NationStates Jolt Archive

Yay! 1,000th post!
Congratulations. You win one free tongue bath. Unfortunately it's from a Creationists dog who consented through his spiritual advisor.

I wouldn't say that anything between consenting adults should be banned. There are acts between consenting adults that I believe to be immoral and born completely out of lust, rather than love. I would not be a part of such acts myself.

You don't have to be. But others might enjoy the experience :)

You have a problem with what exactly?

I have a problem with the Biblical view of marriage. In those time periods, marraige was essentially a way for a man to own a woman.

Outside of the fact that arraigned marriages have a high success rate, this was different. You should note that the act was done and reported by the victim in this case. The behavior is not condoned and advocated. Me telling you what someone else did to me is not me telling you, you should do it.

The behavior was not condemned. Thus, it was obviously ok. All it took to get married was a party and for two people to have sex. Is that really the view of marriage you want to advocate?

If a woman became a widow while she had no children, she had no financial security for the present or old age at all.. No husband, no family. It's not like they had social security, life insurance and IRA's back then. What do you think society should have done with these women? There would have been lots of them considering the percentage of men that died before reaching the age of thirty. Should society have let these women starve? What if no one took responsibility for them? No, the scriptures gave these women rights, something they could point at and say, “Hey, this is your responsibility, I have a claim to make.” The family of the husband is responsible for widows, I fail to see your objection to this, it helped the widows more than anyone else.

Being forced to marry and have sex with someone they may not have cared for is helpful? The woman did not have to make a claim. It was automatic. She had no say in the matter whatsoever. Neither, by the way, did the man.

I bet you're one of those "It's ok that that they had slavery back then. It was the best way to live!"

Is your problem that you associate marriage with purely just sex or something?

No, but that is the Biblical view. All it takes to be married is to have sex.

Without good social engineering rules like that, the world would have been even crueler than it already was.

Yes, those are good rules. That's why we recognize them as human rights violations these days, because they were good rules.

If we still did those rules today, maybe more people would help their own families out.

By forcing marriage and selling them into slavery? I think not.

You shouldn't be so quick to judge against others, especially when you haven’t considered the alternatives of the choices they had to make.

I think I am perfectly justified in seeing slavery and forced marriage as a travesty.

You don't have to be. But others might enjoy the experience :)

*shrug* Like I said, I don't think that many things are morally correct. However, if they are not hurting anyone, I'm not going to fight to ban it or anything like that.

*shrug* Like I said, I don't think that many things are morally correct. However, if they are not hurting anyone, I'm not going to fight to ban it or anything like that.

Hm, 'twas a long day ... seems I misunderstood you there!

I have a problem with the Biblical view of marriage. In those time periods, marraige was essentially a way for a man to own a woman.

The behavior was not condemned. Thus, it was obviously ok. All it took to get married was a party and for two people to have sex. Is that really the view of marriage you want to advocate?

Being forced to marry and have sex with someone they may not have cared for is helpful? The woman did not have to make a claim. It was automatic. She had no say in the matter whatsoever. Neither, by the way, did the man.

I bet you're one of those "It's ok that that they had slavery back then. It was the best way to live!"

No, but that is the Biblical view. All it takes to be married is to have sex.

Yes, those are good rules. That's why we recognize them as human rights violations these days, because they were good rules.

By forcing marriage and selling them into slavery? I think not.

I think I am perfectly justified in seeing slavery and forced marriage as a travesty.

Yet another excellent post from Dempublicents. woot!

"Science" or "Scientists"? (To be precise "Certain vocal scientists who someone with a predeliction towards ID is going to quote" as opposed to "The majority of scientists, in many different but relevant fields, who quietly analyse facts and measurements that give not one hint of Intelligent Design and who, of course, will not be counted as significant by the supporters of ID"?)

True. I was not as specific as I could have been. One cannot deny the fact that more scientists are stepping up and questioning validity of Evolution.

True. I was not as specific as I could have been. One cannot deny the fact that more scientists are stepping up and questioning validity of Evolution.

One can, actually.

Show sources, please.

What is there to study about creationism? :confused: Creationism is just a myth that only the unenlightned class belives in.

Amazing that you would say that. Unfortunately, you are wrong. There are "legitimate" scientists (Russel Humphreys and Michael Behe) who disagree with you.

You may disagree with their beliefs, but please do not denegrate your opponent as unthinking. I would never assume that a scientist who believes in evolution is a moron simply because I disagree. From my perspective, the facts are crystal clear. Evolution does not make any sense at all. That said, I understand that most people have been educated to believe otherwise and that they honestly see things differently. Name-calling will not change them, though a careful and honest exposition of the facts might.

Amazing that you would say that. Unfortunately, you are wrong. There are "legitimate" scientists (Russel Humphreys and Michael Behe) who disagree with you.

You may disagree with their beliefs, but please do not denegrate your opponent as unthinking. I would never assume that a scientist who believes in evolution is a moron simply because I disagree. From my perspective, the facts are crystal clear. Evolution does not make any sense at all. That said, I understand that most people have been educated to believe otherwise and that they honestly see things differently. Name-calling will not change them, though a careful and honest exposition of the facts might.

Unfortunately, logic and evidence support evolution... while the Creationist team has only 'faith'.

A careful and honest exposition of the facts can ONLY support evolution.

One can, actually.

Show sources, please.

Michael Behe (http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html)
Articles by Behe (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery&query=Michael%20J.%20Behe&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all)
Russel Humphreys (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp)
Humphreys' Responds to Critics (http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp)

Michael Behe (http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html)
Articles by Behe (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery&query=Michael%20J.%20Behe&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all)
Russel Humphreys (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp)
Humphreys' Responds to Critics (http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp)
Which in no way proves your claim that “more scientists are stepping up and questioning validity of Evolution”
You just pointed out some … there has always been some but you claimed MORE

Unfortunately, logic and evidence support evolution... while the Creationist team has only 'faith'.

A careful and honest exposition of the facts can ONLY support evolution.

How can you prove Evolution? You cannot test it in a lab and you were not there at the begining. You must accept by faith your interpretations of your lab tests. Those test can be interpreted in different ways depending on your prior assumptions. If you assume evolution is true (as is your right), then you will assume that any result indicating otherwise is suspect. If I assume creation is correct, than any result to the contrary would naturally be suspect for me. Your interpretation of facts is based entirely on your assumptions.

What are your assumptions?

Amazing that you would say that. Unfortunately, you are wrong. There are "legitimate" scientists (Russel Humphreys and Michael Behe) who disagree with you.

The scientific consensus [a much better authority than individuals] think Behe et al are regressive hacks with about as much scientific support as a flat earth.

Michael Behe (http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/behe.html)
Articles by Behe (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery&query=Michael%20J.%20Behe&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all)
Russel Humphreys (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/r_humphreys.asp)
Humphreys' Responds to Critics (http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp)

Ah... so by 'more scientists'... you actually meant.... 2...?

One of whom is the proponent of the 'irreducible complexity' argument... which has basically been dismissed... and the other one of which was ALREADY a Creationist before he became a scientist, and argues for a young Earth... although, HIS young Earth is more like 65 million years, than 6000 years.

Which in no way proves your claim that “more scientists are stepping up and questioning validity of Evolution”
You just pointed out some … there has always been some but you claimed MORE

Why did Richard Sternberg of the Simthsonian journal print an Intelligent Design article? He claims that it passed the peer review. If so, then that committee saw the article as legitimate science. A decade ago that would not have happened. It only occurred because a shift is starting.

I guess I cannot prove my statement. I make my statement based on the number of ID books being printed by Penguin and Simon and Schuster as well as other publishers. Consider Robert Jastrow of God and the Astronomer who admits that he is a materialist but admits that someone must have created.

Explain irreducible complexity and the source of information in our DNA.

How can you prove Evolution? You cannot test it in a lab

Eh, yes you can - what do think biologists do all day?


Those test can be interpreted in different ways depending on your prior assumptions. If you assume evolution is true (as is your right), then you will assume that any result indicating otherwise is suspect. If I assume creation is correct, than any result to the contrary would naturally be suspect for me. Your interpretation of facts is based entirely on your assumptions.


If a given genetic population changes across time, no amount of "interpretation" changes that simple fact. That *is* evolution.


What are your assumptions?

That if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and *is* a duck it isn't a carrot. In scientific terms, IDiocy is the carrot.

Ah... so by 'more scientists'... you actually meant.... 2...?

One of whom is the proponent of the 'irreducible complexity' argument... which has basically been dismissed... and the other one of which was ALREADY a Creationist before he became a scientist, and argues for a young Earth... although, HIS young Earth is more like 65 million years, than 6000 years.

Why has irreducible complexity been dismissed? I have yet to see a competent and scientific rebuttal. Where may I see one?

I have a problem with the Biblical view of marriage. In those time periods, marraige was essentially a way for a man to own a woman.


It was a way for society to ensure that children were raised by two parents.


The behavior was not condemned. Thus, it was obviously ok. All it took to get married was a party and for two people to have sex. Is that really the view of marriage you want to advocate?

And exactly how is that any different than marriage is treated in secular western society today? I'm saying something different. Marriage is a social institution for the good of the members in the society. It has more roles and reason for being than for Europeans and Americans to sit around waiting to 'fall in love' while they watch shows like “The Bachelor” on their TV set.

Divorce is the result of our lack of commitment to the institutions of marriage, all of them. And with that failure we have overworked single parents, neglected children, and more economic stress on everyone involved. Marriage is MORE than just two people falling in and out of romantic love.


Being forced to marry and have sex with someone they may not have cared for is helpful? The woman did not have to make a claim. It was automatic. She had no say in the matter whatsoever. Neither, by the way, did the man.

You make the most degraded over simplifications of everything you don’t like don’t you? As if society, any society, was ever so simple as you pretend. As if human beings were ever so able to achieve such 'standardization' in any culture for any period of time. And whom, pray tell, do you envision enforced these universal rules throughout the generations?

I bet you're one of those "It's ok that that they had slavery back then. It was the best way to live!"

And I suppose you're one of those people that think that all men are pigs and that Caucasian males are the worst... (neither accusation is fair, mine or yours)

Yes, those are good rules. That's why we recognize them as human rights violations these days, because they were good rules. Better that the woman would be left with no property, no way to make a living and not have any children to grow up and look after her in her old age?


I think I am perfectly justified in seeing slavery and forced marriage as a travesty.

None of us, not you, not I, nor we, as a world that has outlawed slavery and the trade of humans can actually stop it even to this day. None of us have been able to stop the illegal trade of international sex-slaves, there are many an illegal and horrible things going on in the world as we speak.

'They' did have welfare systems to fall back on, 'they' didn't have international organizations to watch out for crimes against humanity. We do, and we can't stop even illegal prostitution and slavery either.

Who did you think they would be able go to, to feed all of the orphans and widows in the world? Who does it for us now? How are we any better? At least they advocated "through their scripture and social structures, the codes of acceptable behavior.' They tried to make some rules that addressed these concerns and tried to control these issues as best they could, with as much success as we have. Go look at abused wives shelters now, can you claim we have less now?

You might try to pretend that we are so much better than they were for avocation that something things might be worse than being forced to marry someone you're not in love with. But with things like Rwanda, South Sudan, Somalia, the continuing illegal sex-slave trade, food-for-oil scams, starving children the world over while food rots in storage in Europe and America, I doubt that we can say anything worse about them then they can say about us.

Why did Richard Sternberg of the Simthsonian journal print an Intelligent Design article? He claims that it passed the peer review. If so, then that committee saw the article as legitimate science. A decade ago that would not have happened. It only occurred because a shift is starting.

Wrong. Pay a little more attention and you would realise that said article bypassed peer review and the board of editors have since said that it should never have been published.



I guess I cannot prove my statement. I make my statement based on the number of ID books being printed by Penguin and Simon and Schuster as well as other publishers. Consider Robert Jastrow of God and the Astronomer who admits that he is a materialist but admits that someone must have created.

Penguin don't represent the scientific community - they publish based on what *sells*, not on what is valid. Right now, religious fanaticism is a big seller in the US.



Explain irreducible complexity and the source of information in our DNA.

There is no irreducible complexity - not in the way you imply.

Define information.

How can you prove Evolution? You cannot test it in a lab and you were not there at the begining. You must accept by faith your interpretations of your lab tests. Those test can be interpreted in different ways depending on your prior assumptions. If you assume evolution is true (as is your right), then you will assume that any result indicating otherwise is suspect. If I assume creation is correct, than any result to the contrary would naturally be suspect for me. Your interpretation of facts is based entirely on your assumptions.

What are your assumptions?

Ummm... i hate repeating myself (then again, you Creationist folks apparently have to be told over and over again). But yes, technically we 'were there' because evidence is here and now. What about fossil record? What about all the drosophila experiments? What about the numerous morphological and genetic evidence is lifeforms? If you look at all the numerous evidence, what is the most obvious and consistent explanation?

Eh, yes you can - what do think biologists do all day?



If a given genetic population changes across time, no amount of "interpretation" changes that simple fact. That *is* evolution.



That if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and *is* a duck it isn't a carrot. In scientific terms, IDiocy is the carrot.

What genetic population changed over time? Where is the proof? I have heard logical reasoning, but have never seen anyone prove these changes. The missing link has never appeared nor has any non-debatable proof of descendents changing into other animals.

Yes, we recognize change within a species (dogs for example) but I have never seen an evolutionist demostrate a cross species.

From my perspective, the facts are crystal clear. Evolution does not make any sense at all. That said, I understand that most people have been educated to believe otherwise and that they honestly see things differently. Name-calling will not change them, though a careful and honest exposition of the facts might.

Please provide an outline of two "crystal clear" facts which necessarily support creationism. If you manage it, you will have achieved something which no creationist *ever* has managed to do.

How can you prove Evolution? You cannot test it in a lab and you were not there at the begining. You must accept by faith your interpretations of your lab tests. Those test can be interpreted in different ways depending on your prior assumptions. If you assume evolution is true (as is your right), then you will assume that any result indicating otherwise is suspect. If I assume creation is correct, than any result to the contrary would naturally be suspect for me. Your interpretation of facts is based entirely on your assumptions.

What are your assumptions?

You are clearly not a scientist.

First - you don't 'prove' evolution. You might just find evidence that supports it. There is plenty.

Second - You can test evolution in a lab, and it has been done.

Third - the 'beginning' is nothing to do with evolution.

Fourth - Tests results ARE analysed to give explanations. It is dangerous to carry assumptions with you in this process, unless they are firmly supportable, within the experiment.

Fifth - Science cannot assume that Creationsim is either true OR false, it is nothing to science. It requires an unfalsifiable assumption, and, as such, is outside of the realm of science.

Sixth - it is flawed to 'believe' evolution... one should only ever say it is the best model for the mechanism, that fits the evidence.

What genetic population changed over time? Where is the proof? I have heard logical reasoning, but have never seen anyone prove these changes. The missing link has never appeared nor has any non-debatable proof of descendents changing into other animals.

Yes, we recognize change within a species (dogs for example) but I have never seen an evolutionist demostrate a cross species.

Drosophila...

What genetic population changed over time? Where is the proof? I have heard logical reasoning, but have never seen anyone prove these changes. The missing link has never appeared nor has any non-debatable proof of descendents changing into other animals.

Yes, we recognize change within a species (dogs for example) but I have never seen an evolutionist demostrate a cross species.

*Every* genetic population. And yes, speciation has been demonstrated.

Science is open access and google is free. Use it.

Ummm... i hate repeating myself (then again, you Creationist folks apparently have to be told over and over again). But yes, technically we 'were there' because evidence is here and now. What about fossil record? What about all the drosophila experiments? What about the numerous morphological and genetic evidence is lifeforms? If you look at all the numerous evidence, what is the most obvious and consistent explanation?

You demand that I demonstrate the evidence. Do the same. You are throwing broad generic categories out there. Where is your proof in the fossil record? I have seen people attempt to line up fossils in a logical progression, but they have been doing so in an attempt to prove there evolution. They have never arranged them based upon external evidence.

Why has irreducible complexity been dismissed? I have yet to see a competent and scientific rebuttal. Where may I see one?

It is a flawed concept... it starts out with the assumption that there ARE these elements of life that are vital AND irreducibly complex.

Basically - the story goes "Well an eye... must have formed whole... I mean, what use would an eye be that could not see"?

Surely you can see how that kind of thinking is flawed?

You demand that I demonstrate the evidence. Do the same. You are throwing broad generic categories out there. Where is your proof in the fossil record?

The fossil record *is* the evidence.


I have seen people attempt to line up fossils in a logical progression, but they have been doing so in an attempt to prove there evolution. They have never arranged them based upon external evidence.

What do you mean by "external evidence"?

Why did Richard Sternberg of the Simthsonian journal print an Intelligent Design article? He claims that it passed the peer review. If so, then that committee saw the article as legitimate science. A decade ago that would not have happened. It only occurred because a shift is starting. .

Just to reinforce this, Sternberg published in a 'nominally' independant journal and is now likely ot lose his job for oublishing this very unscientific work.

To that point, I would also point out that his is suing his colleagues at the Smithsonian for being hostile to his 'percieved religious beliefs'.

Maybe not so much with the science...

You demand that I demonstrate the evidence. Do the same. You are throwing broad generic categories out there. Where is your proof in the fossil record? I have seen people attempt to line up fossils in a logical progression, but they have been doing so in an attempt to prove there evolution. They have never arranged them based upon external evidence.

Hello, stratigraphic order? Geology? Palaeontology? :confused:
I could mention thousands of examples...

Besides, the mere fact that these transitional forms exist should be self-explanatory. If they had been created separately, there should be no intermediate forms??!

You are clearly not a scientist.

First - you don't 'prove' evolution. You might just find evidence that supports it. There is plenty.

Second - You can test evolution in a lab, and it has been done.

Third - the 'beginning' is nothing to do with evolution.

Fourth - Tests results ARE analysed to give explanations. It is dangerous to carry assumptions with you in this process, unless they are firmly supportable, within the experiment.

Fifth - Science cannot assume that Creationsim is either true OR false, it is nothing to science. It requires an unfalsifiable assumption, and, as such, is outside of the realm of science.

Sixth - it is flawed to 'believe' evolution... one should only ever say it is the best model for the mechanism, that fits the evidence.

You are corect, I am not a scientist, but I do believe in studying what I believe. What you have summarized here, contradicts many of the posters in this forum. To them evolution is a fact and is truth. You recognize that it is a model for the mechanism of our origins. I credit you with that. I believe creation is the best model. I do not claim to have a perfect understanding of these issues.

As a mechanism creationism is legitimate to science. Johannes Kepler and Copernicus were both great scientists and they based their science on thier biblical beliefs. It is legitimate to test your experiments against creation science assumptions. Try it. You might be surprised at the results.

I have to sign off now. Have a great day.

Creationism isn't a valid scientific theory. Its just a matter of it being your own personal faith. Sure you can beleive it! But that doesn't make it science. If you want to pretend that unicorns and fairies exist, you can! But that doesn't mean they should be taught about in school! The only basis for creationism is that a bunch of guys a long time ago (remember, they still thought the world was flat back then) wrote it down, now you may believe that, and you may think that god wrote it. But your beleiving so does not make it a scientific fact, that should be tought in a public school. There is no 'debate' about this. There is only the scientific community, who refuses to even debate the issue because there is credible scientific proof of creationism, and religion, which should play no part in politics or school anyway. You can choose to be a religious person, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to.


:headbang:

Out of fairness, lemme post a good example of evolution in fossil record. Transition from reptiles to mammals:

Sphenacodontia (Lower Permian)
Biarmosuchia (Middle Permian)
Gorgonopsia (Late Permian)
Theriocephalia (Late Permian to Early Triassic)
Thrinaxodon (Early Triassic)
Cynognathus (Middle Triassic)
Probainognathus (Middle Triassic)
Tritylodontidae (Late Triassic)
Megazostrodon (Late Triassic)

Now, if i'm not mistaken, that's prettymuch a stratigraphic order... :)

You are corect, I am not a scientist, but I do believe in studying what I believe.

That's backwards. One should study, and derive knowledge from that - not the other way round [i.e. start with "knowledge" and assume that all study must confirm that].


What you have summarized here, contradicts many of the posters in this forum. To them evolution is a fact and is truth. You recognize that it is a model for the mechanism of our origins. I credit you with that. I believe creation is the best model.

Except it isn't. Unless you, unlike all the other creationists in the world, can provide a way in which the creationist model can be verified?


I do not claim to have a perfect understanding of these issues.

Just as well.



As a mechanism creationism is legitimate to science.

It necessitates the invocation of supernatural action - that means it is most definitely not "legitimate to science".


Johannes Kepler and Copernicus were both great scientists and they based their science on thier biblical beliefs. It is legitimate to test your experiments against creation science assumptions. Try it. You might be surprised at the results.

Please list 2 testable assumptions of creation science.

I do believe in studying what I believe.
That's confirmation and selection bias. It's not studying, or learning of any kind. It's meditating on a mantra until it loses all meaning.

But I would love to read more of your hypothesis about how snakes in the bible were different than those today, as well as why God condemed them forever, but allowed them to change and/or vanish, and your theological sources on the matter.

But as for Evolution, if the Pope says that's the way God works, I think you might want to keep Kepler's religious views where they belong. Cause my appeal to authority is more persuasive than yours.

You demand that I demonstrate the evidence. Do the same. You are throwing broad generic categories out there. Where is your proof in the fossil record? I have seen people attempt to line up fossils in a logical progression, but they have been doing so in an attempt to prove there evolution. They have never arranged them based upon external evidence.

Speciation has been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

There are MANY transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html


But, I see you left BEFORE you gave anybody a CHANCE to show you the evidence. Are you too scared to accept it? That's not a rhetorical question, I really want to know.

Hmmm, theres nothing i the evolution theory or science that can exclude a god... But I don't buy the Creationism theory in the term of "God created the earth i 7 day, and put the dinosaurs in the ground to confuse the humans"...

I don't belive in God, but I can't say that a god don't exists... But that's not the purpose of science anyway...

The whole debate about evolution or creationism in school lessons is a bit of track... I can't see why people can't have both, and then make up their mind them selfs (that was the way my school did it)...

It's a choice people have to make themselfs, and its the societys job too give the pupils the means (both science and religion) to make their choice... Then we can discuss pros. and cons. afterwards.

The whole debate about evolution or creationism in school lessons is a bit of track... I can't see why people can't have both, and then make up their mind them selfs (that was the way my school did it)...

It's a choice people have to make themselfs, and its the societys job too give the pupils the means (both science and religion) to make their choice... Then we can discuss pros. and cons. afterwards.

Eh, no. You don't *get* to choose what reality is. Your argument necessitates the assumption that creationism has the same level of credibiltity as evolutionary biology. It doesn't.

Call me cruel, but I think the 1.3% of people that havent studeied evolution and dont believe in it are ignorant, and the ones that believe in evolution and still havent studied it dont know what theyre talking about.

heres an interesting one, im a teacher, i work with a guy who believes that evoilution is a myth and goes for the whole "god created everything" idea. the interesting thing is that his previous job was as a research scientist who grew microbes in the presence of antibiotics, thus in effect, forcing evolution, as he was creating resistant strains of the microbes and wiping out the non resistant strains, the very definition of "survival of the fittest"

Hmmm, theres nothing i the evolution theory or science that can exclude a god... But I don't buy the Creationism theory in the term of "God created the earth i 7 day, and put the dinosaurs in the ground to confuse the humans"...

I don't belive in God, but I can't say that a god don't exists... But that's not the purpose of science anyway...

The whole debate about evolution or creationism in school lessons is a bit of track... I can't see why people can't have both, and then make up their mind them selfs (that was the way my school did it)...

It's a choice people have to make themselfs, and its the societys job too give the pupils the means (both science and religion) to make their choice... Then we can discuss pros. and cons. afterwards.

So you want both heliocentrism and geocentrism to be taught side by side as well? Heliocentrism is just as much a theory as evolution is. But, I don't know of many people today who will argue the geocentric point of view.

heres an interesting one, im a teacher, i work with a guy who believes that evoilution is a myth and goes for the whole "god created everything" idea. the interesting thing is that his previous job was as a research scientist who grew microbes in the presence of antibiotics, thus in effect, forcing evolution, as he was creating resistant strains of the microbes and wiping out the non resistant strains, the very definition of "survival of the fittest"

Some people just refuse to see the evidence for what it is.

heres an interesting one, im a teacher, i work with a guy who believes that evoilution is a myth and goes for the whole "god created everything" idea. the interesting thing is that his previous job was as a research scientist who grew microbes in the presence of antibiotics, thus in effect, forcing evolution, as he was creating resistant strains of the microbes and wiping out the non resistant strains, the very definition of "survival of the fittest"

Now that's what i call irony. What would motivate one in such a position become a Creationist?!? :eek:

because he was brought up as a creationist (which by the way is incredibly rare in the UK)

Useless factoid: In the UK, christian fundamentalists are outnumbered by Jedi.

And the UK has, technically, state sponsered religion.

but only technically rus! btw, im in haverhill, about 18 miles out of cambs, i actually put jedi on my census, but as a protest, it was a census question which was made optional, therefore rendering it useless in terms of census data, u cant say 30% of people were hindu, u can only say 30% of people who decided to answer the question were hindu, which makes it a survey and not a proper census, questions on a census should be mandatory or not appear at all

Some people just refuse to see the evidence for what it is.
Oh for crying out loud people, it's not like there's only one other theory and it's Creationism. It's not an either/or question and you all act like everyone that doesn't agree with the 'natural selection evolutionist' must be a moron.

For the sake a introducing different theory to this thread, not necessarily 'my' theory...

Search for works by Chandra Wickramasinghe and Fred Hoyle. The first predicted that interstellar dust would turn out to be organic, and he turned out to be right. The second was the Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, and wrote and published alternative theories in regards to evolutions natural selection problems.

You don't have to agree with either one of them, that's not my point. My point is that other theories exist and you guys lock yourselves into just one thing like it's a cultic membership secret handshake or something and you’ll all be safe there.

http://www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk/index.html

as an athiest i would find it difficult to believe in many aspects of creationism

Oh for crying out loud people, it's not like the the only other theory is Creationism. It's not an either/or question and you all act like everyone that doesn' agree with 'natural selection' must be a moron.

For the sake a introducing different theory to this thread, not necessarily 'my' theory...

Search for works by Chandra Wickramasinghe and Fred Hoyle. The first predicted that interstellar dust would turn out to be organic, and he turned out to be right. The second was the Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, and wrote and published alternative theories in regards to evolutions natural selection problems.

You don't have to agree with either one of them, that's not my point. My point is that other theories exist and you guys lock yourselves into just one thing like it's a cultic membership secret handshake or something and you’ll all be safe there.

http://www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk/index.html

You're right, other theories DO exists. But, they don't have the evidence that evolution has to support them!

Second, EVOLUTION DOES NOT... I repeat, EVOLUTION DOES NOT attempt to explain the origins of life.

Furthermore, the only reason so many scientists 'lock' themselves to evolution is BECAUSE it has the EVIDENCE to support it. Scientists are NOT idiots.

If a theory came along that explained biology as we know it today BETTER than the theory of evolution, it would become the new accepted theory.

but only technically rus! btw, im in haverhill, about 18 miles out of cambs, i actually put jedi on my census, but as a protest, it was a census question which was made optional, therefore rendering it useless in terms of census data, u cant say 30% of people were hindu, u can only say 30% of people who decided to answer the question were hindu, which makes it a survey and not a proper census, questions on a census should be mandatory or not appear at all

True, to an extent. However, the margin is large enough [Jedi come in about 350,000 vs about 150,000 for fundy christians] that it is fairly safe to say that all things considered they are still outnumbered.

heres an interesting one, im a teacher, i work with a guy who believes that evoilution is a myth and goes for the whole "god created everything" idea. the interesting thing is that his previous job was as a research scientist who grew microbes in the presence of antibiotics, thus in effect, forcing evolution, as he was creating resistant strains of the microbes and wiping out the non resistant strains, the very definition of "survival of the fittest"
My biology teacher is convinced theres some kind of god because everythigns so perfect...but he believes in evolutoin too. My anthropology teacher is convinced theres no such thing as god. *shrug*

You're right, other theories DO exists. But, they don't have the evidence that evolution has to support them!

Second, EVOLUTION DOES NOT... I repeat, EVOLUTION DOES NOT attempt to explain the origins of life.

It doesn't need to explain the origins of life... the mathmatical probability of random variations of mutation alone is one of the problems. Some of the other theories out there are trying to figure out 'how' beneficial mutations can occur quickly enough to be beneficial. Is there new organic matter itroduced periodically (as the astro guys suggest?) I don't know. But to dismiss it out of hand is silly when the fossil record supports their analyses as well as yours.

You can't "not believe" in evolution, it's proven science
I give you: paleontology, geology, geography, carbon dating and evolutionary biology.

Versus: The christian position which maintains that it's all god's doing. Of course, to try and prove this is to question god's will, so that's...y'know, a mortal sin. :rolleyes:

[ninja edit: I haven't read the previous 71 pages because this argument is constantly rehashed on NS. Scientific theory is constantly questioned and refined, religous doctrine is not allowed to be questioned - only a moron would give the latter more credence. Yes, that means you, you're a moron. No, really. Use your brain for fuck's sake]

It doesn't need to explain the origins of life... the mathmatical probability of random variations of mutation alone is one of the problems. Some of the other theories out there are trying to figure out 'how' beneficial mutations can occur quickly enough to be beneficial. Is there new organic matter itroduced periodically (as the astro guys suggest?) I don't know. But to dismiss it out of hand is silly when the fossil record supports their analyses as well as yours.

For crying out loud, we've been through this before! Who ever said the 'mathmatical probability of random variations of mutation alone is one of the problems'? Besides yourself.

The mathematical probability of mutating genes is 100%. It happens ALL THE TIME. Your genes are not a perfect copy of your parents'. Something VERY minor has changed. A genetic mutation.

Now, for humans anymore, beneficial mutation will not lead to evolution, because we already have knowledge to accomodate the survival and reproductivity of most humans.


And, as I said, if something comes about to accomodate the evidence BETTER than evolution does, poof, that becomes the new accepted theory.


The theory you suggested above would more likely be integrated as PART of evolutionary theory.

It doesn't need to explain the origins of life... the mathmatical probability of random variations of mutation alone is one of the problems. Some of the other theories out there are trying to figure out 'how' beneficial mutations can occur quickly enough to be beneficial. Is there new organic matter itroduced periodically (as the astro guys suggest?) I don't know. But to dismiss it out of hand is silly when the fossil record supports their analyses as well as yours.
Only if you take the word of creationists and do instance probability calculation

:p

For crying out loud, we've been through this before! Who ever said the 'mathmatical probability of random variations of mutation alone is one of the problems'? Besides yourself.

The mathematical probability of mutating genes is 100%. It happens ALL THE TIME. Your genes are not a perfect copy of your parents'. Something VERY minor has changed. A genetic mutation.

Now, for humans anymore, beneficial mutation will not lead to evolution, because we already have knowledge to accomodate the survival and reproductivity of most humans.


And, as I said, if something comes about to accomodate the evidence BETTER than evolution does, poof, that becomes the new accepted theory.


The theory you suggested above would more likely be integrated as PART of evolutionary theory.

Fred Hoyle for one... And I didn't even say I agree with him, but he said:

"The Darwinian theory is wrong and the continued adherence to it is an impediment to discovering the correct evolutionary theory"
Fred Hoyle, In his book, The Mathematics of Evolution.

Fred Hoyle for one... And I didn't even say I agree with him, but he said:

"The Darwinian theory is wrong and the continued adherence to it is an impediment to discovering the correct evolutionary theory"
Fred Hoyle, In his book, The Mathematics of Evolution.
But evolution theory does not adhere to Darwinism

personally I think God was created for those whom have no hope in their lives. If one can believe in himself then God has no purpose. Science (although supressed at the begining because of the Church) has explained the evolution of man. Anyway, the hole point of religion is to give one ethics and values that should have been taught by your parents! I studied both in college and wrestled with religion because I have seen what it can do (I'm a soldier) to people. (Any questions look at the Balklans conflict 88-99, were both Christian and Muslims slaughtered each other.) If one clears their heads and debates the science fact from the religious theories, one will see that evolutionism and a scientific approach on how we view the world will make it a better place. I also ask if any religious belief has any proof, because if you take what it is written in the bible (which is copied from various other religious and myths from other ancient cultures) and use it to explain how man got here it doesn't make sense. :cool:

Fred Hoyle for one... And I didn't even say I agree with him, but he said:

"The Darwinian theory is wrong and the continued adherence to it is an impediment to discovering the correct evolutionary theory"
Fred Hoyle, In his book, The Mathematics of Evolution.

Finally! Thank you for giving me something other than your own words to discuss! :)

Hoyle still supports evolution, just not in the complete and utter Darwinian sense. Scientists have known for years that some aspects of Darwin's theory did not fit the evidence, and evolution thus is not strict Darwinism.

Furthermore, Hoyle's main objection is with abiogenesis. He believes organic life is constantly raining down on us from space. Evolution does NOT attempt to explain how life started or where it came from.

Evolution DOES continue to change as new evidence comes in. It is not 100% correct. There are parts that have yet to be explained, but NOTHING that would discredit the entire theory.

words

Well said.

Why can't faith and science coexist?
-I ask you that

Because faith is fiction, and science is fact. Thought that was obvious...

If you assume evolution is true (as is your right), then you will assume that any result indicating otherwise is suspect.

All results and all theories are suspect in science.

The difference between science and Creationism is that, when a scientist gets a result contradictory to the theory, the thory gets changed. This does not happen in Creationism, that result just gets thrown out.

But evolution theory does not adhere to Darwinism

Exactly so. I'm a computational biologist and have studied evolution extensively. The theory of evolution as it is now would not be recognizable to Darwin.

As far as the sub-thread of computing probabilities, it's only so much mental mastrubation. The creationist argument that attempts to outline probabilities are based on probabilities that we simply do not have (in other words, the probabilities they bring up are somewhere between 0 and 1).

I know many biologists who believe in a god. It is only a small subset of people who feel the Bible must be taken litteraly -- except for cases where it contradicts itself (which book of Genesis are you following?) or would make a fool of those who insist that certain things are true (locusts having four legs, the sky is a tent) or is simply inconvenient (eating pork or shellfish is an abomination unto God and you shall not partake of it) -- who believe that evolution and their concept of god cannot coexists.

Creationists have one fatal flaw in their argument. They assume if they can disprove all of evolution, they must be right, de facto. The problem with creationism is it cannot be disproven, which is essential to be a valid scientific therory. A theory generates testable hypotheses that can distinguish it from other theories. Creation does not have this. By creationism, I also mean intelligent design, which is just creationists putting on fancy dresses and make-up to try and look more acceptable. Inteligent design proponents claim something is irreducibly complex, the system they name is shown to be reducible, they ignore the disproof of their statement (e.g. flagellum of a bacterium) and try to bring up another statement.

Someone earlier had mentioned Kepler and Copernicus as basing their science on God. Three problems with this. First, they pre-date Darwin. Second, Darwin delt with biological matters, not astronomy. Third, they pre-date any concept of the Big Bang. The Bible was accepted as the facts only because no one had thought of anything else. Not that could be testable, at any rate. That and religious powers are notoriously brutal to people who do not believe the way they do (which are tactice used by creationists to this day).

It was a way for society to ensure that children were raised by two parents.

So the best way to give a child two active parents is to force one or both of them into it, with one essentially owning the other (and the children)?

And exactly how is that any different than marriage is treated in secular western society today? I'm saying something different. Marriage is a social institution for the good of the members in the society. It has more roles and reason for being than for Europeans and Americans to sit around waiting to 'fall in love' while they watch shows like “The Bachelor” on their TV set.

Marriage is mistreated in society today, just as it was mistreated back then. of course, there is a difference, the people entering into it these days are actually willing.

Divorce is the result of our lack of commitment to the institutions of marriage, all of them. And with that failure we have overworked single parents, neglected children, and more economic stress on everyone involved. Marriage is MORE than just two people falling in and out of romantic love.

....which I would not deny. However, that doesn't increase my opinion of the ancient Hebrew version, in which a man basically owned a woman and could divorce her (although she could not divorce him).

You make the most degraded over simplifications of everything you don’t like don’t you? As if society, any society, was ever so simple as you pretend. As if human beings were ever so able to achieve such 'standardization' in any culture for any period of time. And whom, pray tell, do you envision enforced these universal rules throughout the generations?

Well, according to the Bible, God did. God got rather angry when a man refused to impregnate his new wife (who was actually his brother's wife). Do you not believe that the OT is literally true?

And I suppose you're one of those people that think that all men are pigs and that Caucasian males are the worst... (neither accusation is fair, mine or yours)

I have said nothing to suggest that. You, on the other hand, have made it very clear that you will support even the most unsupportable of practices, so long as the ancient Hebrews took part in them.

Better that the woman would be left with no property, no way to make a living and not have any children to grow up and look after her in her old age?

Why does it have to be between those two? Is God not intelligent enough to decree something else?

None of us, not you, not I, nor we, as a world that has outlawed slavery and the trade of humans can actually stop it even to this day.

Irrelevant. We recognize it as wrong and do what we can to stop it. We certainly don't say "Slavery is fine and dandy. Let's make some laws to regulate it. Sure, it's ok if you beat your slave to death, so long as he survives a day or two!"

Who did you think they would be able go to, to feed all of the orphans and widows in the world? Who does it for us now? How are we any better? At least they advocated "through their scripture and social structures, the codes of acceptable behavior.'

How is slavery ever considered "acceptable behavior"?

Some people just refuse to see the evidence for what it is.

My theology prof knew a guy with a Ph.D. in Chemistry. The guy was not only a creationist, but didn't believe in dinosaurs. He thought all dinosaur bones must be something else. After all, they weren't mentioned in the Bible!

My theology prof knew a guy with a Ph.D. in Chemistry. The guy was not only a creationist, but didn't believe in dinosaurs. He thought all dinosaur bones must be something else. After all, they weren't mentioned in the Bible!

Makes you wonder just how easy it is to get a Ph.D. in Chemistry. :p

Evolution is bull, i am sorry. it can be disproved in so many ways it is not even funny. Look at it this way: if the earth was covered in water in the beginning, then no organism could live! look it up sometime or ask a science major. The amino acids would break down. Next time you walk outside look at nature and all life and tell me that this was a mistake.

My theology prof knew a guy with a Ph.D. in Chemistry. The guy was not only a creationist, but didn't believe in dinosaurs. He thought all dinosaur bones must be something else. After all, they weren't mentioned in the Bible!

LOL, i've seen numerous kinds of Creationism - but that is amazing. I reckon how vehemently some other Creationists claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan from the bible were Dinosaurs. Not exactly very consistent... :D

Evolution is bull, i am sorry. it can be disproved in so many ways it is not even funny. Look at it this way: if the earth was covered in water in the beginning, then no organism could live! look it up sometime or ask a science major. The amino acids would break down. Next time you walk outside look at nature and all life and tell me that this was a mistake.

Nobody said the Earth was 'covered in water' in the beginning!

Give me ONE way to 'disprove' evolution.

P.S. Evolution is not a 'mistake'. In fact, quite the opposite.

Evolution is bull, i am sorry. it can be disproved in so many ways it is not even funny. Look at it this way: if the earth was covered in water in the beginning, then no organism could live! look it up sometime or ask a science major. The amino acids would break down. Next time you walk outside look at nature and all life and tell me that this was a mistake.

WTF?!? No scientist ever claimed the Earth was totally covered in water from the beginning? Besides, why would the amino acids break down, that doesn't make sense! Where have you been hiding? :eek:

LOL, i've seen numerous kinds of Creationism - but that is amazing. I reckon how vehemently some other Creationists claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan from the bible were Dinosaurs. Not exactly very consistent... :D

The funny thing is - my theology prof was using this guy as an example of what not to do in faith. How does it matter to faith in God if there were dinosaurs or if the Earth was created 6000 or billions of years ago? How does it matter to faith in God if animals went poof or evolved?

My theology prof knew a guy with a Ph.D. in Chemistry. The guy was not only a creationist, but didn't believe in dinosaurs. He thought all dinosaur bones must be something else. After all, they weren't mentioned in the Bible!

That reminds me of a colleague who insists there are so such things as atoms. Atomic theory is entirely false because we haven't observed atoms directly. Furthermore, because of the scale at which we live, we never can observe atoms, therefore atomic theory is not a valid scientific theory.

Not that she honestly believes this, but she does a convincing act which throws the creationists off and makes those in doubt see the creationists arguments for what they are: invalid.

Evolution is bull, i am sorry. it can be disproved in so many ways it is not even funny. Look at it this way: if the earth was covered in water in the beginning, then no organism could live! look it up sometime or ask a science major. The amino acids would break down. Next time you walk outside look at nature and all life and tell me that this was a mistake.

*wonders what type of science majors you have been talking to*

(a) No one ever said the entire surface of the Earth was covered in water.

(b) Amino acids would not break down very quickly in water. In fact, with some energy, they would likely combine into chains.

The funny thing is - my theology prof was using this guy as an example of what not to do in faith. How does it matter to faith in God if there were dinosaurs or if the Earth was created 6000 or billions of years ago? How does it matter to faith in God if animals went poof or evolved?

Well, you're bringing up some very good point there. It doesn't really matter. However, it does matter to literalists (i.e. Yecs)...

Evolution is bull, i am sorry. it can be disproved in so many ways it is not even funny. Look at it this way: if the earth was covered in water in the beginning, then no organism could live! look it up sometime or ask a science major. The amino acids would break down. Next time you walk outside look at nature and all life and tell me that this was a mistake.

I have a Ph.D. in computational biology. Am I enough of a science major for you? Your statement is complete nonsense. You obviously don't even understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. I recommend that you stop regurgitating what was spoon fed to you by creationists and try to learn something on your own.

I have a Ph.D. in computational biology. Am I enough of a science major for you? Your statement is complete nonsense. You obviously don't even understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. I recommend that you stop regurgitating what was spoon fed to you by creationists and try to learn something on your own.

It doesn't take a Ph.D. to realize that, but it sure can be helpful if you have some insights on the topic. Anyways, i don't think that this will help anywhere, since Shi lo has apparently left... :confused:

That reminds me of a colleague who insists there are so such things as atoms. Atomic theory is entirely false because we haven't observed atoms directly. Furthermore, because of the scale at which we live, we never can observe atoms, therefore atomic theory is not a valid scientific theory.

Not that she honestly believes this, but she does a convincing act which throws the creationists off and makes those in doubt see the creationists arguments for what they are: invalid.

To be fair, we COULD observe an atom if we could ever get a great enough magnification. Photons are smaller than atoms by several orders of magnitude, so that wouldn't present a problem. It's actually our eyes that are the problem.

But wait, haven't we used electron scanning microscopes to "see" atoms or something?

But wait, haven't we used electron scanning microscopes to "see" atoms or something?

Not exactly. We have, however, measured single atoms with atomic force microscopes.

So the best way to give a child two active parents is to force one or both of them into it, with one essentially owning the other (and the children)?

Even today we have to spend time and effort to go out and find and forcibly fine, and sometimes punish punitively, dead beat parents, it happens all the time. As you very well know, these people go out and have kids and then they run off, expecting other people to raise their offspring. If you can figure a better way for society to to get these people to do it on their own, you let us know.

But insulting a different society for the way that they handled the problem when we haven't solved it yet ourselves makes about zero sense now doesn't it?

Marriage is mistreated in society today, just as it was mistreated back then. of course, there is a difference, the people entering into it these days are actually willing.
They might be willing now but we've proven ourselves to be not very good at it on our own, especially on the collective society-as-a-whole. Perhaps we would be better off if our collective families did help us decide to marry.

But even if not, you shouldn’t sit around insulting other societies and pretend that ours is so much better, it doesn't make it true just by your saying it and it makes you look ‘proud and arrogant.’


....which I would not deny. However, that doesn't increase my opinion of the ancient Hebrew version, in which a man basically owned a woman and could divorce her (although she could not divorce him).
Yup, that's how it was. But of course, if he did divorce her without cause, her entire family would come after him and accuse him of that in public and he would have to defend his decision with much more scrutiny than we have with our 'no-fault' divorce decrees now. We don't even need a reason to divorce anymore, just get bored or anything else, go down the court-house and file for divorce, no questions asked. Damn the five kids and the house mortgage, that bastard doesn't even bring me flowers home on Fridays anymore, besides, that new office copy room clerk is pretty good looking....

Yup, their society rules for divorce suck compared to ours.

Well, according to the Bible, God did. God got rather angry when a man refused to impregnate his new wife (who was actually his brother's wife). Do you not believe that the OT is literally true?
He sure did, as well as he should have. And the whole Bible is choke-full, and I mean, full-to-the-brim, with people doing stuff or not doing stuff that they should or should not have been doing. It's quite amazing really, all the freewill that they had to decide their own fates. You should read it some time, it's interesting stuff.

I have said nothing to suggest that. You, on the other hand, have made it very clear that you will support even the most unsupportable of practices, so long as the ancient Hebrews took part in them. Unsupportable of practices? If you attacked any culture, any society with the disregard for human frailties and the lack of charity of heart that you've shown the ancient Hebrews, I think I could defend them as well. Such as, the Mongol horde, maybe the Huns... According to you, the Ancient Hebrew must have been pretty much a beast straight out of hell.

Why does it have to be between those two? Is God not intelligent enough to decree something else? Sure, God felt bad enough for John 3:16 to come about. But some people just refuse to forgive each other of their sins and have decided to continue throwing stones even though they themselves are still with sin, without naming names.

Irrelevant. We recognize it as wrong and do what we can to stop it. We certainly don't say "Slavery is fine and dandy. Let's make some laws to regulate it. Sure, it's ok if you beat your slave to death, so long as he survives a day or two!"
If in our daily lives, God gave the advice to people who found themselves to be slaves to be good ones, and people that found themselves to be owners of slaves to be kind ones, then what is wrong with that? Since, people like Thomas Jefferson, and some other founding father deists of this country were also born and found themselves in that kind of predicament ~ and they didn't know what to do about it either, on the idividual in a whole society full of it sort of way.

But, culturally, on the society level, whenever there was an opportunity to abolish slavery; such as Cyrus freeing all the slaves of Babylon after defeating it (God didn't even need to tell Cyrus about himself, only used him to free the slaves). It was the great Emancipation, thousands of years before Abraham Lincoln. But the world turned back, lots of times, even some non-Hebrews were bad people, just like they are today, can you imagine that?!?

It is hard to end slavery and other evils in the world. People like Spartacus in Rome tried to stop it, it wasn't easy, he died, didn't work. Millions of people, throughout history have died trying to stop slavery, and yet you. you go around blaming the Hebrews for giving advice on how to live in this junky, mean-spirited world that we live in...

I'll summarize what Jesus said about divorce, Moses didn't grant you the right to divorce because it is good, but because of the hardness of your hearts it was the best he could do. And the hardness of our hearts now is the same for divorce and slavery and all crimes we commit against each other. Then and now. It's still going on.

How is slavery ever considered "acceptable behavior"? When it's indentured servitude, the volunteer military in every country is based on the same principle. Everyone that has ever volunteered to be in the military for a term of service has agreed to be an indentured servant (slave) for a price and a duration. The same as in the biblical accounts of when it was okay to sell yourself into servitude.

There is the war trophies slave though, that’s a little different, it’s much like the winners of WWI forcing all of Germany to repay the cost of the war, turning them into a slave state. That still goes on to this day, who are we to judge their society more harshly than our own?

To be fair, we COULD observe an atom if we could ever get a great enough magnification. Photons are smaller than atoms by several orders of magnitude, so that wouldn't present a problem. It's actually our eyes that are the problem.

But wait, haven't we used electron scanning microscopes to "see" atoms or something?

While photons are smaller than atoms, the wavelengths are larger than atoms, so the atom still cannot be seen.

As for the SEM, since an electron can't be seen, it can't be used to observe other phenomena.

The rule of thumb for this bit of fun is to look at what creationists say and come up with a comparable argument.

There are a couple forms of microscopy that will resolve atoms. Atomic force, as has been mentioned. But scanning tunneling electron microscopes will too. If one finds one self in a material science lab chances are there's a calender on the wall showing beautifully enhanced images of them. And that's interesting and all. But once you've seen a few images of orbitals based on actual experiment rather than theory, that's when it gets kinda cool.

I was once responsible for shuffling kinds on a field trip through an advanced microscopy lab. One of the kids asked what this 3 by 2 foot picture of little balls in the enterance was when I was walking them to the SEM (so they could look at bugs and pollen). I offhandedly remarked that it was a sheet of Silicon atoms, and pointed out a couple of features I thought would be interesting. Another of them remarked that their science teacher said we could 'see' atoms, while I'm standing in front of a picture of them. I always thought that was a little sad. But that day probably made up for it. The guys running the AFM had a ton of sweet images saved up.

I am not about to open a debate. I have no personal need to argue an issue, because the things that I believe in are not (nor are anyone else’s) subject to change through simple internet-based rhetoric. I have an opinion only until I learn the facts. Science is not an opinion nor a belief; it is a fact. One either chooses to study and further their knowledge or not. By engaging in endless semantic debate, one inevitably makes mistakes in logic or allows others to manipulate gaps in logic and/or knowledge to their own ends. My knowledge is far from complete, nor is the knowledge of anyone else in this forum complete. Rather, I am able to provide avenues for further study and paths to knowledge.

Science and religion are mutually exclusive concepts. Science is the study of the natural world, while religion is the study of the supernatural world. However, because each method of learning is based upon observances of two distinctly different things, to be religious does not make one unscientific, nor vice-versa.

The OED (sorry for being an ignorant colonial, but I’m using an American Edition) defines supernatural to mean “attributed to or thought to reveal some force above the laws of nature.” Religion certainly falls into this heading; the Christian God does, for example, reside “above the laws of nature.” The debate between Creationism and Evolution exists because few people are able to make the distinction between “natural” and “supernatural.” Belief in the very existence of God means believing that God is above such trivial matters as natural phenomenon.

Science is the one true universal avenue for communication. Around the globe, the same scientific theories are taught to everyone, regardless of religious or social backgrounds. What we here in the Western world often forget, is that our notions of religion, faith, belief and social structures are our own and are not shared by everyone. Even moral and ethical standards deviate from culture to culture. Religion is one of those deviations.

Religious theories, though valid in the pursuit of supernatural knowledge, have no place in institutions of learning, be they universities, high schools, or kindergartens. They are projections of OUR society’s belief structures rather than that of the world’s. To replace evolution with creationism would be to place our culture at a severe disadvantage to cultures around the world. Instead, religious institutions have developed separate from the state in order to allow others to believe whatever they want outside of institutions that teach “natural” knowledge.

The question of wheather or not creationism should be taught alongside evolution is moot. The soul’s need for religion is not the mind’s need for science. However, alternate beliefs in world-creation ARE taught in educational institutions, at least at the high school and university levels. This study of religion, from a scientific aspect, exists within anthropology. It studies why cultures believe certain things that science does not teach. There are more collegiate courses that teach them as “religion” than there are that teach them as “myth.” However, an anthropological viewpoint explains a culture through its religion. This is a true “subconscious history” of a culture. Religion tells a culture who they are, not just what they believe in. The belief, actually, is superficial.

Think of what Christianity is today. Think of the many factions that have sprung up since the Protestant Reformation. Think of the history of the Catholic Church before and after that. Think of the dozens of separate Christian institutions within the United States alone. Think of who taught you your beliefs and who taught them. Think of the communities that these institutions represent and to what future they are heading. This is the culmination of the Western world. It’s somewhat schitzophrenic, isn’t it?

It’s no wonder that people who are devoted to their religious beliefs condemn scientific facts; they’ve done so for centuries. An alternate view that contradicts what they’ve been taught brings into question not just “what they believe.” If that were the case, they would dismiss it out of hand and move on. What they find themselves defending is, in all actuality, their whole identity. They have learned that their belief in a Christian God is the answer to All Things, including themselves, and Nobody enjoys having an identity crisis.

I am not about to open a debate. [snip]

Actually, you might have closed it. Well said in any case!

while religion is the study of the supernatural world.

No, that's theology. Religion is the supernatural's fanclub.

but only technically rus! btw, im in haverhill, about 18 miles out of cambs, i actually put jedi on my census, but as a protest, it was a census question which was made optional, therefore rendering it useless in terms of census data, u cant say 30% of people were hindu, u can only say 30% of people who decided to answer the question were hindu, which makes it a survey and not a proper census, questions on a census should be mandatory or not appear at allIn fact, 30% of people who decided to answer decided to answer Hindu... ;)

(Can't remember what I put, though I'm sure I didn't put Jedi...)

Even today we have to spend time and effort to go out and find and forcibly fine, and sometimes punish punitively, dead beat parents, it happens all the time. As you very well know, these people go out and have kids and then they run off, expecting other people to raise their offspring. If you can figure a better way for society to to get these people to do it on their own, you let us know.


I'm letting you argue the rest of this out between you, but I can't let this one stand?

You are saying you can't 'diss' the sins of the Hebrews, because some of our own people still commit the same sinful acts?

We have a murder-problem, too... does that mean we shouldn't make comments about Genocide in Sudan?

Modern husbands aren't allowed to 'own' their spouses - I don't see how you can see that as anything but an improvement.... unless you believe that slavery is 'valid'?

I'm letting you argue the rest of this out between you, but I can't let this one stand?

You are saying you can't 'diss' the sins of the Hebrews, because some of our own people still commit the same sinful acts?

We have a murder-problem, too... does that mean we shouldn't make comments about Genocide in Sudan?

Modern husbands aren't allowed to 'own' their spouses - I don't see how you can see that as anything but an improvement.... unless you believe that slavery is 'valid'?

If a person is painting an honest picture of a culture, any culture, and in the picture the artist wants to express the cultures attitudes on marriage, justice, family and worship, but also to includes their shortcomings and their sins for balance, then I would say that you are using a brush that is unfairly too wide while you are painting their Sins and a brush that is too thin when you are painting their virtues.

Of course they are in sin, as are we all, of course they have problems. The entire scripture is story after story of their shortcomings and what God had to do to bring about the world as we know it now.

And from these stories we can usually see ourselves and hopefully learn to NOT do all the stuff that they did. But the actual advice given for us is that we should love and forgive.

Such as;

Ecclesiastes 9:9
Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun— all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun.

Hosea 2:19-20
And I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. 20 I will take you for my wife in faithfulness;

Hosea 3:1
[ Hosea's Reconciliation With His Wife ] The LORD said to me, "Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods

As to the patriarchal society condition, the ‘father’ figure is not an ‘all the males’ over the females situation. That’s not a fair assessment of the condition at all. But it was the ‘father’ over the entire family set-up, even over sons who were old enough to be husbands and fathers themselves, everyone was subject to the rule of one.

If your father was still alive, even if an adult male, you would not normally own their own property, you didn’t own property until you inherited it from your Father. This cultural condition was not just restricted to the ancient Hebrews either, the ancient Roman property laws were setup like that as well (pre-Empire, pre-Caesar) and they didn’t get any of the ethnic nor religious influence from the Hebrew, but their patriarchal system was so expansive that the household father had the power of life and death itself over his family members.

If you look at all the cultures of the time, you will see that the Hebrews were actually much nicer than their contemporaries.

I would suggest that the ownership in marriage stuff that you are talking about, and the way it is being suggested as a form slavery, is not true as you frame it. It is nothing more than what Paul talks about later…
1 Corinthians 7 1-4;
…It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

You are right to say that she belongs to him, but equally and in no less regard, HE belongs to HER. I fail to understand the problem with this arrangement for marriage rules. That a husband should love his wife as God loves the church.

Ph33dom, I though this thread was about evolution/creationism. :p

If a person is painting an honest picture of a culture, any culture, and in the picture the artist wants to express the cultures attitudes on marriage, justice, family and worship, but also to includes their shortcomings and their sins for balance, then I would say that you are using a brush that is unfairly too wide while you are painting their Sins and a brush that is too thin when you are painting their virtues.

Of course they are in sin, as are we all, of course they have problems. The entire scripture is story after story of their shortcomings and what God had to do to bring about the world as we know it now.

And from these stories we can usually see ourselves and hopefully learn to NOT do all the stuff that they did. But the actual advice given for us is that we should love and forgive.

Such as;

As to the patriarchal society condition, the ‘father’ figure is not an ‘all the males’ over the females situation. That’s not a fair assessment of the condition at all. But it was the ‘father’ over the entire family set-up, even over sons who were old enough to be husbands and fathers themselves, everyone was subject to the rule of one.

If your father was still alive, even if an adult male, you would not normally own their own property, you didn’t own property until you inherited it from your Father. This cultural condition was not just restricted to the ancient Hebrews either, the ancient Roman property laws were setup like that as well (pre-Empire, pre-Caesar) and they didn’t get any of the ethnic nor religious influence from the Hebrew, but their patriarchal system was so expansive that the household father had the power of life and death itself over his family members.

If you look at all the cultures of the time, you will see that the Hebrews were actually much nicer than their contemporaries.

I would suggest that the ownership in marriage stuff that you are talking about, and the way it is being suggested as a form slavery, is not true as you frame it. It is nothing more than what Paul talks about later…


You are right to say that she belongs to him, but equally and in no less regard, HE belongs to HER. I fail to understand the problem with this arrangement for marriage rules. That a husband should love his wife as God loves the church.

In a patriarchal society... the patriarch is supreme, obviously. However, clearly the males were given preferable treatment to that given to the females, even BELOW the patriarch.

Add to that, the fact that the man 'owned' his wife (and, sorry, but the 'equal ownership by the wife' story IS just a story... let's talk about women divorcing their husbands, shall we?).

You may not see it as slavery... and perhaps, for the most part, it wasn't the same as the more recognised form of slavery, but the subjugation of rights to the will of another, the lack of ability to own property, etc... really does make the Biblical marriage tantamount to slavery.

Perhaps you chose not to see it, because you don't object to that kind of treatment? Perhaps just because you are prejudiced in favour of anything that the Bible says?

Nobody is trying to say there was NO good in society... just that there certainly WAS much that could be improved upon, and SHOULD have been improved upon. I would certainly prefer living now, to living then.

Oh - and to imply that the cultural traditions were okay, because someone else did it too? Sorry, I just don't buy that "It's okay, everyone is doing it" excuse.

Even today we have to spend time and effort to go out and find and forcibly fine, and sometimes punish punitively, dead beat parents, it happens all the time. As you very well know, these people go out and have kids and then they run off, expecting other people to raise their offspring. If you can figure a better way for society to to get these people to do it on their own, you let us know.

Well, forcing them into unhealthy relationships certainly isn't the key. It certainly isn't a good situation for a child to be raised by two parents who hate each other.

But insulting a different society for the way that they handled the problem when we haven't solved it yet ourselves makes about zero sense now doesn't it?

Not in the least. Of course, I'm not insulting them. I am pointing out that they were obviously doing things that were very wrong. Of course, if you take the Bible literally, you have to believe that God specifically condoned all of these actions - that God was all about genocide and slavery and the denigration of women. If you, on the other hand, see the Bible as a description of a society trying as well as they could in the time period, you can simply see that they were trying - but made some mistakes.

But even if not, you shouldn’t sit around insulting other societies and pretend that ours is so much better, it doesn't make it true just by your saying it and it makes you look ‘proud and arrogant.’

I haven't insulted anyone. I have pointed out that the ancient Hebrews made many mistakes. They advocated human rights violations. They were, I believe, doing as best they could, but they got some of the message mixed up.

We don't even need a reason to divorce anymore, just get bored or anything else, go down the court-house and file for divorce, no questions asked. Damn the five kids and the house mortgage, that bastard doesn't even bring me flowers home on Fridays anymore, besides, that new office copy room clerk is pretty good looking....

Cute. Of course, irrelevant. Religious marriages are not made and broken in this way. You are speaking of legal marriages. Many churches would not recognize a divorce as that described above.

Meanwhile, you can say "damn the kids" all you want, but, in some cases, a divorce is much, much, much healthier for the kids than the alternative.

Yup, their society rules for divorce suck compared to ours.

It has nothing to do with their society. I am asking if you think God created rules advocating human rights violations, not if the society did.

He sure did, as well as he should have.

So you do think that a man should be forced to impregnante his sister-in-law, even if they hate each other and any children produced will be in any unhealthy atmosphere? Interesting.

You should read it some time, it's interesting stuff.

Cute. Of course, I have read it. And I do see free will. Of course, a literal reading of the Bible would lead us to see that the topics I am discussing have nothing at all to do with free will. They were directly decreed by God.

Unsupportable of practices?

Yes, slavery is unsupportable, as is genocide.

If you attacked any culture, any society with the disregard for human frailties and the lack of charity of heart that you've shown the ancient Hebrews, I think I could defend them as well.

I love the way you intentionally misinterpret everything I have said. For their time, the ancient Hebrews were quite civilized. That does not, however, mean that they did not advocate and even push human rights violations. The question is whether or not such violations were decreed by God. I believe they were not and were, in fact, an example of a people who didn't fully understand getting things wrong.

According to you, the Ancient Hebrew must have been pretty much a beast straight out of hell.

I have said nothing to support this statement. Of course, you can keep setting up that strawman and knocking him down all you want.

Sure, God felt bad enough for John 3:16 to come about.

In other words, the human rights violations encoded in ancient Hebrew law were not of God. Thanks, that's all I needed.

If in our daily lives, God gave the advice to people who found themselves to be slaves to be good ones, and people that found themselves to be owners of slaves to be kind ones, then what is wrong with that?

If God is a good God, God cannot condone slavery.

Since, people like Thomas Jefferson, and some other founding father deists of this country were also born and found themselves in that kind of predicament ~ and they didn't know what to do about it either, on the idividual in a whole society full of it sort of way.

Do you think God is as fallible as Thomas Jefferson was?

But, culturally, on the society level, whenever there was an opportunity to abolish slavery;

The time to do this wouldn't have been when God was laying down all the laws and specifically advocating slavery, according to a literal interpretation?

It is hard to end slavery and other evils in the world. People like Spartacus in Rome tried to stop it, it wasn't easy, he died, didn't work. Millions of people, throughout history have died trying to stop slavery, and yet you. you go around blaming the Hebrews for giving advice on how to live in this junky, mean-spirited world that we live in...

Incorrect. Have fun with that strawman though.

I don't blame the Hebrews for anything other than making mistakes, which we all do.

I do blame the people who try to support an absolutely literal interpretation of the Bible by claiming that God's morality is limited by that of human beings.

The same as in the biblical accounts of when it was okay to sell yourself into servitude.

....which is irrelevant, as there were specific laws for selling other people into servitude, only Hebrew males were truly indentured servants, as the others didn't have a way out, and there were specific laws given that you could use to trick even a Hebrew male into lifelong slavery.

There is the war trophies slave though, that’s a little different, it’s much like the winners of WWI forcing all of Germany to repay the cost of the war, turning them into a slave state. That still goes on to this day, who are we to judge their society more harshly than our own?

Asking someone to pay back the harm they have done is the same as owning them?

Wow.

<snip>
Oh - and to imply that the cultural traditions were okay, because someone else did it too? Sorry, I just don't buy that "It's okay, everyone is doing it" excuse.
I didn't say that. I keep trying to point out that we should remember them as human beings like ourselves, trying to make a living in this world the same as everyone else. They SHOULD have done a lot of stuff, we SHOULD do a lot of stuff. But slavery, along with many other civil rights, wouldn't be addressed (legally mind you, illegally it still goes one today) for more than one thousand, eight hundred years. It's kind of absurd to act like we are so much better than them.

I didn't say that. I keep trying to point out that we should remember them as human beings like ourselves, trying to make a living in this world the same as everyone else. They SHOULD have done a lot of stuff, we SHOULD do a lot of stuff. But slavery, along with many other civil rights, wouldn't be addressed (legally mind you, illegally it still goes one today) for more than one thousand, eight hundred years. It's kind of absurd to act like we are so much better than them.

And yet you ignore the fact that I never said anything even remotely close to "we're so much better than them."

Again, you see what you want to see, rather than what I am saying.

Edit: When we look around and see slavery occurring, we don't codify a set of laws about slavery and then say "God gave me these laws directly."

I didn't say that. I keep trying to point out that we should remember them as human beings like ourselves, trying to make a living in this world the same as everyone else. They SHOULD have done a lot of stuff, we SHOULD do a lot of stuff. But slavery, along with many other civil rights, wouldn't be addressed (legally mind you, illegally it still goes one today) for more than one thousand, eight hundred years. It's kind of absurd to act like we are so much better than them.

We ARE better... in terms of our society, at least. And, where we are not better, we should be... with much LESS excuse than they had, living in more primitive times.

Slavery is not good. It never has been. The only reason it has been so prevalent is greed... and I fail to see that as a good thing. It was, thus, not a good thing 2000 years ago... or 200 - but, just because it was still being done two centuries ago, or because Romans kept slaves at the same time the Hebrews did... does not make it 'okay'.

You talk about 'human beings' and yet you excuse slaveholding... do you not see the irony, there?

Similarly, you defend the phallocentric society and their 'ownership' of their women... who are what??? Somehow 'less' human?

Personally - I don't need a revolution to tell me that slavery is a bad thing, and I can't buy the idea that a loving 'god' thinks it's okay, either.

That, I would say, is one of the certain events where scripture was created by humans PURELY to satisfy what THEY wanted.

We ARE better... in terms of our society, at least. And, where we are not better, we should be... with much LESS excuse than they had, living in more primitive times.

Slavery is not good. It never has been. The only reason it has been so prevalent is greed... and I fail to see that as a good thing. It was, thus, not a good thing 2000 years ago... or 200 - but, just because it was still being done two centuries ago, or because Romans kept slaves at the same time the Hebrews did... does not make it 'okay'.

You talk about 'human beings' and yet you excuse slaveholding... do you not see the irony, there?

Similarly, you defend the phallocentric society and their 'ownership' of their women... who are what??? Somehow 'less' human?

Personally - I don't need a revolution to tell me that slavery is a bad thing, and I can't buy the idea that a loving 'god' thinks it's okay, either.

That, I would say, is one of the certain events where scripture was created by humans PURELY to satisfy what THEY wanted.

I'm not overly or blindly defending them at all, I'm freely admitting that they were sinners just like us, but I'm saying that if we took a hundred people now and moved them to then, and took a hundred people from then and moved them to now, nothing would change. People are people, they live and die and form opinion from the society they are born in.

If you think we are so much better than them, and agree with Dem that they shouldn't have codified rules for slavery, then I'll point out that they would be shocked, apalled, incredulous at our inhumanity for having codified, legalized, publicly support and mandate free access to abortion. They would never understand it. Sure, they had abortion too, but as a society they thought it was despicable. In the same way you find their slavery laws despicable, they can equally damn us.

If you do believe in God like I do, then you do believe that there is an ultimate "right" and an ultimate "wrong" that exist above our limitations of understanding. But apparently, God doesn't seem to think that death, slavery and entirely boundless freewill are among the ultimate bad things because he allows them on earth.

I'm not defending them at all, I'm freely admitting that they were sinners just like us, but I'm saying that if we took a hundred people now and moved them to then, and took a hundred people from then and moved them to now, nothing would change. People are people, they live and die and form opinion from the society they are born in.

If you think we are so much better than them, and agree with Dem that they shouldn't have codified rules for slavery, then I'll point out that they would be shocked, apalled, incredulous at our inhumanity for having codified, legalized, publicly support and mandate free access to abortion. They would never understand it. Sure, they had abortion too, but as a society they thought it was despicable. In the same way you find their slavery laws despicable, they can equally damn us.

If you do believe in God like I do, then you do believe that there is an ultimate "right" and an ultimate "wrong" that exist above our limitations of understanding. But apparently, God doesn't seem to think that death, slavery and entirely boundless freewill are among the ultimate bad things because he allows them on earth.

Well, first - I don't believe that concepts of 'wrong' and 'right' have any implicit connection to belief in 'god'. Not all who believe in gods believe there are ultimate extremes of wrong and right... and not all of those who believe in ultimate right and wrong believe in 'gods'... and certainly not 'your god'.

I don't believe in your god, and I don't buy the concept of ultimate right or wrong. Right and wrong are perspectives, just like good and evil - and they have no intrinsic value of their own.

I don't think it wrong that they codified rules for slavery... I think it is wrong that, on examination of what was allowable, they chose to be slaveholders. And it was a choice. I think that codification of rules was too little a gesture... and blaming it on god? I don't even know where to begin.

Regarding our policies on abortion... I think you lack evidence to say what they would have thought in it's regard. There are bible verses that can be read as saying that abortion is okay... and we KNOW that abortions have been carried out for thousands of years, now.

Perhaps the only difference of recent years has been how 'safe' abortion has got... and maybe a little more focus on what becomes of the aborted matter AFTER the abortion.

On a final note... I feel a little sorry for you... if you truly believe that we MUST be products JUST of our societies.

If you think we are so much better than them, and agree with Dem that they shouldn't have codified rules for slavery,

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said that they shouldn't have codified rules. At least they had some sort of control.

All I have said is (and I'll make sure you see it this time) I DONT'T BELIEVE THOSE RULES CAME FROM GOD. See?

then I'll point out that they would be shocked, apalled, incredulous at our inhumanity for having codified, legalized, publicly support and mandate free access to abortion.

Unlikely, considering that they did not consider the unborn to be fully human, as evidenced by laws that made the penalty for causing a miscarriage simply a fine to the father.

If you do believe in God like I do, then you do believe that there is an ultimate "right" and an ultimate "wrong" that exist above our limitations of understanding.

...and, I would assume, that God is that ultimate right - the ultimate good. As such, God could not possibly specifically condone evil.

But apparently, God doesn't seem to think that death, slavery and entirely boundless freewill are among the ultimate bad things because he allows them on earth.

Do you not see the difference between allowing something and mandating it?

But apparently, God doesn't seem to think that death, slavery and entirely boundless freewill are among the ultimate bad things because he allows them on earth.

Excuse me, but do I understand you correctly that God doesn't allow the ultimate bad things on earth? What kind of idea is that? And what would be the point of this? I mean looking back over the past 2000 years or even 200 years alone, I could name quite a few things that I would classify as ultimad bad things.

What kind of God do you believe in again? Because he sure is not the same one as mine!

I saw this and thought science was only created to prove God wrong. That' s why! And for the books Evolution was only a theory created by a man who didn't believe in it himself. In Australia 20,000 people believe in the Jedi religion which was made up in a movie, so does that make it true? Should we study this Religoin? No, Because it was a man who sat down and thought what could have happened if there was no God. Evolution is avery unrealistic view of how the everything was started. It also brings question why aren't apes still evolving. Why can't they give real proof and for those who believe in Evolution the Bible is the Christians proof. There was no actual proof we haven't left our Galaxy to know if things are evolving. If we evolved then there should be evolving somewhere else in a far away world.

The Soviet Mafia

There is a plan for the devil to reign the earth for many years and the things said in Revalations is coming true.... The reason for bad things is there will always be a good that prevails inspite of the losses some may witness or lose, there is eternal life when trusting in the lord.

I saw this and thought science was only created to prove God wrong. That' s why! And for the books Evolution was only a theory created by a man who didn't believe in it himself. In Australia 20,000 people believe in the Jedi religion which was made up in a movie, so does that make it true? Should we study this Religoin? No, Because it was a man who sat down and thought what could have happened if there was no God. Evolution is avery unrealistic view of how the everything was started. It also brings question why aren't apes still evolving. Why can't they give real proof and for those who believe in Evolution the Bible is the Christians proof. There was no actual proof we haven't left our Galaxy to know if things are evolving. If we evolved then there should be evolving somewhere else in a far away world.

The Soviet Mafia

You obviously don't believe in punctuation.. I am (seriously) having a hard time working out how to answer...

Put it this way: Just because George Lucas devised the 'Jedi' faith... that doesn't guarantee that it is NOT true, either...

After all, the only evidence for Christianity is a book.

Who says apes AREN'T still evolving?

And, how is evolution 'unrealistic'? Basically - it says that the fittest survive... which seems pretty realistic to me.

I saw this and thought science was only created to prove God wrong. That' s why! And for the books Evolution was only a theory created by a man who didn't believe in it himself. In Australia 20,000 people believe in the Jedi religion which was made up in a movie, so does that make it true? Should we study this Religoin? No, Because it was a man who sat down and thought what could have happened if there was no God. Evolution is avery unrealistic view of how the everything was started. It also brings question why aren't apes still evolving. Why can't they give real proof and for those who believe in Evolution the Bible is the Christians proof. There was no actual proof we haven't left our Galaxy to know if things are evolving. If we evolved then there should be evolving somewhere else in a far away world.

The Soviet Mafia

Bah, you haven't even read the thread, and you OBVIOUSLY haven't studied evolution.


First of all, and most importantly, science is not a tool used to debunk religion. Science and religion can and do live together every day, as noted by the millions of Christian scientists and the millions of religious people who use the benefits of science every day.

Secondly, there is an astonishing amount of proof to support evolution. To say that there is no proof is like saying there's no proof that the Earth is round.

Apes ARE still evolving.

And how do you know that life isn't evolving on another planet?


You probably think evolving means one species changes to another in one generation. At least, that's what it looks like you are implying.

Keep in mind, evolution has had billions of years to take place.

I saw this and thought science was only created to prove God wrong. That' s why!

Wow, you are completely uninformed of anything even remotely related to the truth, aren't you?

Science was in no way created to "prove God wrong", nor is that or has that ever been its purpose.

And for the books Evolution was only a theory created by a man who didn't believe in it himself.

Evolutionary theory was not created by a single person.

It also brings question why aren't apes still evolving.

They are. What on Earth makes you think they aren't?

If we evolved then there should be evolving somewhere else in a far away world.

How do you know there isn't?

And why exactly would evolution ocurring on one planet necessitate it happening on another?

There is a plan for the devil to reign the earth for many years and the things said in Revalations is coming true.... The reason for bad things is there will always be a good that prevails inspite of the losses some may witness or lose, there is eternal life when trusting in the lord.

The world is always coming to an end. I don't mean this in a deeply profound way in which we are getting closer to the end, not at all. I mean this in that EVERYONE says the world is going to end. Many Christians have believed that the world is ending for two thousand years. Before that, many other people believed that the world was ending. It's not just Christians. It is almost everyone who believes the world is ending!

THE SKY IS FALLING!
THERE'S A WOLF!
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

Frankly, what you say holds no water. It's nothing that hasn't been said for thousands of years.

I saw this and thought science was only created to prove God wrong.

Heh, why are you using a computer and internet then? It's the product of science as well, so why are you using this heretical device? ;)

That' s why! And for the books Evolution was only a theory created by a man who didn't believe in it himself.

Well, the truth is the theory of evolution has evolved far beyond what Charles Darwin started. And even then he didn't really start it. There has been breakthroughs like... Watson & Creek's discovery of DNA in the 1950's, all the experiments on DNA/RNA, numerous transitional forms in fossil record...


In Australia 20,000 people believe in the Jedi religion which was made up in a movie, so does that make it true? Should we study this Religoin?

Heh, ok, i have to say that Jedi quote is amusing.


No, Because it was a man who sat down and thought what could have happened if there was no God.

Are you talking about Charles Darwin or George Lucas? In either way, i don't think it does fit. :D

Evolution is avery unrealistic view of how the everything was started. It also brings question why aren't apes still evolving.

First of all evolution is NOT about 'how things started'. It happened billions of years after Big Bang, when will you Creationists learn it? Also, talk about unrealistic when you read the creation acount(s) in Genesis. Second, i'm not sure how good fossil record on the great apes is (actually, considering their reinforest environment and the poor chance of fossilization there, it should be remarkably low), but it i'm pretty sure we share some 98% of our DNA...


Why can't they give real proof and for those who believe in Evolution the Bible is the Christians proof.

Huh? How confusing. I'm sure that there is real good evidence for the theory of evolution. If that wasn't the case, it wouldn't exist. Seriously. And where is the evidence that the stuff in the bible really happened?

There was no actual proof we haven't left our Galaxy to know if things are evolving. If we evolved then there should be evolving somewhere else in a far away world.

Well, we don't have found life out there yet, but we have plenty of evidence that evolution happened here. :rolleyes:

Hmmm... right now i remember all that stuff about microfossils. I'm pretty sure that Yecs haven't heard of it and that they don't care. Because if they would, they wouldn't be Yecs.

I just reckon that there are wonderful transitional lines amongst them, allowing a very precise method of relative dating of the age (note that this should be totally impossible according to Yecs). Oh... and ever wondered where your precious oil comes from? It largely comes from dinoflagellata (microorganisms, not dinosaurs as the oil companies want you to believe!). I've also seen 2 billion year old fossils of Acritarchs from the Canadian shield... how strange, huh? :p ;)

If you think we are so much better than them, and agree with Dem that they shouldn't have codified rules for slavery, then I'll point out that they would be shocked, apalled, incredulous at our inhumanity for having codified, legalized, publicly support and mandate free access to abortion. They would never understand it. Sure, they had abortion too, but as a society they thought it was despicable. In the same way you find their slavery laws despicable, they can equally damn us.
After they got over all of our "magic powers" they might get around to abortion. Like in ten years But they'd be horrified by all surgery (not the egyptians though who might try to sell surgeons obsidian blades) as a violation of the body. Which is of course a sacred vessel. What they would find most offensive, like most Christians did, would be heart surgery because that's where they believed the soul was housed. Now, look how expert we are today. No one, but super-crazies, believe surgery is a sacrilege today? Why? The people who do believe that die. For nothing. Abortion is just like any other surgery. Your willful ignorance of the natural world, which is something of a spectacular achievement in the Information Age, shouldn't form the basis from which to disallow other people thier informed medical choices.

Actually, you might have closed it. Well said in any case!

Thanks very much.

Two questions:
1) If evolution is indeed true, this means that your brain is a random combination of chemicals that induces electronic impulses. It wasn't designed for a purpose. This being so, how can you be sure that what your brain thinks is right?
The answer for a creationist would, of course, be that the brain was designed by a God who knew what he was doing. Nature, however, wouldn't do such a thing.
2) You won't believe any evidence given by creation scientists on the grounds that it is "unscientific" or "bias". Why do you expect me to believe that your "scientists" will give the real truth any more than my "creation scientists"? Both sides are bias. I accept that. There is no neutral side. You can only get the "real" facts if you find them by yourself, not look them up in a textbook or online. Otherwise you must trust someone who may or may not be wrong as an assumption, thus making your axioms different from mine. A logical argument becomes impossible.

Evolution is a scam that is being advocated by the liberal media! FOX NEWS IS YOUR ONLY NEWS SOURCE.

That's fair and balanced to you mistah!

After they got over all of our "magic powers" they might get around to abortion. Like in ten years But they'd be horrified by all surgery (not the egyptians though who might try to sell surgeons obsidian blades) as a violation of the body. Which is of course a sacred vessel. What they would find most offensive, like most Christians did, would be heart surgery because that's where they believed the soul was housed. Now, look how expert we are today. No one, but super-crazies, believe surgery is a sacrilege today? Why? The people who do believe that die. For nothing. Abortion is just like any other surgery. Your willful ignorance of the natural world, which is something of a spectacular achievement in the Information Age, shouldn't form the basis from which to disallow other people thier informed medical choices.

What Christians believe is that killing an unborn child is like killing a born child: murder. We disagree with the Supreme Court and dare to say that unborn children aren't just growths. And just in case you don't remember, the Supreme Court was what allowed slavery and the Dread Scott laws. It was wrong before, it could be wrong again. And the heart is symbolic of the soul (or symbolic of a part of it). Some Christians are, of course, ignorant of the facts. Some aren't. Some evolutionists are ignorant of the facts. Some aren't. Just because someone believes something, are they branded forever as an ignorant redneck?

What Christians believe is that killing an unborn child is like killing a born child: murder. We disagree with the Supreme Court and dare to say that unborn children aren't just growths. And just in case you don't remember, the Supreme Court was what allowed slavery and the Dread Scott laws. It was wrong before, it could be wrong again. And the heart is symbolic of the soul (or symbolic of a part of it). Some Christians are, of course, ignorant of the facts. Some aren't. Some evolutionists are ignorant of the facts. Some aren't. Just because someone believes something, are they branded forever as an ignorant redneck?

Well then, most christian seem not to comprehend the idea that a clump of cells without a mind is as alive as someones genital warts or tumor.

I find that most people who do not accept evolution are farily ignorant, this is ofcourse, anecdotal, and I'm sure many of you have a Ph.D in something.

Evolution is a scam that is being advocated by the liberal media! FOX NEWS IS YOUR ONLY NEWS SOURCE.

That's fair and balanced to you mistah!

Fair and balanced like a scale with a mouse and and elephant!

Anybody know of a conservative online newspaper or something?

Well then, most christian seem not to comprehend the idea that a clump of cells without a mind is as alive as someones genital warts or tumor.

I find that most people who do not accept evolution are farily ignorant, this is ofcourse, anecdotal, and I'm sure many of you have a Ph.D in something.

Who are you to define what is and what is not human?

Who are you to define what is and what is not human?

I haven't defined anything as not human or human? What'cha talking about?

I haven't defined anything as not human or human? What'cha talking about?

The mindless clump of cells that isn't alive. I say that it is human, and this murder. You say that it isn't alive, isn't human, and thus can be killed without murder.
I say that it is murder because an embryo has unique DNA and wasn't caused by a random mutation in a body.

The mindless clump of cells that isn't alive. I say that it is human, and this murder. You say that it isn't alive, isn't human, and thus can be killed without murder.
I say that it is murder because an embryo has unique DNA and wasn't caused by a random mutation in a body.

I said Well then, most christian seem not to comprehend the idea that a clump of cells without a mind is as alive as someones genital warts or tumor.
You're twisting what I said. I did NOT say it wasn't alive, I did NOT say it wasn't human, it's a strawman. (That is, your arguement is a strawman)

Why would you say something is murder just because it has unique DNA? It's still a clump of cells without a mind.

how does one "believe" in evolution? its a scientific theory/fact.

i studied biology at a-level and 'believe' in evolution.

Then I would think you know it is not a fact by any scientific standard.

Liverbreath']Then I would think you know it is not a fact by any scientific standard.
A theory, in "science land" is the highest "form" and is the closest thing to something that "is true".

Author: Didn't vote, but I strongly do believe that there is somewhat of a middle path between evolution and creationism. The idea of Intelligent Design, or that a greater power put together the right circumstances to cause the first life and set up the system of evolution is accomodating to both sides, I believe. For example, many things in science cannot be completely understood, like the idea that a quark isn't made up of anything other than itself, it's the quantum amount of matter. Likewise, the idea that mass gains more mass as it accelerates closer to the speed of light, and, therefore since a photon is considered both to have mass but be massless. On the other side, the largest argument is to say that "God created man," and that is simply it. However, the creation of the universe, according to Genesis, took six days (on the seventh, God rested). However, what is a day to God? The Bible (especially the New Testament, which is what the Christian faith is most strongly founded upon) is FULL of parables. Who is to say to take the Old Testament literally? What I'm trying to say is that it's nothing to argue over, as many people can meet at a middle ground, but it requires some patience with the other.

Helovia (my nation's RP response): Of course it is only creationism, in the name of the Holy Empire of Helovia, only the Bible may be correct.

A theory, in "science land" is the highest "form" and is the closest thing to something that "is true".
There is a difference between truth and fact... If you want a facts, go to an anthropology or archaeology class. If you want truths, go to a seminary school or a philosophy class.

Author: Didn't vote, but I strongly do believe that there is somewhat of a middle path between evolution and creationism. The idea of Intelligent Design, or that a greater power put together the right circumstances to cause the first life and set up the system of evolution is accomodating to both sides, I believe. For example, many things in science cannot be completely understood, like the idea that a quark isn't made up of anything other than itself, it's the quantum amount of matter. Likewise, the idea that mass gains more mass as it accelerates closer to the speed of light, and, therefore since a photon is considered both to have mass but be massless. On the other side, the largest argument is to say that "God created man," and that is simply it. However, the creation of the universe, according to Genesis, took six days (on the seventh, God rested). However, what is a day to God? The Bible (especially the New Testament, which is what the Christian faith is most strongly founded upon) is FULL of parables. Who is to say to take the Old Testament literally? What I'm trying to say is that it's nothing to argue over, as many people can meet at a middle ground, but it requires some patience with the other.

Helovia (my nation's RP response): Of course it is only creationism, in the name of the Holy Empire of Helovia, only the Bible may be correct.

Yeah man, there are like things we don't KNOW yet. And this MUST mean there is a god.

How about the fact that the bible was written by some dudes in the desert a long time ago and they didn't really know what the fuck they were talking about?

There is a difference between truth and fact... If you want a facts, go to an anthropology or archaeology class. If you want truths, go to a seminary school or a philosophy class.
If you want food, go to the store, if you want a store, go to the food.

I am implying through satire that your post has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

I have'nt really read this entire thread all the way threw, but I can see where its going. I have a couple questions for the evolutionist side.1: Am I the only one on NS that truly, wholy,100% beileves in the Bible? I mean there is no million year gap between verse 1 and 2 of the Bible. 2:How do you know evolution is the way we came about? 3: Were you there when this happend? Look I dont mean to sound rude but I have read into this a little and thought it complete boguss. Ok example, I just did a geology study with a teacher who works at our homeschooling office,And this is what happend. How do you date the rock? By the fossils in it. Well then how do you date the fossils? By the rock. That my friends is circlier reasoning.

Another great example to prove the Bible is a man by the name of Dr.Kent Hovind who taught on this subject for a about 15 years:"Standing at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and concluding that the multiple bands that line the canyon walls are products of millions of years of sedimentation is just plain stupid. I spent a couple of weeks wandering through the Grand Canyon when I was in my early twenties. I was alone and was not given one of the government sponsored propaganda tours, but I had been told the same pseudo-science concerning the Canyon and its origin clear throughout my government school indoctrination program, beginning in elementary school. I was puzzled by it then, but far more puzzled when I looked at it in person.

The line that “it had been carved out by a river” made absolutely no sense to me, but what puzzled me more were the evenly colored stripes of even heights that were uniformly found throughout the entire canyon. Not being a Christian at that time, I was not troubled by the idea of the earth being millions or billions of years old, but I was not able to understand how each of these individual layers, or stripes, got to be of one unified color.

Did they expect us to believe that millions of years of light pink debris were followed by millions of years of gray debris, followed by millions of years of dark pink debris, and so forth? What possible factors could have explained this uniformity of color, not to mention the uniformity of the lines dividing the layers? They are relatively smooth, even lines that stretch for great distances without any signs of erosion between them. It actually looked like the product of different types and weights of silt settling after a flood, although at the time, I erroneously considered the possibility of more than one flood having been involved.

Being an agnostic at the time, I did not look at it as an argument for or against God, it was simply an observation based on common sense. The idea that nearly perfect stripes would have formed through years of decay, being of distinct and differing colors, and without erosion lines, was just plain dumb. If all of the earth looked like the Snake River Canyon their theory might have fooled me, but it does not, so I did see through it. I was puzzled at the time as to why they so many scientists were so gullible, but I just figured that they were morons and left it at that.

Years later, after coming to Christ and asking the Holy Spirit to guide me in all that I do, I understood why they insisted on following such a nonsensical theory. I then understood that they were not just morons, but they were morons with an agenda that guided all of their science falsely so called.

How truly sad that a person could look at that evidence of the great worldwide flood that the Bible tells us about, and to walk away from it spouting a fairy tale about great ages of the earth."

Please consider what this says and try also studying the Bible, because you cant really make a decison without both sides of the story.

I have'nt really read this entire thread all the way threw, but I can see where its going. I have a couple questions for the evolutionist side.1: Am I the only one on NS that truly, wholy,100% beileves in the Bible? I mean there is no million year gap between verse 1 and 2 of the Bible. 2:How do you know evolution is the way we came about? 3: Were you there when this happend? Look I dont mean to sound rude but I have read into this a little and thought it complete boguss. Ok example, I just did a geology study with a teacher who works at our homeschooling office,And this is what happend. How do you date the rock? By the fossils in it. Well then how do you date the fossils? By the rock. That my friends is circlier reasoning.

Another great example to prove the Bible is a man by the name of Dr.Kent Hovind who taught on this subject for a about 15 years:"Standing at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and concluding that the multiple bands that line the canyon walls are products of millions of years of sedimentation is just plain stupid. I spent a couple of weeks wandering through the Grand Canyon when I was in my early twenties. I was alone and was not given one of the government sponsored propaganda tours, but I had been told the same pseudo-science concerning the Canyon and its origin clear throughout my government school indoctrination program, beginning in elementary school. I was puzzled by it then, but far more puzzled when I looked at it in person.

The line that “it had been carved out by a river” made absolutely no sense to me, but what puzzled me more were the evenly colored stripes of even heights that were uniformly found throughout the entire canyon. Not being a Christian at that time, I was not troubled by the idea of the earth being millions or billions of years old, but I was not able to understand how each of these individual layers, or stripes, got to be of one unified color.

Did they expect us to believe that millions of years of light pink debris were followed by millions of years of gray debris, followed by millions of years of dark pink debris, and so forth? What possible factors could have explained this uniformity of color, not to mention the uniformity of the lines dividing the layers? They are relatively smooth, even lines that stretch for great distances without any signs of erosion between them. It actually looked like the product of different types and weights of silt settling after a flood, although at the time, I erroneously considered the possibility of more than one flood having been involved.

Being an agnostic at the time, I did not look at it as an argument for or against God, it was simply an observation based on common sense. The idea that nearly perfect stripes would have formed through years of decay, being of distinct and differing colors, and without erosion lines, was just plain dumb. If all of the earth looked like the Snake River Canyon their theory might have fooled me, but it does not, so I did see through it. I was puzzled at the time as to why they so many scientists were so gullible, but I just figured that they were morons and left it at that.

Years later, after coming to Christ and asking the Holy Spirit to guide me in all that I do, I understood why they insisted on following such a nonsensical theory. I then understood that they were not just morons, but they were morons with an agenda that guided all of their science falsely so called.

How truly sad that a person could look at that evidence of the great worldwide flood that the Bible tells us about, and to walk away from it spouting a fairy tale about great ages of the earth."

Please consider what this says and try also studying the Bible, because you cant really make a decison without both sides of the story.

How can you believe in the bible? It is a book, edited by the Romans and translated a million times. I don't understand your logic. The bible is a BOOK. It is not the same as science. IT IS A BOOK. IT IS A BOOK WRITTEN A LONG TIME AGO. Do you understand this? It was not written by scientists, it was written by ordinary people, with little or no understanding of the scientific world. IT IS A COLLECTION OF STORIES, AND THE STORIES ARE ABOUT PEOPLE.

Yeah. I believe in evolution but with Devine Intervention. But that's me.

Yeah. I believe in evolution but with Devine Intervention. But that's me.

I believe in evolution but with 20 percent less fat and invisible unicorns. But I'm retarded.

Who is this God person anyway? Does he pay taxes?

Two questions:
1) If evolution is indeed true, this means that your brain is a random combination of chemicals that induces electronic impulses. It wasn't designed for a purpose. This being so, how can you be sure that what your brain thinks is right?
The answer for a creationist would, of course, be that the brain was designed by a God who knew what he was doing. Nature, however, wouldn't do such a thing.


And, of course, the problem there is the assumption that, if there IS a god, he is the god we choose... who wouldn't just give us deluded brains for a giggle.

Persoanlly, I would say that the idea of a mechanism that has evolved to further the survival of an entity, is more likely to be 'objective' and concerned with what is 'real', than a mechanism spooned-in through the ears, by a magic ghost with an agenda.


2) You won't believe any evidence given by creation scientists on the grounds that it is "unscientific" or "bias". Why do you expect me to believe that your "scientists" will give the real truth any more than my "creation scientists"? Both sides are bias. I accept that. There is no neutral side. You can only get the "real" facts if you find them by yourself, not look them up in a textbook or online. Otherwise you must trust someone who may or may not be wrong as an assumption, thus making your axioms different from mine. A logical argument becomes impossible.

There is no such thing as 'creation science'. Creationism fails to meet the most basic requirements of 'scientific' methodology... so, it is NOT 'science'.

I have'nt really read this entire thread all the way threw, but I can see where its going. I have a couple questions for the evolutionist side.1: Am I the only one on NS that truly, wholy,100% beileves in the Bible? I mean there is no million year gap between verse 1 and 2 of the Bible. 2:How do you know evolution is the way we came about? 3: Were you there when this happend? Look I dont mean to sound rude but I have read into this a little and thought it complete boguss. Ok example, I just did a geology study with a teacher who works at our homeschooling office,And this is what happend. How do you date the rock? By the fossils in it. Well then how do you date the fossils? By the rock. That my friends is circlier reasoning.

Another great example to prove the Bible is a man by the name of Dr.Kent Hovind who taught on this subject for a about 15 years:"Standing at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and concluding that the multiple bands that line the canyon walls are products of millions of years of sedimentation is just plain stupid. I spent a couple of weeks wandering through the Grand Canyon when I was in my early twenties. I was alone and was not given one of the government sponsored propaganda tours, but I had been told the same pseudo-science concerning the Canyon and its origin clear throughout my government school indoctrination program, beginning in elementary school. I was puzzled by it then, but far more puzzled when I looked at it in person.

The line that “it had been carved out by a river” made absolutely no sense to me, but what puzzled me more were the evenly colored stripes of even heights that were uniformly found throughout the entire canyon. Not being a Christian at that time, I was not troubled by the idea of the earth being millions or billions of years old, but I was not able to understand how each of these individual layers, or stripes, got to be of one unified color.

Did they expect us to believe that millions of years of light pink debris were followed by millions of years of gray debris, followed by millions of years of dark pink debris, and so forth? What possible factors could have explained this uniformity of color, not to mention the uniformity of the lines dividing the layers? They are relatively smooth, even lines that stretch for great distances without any signs of erosion between them. It actually looked like the product of different types and weights of silt settling after a flood, although at the time, I erroneously considered the possibility of more than one flood having been involved.

Being an agnostic at the time, I did not look at it as an argument for or against God, it was simply an observation based on common sense. The idea that nearly perfect stripes would have formed through years of decay, being of distinct and differing colors, and without erosion lines, was just plain dumb. If all of the earth looked like the Snake River Canyon their theory might have fooled me, but it does not, so I did see through it. I was puzzled at the time as to why they so many scientists were so gullible, but I just figured that they were morons and left it at that.

Years later, after coming to Christ and asking the Holy Spirit to guide me in all that I do, I understood why they insisted on following such a nonsensical theory. I then understood that they were not just morons, but they were morons with an agenda that guided all of their science falsely so called.

How truly sad that a person could look at that evidence of the great worldwide flood that the Bible tells us about, and to walk away from it spouting a fairy tale about great ages of the earth."

Please consider what this says and try also studying the Bible, because you cant really make a decison without both sides of the story.

1) It doesn't say how long passed between the events of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

2) We don't 'know' evolution IS the way we came about... but the evidence suggests it. The ONLY people who claim to KNOW where we 'came from', are those who have the least evidence.

3) Where we 'there' when what happened? Evolution still seems to be going on around us.

4) Just because Kent Hovind cannot work out a mechanism by which soil colours could change with time (and, let's face it, a very BASIC bit of scientific thinking will present donzens of possible methods)... does not make the Christian origin myth true.

Another great example to prove the Bible is a man by the name of Dr.Kent Hovind.

Ahhh Dr. Dino...

Do yourself a favor.

It you want to be taken seriously, don't quote that idiot liar. Once people hear that name, they will tune you out as not knowing much if anything......

I studied evolution a bit in school, and I've read a bit about it since then. I can't say I fully understand it- I'm not an expert- but I have the general gist, and it's the most likely explanation I've seen so far.

That being said, I think it's perfectly possible that there was a God behind the creation of the universe, and I don't think God's existance can be proven one way or the other.

3) Where we 'there' when what happened? Evolution still seems to be going on around us.



Really?

Yes, really. Look at new strains of bacteria for proof.

Yes, really. Look at new strains of bacteria for proof.


Oh oh. Bacteria is something else. "Evolution" as in a creature of a lower order transforming into one of a higher order. And many bacteria species develop new strains because of the overuse of antibiotics - a human interference, not by default/chance.

No, moving into higher life forms is on example of evolution, not the whole thing. Furthermore, evolution is not by default or chance, survival of the fittest is a guiding process, not an unguided one. Secondly, if you understood how new strains of bacteria emerged from overuse of anti-biotics, you wouldn't have tried to use it against me.

No, moving into higher life forms is on example of evolution, not the whole thing. Furthermore, evolution is not by default or chance, survival of the fittest is a guiding process, not an unguided one. Secondly, if you understood how new strains of bacteria emerged from overuse of anti-biotics, you wouldn't have tried to use it against me.

Okay okay. I agree to that point. But bacteria jumping into another kind of bacteria doesn't explain/demonstrate how the monkeys at the zoo turned into humans of our kind - the "macroevolution" concept.

"Survival of the fittest", assuming we are all powerless and leaves everything to the conditions - which to me is pretty much "by default", "by what something else says which cannot be predicted or planned".

THIRDLY!! (lol) I don't get your statement. *blushes*

Oh oh. Bacteria is something else. "Evolution" as in a creature of a lower order transforming into one of a higher order. And many bacteria species develop new strains because of the overuse of antibiotics - a human interference, not by default/chance.
No it isn't. Evolution is the adaption by a creature to its surroundings to reproduce better.


Antibiotics are a perfect example of this because all that it does is force creatures to adapt or die. Very similar to problems that nature faces on its own, but only much accelerated. If you want an example of evolution in bacteria (easy to observe because their DNA copying is shoddy compared to ours and they have a short generation time) look at the adaption of bacteria to consume nylon.

No it isn't. Evolution is the adaption by a creature to its surroundings to reproduce better.


Antibiotics are a perfect example of this because all that it does is force creatures to adapt or die. Very similar to problems that nature faces on its own, but only much accelerated. If you want an example of evolution in bacteria (easy to observe because their DNA copying is shoddy compared to ours and they have a short generation time) look at the adaption of bacteria to consume nylon.

But the bacteria doesn't turn into something of higher order, like...something else...

I'm not saying evolution is impossible - just that it's a bit incredible as an explanation to the beginnings of all life on Earth.

It does explain it though. Think about the bacteria example over the course of billions of years, substitute anti-biotics for food suply. The beings that are most adept at gathering and using food effectively are going to live on, the ones that don't will be overrun by the oens that can. Eventually, as situations change, the conditions in which the organisms are surviving in may make it more suited for a different direction and so they keep changing. Eventually the original strand may not resemble the end one.

Now, say you have a world overrun with bacteria feeding on bacteria food and suddenly one of the mutations produces a two cell organism and eventually there multiple cell organisms can feed on the one cell bacteria. Thus we see an early food chain in the making. It is adapting to survive in the climate that produces lasting changes. As populations get divided by land barriers, the divide produces different changes on each until the two populations can no longer breed. This is all evolution. One thing I would suggest you look at is the Avida(SP?) computer software which created a model of this using computer code. Last I heard MIT had a gigantic computer server devoted to just looking at changes like these. Some of the adaptations are trully amazing.

But the bacteria doesn't turn into something of higher order, like...something else...

Says who? In my opinion it has turned into something of a higher order, a more adapted creature more fit in its environment. Remember, all of life has it niche, and it has adapted to fit it. Bacteria is no less evolved then humanity, we both have our niches. Arguably, they are better adapted then we are because you can find large numbers of bacteria everywhere, putting both our numbers and our ability to live in certain climates to shame.

I'm not saying evolution is impossible - just that it's a bit incredible as an explanation to the beginnings of all life on Earth.
It doesn't state that. That's abiogenesis, how often do we have to go over this?

However, it is a bit incredible (that it happened here), it's beautiful how well it works. Believe if you want that god did it, fine with me, so long as you leave the science to the scientists.

Yeah man, there are like things we don't KNOW yet. And this MUST mean there is a god.

How about the fact that the bible was written by some dudes in the desert a long time ago and they didn't really know what the fuck they were talking about?

Give me an error in the Bible.

However, it is a bit incredible (that it happened here), it's beautiful how well it works. Believe if you want that god did it, fine with me, so long as you leave the science to the scientists.

That's right. Religion is more about personal salvation. Science is trying to understand the natural world. I know how to separate my areas of knowledge. :D

Give me an error in the Bible.
What type of error?

Edit: Because there are many: Factual, contradictions, translation.

It has also been edited by the romans.'

Extra edited challenge: Give me an error in The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

Give me an error in the Bible.
What kind ... there are all kinds I could post (though you will try and explain them away in lenghty prociessies usualy)

Amazing how flawed or confusing or borderline a suposedly devinly inspired book is

Says who? In my opinion it has turned into something of a higher order, a more adapted creature more fit in its environment. Remember, all of life has it niche, and it has adapted to fit it. Bacteria is no less evolved then humanity, we both have our niches. Arguably, they are better adapted then we are because you can find large numbers of bacteria everywhere, putting both our numbers and our ability to live in certain climates to shame.

It doesn't state that. That's abiogenesis, how often do we have to go over this?

However, it is a bit incredible (that it happened here), it's beautiful how well it works. Believe if you want that god did it, fine with me, so long as you leave the science to the scientists.

If there is life that didn't arise from non-living material, there must be a God to create life. If God created life, God gets involved, to some degree, in the life on earth. What we then argue about is the amount of involvement that God had in creating the earth and life, what he (or she, or it, in some religions) did to make life, and who God is. We introduce theology, and we must argue with God in the equation. We argue the nature of God.

What type of error?

Edit: Because there are many: Factual, contradictions, translation.

It has also been edited by the romans.

Go with factual and contradictions.

If there is life that didn't arise from non-living material, there must be a God to create life. If God created life, God gets involved, to some degree, in the life on earth. What we then argue about is the amount of involvement that God had in creating the earth and life, what he (or she, or it, in some religions) did to make life, and who God is. We introduce theology, and we must argue with God in the equation. We argue the nature of God.

...not in science class.

But in theology class, certainly. It would be a very interesting discussion indeed, although in the end it would all come down to "I don't know."

Go with factual and contradictions.
Ok ... who was josephs father

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Go with factual and contradictions.
Contradictions: Check out This list (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html)

Factual: It says somewhere that earth was created in a week or something, this is wrong.

Contradictions: Check out This list (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html)

Factual: It says somewhere that earth was created in a week or something, this is wrong.
Genisis ... and you might want to start an arguement better then this ... a linky and a badly "somewhere it was writen"

You will just get ripped apart ... decent link but better to post the individual contradictions otherwise you wont get a cohesive response

Not contradictions, but two inherent qualities in the character of God.

Genisis ... and you might want to start an arguement better then this ... a linky and a badly "somewhere it was writen"

You will just get ripped apart ... decent link but better to post the individual contradictions otherwise you wont get a cohesive response

Okay, there are just so darn many! This is about the shape of the earth or something, I think I messed up the ctrl c :(
-----
ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
----
Not only factually absurd but also contradictions.

Not contradictions, but two inherent qualities in the character of God.
Nah, contradictions. Seriously.

I like to think about evolution and creationism like this----

You see, I don't think these two theories/beliefs are contradictions at all. I believe that God used evolution as a tool for his creations. The odds are against evolution, and a guiding force in the whole matter would greatly simplify things. Plus, I like to think God has just as much fun with science and new wonders as I do. I mean, come on! He made our planet, as well as a whole universe of new things to do. God's a freakin' artist!

I don't believe in either. I KNOW evolution is fact. I still put that I believed it though.

No. A creator figure complicates things exponentially because then not only do we have to explain the way things are now, we have to explain the nature of this creator and why things aren't better. That adds variables and makes it even more complicated.

i believe that there is no god, therefore evolution is what i believe. there is no other explanation imo.

Nah, contradictions. Seriously.
Not a contradiction, but a question concerning the ancestry of Christ:

Much is made of the ancestry of Jesus constructing a direct descend from Abraham (Matthew 1:1-17 (King James Version)):

1) The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2) Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
[Snip]
6) And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
7) And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
[Snip]
16)And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17)So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Hmm, sorry, but did I miss something? Since when is Joseph the biological Father of Jesus?

So either Joseph is the father of Jesus - then the bible is clearly wrong - or this whole ancestry is completely irrelevant - in which case there are parts of the bible that are factually wrong.

Not a contradiction, but a question concerning the ancestry of Christ:

Much is made of the ancestry of Jesus constructing a direct descend from Abraham (Matthew 1:1-17 (King James Version)):

1) The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2) Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
[Snip]
6) And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
7) And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
[Snip]
16)And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17)So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

Hmm, sorry, but did I miss something? Since when is Joseph the biological Father of Jesus?

So either Joseph is the father of Jesus - then the bible is clearly wrong - or this whole ancestry is completely irrelevant - in which case there are parts of the bible that are factually wrong.

Joseph was Jesus' legal father, not his biological father.

How can you believe in the bible? It is a book, edited by the Romans and translated a million times. I don't understand your logic. The bible is a BOOK. It is not the same as science. IT IS A BOOK. IT IS A BOOK WRITTEN A LONG TIME AGO. Do you understand this? It was not written by scientists, it was written by ordinary people, with little or no understanding of the scientific world. IT IS A COLLECTION OF STORIES, AND THE STORIES ARE ABOUT PEOPLE.

If there is a God, God can cause the editors of the Bible to edit correctly.

I have'nt really read this entire thread all the way threw, but I can see where its going. I have a couple questions for the evolutionist side.1: Am I the only one on NS that truly, wholy,100% beileves in the Bible? I mean there is no million year gap between verse 1 and 2 of the Bible. 2:How do you know evolution is the way we came about? 3: Were you there when this happend? Look I dont mean to sound rude but I have read into this a little and thought it complete boguss. Ok example, I just did a geology study with a teacher who works at our homeschooling office,And this is what happend. How do you date the rock? By the fossils in it. Well then how do you date the fossils? By the rock. That my friends is circlier reasoning.

Another great example to prove the Bible is a man by the name of Dr.Kent Hovind who taught on this subject for a about 15 years:"Standing at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and concluding that the multiple bands that line the canyon walls are products of millions of years of sedimentation is just plain stupid. I spent a couple of weeks wandering through the Grand Canyon when I was in my early twenties. I was alone and was not given one of the government sponsored propaganda tours, but I had been told the same pseudo-science concerning the Canyon and its origin clear throughout my government school indoctrination program, beginning in elementary school. I was puzzled by it then, but far more puzzled when I looked at it in person.

The line that “it had been carved out by a river” made absolutely no sense to me, but what puzzled me more were the evenly colored stripes of even heights that were uniformly found throughout the entire canyon. Not being a Christian at that time, I was not troubled by the idea of the earth being millions or billions of years old, but I was not able to understand how each of these individual layers, or stripes, got to be of one unified color.

Did they expect us to believe that millions of years of light pink debris were followed by millions of years of gray debris, followed by millions of years of dark pink debris, and so forth? What possible factors could have explained this uniformity of color, not to mention the uniformity of the lines dividing the layers? They are relatively smooth, even lines that stretch for great distances without any signs of erosion between them. It actually looked like the product of different types and weights of silt settling after a flood, although at the time, I erroneously considered the possibility of more than one flood having been involved.

Being an agnostic at the time, I did not look at it as an argument for or against God, it was simply an observation based on common sense. The idea that nearly perfect stripes would have formed through years of decay, being of distinct and differing colors, and without erosion lines, was just plain dumb. If all of the earth looked like the Snake River Canyon their theory might have fooled me, but it does not, so I did see through it. I was puzzled at the time as to why they so many scientists were so gullible, but I just figured that they were morons and left it at that.

Years later, after coming to Christ and asking the Holy Spirit to guide me in all that I do, I understood why they insisted on following such a nonsensical theory. I then understood that they were not just morons, but they were morons with an agenda that guided all of their science falsely so called.

How truly sad that a person could look at that evidence of the great worldwide flood that the Bible tells us about, and to walk away from it spouting a fairy tale about great ages of the earth."

Please consider what this says and try also studying the Bible, because you cant really make a decison without both sides of the story.

I believe the Bible 100% as well. I have read much of Dr. Kent Hovind's stuff, and I find it very good. I still don't understand how people can believe the "theory" of evolution, and arguing with people about their axioms is pointless. There must be a God to create life, so a scientific argument about evolution is pointless.

Okay, there are just so darn many! This is about the shape of the earth or something, I think I messed up the ctrl c :(
-----
ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
----
Not only factually absurd but also contradictions.

Poetic, and could be in reference to an expanding universe.

And, of course, the problem there is the assumption that, if there IS a god, he is the god we choose... who wouldn't just give us deluded brains for a giggle.

Persoanlly, I would say that the idea of a mechanism that has evolved to further the survival of an entity, is more likely to be 'objective' and concerned with what is 'real', than a mechanism spooned-in through the ears, by a magic ghost with an agenda.



There is no such thing as 'creation science'. Creationism fails to meet the most basic requirements of 'scientific' methodology... so, it is NOT 'science'.

Case in point.

I believe the Bible 100% as well. I have read much of Dr. Kent Hovind's stuff, and I find it very good. I still don't understand how people can believe the "theory" of evolution, and arguing with people about their axioms is pointless. There must be a God to create life, so a scientific argument about evolution is pointless.

Hey man thanks. From reading all these responses I was losing hope. And I dont get some of there logic like, God using evolution as a tool for creation. If that were true it would have been written down. And what I think is God made the evolution theory to make us look like idiots.

...not in science class.

But in theology class, certainly. It would be a very interesting discussion indeed, although in the end it would all come down to "I don't know."

Well, you would end up with just a few choices. And why not in science class? Theology is the science of God. You just can't argue the origin of species and say "no God" in science when God must exist to explain life. At that point, you must assume that there is a god, or you assume that the earth could make itself. Option one takes you to theology, option two takes you to the funny farm.

Well, you would end up with just a few choices. And why not in science class? Theology is the science of God. You just can't argue the origin of species and say "no God" in science when God must exist to explain life. At that point, you must assume that there is a god, or you assume that the earth could make itself. Option one takes you to theology, option two takes you to the funny farm.

As for most of the "errors", the Hebrew view of the importance of chronology (almost nil) can explain most of them, others are just plain idiotic.

Well, you would end up with just a few choices.

Really? There are only a few possible traits of God? An infinte being?

And why not in science class?

Because it isn't science and doesn't follow the scientific method.

You just can't argue the origin of species and say "no God" in science when God must exist to explain life.

(a) The origin of species and the beginning of life are two different things. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

(b) There is no logical reason to say that God must exist to explain life.

At that point, you must assume that there is a god, or you assume that the earth could make itself. Option one takes you to theology, option two takes you to the funny farm.

Or you assume that the universe has always been around, just as theologians assume that God has always been around. Or you assume that energy was the first thing.

Seriously, if you are going to try and argue, at least do it in an intelligent manner.

I think, as it is logically impossible for person A to convince person B that "B"'s axioms are wrong, that I will leave this forum for a while. I think until I get through high school. I am a 14 year old fanatic, and I doubt that what anyone says will change any minds.

I think, as it is logically impossible for person A to convince person B that "B"'s axioms are wrong, that I will leave this forum for a while. I think until I get through high school. I am a 14 year old fanatic, and I doubt that what anyone says will change any minds.

The funny thing is that, on the idea of God, you and I are at the same axiom.

The problem is that you refuse to actually examine that axiom. In the end, which side to choose comes down to faith, one way o rthe other.

I'm not trying to convince you not to believe in God - far from it. I am simply pointing out that respect for others' viewpoints is warranted. And, from a scientific point of view, God is an axiom that science can't make a distinction on.

I believe the Bible 100% as well. I have read much of Dr. Kent Hovind's stuff, and I find it very good. I still don't understand how people can believe the "theory" of evolution, and arguing with people about their axioms is pointless. There must be a God to create life, so a scientific argument about evolution is pointless.

For one thing; Hovind is a liar. He has that silly reward for proof and people have submitted for it and he will not acknowledge it.

His "stuff" is garbage and is routinly discredited.

I saw awhile back that he was getting investigated by the IRS.

Finally, the use of DR. you might want to specify what his PhD is in. It implies he is a scientist.

Well, you would end up with just a few choices. And why not in science class? Theology is the science of God. You just can't argue the origin of species and say "no God" in science when God must exist to explain life. At that point, you must assume that there is a god, or you assume that the earth could make itself. Option one takes you to theology, option two takes you to the funny farm.

Theology is the science of God? Ahhhmmm okayyyyyy.

For one thing you fail to understand, sciene especially evolution has never sought to prove or disprove god(s).

In science you never make assumptions. It goes against the method. The fact you claim for assumptions shows theology is NOT science.

Why would a perfect God feel the need to create the Universe? Why would a perfect God feel the need to create anything at all?

Why would a perfect God feel the need to create the Universe? Why would a perfect God feel the need to create anything at all?

Why not? Does being perfect preclude doing things simply because you can?

If there is a God, God can cause the editors of the Bible to edit correctly.

That would negate free will, and apparently God didn't want to do that, or the horrible things people do to one another would not be allowed.

Also, the fact remains that there are different versions of the Bible. If God had been 'causing people to edit it correctly' why would he also allow other people to edit it incorrectly, with there being no clear indication as to which version is right?

That would negate free will, and apparently God didn't want to do that, or the horrible things people do to one another would not be allowed.

Also, the fact remains that there are different versions of the Bible. If God had been 'causing people to edit it correctly' why would he also allow other people to edit it incorrectly, with there being no clear indication as to which version is right?
Im not sure ... he seemed fine killing people by the millions for not following his path but seems to have issues with giving us a clear text to follow because of free will :rolleyes:

Joseph was Jesus' legal father, not his biological father.
Yes I know, but in that case the ancestry of Joseph is irrelevant. So why include this in the NT? Why create a direct line of ancestry from Abraham to Jesus?

So why would this be included? To highten the standing of Jesus "See, he's a descendant from Abraham"?
My point is that if you take the bible literary than everything that is written in it must be true and important. But the ancestry of Jesus is either not true (as there's no connection between him and Abraham) or irrelevant.

I was brought up on the bible being allegorical, i.e. to be true but not to be understood verbatim. The bible was written by men of their time for the people of their time but also for the ages. The only way to do so is to use allegorys and metaphers that can transcend the differences in societies' circumstances.

People have to understand that the Christian God and any other Holy figure are just literay elements trying to explain the creation of things. Early people would sit around and wonder: "Where did the sun originate?" So they made a story to explain it. Creation is just one of these stories that have survived the modern day. Don't get me wrong, I'm not atheist, I'm a Cathloic, I just don't believe anything in the Bible with God in it. Jesus' teachings are great, and they soothe me when I'm upset, but Creation is just rubbish.

People have to understand that the Christian God and any other Holy figure are just literay elements trying to explain the creation of things. Early people would sit around and wonder: "Where did the sun originate?" So they made a story to explain it. Creation is just one of these stories that have survived the modern day. Don't get me wrong, I'm not atheist, I'm a Cathloic, I just don't believe anything in the Bible with God in it. Jesus' teachings are great, and they soothe me when I'm upset, but Creation is just rubbish.

You're Catholic, yet you don't believe in creationism? That's rather odd... Do you get minority benefits from the Democrats?

I found a nice creatonist site http://www.pathlights.com. They also had some interesting things on homosexuals (http://www.pathlights.com/Public%20Enemies/Homo-sheet.htm):

Very openminded of them! :( This is so incredibly stupid I'm just going to have to send it to people. :)

You're Catholic, yet you don't believe in creationism? That's rather odd... Do you get minority benefits from the Democrats? Evidently you don't understand Catholicism.

You're Catholic, yet you don't believe in creationism? That's rather odd... Do you get minority benefits from the Democrats?
I don't know any Catholic who believes in creationism and believe me, I've been surrounded by them since my birth ;)

I even went to a Catholic school and the first I heard about creationism was in a discussion while visiting the states. Evolution is accepted within the Catholic church. It doesn't invalidate the idea of a creator, after all. Also the bible is not taking literally in the Catholic church, but allegorically.

I don't know any Catholic who believes in creationism and believe me, I've been surrounded by them since my birth ;)

I even went to a Catholic school and the first I heard about creationism was in a discussion while visiting the states. Evolution is accepted within the Catholic church. It doesn't invalidate the idea of a creator, after all. Also the bible is not taking literally in the Catholic church, but allegorically.

Funny, every Catholic I know believes in the Bilble.

Funny, every Catholic I know believes in the Bilble.

"Believes in the Bible" != "Creationist"

Funny, every Catholic I know believes in the Bilble.


Psst. I am a Catholic and belive in Evolution. :eek:

Evolution has never sought to prove or disprove the existence of God.

evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, the zealots just can't accept that

While the Catholic Church has not always endorsed evolution, it has never declared it contrary to Catholic teachings, not officially anyway. Since Vatican II however (ending 1967), the Church has officially endorsed the theory, as well as Big Bang. I grew up in a house with very scientific influences (I didn't put Einsteinian in my name for nothing), and they have never interfered with my faith.

Its weird, before I got on NS General, I thought Creationism was extinct. I grew up in a very scientific, Catholic household with a father who had told me from the begginning of my life that the creation stories in Genesis were important theologically, but not scientifically. I just assumed that the issues surrounding Evoution died years ago...

I have been saying this since I started on these forumns...

Ihatevacations']evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive, the zealots just can't accept that

Well I am a zealot then. Creationism doesn't belong in the science classroom.

Well I am a zealot then. Creationism doesn't not belong in the science classroom.

Believeing that does not make you a zelot.

I have been saying this since I started on these forumns...

Actually they haven't really changed much.

All JP II said was that it was more then a hypothesis....

Believeing that does not make you a zelot.


Actually I can't type. There was an extra "not" in the statement.....

Actually they haven't really changed much.

All JP II said was that it was more then a hypothesis....

Bullshit. The catechism of the Catholic Church states that Genesis is a metaphorical account and is not to be take litterally. Every pope since Pius XI has supported Evolution and Big Bang theories.

Actually I can't type. There was an extra "not" in the statement.....

:) I didn't notice the extra not. What I meant to say is that to believe that Creationism does not belong in a science classroom does not make you a zealot.

Bullshit. The catechism of the Catholic Church states that Genesis is a metaphorical account and is not to be take litterally. Every pope since Pius XI has supported Evolution and Big Bang theories.

Do a linky then. The vatican site is not that great for that kind of info. Or I just haven't figured out their search engine. ;)

Don't forget Italy made an effort to remove evolution from school. Luckily people got that changed really quick.

Funny, every Catholic I know believes in the Bilble.
I believe the bible to be true. The bible is true allegorically, not verbatim.

I believe the Bible 100% as well. I have read much of Dr. Kent Hovind's stuff, and I find it very good. I still don't understand how people can believe the "theory" of evolution, and arguing with people about their axioms is pointless. There must be a God to create life, so a scientific argument about evolution is pointless.

From what i can tell, Kend Hovind is nothing more that a liar and a charlatan (a very pathetic ones as well!), and his life outside of his Creationist activities is highly dubious as well (it would be justified to call him a 'spawn of satan', imho :D).

From my expirience you have to be blind for reality if you believe literally into Genesis. Creationists are blind for concepts like paleo-ecology, taphonomy and other methods. A god (in the religious sense, that is) is not necessary at all. One could perhaps say that nature is it's own 'god', though. ;)

i believe that there is no god, therefore evolution is what i believe. there is no other explanation imo.

Ah, but THERE IS. CREATIONISM.

I do not have an opinion without an argument. How do evolutionists explain:


Think of any two numbers. Make a third by adding the first and second, a fourth by adding the second and third, and so on. When you have written down about 20 numbers, calculate the ratio of the last to the second from last. The answer should be close to 1.6180339887...
What's the significance of this number? It's the "golden ratio" and, arguably, it crops up in more places in art, music and so on than any number except pi. Claude Debussy used it explicitly in his music and Le Corbusier in his architecture. There are claims the number was used by Leonardo da Vinci in the painting of the Mona Lisa, by the Greeks in building the Parthenon and by ancient Egyptians in the construction of the Great Pyramid of Khufu.

What makes the golden ratio special is the number of mathematical properties it possesses. The golden ratio is the only number whose square can be produced simply by adding 1 and whose reciprocal by subtracting 1. If you take a golden rectangle - one whose length-to-breadth is in the golden ratio - and snip out a square, what remains is another, smaller golden rectangle. The golden ratio is also difficult to pin down: it's the most difficult to express as any kind of fraction and its digits - 10 million of which were computed in 1996 - never repeat.

It was this elusive nature that led the 15th-century Italian friar and mathematician Luca Pacioli to equate the golden ratio with the incomprehensibility of God. Although Euclid defined it around 300 BC, and the followers of Pythagoras probably knew of it two centuries earlier, it was Pacioli's three-volume treatise, The Divine Proportion, that was crucial in disseminating the golden ratio beyond the world of mathematics.

Da Vinci was a friend of Pacioli's and almost certainly would have read the book, hence the claim that he painted the face of the Mona Lisa to fit inside a hypothetical golden rectangle.

"Of course, it all depends on how you draw the rectangle!" says Mario Livio, who has written a book called The Golden Ratio and who is head of science at Baltimore's Space Telescope Science Institute.

The appeal of the divine proportion to the human eye and brain has been scientifically tested. Dozens of psychological tests, beginning with those of Gustav Fechner in the 19th century, have shown that, when subjects are presented with a range of rectangles, they invariably pick out as most pleasing ones whose sides are in the golden ratio.

But the most surprising thing is that a number deemed aesthetically pleasing by human beings also crops up in nature and science. Take the arrangement of leaves on the stem of a plant. As each new leaf grows, it does so at an angle offset from that of the leaf below. The most com mon angle between successive leaves is 137.5 - the golden angle. Why? Because 137.5 = 360 - 360/G, where G is the golden ratio. Why does the golden ratio play a role in the arrangement of leaves? It's all down to the "irrationality" of the number. Irrational numbers are ones that cannot be expressed as the ratio of two whole numbers - for instance, 5/2.

"The golden ratio is arguably the most irrational of all irrational numbers," says Livio. This can be said more precisely. Irrational numbers can be expressed as continued fractions - basically an infinite series of ever-diminishing terms. As each successive term is added, the continued fraction converges towards a single value.

"The golden ratio is the slowest of all continued fractions to converge," says Livio. This turns out to be the key property. A new leaf must collect sunlight without throwing the leaves below it into too much shadow. A plant must arrange its leaves in such a way that the greatest number can spiral around the stem before a new leaf sprouts immediately above a lower one - that is offset at 360.

"What better way to do this than to choose an angle between leaves based on a number that takes the longest to converge?" says Livio.

The golden ratio also crops up in the hard sciences. Take the growth of "quasi-crystals". These have "five-fold symmetry", which means they make a pattern that looks the same when rotated by multiples of one-fifth of 360 . In the 1990s, physicists in Switzerland and the US imaged the microscopic terrain of the surface of such crystals. They found flat "terraces" punctuated by abrupt vertical steps. The steps come in two predominant sizes. The ratio of the two step heights? The golden ratio!

Even pythagoreans may have known of the association of the golden ratio with five-fold symmetry. The symbol of their cult was the five-pointed star, and the ratio of the length of the side of each triangular point to its projected base is the golden ratio.

Perhaps the most surprising place the golden ratio crops up is in the physics of black holes, a discovery made by Paul Davies of the University of Adelaide in 1989. Black holes and other self-gravitat ing bodies such as the sun have a "negative specific heat". This means they get hotter as they lose heat. Basically, loss of heat robs the gas of a body such as the sun of internal pressure, enabling gravity to squeeze it into a smaller volume. The gas then heats up, for the same reason that the air in a bicycle pump gets hot when it is squeezed.

Things are not so simple, however, for a spinning black hole, since there is an outward "centrifugal force" acting to prevent any shrinkage of the hole. The force depends on how fast the hole is spinning. It turns out that at a critical value of the spin, a black hole flips from negative to positive specific heat - that is, from growing hotter as it loses heat to growing colder. What determines the critical value? The mass of the black hole and the golden ratio!

Why is the golden ratio associated with black holes? "It's a complete enigma," Livio confesses. Shakespeare said it all: "There are more things in heaven and earth..."


My my my. So, what are the chances that the 'golden ratio' would appear if we all were products of evolution? I mean, for all those logical minds out there, how could a plant grow exatly that way, with the ratio predominant in it's growth pattern? What are the chances that that number would also be impossible to pin down and also in the step patterns of crystals? And in a black hole?
As Shakespere put it... 'There are more things in heaven and earth...'

How do evolutionists explain:


Think of any two numbers. Make a third by adding the first and second, a fourth by adding the second and third, and so on. When you have written down about 20 numbers, calculate the ratio of the last to the second from last. The answer should be close to 1.6180339887...
What's the significance of this number? It's the "golden ratio" and, arguably, it crops up in more places in art, music and so on than any number except pi. Claude Debussy used it explicitly in his music and Le Corbusier in his architecture. There are claims the number was used by Leonardo da Vinci in the painting of the Mona Lisa, by the Greeks in building the Parthenon and by ancient Egyptians in the construction of the Great Pyramid of Khufu.

What makes the golden ratio special is the number of mathematical properties it possesses. The golden ratio is the only number whose square can be produced simply by adding 1 and whose reciprocal by subtracting 1. If you take a golden rectangle - one whose length-to-breadth is in the golden ratio - and snip out a square, what remains is another, smaller golden rectangle. The golden ratio is also difficult to pin down: it's the most difficult to express as any kind of fraction and its digits - 10 million of which were computed in 1996 - never repeat.

It was this elusive nature that led the 15th-century Italian friar and mathematician Luca Pacioli to equate the golden ratio with the incomprehensibility of God. Although Euclid defined it around 300 BC, and the followers of Pythagoras probably knew of it two centuries earlier, it was Pacioli's three-volume treatise, The Divine Proportion, that was crucial in disseminating the golden ratio beyond the world of mathematics.

Da Vinci was a friend of Pacioli's and almost certainly would have read the book, hence the claim that he painted the face of the Mona Lisa to fit inside a hypothetical golden rectangle.

"Of course, it all depends on how you draw the rectangle!" says Mario Livio, who has written a book called The Golden Ratio and who is head of science at Baltimore's Space Telescope Science Institute.

The appeal of the divine proportion to the human eye and brain has been scientifically tested. Dozens of psychological tests, beginning with those of Gustav Fechner in the 19th century, have shown that, when subjects are presented with a range of rectangles, they invariably pick out as most pleasing ones whose sides are in the golden ratio.

But the most surprising thing is that a number deemed aesthetically pleasing by human beings also crops up in nature and science. Take the arrangement of leaves on the stem of a plant. As each new leaf grows, it does so at an angle offset from that of the leaf below. The most com mon angle between successive leaves is 137.5 - the golden angle. Why? Because 137.5 = 360 - 360/G, where G is the golden ratio. Why does the golden ratio play a role in the arrangement of leaves? It's all down to the "irrationality" of the number. Irrational numbers are ones that cannot be expressed as the ratio of two whole numbers - for instance, 5/2.

"The golden ratio is arguably the most irrational of all irrational numbers," says Livio. This can be said more precisely. Irrational numbers can be expressed as continued fractions - basically an infinite series of ever-diminishing terms. As each successive term is added, the continued fraction converges towards a single value.

"The golden ratio is the slowest of all continued fractions to converge," says Livio. This turns out to be the key property. A new leaf must collect sunlight without throwing the leaves below it into too much shadow. A plant must arrange its leaves in such a way that the greatest number can spiral around the stem before a new leaf sprouts immediately above a lower one - that is offset at 360.

"What better way to do this than to choose an angle between leaves based on a number that takes the longest to converge?" says Livio.

The golden ratio also crops up in the hard sciences. Take the growth of "quasi-crystals". These have "five-fold symmetry", which means they make a pattern that looks the same when rotated by multiples of one-fifth of 360 . In the 1990s, physicists in Switzerland and the US imaged the microscopic terrain of the surface of such crystals. They found flat "terraces" punctuated by abrupt vertical steps. The steps come in two predominant sizes. The ratio of the two step heights? The golden ratio!

Even pythagoreans may have known of the association of the golden ratio with five-fold symmetry. The symbol of their cult was the five-pointed star, and the ratio of the length of the side of each triangular point to its projected base is the golden ratio.

Perhaps the most surprising place the golden ratio crops up is in the physics of black holes, a discovery made by Paul Davies of the University of Adelaide in 1989. Black holes and other self-gravitat ing bodies such as the sun have a "negative specific heat". This means they get hotter as they lose heat. Basically, loss of heat robs the gas of a body such as the sun of internal pressure, enabling gravity to squeeze it into a smaller volume. The gas then heats up, for the same reason that the air in a bicycle pump gets hot when it is squeezed.

Things are not so simple, however, for a spinning black hole, since there is an outward "centrifugal force" acting to prevent any shrinkage of the hole. The force depends on how fast the hole is spinning. It turns out that at a critical value of the spin, a black hole flips from negative to positive specific heat - that is, from growing hotter as it loses heat to growing colder. What determines the critical value? The mass of the black hole and the golden ratio!

Why is the golden ratio associated with black holes? "It's a complete enigma," Livio confesses. Shakespeare said it all: "There are more things in heaven and earth..."


My my my. So, what are the chances that the 'golden ratio' would appear if we all were products of evolution? I mean, for all those logical minds out there, how could a plant grow exatly that way, with the ratio predominant in it's growth pattern? What are the chances that that number would also be impossible to pin down and also in the step patterns of crystals? And in a black hole?
As Shakespere put it... 'There are more things in heaven and earth...'

What you posted has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with evolution. Learn about something before posting on it. Ignorance is not appreciated.

10 bucks it's a C&P.

My my my. So, what are the chances that the 'golden ratio' would appear if we all were products of evolution? I mean, for all those logical minds out there, how could a plant grow exatly that way, with the ratio predominant in it's growth pattern? What are the chances that that number would also be impossible to pin down and also in the step patterns of crystals? And in a black hole?
As Shakespere put it... 'There are more things in heaven and earth...'

The golden ratio has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

And, even if the GR could be used as an argument for the existence of God - evolution does not posit a lack of God, so it still has nothing to do with it.

Also, this would mean that God couldn't get it right first time. Even with evolution, He would have to start with something, so why wouldn't He start with a perfect world?



Let's start from the top, shall we? God DID start with a perfect world. Then Satan, sin, and entropy came into being as Adam and Eve ate the darn apple. God DID get it right. We got it wrong.

The golden ratio has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

And, even if the GR could be used as an argument for the existence of God - evolution does not posit a lack of God, so it still has nothing to do with it.

(Sigh.) How do I begin? It has everything whatsoever to do with it because of its very existence. If everything did come from the 'Big Bang' then chances are, a thing like this couldn't happen. And if a number that indescribebly RIGHT were preset somewhere, what would be the chances that it would re-occur in several prominent places?
Also, this argument ISN'T arguing against the people who belive that God is present and did create us. It IS arguing against the people who belive there is no God, and that we landed here as some kind of mistake.

Let's start from the top, shall we? God DID start with a perfect world. Then Satan, sin, and entropy came into being as Adam and Eve ate the darn apple. God DID get it right. We got it wrong.
if there is a god than he could fix that because he would be perfect

if there is a god than he could fix that because he would be perfect

Hehe- NO.

Let's say God made us all perfect, and the world too, and destroyed Satan, sin, ect., ect. Then we wouldn't be choosing Jesus. We wouldn't be choosing at all. Just *POOF* and we're perfect. In the very beggining Adam and Eve had to choose wether or not to eat the darn apple. We have to CHOOSE to follow him, not us being perfect robots, following God's will.

That's really how Satan got started. God gave Satan a choice to obey him, but Satan fell from heaven along with 1/3 of the angels. Is the knowledge coming back to you?

So then all of us have to choose wether or not to accept Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. If God made us all perfect, then we wouldn't have any bad thoughts or do any bad things. (We'd be robots- in short.) If you're intrested more in that, then go to:

www.sda.org (http://)

Their is one big problem with the whole god theory.
That is who created God?
Another God?
If so who created him?
Another God?
And so on, so on.
Even if their was a God that created us it would have to come from some where, so at some point their must of been nothing.

The bible at no point says their was no evolution in fact if you read it it kind off suggests that their was evolution.
God created the world in seven days, which many think it is meant to say Seven Ages. Monkeys simple came the age before man.(it has been a few years since I read the bible so I cant remember the exact words). I was raised a catholic, but in my later years i turned from it, as i believe that even is their is god he will accept me so long as i don’t do any thing to bad. if he really is perfect he would not care if we worshipped him or not.

So I believe that evolution is correct and that a God may Exist.

What you posted has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with evolution. Learn about something before posting on it. Ignorance is not appreciated.

10 bucks it's a C&P.

Look at my other answer to that question. Oh, and it does have something to do with evolution.

Ignorance is not appreciated. (Nor is cursing.)

Oh, and it does have something to do with evolution.

No, it doesn't. Evolution does not equal atheism. Evolution does not equal the Big Bang. Evolution does not equal abiogenesis. Not only do you have no knowledge of the field, you have anti-knowledge, which reacts with regular knowledge, dropping my IQ by ten points every time I read your lame assertions.

If we did evolve from apes why couldn't it have been God who had evolved us. Just like his chosen people could he have evolved us to be more like him. By the way if you strongly belive in Adam and Eve I have a query for you. Incest is wrong, Yet There was only Adam, Eve, Cain, Able, and their two sisters. Why couldn't Adam and Eve havebeen a symbol for a group of Women and men.

(Sigh.) How do I begin? It has everything whatsoever to do with it because of its very existence. If everything did come from the 'Big Bang' then chances are, a thing like this couldn't happen. And if a number that indescribebly RIGHT were preset somewhere, what would be the chances that it would re-occur in several prominent places?
Also, this argument ISN'T arguing against the people who belive that God is present and did create us. It IS arguing against the people who belive there is no God, and that we landed here as some kind of mistake.

1) The existence of a number has nothing to do with proof of God or Creationism. Nor does it in any way disprove evolution.

2) The Big Bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

3) What are the chances the number would reoccur in several places? 100% - as it did. We can't really calculate chances after the fact. People look at a lot of things and say "What are the chances?" The truth is, it has already happened - the probability is 1.

4) Atheism and evolution are not the same. If your goal is to argue against atheism, find a thread related to that.

Let's start from the top, shall we? God DID start with a perfect world. Then Satan, sin, and entropy came into being as Adam and Eve ate the darn apple. God DID get it right. We got it wrong.

God started with a formless void, didn't he? Started WITH chaos and imposed order... or, that's the way I read it.

Add to that, of course... no mention anywhere, of an apple...

Oh man. Who brought THIS thread up from the long dead???

Oh man. Who brought THIS thread up from the long dead???

It must be the science and RE teachers at my school. They had an argument in assembily over it! :p