NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry to mention the "e-word" but I'm amazed as to how Americans here make a political issue out of this. It seems to be just so as to open a new front in the ridiculous "culture war" of conservatives vs. liberals.

Here in Europe, evolution is the accepted norm. All of us (even the religious) are amazed and flabbergasted by the fact that around 45% of Americans believe that the world was created in seven days less than 10,000 years ago (i.e. creationism). I know that evolution is not a fully proven theory, but it is the best one we have so far.

Just wanted to say that.

Yeah, it's kind of sad around here. Scientific theories that are backed up with more evidence than the Theory of Relativity (not to knock the TOR, but it's got less observations supporting it. Still perfectly valid though) should not be so widely disbelieved. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology, biochemistry, some medicine, genetics, etc., etc., etc. And yet more people think (thought? I don't know the current numbers) that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9-11 than believe evolution. Pathetic. Just shows how much our education system bites it around here.

it's funny that you believe that 45% of americans believe the earth was created 10,000 years ago. they may believe that the world was created by god, but NOT that it was created 10,000 years ago. at least no one Ive known. :rolleyes:

it's funny that you believe that 45% of americans believe the earth was created 10,000 years ago. they may believe that the world was created by god, but NOT that it was created 10,000 years ago. at least no one Ive known. :rolleyes:

So all the Christians you know are creationists?

it's funny that you believe that 45% of americans believe the earth was created 10,000 years ago. they may believe that the world was created by god, but NOT that it was created 10,000 years ago. at least no one Ive known. :rolleyes:
I have heard QUITE a number of people argue that. Not 45% of americans maybe, certainly not 45% of the people I hang out with- but there's a reason for that...
A lot of people do argue that it was created by god, fewer believe it was 10,000 years ago, and fewer still that it was in 7 days

but really, if you're gonna be a creationist, why not believe it was created only 10,000 years ago?

Yeah, it's kind of sad around here. Scientific theories that are backed up with more evidence than the Theory of Relativity (not to knock the TOR, but it's got less observations supporting it. Still perfectly valid though) should not be so widely disbelieved. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology, biochemistry, some medicine, genetics, etc., etc., etc. And yet more people think (thought? I don't know the current numbers) that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9-11 than believe evolution. Pathetic. Just shows how much our education system bites it around here.

It's sad to see Christian theology creeping into our education system. Afterall, our government IS secular and the schools ARE a part of that secular state. Thus, we must give the benefit of the doubt to science, as we do in all other areas.

I have heard QUITE a number of people argue that. Not 45% of americans maybe, certainly not 45% of the people I hang out with- but there's a reason for that...
A lot of people do argue that it was created by god, fewer believe it was 10,000 years ago, and fewer still that it was in 7 days

but really, if you're gonna be a creationist, why not believe it was created only 10,000 years ago?

I would like to see the Christian scientist disprove Carbon Dating. That will be interesting.

I would like to see the Christian scientist disprove Carbon Dating. That will be interesting.
Y'know, I've seen them try. It's very very pitiful... their arguments are obvious BS to anyone with more than a 6th grade education.

1997 Poll

God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. 44%

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. 39%

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process. 10%

Evolution=Evidence
Creationism=No Evidence

If evolution was a boxer, it would kick creationism's ass/

So all the Christians you know are creationists?

No.

1997 Poll

God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. 44%

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. 39%

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process. 10%

Source?

I'm also surprised how someone was able to get over 100+ million americans to cast their vote.

oh, and read what's posted

the fact that around 45% of Americans believe that the world was created in seven days less than 10,000 years

God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. 44%

Y'know, I've seen them try. It's very very pitiful... their arguments are obvious BS to anyone with more than a 6th grade education.
mostly what I've heard is like...well there's a chance of error...and it's not accurate for THESE time frames....why believe it at all? There's no proof that it's right because any other testing method also has no proof that IT is right...

or something to that effect

Source?

I'm also surprised how someone was able to get over 100+ million americans to cast their vote.

yeah, it's generally accepted that polls are a sample
and it should be assumed that the sample is random, and thus representative

however, statistics are lies in some form 98% of the time
people always put a spin on it to get the results they want
oh, and read what's posted
yeah so...around 45%....and 44%....what's your problem?

Source?

I'm also surprised how someone was able to get over 100+ million americans to cast their vote.

oh, and read what's posted

Most polls have a +-4% margin of error without polling the entire populace, btw.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Sorry to mention the "e-word" but I'm amazed as to how Americans here make a political issue out of this. It seems to be just so as to open a new front in the ridiculous "culture war" of conservatives vs. liberals.

Here in Europe, evolution is the accepted norm. All of us (even the religious) are amazed and flabbergasted by the fact that around 45% of Americans believe that the world was created in seven days less than 10,000 years ago (i.e. creationism). I know that evolution is not a fully proven theory, but it is the best one we have so far.

Just wanted to say that.

Not fully proven depends on what part of evolution you're talking about.

Do organisms change (a.k.a., evolve) over time to better fit their needs? Yes, this has been proven, as we've watched it happen for centuries. So yes, organisms do evolve.

Man's exact evolutionary path however, is not full proven. (This statement may be out-dated, correct me if I'm wrong)

it's funny that you believe that 45% of americans believe the earth was created 10,000 years ago. they may believe that the world was created by god, but NOT that it was created 10,000 years ago. at least no one Ive known.

God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. 44%

So basically you are saying that you are wrong?

If you take ten seconds to read what was written, you'd realize that the first statement deals with the world being created 10,000 years ago and the second statement deals with humans being created 10,000 years ago.

If you take ten seconds to read what was written, you'd realize that the first statement deals with the world being created 10,000 years ago and the second statement deals with humans being created 10,000 years ago.

Creationists would believe in the 7-day thing, no?

MOst people I know don't take the 7-day theory literally. A day could refer to millions of years. I went to a catholic school and never once did they teach us that the earth was created 10,000 years ago... nothing even close. sorry, get out of the early 1900's and into the present.

There are many things wrong with evolution. The problem is, creationism doesn't make any scientific sense. Also, we don't have a decent theory on the origin of life, and evolution is already there, even though it's been proven wrong.

MOst people I know don't take the 7-day theory literally. A day could refer to millions of years. I went to a catholic school and never once did they teach us that the earth was created 10,000 years ago... nothing even close. sorry, get out of the early 1900's and into the present.

What are you talking about? Ok. You don't know the 45% I guess.

Or your numbers are completely preposterous.

MOst people I know don't take the 7-day theory literally. A day could refer to millions of years. I went to a catholic school and never once did they teach us that the earth was created 10,000 years ago... nothing even close. sorry, get out of the early 1900's and into the present.
Mainstream Catholicism has made a pretty good reconciliation with evolution. They need to, as a main stream religion with diverse members. I go to a Jesuit high school, and they've given up all pretense of presenting Creationism. They're comfortable with the Vatican's line that evolution represents scientific truths, while Genesis describes religious truths. I'm not a Catholic, mind you, I'm an Atheist, but they tell us this stuff enough that I've got it down.

Can someone tell me how scientists have apparently proven the decay rate of a substance that takes tens of thousands of years to decay. It simply can't be proven, it's just a theory. The bible on the other hand has been around for at least two or three thousand years and not one word has changed in that time. At least it's got a bit of background.

Can someone tell me how scientists have apparently proven the decay rate of a substance that takes tens of thousands of years to decay. It simply can't be proven, it's just a theory. The bible on the other hand has been around for at least two or three thousand years and not one word has changed in that time. At least it's got a bit of background.
Just because something hasn't been altered doesn't make it true (and one could argue that the Bible should be considered altered due to many manglings in translation). The Hindu holy books have been around for just as long, does that make them true? How about the Egyptian Book of the Dead? Is it true on the basis of its inflexibility over time?
Also, we can ascertain the decay rate of the substance quite easily. Carbon-14, used in carbon dating, has a half-life of 5300 years (roughly). That means that half a sample decays in 5300 years. It also means that smaller portions decay in less time (I won't go into the math because I don't remember how to do some of it), time that can be measured. So yes, we can prove the decay rate of a substance that takes "tens of thousands of years to decay," though C-14 actually takes far less than 10,000 years to decay.

You know, Greek mythology has been around for quite a long time too, but is the ancient Greek theory of creationism any more valid than the bible's? Most people would dismiss the greek myths as false while supporting the bible's authenticity.

Two things.


First, in ascertaining the aprox. age of the earth scientists don't use carbon-14 as much as certain radioactive elements that have a much larger half life.

Second, on the acurracy of these polls it depends on what type of sampling they used, so on your plus or minus 4% it really depends on the method used because I have seen samples that target specific religious groups that are therefore useless to see what the population of a specific country thinks such as the U.S.

Sorry to mention the "e-word" but I'm amazed as to how Americans here make a political issue out of this. It seems to be just so as to open a new front in the ridiculous "culture war" of conservatives vs. liberals.
Because the fundy xers are terrified of anything that does not involve "goddidit". Hence their need to suppress it.

First, in ascertaining the aprox. age of the earth scientists don't use carbon-14 as much as certain radioactive elements that have a much larger half life.

I know, we use U-238 and Potassium/Rubidium. I was just using it for argument's sake cause its the one most people are familiar with.

Can someone tell me how scientists have apparently proven the decay rate of a substance that takes tens of thousands of years to decay. It simply can't be proven, it's just a theory. The bible on the other hand has been around for at least two or three thousand years and not one word has changed in that time. At least it's got a bit of background.
They have proven it by mathematical formulae. Of couse these could be wrong, but they probably are not.

And no, the Bible has changed since it was written. It's widely known that medieval monks rewrote passages to suit their needs at the time.

Can someone tell me how scientists have apparently proven the decay rate of a substance that takes tens of thousands of years to decay. It simply can't be proven, it's just a theory. The bible on the other hand has been around for at least two or three thousand years and not one word has changed in that time. At least it's got a bit of background.
Not one word has been changed? How many editions are there? Lots of texts have been around for a long time, that doesn't make them true. By your litnes (sp) test, the Koran is just as true, and the Iliad is way truer (I know it's not a word).

You know, Greek mythology has been around for quite a long time too, but is the ancient Greek theory of creationism any more valid than the bible's? Most people would dismiss the greek myths as false while supporting the bible's authenticity.
Note to self: RIF, Reading is Fundimental....keep reading before I go flying off the handle and repeat something people have already clearly covered......

sorry, I should have guessed this was handled.....

Can someone tell me how scientists have apparently proven the decay rate of a substance that takes tens of thousands of years to decay. It simply can't be proven, it's just a theory. The bible on the other hand has been around for at least two or three thousand years and not one word has changed in that time. At least it's got a bit of background.


yeah, because people haven't translated it for their own ends/left out books... that's it...

in case you don't know, translation generally involves changing a lot of words.

Note to self: RIF, Reading is Fundimental....

Lol!

There is one, just one problem with maintaining that the Bible has never been changed: The first Bible was written in Greek, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Oops. Then you have the issue of various versions. Christianity began as an underground sect persecuted by the powers that were, so by the time they got round to collecting versions, there were a great many specific versions. This happened with the Quran, which wasn't written down within the lifetime of Muhammed(pbuh), and it's no great leap to assume this could have happened with the collection of the original Torah, since the neighbours were none too friendly. So even if you assume the Torah, Bible or Quran are the word of God, you have to build in a number of unsupported assumptions to say that what we have today is more than a reasonably representative document.

And no, the Bible has changed since it was written. It's widely known that medieval monks rewrote passages to suit their needs at the time.

The only downside to this argument is that a modern edition of the bible (at least, new testiment) is translated from either originals or the oldest manuscript available, and ALL of it is translated from the original language that it was written in (be that greek, aramaic or whatever). Vaguities / Uncertanties / Inconsistancies are printed as footnotes. I dont think anything in it is currently translated from any documents newer than 350AD (correct me if anyone has better specifics there). Of course its translated into the modern language of the day! But to make a new edition, they dont take the most modern edition they can find and change the occasional word. That'd be damn stupid...

The problem is, creationism doesn't make any scientific sense.

Actually, it makes a lot more logical sense than blind evolution. Ever heard of the Antropomorphic principle? It basically answers the question "Why are we here?" with "Because if no one was here, there would be no one to ask that question" This is, basically, science's best answer for the emergance of intelligence in the universe. Even Steven Hawking agrees that it bites! Statistically, the odds of any kind of emergant behaviour occuring in the universe at all are too vast to be able to comprehend. So if one assumes that God has nothing to do with anything, it would take innumerable (trillions upon trillions upon trillions) random universes in order that ONE have anything resembling sentience in it. So by simple application of Occam's Razor with regards to the Anthropomorphic Priniciple (IE most simple explanation is most likely correct, and in this case the God argument is VASTLY simpler than the No God argument) one can LOGICALLY prove the existance of a creator, in that the No God argument is statistically impossible.

Actually, it makes a lot more logical sense than blind evolution. Ever heard of the Antropomorphic principle? It basically answers the question "Why are we here?" with "Because if no one was here, there would be no one to ask that question" This is, basically, science's best answer for the emergance of intelligence in the universe. Even Steven Hawking agrees that it bites! Statistically, the odds of any kind of emergant behaviour occuring in the universe at all are too vast to be able to comprehend. So if one assumes that God has nothing to do with anything, it would take innumerable (trillions upon trillions upon trillions) random universes in order that ONE have anything resembling sentience in it. So by simple application of Occam's Razor with regards to the Anthropomorphic Priniciple (IE most simple explanation is most likely correct, and in this case the God argument is VASTLY simpler than the No God argument) one can LOGICALLY prove the existance of a creator, in that the No God argument is statistically impossible.
To the bolded part...

What are the odds of rolling snake eyes on two six sided die? Not quite as bad as the odds you suggest for the existence of intelligent life, however, just because the odds are against it, doesn't mean it couldn't happen in the first roll.

Actually, it makes a lot more logical sense than blind evolution. Ever heard of the Antropomorphic principle? It basically answers the question "Why are we here?" with "Because if no one was here, there would be no one to ask that question" This is, basically, science's best answer for the emergance of intelligence in the universe. Even Steven Hawking agrees that it bites! Statistically, the odds of any kind of emergant behaviour occuring in the universe at all are too vast to be able to comprehend. So if one assumes that God has nothing to do with anything, it would take innumerable (trillions upon trillions upon trillions) random universes in order that ONE have anything resembling sentience in it. So by simple application of Occam's Razor with regards to the Anthropomorphic Priniciple (IE most simple explanation is most likely correct, and in this case the God argument is VASTLY simpler than the No God argument) one can LOGICALLY prove the existance of a creator, in that the No God argument is statistically impossible.

But if intelligent life as we know it didn't exist, you wouldn't be making that argument and Stephen Hawking wouldn't be bitching about the Anthropic Principle. I remember reading in New Scientist about possible advances in superstring theory which may answer some problems regarding the probabilities- Remember, we don't know how the universe works, we've constructed a model that convinces a few people.

I don't really care which is true. We are here and we need to be more worried with how to stay here.

What are the odds of rolling snake eyes on two six sided die? Not quite as bad as the odds you suggest for the existence of intelligent life, however, just because the odds are against it, doesn't mean it couldn't happen in the first roll.
1 in 36
And just because it COULD happen, doesnt mean it isnt 35 times more likely that it won't.

But if intelligent life as we know it didn't exist, you wouldn't be making that argument and Stephen Hawking wouldn't be bitching about the Anthropic Principle.
Yeah, thats kinda the point in the argument that it sucks...

i'm curious, do you have any idea how many chemical reactions could have been happening in earth's ancient sea waters at any given time?

let's just say a lot could be happening all over the world at any given time.

now imagine you've got 5 trillion people rolling the dice at the same time. that increases the odds that you'll get the desired combination.

not to mention that they've created two of the dna base pairs in a lab using ancient sea water being shocked with simulated lightening bolts... and that didn't take too long at all or a lot of water for that matter. imagine a lot more water and a lot more time.

and also: abiogenesis is not the same as evolution. nor is the big bang, in case you're asking. biological evolution refers to change in life, not the start of life. and we have a full fossil record for a number of species that indicate evolution happened.

The only downside to this argument is that a modern edition of the bible (at least, new testiment) is translated from either originals or the oldest manuscript available, and ALL of it is translated from the original language that it was written in (be that greek, aramaic or whatever). Vaguities / Uncertanties / Inconsistancies are printed as footnotes. I dont think anything in it is currently translated from any documents newer than 350AD (correct me if anyone has better specifics there). Of course its translated into the modern language of the day! But to make a new edition, they dont take the most modern edition they can find and change the occasional word. That'd be damn stupid...



Actually, it makes a lot more logical sense than blind evolution. Ever heard of the Antropomorphic principle? It basically answers the question "Why are we here?" with "Because if no one was here, there would be no one to ask that question" This is, basically, science's best answer for the emergance of intelligence in the universe. Even Steven Hawking agrees that it bites! Statistically, the odds of any kind of emergant behaviour occuring in the universe at all are too vast to be able to comprehend. So if one assumes that God has nothing to do with anything, it would take innumerable (trillions upon trillions upon trillions) random universes in order that ONE have anything resembling sentience in it. So by simple application of Occam's Razor with regards to the Anthropomorphic Priniciple (IE most simple explanation is most likely correct, and in this case the God argument is VASTLY simpler than the No God argument) one can LOGICALLY prove the existance of a creator, in that the No God argument is statistically impossible.

Well said though I would logically assume it best both parties who blindly support their conclusion lay off each other. After all we will very likely never know and our great grand children's children will most likely never know. Why do we need to know? There is a much better avenue for science to explore. How to prolong what evolution proclaims is a hollow and void existence. A mistake.

Well said though I would logically assume it best both parties who blindly support their conclusion lay off each other. After all we will very likely never know and our great grand children's children will most likely never know. Why do we need to know? There is a much better avenue for science to explore. How to prolong what evolution proclaims is a hollow and void existence. A mistake.

oh please, a life without a god is not a hollow and void existence, nor is it a mistake. it's a series of reactions that brought you to where you are now. if anything, it makes life seem all the more precious to know that it could have turned out entirely different, to know that tomorrow, it could be all there is, kind of makes you appreciate every day.

1 in 36
And just because it COULD happen, doesnt mean it isnt 35 times more likely that it won't.
Hmm, you missed the point. The point is just because the odds are completely against something happening doesn't men it can't happen as long is there is that 1 in how ever many chance that it will happen. It could happen after 1 roll or it could happen after 36 rolls, or it could never happen. The point is, it could happen, and it could happen on the first roll. Your argument goes something like this: The odds are against this happening, therefore God did it.

Sorry to mention the "e-word" but I'm amazed as to how Americans here make a political issue out of this. It seems to be just so as to open a new front in the ridiculous "culture war" of conservatives vs. liberals.

It's all those d*mn Bible Belt states - they have had their religious beliefs practically hardwired into their brains; the Bible Belt-type people cannot think for themselves and refuse to even explore the other person's viewpoint

It's all those d*mn Bible Belt states - they have had their religious beliefs practically hardwired into their brains; the Bible Belt-type people cannot think for themselves and refuse to even explore the other person's viewpoint
And you appear to be far from different.

It's all those d*mn Bible Belt states - they have had their religious beliefs practically hardwired into their brains; the Bible Belt-type people cannot think for themselves and refuse to even explore the other person's viewpoint

the irony is kicking

The Anthropic principle states that the reason the universe is habitable is that, if it weren't, we wouldn't be here. It doesn't attempt to explain why we're here. (and it is Anthropic, not Anthropomorphic, which roughly means "human-resembling." Maybe. my Latin sucks) Where did Hawking say it bites? I have his book, he doesn't say anything of the like. Also, Winstopia mentions that it would take loads of different universes for sentience to be probable. According to Many Worlds cosmology and Feynman's multiple histories...there are. And, when you have an essentially infinite number of universes, the odds that a few will contain sentient life are rather good.
Winstopia, you also demonstrate a gross misapplication of Occam's (Ockham's) Razor when you say that the God hypothesis is simpler than the materialistic one. The materialistic view of the universe requires only a small number of constants and physical laws to be the way that they are. The God hypothesis requires that there is a God, he is omnipotent, he did create humans, etc. With the materialistic hypothesis, you have a small number of laws everything follows, and complex systems emerge naturally.

You also say that "the No God argument is statistically impossible." You mention (again) that the odds of intelligent life emerging are incredibly slim. Remember the number of chances you are dealing with here: near-infinite possible universes. A truly staggering number of galaxies in each. An even more staggering number of stars with planets per galaxy. On the habitable planets, a disgusting amount of chemical reactions that could lead to biogenesis.
Keep that in mind at all times.

And you appear to be far from different.

I know, I know, that statement of mine was quite ignorant - however, please understand that I used to be the religious type, so I can see where they are coming from - but for them to be practially frightened by Evolution kinda confuses me.

I said this in another forum about evolution and I am going to say it again. There is no reason to believe that evolution dissproves the bible. There are two creation stories and the second one depicts God creating the earth. He starts with water, then land, then plant life, the smaller creatures... all the way up to humans. The order depicted in this bible story is incredibly similar to the order that our scientist believe evolution took. I am not a very religious person and I do believe in evolution, but I dont see how evolution disproves the bible. Could God have created the earth and it evolved on its own? Could God have guided evolution?
I believe that both science and the bible can co-exist.

Two things.


First, in ascertaining the aprox. age of the earth scientists don't use carbon-14 as much as certain radioactive elements that have a much larger half life.

Second, on the acurracy of these polls it depends on what type of sampling they used, so on your plus or minus 4% it really depends on the method used because I have seen samples that target specific religious groups that are therefore useless to see what the population of a specific country thinks such as the U.S.

I think this particular one had a 3.1 or something that is a random sampling of american views.

I said this in another forum about evolution and I am going to say it again. There is no reason to believe that evolution dissproves the bible. There are two creation stories and the second one depicts God creating the earth. He starts with water, then land, then plant life, the smaller creatures... all the way up to humans. The order depicted in this bible story is incredibly similar to the order that our scientist believe evolution took. I am not a very religious person and I do believe in evolution, but I dont see how evolution disproves the bible. Could God have created the earth and it evolved on its own? Could God have guided evolution?
I believe that both science and the bible can co-exist.

One of the greatest quotes agreeing with you was a biologist who said something to the effect that God was powerful/smart enough to create such a complex system such as evolution, dna, etc. when responding to how science goes along with the bible.

So if one assumes that God has nothing to do with anything, it would take innumerable (trillions upon trillions upon trillions) random universes in order that ONE have anything resembling sentience in it. So by simple application of Occam's Razor with regards to the Anthropomorphic Priniciple (IE most simple explanation is most likely correct, and in this case the God argument is VASTLY simpler than the No God argument) one can LOGICALLY prove the existance of a creator, in that the No God argument is statistically impossible.You've contradicted yourself. First you say it would take trillions upon trillions upon trillions of random universes to come up with one that supports sentient life. You then say it's a statistical impossibility. Sorry bub, but statistical impossibilities only come about when the probability of the event is exactly 0, and though 1/10^36 is a very small number, it is not zero. E.i., it could happen, and quite obviously has. And how do you know that there aren't trillions upon trillions upon trillions of other universes, eh?
Or, one could just take the view that this is the only kind of universe possible, in which case the probability of it occuring would be 1.

I said this in another forum about evolution and I am going to say it again. There is no reason to believe that evolution dissproves the bible. There are two creation stories and the second one depicts God creating the earth. He starts with water, then land, then plant life, the smaller creatures... all the way up to humans. The order depicted in this bible story is incredibly similar to the order that our scientist believe evolution took. I am not a very religious person and I do believe in evolution, but I dont see how evolution disproves the bible. Could God have created the earth and it evolved on its own? Could God have guided evolution?
I believe that both science and the bible can co-exist.I second.

It seems to me that if God created the universe, he could have as much control over the laws of that universe as he wanted. And as such, he'd probably want to put in such laws as to make things come out the way he wanted. Ergo, God decides where he wants his planets, and what he wants to put on 'em, but he brings about the plan via the progression of natural laws, not supernatural intervention.

Of course, if you believe in the expanding/contracting universe theory, and believe time is infinitely long in both direction, it is plausible that there have been infinitely many universes before this one.

MOst people I know don't take the 7-day theory literally. A day could refer to millions of years. I went to a catholic school and never once did they teach us that the earth was created 10,000 years ago... nothing even close. sorry, get out of the early 1900's and into the present.

I would advise you to spend some time in Georgia, the Carolinas, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas... etc.

Let me ASSURE you, there are a large number of Americans that TRULY believe the whole thing, in every detail. 7 days, talking snakes, god making the light BEFORE he made the stars, etc. Most of them date it to closer to 6000 years (about 6400, I think).

Get off your high horse. I'm glad that your educators saw fit to dismiss the more idiotic areas of Bible convention, but, unfortunately, there are a lot of Americans that still take the whole thing very seriously... and it looks like that figure is about 45%.

Hey guys....a good forum for stuff on this is

http://atheisim.proboards22.com/index.cgi

We are a little short with members...but if you want invite people of all fatiths on down...it will be some great debate action....thanks!

Well as long as we're spamming forum links: http://lifebeshort.proboards18.com/index.cgi

...
Anyway...yea.

I said this in another forum about evolution and I am going to say it again. There is no reason to believe that evolution dissproves the bible. There are two creation stories and the second one depicts God creating the earth. He starts with water, then land, then plant life, the smaller creatures... all the way up to humans. The order depicted in this bible story is incredibly similar to the order that our scientist believe evolution took. I am not a very religious person and I do believe in evolution, but I dont see how evolution disproves the bible. Could God have created the earth and it evolved on its own? Could God have guided evolution?
I believe that both science and the bible can co-exist.

And, I for one, would agree that there is no reason that science and religion cannot be compatible. The real problem is that you try to assert an observed principle of science (like evolution), and the religious community slams it's hands over it's ears.... "la la la, I can't hear you"... There are a number of christians who are also scientists, and they usually resolve their beliefs by the path that God created the world scientifically, and used scientific tools (like evolution) to do all the things it says in Genesis... with a more realistic time-scale.

Those people are frowned upon by the Fundamentalist types... who argue that the very wording of the bible is the important part - if it says it took 6 days, you better believe they mean 6 days.

Science and Religion could coexist if christians didn't worship the bible.

Dear dear, I think you've hit my territory.

I'm a Creationist, by the inspired Word of God in the Bible, Christian. I believe that letter for letter, the Bible is truth. Putting that into practice is bloody hard, but the point remains. I was also a firm atheist for 16 years of my life.

My stance is no matter how many fossils you find, and no matter how many genetic tests you show me, there is not a one that you can say God did not create for a fact. Carbon dating? God is ALL-powerful. Who says He can't just make something that is 20,000,000 years old?

The lines of evolution that you see from the Pre-Cambrian Explotion? I could tell you they were created by God specifically to make it so only firmly faithful believers could follow Him. God does not appriciate wussiness in faith, to my belief anyway. I may be wrong and will be confronted with such at Judgement, but whatever.

Genetic achievements? What a beautiful and complicated system that God created to make man.

You can't prove me wrong, and I can't prove you wrong. The only difference is that yours is science, and by definition, all science can never be proved. Even gravity is truly just a theory. The speed of light is variable. My idea? Cannot be disproven. Ever. No "fact" you throw in front of me can stumble my ideas. God is unable to be disproven. Man has tried for 2,000 and even 6,000 years to ignore Him. Yet, he stays.

Oh, and the comment that Creationism has no proof. No duh, of course it has no proof. Perfect instantanious creation wouldn't leave a trace to detect, now would it?

I respect people who believe differently than I do. It's a matter of opinion. Believing in evolution does not make you a heretic to be burned. Heck, my own mother believes it. However, to deny that I could ever be right is absolute foolishness. Deluded pride stuffed "wisdom" will take you nowhere.

Perhaps Europe is just easily fooled. Maybe I'm full of bull pucky. Your choice. But recognise, it's a matter of trust and faith, not of fact.

May God bless all of His children on this earth,

-R. S. of UC

I would advise you to spend some time in Georgia, the Carolinas, Texas, Alabama, Arkansas... etc.

Let me ASSURE you, there are a large number of Americans that TRULY believe the whole thing, in every detail. 7 days, talking snakes, god making the light BEFORE he made the stars, etc. Most of them date it to closer to 6000 years (about 6400, I think).

Get off your high horse. I'm glad that your educators saw fit to dismiss the more idiotic areas of Bible convention, but, unfortunately, there are a lot of Americans that still take the whole thing very seriously... and it looks like that figure is about 45%.

I was unaware that Texas, Georgia, Alabama, etc. made up 45 percent of the nation. The figure is bloated.

I was unaware that Texas, Georgia, Alabama, etc. made up 45 percent of the nation. The figure is bloated.

I'm not saying that the Bible Belt states make up 45% of the population - I am merely pointing out that your assertion that this '10000 years' mentality is a thing of the early 1900's is a geographical factor.

And, when you consider that a very high percentage of those in the Bible Belt states really do belive that stuff, if you question an equal number of people from each state, you will find that the statistics are going to reflect a higher percentage that believe the Young Earth story.

You implied that noone believes the sub-10,000 years figure anymore. I can assure you, you are wrong.

Dear dear, I think you've hit my territory.

I'm a Creationist, by the inspired Word of God in the Bible, Christian. I believe that letter for letter, the Bible is truth. Putting that into practice is bloody hard, but the point remains. I was also a firm atheist for 16 years of my life.

My stance is no matter how many fossils you find, and no matter how many genetic tests you show me, there is not a one that you can say God did not create for a fact. Carbon dating? God is ALL-powerful. Who says He can't just make something that is 20,000,000 years old?

The lines of evolution that you see from the Pre-Cambrian Explotion? I could tell you they were created by God specifically to make it so only firmly faithful believers could follow Him. God does not appriciate wussiness in faith, to my belief anyway. I may be wrong and will be confronted with such at Judgement, but whatever.

Genetic achievements? What a beautiful and complicated system that God created to make man.

You can't prove me wrong, and I can't prove you wrong. The only difference is that yours is science, and by definition, all science can never be proved. Even gravity is truly just a theory. The speed of light is variable. My idea? Cannot be disproven. Ever. No "fact" you throw in front of me can stumble my ideas. God is unable to be disproven. Man has tried for 2,000 and even 6,000 years to ignore Him. Yet, he stays.

Oh, and the comment that Creationism has no proof. No duh, of course it has no proof. Perfect instantanious creation wouldn't leave a trace to detect, now would it?

I respect people who believe differently than I do. It's a matter of opinion. Believing in evolution does not make you a heretic to be burned. Heck, my own mother believes it. However, to deny that I could ever be right is absolute foolishness. Deluded pride stuffed "wisdom" will take you nowhere.

Perhaps Europe is just easily fooled. Maybe I'm full of bull pucky. Your choice. But recognise, it's a matter of trust and faith, not of fact.

May God bless all of His children on this earth,

-R. S. of UC

Numbers 23:19 "GOD is not a man, that he should LIE; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

The 'Word of God" argues against you.

Um...as an America whom is well travelled in his country, with family throughout said country, I can tell you i've never met a single person whom didn't believe in the Theory of Evolution...whom wasn't a complete and utter dolt. I have met perhaps 3 Creationists...their arguments? Basically spitting back a preacher's words.

Honestly its a problem of education and indoctrination, not anything else. Try that survey in say...Iran...and see your percentages.

Dear dear, I think you've hit my territory.


I respect your beliefs, especially since you aren't trying to force them on anyone. But I must ask, how do you deal with issues that can be proven, but clearly contradict the Bible.

For instance, the reason that the church held so staunchly to the Geocentric theory of the Universe was because of a Bible verse in which it says that God caused the sun to stand still in the sky. We now know that, if this happened, it was not the sun, but the Earth would have stopped rotating. If you don't believe that the Earth rotates, we'll try to get you on the next shuttle so you can see it for yourself.

How do you explain the two completely separate creation stories in the Bible, in which things occur in different forms and orders?

How do you explain the fact that we can follow the extinction of old species and emergence of new ones in the fossil record (or in the lab for bacteria), but the Bible states (in at least one of the creation stories) that all organisms were created over the course of the same 6 days. Do you honestly believe that God would create lots of bones just for the sake of screwing with people?

How do you explain away the fact that the Gospels have two different lineages for Christ and have him being born in two entirely different times?

I know all of these things and I know that they are due to the fact that the Bible, although much of it was inspired by God, was written by human beings - and human beings are fallible. Thus, I place my faith in God, not in a book written by humans. And even if you read the Gospel, there is nowhere that says "All who believeth in Evolution are going to Hell."

How do you explain the fact that we can follow the extinction of old species and emergence of new ones in the fossil record (or in the lab for bacteria), but the Bible states (in at least one of the creation stories) that all organisms were created over the course of the same 6 days. Do you honestly believe that God would create lots of bones just for the sake of screwing with people?

Since God is presumably the biggest Fundamentalist of all, he'll be pretty humourless, ergo he needs a big joke to get a good laugh. I think putting fossils and coherent radio-isotopes signatures everywhere to totally screw up modern science qualifies as a top class gag. Even if it's not, God's omnipotent, so he can still laugh at it.

Stop trying to reason your way out of being religious; there's no way around it. Evidence of evolution is put here by the devil himself. That's why we have so many people with a venemous hatred of religion who will go to any length to try to "disprove" it.

Scientific norms are only temporary; I guarantee that in 300 years from now, evolution will be disproven, and all the science lovers will gobble that new theory up and accept it as a universal truth.

How can evolutionists claim we're all a bunch of monkeys yet think they have the entire origin of life wrapped around their finger? The universe is too complex for us to ever understand, so why stick to fickle science when you can enrich your life with the Bible?

Stop trying to reason your way out of being religious; there's no way around it. Evidence of evolution is put here by the devil himself. That's why we have so many people with a venemous hatred of religion who will go to any length to try to "disprove" it.

Scientific norms are only temporary; I guarantee that in 300 years from now, evolution will be disproven, and all the science lovers will gobble that new theory up and accept it as a universal truth.

How can evolutionists claim we're all a bunch of monkeys yet think they have the entire origin of life wrapped around their finger? The universe is too complex for us to ever understand, so why stick to fickle science when you can enrich your life with the Bible?
Hmm, if evolution is disproven, scientific people (as opposed to religious people) may go to the next logical explanation, but at least we're trying to prove/disprove what happened...

The universe is too complex for us to ever understand, so why stick to fickle science when you can enrich your life with the Bible?

I'm not even a Christian and I find it quite easy to do both. Also, since I don't speak Greek or Hebrew, and I'll take a wild bet that you don't either, we're just relying on a translation done under scientific principles of trial and error: Or did all these translators learn Hebrew spontaneously?

Let's forget geology. Let's forget biology. Let's forget paleontology.

Let's think astronomy. If The whole universe was created less than 10,000 years ago, how can light, which left it's star 160,000 years ago just now be reaching us? Did it take a frickin' shortcut?!?

Stop trying to reason your way out of being religious; there's no way around it. Evidence of evolution is put here by the devil himself. That's why we have so many people with a venemous hatred of religion who will go to any length to try to "disprove" it.

I don't know if you're talking to me, but I have not tried to "reason my way out of being religious." I am a Christian, and my faith means a lot to me. However, God didn't create the Universe and create humans with free will so that we would be blind followers. I believe that God wants us to question and use reason. If you disagree, that's fine - but believing in reason doesn't mean I am trying to disprove religion.

Scientific norms are only temporary; I guarantee that in 300 years from now, evolution will be disproven, and all the science lovers will gobble that new theory up and accept it as a universal truth.

Evolution (at least the micro form) is readily observable. This is like saying sight will be completely disproven. Now, we may discover that we were off as to exactly how evolution occurs, or that we had some things in the wrong order, or something along those lines - but that is the beauty of science. New evidence leads to a better understanding, not a reactionary "but Darwin wrote it this way, so it must be this way!"

How can evolutionists claim we're all a bunch of monkeys yet think they have the entire origin of life wrapped around their finger? The universe is too complex for us to ever understand, so why stick to fickle science when you can enrich your life with the Bible?

I've never heard anyone but Creationists state that evolution means "we're all a bunch of monkeys." Yes, the universe is too complex for us to ever fully understand, but what exactly is the harm in understanding what we can about how it works?

Let's forget geology. Let's forget biology. Let's forget paleontology.

Let's think astronomy. If The whole universe was created less than 10,000 years ago, how can light, which left it's star 160,000 years ago just now be reaching us? Did it take a frickin' shortcut?!?

Satan is misleading you.

It's funny how people think they can grasp a concept like time so easily; our notions of time are oversimplified. The idea of an ultimate Creator can't be thrown out because of scientific theories contrary to it.

Satan is misleading you.

It's funny how people think they can grasp a concept like time so easily; our notions of time are oversimplified. The idea of an ultimate Creator can't be thrown out because of scientific theories contrary to it.

There are no scientific theories contrary to the idea of an ultimate Creator. There are scientific theories contrary to things happening exactly as a bunch of men who still thought the Earth was flat and the sun sank into the Earth every night wrote them down.

I've never heard anyone but Creationists state that evolution means "we're all a bunch of monkeys." Yes, the universe is too complex for us to ever fully understand, but what exactly is the harm in understanding what we can about how it works?

"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star."
-- Stephen Hawking

Satan is misleading you.

It's funny how people think they can grasp a concept like time so easily; our notions of time are oversimplified. The idea of an ultimate Creator can't be thrown out because of scientific theories contrary to it.

WHo says I'm throwing out a theory about an ultimate creator? Hell, anybody who has studied quantum physics and relativity long enough pretty much STARTS believing in God.

Einstein believed in God. That's good enough for me. :)

There are no scientific theories contrary to the idea of an ultimate Creator. There are scientific theories contrary to things happening exactly as a bunch of men who still thought the Earth was flat and the sun sank into the Earth every night wrote them down.

Oh, really? Then how come all the science-minded people think scientific theories are enough evidence for them to be atheist?

Scientific theories may not directly prove there is no God (lol), but it's obvious that they imply that.

"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star."
-- Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking may be a very intelligent guy, but he is not an evolutionary biologist. What evolution actually states is that monkeys, apes, and humans all evolved from a common ancestor over an extremely long period of time. And we are actually much more closely related to apes than to monkeys.

Stephen Hawking may be a very intelligent guy, but he is not an evolutionary biologist. What evolution actually states is that monkeys, apes, and humans all evolved from a common ancestor over an extremely long period of time. And we are actually much more closely related to apes than to monkeys.

I know what evolution is, and I know that there is plenty of evidence supporting it. I still don't see why anybody would accept it as truth, though, when science is constantly changing. I'd bet my life that in 300 years evolution will be disproven.

How is evolution a political issue?
How is Vietnam a political issue?

Oh, really? Then how come all the science-minded people think scientific theories are enough evidence for them to be atheist?

*Checks her profession*: (yup, scientist)
*Checks to see if she has become an atheist yet*: (nope, not yet).

Hmmm, weird that. Fundamentalists that refuse to listen to reason do a whole lot more to push me away from God than science does. Science, in fact, increases my faith in God. Every time I learn more about how things work, I am even more amazed at what God has created.

Are some "science-minded people" atheist? Sure. Are all of them? Nope, not even close.

Scientific theories may not directly prove there is no God (lol), but it's obvious that they imply that.

No, they imply no such thing. They imply simply that we can determine the way things work. We can't determine why they work that way or how they started. We can tell that matter is made up of atoms which are made up of tiny little particles. However, science can't tell you why atoms are made up of tiny little particles and aren't made up of cheese - we can just tell that the way it works is that atoms are made up of tiny little particles. The fact that atoms are made of tiny little particles in no way proves (or even implies) that God didn't make it that way.

Even gravity is truly just a theory. The speed of light is variable
Much as I respect your opinions, I'm gonna have to fault you on these two. Gravity is most certainly real (caused by a curvature of space-time). The second you start levitating is the second I stop insisting that gravity is a bit more than just a theory. The speed of light is absolute. It is a constant, the same to all observers, regardless of relative motion. That's straight from Einstein, and corroborated more times than I can count.

Yoti, you're clearly insane, I don't know how else to put it. Satan placed the evidence for evolution and a 4-billion-year-old earth here? Come on, man. You make me laugh.

Gravity is an observed law as well as the other forces. The question of gravity isn't the "what;" the question of gravity is the "why."

ever consider that Yoti might be a parody?

The speed of light is absolute. It is a constant, the same to all observers, regardless of relative motion. That's straight from Einstein, and corroborated more times than I can count.
Isn't it Hawking the guy who is talking about Black holes actually bending space, therefore changing the speed of light that passes nearby (if it isn't sucked in)?

No, they imply no such thing. They imply simply that we can determine the way things work. We can't determine why they work that way or how they started. We can tell that matter is made up of atoms which are made up of tiny little particles. However, science can't tell you why atoms are made up of tiny little particles and aren't made up of cheese - we can just tell that the way it works is that atoms are made up of tiny little particles. The fact that atoms are made of tiny little particles in no way proves (or even implies) that God didn't make it that way.

Then what is it that drives people to atheism? You're a scientist, so look at the facts and you'll see I'm right: it's science. Science is responsible for secularism. If it's not, I'd love to hear what is.

Isn't it Hawking the guy who is talking about Black holes actually bending space, therefore changing the speed of light that passes nearby (if it isn't sucked in)?

You're both a little bit right.

The velocity of light is not quite constant. It is relative to something we accept as a constant. Namely, Planck's Constant. Planck's Constant isn't quite constant either. It is rleative to something else. Probably gravity. It would explain why gravitation can alter the velocity of light.

Evolution in its entirety is not scientifically feasable. here's why:

you can break any theory out there. really, you can break einstein and bohrs and heisenburg and you're fine. But you cannot break scientific laws.

Like the second law of thermal dynamics. this law is simple and states that any system left alone will tend towards chaos, and never towards order.
that's a pretty simple law (and i stress scientific law because it has been proven and is absolute)
ok, so spontaneous generation requires a simple organism to form out of a bunch or amino acids, then these small cells have to bunch together and organize themselves. ie, they have to group together in order to form more complex organisms. then they have to develope completely new traits out of pure chance (ie, the bioligists nowdays accept that mutation is chaos) but these new traits have to organize themselves. it's chaos tending towards order, and that doesn't exist.

Theoretical science contradicts this law, obviously, but documented science doesn't. there have been thousands if not millions of documented mutations, but never has there ever been a documented mutation that was beneficial to the organism. ie, we've never ever seen the second law of thermodynamics contradicted.

but, theoretically, thermodynamics does not apply to life. Why not? Because it's devastating to the theory of evolution.

Now, that doesn't discount all of evolution, since things do evolve. Like the Daisy World- when the light is brighter, the daisys are darker, and when the light is darker, the lighter coloured daisies grow. but in this example, all of the daisy traits are already in the system, both light genes and dark genes. Spontaneos beneficial mutation doesn't follow necessity.

Now Darwin's theory has been altered hundreds of times, and will be more times when the current theory is finally accepted as unsupportable. theoretically we are always comming closer to the truth. like, eventually we'll know.

Uhm...that's not the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics isn't quite that.

Then what is it that drives people to atheism? You're a scientist, so look at the facts and you'll see I'm right: it's science. Science is responsible for secularism. If it's not, I'd love to hear what is.

None of the atheists I know are scientists, per se. They just don't, for whatever reason, feel God in their lives.

As for secularism, that comes from the simple realization that there are many different religious views (including the view that they are all bogus) and the government cannot choose one and advocate it without turning into a theocracy (which history has shown to be a bad thing.) Science, because it is an objective viewpoint, does provide a source for a secular society to get evidence. However, secularism itself is just the lack of a need to place one religious view above the others - science is not even necessary for it, much less responsible. You are incorrect if you are trying to equate secularism and science.

Evolution in its entirety is not scientifically feasable. here's why:

you can break any theory out there. really, you can break einstein and bohrs and heisenburg and you're fine. But you cannot break scientific laws.

Like the second law of thermal dynamics. this law is simple and states that any system left alone will tend towards chaos, and never towards order.
that's a pretty simple law (and i stress scientific law because it has been proven and is absolute)
ok, so spontaneous generation requires a simple organism to form out of a bunch or amino acids, then these small cells have to bunch together and organize themselves. ie, they have to group together in order to form more complex organisms. then they have to develope completely new traits out of pure chance (ie, the bioligists nowdays accept that mutation is chaos) but these new traits have to organize themselves. it's chaos tending towards order, and that doesn't exist.

Theoretical science contradicts this law, obviously, but documented science doesn't. there have been thousands if not millions of documented mutations, but never has there ever been a documented mutation that was beneficial to the organism. ie, we've never ever seen the second law of thermodynamics contradicted.

but, theoretically, thermodynamics does not apply to life. Why not? Because it's devastating to the theory of evolution.

Now, that doesn't discount all of evolution, since things do evolve. Like the Daisy World- when the light is brighter, the daisys are darker, and when the light is darker, the lighter coloured daisies grow. but in this example, all of the daisy traits are already in the system, both light genes and dark genes. Spontaneos beneficial mutation doesn't follow necessity.

Now Darwin's theory has been altered hundreds of times, and will be more times when the current theory is finally accepted as unsupportable. theoretically we are always comming closer to the truth. like, eventually we'll know.

As a fellow creationist (I think), I'd like to agree with you...but you're wrong. There have been documented beneficial human mutations, and evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

oh, and what drives people to secularism isn't science. it's the philosophy around science.

The catholic church adopted certain scientific ideas, like earth as the center of the universe, and the idea that all of earth's land mass was a chunk in the north west, and that the rest was made of water.

when scientists started exploring against this, it became the enlightenment: the idea that man can become better through aplication of reason and science.
This philosophy was prominent from the renascence up to world war 1, people thought that science was making people better. of course, in ww1 everybody was ready to kill everybody else for no reason at all, let alone a good reason. So, now people just think that people will never get better, except that much of science is still taught through the enlightenment world view.

personally, i agree with the tori satirists like johnathan swift.

what beneficial human mutations?

oh, and what drives people to secularism isn't science. it's the philosophy around science.

The catholic church adopted certain scientific ideas, like earth as the center of the universe, and the idea that all of earth's land mass was a chunk in the north west, and that the rest was made of water.

when scientists started exploring against this, it became the enlightenment: the idea that man can become better through aplication of reason and science.
This philosophy was prominent from the renascence up to world war 1, people thought that science was making people better. of course, in ww1 everybody was ready to kill everybody else for no reason at all, let alone a good reason. So, now people just think that people will never get better, except that much of science is still taught through the enlightenment world view.

personally, i agree with the tori satirists like johnathan swift.

That's great.

I still stand by my belief that YOU CAN'T REASON YOUR WAY OUT OF RELIGION.

Many philosophers have tried to pull this off; all they've ended up doing was making atheism easier to justify. Still, this is God's earth, and any reasoning you come up with for why religion is bad is in the brain God made you...you can't outsmart God. End of story.

what beneficial human mutations?

I don't have the exact list, but I'm sure some evolutionist will go and get it.

Supposidly some people are resistant to AIDS and other diseases.

Oh, and sickle-cell anemia is a positive mutation.

Please explain how a world with trillions upon trillions of animals, plants and bacteria is less ordered than a barren and desolate rock.

Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies, shock horror, to thermodynamics. It's used as a guide for chemical reactions, so for example, carbon and oxygen as they are are fairly ordered, one solid, one gas, when they react they form one gas- uh-oh, that breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics! No, because they produce heat, which increases the disorder of the environment. It is not a unified theory, and if disorder is increased on some level, it could mean order is increased on another, as I've just shown.

And don't try to use chemical principles to disprove evolution, since they tend to prefer the most stable product, which is comparable to natural selection.

Then what is it that drives people to atheism? You're a scientist, so look at the facts and you'll see I'm right: it's science. Science is responsible for secularism. If it's not, I'd love to hear what is.

No, science merely assumes the nonexistence of a god or gods because their existence doesn't help explain anything. Appealing to the divine is the opposite of science, that's all.

That's great.

I still stand by my belief that YOU CAN'T REASON YOUR WAY OUT OF RELIGION.

Many philosophers have tried to pull this off; all they've ended up doing was making atheism easier to justify. Still, this is God's earth, and any reasoning you come up with for why religion is bad is in the brain God made you...you can't outsmart God. End of story.

Ok, fine, I won't 'reason my way out of religion'. I'll give up atheism.

I'll become a Wiccan... or a Hindu... or hey, how about a Muslim? Those are all religions, they all have creation stories, they all have ancient texts. Sounds good to me!

:D

Stop assuming YOUR god is THE ONE AND ONLY. Even if there *is* a guiding force in the universe, it doesn't mean it's YOUR one. Until I have evidence one way or they other, I'll stick with not believing in any, thankyouverymuch.

isn't the bible just a book?...and the most boring novel i have ever read in my life...2000 years of boredom...and what of the next religion to come along?, as it will, if past history repeats itself..

i only wish time travel was possible, then we could settle this argument once and for all... :)

Please explain how a world with trillions upon trillions of animals, plants and bacteria is less ordered than a barren and desolate rock.

...

And don't try to use chemical principles to disprove evolution, since they tend to prefer the most stable product, which is comparable to natural selection.
Err... alright. Trillions upon trillions of animals, plants & bacteria. Uncountable seperate components, all behaving unpredictably and therefore semichaotically, in constant competition... definately sounds a less ordered than one big empty rock!


Biological evolution isnt the only issue on hand here. Stellar and Universal evolution are equally important. Suarely the Most Stable Product would be a universe in which there was no initial matter / antimatter imbalance, and everything annialated with everything else and was completely empty for the rest of time? (there being no gravity wells to pull the universe back in on itself)


Stop assuming YOUR god is THE ONE AND ONLY. Even if there *is* a guiding force in the universe, it doesn't mean it's YOUR one. Until I have evidence one way or they other, I'll stick with not believing in any, thankyouverymuch.
You want your evidence? Its called The Bible... bet you shy away from the issue and dont go read any of it though :(

No, science merely assumes the nonexistence of a god or gods because their existence doesn't help explain anything. Appealing to the divine is the opposite of science, that's all.

That isn't the opposite of science. A good scientist should seek to discover something, not prove something. Science should not favor nor disfavor any kind of religion. You can't come to a conclusion before you examine all the facts, and assumptions are dangerous things. The question to ask is not "does science prove or disprove religion?", but "what does science indicate?" If it's no god, fine. That's your conclusion. Fair enough. But don't state that science is the opposite of the divine.

You want your evidence? Its called The Bible... bet you shy away from the issue and dont go read any of it though :(

Um, I'm Catholic. I like the bible. But what about the Koran?

Um, I'm Catholic. I like the bible. But what about the Koran?

Well they cant BOTH be right. If you accept that the Bible is the word of God, surely you gotta accept that the Koran isnt?

Well they cant BOTH be right. If you accept that the Bible is the word of God, surely you gotta accept that the Koran isnt?

I actually think both are right. Try this next time you're in a book store.
Go to the theology section and find a copy of the Koran. It's not too tough to find. Flip to a random page and read a paragraph or two to someone close by (provided you ask permission). Replace the word "Allah" with "God" and "Mohommad" with "Jesus" or "Christ". I'll bet you anyone you read to will think you're reading the bible.

You want your evidence? Its called The Bible... bet you shy away from the issue and dont go read any of it though :(

I have read the Bible. Many times. I find it full of inexplainable inconsistencies, and were I to believe it's basic ideas, I would have to view it cynically since it was written by humans, and humans are imperfect. People tend to sin, and there is no reason a sinner could not get a passage in the bible to be transcribed wrong. Plus, I see no reason to assume that us small minded, imperfect humans would be able to understand even a billionth of what God may have told us. Most likely, the events in the bible are a frantic attempt to catch the wisdom of God... and how likely is it that we missed the mark entirerly, considering God is all knowing, and we are limited by our brains.

Oh, and since Satan was around when the Bible was written, who's to say he didn't slip in and alter something? Wouldn't that be the ULTIMATE way to send Christians to hell? Corrupting the book that they base their faith on? I know that that's what I'd do if I were trying to sabotage God.

Non-Winstopia's note - I'm playing Devil's advocate here (pun intended). While I may argue that 'if I believed this' and 'assuming God is real that' doesn't mean I have changed my atheist stance. I just like trying to find a middle ground to debate from :p

I don't know if I ever chose to become an Atheist or not. My only connection to the church is that I was baptised. I've never seen a reason to believe that there is a God. Its not just a scientific thing. I don't "feel" him either.

I don't understand how people can take the bible literally now though. The fact that it has been translated and revised by man seems contrary to the idea that it is the word of god. Don't get me wrong, it has a lot of good ideals that people should live their life by (love thy neighbour, etc), but I could never take it literally. Not to mention the fact that their are more religions than christianity out there.

The only downside to this argument is that a modern edition of the bible (at least, new testiment) is translated from either originals or the oldest manuscript available, and ALL of it is translated from the original language that it was written in (be that greek, aramaic or whatever). I dont think anything in it is currently translated from any documents newer than 350AD (correct me if anyone has better specifics there).
Right, so the fact it's from a manuscript written in 350AD makes it valid? When did Christ die again? around 30AD. So it was written more than 300 years after his death. Approximately 10 generations. Don't you think that just possible that maybe the story could have been embelished and altered in that time?
Also this thread was about the Old Testament (Belief in Genesis). But then even if the 350AD thing is also true about the Old Testament, this is even worse - something like 100 Generations.
Have you ever played Chinese whispher game? Where you whisper a sentence to one person and it goes round the room and finally back to you? It always changes massively. And that can be with as little as 10 ppl. imagine what 100 Generations would do!

BTW Nearly all Stat studies have a +/- error of 3.16%. It's cause they interview 1000 ppl, and the margin of error is 1 divided by the square root of the sample. 1000 is the cheapest number to ask and still get a statistically useful model.

And to the person who said the quote from Stephen Hawking about us being intelligent monkeys, did it not occur to you he was being flippant and simply using it to show just insignificant we are in this universe?

I have read the Bible. Many times. I find it full of inexplainable inconsistencies, and were I to believe it's basic ideas, I would have to view it cynically since it was written by humans, and humans are imperfect. People tend to sin, and there is no reason a sinner could not get a passage in the bible to be transcribed wrong. Plus, I see no reason to assume that us small minded, imperfect humans would be able to understand even a billionth of what God may have told us. Most likely, the events in the bible are a frantic attempt to catch the wisdom of God... and how likely is it that we missed the mark entirerly, considering God is all knowing, and we are limited by our brains.

Oh, and since Satan was around when the Bible was written, who's to say he didn't slip in and alter something? Wouldn't that be the ULTIMATE way to send Christians to hell? Corrupting the book that they base their faith on? I know that that's what I'd do if I were trying to sabotage God.

Non-Winstopia's note - I'm playing Devil's advocate here (pun intended). While I may argue that 'if I believed this' and 'assuming God is real that' doesn't mean I have changed my atheist stance. I just like trying to find a middle ground to debate from :p
EXACTLY. the main reason i don't like Christianity, and could never accept it even if the existence of God were proven, is that i have read the Bible. the Bible, and blind belief therein, is the best argument against Christianity anybody could ask for; inconsistent, mis-translated, and over-emphasized by millions of believers for no reason other than that they were told to do so.

your point about Satan is one that i have tried to make to believers countless times; if Satan is the master of all things evil then he most certainly would have written the Bible as Item Number One For Messing With Humans. the Bible seems pretty clearly a work of evil, as it confuses the issue of God beyond recognition, and wastes time telling people what to do if oxen are stolen while endorsing slavery, rape, child molestation, murder, racism, mysogeny, and physical abuse.

the believers like to claim that the context is what matters, but that seems to say that God used to support all those evils back when the Bible was written but then changed his mind; does that mean that those things are moral if God says so? why would God change his mind about what is moral simply to accomodate human society? if Good is immutable then why not impose Good laws upon humans from the start? and what if He changes his mind again and rape is a moral act? will believers be okay with raping if that's the way into heaven? or is there, perhaps, a standard of Good that is greater than God? and, if so, doesn't that mean God is not all-powerful, since He is subject to rules of morality He cannot change?

Sorry to mention the "e-word" but I'm amazed as to how Americans here make a political issue out of this. It seems to be just so as to open a new front in the ridiculous "culture war" of conservatives vs. liberals.

Here in Europe, evolution is the accepted norm. All of us (even the religious) are amazed and flabbergasted by the fact that around 45% of Americans believe that the world was created in seven days less than 10,000 years ago (i.e. creationism). I know that evolution is not a fully proven theory, but it is the best one we have so far.

Just wanted to say that.
Evolution is as fully proven as any scientific theory. I'm a physicist and I'm more certain of evolution than I am of any physics theory.

It is a political issue because everything is in a demokkkracy.

Oh, really? Then how come all the science-minded people think scientific theories are enough evidence for them to be atheist?

Scientific theories may not directly prove there is no God (lol), but it's obvious that they imply that.

Scientific theories are not what makes the Atheist.

It's the simple process of NOT believing in (a) god.

Scientific theories are not what makes the Atheist.

It's the simple process of NOT believing in (a) god.

Not to mention that many scientists (who do recognize scientific theories) do believe in God or gods.

Fun. Yet another rant on evolution vs. creationism. Does anyone remember the original topic?
How is evolution a political issue?
It's a political issue because people who believe in Creationism pay taxes. Those taxes pay for schools and textbooks. Those schools and textbooks teach the children of the True Believers thoughts that are anathema to their credo.

Since Creationists can't win the argument by reason (as is clearly evidenced by this thread), they attempt to win the argument by political pressure. "Teach Creationsim or we'll ... (fill in your own threat)!" Guess what? It works.

Fun. Yet another rant on evolution vs. creationism. Does anyone remember the original topic?

It's a political issue because people who believe in Creationism pay taxes. Those taxes pay for schools and textbooks. Those schools and textbooks teach the children of the True Believers thoughts that are anathema to their credo.

Since Creationists can't win the argument by reason (as is clearly evidenced by this thread), they attempt to win the argument by political pressure. "Teach Creationsim or we'll ... (fill in your own threat)!" Guess what? It works.

None of that makes it right that it is a political issue. Creationism may be a valid belief system, but it is not science - so it has no business in a science class. And we don't teach religion in public schools, because that would create a theocracy. If someone doesn't want their kid believing Evolution, they need to (a) put them in private schools that don't teach it (although most private schools are actually good schools, so they do) or (b) tell them not to actually believe it. If you really want to argue against someone, you really ought to learn about what you're trying to argue against.

Fun. Yet another rant on evolution vs. creationism. Does anyone remember the original topic?

It's a political issue because people who believe in Creationism pay taxes. Those taxes pay for schools and textbooks. Those schools and textbooks teach the children of the True Believers thoughts that are anathema to their credo.

Since Creationists can't win the argument by reason (as is clearly evidenced by this thread), they attempt to win the argument by political pressure. "Teach Creationsim or we'll ... (fill in your own threat)!" Guess what? It works.
of course, my tax dollars pay for teaching in public schools that i don't agree with. hell, i never plan to have kids, so why am i paying taxes that fund schools anyway? i don't own a car, or ever want to, so why do i pay taxes that help repair and maintain the roads?

just because Creationists pay taxes and taxes support secular public schools doesn't mean squat. we all see our tax dollars fund things we don't entirely agree with. if they don't want their kids getting a secular education then they should send those kids to a religious school...but they do NOT have the right to force state-sponsored education to teach religious doctrine in science class. religion is for history or social studies to cover, and myths belong in the literature section rather than alongside biology and archeology.

very interesting topic, and i am also flabbergasted that ppl refuse to believe that we hav all evolved. Now this does not necessarily mean that we were all once monkeys, but ultimately we have evolved from some lower life form to become what we are now. I mean we see every day animals, even insects who have evolved to adapt to where they are.
next, i am surprised to have learned recently, by looking into christian and catholic encyclopaedias that the "seven" days of creation did not represent human days, but godly days, which aparently translates to about 1000 human years. this may be well known but i was interested when i finally learned it. As a non-religious person, i find this debate fascinating and do not understand why people cannot accept a little of both.
-the infamous one

just because Creationists pay taxes and taxes support secular public schools doesn't mean squat. we all see our tax dollars fund things we don't entirely agree with. if they don't want their kids getting a secular education then they should send those kids to a religious school...but they do NOT have the right to force state-sponsored education to teach religious doctrine in science class. religion is for history or social studies to cover, and myths belong in the literature section rather than alongside biology and archeology.
Even though I agree with you 100%, that's your opinon. In their opinion, they also have the right to ask that their taxes go towards things they believe in. As long as there are fundamental differences in what people expect out of government, we'll continue to have political arguments about it.

Politics is not limited to the true and proveable. Politics is not science. Politics can define itself in virtually any way it wishes to, because it is an art of expectations, not reality. The fact that you and I agree that the argument is specious doesn't make it go away. We just have to stay in the fight until our side's expectations become the majority opinion.

As the conservatives love pointing out, the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution of the United States. Various interpretations and opinions have validated the concept, but precedent can be overturned. That's what the Christian fundies would like, and it's a valid politcial battle for definition of terminology. You don't have to like it, but you're a fool if you refuse to recognize it exists.

Evolution in its entirety is not scientifically feasable. here's why:

you can break any theory out there. really, you can break einstein and bohrs and heisenburg and you're fine. But you cannot break scientific laws.

Like the second law of thermal dynamics. this law is simple and states that any system left alone will tend towards chaos, and never towards order.
that's a pretty simple law (and i stress scientific law because it has been proven and is absolute)
ok, so spontaneous generation requires a simple organism to form out of a bunch or amino acids, then these small cells have to bunch together and organize themselves. ie, they have to group together in order to form more complex organisms. then they have to develope completely new traits out of pure chance (ie, the bioligists nowdays accept that mutation is chaos) but these new traits have to organize themselves. it's chaos tending towards order, and that doesn't exist.

Theoretical science contradicts this law, obviously, but documented science doesn't. there have been thousands if not millions of documented mutations, but never has there ever been a documented mutation that was beneficial to the organism. ie, we've never ever seen the second law of thermodynamics contradicted.

but, theoretically, thermodynamics does not apply to life. Why not? Because it's devastating to the theory of evolution.

Now, that doesn't discount all of evolution, since things do evolve. Like the Daisy World- when the light is brighter, the daisys are darker, and when the light is darker, the lighter coloured daisies grow. but in this example, all of the daisy traits are already in the system, both light genes and dark genes. Spontaneos beneficial mutation doesn't follow necessity.

Now Darwin's theory has been altered hundreds of times, and will be more times when the current theory is finally accepted as unsupportable. theoretically we are always comming closer to the truth. like, eventually we'll know.

Nice try. Totally wrong, but a nice try...

First: The Second Law only applies 'in toto' to closed systems. Within a system an element may be gaining in entropy while another element loses entropy - provided that the overall entropy of the system increases.

An example would be dropping a heated rock into cold water. The rock will gain in entropy due to heat loss, while the water will lose entropy in consequence. The OVERALL entropy of the system increases.

Second: Nature disproves you. A snowflake is impossible by your definition - since the multi-faceted surface is far more ordered than the loose bonding of water in liquid form.

Also - One cell dividing to form a human body is definitely a trend towards order - the entity becomes more complex.

Try researching first:


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Even though I agree with you 100%, that's your opinon. In their opinion, they also have the right to ask that their taxes go towards things they believe in. As long as there are fundamental differences in what people expect out of government, we'll continue to have political arguments about it.

Politics is not limited to the true and proveable. Politics is not science. Politics can define itself in virtually any way it wishes to, because it is an art of expectations, not reality. The fact that you and I agree that the argument is specious doesn't make it go away. We just have to stay in the fight until our side's expectations become the majority opinion.

respectfully, i disagree. my opinion is that Creationism is silly and pathetic, and somebody can easily disagree with that opinion, but the FACTS are that even if it is perfectly rational and correct it still doesn't belong in American public school science classes; the objective laws of the United States, as well as the specific words of the founders of this country, prohibit such religious indoctrination in state-funded public schools. the only difference of opinion somebody could have on this subject is whether or not those laws should be changed or discarded...if one holds the opinion that such laws don't exist then that is what is called "delusion."

yes, people have the right to ask that their taxes fund things they like. but they do NOT have the right to simply not pay taxes just because they dislike one avenue those tax dollars travel. they can try to vote in new initiatives if they like, and i have never claimed they can't, but they CANNOT enforce (or cause to be enforced) unConstitutional laws simply because they are tax-payers.

your paragraph on politics is very vague, as well. i don't care about "politics," i only care about the laws and freedoms objectively established in America. that's what is relavent here. i also don't care if i am in the majority, because America was specifically designed so that the majority opinion would not be able to take rights away from the minority; it doesn't matter how many people believe that American schools should teach Christianity as doctrine, they still don't get to have their way because the US was designed to prevent tyranny of the majority. the vast majority of Americans opposed legalizing mixed-race marriages, but it was done. the majority of Americans opposed granting women the vote, but it was done. minorities are entitled to the same rights as majorities, even if the majority doesn't like it. and may God bless America for that ;).


As the conservatives love pointing out, the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution of the United States. Various interpretations and opinions have validated the concept, but precedent can be overturned. That's what the Christian fundies would like, and it's a valid politcial battle for definition of terminology. You don't have to like it, but you're a fool if you refuse to recognize it exists.
i don't claim that seperation of church and state is part of the Constitution. however, the legal prohibition against religious doctrine in public schools is well-established in both the founders' work and the centuries of legal precident that follow. again, what the Christian fundies would like is not relavent, no matter how many of them there are, because of the way our government and Constitution are designed.

I have to side with Bottle:

If it doesn't withstand the Scientific Method, it is not 'Science'.

Therefore, it should not be taught in 'Science' classes.

Now - if you were studying mythology or literature, you might have an excuse for sneaking it into the curriculum.

I have to side with Bottle:

If it doesn't withstand the Scientific Method, it is not 'Science'.

Therefore, it should not be taught in 'Science' classes.

Now - if you were studying mythology or literature, you might have an excuse for sneaking it into the curriculum.
i actually encourage the teaching of all religious creation myths in school; if children are exposed to all the different myths about the Earth's origin then they will be able to see how all such myths are equally limited and unsupported by science. if they choose to believe in the myths anyways then they will be doing so as a conscious action of faith, rather than believing that their myth is "better" or "more proven" than other myths.

again, what the Christian fundies would like is not relavent, no matter how many of them there are, because of the way our government and Constitution are designed.
I see your point. I agree with your point. I support your point. But the argument is still out there, isn't it?

If there were no politcial argument being made, then this topic would not exist, would it? Everyone would agree that creationism isn't science, and no one would be pushing to have it included in the curriculum. But that's not reality. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of how the Constitution was intended to read, or what the Founders meant. That is the crux of a political argument: people disagree.
yes, people have the right to ask that their taxes fund things they like. but they do NOT have the right to simply not pay taxes just because they dislike one avenue those tax dollars travel. they can try to vote in new initiatives if they like, and i have never claimed they can't, but they CANNOT enforce (or cause to be enforced) unConstitutional laws simply because they are tax-payers.
Then it comes down to deciding what the Constitution really means, doesn't it? That's the battleground they've chosen. It's words on paper, backed by precedent and history. All of those things are subject to interpretation, and the creationists have the right to say what they think those meanings are.

I really don't understand your position on this topic, Bottle. In the Free Speech topic you had this to say:
And if someone's speech incites a mob to go and kill a bunch of X group, then that is ok? How about if someone's speech is in the form of listing out doctors at clinics that happen to perform abortions, listing their names, addresses, family's names, etc. and suggesting that all good people go out and murder these doctors and their families? Wouldn't these examples fall into the "your right to X ends where my rights begin" kind of category? yes.

even if i totally despise what somebody is saying, i will defend their right to say it.
Why do you deny the creationists their right to say what they think, and to attempt to shape law the way they see fit? It doesn't take away your right to oppose them. It doesn't make your argument any less correct or legal. Your side (and mine) is going to prevail in this particular bit of silliness. All I'm doing is defending their Constitutional right to make asses of themselves.

I really don't understand your position on this topic, Bottle. In the Free Speech topic you had this to say:

Why do you deny the creationists their right to say what they think, and to attempt to shape law the way they see fit? It doesn't take away your right to oppose them. It doesn't make your argument any less correct or legal. Your side (and mine) is going to prevail in this particular bit of silliness. All I'm doing is defending their Constitutional right to make asses of themselves.
i think i understand where the confusion is:

i TOTALLY support Creationists' right to say Creationism belongs in schools. they not only have the right to their opinion, they have the right to talk about it openly and to try to take political action that corresponds to their beliefs. i have NEVER advocated taking these rights away from Creationists.

my point is that having Creationism taugh in science classes in public schools is, by definition, illegal. more than that, to make such teachings legal would be a violation of the most fundamental American values we have. if Creationists want to try to uproot the founding values of this country then they have the right to try, but i think they are wasting their time because it's simply never going to happen.

Why do you deny the creationists their right to say what they think, and to attempt to shape law the way they see fit? It doesn't take away your right to oppose them. It doesn't make your argument any less correct or legal. Your side (and mine) is going to prevail in this particular bit of silliness. All I'm doing is defending their Constitutional right to make asses of themselves.

I'm kind of speaking for Bottle here, but Bottle never claimed that the Creationists don't have the right to say what they think and attempt to shape the law. All that was said is that they don't have the right to enforce an unconstitutional law on the rest of the populace. They certainly do have the right to say they think it should be different.

EDIT: Ok, Bottle beat me to it. =)

I'm kind of speaking for Bottle here, but Bottle never claimed that the Creationists don't have the right to say what they think and attempt to shape the law. All that was said is that they don't have the right to enforce an unconstitutional law on the rest of the populace. They certainly do have the right to say they think it should be different.

EDIT: Ok, Bottle beat me to it. =)
but you hit the nail on the head, and thanks! :)

I see your point. I agree with your point. I support your point. But the argument is still out there, isn't it?

If there were no politcial argument being made, then this topic would not exist, would it? Everyone would agree that creationism isn't science, and no one would be pushing to have it included in the curriculum. But that's not reality. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of how the Constitution was intended to read, or what the Founders meant. That is the crux of a political argument: people disagree.

Then it comes down to deciding what the Constitution really means, doesn't it? That's the battleground they've chosen. It's words on paper, backed by precedent and history. All of those things are subject to interpretation, and the creationists have the right to say what they think those meanings are.

I really don't understand your position on this topic, Bottle. In the Free Speech topic you had this to say:

Why do you deny the creationists their right to say what they think, and to attempt to shape law the way they see fit? It doesn't take away your right to oppose them. It doesn't make your argument any less correct or legal. Your side (and mine) is going to prevail in this particular bit of silliness. All I'm doing is defending their Constitutional right to make asses of themselves.

I think the problem is the idea that Creationism MUST be taught as if it were science. I assume Bottle would be happy for Creationists to stand in the streets and yell their stories to the skies, if they so desired. But, once you impose a restriction that this one insular view MUST be taught as if it were fact (ignoring thousands - literally - of other creation myths) you are no longer promoting free speech. You are in fact, institutionalising a form of religious conditioning.

my point is that having Creationism taugh in science classes in public schools is, by definition, illegal. more than that, to make such teachings legal would be a violation of the most fundamental American values we have. if Creationists want to try to uproot the founding values of this country then they have the right to try, but i think they are wasting their time because it's simply never going to happen.
My intent was to explain the original topic of How is evolution a political issue? I think we've answered that one.

Now, does anyone want a go at why, as Bottle states, teaching Creationism in science classes is illegal? I'm not sure I follow that logic. Illogical to be sure, but illegal?

Edit: asked, and answered.
But, once you impose a restriction that this one insular view MUST be taught as if it were fact (ignoring thousands - literally - of other creation myths) you are no longer promoting free speech. You are in fact, institutionalising a form of religious conditioning.

I'm kind of speaking for Bottle here, but Bottle never claimed that the Creationists don't have the right to say what they think and attempt to shape the law. All that was said is that they don't have the right to enforce an unconstitutional law on the rest of the populace. They certainly do have the right to say they think it should be different.

EDIT: Ok, Bottle beat me to it. =)

And you BOTH beat me to it... nuts.

But I think we all made a very good point!

My intent was to explain the original topic of How is evolution a political issue? I think we've answered that one.

Now, does anyone want a go at why, as Bottle states, teaching Creationism in science classes is illegal? I'm not sure I follow that logic. Illogical to be sure, but illegal?

It is unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) to teach any religious doctrine as fact in public schools (which are funded by the government). Teaching Creationism, which is nothing more than fundamentalist Christian doctrine as if it were fact would be the same as teaching that children must carry prayer rugs around and pray towards Mecca 5 times a day, it is establishing a government-sanctioned religion.

Dammit, is EVERYONE gonna agree here? Where's the fun in that?

Dammit, is EVERYONE gonna agree here? Where's the fun in that?
hmm, you're right...let's fix that...

God belongs in schools because young people will be immoral without His guidance. atheists just want to take God out of schools because they want our kids to be gay drug users who hug trees and eat babies. God's word is clearly and non-contradictorily spelled out in the Bible (and nowhere else), and the Bible is therefore more right than any flawed human science book about how we're all just hairless monkeys. Creation is just as legitimate a scientific theory anyway, since a whole lot of people believe in it and the number of people who believe something determines how true it is.

hmm, you're right...let's fix that...

God belongs in schools because young people will be immoral without His guidance. atheists just want to take God out of schools because they want our kids to be gay drug users who hug trees and eat babies. God's word is clearly and non-contradictorily spelled out in the Bible (and nowhere else), and the Bible is therefore more right than any flawed human science book about how we're all just hairless monkeys. Creation is just as legitimate a scientific theory anyway, since a whole lot of people believe in it and the number of people who believe something determines how true it is.

You know, I never saw it that way...

Okay, I agree with Bottle...

lol

Dammit, is EVERYONE gonna agree here? Where's the fun in that?
Well there's a first for everything.

I've only read the first page of this thread, but found this interesting.

I would like to see the Christian scientist disprove Carbon Dating. That will be interesting.

I don't know if anybody answered this yet but anyway:

First of Carbon-14 dating is only good to within 40,000-60,000 years, different sources will give different numbers, but this is the range I've seen most. So if somebody tells you they did a C-14 dating test and this thing is 300,000 years old, they are lying. There are not enough C-14 atoms left to make a proper test.

Second, all radioactive dating is based on a number of assumptions, some of which may or may not be based on objective fact, as they are very hard to positively test for.

Some of these assumptions are:

1) All radioactive elements decay according half-life. If you don't know what that is then, I'll summarize: The radioactive element decays into a non-radioactive form at a rate where half the radioactive material decays over a certain period of time. For example, if I remeber correctly, for C-14 I think it's roughly half of the C-14 decays at over a period of roughly 3000 years (I don't remember if that's the exact number. But it works as an illistration). So every 3000 years the amount of C-14 is halved.

THe problem with this is many of these elements have half-lives are extremely long, well beyond any time a human who lives ~70 years can measure, so how do we know for sure that ALL radio-active elements decay, in this way.

2) We know the half-lives of the radioactive elements. I'm not sure how they test to find out how long a half-life is, but again some of them are extrememly long, how do we know for sure.

3) That the ratio of parent-daughter(p-d to make less typing for me) material is constant in the atmosphere. Parent material is the radio-active element. Daughter material is the non-radioactive element the parent material decays into. This is to say that the ratio of p-d material is and has remained constant throughout history.

As anybody can imagine, this is a very risky assumption.

4) That the ratio of p-d material is the same in a living organism as it is in the atmosphere. I can't remember the exact explanation I was given as to why this is assumed, so if somebody wants to look it up be my guest.

But anyway, again this seems very risky.

As you can see C-14 dating is not as fool-proof as many think, but is based upon many assumptions, that may or may not be correct.

On top of that there are many examples of failures in C-14 tests. The most amazing I've heard was a clam that was still living was measured as being dead 1000 years, but these are usually chalked up to error and irregularities that do not follow a generalized rule.

Anyway as for the topic. I am a creationist, of the school of God created the world. As for the seven days, it may be metaphorical, but I have yet to see any meaningful proof that it isn't (and I have been in a fair number of these debates with a fair number of smart individuals), and I have yet to see any rational argument convincing enough for me to change my mind, so I will remain a believer in the 7 day creation until I see some convincing proof to the contrary.

As for it being a political issue. It shouldn't. An origins debate has nothing to do with the running of our nation. I have nothing against evolution being taught in school, as long as kids aren't told it is fact, but rather that it is the theory that is believed by most in the scientific community. And as for creation in schools, religious schools should be allowed, and in public schools, just a quick mention that some people disagree with evolution, as is true with pretty much any theory, is more than enough.

Anything that is not directly related to the functions of government should not be a political debate. But this works in reverse as well. Athiests often make political attacks on Christian leaders becuase of their religious beliefs. This is just as bad as Christians trying to force creationism on athiests.

Now for some fun. Some questions for all those evolutionists that like to call me irrational, answer on the board if you want but some are more for introspection on your own beliefs. Prove the rationality of your belief through rational arguments, hold your own beliefs to the same standard you hold creationist's beliefs to.

1) Where did the original matter come from? What set off the big bang?

2) The most basic life-form requires thus: i) DNA or RNA to reproduce. ii) A cell membrane to hold the cell together. iii) a way of creating usuable energy and a source of this energy. iv) The mechanisms necessary for asexual reproduction. The odds of all this coming together at once are low. Humans have done experiments and teh most they have been able to produce are a few amino acids. So how likely is it that all this evolved at once? Because without one the rest is useless.
(Some people like to insert the multiple universe theory here, that with infinite universes it had to happen and we are the product of this, but does multiple universes really take less faith than God?)

3) For sexual reproduction these are required: i) Mechanisms for the creation of eggs (ovaries in humans). ii) Mechanism for the creation of sperm (testicles in humans). iii) Mechanism for bringing sperm in contact with eggs. (ie. sex). How likely is it that all these happened to evolve in two of the same species at the same time? Either system is useless without the other.

Oh well, I've spent enough time on this post. Sadly I probably won't be on much for the next couple of weeks and by then this thread will probably be buried. So I probably will not be able to answer any questions others have for me. But I just wanted to answer the C-14 post and show that creationism is not irrational. But either way another Creation/Evolution post will likely appear later so maybe I'll have enough time for in-depth debate then.

Sorry if I got off topic, or cause any major redirection in the thread topic.

I've only read the first page of this thread, but found this interesting.



I don't know if anybody answered this yet but anyway:

First of Carbon-14 dating is only good to within 40,000-60,000 years, different sources will give different numbers, but this is the range I've seen most. So if somebody tells you they did a C-14 dating test and this thing is 300,000 years old, they are lying. There are not enough C-14 atoms left to make a proper test.

Second, all radioactive dating is based on a number of assumptions, some of which may or may not be based on objective fact, as they are very hard to positively test for.

Some of these assumptions are:

1) All radioactive elements decay according half-life. If you don't know what that is then, I'll summarize: The radioactive element decays into a non-radioactive form at a rate where half the radioactive material decays over a certain period of time. For example, if I remeber correctly, for C-14 I think it's roughly half of the C-14 decays at over a period of roughly 3000 years (I don't remember if that's the exact number. But it works as an illistration). So every 3000 years the amount of C-14 is halved.

THe problem with this is many of these elements have half-lives are extremely long, well beyond any time a human who lives ~70 years can measure, so how do we know for sure that ALL radio-active elements decay, in this way.

2) We know the half-lives of the radioactive elements. I'm not sure how they test to find out how long a half-life is, but again some of them are extrememly long, how do we know for sure.

3) That the ratio of parent-daughter(p-d to make less typing for me) material is constant in the atmosphere. Parent material is the radio-active element. Daughter material is the non-radioactive element the parent material decays into. This is to say that the ratio of p-d material is and has remained constant throughout history.

As anybody can imagine, this is a very risky assumption.

4) That the ratio of p-d material is the same in a living organism as it is in the atmosphere. I can't remember the exact explanation I was given as to why this is assumed, so if somebody wants to look it up be my guest.

But anyway, again this seems very risky.

As you can see C-14 dating is not as fool-proof as many think, but is based upon many assumptions, that may or may not be correct.

On top of that there are many examples of failures in C-14 tests. The most amazing I've heard was a clam that was still living was measured as being dead 1000 years, but these are usually chalked up to error and irregularities that do not follow a generalized rule.

Anyway as for the topic. I am a creationist, of the school of God created the world. As for the seven days, it may be metaphorical, but I have yet to see any meaningful proof that it isn't (and I have been in a fair number of these debates with a fair number of smart individuals), and I have yet to see any rational argument convincing enough for me to change my mind, so I will remain a believer in the 7 day creation until I see some convincing proof to the contrary.

As for it being a political issue. It shouldn't. An origins debate has nothing to do with the running of our nation. I have nothing against evolution being taught in school, as long as kids aren't told it is fact, but rather that it is the theory that is believed by most in the scientific community. And as for creation in schools, religious schools should be allowed, and in public schools, just a quick mention that some people disagree with evolution, as is true with pretty much any theory, is more than enough.

Anything that is not directly related to the functions of government should not be a political debate. But this works in reverse as well. Athiests often make political attacks on Christian leaders becuase of their religious beliefs. This is just as bad as Christians trying to force creationism on athiests.

Now for some fun. Some questions for all those evolutionists that like to call me irrational, answer on the board if you want but some are more for introspection on your own beliefs. Prove the rationality of your belief through rational arguments, hold your own beliefs to the same standard you hold creationist's beliefs to.

1) Where did the original matter come from? What set off the big bang?

2) The most basic life-form requires thus: i) DNA or RNA to reproduce. ii) A cell membrane to hold the cell together. iii) a way of creating usuable energy and a source of this energy. iv) The mechanisms necessary for asexual reproduction. The odds of all this coming together at once are low. Humans have done experiments and teh most they have been able to produce are a few amino acids. So how likely is it that all this evolved at once? Because without one the rest is useless.
(Some people like to insert the multiple universe theory here, that with infinite universes it had to happen and we are the product of this, but does multiple universes really take less faith than God?)

3) For sexual reproduction these are required: i) Mechanisms for the creation of eggs (ovaries in humans). ii) Mechanism for the creation of sperm (testicles in humans). iii) Mechanism for bringing sperm in contact with eggs. (ie. sex). How likely is it that all these happened to evolve in two of the same species at the same time? Either system is useless without the other.

Oh well, I've spent enough time on this post. Sadly I probably won't be on much for the next couple of weeks and by then this thread will probably be buried. So I probably will not be able to answer any questions others have for me. But I just wanted to answer the C-14 post and show that creationism is not irrational. But either way another Creation/Evolution post will likely appear later so maybe I'll have enough time for in-depth debate then.

Sorry if I got off topic, or cause any major redirection in the thread topic.

Ahhh, you've 'heard' of the 'still-living-dead-clam'. And, based partly on that 'knowledge' decided carbon dating is erroneous, because the clam thing is obviously a) relevant and b) true.

Well, I have 'heard' that Jesus was homosexual... so I guess that must be true too...

http://www.darklyrics.com/c/corporateavenger.html

I've only read the first page of this thread, but found this interesting.



I don't know if anybody answered this yet but anyway:

First of Carbon-14 dating is only good to within 40,000-60,000 years, different sources will give different numbers, but this is the range I've seen most. So if somebody tells you they did a C-14 dating test and this thing is 300,000 years old, they are lying. There are not enough C-14 atoms left to make a proper test.

Second, all radioactive dating is based on a number of assumptions, some of which may or may not be based on objective fact, as they are very hard to positively test for.

Some of these assumptions are:

1) All radioactive elements decay according half-life. If you don't know what that is then, I'll summarize: The radioactive element decays into a non-radioactive form at a rate where half the radioactive material decays over a certain period of time. For example, if I remeber correctly, for C-14 I think it's roughly half of the C-14 decays at over a period of roughly 3000 years (I don't remember if that's the exact number. But it works as an illistration). So every 3000 years the amount of C-14 is halved.

THe problem with this is many of these elements have half-lives are extremely long, well beyond any time a human who lives ~70 years can measure, so how do we know for sure that ALL radio-active elements decay, in this way.

2) We know the half-lives of the radioactive elements. I'm not sure how they test to find out how long a half-life is, but again some of them are extrememly long, how do we know for sure.

3) That the ratio of parent-daughter(p-d to make less typing for me) material is constant in the atmosphere. Parent material is the radio-active element. Daughter material is the non-radioactive element the parent material decays into. This is to say that the ratio of p-d material is and has remained constant throughout history.

As anybody can imagine, this is a very risky assumption.

4) That the ratio of p-d material is the same in a living organism as it is in the atmosphere. I can't remember the exact explanation I was given as to why this is assumed, so if somebody wants to look it up be my guest.

But anyway, again this seems very risky.

As you can see C-14 dating is not as fool-proof as many think, but is based upon many assumptions, that may or may not be correct.

On top of that there are many examples of failures in C-14 tests. The most amazing I've heard was a clam that was still living was measured as being dead 1000 years, but these are usually chalked up to error and irregularities that do not follow a generalized rule.

Anyway as for the topic. I am a creationist, of the school of God created the world. As for the seven days, it may be metaphorical, but I have yet to see any meaningful proof that it isn't (and I have been in a fair number of these debates with a fair number of smart individuals), and I have yet to see any rational argument convincing enough for me to change my mind, so I will remain a believer in the 7 day creation until I see some convincing proof to the contrary.

As for it being a political issue. It shouldn't. An origins debate has nothing to do with the running of our nation. I have nothing against evolution being taught in school, as long as kids aren't told it is fact, but rather that it is the theory that is believed by most in the scientific community. And as for creation in schools, religious schools should be allowed, and in public schools, just a quick mention that some people disagree with evolution, as is true with pretty much any theory, is more than enough.

Anything that is not directly related to the functions of government should not be a political debate. But this works in reverse as well. Athiests often make political attacks on Christian leaders becuase of their religious beliefs. This is just as bad as Christians trying to force creationism on athiests.

Now for some fun. Some questions for all those evolutionists that like to call me irrational, answer on the board if you want but some are more for introspection on your own beliefs. Prove the rationality of your belief through rational arguments, hold your own beliefs to the same standard you hold creationist's beliefs to.

1) Where did the original matter come from? What set off the big bang?

2) The most basic life-form requires thus: i) DNA or RNA to reproduce. ii) A cell membrane to hold the cell together. iii) a way of creating usuable energy and a source of this energy. iv) The mechanisms necessary for asexual reproduction. The odds of all this coming together at once are low. Humans have done experiments and teh most they have been able to produce are a few amino acids. So how likely is it that all this evolved at once? Because without one the rest is useless.
(Some people like to insert the multiple universe theory here, that with infinite universes it had to happen and we are the product of this, but does multiple universes really take less faith than God?)

3) For sexual reproduction these are required: i) Mechanisms for the creation of eggs (ovaries in humans). ii) Mechanism for the creation of sperm (testicles in humans). iii) Mechanism for bringing sperm in contact with eggs. (ie. sex). How likely is it that all these happened to evolve in two of the same species at the same time? Either system is useless without the other.

Oh well, I've spent enough time on this post. Sadly I probably won't be on much for the next couple of weeks and by then this thread will probably be buried. So I probably will not be able to answer any questions others have for me. But I just wanted to answer the C-14 post and show that creationism is not irrational. But either way another Creation/Evolution post will likely appear later so maybe I'll have enough time for in-depth debate then.

Sorry if I got off topic, or cause any major redirection in the thread topic.
1) we know because we understand the mechanics of radioactive decay. If you understand the process you can figure out how long it takes

2) Without one the rest is useless for life as we define it, but a membranes may have formed according to the laws of chemistry. I vaguely recall that an experiment formed primitive cell membranes from non-living chemistry. Genetic material could have come later. Sources of energy are plentiful in nature. chemical energy stored in sulfur/iron compounds, light, heat, lightning, etc.

3) There are species that reproduce by both sexual and asexual means. If an individual creature that reproduces asexually is mutated into a species that can reproduce both ways, it's asexual offspring can mate with it or each other.

I know what evolution is, and I know that there is plenty of evidence supporting it. I still don't see why anybody would accept it as truth, though, when science is constantly changing. I'd bet my life that in 300 years evolution will be disproven.

And I can bet than that in 300 years archeology will have succeded so good that we can finally expose the lies from popes and churches and give the gospel of Thomas and the early judish church the respect that they deserve, get my point? Who'd belive that someone would criticise the rule of the pope in, for example, the year of 1226? Who'd belive that the church would ever say that earth is rotating in 1326? And who'd be beliving in ecumenics in the year of 1626 or 1026?

The difference between christianity and science is that christianity adapts after science whenever human logics and facts becomes so atheistic that the respectability of the church itself is threatned.

Even though I agree with you 100%, that's your opinon. In their opinion, they also have the right to ask that their taxes go towards things they believe in. As long as there are fundamental differences in what people expect out of government, we'll continue to have political arguments about it.
The best way to allow people to decide what their money gets spent on is not to tax them in the first place. Once the govt has stolen the money off them any notion of pretending to let them choose where their money goes is a sham.

As said on the first page of this thread, Europeans find it absurd that it is even an issue.


The best way to allow people to decide what their money gets spent on is not to tax them in the first place. Once the govt has stolen the money off them any notion of pretending to let them choose where their money goes is a sham.
government shmovernment,
tax, shmax.

IMO taxes do need to go down, people need more say in where their tax money goes, but I wouldn't fully abolish taxes. There are some things govts. (should) do better than private organisations or private persons. Environmental protection for one. I wouldn't give people the liberty to pollute all they want.

...but this should go into another thread.

The lines of evolution that you see from the Pre-Cambrian Explotion? I could tell you they were created by God specifically to make it so only firmly faithful believers could follow Him.That would seem to indicate that your God is trying to fake us out. Is not the standard Judeo-Christian god incapable of deceit?
You can't prove me wrong, and I can't prove you wrong.I may not be able to prove you wrong, but I can sure as heck point out internal inconsistencies which tend to cast doubt on the Bible-literalist position.
by definition, all science can never be proved. Even gravity is truly just a theory. The speed of light is variable. My idea? Cannot be disproven. Ever. No "fact" you throw in front of me can stumble my ideas. God is unable to be disproven. Man has tried for 2,000 and even 6,000 years to ignore Him. Yet, he stays.On the contrary. What makes it science is that it can be tested and either proved or disproved. And that is exactly why "Creation-science" is a load of crap. If there is no objective way to test its truthfulness, it's not science. Your god is untestable and unquestionable, and can therefore be ignored in scientific discourse. That's not to say I don't think God exists- I do -just that his domain is teaching you how to live your life right, not telling you who is right about the age of the Earth.

Oh, and the comment that Creationism has no proof. No duh, of course it has no proof. Perfect instantanious creation wouldn't leave a trace to detect, now would it?You have fallen victim to one of the most common logical fallacies. Lack of disproof does not constitute proof.

Oh, really? Then how come all the science-minded people think scientific theories are enough evidence for them to be atheist?Not all of them do. Only the idiots. There are quite a lot who fit that bill, but the vast majority of truly brilliant people that I know / know of don't look to science and say "I don't need God." They look to science and say "Man, God sure is an awesome dude to have made all this neat stuff."
THe problem with this is many of these elements have half-lives are extremely long, well beyond any time a human who lives ~70 years can measure, so how do we know for sure that ALL radio-active elements decay, in this way.The universality principle. That is, paraphrased, "the laws of physics governing any particular system remain the same everywhere in the universe."I'm not sure how they test to find out how long a half-life is, but again some of them are extrememly long, how do we know for sure.That's just seventh-grade algebra. They see how long it takes a smaller proportion to decay, and then scale it up to get the half-life. We only use half-life because its convenient, third-life or five-sevenths life would work just as well.
3) That the ratio of parent-daughter(p-d to make less typing for me) material is constant in the atmosphere. ... This is to say that the ratio of p-d material is and has remained constant throughout history.

As anybody can imagine, this is a very risky assumption.Not quite so. The Earth is a relatively closed system. Since its formation, the total addition of external matter that might have had different ratios is negligibly miniscule. With half-life being constant, we can take the p-d ratios today, dig up some ancient antarctic ice to the p-d ratios a few thousand years ago in order to correct for particles of the daughter element already present In the Beginning, and extrapolate both the p-d ratios at any time in history (which is /not/ constant- for example, there used to be enough raw U235 laying around to set up naturally occuring supercritical reactions. By the time humans showed up, however, only a couple of formations were still around, the rest of the uranium having decayed, vastly altering the U235/barium-krypton ratios) and the amount of parent material In the Beginning within a few percentage points of accuracy.
4) That the ratio of p-d material is the same in a living organism as it is in the atmosphere. I can't remember the exact explanation I was given as to why this is assumed, so if somebody wants to look it up be my guest.If that were true, carbon dating would be useless, as the sample would decay at exactly the same rate as the rest of the world. In fact, organisms show a preference for using one isotope over the other, and its this difference in ratios that allows us to calculate age from the time of death, AFAIK.
Anyway as for the topic. I am a creationist, of the school of God created the world. As for the seven days, it may be metaphorical, but I have yet to see any meaningful proof that it isn't (and I have been in a fair number of these debates with a fair number of smart individuals), and I have yet to see any rational argument convincing enough for me to change my mind, so I will remain a believer in the 7 day creation until I see some convincing proof to the contrary.Then you shall remain a creationist to the end of your days, for the main problem with creationism is that such proof, for or against, is impossible. That is why it is not science.
1) Where did the original matter come from? What set off the big bang?There are numerous theories on this point, most equally plausible. The one I happen to like the most is false-vacuum collapse, but I won't state that as fact. And what caused that to happen, you ask? Well, that's a question that science can't presently answer, as it is impossible for us to probe beyond the limits of the physical universe. The Anthropic Principle makes it rather attractive to say "it created itself", which is exactly what a heckuvalotta religious creation myths do (Norse and Greek, to name just two).
Personally, though, I'd much rather believe that "God Did It", and I'm rather looking forward to getting to Heaven/Paradise/Asgard/the Celestial Kingdom/the Elysian Fields/what-have-you and asking him exactly how he managed it.
Science is there to explain how stuff works. Religion answers why. Since they cover completely different domains, there's no reason why they should ever conflict.
2) The most basic life-form requires thus: i) DNA or RNA to reproduce. ii) A cell membrane to hold the cell together. iii) a way of creating usuable energy and a source of this energy. iv) The mechanisms necessary for asexual reproduction. The odds of all this coming together at once are low. Humans have done experiments and the most they have been able to produce are a few amino acids. So how likely is it that all this evolved at once? Because without one the rest is useless.The experiments you refer to were only intended to produce a few amino acids. Newer one are in fact already underway that have gotten quite a bit further. In short, the presence of borax as a catalyst increases the chances of the formation of TNA/RNA/DNA chains. Complex TNA chains then catalyze the formation of complementary RNA chains. Those that are capable of replication (catalyzing the construction of new copies of themselves from raw materials gathered from their environment, i.e., asexual reproduction) will quickly outstrip and consume the rest. Oil bubbles ubiquitous in the chemical soup of Earth's early seas could protect the primitive protolifes after they have left their mineral substrates for open water. The most successful protolifes would be aptamers that are capable of catalyzing the formation of such bubbles around themselves. Up to this point, energy would be in the form of ultraviolet rays and lightning stimulating independant chemical reactions, in addition to a small amount of energy released as replicating protolifes gather raw materials. At this time, the protolifes would start actively catalyzing reactions of the chemicals diffusing through their oil membranes to derive energy as needed. That is, all early organisms were heterotrophic. The order of things starts getting fuzzy about here. Once raw materials start running out, random mutation among the trillions of self-catalyzing RNA-aptamer based organisms enable a few of them to purposefully harness the sunlight that once randomly powered their creation, with the most harmful sorts that would by now being breaking them up rather than helping them blocked by a changing atmosphere. More random mutations cause a few of the protolifes to hit upon the idea of copying their information into more robust DNA, relegating RNA to a solely messenger/catalysis position.
(Some people like to insert the multiple universe theory here, that with infinite universes it had to happen and we are the product of this, but does multiple universes really take less faith than God?)Nope.
3) For sexual reproduction these are required: i) Mechanisms for the creation of eggs (ovaries in humans). ii) Mechanism for the creation of sperm (testicles in humans). iii) Mechanism for bringing sperm in contact with eggs. (ie. sex). How likely is it that all these happened to evolve in two of the same species at the same time? Either system is useless without the other.Eggs and sperm are analogous constructions, and could quite easily have (and probably did) evolved from a system emplyoing two identical reproductive cells. There are, I believe, bacteria that still use such a system, but I could be wrong about that. In any case, there definitely are bacteria that exhibit sexual differentiation- they were, in fact, one of things Watson&Crick were studying at the time of the discovery of the structure of DNA. As reproductive cells of whatever type can be brought together simply by releasing them into the water, which is exactly what a large number of aquatic creatures do, you can get along quite easily with only one of the three systems you mention, leaving the other two for later.

Eggs and sperm are analogous constructions, and could quite easily have (and probably did) evolved from a system emplyoing two identical reproductive cells. There are, I believe, bacteria that still use such a system, but I could be wrong about that. In any case, there definitely are bacteria that exhibit sexual differentiation- they were, in fact, one of things Watson&Crick were studying at the time of the discovery of the structure of DNA. As reproductive cells of whatever type can be brought together simply by releasing them into the water, which is exactly what a large number of aquatic creatures do, you can get along quite easily with only one of the three systems you mention, leaving the other two for later.

Well, bacteria don't form gametes really, per se. Other single-celled organisms can though. And there are still many organisms that use ISOGAMY where the reproductive cells are basically the same (or at least look the same...some of them can still have different sexes, but some are just haploid cells) like algae and fungi.

More to the point...why would created organisms need sex? Sex is a way of mixing up genes and allowing for more effective natural selection on individual genes...if you don't evolve you don't need sex. Just do like bacteria and go through binary fission...or if you are multicellular (I assume most of the readers are ;) ) just use parthenogenesis, where eggs just develop straight into functional beings. Of course you'd still evolve...your species is just more open to selective sweeps and genetic "bad health".

I really did swear to myself I'd stop posting here...I'm so tired of the idiots yelling and cussing and screaming...so keep it clean.

Well, bacteria don't form gametes really, per se. Other single-celled organisms can though. And there are still many organisms that use ISOGAMY where the reproductive cells are basically the same (or at least look the same...some of them can still have different sexes, but some are just haploid cells) like algae and fungi.

Bacteria don't form gametes, but some protists (like the one that causes malaria) do, even though they are single-celled organisms. Some fungi that are single-celled (like yeast) also go through stages where they produce gametes that then recombine in a different way to form new yeast cells - but can also reproduce in the haploid form by budding. Seems to me that these are pretty obvious "transitional" organisms on the asexual-sexual line.

Bacteria don't form gametes, but some protists (like the one that causes malaria) do, even though they are single-celled organisms. Some fungi that are single-celled (like yeast) also go through stages where they produce gametes that then recombine in a different way to form new yeast cells - but can also reproduce in the haploid form by budding. Seems to me that these are pretty obvious "transitional" organisms on the asexual-sexual line.

Careful on the "transitional" form there...most likely yeast's budding action is actually a derived trait. Yeast are weird. There are even asexual yeast...but this too is a derived trait.

Sex is considered by most experts to pre-date the eukaryotic cell, or because trichomonads and diplomonads (protist-like parasites) seem to be completely asexual, evolved in the after the split between the -monads and everything else that is eukaryotic.

Finding a "transition" state for sexual reproduction is not an easy task. Most likely it evolved from a diploid organism that swapped half its chromosomes with a neighbor. Cell fusion then somehow has to come into play...and it in itself is an odd process. But since, most likely, cell fusion was involved in the evolution of the first eukaryote, possibly sex was a "side effect" of becoming eukaryotic. That is, of course, just speculation, and not at all useful an answer. All in all, it is just not clear, that is why there is a TON of research into this question right now. Micro-fossils aren't terribly useful to figure out a cell's ability or inability to have sex.

Also, note that even bacteria swap genetic information...although this is a much simpler and crude "sex" method.

know this thread is probably bumped, but had to say this:
If you belive in god (unlike me) and are very religious (like some aquaintances of mine,) you might well believe that the world is created anew daily. Or, that time is 3-D and this time intersects and is one with the time(s) when the world was created. (Know this might sound wierd and may not make much sense.)

If you belive in god (unlike me) and are very religious (like some aquaintances of mine,) you might well believe that the world is created anew daily. Or, that time is 3-D and this time intersects and is one with the time(s) when the world was created. (Know this might sound wierd and may not make much sense.)
I thought time was 2D? And you're right, that doesnt make much sense :P

Aaaanyhow...
It is unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) to teach any religious doctrine as fact in public schools.

Surely ANY belief can be considered a religious doctrine? Like, for instance, evolution? I mean, a Religion is simply A System Of Belief, and a religious doctrine is merely a required part of that belief. So if what you say is right, surely its illegal to teach ANYTHING believed by ANYONE in schools? (no offence, like :))

my point is that having Creationism taugh in science classes in public schools is, by definition, illegal. more than that, to make such teachings legal would be a violation of the most fundamental American values we have.
I'm afraid I completely fail to understand whats illegal about teaching a system of belief. I mean, everything's part of a system of belief... right? And whats an American Value anyway? Like a European one, but 65% more patriotic & 5% more ignorant of the rest of the world?? ;)
Anyhow, heck, they taught us blatant lies in chemistry all the time... (im Scottish, so i sat a different education system from most of ya, but the point still holds) ... at standard grade they told us one thing, then at higher said: "yeah, well we did tell you that, but it was a lie. Actually, this is true instead (and it requires a lot more thought!)" Then at Advanced Higher they come along and say "well, that wasnt actually true either. This's how it REALLY works..."
The difference between christianity and science is that christianity adapts after science whenever human logics and facts becomes so atheistic that the respectability of the church itself is threatned.
The difference between Christianity and science is that Christianity is a specific religion and Science is a generalisation of learning. Nothing more.
Since Creationists can't win the argument by reason (as is clearly evidenced by this thread), they attempt to win the argument by political pressure.
I tried reason, and, as expected, noticed no real attempts to refute it other than to say "its still POSSIBLE". Was just ignored, as is usual with any logic that refutes ones current belief system.
the main reason i don't like Christianity, and could never accept it even if the existence of God were proven, is that i have read the Bible. the Bible, and blind belief therein, is the best argument against Christianity anybody could ask for; inconsistent, mis-translated, and over-emphasized by millions of believers for no reason other than that they were told to do so.

(the bible) wastes time telling people what to do if oxen are stolen while endorsing slavery, rape, child molestation, murder, racism, mysogeny, and physical abuse.
Read the whole thing? Sheesh you're dedicated... Which Bible was this anyway? I sure dont remember any of that stuff? I dont suppose you have a single biblical reference for any of these claims? And I'm talking New Testiment, not the Torah, which even most Christians (of most denominations) agree was messed up & fiddled by the Pharisees & High Priests over millenia...
And as for mistranslated... see my earlier post. It isnt.
Right, so the fact it's from a manuscript written in 350AD makes it valid?
<sigh> No, the fact that having read it, and God saying that it is and me meditating & praying on what I've read has proven it to me. Its a subjective thing - dont investigate it and you'll never 'get' it. Period.
The fact that it has been translated and revised by man seems contrary to the idea that it is the word of god.
You'd be happier reading Aramaic, Greek & Yiddish? Good luck. Strange how no one complains about novels being translated, a translated murder mystery generally ends up still being a murder mystery after translation... surely the same applies to the Bible? If instead it was all left in its original tongue, and we said "you gotta learn that language if you want to read it" then wouldnt THAT be a helluva lot worse than it actually is?
I have read the Bible. Many times.
Oh, and since Satan was around when the Bible was written, who's to say he didn't slip in and alter something?
I'm personally amazed at the number of people who dismiss the Bible offhand that claim to have read it all. I've not read it all. Like, you READ all of Numbers? Proverbs? Something WRONG with you? Or are you just making it up...
To answer your question - God says. Havent you read it?


And as for the whole Seven Days thing... who's to say its Seven Days of time in our timeframe (or seven millenia, or whatever)
Why not attempt (its impossible, yeah, but a vague comparison is possible) to look at it from God's perspective. Say you're programming a 3D game world into a computer, lets say its a MMORPG for sake of argument, you dont code a little bit, run it and then leave it running while you code the rest, letting the players in from the start. You do it in stages, with a final goal in mind. You dont get openGL or the directX workspace, or even the SDL though, you're God, so you gotta do it from scratch. Why not start off with defining a viewport and what's solid & whats not? Once ensuring that this doesnt crash, code your lighting so that you can have a good look around your new environment. And you dont want it all the same brightness, cos that would suck, so hows about varying degrees of light and darkness. Next, the logical thing would surely be different material types. Land and sea maybe? How about some sky too... And varying intermediatory stages. Ok now that we have a world, lets stick some detail in it, most importantly some basic plant type entities that dont really do much. Once we've got them, maybe some entities for all the different environments you've made, birds, fish, land animals, etc. Then, and only then, mind you, do you let the players of your game, and even then only in the form of perhaps a beta test (Adam & Eve, anyone?) Based on their actions and responses, you then proceed to modify and debug the world extensively, altering what players can & cant do before going for your retail launch. Cue big bang, etc...
I'm afraid that I've failed to explain this bit terribly well, so I'll attempt to clarify: While in human terms game development takes a lot longer than a week, once its released the players dont have to replay through all your development stages before getting onto the main story... they start at the point you want them to start. Cant the universe be the same? Like, couldn't God have designed the evolution of the universe to lead to US existing, and THEN initiated it?
Thats how I interpret the start of Genesis anyway, even if I've failed to convey it right :(

Read the whole thing? Sheesh you're dedicated... Which Bible was this anyway? I sure dont remember any of that stuff? I dont suppose you have a single biblical reference for any of these claims? And I'm talking New Testiment, not the Torah, which even most Christians (of most denominations) agree was messed up & fiddled by the Pharisees & High Priests over millenia...
And as for mistranslated... see my earlier post. It isnt.

<sigh> No, the fact that having read it, and God saying that it is and me meditating & praying on what I've read has proven it to me. Its a subjective thing - dont investigate it and you'll never 'get' it. Period.

You'd be happier reading Aramaic, Greek & Yiddish? Good luck. Strange how no one complains about novels being translated, a translated murder mystery generally ends up still being a murder mystery after translation... surely the same applies to the Bible? If instead it was all left in its original tongue, and we said "you gotta learn that language if you want to read it" then wouldnt THAT be a helluva lot worse than it actually is?

I'm personally amazed at the number of people who dismiss the Bible offhand that claim to have read it all. I've not read it all. Like, you READ all of Numbers? Proverbs? Something WRONG with you? Or are you just making it up...


First: If you think there is no mistranslation in the bible, then I fear you do not know as much as you think you know.

Second: I find it hard to believe that so many people will argue christian mythology without ever having read the bible. I have read the bible from cover to cover many times. I think it is a preposterous fiction - but at least I've read it.

Third: Most versions of the untranslated bible are going to be in Greek and Hebrew - not Yiddish.

Fourth: Many people do complain about translations. I have never met anyone (who had read both versions) that prefers modern translations of Shakespeare - since they lose most of teh art and 'spirit' of the original - and almost all of the original humour.

Fifth: I believe that you should read the bible in it's original tongue - if you want to be able to discuss the intention of the text. Otherwise, you are drawing conclusions that might not have been intended: e.g. New Testament assault on 'witchcraft', which in the Greek is "Pharmakeia" - meaning the administering of drugs or poison.

How can you make arguments about the bible and not have read it?

Then what is it that drives people to atheism? You're a scientist, so look at the facts and you'll see I'm right: it's science. Science is responsible for secularism. If it's not, I'd love to hear what is.

People like you drive people like me to atheism. When we have to keep hearing your constant mindless dribble about something you take too seriously, it kinda turns the rest of us off.

That's great.

I still stand by my belief that YOU CAN'T REASON YOUR WAY OUT OF RELIGION.

Many philosophers have tried to pull this off; all they've ended up doing was making atheism easier to justify. Still, this is God's earth, and any reasoning you come up with for why religion is bad is in the brain God made you...you can't outsmart God. End of story.

'God' did not create my brain: it came from a couple of divided cells, and has grown much larger than a simpleton like you could understand. Do not tell me that I'm "from God" or "God's creation". I hate when religious people do that!

I'm an atheist because there are just too many religions.

I was Catholic, but then I realized how broken the bible was. From there, I just became an atheist.

And I believe in evolution, as well I'm a 95+ student in physics, especially quantum physics. And no, that doesn't lead me closer to 'God' as one poster said.

Surely ANY belief can be considered a religious doctrine? Like, for instance, evolution? I mean, a Religion is simply A System Of Belief, and a religious doctrine is merely a required part of that belief. So if what you say is right, surely its illegal to teach ANYTHING believed by ANYONE in schools? (no offence, like :))

No, a religion has to do with the concept of the divine. Science is (a) not taught as pure fact and (b) has nothing to do with the divine.

I'm afraid I completely fail to understand whats illegal about teaching a system of belief. I mean, everything's part of a system of belief... right? And whats an American Value anyway? Like a European one, but 65% more patriotic & 5% more ignorant of the rest of the world?? ;)

In the US, we have a little thing called the 1st Amendment. It bars the government from establishing a religion. If the government would like to teach the creation stories of every single religion that has ever been in any place on the entire Earth, then they can teach the creation story in the Bible - better yet, they better teach both of them.

Anyhow, heck, they taught us blatant lies in chemistry all the time... (im Scottish, so i sat a different education system from most of ya, but the point still holds) ... at standard grade they told us one thing, then at higher said: "yeah, well we did tell you that, but it was a lie. Actually, this is true instead (and it requires a lot more thought!)" Then at Advanced Higher they come along and say "well, that wasnt actually true either. This's how it REALLY works..."

Funny, all of my teachers said, "we can assume this at this level, but it's not really how it works." Sucks that your teachers just lied to you.

Read the whole thing? Sheesh you're dedicated... Which Bible was this anyway? I sure dont remember any of that stuff? I dont suppose you have a single biblical reference for any of these claims? And I'm talking New Testiment, not the Torah, which even most Christians (of most denominations) agree was messed up & fiddled by the Pharisees & High Priests over millenia...

The New Testament isn't where the "7 days" version of Creation comes from - that comes from the Torah. If you accept the 7 days version of Creation because "it says so in the Bible," you should probably accept the entire Bible or risk being a complete hypocrite. And yes, if you read it all, you will find that the Bible teaches you:
-how much to sell your oxen, slaves, or daughters for
-that if you kill another person's slave - you have to give them a cow
-that it is important to stone a woman who was raped in the town along with her rapist, but if she was raped in a rural area you stone only the rapist
-that if you kill your slave on purpose - it is murder, but if you do it by accident (and he survives at least a day) - that's ok since he was your property
-that a woman is unclean for double the time after having a female, rather than a male child.
-that wearing clothes made out of two different materials is a sin punishable by death
- that genocide is not only permissable, but that if you don't do it, you deserve to die

and many, many more fun things.

And as for mistranslated... see my earlier post. It isnt.

Yes, and that is why if you compare a King James Version Bible (which is unfortunately the most used of fundamentalists), you find that there are grossly different passages from on like the New Revised Standard Version (which was translated directly from the oldest possible texts - and still has areas on which it admits scholars argue).

For instance, if you go back to the actual early texts - Moses didn't part the "Red Sea," he parted the "Sea of Reeds" (ie. a marsh). Now, that doesn't sound nearly as exciting - but it makes a whole hell of a lot more sense, considering that the Red Sea was not even close to being on the way to Mt. Sinai.

Try this - get out a few dictionaries from other languages. Now, write a paragraph in English. Tell it to someone else over the phone - and have them do the same. Now have the new person translate it into Latin. Then have someone completley different translate it into, say, Spanish. Then have a completely different person translate it into Japanese. Now, have someone translate it back into English - see if it says the same thing.

To answer your question - God says. Havent you read it?

I'm sorry, prayer and meditation has led me to believe that God did not advocate slavery, genocide, and the denigration of women.

And as for the whole Seven Days thing... who's to say its Seven Days of time in our timeframe (or seven millenia, or whatever)

No one, but that's not what we're arguing. Creationism states that it was 7 days, as in 7 24-hour periods. Never mind that there are two completely different creation stories in the Bible - Creationists pick one of them and have decided it is obviously the Truth with a capital "T" just because a document that has been passed down by work of mouth and then translated at the very least 4 times says so.

And I believe in evolution, as well I'm a 95+ student in physics, especially quantum physics. And no, that doesn't lead me closer to 'God' as one poster said.

I don't think the poster said that everyone is led closer to God by science, only that some are. I know that I am (although my field is bioengineering, not physics - that stuff scares the hell out of me =)

i dont know why people insist on arguing on the evolution v. creation subject at all. neither side can prove the other wrong, because they are both based on nothing but faith. one side claims to have fact, but what they must understand is that the other side wouldnt care even if they did. religion is so embedded in our worldwide culture that those who beleive it now will continue to do so untill the proverbial end of time (hehe i made a pun(go me)). you cant refute an argument based soley on faith, just doesnt work that way.

i think this emoticon sums up the whole arument very nicley :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Read the whole thing? Sheesh you're dedicated... Which Bible was this anyway? I sure dont remember any of that stuff? I dont suppose you have a single biblical reference for any of these claims? And I'm talking New Testiment, not the Torah, which even most Christians (of most denominations) agree was messed up & fiddled by the Pharisees & High Priests over millenia...
And as for mistranslated... see my earlier post. It isnt.

yes, i take God very seriously, even though i don't believe in Him. i think choosing whether to believe or not is a crucial turning point in one's life, so i have read the holy books of every major religion and several non-major ones. none are satisfactory, in my opinion, but the Bible is by far the least impressive specimen.

murder is advocated throughout the Bible, for such crimes as wearing mixed fabrics or cursing in front of one's parents. rape is advocated through the priceless story of Lot offering his virgin daughters to a rapacious mob, and then being singled out by God as the only virtuous chap in town. Lot The Virtuous also has incestuous, drunken sex later on, but we'll leave him be.

God personally rapes Mary, who was no more than 14 at the time she conceived Jesus and therefore is also an example of child molestation; current anthropological data confirms that young people of that era were not more neurologically developed than young people of today (quite the opposite, in fact), and therefore Mary was physically unable to give adult consent at the time she was impregnated. that is rape. though many scholars try to claim that "the times were different back then," i find that funny considering that they are essentially saying God used to condone rape but has since changed His mind...He used to endorse child molestation, but when human society changed God let that change His view of moral sexual practices. so aparently God is not objective or the standard for morality, since He changes according to human context.

abuse is advocated frequently, whether it be of one's children, one's wife or wives, or one's slaves. beatings are encouraged for unruly lesser beings like kids, wives, or slaves, and killing is okay in many cases as long as an oxen is provided as compensation if the person in question did not belong to you.

finally, if you don't see where the Bible is mysogenistic then you clearly haven't ever read it. likewise, if you claim it's not mistranslated then you clearly have not read ANY of the alternate versions or translations of the Bible, nor have you consulted translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls, nor have you taken an entry-level history course. please give me just a small break.

i dont know why people insist on arguing on the evolution v. creation subject at all. neither side can prove the other wrong, because they are both based on nothing but faith. one side claims to have fact, but what they must understand is that the other side wouldnt care even if they did.

just because your opposition refuses to recognize defeat, doesn't mean that they haven't been defeated. the real reason that the creation/evolution debate is still argued is because it is both trivially easy to utterly destroy any point a creationist copies from some website and utterly vital to stop them from abusing children through their destruction of education. it is argued because one side is made up of ignorant people being misled by lying hucksters who happen to exist in large enough numbers to make their obviously false beliefs into a political issue, and the other side refuses to just let the idiots win.

just because your opposition refuses to recognize defeat, doesn't mean that they haven't been defeated. the real reason that the creation/evolution debate is still argued is because it is both trivially easy to utterly destroy any point a creationist copies from some website and utterly vital to stop them from abusing children through their destruction of education. it is argued because one side is made up of ignorant people being misled by lying hucksters who happen to exist in large enough numbers to make their obviously false beliefs into a political issue, and the other side refuses to just let the idiots win.
Well said. Rude, direct, and somewhat unpleasant, but well said.

Rude, direct, and somewhat unpleasant,

i try.

but really, i find most creationists to be decent people who just have never had things properly explained to them, running around with crazy misconceptions.

however, it is true that to be a creationist you must either be ignorant of the facts, too stupid to understand them, or a lying bastard. it's the leaders of the creationist movement that fall into the last group that really bother me.

i try.

but really, i find most creationists to be decent people who just have never had things properly explained to them, running around with crazy misconceptions.

however, it is true that to be a creationist you must either be ignorant of the facts, too stupid to understand them, or a lying bastard. it's the leaders of the creationist movement that fall into the last group that really bother me.

I don't think they are really "lying bastards." I think they are just so incredibly insecure in their own faith, that anything that appears like it might possibly be in conflict with what they've taught, must be wrong. So they pretend to be (and even convince themselves that they are) scientists, while in actuality ignoring the scientific method completely.

...I'm personally amazed at the number of people who dismiss the Bible offhand that claim to have read it all. I've not read it all. Like, you READ all of Numbers? Proverbs? Something WRONG with you? Or are you just making it up...
To answer your question - God says. Havent you read it?...

Ok, let me try and make this simple.

The Bible is, presumably the word of God.
But, it was *written* by humans.
Humans are not perfect.
So error could have seeped in via that route.
God 'saying' that the Bible is complete and true is words, written in the Bible, by *imperfect* humans. Maybe God DID say "and everything contained in the Bible is true"... but just because the transcribers got THAT right doesn't mean they wrote something else down wrong.

And perhaps it *was* true in the original translation. But unfortunately, there is no such thing as a 'word for word' translation of any substantial length. Not only do some words have no accurate pair in another language, but often conontations vary wildly from language to language. There are also sayings that cannot be translated into another language. For example, if I translated "Break a leg" into Italian, it would *not* mean "Good luck". Not if it were, as you imply about the Bible, a word-for-word translation. It would mean "Hurt yourself by fracturing a bone in your leg". Woo, no loss of meaning there!

And as for Satan not having been able to alter it... what if the *original* Bible was correct, but Satan used one of the translators to 'alter' the copy that's going to run to print, eh? Yes, God said the Bible was true... but that was the original. And the Bible has gone to print *so many* times, I don't see how you can say with certainty that Satan (well known for being wily) couldn't have slipped something in or taking something out using some unscrupulous sinner.

And yes, I have read the Bible. Parts of it I will readily admit bored me to tears (all the pages of begetting... honestly, after a few lines my head started aching). And true, I have not *studied* it. Mainly because it's not offered in school. But I would, if I knew I would have an unbiased teacher. Because *I*, unlike some people, believe that arguing about something is stupid if you haven't at least *tried* to learn about it. That's why people who don't know the difference between 'descendent from apes' and 'COMMON ANCESTORS YOU FOOL' really tick me off. Many creationists simply have no idea at all about modern (yes, MODERN) biology and other sciences. I don't use ignorance of the Bible to try and justify evolution, and I really really REALLY wish people would stop using ignorance of biology to try and justify creationism.

Amen ;)

Bravo, Shaed, bravo.

man created god...not the other way round

Anyhow, heck, they taught us blatant lies in chemistry all the time... (im Scottish, so i sat a different education system from most of ya, but the point still holds) ... at standard grade they told us one thing, then at higher said: "yeah, well we did tell you that, but it was a lie. Actually, this is true instead (and it requires a lot more thought!)" Then at Advanced Higher they come along and say "well, that wasnt actually true either. This's how it REALLY works..."

That's what leads Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart (who write excellent popular science books) to dub teachers "liars to children". I do it all the time. "You can't square root a negative number..."

I'd bet my life that in 300 years evolution will be disproven.

erm, your life probably wont be a lot of good to anybody in 300 years time, it'll probably have been used up.

Seriously though, when talking about scientific theories, they have to be held contingently (even the ones we call 'laws' - though there is a distinction), but thats doesnt mean that they arent the best explanation that we currently have.

Anti-Oedipus, your name is intriguing (mainly because I'm doing Oedipus in two classes right now, so it's kind of at the forefront of my mind); is there a story or explination behind it?

And Unspecified Paradise, your post had me scrambling around to find my Science of Discworld books, just to verify that Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart had something to do with them. I knew I recognised that quote ^.^

all the pages of begetting...
Dammit man, why not skip that?
That's why people who don't know the difference between 'descendent from apes' and 'COMMON ANCESTORS YOU FOOL' really tick me off.
Argh... err actually we ARE apes, you meant decended from MONKEYS. But nevermind, thats pedantry.
Ok I see that no one is going to be convinced of anything either way here. Its either "I believe the Bible when it says its right" or "I dont believe the Bible, so when it says its right it must be lying."
I do so *love* circular logic.
My attempts to argue the existance of a creator from base priniciples, (surely the only objective way to reach such a conclusion) which I still believe to be completely logically valid, seem to have been ignored. And will people PLEASE stop insisting that the Bible has been translated through several languages to get to english? Known inconsistancies in translation get footnotes to explain exactly the meaning (the hebrew word for Skin Disease often being translated as Leprousy springs to mind, this is always noted), differing versions of original scripture get footnotes, and in every way it is the absolute best attempt that can be done to translate it as well as possible. People devote their LIVES to doing so.

God personally rapes Mary, who was no more than 14 at the time she conceived Jesus and therefore is also an example of child molestation; current anthropological data confirms that young people of that era were not more neurologically developed than young people of today (quite the opposite, in fact), and therefore Mary was physically unable to give adult consent at the time she was impregnated. that is rape. though many scholars try to claim that "the times were different back then," i find that funny considering that they are essentially saying God used to condone rape but has since changed His mind...
Good grief man - the scholars who make that claim are RIGHT! Legal age of concent was 12. She was, by definition, an adult. Also as for your rape rant... rape is the act of having unconsented sexual intercourse with another, not an angel appearing to ya and saying "you will be with child"
And as for all those laws about cows and slaves and rape and stuff, those were written by the high priests over centuries, those were what Jesus objected to...

And finally, I wouldnt be a physicist if I didnt object to the contradiction in terms "excellent popular science books" ;)

Can someone tell me how scientists have apparently proven the decay rate of a substance that takes tens of thousands of years to decay. It simply can't be proven, it's just a theory. The bible on the other hand has been around for at least two or three thousand years and not one word has changed in that time. At least it's got a bit of background.

King James, New English, Bishops', Catholic. How many versions. Granted, some of the differences are translation related but many others are changes in text taking place from one era to another.

How can one believe in an infallible word when that word changes?

The fundamental difference between the Theory of Evolution and Creationism is that Evolution WORKS and explains so many things in biology.

Good grief man - the scholars who make that claim are RIGHT! Legal age of concent was 12. She was, by definition, an adult.
ahh, so you are one of those! let me get this straight from you, then:

God is the source of morality. what God wills is moral. therefore, when God used to will that children be impregnated, that was Goodness, and people were right to do it. If God willed that burning babies alive was a Good thing, and that burning babies was the way to heaven, it would be right and Good for believers to undertake that action, because all that God wills is moral.

however, then human society developed a bit more. God decided to change his mind based on the humans' changing society (for some reason), and changed objective morality to make impregnating children a bad thing. even though child impregnation was originally willed a Good thing, and God holds us to many of the same rules He originally imposed despite changing human society, He decided that child impregnation should change to a Bad Thing (but consentual sex between adults of the same gender should still be hell-worthy).

if God is all-knowing and all-moral, than why would He change His moral rules just to accomodate humans? shouldn't He force us to follow the same rules always (since those are the moral laws)? if He lets us change morality just because our society changes then what's His moral standard worth? if He won't give us the correct moral laws to begin with then why are we worshipping Him? if we arrive at the correct morality through the development of our own culture then what do we need God for?

many others are changes in text taking place from one era to another.

LIKE... ? Its easy to be unspecific. Got any specific examples? (apart from the Red Sea, and preferably new testament as there isnt anyone arguing that the old testament is entirely literal or infallable anyway) I'm aware of no enduring changes that arent the result of an older / more accurate script being found.

ahh, so you are one of those! let me get this straight from you, then
...the quote of me that you included in your post already gives my answer. If she was, by definition, an adult, then how can it have been child abuse? The modern definition of a child in western society lasts a longer than in any other culture I can think of (at any time). And isnt this rather petty niggling anyway? Rape is immoral whatever the age of the victim. But without sex (or sexual contact in any form) having occurred, how can it be rape?

Edit: Oops, sorry to double post. Should have edited the first...

The existence or non-existance of God (in whatever form, under any religion,) is not something that can possibly be proven or disproven by science. I think science does, indeed, have an inhibiting effect on religion, as choice of religion is often rather arbitrary. A scientific mind resist believing something "just because they are told it is so."

Disbelief in science is irrational, since science is based on logic and observation. Science is used to describe the actual workings of the physical world around us.

Disbelief in religion is a choice. Your choice determines the way you will view those things that can not be explained by science. Science can not explain man's purpose in life. Science can not give us moral ideals to uphold. For example, a cold, logical, entirely practical view of the world would probably suggest a program of eugenics. Weed out weak DNA. Only allow the truly intelligent, the free from disease, the physically strong to breed. Morals, adapted, handed down and inspired by religion, tells us this is not right, that there is a value to life and free will...and free will can not be proven by science either.

Using science to describe religion is like using colors to describe a smell. They are two separate concepts, yet not mutually exclusive.

Science teaches me that there is always something beyond my ability to comprehend. There is always a new knowledge to grasp. So, while I am not religious per se, I do believe there is more under Heaven and Earth than my, or anyone's, science can comprehend (to paraphrase.)

So, to make it simple and easy: Science is for describing, understanding and manipulating the physical world. Religion (or personal phylosophy on life,) is for helping you to feel and be "good." A good healthy dose of both--the yin and the yang; the rational and the irrational; the mundane and the divine--is what makes us human beings.

Group hug?

(Scientific-minded guy looking for a girl in a Catholic schoolgirl outfit for deep philosophical discussions)

Oh, and this is an interesting (and basically on-topic.) article.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?articleID=0009FCA4-1A8F-1085-94F483414B7F0000&chanID=sa008

Bah. Alright.
Group Hug

Disbelief in science is irrational, since science is based on logic and observation.
Maybe science at its best is, but it seems to be to be based as much on bitching politics & social heirarchies as everything else...

Bah. Alright.
Group Hug


Maybe science at its best is, but it seems to be to be based as much on bitching politics & social heirarchies as everything else...

Yes, but that's the difference between science and bad science. Maybe completely impartial and rational science is impossible, imperfect creatures that we are, but it is nontheless, a standard to aspire to.

you can't judge something by it's worst example. That'd be like judging Christianity solely on the Inquisition.

...there isnt anyone arguing that the old testament is entirely literal or infallable anyway

Shirley they are. The Creationists that is, which is the whole point. The NT might well be accepted by more people than the OT (within the Christian/Christian-tendency population that is, of course) but the whole point about Creationism is a belief in the literality of the Genesis, which is at the start of the OT unless I'm very wrong indeed after so many years since last reading any of the trilogy (OT, NT, Koran).

I meant anyone here right now.

Disbelief in science is irrational, since science is based on logic and observation.
Point of Order, Mr. Chairman.

Logic is a branch of science. Until Aristotle came along and codified it, there was no science of logic. Therefore (and using Aristotelian logic to make my point, btw), you can no more use logic to prove Science than you can use the Bible to prove God.

Bit of a sticky wicket there, eh what?

...the quote of me that you included in your post already gives my answer. If she was, by definition, an adult, then how can it have been child abuse? The modern definition of a child in western society lasts a longer than in any other culture I can think of (at any time). And isnt this rather petty niggling anyway? Rape is immoral whatever the age of the victim. But without sex (or sexual contact in any form) having occurred, how can it be rape?

Edit: Oops, sorry to double post. Should have edited the first...

If there was no intercourse, then Jesus is not of the line of David. If he is not of the line of David, that is (yet another) reason for him to be discounted from the prophecy of messiah.

In order for Jesus to be of the line of David, Joseph has to have had intercourse with Mary, and Jesus has to have been created (by god, one assumes) from this union.

Another point, of course... if you discount the Old Testament, what makes you think Jesus was 'christ'? All the prophecies about the 'anointed' were Old Testament - and you just excused them as fallible.

It's a thorny one...

...the quote of me that you included in your post already gives my answer. If she was, by definition, an adult, then how can it have been child abuse?

as i already pointed out, she was NOT a physical adult, no matter what the laws of the time. she was not biologically capable of giving adult consent to be impregnated. as my earlier post discussed, an all-powerful and all-good God should probably have moral laws that are not determined by the subjective laws of human culture, shouldn't he? so whether or not the laws of the time ruled Mary adult, she was not able to give consent and therefore God should have recognized that impregnating a non-consenting female is wrong.

unless, of course, you claim that impregnating non-consenting females IS right, in which case i think you enter a whole new area of moral depravity. or perhaps it is okay for God to commit immoral acts?

LIKE... ? Its easy to be unspecific. Got any specific examples? (apart from the Red Sea, and preferably new testament as there isnt anyone arguing that the old testament is entirely literal or infallable anyway) I'm aware of no enduring changes that arent the result of an older / more accurate script being found.

Um, I think you missed the argument here. There are people arguing that the OT is entirely literal and infallible - that's where the entire idea of Creationism comes from!

As for saying that the Bible has not been through numerous translations - it depends what version you are using. In the King James Versions, certain parts have been through, at the very least, 4 translations! The New Revised Standard Version - pretty much just one (with footnotes, etc.). Most of the Creationists I've known will tell you that the entire King James Bible is the "infallible word of God." Of course, there is still the problem that, even before the oldest texts we have for some of these things - they were copied numerous times and the older copies were destroyed, so there is still plenty of room for error (hence the need for footnotes).

Here's an interesting one - often, in Biblical writings, the name Adam (or whatever the Hebrew/Aramaic/etc word for that name was) was used to represent all of mankind and other times it was used to represent just Adam. We now have no idea which times are which. In fact, the entire concept of "original sin" most likely came from a mistranslation where, instead of just referring to Adam himself, it was decided that the word must refer to all of mankind.

as i already pointed out, she was NOT a physical adult, no matter what the laws of the time. she was not biologically capable of giving adult consent to be impregnated. as my earlier post discussed, an all-powerful and all-good God should probably have moral laws that are not determined by the subjective laws of human culture, shouldn't he? so whether or not the laws of the time ruled Mary adult, she was not able to give consent and therefore God should have recognized that impregnating a non-consenting female is wrong.

unless, of course, you claim that impregnating non-consenting females IS right, in which case i think you enter a whole new area of moral depravity. or perhaps it is okay for God to commit immoral acts?

Maybe god just 'likes-em-young'...

Maybe god just 'likes-em-young'...
he seems to like them any way he can get them, since he also impregnates women long past menopause.

Point of Order, Mr. Chairman.

Logic is a branch of science. Until Aristotle came along and codified it, there was no science of logic. Therefore (and using Aristotelian logic to make my point, btw), you can no more use logic to prove Science than you can use the Bible to prove God.

Bit of a sticky wicket there, eh what?

This argument is not sound (and most certainly does not use Aristotelian logic). It assumes that, since logic and scientific observation developed at the same time, that the justification of one relies exclusively upon the justification of the other, and vice-versa, leaving logic and science to be unjustified. This view is nonsense. Logic is justified purely by its ability to capture everyday valid inferences (as in Aristotle's logic), or, in its later, 19th-century form, by its justification by soundness and completeness theorems.

Science relies on logic, this is true (most notably, in the logical forms of modus ponens [that is, P, if P then Q, therefore Q] and modus tollens [not Q, if P therefore Q, therefore not P], but these forms were hardly invented by Aristotle - he merely codified what the forms that are used in everyday life and scientific observation.

Furthermore, your view ignores the tension which lay between science and logic, even before Aristotle codified his logic. I am thinking mainly of Parmenedes', and later Zeno's logical proofs that the world of sense-experience cannot be real. Here, logic was certainly not used to justify science. The point being, of course, that although logic was not codifed until Aristotle, forms of inference were used which were developed independently of scientific observation.

This argument is not sound (and most certainly does not use Aristotelian logic).
But it was more fun than yours, wasn't it? WASN'T IT?



I just wanted to toss out that straw man and let somebody else do the work for me. Nice job, btw.

he seems to like them any way he can get them, since he also impregnates women long past menopause.

Which brings me (way off topic) to my favourite part of bible teaching - the demonisation, and eventual removal of women.

quick synopsis:

1) Pre-Judaic peoples (except Egyptians and Mesopotamians, who coincidentally come from just nearby) have predominantly female fertility gods.

2) Early Judaism conceives a 'creation' myth, where by the whole world is born to a (predominantly) male god.

3) Male god (His image) 'gives birth' to male heir to the throne - in form of Adam - but needs the help of the (female) earth, and still needs females (Eve) to propogate mankind.

4) Male god conceives child (Jesus) but still needs woman to bring him to term.

5) With the crucixion we have the (somewhat phallic) multiple impalation of Jesus - followed by his OWN birth (in the form of resurrection). God finally manages to dispense utterly with females in the creation process.

oh, and 6) Jesus cause the redeemed to be 'reborn' - effectively, one man giving birth to an entire population.

And someone argued with me the other day that the bible wasn't phallocentric.

Actually, it makes a lot more logical sense than blind evolution. Ever heard of the Antropomorphic principle? It basically answers the question "Why are we here?" with "Because if no one was here, there would be no one to ask that question" This is, basically, science's best answer for the emergance of intelligence in the universe. Even Steven Hawking agrees that it bites! Statistically, the odds of any kind of emergant behaviour occuring in the universe at all are too vast to be able to comprehend. So if one assumes that God has nothing to do with anything, it would take innumerable (trillions upon trillions upon trillions) random universes in order that ONE have anything resembling sentience in it. So by simple application of Occam's Razor with regards to the Anthropomorphic Priniciple (IE most simple explanation is most likely correct, and in this case the God argument is VASTLY simpler than the No God argument) one can LOGICALLY prove the existance of a creator, in that the No God argument is statistically impossible.

The Anthropic Principle is best understood as a variant on the question, what are the odds of beign born? You were the product of a single sperm (out of millions) in your father's testes, and a single egg (out of 500) in your ma's womb. So we have around a billion to one chance of being born. But that is not all. The parents would have to be the product of their parents, so we multiply the billion by another two billion. And their parents' chances of being born. Etc etc.

Now, we do not believe that there is any particular miracle about us being born, even though the chances against this fact are astronomically huge (unless you are Dr. Manhattan out of the Watchmen comics). This is because the chance of me being born is exactly one - if I am able to know that I exist, then I exist. In the same manner, the chances of there being intelligent life in the universe are, for the observer, exactly one.

The problem with the God argument is that it is not scientific. A good scientific hypothesis does not just justify the set of data which it is used to explain, but should also make novel hypotheses. For example, Newton's laws of gravity allowed us to predict the motions of Halley's comet, Einstein's Theory of Relativity allowed us to predict the motion of light of starts around eclipses, etc. The 'God did it!' hypothesis does not allow us to predict any data greater than the set of data it is called upon to explain, and I therefore believe that it cannot be called a scientific hypothesis.

Oh, really? Then how come all the science-minded people think scientific theories are enough evidence for them to be atheist?

Scientific theories may not directly prove there is no God (lol), but it's obvious that they imply that.

Easy. All the "science-minded" people don't think that. There are plenty of people that believe in both science and God.

Now, if you had stated that scientific theories imply (or state rather plainly) that the Bible cannot be taken literally, then I'd agree with you. That, however, has nothing to do with the existence of a Creator.

Oh, and Occam's Razor does not state 'the simplest explanation is most likely'. It states 'do not multiply entities beyond necessity'. The God hypothesis adds a God to the universe. Since there exists a hypothesis which relies upon the existence of fewer entities than the God-hypothesis, we should believe this hypotheses.

Evolution in its entirety is not scientifically feasable. here's why:

you can break any theory out there. really, you can break einstein and bohrs and heisenburg and you're fine. But you cannot break scientific laws.

Like the second law of thermal dynamics. this law is simple and states that any system left alone will tend towards chaos, and never towards order.Oh ho ho! I have heard this argument far too many times, and it is too widespread, too annoying, and too downright untruthful to be left alone. The second law of thermodynamics states that any closed system will tend towards disorder. That means no matter is ever added or removed, and no energy is ever added or removed. But the Earth as a whole and every living thing on it are not closed systems, they are very far from it. The day you can show me an animal that survives indefinitely with no food after the sun has gone out and the geothermal fires frozen over is the only day that I will ever believe that life defies the law of entropy.
what beneficial human mutations?To give just one example, the German kid who lacks a certain protein limiter (specifically myostatin) in the genes controling skeletal muscular development- and as a result can lift six kilograms, arms extended, at the age of four.
Stop assuming YOUR god is THE ONE AND ONLY. Even if there *is* a guiding force in the universe, it doesn't mean it's YOUR one. Until I have evidence one way or they other, I'll stick with not believing in any, thankyouverymuch....You want your evidence? Its called The Bible... bet you shy away from the issue and dont go read any of it thoughI can present equally good evidence that your chosen god is the wrong one- it's called the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Or the Koran (although it has been pointed out that /that/ particular one is somewhat similar). Or the Eddas. Take your pick. The major text of your own religion is not sufficient to provide objective proof of its correctness, any more than the major text of any other religion proves /its/ correctness.Also, note that even bacteria swap genetic information...although this is a much simpler and crude "sex" method.In this form, 'tis quite often spelled SEx (short for "Software Exchange") to distinguish it from more noble forms of genetic shuffling.

Like, couldn't God have designed the evolution of the universe to lead to US existing, and THEN initiated it?ANDUsing science to describe religion is like using colors to describe a smell. They are two separate concepts, yet not mutually exclusive.W00t. Someone has heard my cries in the wilderness. Welcome to the club, brothas.
all the pages of begetting...

Dammit man, why not skip that?Because sometimes importants tidbits are hidden away in those boring sections. One must be thorough. Skipping the begats would be like skipping the history of the Scylfing invasion of the Geats. And don't forget, it's those begats that started this whole mess by allowing some monk and/or Professional Theologian to calculate the time since creation.
Argh... err actually we ARE apes, you meant decended from MONKEYS. But nevermind, thats pedantry.Ehm... no. Apes are Pongids, we're Hominids. But that's pedantry. : )
God personally rapes MaryI believe a more accurate description would be "God induces parthenogenesis in Mary". Although how the heck he managed to sneak an extra Y chromosome in there, I'll probably never know in this life. Maybe he fired a few well-aimed cosmic rays to convert the extra X... sure woulda been easier with the literal birds & bees, though, in which case its the female who has dissimilar chromosomes.
If there was no intercourse, then Jesus is not of the line of David.Why? Without genetic testing (and even with it in most cases), line of succession is most often defined by the structure of social units- families-rather than by literal biological parentage.
if God is all-knowing and all-moral, than why would He change His moral rules just to accomodate humans? shouldn't He force us to follow the same rules always (since those are the moral laws)?He doesn't change his rules. He just adds more on to them, the reason being that, having created people, he knows that not all of them are /capable/ of perfectly obeying the highest order of moral laws. So he starts 'em off easy, and the ones who can keep the first bit of commandment are then worthy to recieve a little bit more. If he were to go straight to the ancient Hebrews and say "Love the Egyptians, abondon half of your old society, and be nice to everybody!" right off, they'd've all laughed, possibly stoned a few people, and kept on worshipping Aton&Co. I mean, really, look where that approach got Yeshua ben Yoseph.
Science can not explain man's purpose in life.Oh, yes it very well can. Mans' purpose is to live long enough to go forth and multiply. But most people find that notion slightly depressing, and prefer to not leave it at just that. That's where religion comes in.

Y'know, this has really done a lot for confirming a little theory of mine- that is, All Hard-Core Creationists Are Faking It; they are not dedicated to their Religion, they are only fanatically dedicated to their Church. I know this because someone who is fanatically dedicated to a Church (a temporal organizational structure with the dissemination of religious doctrine as its stated purpose, but possibly branching out into subjugating the populace, if not controlling the global power structure), when asked how the world began, will assemble a large team of University-educated theologians to discuss the matter, and then regard whatever answer they give as unquestionable and beleif in it necessary for their salvation- or, at least, will attempt to convince others that it is so. Someone who, on the other hand, truly understands and embraces the message of Christianity will answer along the lines of "well, I could ask God about it, but does it really make any difference in how you treat other people?"
Disclaimer: I do not yet present this theory as absolute fact; it may be too broad in its generalizations, and will need some further refining. I am, however, accumulating a growing body of observational evidence in support of this theory every day.

Group hug?Absoloodle! I am the King of warm&fuzzy physical affection-showing. Ask any acquaintance!

Yay, I was quoted twice by Spacer Guilds. I can not help but feel honored, though I have to disagree slightly with you, sir. Science does an excellent explaining man's function, i.e. to live long enough to pass along our DNA, but it does little to help explain our purpose, i.e., what the hell to do with the fraction of our brain power not involved in survival and procreation. Yes, perhaps I'm adding a connotation to the specific words that may or may not be warranted, but hey, as I said, logic and science can't explain it.

(where all the women at?)

Ahhhhhh the never ending evolution debates.

If you have any doubts just ask God and you will know who is right and who is wrong. :)

Ahhhhhh the never ending evolution debates.

If you have any doubts just ask God and you will know who is right and who is wrong. :)

What's his phone number again?

And don't forget, it's those begats that started this whole mess by allowing some monk and/or Professional Theologian to calculate the time since creation.

Moreover, they do this by the scientific statistical method of taking an average time between 'begat', taking into account the average age of a man when his first son is born, and thinking about infant mortality and all that.

As for man's function, the current scientific hypothesis is the same as for all other life, we live long enough to propagate our DNA. Our big brains are just to help with that, making it easier to hunt and kill predators and threats to our propogation.

I believe a more accurate description would be "God induces parthenogenesis in Mary". Although how the heck he managed to sneak an extra Y chromosome in there, I'll probably never know in this life. Maybe he fired a few well-aimed cosmic rays to convert the extra X... sure woulda been easier with the literal birds & bees, though, in which case its the female who has dissimilar chromosomes.

Ah, but who says Jesus was genetically male? God could have just made circumstances conspire to produce a strong enough hormonal imbalance in Mary to make Jesus effectively male.


Now, anyone who believes that a translation can be utterly faithful, try reading a recent translation of the Quran, and tell me that makes any sense half the time. To understand a text to any reasonable degree, most people require quite a bit of cultural background. This is evident in the number of esoteric phrases people use, and anyway, most words have more than one meaning: take the word 'Troll'- I know one noun and four verbs derived from that, how do you know if I use that word that I'm taking about inciting a flaming, rather than scattering bait on water to attract fish, looking for casual sex with a man or just walking? I could even be talking about a mythical monster, but you have to make that choice based on context, and no number of footnotes will explain that to you. You're better off taking any translated religious works with a big grain of salt or learning the original language, with all the cultural background with it. Slight problem is, if you're reading a religious text and learning the language for it, you'll be taught by someone with an interest in the religion who will consciously or uncounsciously stamp their own cultural bias on the way you understand the language, same as a translators will unconsciously or consciously stamp a cultural bias on their translations. Then you have to assume the people compiling it are trustworthy, since neither the Torah, New Testament nor Quran were written down in the time of their major prophets. This means putting complete faith in Hebrew patriarchs, the Catholic Church or Arab patriarchs. You're better off following your heart and not talking about what you don't know about, recognising there can be no compulsion in religion and following those great words "Don't start nothing, won't be nothing".

Instead of making another Evolution vs Creation debate (we've had enough of those), why not stick to the original topic of debating why some people think evolution is a plotical issue?

Instead of making another Evolution vs Creation debate (we've had enough of those), why not stick to the original topic of debating why some people think evolution is a plotical issue?

I think it's rather self-evident that in American Politics the Religious Right makes evolution a key issue by associating with those who wish to teach creationism (in public schools, nonetheless!), and the pro-evolution point is attempting to stop that and to overcome the stigma to evolution there is.

Except I'm not really sure if either side has already won or lost.

For instance, when in East/West Heritage class, every single time we mentioned anything that came before man even marginally, it was summed up by a "Now, before you say, I'm not teching evolution..."

And in Biology we never learned Natural Selection or Evolution, and whenever either were mentioned the same "This isn't evolution, I'm just teaching you what we know" came up. Multiple times. While glossing over natural selection.

Is it even possible to teach genetics satisfactorily while not covering natural selection? It's like covering World War II without Germany...

Instead of making another Evolution vs Creation debate (we've had enough of those), why not stick to the original topic of debating why some people think evolution is a plotical issue?
Go back and read posts 111 through 128 or so. We had a good time.

Look, all I know is that I have a hard time beleiving humans used to be primordial soup- Now if you want to beleive that fine, but don't try and tell me its a fact. I would rather beleive I was Designed by a God whom I can barely comprehend then that Me and everything else just came together all by itself.

... I can barely comprehend ...
Your stated ignorance != Creationist truth. Besides, you're off topic again.

Ever heard of taking things in context frisbee?

...take the word 'Troll'- I know one noun and four verbs derived from that...

From my knowledge of everyday/popular use:
1: Mythical creature inhabiting the undersides of bridges in fairy-tales (usually prefixed "big bad")
1a: Maybe or maybe not distinct from that prexfixed by "cave" as seen in 'grown up' fantasy liturature (esp Tolkien)
2: Little creature with long coloured hair featured in a toy/collectible fad around a decade ago (-ish)
3: A silicacious lifeform inhabitting the Discworld
4: A beauty-impared female
5: One who is a nuisence in electronic forums
6: A fun activity for kids, e.g. "trolling down a hill", but that could be my Yorkshire roots showing ("t'rolling" or similar).
7: Manual security inspection of a site (possibly derived from "patrol"?)
8: Certain types of singing (e.g. Fréré Jacques or Row, row row your boat)
9: To gather/disturb/fish by dragging (possible derivative of "trawl"?)
10: The act being a nuiscence in electronic forums (I choose to believe that this is related to meaning '9', but mentally the association with 1/1a has stuck in most people's minds)

I started to categorise as nouns, verbs, etc, but as I'm off-topic anyway... :)

Look, all I know is that I have a hard time beleiving humans used to be primordial soup- Now if you want to beleive that fine, but don't try and tell me its a fact. I would rather beleive I was Designed by a God whom I can barely comprehend then that Me and everything else just came together all by itself.


Look, all I know is that I have a hard time believing humans are made of clay - Now, if you want to believe that, fine, but don't try and tell me its a fact. I would rather believe that Me and everything else just came together all by itself, than that I was Designed by a God whom I can barely comprehend.

How does evolution become a political issue? I... don't really know. I'm guessing that the political issue is actually more related to the teaching of evolution in schools (or rather, the lack of teaching Creationism).

I don't see how it can be an issue. Evolution is a scientific theory, therefore it is generally taught in science classes. Why should Creationism be taught in science classes? It's... not science. It is religion.

Maybe if you had an optional Judeo-Christian Theology Studies class, you could teach it there.

As for making Creationism a mandatory subject in schools... well, I'm all for it. As long as you make teaching every other past and current religion and culture's creation myths mandatory as well. That'd be pretty interesting, really.

But... yeesh... making it a political issue. Only in America :rolleyes:

Sorry to mention the "e-word" but I'm amazed as to how Americans here make a political issue out of this. It seems to be just so as to open a new front in the ridiculous "culture war" of conservatives vs. liberals.

Here in Europe, evolution is the accepted norm. All of us (even the religious) are amazed and flabbergasted by the fact that around 45% of Americans believe that the world was created in seven days less than 10,000 years ago (i.e. creationism). I know that evolution is not a fully proven theory, but it is the best one we have so far.

Just wanted to say that.

((Sorry to go back to the beginning of this debate!))

Yes, I completely agree, it is a strange odity that this issue is so politicised in USA. It's kind of ironic really, when you see USA arguing against religious regimes such as that in Iran and the now ex-regime of the Taliban in Afganisatan, when at home in their own country, there are places where it is forbidden to teach simple science. Bizarre. Truly, the USA is a country that is very hard to ever fully comprehend.

How does evolution become a political issue? I... don't really know. I'm guessing that the political issue is actually more related to the teaching of evolution in schools (or rather, the lack of teaching Creationism).

I don't see how it can be an issue. Evolution is a scientific theory, therefore it is generally taught in science classes. Why should Creationism be taught in science classes? It's... not science. It is religion.

Maybe if you had an optional Judeo-Christian Theology Studies class, you could teach it there.

As for making Creationism a mandatory subject in schools... well, I'm all for it. As long as you make teaching every other past and current religion and culture's creation myths mandatory as well. That'd be pretty interesting, really.

But... yeesh... making it a political issue. Only in America :rolleyes:

I'm with you. Unfortunately, America seems to have taken the right to freedom of worship to a sarcastic extreme. It's scary that people NEED to have this argument in the 21st Century.

I'm with you. Unfortunately, America seems to have taken the right to freedom of worship to a sarcastic extreme. It's scary that people NEED to have this argument in the 21st Century.

Definitely.

Freedom to worship is great. But... I don't remember reading anywhere that they also have "freedom to force your brand of worship on everybody". Oh well.

Sometimes I think America is just a big satire or caricature of the civilised world, with every minor issue blown way out of proportion. Then I realise they're the most powerful nation on this planet and I get all frightened :(

Definitely.

Freedom to worship is great. But... I don't remember reading anywhere that they also have "freedom to force your brand of worship on everybody". Oh well.

Sometimes I think America is just a big satire or caricature of the civilised world, with every minor issue blown way out of proportion. Then I realise they're the most powerful nation on this planet and I get all frightened :(

The time to be worried was if they had huge arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction, a Fundamentalist leader and armed forces deployed all over the world...... so....

oh.

Oh ho ho! I have heard this argument far too many times, and it is too widespread, too annoying, and too downright untruthful to be left alone. The second law of thermodynamics states that any closed system will tend towards disorder. That means no matter is ever added or removed, and no energy is ever added or removed. But the Earth as a whole and every living thing on it are not closed systems, they are very far from it. The day you can show me an animal that survives indefinitely with no food after the sun has gone out and the geothermal fires frozen over is the only day that I will ever believe that life defies the law of entropy.

Oh it makes me happy to see someone else on this forum with an understanding of the second law of thermodynamics!

'tis quite often spelled SEx (short for "Software Exchange") to distinguish it from more noble forms of genetic shuffling.

Hmm, I've never seen that little name for it...most the bacterial geneticists I've had to deal with (an obnoxious bunch, let me tell you) just go with conjugation and recombination...and a bunch of different large scary scientific words thrown in to describe WHAT is being exchanged that I won't bog the forums down with.

I believe a more accurate description would be "God induces parthenogenesis in Mary". Although how the heck he managed to sneak an extra Y chromosome in there, I'll probably never know in this life. Maybe he fired a few well-aimed cosmic rays to convert the extra X... sure woulda been easier with the literal birds & bees, though, in which case its the female who has dissimilar chromosomes.


Oh, but you can't forget the chance that Mary was an XY or XXY female! Both of these have been found to exist in the human population, so Mary may have given the Y to her own son. Also, some mice are capable of undergoing parhenogenesis and producing healthy progeny, so it isn't too far fetched to see it happening in a human population...all that is needed is one deletion mutation. And that can happen all the time, especially back in the day when people didn't know it was bad to sit on a Uranium boulder to stay warm! ;)

Very quality post, by the way, Spacer Guilds.

I would like to see the Christian scientist disprove Carbon Dating. That will be interesting.

God moves in mysterious ways my son ;)

Look, all I know is that I have a hard time beleiving humans used to be primordial soup- Now if you want to beleive that fine, but don't try and tell me its a fact. I would rather beleive I was Designed by a God whom I can barely comprehend then that Me and everything else just came together all by itself.

Richard Dawkins calls this the argument based on personal incredulity. Why on earth should it matter what you find difficult to believe? If you were designed for running around forraging in fields, living around 40 years and working with objects no smaller than a few millimetres why on earth should you find it easy to believe in evolution, which involves the manipulation of molecules over unimaginable time periods? One of the best things about posessing human reason is the ability to think in abstract terms and transcend the short time we have on this planet, where we are hardly likely to observe for ourself the processes that constructed us. A argument based on an inability to perform this and having implications for the origin of life is a contradiction in terms.

And do you really "comprehend" the processes that made you "come together all by itself"? Do you really understand the laws of thermodynamics, the subtleties of the organic chemistry of the basic constituents of life, the complexity of the atoms which determine those properties? I think your incomprehensible god is an infinitely simpler option; hardly incomprehensible. And what could be more anthropomorphically appealing than a great human controlling every action?

Lastly, this doesn't even explain the problem of complexity in the universe. Presumably God would have to be a fairly complex entitiy, not to mention a dab hand with a chemistry set to put together life as we know it today. So where did that complexity come from? Another God? The origin of life in the chance formation of replicators, and the action of natural selection over unimaginable stretches of time is a real answer to the question of the genesis of complexity, not just passing the buck.