis becomes a theory.

The first question wasn't, "Hmmm...How can I reject the Bible and cast God out of all things human?"

The question was, "Hmmm, how did life come about?"

Not so hard.


By rejecting the foundation of the Bible and choosing to believe that it is not the inspired Word of God, you will, as the Bible says, "be swayed by every wind of doctrine." Saying that it's okay to believe that there isn't a God, does not draw people to Christ. Rejecting the very Book that tells the way to salvation absolutely does not draw people to Christ. How on earth do you think that you can choose to reject parts of the Bible and accept other parts as being the truth? If you discount any part of the Bible, you have to discount the whole thing.


If you can't understand that religion is a social institution, even if it is divinely inspired, then you do spirituality little justice...

It is the way of the Bible to endorse discrimination against minorities and women and to support the institution of slavery. Are these God's ways? If you believe so, then your brand of religion is more than a little interesting.


True, life will adapt to its surroundings, and it will change slightly to fit it's environment. However, even though they do change, they do not become a different species. Let's say that a certain species of lizard is green, but lives in a brown colored environment. The lizard will eventually turn brown to blend in with its surroundings, but it will still be a lizard. It will not grow wings and feathers and become a bird, so it can eat the other green lizards that haven't adapted yet. :D


The definition of a species is the ability to mate and produce viable offspring. If a lizard species can change enough to become brown, why can't it change enough to mate with a different subset of the population? It's just modifying a different part of the genome--It's not fundamentally different.


That just sounds rediculous, but evolution teaches that if the element of time is added to those same circumstances, it will happen.


Actually, it doesn't sound ridiculous. Why would it? It is the idea that given millions of years, small changes add up. If you agree that the small changes occur, then you have to, by definition agree that many small changes would constitute a big change.


Something that is impossible now, somehow becomes possible if millions of years are added?


You haven't demonstrated that it is impossible. In fact, your admission that small mutations occur has shown support for the idea that larger changes are entirely possible.

In fact, one could imagine that all of the change necessary for some major evolutionary change could occur in one fell swoop. It is biochemically possible for all of the mutations to occur at once, but it is extremely unlikely for all of those events to coincide temporally.

Thus, it is possible, but unlikely, for a grand change to happen quickly, but quite possible for a small change to occur. Over time, a bunch of small changes have a decent possibility of occurring (and their utility gives preferential selection--that is, their usefulness increases the chance of future propagation).


It The bacteria adapting to resist drugs is just like your body acquiring an immunity to a disease. Some immunities are hereditary, which would be the case for the bacteria. Even if two species are bred together, they will not continue beyond that one animal. If a horse and a donkey are bred to make a mule, that mule is sterile.


My dear Daniel, you clearly don't have a grasp of what a species is. The term species is defined on the idea of exclusive successful mating. Obviously two different species won't give viable offspring--It violates our definition of species.

And who said that crossing animals has anything to do with evolution? Evolution is the accumulation of mutations in a population through time. It has nothing to do with whether a donkey and a horse can mate.

edit: Added a few things that may or may not be helpful in understanding my point of view.

[pseudobrit]

My dear Daniel, you clearly don't have a grasp of what a species is.

I think you could sub quite a number of words for "species" and still have a valid argument.

And he called me a cultist to boot!

[zimv20]

daniel, read up on natural selection. darwin postulated that certain species exhibit certain traits because the members of that species which didn't have those traits were not able to survive. "survival of the fittest," and so forth.

why are cheetas fast? because the fast ones could catch prey and survive. the slow ones died out, and with them, those slow-twitch genes.

why do turtles have hard shells? for protection, obviously. the turtles w/ the genes that made soft shells fell victim to prey, and those genes eventually died out.

this is an oversimplification, but it should point you in the right direction.

[jefhatfield]

dsharits is in high school (or maybe just months past graduation) and he hasn't lived long or done college or the working world for years and years...unless he comes from a very rich family, it is unlikely he has traveled extensively throughout the world

it's ok to debate with him but please don't flamewar him...he is pretty smart for a kid/young person and while i don't agree with his creationism theories, do hear him out and note that many older, more experienced (and college educated) people subscribe to creationism and may have better, more sound arguments for this belief system

[blackfox]

That is very gracious of you Jef. I was under the (mistaken) opinion that Daniel was quite a bit older, so I was less apt to cut him slack. I remember myself at that age, and although my beliefs were much different than daniel's, I was no less naive, and subsequently victim to absolutism.

Always nice to see you contribute here Jef.

[jefhatfield]

That is very gracious of you Jef. I was under the (mistaken) opinion that Daniel was quite a bit older, so I was less apt to cut him slack. I remember myself at that age, and although my beliefs were much different than daniel's, I was no less naive, and subsequently victim to absolutism.

Always nice to see you contribute here Jef.

thank you

i don't know many pre-teens or teens who are not naive or victims of absolutism...when i was his age, there were certain rock bands i liked and i made myself like all thier songs, even if they sucked, and bands i didn't know i proclaimed they were horrible, even if i had never listened to them...it was kind of funny and i was a product of the top 40 and billboard

now when adults in their 30s or older continue on a naive or absolute path as a 12 year old, either they are late bloomers from what i have seen (and will eventually grow out of it) or they are suffering from a major mental illness...a couple of schizophrenics that hang around town have embraced either strict jehovah witness-ism or strict, ultra right wing christian or muslim fundamentalism and the draw to that is that there is someone there to tell you like it is (like the popes of old in the early, brutal catholic church) and give structure to an otherwise chaotic life of homelessness and trying to sort out which voices one hears are real or imagined

everybody is on a path and some people are so hurt and/or disorganized that instead of drug addiction or alcoholism, extreme religion is all they can grasp onto for their own sanity...while some forms of extreme religiosity or cultism are damaging to the person, it's a fate much better than ending up dead in the park with a bottle in your hand or a needle in your arm...sometimes surrendering a pathetic existence to a totalitarian religious cult is the best one can do right now and it could be the first step out of addiction or severe mental illness

i used to have a co-worker who was homeless and unable to work and wracked with symptoms of schizophrenia...he would have starved to death on the streets or got run over by a car (or worse)...when he joined the jehovah witnesses (a cult in my opinion), he cleaned up and other members of his church saw to it that he had a place to live and hot food...i am convinced they saved his life and it's amazing what hot and cold running water, shelter, and food can do to a person who would otherwise be on the street...when i talk to him, he is concerned that i will not go to heaven because i am not a jehovah witness and that anybody in the world not a jehovah witness is not in god's favor and under the spell of satan/evil/man's sin nature and basically doomed...there are some fundamentalist/fundamentalist-like churches with somewhat similar beliefs too (the way, international church of christ, and some others) who are similarily extreme and cater to the minds of mentally ill people but do get them off the streets

so while i don't like any extreme religious beliefs that feel that only their church/denomination/belief is correct and everybody else is wrong, they still do save people from homelessness or a life of prostitution, drugs and violence and are willing to reach out to the poorest of the poor in a way some mainline churches won't

but for most of us, joining a door to door extremist lifestyle of a jehovah witness or an ultra exclusive international church of christ (the other branch was jim jones...the kool aid bunch) fundamentalist, is not the best option to find spirituality for one's soul...while i wouldn't equate most american cults to the nazis or a saddam hussein type regime, if you can avoid an extremist (i am right and you are all wrong) belief system, you are better off joining a mainline denomination (catholic, baptist, methodist, lutheran, etc)

many of today's extreme fundamentalists worship george w bush more than they do jesus christ and by definition, that is not a christian...if one votes for george w bush because one is a republican, that is fine (lower taxes, limited government, etc)...but if one thinks that somehow george w bush is going to be akin to christ's second coming, then that person has chosen their "god" and are not likely to recognize the real christ when he comes to earth...the book of revealation warns about false religion being rampant in the end days and W's god squad seems too reminiscient of a satanic false religion and could be perfect material for the next book in the omen series

false religion has also existed all througout the bible as shown by the so called religious power (pharisees and saduccees of the day) and their extreme religious zeal crucified christ...there was also a considerable greed driven faction that controlled christianity in the middle ages and their gift to mankind was the slaughering of many through the crusades and inquisitions...today's fundamentalists would crucify christ if they saw him...*note when i say fundamentalist, i mean someone who thumps the bible yet hates homosexuals, jews, muslims, liberals, and anybody of color

[wowser]

Whilst Creationism and Darwinism are too opposing concepts, I feel I can still hold a belief in God and in Darwinism. We can see Darwinism at work even within our life times (In the Industrial age of Britain, many areas near factories would get covered in black soot. Moths of a darker colour survived better than lighter coloured moths, as they were camoflauged, so the darker moths became the dominant species). However, I also feel that that the creation of life and evolution is something so special, that it could have only decended from a greater being, or at least a higher force. Darwinism makes God's work seem even more incredible, as it shows all the complexities of life.

[pseudobrit]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to forgive a kid for being simple after he calls my religion a cult.

Bigotry deserves all the negative reinforcement it gets. Maybe he'll turn into a decent, empathetic human being someday.

[Xtremehkr]

Evolution shows the connected nature of life, how everything comes into balance with eachother most of the time.

Cept humans of course, they haven't found their balance yet.

[MacDawg]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to forgive a kid for being simple after he calls my religion a cult.

Bigotry deserves all the negative reinforcement it gets. Maybe he'll turn into a decent, empathetic human being someday.


Which is why I wanted to avoid a name calling fight, and had high hopes that this thread would result in several things: (1) an understanding and respect for contrary opinions and positions apart from acerbic rhetoric (disagreeing without being disagreeable), (2) the seeds for serious communication, exchange of ideas, and dialogue on issues of consequence among those of dissenting opinions.

Unfortunately both sides in this discourse have at times resorted to taunting and heavy handed posturing. jefhatfield at one point called for cooler heads to prevail, and that was a welcome interlude to the heat of battle.

An open letter to dsharits... written in tenderness for you.

Daniel, I find much to admire in your spirit and your convictions. But I would suggest that your passion should be tempered with compassion. It has been said that you are young man and that you should be forgiven for some of your youthful ignorance (at least that was my interpretation).

Since you appear to a student of the Scriptures and honor the Bible, I will speak in terms that perhaps you can relate with, and in doing so, I would say, "Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity." 1 Timothy 4:12. Strive to avoid allowing others to use your youth as an opportunity to discount you. But as you can see from this passage, you should earnestly seek to be an example of a believer and to other believers in all that you do. The passage mentions specifically in your words and in your conduct, showing love in all you do.

Whether your positions have merit or not, have ceased to be the issue, and your stance and tone has become the focal point. The challenge to your credibility has switched from positions to attitude. I would suggest that 1 Peter 3:15 would be in order here: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear". The key here is the manner in which you are making a defense.

With that in mind Daniel, I would counsel you to examine how you are presenting yourself, and the way your testimony is seen by others. "Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one." Colossians 4:6 Whether your position has merit or not, it will never be heard without first gaining a hearing. Having boldness in your convictions is important, as is sharing your faith. But in sharing your faith, you want to win the hearts and minds of men (and women), not win an argument.

Your posts have attempted to discredit all of the scientific community, and to ridicule their position as being faulty in its premise and untenable in its foundation. In addition you have alienated your audience by taunting their own religious convictions. You should have expected nothing less than a very defensive posture on the part of others, and you should have anticipated the ferocious attack you have received. There is a time and a place for standing "you against the world", but that time should not be of your own making. While there is always a certain amount of adrenaline in stirring the pot, in the end, there is no progress made.

I would suggest that you seek to find points of agreement with those with whom you choose to debate first. Then, introduce areas of disagreement in small portions, so that you can focus on key areas and they can be properly discussed with civility and mutual respect for positions. Most of all, you should be seeking not only to be understood, but to understand as well.

You have much to commend you Daniel, and I wish you well as you continue to grow in your understanding and convictions. I would encourage you to continue to sharpen your sword, and refine your positions, but remember, "we do not wrestle against flesh and blood" Ephesians 6:12, and the souls of men and women are in the balance.

An open letter to Daniel's critics...

Young Daniel has certainly been in the Lion's Den in this thread. He has shown a great deal of courage, or ignorance, depending on which side of the issues you stand. I will not attempt to defend his positions (he has made his own statements to that effect), or to support his methods.

I would call on everyone to lower the level of frustration and to take a deep breath. The more the emotions get involved, the quicker the mind closes down. Neither side has made much progress persuading their opponent through the manner in which they are assaulting positions.

Instead of being all over the board, from Bible passages to bacteria, from carbon dating to fossil evidence, and even to the big bang and star formations... I would suggest that you focus on one area of debate and have both sides present their viewpoint and supporting data, point and counterpoint, avoiding inflammatory rhetoric. Apart from that, there is little use in just calling each other names.

I am sorry if I am coming across in a condescending manner. That is certainly not my intention. I just have a heavy heart in the direction the thread has taken, and I want to be a voice of reason calling everyone back to a place that will be profitable for all involved. I don't want to interfere in the thread and tell anyone what to do or how to act, but I do want to promote honest and open debate and discussion, not stereotypical "us against them" thinking.

I hope my words are taken in the spirit in which they are intended.

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[stubeeef]

Dawg, you should stop posting on the politics forum, and get into politics!


Strong, Poignant, and Brilliantly stated.

[Xtremehkr]

So how about tackling some of the issues now.

[themadchemist]

So how about tackling some of the issues now.

I agree! And that may mean some harsh debate, which is ok. Even if you're in high school, it is healthy to have your beliefs questioned and to be forced to think critically about others' viewpoints...It's easy for people to go through life without THINKING, and THAT is problematic.

[takao]

..., but I do want to promote honest and open debate and discussion, not stereotypical "us against them" thinking.

i don't know if that's possible ...religions and their beliefs always were heavy opposed scientific progress if it might interfere with their fundamental dogmas...there enough cases were somebody discovered soemthign new in science and had to keep it secret because otherwise he might have come into big problems...

sure you can say "it's different nowadays"...the problem with that: it is not
in many muslim countries astronomy is still an absolute taboo ...

outside of ethical question (in medical researches for example) i don't think that religion etc. has it's place in science

and i find it rather interesting to see people younger than me being more conservative and religous than my grandmother... heck even she doesn't doubt evolution... (i haven't met a single pearson who has a problem with it and i'm not really living in the most liberal part of austria...far from it)

[MacDawg]

And that may mean some harsh debate, which is ok. Even if you're in high school, it is healthy to have your beliefs questioned and to be forced to think critically about others' viewpoints...It's easy for people to go through life without THINKING, and THAT is problematic.

Absolutely. Critical thinking is rapidly becoming a lost art as people follow the masses like lemmings. It is not enough to know what you believe (which is often a rarity in itself), but one must also know why they believe. I would agree that harsh debate is OK, as long as the the harshness is directed against positions and not individuals. However, being hard on a position requires adequate data to support it.


i don't know if that's possible ...religions and their beliefs always were heavy opposed scientific progress if it might interfere with their fundamental dogmas...there enough cases were somebody discovered soemthign new in science and had to keep it secret because otherwise he might have come into big problems

I agree to a certain extent, and yet brilliant scientists have come up with some real "boners" as well from time to time that went unchallenged for years until someone stood against the established scientific community and said, 'hey, you know, this doesn't all add up like you said it did'.

I will admit that organized religion has often suppressed progressive thought in many areas, not just in science. The Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. are ample proof of the lack of tolerance shown by organized religion in the past towards the religious beliefs of others, and of other cultures. However, that does not mean that all who hold religious beliefs are antagonistic towards science. And yet, there is equally an oppressive spirit within the scientific community towards religion and scientists who hold religious beliefs that at least needs to be acknowledged.

We should all be seekers of truth, wherever that search leads us. I believe that both sides (science and religion) need to recognize their arrogance and renounce it. Science does not sit and speak ex cathedra from an infallible throne, and yet many worship at the altar of academia with as much zeal fervor as any religious zealot.

When it comes to avoiding truth because it challenges fundamental dogmas, I would argue that there are some within the scientific community who are just as predisposed to dismissing out of hand anything that remotely suggests a design/Designer due to a preconceived idea that such a direction is fundamentally unscientific and therefore not an option. Only non-god answers need apply, even if there is evidence that suggests the contrary.

outside of ethical question (in medical researches for example) i don't think that religion etc. has it's place in science

I understand your point, but I do not believe that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, unless a conscious choice is made to do so. Religion should express a wonder for the discoveries of science, recognizing that science uncovers and reveals the underlying greatness and glory of its God. Science (even if atheistic in its worldview) should be critical thinking and honest enough to say "I don't know" when confronted by something that it can't explain.


and i find it rather interesting to see people younger than me being more conservative and religous than my grandmother... heck even she doesn't doubt evolution... (i haven't met a single pearson who has a problem with it and i'm not really living in the most liberal part of austria...far from it)

Is that to say that older people can be excused for their ignorance because they were never taught better, but that the youth of today should know better by now? I don't want to put words in your mouth, I'm just asking.

It isn't just the elderly or the misguided youth of our day that have questions about the broad theory of "evolution", modified descent by natural selection or the origin of life itself. The jump from the peppered moth story (which is another debate) to abiogenesis is a gap of monumental proportions. In reality, both sides of the debate - evolution and design - are able to produce support for their sides and challenges for the other. Respected scientists with impeccable credentials can be produced for each side.

One side calls the other "names" like ignorant, uninformed, backwards, and just plain stupid. The other side responds with terms like godless, heathen, immoral and evil. Neither are profitable. For either side to act as though the other side has no basis for their beliefs is ludicrous. To dismiss them without a hearing is foolish.

The issues are clouded when the are all lumped together. If one is to truly debate the issues and not the personalities, then one are of focus needs to be narrowed. I would suggest a start with either abiogenesis or macro evolution. (I would further suggest that arguing from micro evolution to macro evolution by just introducing more "time" is not a fair assessment of the problems involved in gaps, which is why Gould endorses punctuated equilibrium). Having narrowed to one of the two, then each side can present one or two supporting arguments and solicit a response. Then a rebuttal can be made. The other side could then do the same, respecting the intelligence and integrity of those presenting the arguments.

Just as cloudy is lumping positions together as one - that is, religion and science. There are many variations on the spectrum. Some believe a personal God created ex nihilo all that there is within six literal days in the not so distant past, created with the appearance of age. Others believe that an undetermined Designer introduced several fundamental life forms and allowed processes (micro) to take a natural course. Should the two be considered as the same position? Probably not. Some would see design in the first forms of cellular life, but would consider themselves evolutionists because all life followed modified descent through natural selection from that point. Are they evolutionists or creationists.

With that in mind, stating from what world view and background you are coming from would probably be helpful too.

Will any of that happen?
I doubt it... the thread will probably just die because it becomes uninteresting at that point.

Besides, its too much fun to just call each other names. :rolleyes:

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[mpw]

This is a great thread lots of intelligent views being put and some stuff that makes you think a bit.

Forgive me if these views have already been adequately put but I've just started with the thread and am only to page 3.

The original poster asked for a view so I’ll give it. It seems that he’s an intelligent guy certainly not an extremist nut in the sense I would use the phrase but I do think he’s wrong on a number of issues.

It’s interesting to note he seems to claim a religious faith. I wonder why this is so as it’s something I’ve never been drawn to. Then I read some of his political views and it occurs that he’s very happy to be controlled and looked after by the State.

Could it be that he’s that middle ground sort who just wants a quiet life and likes to have somebody there to look after him and take responsibility whether that be Church or State?

I respect his intelligence and the fact that he’s even bothered to think about these subjects which is more than many people.

For the record
I’d support gay marriage.
I’d support the legalization of all sexual acts between consenting adults.
I’d support the legalization of most drugs of which I’m aware.
I’d support euthanasia.
I’d support the legalization of prostitution.
I’d support the legalization of gambling.
I’d support a ban on smoking in public places.
I’d support a person’s right to privacy.
Etc.
I have no problem with abortion or the death penalty in principle.

On the whole these are matters of choice which do not affect the lives of others except the latter. I’m are that some may already be legal where some posters are but all of the above (except abortion) are illegal where I’m living. Why?

[jefhatfield]

I respect his intelligence and the fact that he’s even bothered to think about these subjects which is more than many people.

For the record
I’d support gay marriage.
I’d support the legalization of all sexual acts between consenting adults.
I’d support the legalization of most drugs of which I’m aware.
I’d support euthanasia.
I’d support the legalization of prostitution.
I’d support the legalization of gambling.
I’d support a ban on smoking in public places.
I’d support a person’s right to privacy.
Etc.
I have no problem with abortion or the death penalty in principle.

On the whole these are matters of choice which do not affect the lives of others except the latter.

if someone wants to marry their same sex partner, i also have no problem with that

sexual acts are fine since the key point here is the term adult...if married, a person has their best interest in staying faithful

if someone is on their last legs and refuses to be hooked up to tubes in a braindead state, that person should have the right to die

prostitution, if legalized, should be monitored for std and aids

gambling is a legitimate business, but realize that some people can get addicted and there should be a way to help those people

i believe smoking is fine outdoors if it's not in an enclosed place where the smoke will affect others...in an open air rock concert, for instance, it might be a little ridiculous to cite people for smoking

privacy is a key right, but in cirucumstances like watergate, judge sirica had full right to order the remaining personal tapes of richard nixon

abortion is taking a life any way i look at it and it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control...in the case of the life of the mother or her health, abortion should be legal

the death penalty is also taking a life any way i see it and god should be the giver and taker of life...in the case of stopping an armed bank robber or stopping a terrorist situation or fighting a war, one should be allowed to use deadly force if necessary...cops and soldiers will kill others and sometimes the victims of those will be innocent and that is very unfortunate

the ultimate good in the world will be a world without war

[themadchemist]

Absolutely. Critical thinking is rapidly becoming a lost art as people follow the masses like lemmings. It is not enough to know what you believe (which is often a rarity in itself), but one must also know why they believe. I would agree that harsh debate is OK, as long as the the harshness is directed against positions and not individuals. However, being hard on a position requires adequate data to support it.


I'm glad you agree...We disagree on almost everything, but I think that as far as these forums, this one thing is the most important on which to have consensus.


I agree to a certain extent, and yet brilliant scientists have come up with some real "boners" as well from time to time that went unchallenged for years until someone stood against the established scientific community and said, 'hey, you know, this doesn't all add up like you said it did'.


This is fair. The scientific community, at times, has been extremely closed-minded to ideas that later proved correct. Mendelian genetics comes to mind.

Other times, there have been great debates that raged between two seemingly viable positions. I am reminded of the great conflict between Golgi's belief in a continuous nervous system and Ramon y Cajal's embrace of the neuron doctrine.

It is healthy and necessary for the advancement of science to question and test the contentions made. It was said of Max Planck that his greatness lied in his ability to accept enough of what had been discovered that he didn't get bogged down in proving everything from first principles (which would have prevented him from progressing) and skeptical enough to question the scientific establishment sufficiently (allowing him to think creatively and not to be bound by the typical constraints of the dominant discourse). That's what any great scientist should try to achieve, I think.

Then, my problem with Creationism is not that it dares to question the scientific establishment. Rather, I don't like its methods. It starts from the premise that a particular phenomenon must be occurring, based on very non-scientific evidence. It proceeds to employ scientific procedures (sort of--a lot of creation scientists use questionable methodology) to prove a point of which they are already convinced. Therefore, they are too biased to consider evidence that might contradict their beliefs. They look only to debunk others' findings and to bolster their own position.

This doesn't make for good science. The motivation isn't to understand what's going on, but instead to prove that you already know what's going on. It's the scientific method backwards and thus isn't real science. It worries me that people who refuse to employ scientific logic but demand to be treated as scientists are beginning to get street cred, so to speak.


I will admit that organized religion has often suppressed progressive thought in many areas, not just in science. The Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. are ample proof of the lack of tolerance shown by organized religion in the past towards the religious beliefs of others, and of other cultures.


I am glad that you recognize this--Religion is, after all, an incredibly human institution, and one subject to all of the impurities of the human race.


However, that does not mean that all who hold religious beliefs are antagonistic towards science. And yet, there is equally an oppressive spirit within the scientific community towards religion and scientists who hold religious beliefs that at least needs to be acknowledged.


I think that in some circles, this might be the case. However, it is definitely not universal. Einstein expressed a deep belief in God; many scientists are spiritual, if not religious. I think that a lot of people who study the way that universe works espouse a God whose magic and wonder comes not from micromanagement and direct involvement, but from the incredible system that he could devise, initiate, and allow to move.

That is, God's wonder is in the placement of matter and energy and the physical laws into this universal tub...That the rules He crafted could yield such incomprehensibly complex phenomena is a testament to His majesty, I'd say. It's far more impressive that the system of evolution arose from the primordial soup of subatomic particles and basic physics by itself than that God systematically created each species the way it is. The simple system's unimaginable versatility and power excites me, fascinates me, inspires me, amazes me, and humbles me more than purposeful construction at a much higher level of complexity could.


We should all be seekers of truth, wherever that search leads us. I believe that both sides (science and religion) need to recognize their arrogance and renounce it. Science does not sit and speak ex cathedra from an infallible throne, and yet many worship at the altar of academia with as much zeal fervor as any religious zealot.


And when science is done right, it IS the search for truth. It is open-minded, but confident, methodical, but inspired, and always in pursuit of answers, without the baggage of agendas and ideological premises. Of course, it cannot be perfect, because it, too, is a human institution. However, it does a much better job of avoiding dogma than does religion. Science has built into it BS meters that do a fair job of weeding out the junk.

In this sense, science is infallible, because it is simply the tool to search for the truth. It is the use of science that has been faulty from time to time.

Similarly, a pursuit of spiritual truth and the answers to why we are here (even if it leads to the answer that there is no reason we are here) is pure, in and of itself, but is adulterated by human influence constantly.

Many religions seem not to seek truth, but rather to presume it. I, on the other hand, see each religion as a roadmap to the answers, not to the answers themselves. This lends itself, I think, far more to the search for truth than does the contention that one book or one scroll or one perspective IS the answer.


When it comes to avoiding truth because it challenges fundamental dogmas, I would argue that there are some within the scientific community who are just as predisposed to dismissing out of hand anything that remotely suggests a design/Designer due to a preconceived idea that such a direction is fundamentally unscientific and therefore not an option. Only non-god answers need apply, even if there is evidence that suggests the contrary.


The problem, as I said earlier, was that the intelligent design argument was devised in order to justify a faith-based belief. It was not designed to conform to scientific evidence available. The evidence was plugged into the theory already designed.

The other problem with the intelligent design theory is that it suggests that physical laws can just be interrupted and extra-universal influence can poke itself in from time to time. This violates what seem to be fundamental laws by which our existence operates. If the whole wealth of evidence is correct, then it seems more likely that some intelligent designer might have been active in the beginning to provide us the laws and the raw material, but not at more complicated levels.

Of course, there is also the possibility that the uncertaintly of the motion of subatomic particles provides a path through which outside influence might act (it seems to be the source of free will, after all)...Nevertheless, a more holistic and integrated origin of life appears to fit better into the continuum of time and existence according to everything (biological and not) that we know about the history of the universe.


I understand your point, but I do not believe that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, unless a conscious choice is made to do so. Religion should express a wonder for the discoveries of science, recognizing that science uncovers and reveals the underlying greatness and glory of its God. Science (even if atheistic in its worldview) should be critical thinking and honest enough to say "I don't know" when confronted by something that it can't explain.


I agree! Science reveals miraculous things that just make God seem more wonderful and incredible in my eyes. However, science need not embrace religion or even God, because it is not necessary for the purposes of that body. In fact, it may even be counterproductive by introducing more initial assumptions...However, to the many who appreciate/desire religions, such institutions can help to provide a perspective on the spiritual significance of life and existence, answering the why that science ignores for the what and how.


Respected scientists with impeccable credentials can be produced for each side.


Not to be repetitive, but it appers that one side more effectively employs the scientific method than the other, no matter the credentials!


The issues are clouded when the are all lumped together. If one is to truly debate the issues and not the personalities, then one are of focus needs to be narrowed. I would suggest a start with either abiogenesis or macro evolution. (I would further suggest that arguing from micro evolution to macro evolution by just introducing more "time" is not a fair assessment of the problems involved in gaps, which is why Gould endorses punctuated equilibrium).


This is interesting and though I'm not necessarily convinced, I'll read up a little bit more on what you're saying.

[MacDawg]

It’s interesting to note he seems to claim a religious faith. I wonder why this is so as it’s something I’ve never been drawn to. Then I read some of his political views and it occurs that he’s very happy to be controlled and looked after by the State.

Could it be that he’s that middle ground sort who just wants a quiet life and likes to have somebody there to look after him and take responsibility whether that be Church or State?

I would be interested to hear you expand your assessment that I am "very happy to be controlled and looked after by the State" and that I like having somebody there to "look after him and take responsibility, whether that be the Church or State". In what ways, and what did I say that gave you that impression? I know you started at the beginning of this thread, so I have a hard time remembering back that far, so I am curious as to what led you to that conclusion.

As far as a religious faith, I would find it just as curious that you have never been drawn to any such experience. :)

[mactastic]

*Shrug* I find it interesting that more of you haven't been drawn away from religion. :)

[mpw]

I would be interested to hear you expand your assessment that I am "very happy to be controlled and looked after by the State" and that I like having somebody there to "look after him and take responsibility, whether that be the Church or State". In what ways, and what did I say that gave you that impression? I know you started at the beginning of this thread, so I have a hard time remembering back that far, so I am curious as to what led you to that conclusion.

As far as a religious faith, I would find it just as curious that you have never been drawn to any such experience. :)

I guess I was trying to read between the lines a little. In some of your early quotes you talked of your view, for example, that taking a life was OK when the State said it was OK and your belief in gay marriage being immoral(a view point of your religion I'm assuming, assumption being the mother...etc).

To be fair having read on through the thread you've clarified some remarks to other posters.

I'll not retract what I said regarding the impression I got but seeing as how I accept I'm not making a great argument (and I appreciate that there have been many worthy arguments made throughout this thread) I'd ask readers to water-down my interpretation a little.

To be fair I never thought you a 'nut', quite the opposite (even though I think your wrong, just my opinion)

My father's mother had religon forced on her by her parents. So much so that she didn't introduce it to my father(although she never spoke out against it either). He in turn didn't introduce it to me. My first introductions to organised religious teaching was at school in my early teens. Religion held nothing for me, I didn't and have never needed it. I see no benefit in being religious and many negatives (often associated with the religious people rather than the religion itself).

[themadchemist]

I guess I was trying to read between the lines a little. In some of your early quotes you talked of your view, for example, that taking a life was OK when the State said it was OK and your belief in gay marriage being immoral(a view point of your religion I'm assuming, assumption being the mother...etc).


I noticed something similar, to tell you the truth. I commented on it, but I don't know that my comments explained my position as well as yours just did.

[mithrilfox]

MacDawg, I wouldn't call you either a liberal or a right winger.

In fact, this concept of a straight line that everyone falls on is horribly insufficient for explaining someone's standing. It's like saying that the economy is a straight light that goes up or down; it's not. There's so much that goes into something like the economy, that it requires numerous graphics, charts, pie graphs, tables, and explanations to begin to understand it all.

Likewise, it's impossible to place most people on a simple line graph. A circular line graph still wouldn't work, because you can't be one two sides of the same circle at once. And some people are on different sides of this whole "liberal" and "conservative" battle.

It's easy ways to label others so that we can disregard them immediately and easily. Wouldn't it just be horrible if we had to actually listen to someone's positions and understand them for who they are? Gosh, it's so much easier just to label them quickly based on a couple beliefs, or even just one.

[sarcasm]
Anti-abortion? Crazy clinic-bombing right wing religious nut!

Universal health care supporter? Liberal left wing economic disaster!

Against the war? Hate-spewing, vicious unpatriotic liberal
[end sarcasm]

[.Andy]

So MacDawg, given the best part of 4 years to mull this thread over since the last post, what conclusions have you come to?

[Blue Velvet]

Best to let this thread return to the slumber from which it was dug up.