NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to me that with all the empirical evidence that evolution is part of the natural scientific order of the world that religious people would have a rather hard time countering it.

So what exactly is the argument? Evolution (and the Big Bang) have been proven to be factual. Why deny what has been seen?

Yes, even the once stronghold of old-fashioned views, the Catholic Church, has excepted evolution. Though the religious belief that God influences evolution according to his plan.

Well, I'm a religious man, and believe in the idea behind Adam & Eve, however, I am also a man of science.

I believe that God put people like, "Lucy" or "Neanderthal" on the Earth, and civilization grew from that point on. Don't quite believe that some perfect humans were dropped down, especially with all of the bone evidence that has come out of the woodworks.

I certainly do!

Its becuase after 2000 years of screaming "I cant hear you LA LA LA!!!"..your voice gets raw, and you eventually have to listen.

I'm the same as Valori.

Too much evidence for 'poof and it's there'.

Which is why me and my mom can no longer talk about how the world started. heh.

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg

"Those who do not adapt, become victims of Evolution."

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg

That made my morning.

Believe in Adam & Eve and evolution...isn't that kind of conflicting?

Most Theologians believe that a majority of the stories in the Old Testament (if not all) are meant as parables.

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg


Sorry...I just had a question...didn't mean to annoy anyone...

The pic is quite funny though...

Believe in Adam & Eve and evolution...isn't that kind of conflicting?

Most Theologians believe that a majority of the stories in the Old Testament (if not all) are meant as parables.

Not at all. It's only conflicting if you have a closed mind on the idea of Adam & Eve, and refuse to alter the belief.

Dude, religious =/= bloody minded.

Evolution and religion aren't that conflicting.

Oh, and religion =/= Christianity, too.

I'm very religious and I believe in Science and Evolution.

Not at all. It's only conflicting if you have a closed mind on the idea of Adam & Eve, and refuse to alter the belief.


Write me down as closed mind then. I think the idea of Adam & Eve is ridiculous, and impossible. Basically, I subscribe to the idea that Judeaism and Christianity were concepts brought out by early male clerics to dispense of powerful female deities in matriarcal societies and thereby allow men to take back the social powerbase.

Hence, Adam came before and was used to create Eve, Eve is the one who brought on the evil, god is a male figure as is Jesus. The concept of man as superior to women was founded around the same time as the Judaic culture. Makes one wonder...

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg

:D

Write me down as closed mind then. I think the idea of Adam & Eve is ridiculous, and impossible. Basically, I subscribe to the idea that Judeaism and Christianity were concepts brought out by early male clerics to dispense of powerful female deities in matriarcal societies and thereby allow men to take back the social powerbase.

Hence, Adam came before and was used to create Eve, Eve is the one who brought on the evil, god is a male figure as is Jesus. The concept of man as superior to women was founded around the same time as the Judaic culture. Makes one wonder...

Word.

Dude, religious =/= bloody minded.

Evolution and religion aren't that conflicting.

Oh, and religion =/= Christianity, too.


I understand that, and it was part of my point by not saying "Why do Christians deny evolution", but instead saying "Do the RELIGIOUS believe in evolution?"

I was hoping for an explanation on a non-bible based level.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bloody minded".

The question is "Do the Religious Believe in Evolution" of course not, I am a christian and I believe in God. However, I do acknowledge that evolution has taken place it can be seen in the way that animals have evolved. The biggest myth that causes confusion is that people think that there can only be one explaination to the existance of humans either through creation or evolution. What one must remember is that God created the world out of love, the animals, man and woman were also created through his love. This shows that he is a caring God, he does not like to see suffering therefore when he created all these things he made it possible for all these things to change and adapt to their surroundings.

Also regards to the comment about the idea that much of the Old Testiment is a series parables; the whole adam and eve thing is not so much about the creation of humans as it is making the point that no one is without sin.

I understand that, and it was part of my point by not saying "Why do Christians deny evolution", but instead saying "Do the RELIGIOUS believe in evolution?"

I was hoping for an explanation on a non-bible based level.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bloody minded".

Bloody minded is when you don't pay any mind to what you see in front of you.

And to my knowledge, Xians (and by extention, the Judeo-Islamic wossname too) are the only ones whose dogma directly contradicts the Theory of Evolution.

Write me down as closed mind then. I think the idea of Adam & Eve is ridiculous, and impossible. Basically, I subscribe to the idea that Judeaism and Christianity were concepts brought out by early male clerics to dispense of powerful female deities in matriarcal societies and thereby allow men to take back the social powerbase.

Hence, Adam came before and was used to create Eve, Eve is the one who brought on the evil, god is a male figure as is Jesus. The concept of man as superior to women was founded around the same time as the Judaic culture. Makes one wonder...
How many times have I heard that said? Where did you hear it?

Its becuase after 2000 years of screaming "I cant hear you LA LA LA!!!"..your voice gets raw, and you eventually have to listen.

Not really, for years evolution did not hold substantial evidence. Very similar to the persistant, "There is no evidence that a god exists, so there must not be a god," argument. Only in the past few decades has any trace of evidence began surfacing, and still most of evolution is still unproved theory.

Not really, for years evolution did not hold substantial evidence. Very similar to the persistant, "There is no evidence that a god exists, so there must not be a god," argument. Only in the past few decades has any trace of evidence began surfacing, and still most of evolution is still unproved theory.
Not just evolution but heliocentrism and round earth *theory* too.

Not really, for years evolution did not hold substantial evidence. Very similar to the persistant, "There is no evidence that a god exists, so there must not be a god," argument. Only in the past few decades has any trace of evidence began surfacing, and still most of evolution is still unproved theory.
Um its all theory not just "most of it" (I think the word you might be looking for is conjecture … still not really correct but more so)

And tell me how exactly do you "prove" a theory ?

round earth *theory*

Didn't ancient cililisations know that the earth was round due to the difference of noon, or something?

I know more people from the Muslim community than Christian community (because there are hardly any Christians left in the UK), and there is a lack of consensus there too, some believing that God's power is manifest in all natural processes open to scientific inquiry, including evolution, others closing their minds to it and refusing to comment on the evidence. There appears to be no friction between the two interpretations, however. Only in the US is there a fierce debate. Which suggests that Christian fundamentalism is alive and well.

Um its all theory not just "most of it" (I think the word you might be looking for is conjecture … still not really correct but more so)

And tell me how exactly do you "prove" a theory ?

Scientific Theory, you really can't. Something will almost always come that proves to be a special exception or be impossible to find, like all the links in Evolution.

We had a discussion about this yesterday in another thread.

(because there are hardly any Christians left in the UK),

What gives you that idea? It's like the default religion, silly! *laughs at you*

And tell me how exactly do you "prove" a theory ?
Empirical research.

Didn't ancient cililisations know that the earth was round due to the difference of noon, or something?
Yes, the Romans did, but the church didn't.

Scientific Theory, you really can't. Something will almost always come that proves to be a special exception or be impossible to find, like all the links in Evolution.

We had a discussion about this yesterday in another thread.
Not impossible ... the theory contains only natural phenomena that exist in the real universe

They may be HARD to find but it is possible

Empirical research.


Yes, the Romans did, but the church didn't.
But that never PROVES it ... it just makes it more likly

Not impossible ... the theory contains only natural phenomena that exist in the real universe

They may be HARD to find but it is possible

With evolution, I think we can say impossible to find *all* the links with any degree of certainty... the destruction of fossils being so easy and so common in nature, I would be really suprised if every link was someday found.

I believe in mico-evolution. I’ve seen it happen, living around farms and such.

How many times have I heard that said? Where did you hear it?

Specifically, it has postualted by various scholars and historians. I have come across this information in several different places during various research, both while obtaining my degree and afterward.

I believe in mico-evolution. I’ve seen it happen, living around farms and such.

Isn't that selective breeding?

Not really, for years evolution did not hold substantial evidence. Very similar to the persistant, "There is no evidence that a god exists, so there must not be a god," argument. Only in the past few decades has any trace of evidence began surfacing, and still most of evolution is still unproved theory.


Ummm...the past few decades since the late 1800's? Darwin found the first evidence of evolution.

Or I should say documented...probably the first settlers in Australia saw the first evidence of diversification due to environmental constraints.

Didn't ancient cililisations know that the earth was round due to the difference of noon, or something?

Yes, Erastothenes proved that many centuries BC...

I don't find it particularly difficult to reconcile religion and evolution, myself, and I even believe in Adam and Eve. I think the problem some people have with evolution is that it can be interpreted to suggest that human consciousness (the "spirit") arose solely from adaptative biology. A connection is then drawn between consciousness and the physical body, resulting in staunch opposition to any belief that the body evolved, as it would suggest that the spirit came with it.

Personally, I believe that the human form - biologically Homo Sapiens - evolved, but the mind did not. Thus Adam and Eve were the first humans to think as humans, leaving room for the scientific and the divine.

Isn't that selective breeding?
Yeah, but it’s the same concept. I don’t see why it couldn’t happen in the wild. Most animals have pretty good instincts about which potential mate has good genes.

With evolution, I think we can say impossible to find *all* the links with any degree of certainty... the destruction of fossils being so easy and so common in nature, I would be really suprised if every link was someday found.
But evolutionary theory does not require that every link be found ... just enough to show that evolution is the motivator

Evolution is the process by which it is accomplished, as such it does not require every step of what it has accomplished

Yes, Erastothenes proved that many centuries BC...

I don't find it particularly difficult to reconcile religion and evolution, myself, and I even believe in Adam and Eve. I think the problem some people have with evolution is that it can be interpreted to suggest that human consciousness (the "spirit") arose solely from adaptative biology. A connection is then drawn between consciousness and the physical body, resulting in staunch opposition to any belief that the body evolved, as it would suggest that the spirit came with it.

Personally, I believe that the human form - biologically Homo Sapiens - evolved, but the mind did not. Thus Adam and Eve were the first humans to think as humans, leaving room for the scientific and the divine.


Not really. Science tells us that with a population of less than 2000 similar species that inbreeding would cause such a genetic overlap as to kill off the species.

Evolution is a theory of slight modification over time where a species retains it's large population while mutations occur over time and therefore do not randomly generate a new population of a new species.

Two people cannot have spawned the human race. This is genetically impossible as well as implausible.

It seems to me that with all the empirical evidence that evolution is part of the natural scientific order of the world that religious people would have a rather hard time countering it.

So what exactly is the argument? Evolution (and the Big Bang) have been proven to be factual. Why deny what has been seen?

"Creationism" as espoused in the media, being that of "Young-Earth" (Or Literal Creationism); and that of "Old-Earth" (or Day-Age) Creationism are the two major vocalized Christian Theories regarding Anthropology.

However, not all of use are YEC's or Day-Agers.

In addition to those two, there are other "Creation" theories:

Progressive Creationism

Is a theory, in similarity to Old-Earth Day-Age theory; which allows for evolution within families; but not between them.

Evolutionary Creationism

Is a theory whereby evolution is seen as an active attribute of the creative power of God. God "guides" the evolutionary process; and it is not a process of mere chance. This lays somewhere between the principle of "Intelligent Design" as noted in YEC and OEC; and that of normative Scientific Theory of Evolution as accepted.

Theistic Evolution

Similar to Evolutionary Creationism; but the "Creator" (God) is an inactive part. Evolution is the process of "Creation" by which we are all here, set in initial motion by God... Though God remains inactive after the intitial start.

Note: I tend to be divided between the process either being that of Theistic or or Creationistic Evolution... Not totally convinced of either... Though lean to Evolutionary Creationism...

But evolutionary theory does not require that every link be found ... just enough to show that evolution is the motivator

Evolution is the process by which it is accomplished, as such it does not require every step of what it has accomplished

Yeah, maybe... I'm not as up to date on theories as I probably should be.

But if you don't find every link, you'll have people attacking it and claiming evolution doesn't work because that one is missing, therefore the whole theory is wrong.

Not really. Science tells us that with a population of less than 2000 similar species that inbreeding would cause such a genetic overlap as to kill off the species.

Evolution is a theory of slight modification over time where a species retains it's large population while mutations occur over time and therefore do not randomly generate a new population of a new species.

Two people cannot have spawned the human race. This is genetically impossible as well as implausible.

The Bible itself says there were more people... Cain went out away from his family and found people to marry (I believe, or this could be just something odd I've picked up) that weren't related to him.

Of course, this could have been somethign I picked up somewhere and completely wrong... I don't want to go verse searching now, I have to leave soon.

Believe in Adam & Eve and evolution...isn't that kind of conflicting?

Most Theologians believe that a majority of the stories in the Old Testament (if not all) are meant as parables.

No, likely he's a Progressive Creationist.... Who accepts "micro-evolution" but denies macro-evolution.... And has a similtude in Earth-Age with that of Day-Age theory Old-Earth Creationism...

Yeah, maybe... I'm not as up to date on theories as I probably should be.

But if you don't find every link, you'll have people attacking it and claiming evolution doesn't work because that one is missing, therefore the whole theory is wrong.
Yeah but they would be wrong :) hence why the peer review process is that a PEER review process by other people who can understand the theory to start with

Or I should say documented...probably the first settlers in Australia saw the first evidence of diversification due to environmental constraints.
I’m pretty sure they were to busy dealing with a species of lizard (forgot the name dang it) that makes a komodo dragon look like a garden lizard. The aborigines got rid of it, though, by setting fire to fields of grass that the lizards lived in. Changed the landscape of Australia forever.
Unless, of course, you are talking about the first European settlers, even though canoeers originating in Africa and traveling from island to island beat them by a few thousand years.

Not really. Science tells us that with a population of less than 2000 similar species that inbreeding would cause such a genetic overlap as to kill off the species.

Evolution is a theory of slight modification over time where a species retains it's large population while mutations occur over time and therefore do not randomly generate a new population of a new species.

Two people cannot have spawned the human race. This is genetically impossible as well as implausible.

I realize all of this... I never suggested that Adam and Eve were the only humans, and, indeed, by reading of the Bible it seems other humans existed. Thus the question: Who was Cain's wife?

I only meant to suggest that there are different interpretations of Genesis than the spontaneous placement of two individuals into a 5-day-old world. It might be that Adam and Eve were appointed, say by God, to be leaders over what then might have been the human race. Who knows?

Thus the question: Who was Cain's wife?
Creationists will say that she was his sister.

Its becuase after 2000 years of screaming "I cant hear you LA LA LA!!!"..your voice gets raw, and you eventually have to listen.

I have never screamed such things. Please, don't transfer the sins of the past of a single church onto all religious people.

Write me down as closed mind then. I think the idea of Adam & Eve is ridiculous, and impossible. Basically, I subscribe to the idea that Judeaism and Christianity were concepts brought out by early male clerics to dispense of powerful female deities in matriarcal societies and thereby allow men to take back the social powerbase.

Hence, Adam came before and was used to create Eve, Eve is the one who brought on the evil, god is a male figure as is Jesus. The concept of man as superior to women was founded around the same time as the Judaic culture. Makes one wonder...

Interesting theory, as originally, in Judeism, Jehova dwelt with his female counterpart (who's name escapes me) and conconcpet of the Godhead was the pirfict unity between oposite parts, much like a giant cosmic ying-yang. Hardly patriarchal drek invented to put down women into a subservient role in society. Judeism is all about these oposite parts. That is why you have two seemingly different creation stories in Genesis, and it's not, in fact, mutually exclusive. It's all a set of symbology to push your thinking to a higher level, to get you to comprehend the incomprehensible. That is religion, right there.


In answer to the question, I am a Greek Orthodox Christain, and I believe in evolution, round earth, a heliocentric solar system, physics, biology, and all that other good stuff. To me, they mesh perfictly, and I have yet in encounter a serious conflict between the two.

To me, religion, philisophy, science, math, all that stuff, it's all search for truth. Just different methods and paths to truth, and maby they each unearth different aspects of it, but in the end, the destiniation and design is the same.

I have never screamed such things. Please, don't transfer the sins of the past of a single church onto all religious people.


Why not?

Orginal sin, and all that.

Yes, even the once stronghold of old-fashioned views, the Catholic Church, has excepted evolution. Though the religious belief that God influences evolution according to his plan.

Keep dreaming. It's only in your dreams the Catholic Church has accepted Evolution. We still believe in Creationism that God was the one who created all things including human beings from the ground. Read Genesis sometime. But then again you probably won't. A lot of you seem to think you're right no matter what. Oh and Evolution has never been proven, it's still theroy. So is the Big Bang Theroy as well...

Accepting micro-evolution but not accepting macro-evolution is like accepting minutes but not accepting years.

Evolution is a valid scientific theory backed up by tons of evidence. Creatonism, Intelligent design, etc. are not valid scientific theories and are not backed by evidence.

Evolution for science class, Intelligent Design for religion class.

Keep dreaming. It's only in your dreams the Catholic Church has accepted Evolution. We still believe in Creationism that God was the one who created all things including human beings from the ground. Read Genesis sometime. But then again you probably won't. A lot of you seem to think you're right no matter what. Oh and Evolution has never been proven, it's still theroy. So is the Big Bang Theroy as well...


*T*H*E*O*R*Y

Theory.

Keep dreaming. It's only in your dreams the Catholic Church has accepted Evolution. We still believe in Creationism that God was the one who created all things including human beings from the ground. Read Genesis sometime. But then again you probably won't. A lot of you seem to think you're right no matter what. Oh and Evolution has never been proven, it's still theroy. So is the Big Bang Theroy as well...
"New knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis." -Pope John Paul II

Keep dreaming. It's only in your dreams the Catholic Church has accepted Evolution. We still believe in Creationism that God was the one who created all things including human beings from the ground. Read Genesis sometime. But then again you probably won't. A lot of you seem to think you're right no matter what. Oh and Evolution has never been proven, it's still theroy. So is the Big Bang Theroy as well...

I don't think you understand completely. Nothing can be "Proven" in the way you think of it. The idea with a theory, is that it is very likely to be true because of all the evidence.

Science is not about 100% accurate truths, that is for religion.

EDIT: Theory in layman: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

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

Interesting theory, as originally, in Judeism, Jehova dwelt with his female counterpart (who's name escapes me) and conconcpet of the Godhead was the pirfict unity between oposite parts, much like a giant cosmic ying-yang. Hardly patriarchal drek invented to put down women into a subservient role in society. Judeism is all about these oposite parts. That is why you have two seemingly different creation stories in Genesis, and it's not, in fact, mutually exclusive. It's all a set of symbology to push your thinking to a higher level, to get you to comprehend the incomprehensible. That is religion, right there.

...

To me, religion, philisophy, science, math, all that stuff, it's all search for truth. Just different methods and paths to truth, and maby they each unearth different aspects of it, but in the end, the destiniation and design is the same.

Jehovah's counterpart was Asteroth. Or, at least, that's what I've read...

Your other statement is dead-on.

The idea that only the monotheistic religions have contradictory belief to evolution is inaccurate, almost every religion has some sort of creation myth. It is my belief that religions came to be in an effort for humans to explain what they were otherwise unable to, like the origins of our species. The main difference is that other religions have traditionally done a better job of viewing their myths as myths, rather than facts. Which is why we have this perception of Christianity (in particular) being resistant to the idea of evolution.

I'm not Christian, but I am spiritual and I believe in evolution despite the creation myths that are a part of my faith. But I have to say that evolution is _not_ a fact, there are no facts in science. Science can only establish theories that are based on empirical evidence and are accurate as far as we can tell. Scientific theories are always evolving (ironic) based on new evidence. There are no other theories on the origins of life that measure up to evolution, it is by far the most likely theory that we have, but it is not a fact.

It is this detail that many creationists cling on to, yet they seem perfectly happy to let the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity remain the domain of sciece and don't seem in any rush to quash them in favour of religious explainations. But most Christians, Jews and Muslims are fairly open to evolution as a theory these days, thankfully. The rest will follow.

As for Christianity being the default religion in Britain, I don't know if the person who posted that was being serious or not, but I just wanted to point out that the number of people who claim to be Christian, Church of England in particular is totally disproportionate to the number of practicing Christians in this country. Granted, you don't have to go to Church to be Christian, but I am willing to bet that a significant proportion of CoE claimants would have to stop calling themselves that if they sat and thought about it for five minutes. It is, indeed, the default religion, the one people clutch at when asked but have never truely believed. It would be interesting to see statistics for practitioners of all other religions in Britain, I wouldn't be surprised to see Islam coming higher in Mosque attendance than Christianity in Church attendance!

Why not?

Orginal sin, and all that.

O, arn't you clever. I was under the impression that a man should be judged for his actions and thoughts alone, not those of someome else who he never claimed to agree with or support.

Keep dreaming. It's only in your dreams the Catholic Church has accepted Evolution. We still believe in Creationism that God was the one who created all things including human beings from the ground. Read Genesis sometime. But then again you probably won't. A lot of you seem to think you're right no matter what. Oh and Evolution has never been proven, it's still theroy. So is the Big Bang Theroy as well...

Just as the earth is round is a theory. Learn your scientific terms.

Keep dreaming. It's only in your dreams the Catholic Church has accepted Evolution. We still believe in Creationism that God was the one who created all things including human beings from the ground. Read Genesis sometime. But then again you probably won't. A lot of you seem to think you're right no matter what. Oh and Evolution has never been proven, it's still theroy. So is the Big Bang Theroy as well...
You must not listen to the pope much

You might want to look up his letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg

LOL! Thank you!!!!!! :p

But I have to say that evolution is _not_ a fact, there are no facts in science. Science can only establish theories that are based on empirical evidence and are accurate as far as we can tell. Scientific theories are always evolving (ironic) based on new evidence. There are no other theories on the origins of life that measure up to evolution, it is by far the most likely theory that we have, but it is not a fact.

Yes this is what I meant to say. I think many religious people feel threatened by evolution, which they ofcourse have no reason to.

And no serious scientist would say evolution is a fact, it's just a well accepted theory that explains things very vell :) ('cause it's got all the evidence and stuff)

Accepting micro-evolution but not accepting macro-evolution is like accepting minutes but not accepting years.
No it isn’t. I accept that species can change over time. What I don’t accept as fact is that completely new complex organs (like lungs) can emerge, where they had previously not existed.

No it isn’t. I accept that species can change over time. What I don’t accept as fact is that completely new complex organs (like lungs) can emerge, where they had previously not existed.
Then you have an incomplete grasp of evolution. The lungs are a very complex organ and they don't just 'appear' out of the blue. A lung would evolve over time just like anything else.

Think of it as micro-evolution over long time. See? (It's actually the same thing just over longer time spans!)

Edit: Also, Fluid Breathing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_breathing)

No it isn’t. I accept that species can change over time. What I don’t accept as fact is that completely new complex organs (like lungs) can emerge, where they had previously not existed.
Well, they don't emerge complex, that's the thing. It is built up to very slowly, from the simplest stage to more complexity, and without intent toward the end (current) result.

No it isn’t. I accept that species can change over time. What I don’t accept as fact is that completely new complex organs (like lungs) can emerge, where they had previously not existed.

By that logic we'd all still be single celled organisms. The Intelligent Design people try to present this argument, but it doesn't fly. By that concept, there would be no universe to have spawned complex galaxies, no molecule made up of complex atoms, no life more intricate than an amoeba.

No it isn’t. I accept that species can change over time. What I don’t accept as fact is that completely new complex organs (like lungs) can emerge, where they had previously not existed.
And who said these complex organs in their final state just appeared?

But I have to say that evolution is _not_ a fact, there are no facts in science. Science can only establish theories that are based on empirical evidence and are accurate as far as we can tell. Scientific theories are always evolving (ironic) based on new evidence. There are no other theories on the origins of life that measure up to evolution, it is by far the most likely theory that we have, but it is not a fact.


Actually...there are facts in Science, they just call them Laws. Here are some:

1) The Law of Gravity
2) The Second Law of Thermodynamics
3) Entropy

All these were theories that in time could not be empircally refuted. While evolution must stay with it's title of theory (as it is part of an unfinished, unfinishable system) the data gathered (empirical data) does make it a fact.

It's important to keep in mind that in the scientific world THEORY =/= OPINION

Actually...there are facts in Science, they just call them Laws. Here are some:

1) The Law of Gravity
2) The Second Law of Thermodynamics
3) Entropy

All these were theories that in time could not be empircally refuted. While evolution must stay with it's title of theory (as it is part of an unfinished, unfinishable system) the data gathered (empirical data) does make it a fact.

It's important to keep in mind that in the scientific world THEORY =/= OPINION
Laws are just very stable theory's

They are STILL theories though and they like the rest are subject to change if new data comes to light

Laws are just very stable theory's

They are STILL theories though and they like the rest are subject to change if new data comes to light


It's been a couple hundred years and that dang gravity law hasn't been retracted.

And entropy is evident in every system known to mankind (this includes the concepts of religion).

A law is a proven theory. That's how the Scientific Method works.

I don't "believe in" evolution.

However, having examined the evidence, I do feel that it is the current best explanation for the progression of biology.

It's been a couple hundred years and that dang gravity law hasn't been retracted.

And entropy is evident in every system known to mankind (this includes the concepts of religion).

A law is a proven theory. That's how the Scientific Method works.
No it is a STABLE theory ... it is still subject to change with new datum

not a proven theory

You can not prove the positive you can just fail to disprove it

It's been a couple hundred years and that dang gravity law hasn't been retracted.

And entropy is evident in every system known to mankind (this includes the concepts of religion).

A law is a proven theory. That's how the Scientific Method works.

INCORRECT.

It would be a logical fallacy to say that the scientific method ever actually proves anything. Something may work one million times, but on the next time, do something completely different.

Science provides evidence. When there is enough evidence to think that something has been practically (but never completely) proven, it may be called a law. However, using the word "law" has gone out of vogue a bit, since Newton's laws were disproven. As a general rule, theory is as good as you get (not that there is anything bad about that).

Everything in science, even the most basic of assumptions, is open to being disproven. EVERYTHING.

That is how the scientific method works.

INCORRECT.

It would be a logical fallacy to say that the scientific method ever actually proves anything. Something may work one million times, but on the next time, do something completely different.

Science provides evidence. When there is enough evidence to think that something has been practically (but never completely) proven, it may be called a law. However, using the word "law" has gone out of vogue a bit, since Newton's laws were disproven. As a general rule, theory is as good as you get (not that there is anything bad about that).

Everything in science, even the most basic of assumptions, is open to being disproven. EVERYTHING.

That is how the scientific method works.


Marry me :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

It's been a couple hundred years and that dang gravity law hasn't been retracted.

Interesting point; however, it is now somewhat commonly known that gravity will, someday, be retracted; there would be no other way of reconciling it with quantum mechanics. Right now, scientists use those two theories to describe the workings of the world, but at the same time realize that there must be some underlying Universal Law. This is not saying that gravity is incorrect; it is just a very good explanation for a defined category of observations. What we want is a theory, or law, that would describe every interaction, whether subatomic or intergalactic.

INCORRECT.

It would be a logical fallacy to say that the scientific method ever actually proves anything. Something may work one million times, but on the next time, do something completely different.

Science provides evidence. When there is enough evidence to think that something has been practically (but never completely) proven, it may be called a law. However, using the word "law" has gone out of vogue a bit, since Newton's laws were disproven. As a general rule, theory is as good as you get (not that there is anything bad about that).

Everything in science, even the most basic of assumptions, is open to being disproven. EVERYTHING.

That is how the scientific method works.


Fair enough. I understand the perspective from which you are saying this. I should have considered the idea of Chaos Theory as part of the general Scientific Method. My mistake.

It's been a couple hundred years and that dang gravity law hasn't been retracted.

And entropy is evident in every system known to mankind (this includes the concepts of religion).

A law is a proven theory. That's how the Scientific Method works.

I don't believe in this 'Gravity', of which you speak.

The prophet taught, 'the earth Sucks'.

(And this 'Entropy' thing... it's just an attempt by the pinko liberal godless pagan atheist heathen (did I say commies?) bleeding heart PC... erm... liberals... to make 'shit happens' sound like a scientific principle...)

I don't believe in this 'Gravity', of which you speak.

The prophet taught, 'the earth Sucks'.

(And this 'Entropy' thing... it's just an attempt by the pinko liberal godless pagan atheist heathen (did I say commies?) bleeding heart PC... erm... liberals... to make 'shit happens' sound like a scientific principle...)
I take offense to that

I am not PC

:D

I take offense to that

I am not PC

:D

Hey, I resemble that remark...

umm, alternate view? from a bhuddist standpoint, evolution is fine, deism is F-U-C-K-E-D. :headbang:

umm, alternate view? from a bhuddist standpoint, evolution is fine, deism is F-U-C-K-E-D. :headbang:

Interesting point. What do Scientoligists believe I wonder? Did L. Ron Hubbard prepare them for a discussion like this?

Marry me :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Well, my boyfriend might object a bit....

But then again I still haven't gotten a ring from him.....

Can he still stick around? You might like him. =) :fluffle:

Well, my boyfriend might object a bit....

But then again I still haven't gotten a ring from him.....

Can he still stick around? You might like him. =) :fluffle:
Yup Im bi no biggie :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :p

Taking the concept of "theory" to the extreme:

http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/gravity.gif

INCORRECT.

It would be a logical fallacy to say that the scientific method ever actually proves anything. Something may work one million times, but on the next time, do something completely different.

Science provides evidence. When there is enough evidence to think that something has been practically (but never completely) proven, it may be called a law. However, using the word "law" has gone out of vogue a bit, since Newton's laws were disproven. As a general rule, theory is as good as you get (not that there is anything bad about that).

Everything in science, even the most basic of assumptions, is open to being disproven. EVERYTHING.

That is how the scientific method works.
Cme if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Newton's laws haven't been so much disproven as improved upon. In other words, they still work, but only on earth, and that the actual calculations are much more complicated. I definitely agree with what you say though.

Cme if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Newton's laws haven't been so much disproven as improved upon. In other words, they still work, but only on earth, and that the actual calculations are much more complicated. I definitely agree with what you say though.

Newton's laws work only in certain situations - namely, relatively large objects and slow speeds. However, they work only because the errors in them are so small that we can neglect them. Because they do not work in all cases, they cannot be laws of physics - they are simply special cases.

On the other hand, the theory of relativity explains large and small objects, fast and slow speeds. It accurately describes motion in the situations in which Newton's laws can be used, and in those where Newton's laws cannot. The only reason Newton's laws are still used at all are the the calculations are "good enough" for most situations and are much, much less complicated that relativity.

Edit: Just to be clear, a theory/law is disproven if even a single aspect of the universe is found to contradict it. When physics started getting into the realm of subatomic particles and light or near-light speeds, they found contradictions to Newton's laws. Thus, they were disproven.

Cme if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Newton's laws haven't been so much disproven as improved upon. In other words, they still work, but only on earth, and that the actual calculations are much more complicated. I definitely agree with what you say though.

Newton's Gravitational Laws fail; because they do not factor in the relatively recent concept of "inertial mass"; so they fail when you're dealing with objects which are either extremely massive, or moving at near-light speeds.

Newtons Laws dealing with gravity only work in the SPECIFIC aspect of the two objects being calculated; exist in the same plane of refference; traveling at similarly slow velocities. Newton had no understanding of the mass/energy relationship... And that "effective" intertial mass, of a moving object can be GREATER than it's rest mass (which is all Newtonian Physics account for)... Einsteins theories fill in the problem of Newtonian Gravity in those situations where Newtonian Physics no longer produces correct results due to attempting to derive the attractive force based upon the two, or more, objects rest mass....

Newton's laws work only in certain situations - namely, relatively large objects and slow speeds. However, they work only because the errors in them are so small that we can neglect them. Because they do not work in all cases, they cannot be laws of physics - they are simply special cases.

On the other hand, the theory of relativity explains large and small objects, fast and slow speeds. It accurately describes motion in the situations in which Newton's laws can be used, and in those where Newton's laws cannot. The only reason Newton's laws are still used at all are the the calculations are "good enough" for most situations and are much, much less complicated that relativity.

Edit: Just to be clear, a theory/law is disproven if even a single aspect of the universe is found to contradict it. When physics started getting into the realm of subatomic particles and light or near-light speeds, they found contradictions to Newton's laws. Thus, they were disproven.


Of course here we have the other side of the issue. Scientists will say, "We were wrong about that, here is what we have discovered and here is the new concept."

Religion rarely changes and never apologizes.

Newton's Gravitational Laws fail; because they do not factor in the relatively recent concept of "inertial mass"; so they fail when you're dealing with objects which are either extremely massive, or moving at near-light speeds.

Newtons Laws dealing with gravity only work in the SPECIFIC aspect of the two objects being calculated; exist in the same plane of refference; traveling at similarly slow velocities. Newton had no understanding of the mass/energy relationship... And that "effective" intertial mass, of a moving object can be GREATER than it's rest mass (which is all Newtonian Physics account for)... Einsteins theories fill in the problem of Newtonian Gravity in those situations where Newtonian Physics no longer produces correct results due to attempting to derive the attractive force based upon the two, or more, objects rest mass....

Although this is not what i intended when I originally started this post I am more than happy with the results.

My goodness...people across continents rationally discussing scientific theories...I was beginning to think this wasn't possilble...

Of course here we have the other side of the issue. Scientists will say, "We were wrong about that, here is what we have discovered and here is the new concept."

Religion rarely changes and never apologizes.

In truth, that all depends on the person espousing the religion. Not all of us fail to question, and not all of us fail to apologzie when we are wrong.

In truth, that all depends on the person espousing the religion. Not all of us fail to question, and not all of us fail to apologzie when we are wrong.

Maybe I should clarify my meaning. I am referring to Religion the institution, not every individual member.

Maybe I should clarify my meaning. I am referring to Religion the institution, not every individual member.

There is no "Religion" as an insitution. There are specific organized religions which have intitutions, but religion itself is not an institution. Some of those organized religions meet the description and others do not. In the end, most of religion is personal - and only truly of concern to the individual.

Newton's Gravitational Laws fail; because they do not factor in the relatively recent concept of "inertial mass"; so they fail when you're dealing with objects which are either extremely massive, or moving at near-light speeds.

Newtons Laws dealing with gravity only work in the SPECIFIC aspect of the two objects being calculated; exist in the same plane of refference; traveling at similarly slow velocities. Newton had no understanding of the mass/energy relationship... And that "effective" intertial mass, of a moving object can be GREATER than it's rest mass (which is all Newtonian Physics account for)... Einsteins theories fill in the problem of Newtonian Gravity in those situations where Newtonian Physics no longer produces correct results due to attempting to derive the attractive force based upon the two, or more, objects rest mass....

That's a lot more specific than I could get, but I think what you are saying is more or less what I was getting at, namely that the laws are still "truth", just not "the whole truth". In other words, he wasn't wrong so much as there were all kinds of calculations that he didn't take into account. I guess what I'm getting at it's not that Newton's ideas no longer contribute to our understanding of physics, just that the complexity of the scientific community's understanding of physics has surpassed that of Newton.

There's a difference between not believing in Evolution and not believing that evolution was not just a cosmic accident. I see no reason why evolution can't go hand in hand with religion.

There's a difference between not believing in Evolution and not believing that evolution was not just a cosmic accident. I see no reason why evolution can't go hand in hand with religion.

People have problems with it because they take the bible literally.

"God created ______" "he created the world in a week"

Therefore, evolution couldn't possibly work, because of course God's week is our week.

And if you didn't catch it, yes, the last line is sarcasm.

There is no "Religion" as an insitution. There are specific organized religions which have intitutions, but religion itself is not an institution. Some of those organized religions meet the description and others do not. In the end, most of religion is personal - and only truly of concern to the individual.

Play nice, Dempublicents. :)

You know that the larger 'institutions' do have a kind of inertia, and that MANY 'religious' persons tow a party line, even where their own spiritual discernment tells them there is conflict.

I'm sure Balipo would agree with you, that 'faith' is a personal thing... and I do not believe that 'individual faith' is what Balipo is discussing... more that 'inertia' that certain organised religions (generally, those that are loudest) seem to bring.

And, I think you probably agree, since you follow a 'discerned path', rather than a 'described path'?

Well, 'religion' is such a broad term, it depends on your personal interpretation of your religion. There are definitely many ways that evolution and religion could work together. For example, I'm an agnostic but I could conceive of the idea that god is the laws and principles behind the universe, as opposed to an actual conscious entity.

Play nice, Dempublicents. :)

Always! =)

You know that the larger 'institutions' do have a kind of inertia, and that MANY 'religious' persons tow a party line, even where their own spiritual discernment tells them there is conflict.

Certainly. I just think that, when speaking of said institutions, it is important to distinguish between them and religion as a whole, just as it is important to distinguish between fundamentalists and Christians as a whole, or between myself and women as a whole, and so on.

And, I think you probably agree, since you follow a 'discerned path', rather than a 'described path'?

Oh, I certainly agree that organized religions often take the, "This is the way it is and I'm not budging one single inch ever," pathway - and I certainly disagree with that pathway.

I just know that people tend to see those institutions and think that they are all there is to religion, such that any religious person must part of one or must be just like them.

Always! =)

Certainly. I just think that, when speaking of said institutions, it is important to distinguish between them and religion as a whole, just as it is important to distinguish between fundamentalists and Christians as a whole, or between myself and women as a whole, and so on.

Oh, I certainly agree that organized religions often take the, "This is the way it is and I'm not budging one single inch ever," pathway - and I certainly disagree with that pathway.

I just know that people tend to see those institutions and think that they are all there is to religion, such that any religious person must part of one or must be just like them.

As you know, I agree... however, it is sometimes hard to remember such things, when EVERY ministry SEEMS to preach damnation in the same tones, for example. If every Christian you HEAR tells you one thing - it is hard to remember that you are hearing THE LOUDEST voices, not necessarily the REPRESENTATIVE ones.

And, this is why we all love our Dempublicents so much... because you are testimony to the fact that there ARE 'humans' behind the 'institutions'.

(coming from a Christian background and beliefs)

I'm not a Bible schoolar, nor well versed in Evolution and its theories. But the problem I have with belief in Evolution (and probably the other Christians you all are referring to) is that it takes our belief in God out of the picture. Setting aside the Big Bang, I'll let you all in on what I'm thinking and my Christian logic.

From my understanding, no one in my religion (being Seventh-Day Adventist, not just Christian) believes the Old Testament stories to be merely parables, but instead a sort of history of Israel/the Jews. There are many that probably take the Bible literally in Genesis about Creation, because they find Evolution exponentially harder to believe. I don't know the odds right off hand, but the chances of something as complex as a human being evolving out of "primordial soup" or whatever its called are extremely high, even with the possiblity of millions of years to do it in. One way or argument that we use is that if there is a chance for this to happen, why have we not see it on other planets in our solar system or other places (mind you, not a very good or convencing argument, but one thats still used).

I read the Wiki article on liquid breathing, and sounds ok, though I don't know much about it. However, I believe that instead of using a lung as an example of a complex organ, the human brain is by far a better example. I don't know where Evolution stands on this argument, and I'm sure there are counterpoints to my stance. But to me, and others in my religion, the evolving of something such as the human brain is really hard to take. In Revelations (don't recall what chapter/verse), it states (paraphrased) that the mind will expand and knowledge increased in the last days/end time/whatever phrase you wish to use here. Take that in the past 100-150 years, we've gone from a candle-light, horsebuggy society to planes, nuclear power, and putting people into space, when compared to previously the most complex thing I can think of (right off the top of my head) is either the steam ship or the cotton gin. Would you call that evolution of the brain, by suddenly being able to devise new inventions?

These are some of the main reasons Christians I know reject Evolution. I presonally believe in them, though I do admit that I somewhat think micro-evolution to be true. By micro-evolution, I mean animals moving to a new area to live than they have before, or including a new type of food source scale evolution, not like being able to sprout wings to catch bugs or gills to move to water scale.

(fyi, these are not completly thought out either, since I'm at work about to go to lunch, so I'll clarify later if needed)

I'm not a Bible schoolar, nor well versed in Evolution and its theories. But the problem I have with belief in Evolution (and probably the other Christians you all are referring to) is that it takes our belief in God out of the picture. Setting aside the Big Bang, I'll let you all in on what I'm thinking and my Christian logic.

There is nothing at all in evolution that "takes God out of the picture." God is as "in the picture" as you want God to be, as science assumes nothing either way.

From my understanding, no one in my religion (being Seventh-Day Adventist, not just Christian) believes the Old Testament stories to be merely parables, but instead a sort of history of Israel/the Jews.

Most people believe it is a combination of both. Some of the books are obviously meant to be historical accounts. Some are lists of laws. Some are poetry (some rather steamy, interestingly enough). Some are predictions. And some are parables or metaphors.

I don't know where Evolution stands on this argument, and I'm sure there are counterpoints to my stance. But to me, and others in my religion, the evolving of something such as the human brain is really hard to take.

We can look at numerous organisms and see the stages from no nervous system to a single nerve, to a single nerve bundle, to multiple nerve bundles like "mini-brains", to more and more complex nervous systems up to and including our own.

In Revelations (don't recall what chapter/verse), it states (paraphrased) that the mind will expand and knowledge increased in the last days/end time/whatever phrase you wish to use here. Take that in the past 100-150 years, we've gone from a candle-light, horsebuggy society to planes, nuclear power, and putting people into space, when compared to previously the most complex thing I can think of (right off the top of my head) is either the steam ship or the cotton gin. Would you call that evolution of the brain, by suddenly being able to devise new inventions?

You have not described evolution of the brain here. You have described an evolution of ideas. Technology progresses, and has always progressed, as ideas build upon one another. That has little to do with biology, however.

These are some of the main reasons Christians I know reject Evolution.

So the Christians you know reject evolution with things that have nothing to do with evolution?

I presonally believe in them, though I do admit that I somewhat think micro-evolution to be true. By micro-evolution, I mean animals moving to a new area to live than they have before, or including a new type of food source scale evolution, not like being able to sprout wings to catch bugs or gills to move to water scale.

There is nothing in evolutionary theory that says animals are able to "sprout wings" or gills. These things are gradual, not sudden.

Meanwhile, your examples of microevolution also aren't a part of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not "animals moving to a new area to live," it is "species changing over time in response to their environment." Evolution isn't "including a new type of food source," although it could include, "mutating so that a new type of food source can be digested - making a creature more suited to its surroundings and increasing its reproductive potential."

There is no "Religion" as an insitution. There are specific organized religions which have intitutions, but religion itself is not an institution. Some of those organized religions meet the description and others do not. In the end, most of religion is personal - and only truly of concern to the individual.

Religion:

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Thus we see that the deifintion of religion includes institutionalization. Religion is an institution.

It's OK to not believe in Evolution.

Evolution believes in you.

Religion:

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Thus we see that the deifintion of religion includes institutionalization. Religion is an institution.

Wrong. We see that religion *can be* an institution. Depending on the definition in use, it *might* include institutionalization.

You just proved your own point wrong. Congratulations.

Wrong. We see that religion *can be* an institution. Depending on the definition in use, it *might* include institutionalization.

You just proved your own point wrong. Congratulations.

Actually I was supporting my statement that I am talking about religion as an institution. It can be an institution. And really if it wasn't, how would you have found out about it?

So in fact, I supported my own statement. I recognize the OR, but or means which includes and can be either. So where did I contradict myself exactly?

You said it wasn't an institution at all. I said it could be and further presented a definition.

1) I am religious.
2) I believe in evolution.

In my opinion, it's either uneducated Christians or Christians whose view of their faith is weak that deny evolution, trying getting rid of anything that can't be explained away.

One of the ones I always hear is about how the Bible says God created the world in six days. The pastor of the local Lutheran church often speaks about how the Bible and Science are NOT at odds. Well, ok, let's examine how the Bible and science can both be correct on that.


1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

6 And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." 29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

Chapter 2

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

MAN counts a day as 24 hours. This is based on the amount of time that it takes the earth to do one rotation on its axis, yes? But if you read Genesis, we're not talking about man's time there -- we're talking about God's time.

It is not until the third day of God's time that the Earth was even created. We cannot presume that God is limited to a 24 hour day -- which is how man reckons it. How many eons would be the merest blink of an eye to God?

1) I am religious.
2) I believe in evolution.

In my opinion, it's either uneducated Christians or Christians whose view of their faith is weak that deny evolution, trying getting rid of anything that can't be explained away.

One of the ones I always hear is about how the Bible says God created the world in six days. The pastor of the local Lutheran church often speaks about how the Bible and Science are NOT at odds. Well, ok, let's examine how the Bible and science can both be correct on that.



MAN counts a day as 24 hours. This is based on the amount of time that it takes the earth to do one rotation on its axis, yes? But if you read Genesis, we're not talking about man's time there -- we're talking about God's time.

It is not until the third day of God's time that the Earth was even created. We cannot presume that God is limited to a 24 hour day -- which is how man reckons it. How many eons would be the merest blink of an eye to God?


If god is all omni, does that not mean that he is without time? Hence his existence being outside of the realm of time would make him inexhaustible.

You'd be better to argue that the bible was written by men, which it was, and they couldn't explain it either. So they used their own reference for time.

Anyhow, again, the bible is a story book not a historical reference or scientific journal. A large percentage of the world doesn't believe a word in the bible, so referencing it is pointless.

If god created earth, why did he create a dead moon for it?

People have problems with it because they take the bible literally.

And therein lies the problem. The bible is a book of metaphors, and a 'week' is likely a metaphor to establish the seven-day week, while in reality it is refering to something much longer than seven day, such as the seven levels of planetary evolution which developed indipendently of the bible and are almost perfect fits for the seven days of the week as described in the bible.

It seems to me that with all the empirical evidence that evolution is part of the natural scientific order of the world that religious people would have a rather hard time countering it.

So what exactly is the argument? Evolution (and the Big Bang) have been proven to be factual. Why deny what has been seen?

Yes, some religious people believe in evolution, to a point. You are incorrect, however, in that evolution and the big bang (which I believe in and don't feel it contradicts my faith) have not been proven factual. Evolution is still a theory as is the big bang. They have evidence for these occurances but they have no proof.

Bloody minded is when you don't pay any mind to what you see in front of you.

And to my knowledge, Xians (and by extention, the Judeo-Islamic wossname too) are the only ones whose dogma directly contradicts the Theory of Evolution.

so your definition of bloody minded is to not believe in the theory that you believe in? Are you sure that's not bloody mindedness in itself?

Yes, some religious people believe in evolution, to a point. You are incorrect, however, in that evolution and the big bang (which I believe in and don't feel it contradicts my faith) have not been proven factual. Evolution is still a theory as is the big bang. They have evidence for these occurances but they have no proof.

The big bang has been reproduced under laboratory conditions. Proof does not mean the theory is done being refined.

http://www.rednova.com/news/space/753/big_bangtype_matter_reproduced_in_lab/

the catholic church official viewpoint is that all views which involve god can be accepted by its followers

If god created earth, why did he create a dead moon for it?
I am a religious man, and as many people have said before me, I also love the way that science works. The thing is though, is that I think that God started everything off and let it go, since He knows what would happen it's O.K. I also agree with Katganistan in that six days was not meant as actually six days in the sense that we know them. It's more like a relative term. Later in the bible in both the old and new testament, the writers use the phrase forty days and forty nights. Once during the Great Flood with Noah's ark. Again it was used to describe the length of time that Jesus stayed in the desert to pray and basically prepare for his upcoming ministry in Judea. In both these examples, forty days and forty nights were I think used to describe a long length of time, since we do not know the truly exact time of either. I believe that it was the same with the six days to create the world. It wasn't really six days of our time, but of God's time. Also, with the lifeless moon, we need it for tides which help to maintain our ecosystem. Check your scientific facts before saying something like that next time. Oh yes, and I believe in evolution through and through, it makes too much sense to deny.

And therein lies the problem. The bible is a book of metaphors, and a 'week' is likely a metaphor to establish the seven-day week, while in reality it is refering to something much longer than seven day, such as the seven levels of planetary evolution which developed indipendently of the bible and are almost perfect fits for the seven days of the week as described in the bible.
Woh didn't see that before. You make a good point, and I think that's what people who criticize the Bible need to understand.

Woh didn't see that before. You make a good point, and I think that's what people who criticize the Bible need to understand.

It's not helped by the fact that a lot of Christians, and especially the kind that oppose evolution, insist that the Bible is literally true, and not metaphorical.

And therein lies the problem. The bible is a book of metaphors, and a 'week' is likely a metaphor to establish the seven-day week, while in reality it is refering to something much longer than seven day, such as the seven levels of planetary evolution which developed indipendently of the bible and are almost perfect fits for the seven days of the week as described in the bible.

Exactly.

But getting people to understand it that... yuck. I tried with my mom. I got the 'LA LA LA LALA CAN'T HEAR YOU IT'S NOT TRUE'.

1) I am religious.
2) I believe in evolution.

In my opinion, it's either uneducated Christians or Christians whose view of their faith is weak that deny evolution, trying getting rid of anything that can't be explained away.

One of the ones I always hear is about how the Bible says God created the world in six days. The pastor of the local Lutheran church often speaks about how the Bible and Science are NOT at odds. Well, ok, let's examine how the Bible and science can both be correct on that.



MAN counts a day as 24 hours. This is based on the amount of time that it takes the earth to do one rotation on its axis, yes? But if you read Genesis, we're not talking about man's time there -- we're talking about God's time.

It is not until the third day of God's time that the Earth was even created. We cannot presume that God is limited to a 24 hour day -- which is how man reckons it. How many eons would be the merest blink of an eye to God?


How does that help explain Evolution? I'm curious, because to me it only seems to be an agrument for us not to believe God uses the same idea of time as humans do (which I'm sure he doesn't; he's God, why would he?).

If you believe God created the earth as told by Genesis, then you would believe God created man as told later down a few lines. This, at least to me, points more towards an active role by God in creation of man and the world, which even taken with God's time being different than our concept of time, does not lead me to believe that God created the world and sat back to let man evolve from something less. Also, its says man was created in God's image, and I'd hardly think that, if that were true, early fossile records of what humans supposedly looked like are the "image" of God.

Am I missing something, or just not explaining my thoughts good enough?

How does that help explain Evolution? I'm curious, because to me it only seems to be an agrument for us not to believe God uses the same idea of time as humans do (which I'm sure he doesn't; he's God, why would he?).

If you believe God created the earth as told by Genesis, then you would believe God created man as told later down a few lines. This, at least to me, points more towards an active role by God in creation of man and the world, which even taken with God's time being different than our concept of time, does not lead me to believe that God created the world and sat back to let man evolve from something less. Also, its says man was created in God's image, and I'd hardly think that, if that were true, early fossile records of what humans supposedly looked like are the "image" of God.

Am I missing something, or just not explaining my thoughts good enough?


The week could have JUST finished or still be working toward finishing... who said the first humans/modern-day humans were God's image or the week was over? If you take into account how long it would take for the light and dark, water and land, animals... it could very well be just the end of God's week or not too long after.

The week could have JUST finished or still be working toward finishing... who said the first humans/modern-day humans were God's image or the week was over? If you take into account how long it would take for the light and dark, water and land, animals... it could very well be just the end of God's week or not too long after.

Indeed... if it took all the way up to Saturday night to create humans, it's now about 2 minutes into Sunday...

There is nothing at all in evolution that "takes God out of the picture." God is as "in the picture" as you want God to be, as science assumes nothing either way.

We part ways there. The belief I have held so far, and don't have reason to depart from, is that the God I worship takes an active role in the lives of us humans here on earth. While I can see how, as explained earlier in this thread, that God can be involved in Evolution, I do not at this time think that God allowed Evolution knowing how it would turn out. Just difference of opinion, I guess.


Most people believe it is a combination of both. Some of the books are obviously meant to be historical accounts. Some are lists of laws. Some are poetry (some rather steamy, interestingly enough). Some are predictions. And some are parables or metaphors.

Agreed. Exodus serves both the history and laws, though I think laws are better described in Numbers (I think, haven't read that in a while). Judges is a history of the judge/rulers of the tribes. Psalms is the poetry part. And I was quiet surprised to find out how steamy it could be! Also agree with the predictions part, since they are fulfilled in the New Testament (if you believe that was not a whole parable or story).



We can look at numerous organisms and see the stages from no nervous system to a single nerve, to a single nerve bundle, to multiple nerve bundles like "mini-brains", to more and more complex nervous systems up to and including our own.

I would like to know what could be called "middle ground" between the no nervous/single nerve bundle to a human brain. I am familiar with organisms with the single or no bundles, but I can't think of anything at the moment that I can call middle ground. So I'm wondering what you would call middle ground, out of curiosity.



You have not described evolution of the brain here. You have described an evolution of ideas. Technology progresses, and has always progressed, as ideas build upon one another. That has little to do with biology, however.

Yes, I know I haven't described the actual, physical brain. Perhaps it wasn't the best attempt at an analogy. But part of my point was to show the elapse of time between the amount of change of ideas/technology. Prior to, say, 1900, there had been little progress in technology when compared to the 100 years of 1900-2000. People were still using in the American Civil War guns based on the idea (powder-loaded in the front-type guns) of those similar to one's the Pilgrims and Puritans brought with them in the 1600's. The difference was the improvement of accuracy and powder (again, not the best example, but perhaps you understand). In the 1900's, we went from just discovering how to fly in 1903, to jet planes in 1944/45, to sending people to the moon in the 1960s/70s.

Now I've forgotten the rest of my point in this part, since I'm also trying to type up summaries of stuff at work. :mad: <------I hate summaries!



So the Christians you know reject evolution with things that have nothing to do with evolution?

Not saying they're perfect, just giving you reasons I've been given.



There is nothing in evolutionary theory that says animals are able to "sprout wings" or gills. These things are gradual, not sudden.

Meanwhile, your examples of microevolution also aren't a part of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not "animals moving to a new area to live," it is "species changing over time in response to their environment." Evolution isn't "including a new type of food source," although it could include, "mutating so that a new type of food source can be digested - making a creature more suited to its surroundings and increasing its reproductive potential."

Yes, I know things in Evolution don't happen suddenly. I'm not that sheltered in my belief, nor am I blind and can't think. It was mere exhageration. I was just trying to give you an idea of what I think micro-evolution is, since I don't know the actual scientific explanation or ideas behind it. I merely think of micro-evolution to be minute, really small changes in an orgainism, not nearly on the scale that includes a new organ or increasing the complexity of an organ or orgainism. Perhaps this might be better: All cats having 6 toes on their paws to help them run faster. Evolution, and changing to adapt to its enviornment, but a toes in my book is hardly as complex as a lung or brain. That a better explanation?

I don't see where the logical limit is betwen microevolution and macroevolution. If over a short time you can grow longer limbs, larger organs and differently shaped beaks, why can't species change drastically over far longer periods? Evolutionary theory says that species drift apart until they reach a point where they can no longer reproduce.

We part ways there. The belief I have held so far, and don't have reason to depart from, is that the God I worship takes an active role in the lives of us humans here on earth. While I can see how, as explained earlier in this thread, that God can be involved in Evolution, I do not at this time think that God allowed Evolution knowing how it would turn out. Just difference of opinion, I guess.

But couldn't god take an active role through evolution? You believe that god created the world, so couldn't he have created us to evolve? I mean, do you believe that your heart pumps blood or do you believe that god is doing it? Couldnt god be pumping your blood by using your heart? Therefore, couldn't god create man and other creatures through natural selection? I don't see why it's this theory, as opposed to others, that bothers religious people so much.

Psalms is the poetry part. And I was quiet surprised to find out how steamy it could be!

If you think Psalms is the steamy part, you might want to re-read the Song of Solomon...

But couldn't god take an active role through evolution? You believe that god created the world, so couldn't he have created us to evolve? I mean, do you believe that your heart pumps blood or do you believe that god is doing it? Couldnt god be pumping your blood by using your heart? Therefore, couldn't god create man and other creatures through natural selection? I don't see why it's this theory, as opposed to others, that bothers religious people so much.

But don't humans have souls while animals do not? If we gradually became humans over the course of millions of years, when did humans start having souls? I think this is a serious problem in reconciling evolution with the Bible.

But don't humans have souls while animals do not? If we gradually became humans over the course of millions of years, when did humans start having souls? I think this is a serious problem in reconciling evolution with the Bible.
God could have given us a soul at any time he wanted to. He's god. And how are you so sure that animals don't have souls? That's just someone's guess.

God could have given us a soul at any time he wanted to. He's god. And how are you so sure that animals don't have souls? That's just someone's guess.

As is all religion. The thing is, since human intelligence evolved so slowly, there's no one point where we would suddenly be capable of behaving morally and earning a place in the afterlife. Although I guess nothing is impossible with an omnipotent and omniscient deity, which is why logical explanations are a bit pointless.

As is all religion. The thing is, since human intelligence evolved so slowly, there's no one point where we would suddenly be capable of behaving morally and earning a place in the afterlife. Although I guess nothing is impossible with an omnipotent and omniscient deity, which is why logical explanations are a bit pointless.
again with the impossibles. Just because something in your limited view (not a burn on you, we all have limited views) seems inconsistent, that doesn't mean that it's impossible. There are more things in heaven and eart, dear Messerach, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Isn't that the principle behind religion? The details of the almighty's will are generally supposed to be beyond human understanding. We can learn some of it through science but the rest is just for us to guess about.

again with the impossibles. Just because something in your limited view (not a burn on you, we all have limited views) seems inconsistent, that doesn't mean that it's impossible. There are more things in heaven and eart, dear Messerach, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Isn't that the principle behind religion? The details of the almighty's will are generally supposed to be beyond human understanding. We can learn some of it through science but the rest is just for us to guess about.

Um, that sounds pretty much like what I said...

But don't humans have souls while animals do not?


No. All living things have a 'soul'. At least, so sayeth the scripture.

If we gradually became humans over the course of millions of years, when did humans start having souls? I think this is a serious problem in reconciling evolution with the Bible.

That's because you have never read the Bible... just a translation of the texts into English.

No. All living things have a 'soul'. At least, so sayeth the scripture.



That's because you have never read the Bible... just a translation of the texts into English.

Ah. I'm not a Christian but those I've talked to seemed to think that animals don't have souls. What happens to them? At least with Buddhism they have the eventual chance to become human...

Um, that sounds pretty much like what I said...
Well, no, you were saying this was impossible and that was impossible and you don't know that. Why couldn't god give us a soul at whatever determined point in evolution he wanted to? Why couldn't we evolve a soul? You seem to have think of the infinite and very finite terms. People used to say that the heliocentric solar system was inconsistent with christianity, but they seemed to have gotten over the hump.

Ah. I'm not a Christian but those I've talked to seemed to think that animals don't have souls. What happens to them? At least with Buddhism they have the eventual chance to become human...

I'm afraid that most Christians have little, or no, TRUE familiarity with the content of scripture - only with what the KJV allows.

The Hebrew was quite clear that all living entities have souls.

Well, no, you were saying this was impossible and that was impossible and you don't know that. Why couldn't god give us a soul at whatever determined point in evolution he wanted to? Why couldn't we evolve a soul? You seem to have think of the infinite and very finite terms. People used to say that the heliocentric solar system was inconsistent with christianity, but they seemed to have gotten over the hump.

I didn't use the word 'impossible' until I said that with religion, nothing is impossible, and therefore logic isn't a good way to look at things. You can pretty much insert god into whichever part of evolutionary theory you want, making it a bit futile to really consider it. He could have just set the laws, or might have directed every single genetic mutation for billions of years, nothing can be ruled out.

I didn't use the word 'impossible' until I said that with religion, nothing is impossible, and therefore logic isn't a good way to look at things. You can pretty much insert god into whichever part of evolutionary theory you want, making it a bit futile to really consider it. He could have just set the laws, or might have directed every single genetic mutation for billions of years, nothing can be ruled out.
OK, well I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were trying to say that evolution and religion were incompatible. My apologies.

It's OK to not believe in Evolution.

Evolution believes in you.
HAHAHAHAHA!
*FLORT*

The big bang has been reproduced under laboratory conditions. Proof does not mean the theory is done being refined.

http://www.rednova.com/news/space/753/big_bangtype_matter_reproduced_in_lab/

I hadn't seen that yet. That's really exciting stuff! Cool man.

I am a religious man, and as many people have said before me, I also love the way that science works. The thing is though, is that I think that God started everything off and let it go, since He knows what would happen it's O.K. I also agree with Katganistan in that six days was not meant as actually six days in the sense that we know them. It's more like a relative term. Later in the bible in both the old and new testament, the writers use the phrase forty days and forty nights. Once during the Great Flood with Noah's ark. Again it was used to describe the length of time that Jesus stayed in the desert to pray and basically prepare for his upcoming ministry in Judea. In both these examples, forty days and forty nights were I think used to describe a long length of time, since we do not know the truly exact time of either. I believe that it was the same with the six days to create the world. It wasn't really six days of our time, but of God's time. Also, with the lifeless moon, we need it for tides which help to maintain our ecosystem. Check your scientific facts before saying something like that next time. Oh yes, and I believe in evolution through and through, it makes too much sense to deny.

AKA: You're a Theistic Evolutionist.... Which I think, at least many of us; are divided into the Theistic Evolutionist and Evolutionary Creationist (which differ in form only based upon how active the "Creator" is in the system).

How does that help explain Evolution? I'm curious, because to me it only seems to be an agrument for us not to believe God uses the same idea of time as humans do (which I'm sure he doesn't; he's God, why would he?).

The Universe in total (including what we know as "time") was created by God. Realistically, God is "timeless"; that is "Exists outside of time" as known in our refference; but rather exists in all simutaneously (which is an extenstion of the doctrine of omnipresence).


If you believe God created the earth as told by Genesis, then you would believe God created man as told later down a few lines. This, at least to me, points more towards an active role by God in creation of man and the world, which even taken with God's time being different than our concept of time, does not lead me to believe that God created the world and sat back to let man evolve from something less. Also, its says man was created in God's image, and I'd hardly think that, if that were true, early fossile records of what humans supposedly looked like are the "image" of God.

Of course, "image" does not necessarily mean "physical form"; According to every major theologian I've researched; "image" conveys the application that we exist in God's "image" in terms of our ability to reason, love, etc. It's an emotional/mental "image" of God, in his "attributes".

Men have a desire for justice: God has a desire for justice.
Men love, God loves.
Men have a creative flare: God has a creative flare.

Our image is that, though in limit, and in imperfection; we operate in a manner of similtude as to the Creator.

Write me down as closed mind then. I think the idea of Adam & Eve is ridiculous, and impossible. Basically, I subscribe to the idea that Judeaism and Christianity were concepts brought out by early male clerics to dispense of powerful female deities in matriarcal societies and thereby allow men to take back the social powerbase.

Hence, Adam came before and was used to create Eve, Eve is the one who brought on the evil, god is a male figure as is Jesus. The concept of man as superior to women was founded around the same time as the Judaic culture. Makes one wonder...

(This is not an argument for or against evolution - just for acurracy in the OT creation story).

In the Genesis story, all creatures were organized (not created - bad translation) from the lowest order to the highest order. The greatest creation came last - Eve.

The two humans were immortal and couldn't have children. Elohim gave them two conflicting charges: (1) to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth (not replenish - another bad translation) and (2) not touch or eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Lucifer, who had been cast out for rebellion, came first to Adam. Adam refused so he went to Eve. If you've read the story, he added to his explanation for disobeying the rules: You will become like the gods, knowing good and evil (knowing how to make decisions and exercising personal agency). Eve reasoned that in order to follow the first rule, she'd have to violate the second rule. If humans were to be, she and her husband would have to make a choice. She chose to follow the first rule. Then, if they were going to follow the second, Adam would have to do the same.

God then cast them out of the garden and cursed Lucifer - Eve (women) would have power over him ("crush his head").

To say that Eve brought evil into the world is rubbish - the story says the exact opposite. In order to know joy, one must know sorrow. Evil was already there in the guise of Lucifer and his followers. What the story illustrates is the necessity of adversity in our lives, not to mention the innate intelligence and reasoning power of women.

Tom

The big bang has been reproduced under laboratory conditions. Proof does not mean the theory is done being refined.

http://www.rednova.com/news/space/753/big_bangtype_matter_reproduced_in_lab/

I enjoyed the article. I'm always impressed when scientists come up with nwe information to digest.

As for the statement above, the article didn't say that the Big Bang had been reproduced, just the particles that they have theorized existed afterwards had been been reproduced. There's a HUGE difference between the two.

I read the article. It didn't say that the Big Bang had been reproduced, just the particles that they have theorized existed afterwards had been been reproduced. There's a HUGE difference between the two.


Indeed there is a difference, but not as huge as preported. Many Creationists have said for years that the Big Bang simply didn't occur and was therefore impossible to recreate in any way, shape, or form. Obviously that idea was incorrect.

If particles that existed as a result of the big bang could be reproduced, how would such a reproduction be made. Well, logic tells me by creating a "mini" Big Bang.

There is more detail to what was done in the journal Science, however, to see that article one needs to subscribe, and I figured most people didn't want to do that.

Indeed there is a difference, but not as huge as preported. Many Creationists have said for years that the Big Bang simply didn't occur and was therefore impossible to recreate in any way, shape, or form. Obviously that idea was incorrect.

If particles that existed as a result of the big bang could be reproduced, how would such a reproduction be made. Well, logic tells me by creating a "mini" Big Bang.

There is more detail to what was done in the journal Science, however, to see that article one needs to subscribe, and I figured most people didn't want to do that.

I've been looking for a good one to subscribe to though. thanks for that. I tried Popular Science but I've been very disappointed in it so far.

In my view, The Big Bang is very feasible and I don't feel it, in any way, contradicts creation. Even with this great new discovery you've brought to light here.

I've been looking for a good one to subscribe to though. thanks for that. I tried Popular Science but I've been very disappointed in it so far.

In my view, The Big Bang is very feasible and I don't feel it, in any way, contradicts creation. Even with this great new discovery you've brought to light here.

I subscribe to PopSci too, it's more the entertainment article of the scientific community. Like Science Lite. But they do have some cool stuff in there sometimes.

I understand that many believe the Big Bang was god's creation of the universe and I think that is a very progressive thought process regardless of my atheism.

Ah. I'm not a Christian but those I've talked to seemed to think that animals don't have souls. What happens to them? At least with Buddhism they have the eventual chance to become human...


Or humans have the chance to become fish.

(This is not an argument for or against evolution - just for acurracy in the OT creation story).

In the Genesis story, all creatures were organized (not created - bad translation) from the lowest order to the highest order. The greatest creation came last - Eve.

The two humans were immortal and couldn't have children. Elohim gave them two conflicting charges: (1) to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth (not replenish - another bad translation) and (2) not touch or eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Lucifer, who had been cast out for rebellion, came first to Adam. Adam refused so he went to Eve. If you've read the story, he added to his explanation for disobeying the rules: You will become like the gods, knowing good and evil (knowing how to make decisions and exercising personal agency). Eve reasoned that in order to follow the first rule, she'd have to violate the second rule. If humans were to be, she and her husband would have to make a choice. She chose to follow the first rule. Then, if they were going to follow the second, Adam would have to do the same.

God then cast them out of the garden and cursed Lucifer - Eve (women) would have power over him ("crush his head").

To say that Eve brought evil into the world is rubbish - the story says the exact opposite. In order to know joy, one must know sorrow. Evil was already there in the guise of Lucifer and his followers. What the story illustrates is the necessity of adversity in our lives, not to mention the innate intelligence and reasoning power of women.

Tom

Yay! A Mormon perspective! I, personally, have always thought that the Book of Abraham has some pretty interesting revelations - the fact that matter is conserved (and thus was only "organized" in a fashion, as in the Big Bang, in order to bring forth life) is a big one. And Einstein wasn't around in the 1830's. Plus, you have the duality of the universe from 2 Nephi! Evil must exist for there to be good, etc. etc...

Wow, another Mormon... what a coincidence!

I noted that the topic of this thread is "Do the Religious Believe in Evolution?"

That's an excellent way to put it. These days, to believe in evolution takes a step of faith.

For an excellent article by someone who is not a Creationist, nor an Intelligent Designist, and has some serious questions for anyone who believes in Evolution, please try the following link:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

You said it wasn't an institution at all. I said it could be and further presented a definition.

I said that religion as a whole was not an institution. In other words, you can't just say, "religion" and call that an institution. You have to refer to a specific institution for that particular definition to have any meaning. Religion is not an institution. However, the Roman Catholic Church, which is a religion, is an institution.

We part ways there. The belief I have held so far, and don't have reason to depart from, is that the God I worship takes an active role in the lives of us humans here on earth. While I can see how, as explained earlier in this thread, that God can be involved in Evolution, I do not at this time think that God allowed Evolution knowing how it would turn out. Just difference of opinion, I guess.

Again, there is nothing at all in evolutionary theory that says, "God doesn't take an active role in the lives of humans. God was uninvolved in Evolution." The theory doesn't assume that God does either of these things (or even that God exists), but it likewise does not assume that God does not do either of these things.

I would like to know what could be called "middle ground" between the no nervous/single nerve bundle to a human brain. I am familiar with organisms with the single or no bundles, but I can't think of anything at the moment that I can call middle ground. So I'm wondering what you would call middle ground, out of curiosity.

The brains of many other animals are much less complex than than humans. Most insects essentially have a brain-like nerve bundle, and as creatures get more complex, their brains get more complex as well.

Yes, I know things in Evolution don't happen suddenly. I'm not that sheltered in my belief, nor am I blind and can't think. It was mere exhageration. I was just trying to give you an idea of what I think micro-evolution is, since I don't know the actual scientific explanation or ideas behind it.

In truth, there are no scientific explanations or ideas behind "microevolution". The terms microevolution and macroevolution are terms that Creationists and IDers have made up - but are not part of evolutionary theory.

I merely think of micro-evolution to be minute, really small changes in an orgainism, not nearly on the scale that includes a new organ or increasing the complexity of an organ or orgainism.

And here is where you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the theory. All changes in evolution are minute, really small changes in an organism. However, lots and lots and lots of really small changes add up to large changes. We aren't talking about an organism with no lung giving birth to an organism with a lung. We are talking about an organism with no lung having a mutation that leads to an organism with a collection of cells that absorb oxygen well, leading to an organism where those cells are a bit more organized, leading to an organism where those cells are even more organized, and so on and so on and so on until it eventually becomes a lung.

Suppose you took a picture and you started changing colors - one pixel at a time. The first few pixels wouldn't change anything very noticeable. But eventually, the picture will most likely look like something completely different. However, you did it all with tiny little changes.

I noted that the topic of this thread is "Do the Religious Believe in Evolution?"

That's an excellent way to put it. These days, to believe in evolution takes a step of faith.

For an excellent article by someone who is not a Creationist, nor an Intelligent Designist, and has some serious questions for anyone who believes in Evolution, please try the following link:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

Problem in the second paragraph:
The question of the origin of life interested me. The evolutionary explanations that I encountered in textbooks of biology ran to, "In primeval seas, evaporation concentrated dissolved compounds in a pore in a rock, a skim formed a membrane, and life began its immense journey." I saw no reason to doubt this. If it hadn't been true, scientists would not have said that it was.

The author is describing abiogenesis, not evolutionary theory. OOPS!

The majority of this trype is still discussing abiogenesis.

And then we get to a major glaring error:
Evolution is said to proceed by the accretion of successful point mutations.

Evolution is said to proceed in no such way. It does proceed by successful mutations, but all mutations are not piont mutations.

Oh lookie: Someone who doesn't understand the word random:
Again, consider intelligence. Presumably it increases fitness. (Or maybe it does. An obvious question is why, if intelligence is adaptive – i.e., promotes survival – it didn't evolve earlier; and if it is not adaptive, why did it evolve at all?

And, at the end, this guy proves he doesn't understand logic:
To evolutionists I say, "I am perfectly willing to believe what you can actually establish. Reproducibly create life in a test tube, and I will accept that it can be done. Do it under conditions that reasonably may have existed long ago, and I will accept as likely the proposition that such conditions existed and gave rise to life. I bear no animus against the theory, and champion no competing creed. But don't expect me to accept fluid speculation, sloppy logic, and secular theology."

If you have to hold something in your hand to see that it is a valid theory, then you have demonstrated an inability to think.


LOL, Excellent article my ass. This is an idiot who doesn't understand the scientific method, and definitely doesn't understand evolutionary theory. From the very start, most of what he does is whine about abiogenesis - which is a separate theory!

But that never PROVES it ... it just makes it more likly

"PROVE" is a pretty misleading word. In science, there are three basic component parts to knowledge: laws (of physics/mathematics) which are always constant; hypotheses, which are postulates that have yet to be tested; and theories, which are as close to a law as you can get. Hypotheses become theories once they are repeatedly tested and reach the same conclusion through empirical data. A theory is, I repeat, a theory is as concrete as you can get. After all, DNA is called genetic theory, and our knowledge of atoms and radiation are, respectively, atomic and radiological theories.

So, if you want to challenge the logic behind science, I challenge your Bible. How the hell is it more logical, founded in reason, and reality, than theories which have been tested, or shown to be likeliest of all?

The Universe in total (including what we know as "time") was created by God. Realistically, God is "timeless"; that is "Exists outside of time" as known in our refference; but rather exists in all simutaneously (which is an extenstion of the doctrine of omnipresence).

To which I agree. God, if he bothers with "time" at all, is hardly confined to our view or ideas of what time is.



Of course, "image" does not necessarily mean "physical form"; According to every major theologian I've researched; "image" conveys the application that we exist in God's "image" in terms of our ability to reason, love, etc. It's an emotional/mental "image" of God, in his "attributes".

Men have a desire for justice: God has a desire for justice.
Men love, God loves.
Men have a creative flare: God has a creative flare.

Our image is that, though in limit, and in imperfection; we operate in a manner of similtude as to the Creator.

I agree that image does not always mean just physical form, and can include what you state above.

Though if you include evolution, for what I know about early man (I guess pre-Homo Sapiens, though I don't know the names of all the steps or classifications of getting from monkey to current humans) they were more animal-lie, if you will, in instinct, action, and ability. They did not have justice, they did not love as we think of it, and I would hardly call them creative (I guess I'm thinking of Homo Erectus, or the early man that was around in the wooly mammoth era, that went around with clubs and very crude weapons. Not sure if that's HE, or some other one).

Perhaps your meaning the evolution of these ideas to what we have today. If so, then I have misread your post. But one first reading it sounds like your saying early man had these types of things, to which I have no knowledge of that being so. As you state, we are all imperfect, so I am not by any means saying you are lying; merely that I am not aware of that being the case.

"PROVE" is a pretty misleading word.

Yes, it is. And that is precisely what UT (who fully supports the evidence behind evolutionary theory and is not religious at all - something you would know if you had read much of the thread at all) was trying to point out.

A theory is, I repeat, a theory is as concrete as you can get.

Again, that was exactly what UT was trying to point out. And every theory is open to falsification. If new evidence is found that disproves a theory, (or even something believed to be a law) that theory is thrown out. This is the strength of science.

So, if you want to challenge the logic behind science,

My dear, UT was not trying to challenge the logic behind science, but to point it out to someone.

By the scientific method, we can prove nothing. We can only disprove something. If we do many experiments and consistently get the same results, then our hypothesis (or theory) is supported. It is never, however, logically proven.

(This is not an argument for or against evolution - just for acurracy in the OT creation story).

In the Genesis story, all creatures were organized (not created - bad translation) from the lowest order to the highest order. The greatest creation came last - Eve.

The two humans were immortal and couldn't have children. Elohim gave them two conflicting charges: (1) to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth (not replenish - another bad translation) and (2) not touch or eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Lucifer, who had been cast out for rebellion, came first to Adam. Adam refused so he went to Eve. If you've read the story, he added to his explanation for disobeying the rules: You will become like the gods, knowing good and evil (knowing how to make decisions and exercising personal agency). Eve reasoned that in order to follow the first rule, she'd have to violate the second rule. If humans were to be, she and her husband would have to make a choice. She chose to follow the first rule. Then, if they were going to follow the second, Adam would have to do the same.

God then cast them out of the garden and cursed Lucifer - Eve (women) would have power over him ("crush his head").

To say that Eve brought evil into the world is rubbish - the story says the exact opposite. In order to know joy, one must know sorrow. Evil was already there in the guise of Lucifer and his followers. What the story illustrates is the necessity of adversity in our lives, not to mention the innate intelligence and reasoning power of women.

Tom

It's only accurate if you're an ignorant piece of shit Mormon. And I have perfectly the right to say that because I used to be one. "Gods"... just because the Mormon cult wrote up a Book of Moses (I believe that is the book where Genesis was copied, and modified to include "Gods") doesn't mean you're adding any accuracy. There is no mention of "Gods" in Genesis, so shut the fuck up.

And your post is just sexist in the extreme. I can tell you're a Feminazi... but I thought the Mormon cult screened for wackos (irony).

I'm actually reading Genesis right now. In Chapter 3, Verse 1 begins with the "serpent" tempting Eve, who looks at the tree, sees it is good and desireable, and eats it, giving fruit to Adam. It never mentions Satan tempting Adam at all.

As for "bash his head", the actual quote is "He shall bruise your head", Eve's head. Chapter 3, Verse 16: "To the woman He said: I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

If we go by what the Bible actually says, not when some dumbass Mormon pulls quotes out of his ass, the Bible seems to say women are less than men. The modern day shows us that women are just as capable of performing tasks as men. Neither sex is superior, because that's just plain idiocy to say one gender is more intelligent than another, considering there has never been a female counterpart to Shakespeare or even George Orwell.

The two humans were immortal and couldn't have children. Elohim gave them two conflicting charges: (1) to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth (not replenish - another bad translation) and (2) not touch or eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Who's Elohim??

God then cast them out of the garden and cursed Lucifer - Eve (women) would have power over him ("crush his head").

God cursed the serpent/snake Lucifer used to communicate with Eve. God did not curse Lucifer directly. Taken from the NIV version of the Bible, Genesis 3:13-15. (found specifically at http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=3&version=31)

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."



To say that Eve brought evil into the world is rubbish - the story says the exact opposite. In order to know joy, one must know sorrow. Evil was already there in the guise of Lucifer and his followers. What the story illustrates is the necessity of adversity in our lives, not to mention the innate intelligence and reasoning power of women.


Evil was not brought into the world to illustrate the necessity of adversity in our lives. Why would God create perfect beings, allow them to fall to show them what evil was, and then save them in the end? That's basically like saying God said, "Well, y'all are perfect, but I think a few billion people need to die, just so you can see how nice of a guy I am compared to that old Lucifer over there." In a perfect world, as the Garden of Eden was at the time of the first chapters of Genesis, why would you need adversity or evil? ITS PERFECT! Also, take that heaven was around since, well, who knows. There was as much joy as there could ever be possible there, since its heaven. Why would you need to know sorrow if you've already got joy, as well as happiness, obedience, compassion, love, etc. ? I don't follow your reasoning here.

It's only accurate if you're an ignorant piece of shit Mormon. And I have perfectly the right to say that because I used to be one. "Gods"... just because the Mormon cult wrote up a Book of Moses (I believe that is the book where Genesis was copied, and modified to include "Gods") doesn't mean you're adding any accuracy. There is no mention of "Gods" in Genesis, so shut the fuck up.

And your post is just sexist in the extreme. I can tell you're a Feminazi... but I thought the Mormon cult screened for wackos (irony).

I'm actually reading Genesis right now. In Chapter 3, Verse 1 begins with the "serpent" tempting Eve, who looks at the tree, sees it is good and desireable, and eats it, giving fruit to Adam. It never mentions Satan tempting Adam at all.

As for "bash his head", the actual quote is "He shall bruise your head", Eve's head. Chapter 3, Verse 16: "To the woman He said: I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

If we go by what the Bible actually says, not when some dumbass Mormon pulls quotes out of his ass, the Bible seems to say women are less than men. The modern day shows us that women are just as capable of performing tasks as men. Neither sex is superior, because that's just plain idiocy to say one gender is more intelligent than another, considering there has never been a female counterpart to Shakespeare or even George Orwell.


Dude, calm down a little. There are better ways to disprove something or disagree with someone than tell them to shut the fuck up. Even if your bitter toward previously being a Morman, be a little respectful of another human being!

I said that religion as a whole was not an institution. In other words, you can't just say, "religion" and call that an institution. You have to refer to a specific institution for that particular definition to have any meaning. Religion is not an institution. However, the Roman Catholic Church, which is a religion, is an institution.

Now you are merely playing the semantics game. In reality, if any form of religion isn't some sort of institution, there wouldn't be any religion. Correct me if I'm worng, but you stated you were a Chisitian?

Christianity is an institution.

(This is not an argument for or against evolution - just for acurracy in the OT creation story).

In the Genesis story, all creatures were organized (not created - bad translation) from the lowest order to the highest order. The greatest creation came last - Eve.

The two humans were immortal and couldn't have children. Elohim gave them two conflicting charges: (1) to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth (not replenish - another bad translation) and (2) not touch or eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Lucifer, who had been cast out for rebellion, came first to Adam. Adam refused so he went to Eve. If you've read the story, he added to his explanation for disobeying the rules: You will become like the gods, knowing good and evil (knowing how to make decisions and exercising personal agency). Eve reasoned that in order to follow the first rule, she'd have to violate the second rule. If humans were to be, she and her husband would have to make a choice. She chose to follow the first rule. Then, if they were going to follow the second, Adam would have to do the same.

God then cast them out of the garden and cursed Lucifer - Eve (women) would have power over him ("crush his head").

To say that Eve brought evil into the world is rubbish - the story says the exact opposite. In order to know joy, one must know sorrow. Evil was already there in the guise of Lucifer and his followers. What the story illustrates is the necessity of adversity in our lives, not to mention the innate intelligence and reasoning power of women.

Tom



Yeah, I think a certain apostle had something to say about introducing new doctrines/gospels/teachings:


Galatians 1:8 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!



Seems a certain Joseph Smith disregarded it completely, eh?

Now you are merely playing the semantics game. In reality, if any form of religion isn't some sort of institution, there wouldn't be any religion. Correct me if I'm worng, but you stated you were a Chisitian?

Christianity is an institution.



You can't refer to religion in general as an institution though, lol. Pick one :D

I noted that the topic of this thread is "Do the Religious Believe in Evolution?"

That's an excellent way to put it. These days, to believe in evolution takes a step of faith.

For an excellent article by someone who is not a Creationist, nor an Intelligent Designist, and has some serious questions for anyone who believes in Evolution, please try the following link:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

That was an interesting article...although seemingly devoid of a true attempt to understand. It seems the author asked the questions to himself. Perhaps if he had done better analysis he would have found more interesting information.

It also serves to say that science is constantly evolving theories about how things happen as more information becomes available. He seems to want a black or white, yes or no answer. That simply isn't how it works.

Guys, I haven't slept yet. And I'm thoroughly pissed off at how stupid people can be, such as a Mormon trying to add "accuracy" by saying make-believe quotes and ideas.

Dude, calm down a little. There are better ways to disprove something or disagree with someone than tell them to shut the fuck up. Even if your bitter toward previously being a Morman, be a little respectful of another human being!

No.

You can't refer to religion in general as an institution though, lol. Pick one :D

Okay...my point...

Christianity, as a grouping of members of varying degrees of faith in Jesus Christ as the son of god, so on and so forth, regardless of faction or synod, or title, are a religio-social institution. If this were not the case, they would not be titled with the capital "C". Like Federal Government with is also an institution.

Theologians refer to the "Institution of Christianity". Hence, my reasoning.

Yeah, I think a certain apostle had something to say about introducing new doctrines/gospels/teachings:


Galatians 1:8 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!



Seems a certain Joseph Smith disregarded it completely, eh?

I am not religious, but I have a quote to add:

"Beware of false prophets."

Okay...my point...

Christianity, as a grouping of members of varying degrees of faith in Jesus Christ as the son of god, so on and so forth, regardless of faction or synod, or title, are a religio-social institution. If this were not the case, they would not be titled with the capital "C". Like Federal Government with is also an institution.

Theologians refer to the "Institution of Christianity". Hence, my reasoning.


We're not the only religion though. We may be the only true one (I'm inviting so many flames :p ), but there is a plethora of faiths out there.

We're not the only religion though. We may be the only true one (I'm inviting so many flames :p ), but there is a myriad of faiths out there.

Just as a friendly comment, when you use the word "myriad", it already means "many of", thus it is not proper to follow it with "of". :)

Just as a friendly comment, when you use the word "myriad", it already means "many of", thus it is not proper to follow it with "of". :)



*grumbles* Fixed.

Now you are merely playing the semantics game. In reality, if any form of religion isn't some sort of institution, there wouldn't be any religion.

Not according to the definition of religion you used, which clearly states that a religion can be an institution, but does not have to be an institution.

And this definition, from Merriam-Webster, doesn't mention institution at all:
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Just to be safe, here is the definition of institution:
Main Entry: in·sti·tu·tion
Pronunciation: "in(t)-st&-'tü-sh&n, -'tyü-
Function: noun
1 : an act of instituting : ESTABLISHMENT
2 a : a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture <the institution of marriage>; also : something or someone firmly associated with a place or thing <she has become an institution in the theater> b : an established organization or corporation (as a college or university) especially of a public character;


Correct me if I'm worng, but you stated you were a Chisitian?

Christianity is an institution.

No, it isn't. Certain versions of Christianity have institutions built around them (ie. Roman Catholicism or Primitive Baptist), but my personal religion could hardly be called an institution.

Meanwhile, even if Chrsitanity were an institution, in and of itself, that still does not support your reference to religion as an institution, suggesting that all of religion has a single, unifying, institution.

So Christianity isn't :
1) a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture
2) something or someone firmly associated with a place or thing
or
3) an established organization or corporation

Good...then I have nothing to worry about. So long as we go with what you are saying, chritianity is not a significant practice, relationship or organization, isn't firmly associated with anything, and has no organization that has been established over the last 1600 years. We should stop giving Christian churches tax breaks then.

So what is Christianity then?

Meanwhile, even if Chrsitanity were an institution, in and of itself, that still does not support your reference to religion as an institution, suggesting that all of religion has a single, unifying, institution.


All religion is definitely not single or unified. I mean, in reality, religion has caused more death than any other socio-economic force in the history of mankind. Yeah for religion!

It's only accurate if you're an ignorant piece of **** Mormon.

If that's the way former Mormons act, then I think I'd rather be one of them than one of you.

There is no mention of "Gods" in Genesis, so shut the **** up.

Oh? Then how about this (KJV):

Genesis 3
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

It never mentions Satan tempting Adam at all.

Oh? John the Revelator disagreed:

Revelation 12
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

As for "bash his head", the actual quote is "He shall bruise your head". . .

The word "bash" was my fault - I was talking to someone while typing.

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel

The first "bruise" is best translated as "crush". Look it up.

Chapter 3, Verse 16: "To the woman He said: I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

All right, let's talk about what was said:

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow (if there was going to now be pain, then there would be lots of sorrow to go around) and thy conception; (having children hurts - she didn't have any until the fall) in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children (ditto); and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Check out the Dead Sea Scrolls - it has what the husband was to do: he was required to follow God; Eve wasn't required to do that unless he fulfilled that requirement. This part is prominently taught by Jesus in the NT.)

Neither sex is superior, because that's just plain idiocy to say one gender is more intelligent than another, considering there has never been a female counterpart to Shakespeare or even George Orwell.

I never said that one sex is superior to the other. Now if you think that women writers are inferior, then you've never read J.K. Rowling.

I thought the Mormon cult screened for wackos (irony).

Gee, I guess they do. Is that how you got kicked out?

So Christianity isn't :
1) a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture

No, it is a set of significant practices, relationships, and organizations in society and culture.

2) something or someone firmly associated with a place or thing

You have vastly simplified this definition and ignored the example provided to give context.

3) an established organization or corporation

No. It is composed of a set of organizations as well as personal religious views.

Surely you can understand the difference between a plural and a singular?

Do the Religious Believe in Evolution?

I sure do, for I do not see a contradiction in God creating everything and thus making evolution work. I am, however, suspicious about the creation as portrayed in the Bible. But we must not forget that this was written by humans for humans. Humans, who have been touched by the His Grace but probably went: "...and how am I supposed to make your average John Doe understand all of that?"

Yeah, I think a certain apostle had something to say about introducing new doctrines/gospels/teachings:


Galatians 1:8 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!



Seems a certain Joseph Smith disregarded it completely, eh?

And yet, the Old Testament has similar warnings against false prophets, but some people still follow a desert-country carpenter....

Who's Elohim??

That is what God is called in Hebrew.

God cursed the serpent/snake Lucifer used to communicate with Eve. God did not curse Lucifer directly. Taken from the NIV version of the Bible, Genesis 3:13-15. (found specifically at http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=3&version=31)


Remember, what is in the creation story is the same thing (with some notable deletions) that is found in the Temple Scroll. The Temple Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls is a series of metal plate, riveted together end to end, and rolled up. It is the only record of what was taught in the ancient temples. The creation was presented as a drama with the following players: Elohim (God), Adam, Eve, and Lucifer (whose ancient symbol was a two-legged snake). The serpent here is only symbolic.

Remember that ancient Israel had used the snake symbol in another way. During the Exodus, poisonous snakes had appeared and were killing the people. Moses erected a brass serpent for the people to look to. If they were bitten, they only had to look at the brass serpent on the pole and they'd be healed. Many refused to do this simple task and perished. But symbology of the two serpents was not lost on those who complied - the two serpents represented Messiah and Satan. If they only looked to Messiah for salvation, they'd receive it.

Evil was not brought into the world to illustrate the necessity of adversity in our lives. Why would God create perfect beings, allow them to fall to show them what evil was, and then save them in the end?

You are right. Evil wasn't brought into the world to illustrate anything. It was sent here for us to overcome it. It makes us stronger. It makes us learn right from wrong. We need to be agents of our own choosing - we need to be able to make mistakes. Otherwise, we would only be robots - only doing what we're told to do.

Also, if there hadn't been a fall, we would not have come to be. Eve had no children until after the fall:

Adam fell that men might be
Men are that they might have joy.

Without sorrow, there can be no joy. There must needs be opposition in all things.

Isa 30
20 And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers:

21 And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.

There was as much joy as there could ever be possible there, since its heaven. Why would you need to know sorrow if you've already got joy, as well as happiness, obedience, compassion, love, etc. ? I don't follow your reasoning here.

Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that they lived in a state of happiness or joy. They were just there. If you've never had pain, could you describe it? No, it has to be experienced to be understood. If you haven't had pain, then you can't appreciate not having it. Can you adequately describe the feeling of happiness? Not even close - therefore you won't understand sorrow. All of the others follow the same logic.

So Christianity isn't :
1) a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture


No, it is a set of significant practices, relationships, and organizations in society and culture.

Quote:
2) something or someone firmly associated with a place or thing


You have vastly simplified this definition and ignored the example provided to give context.

Quote:
3) an established organization or corporation


No. It is composed of a set of organizations as well as personal religious views.

Surely you can understand the difference between a plural and a singular?

___

Sure I can understand the semantic difference between plural and singular. For example, we do not refer to it as Chirtianities (I guess that is how it would be spelled) which would indicate that is composed of a set of organizations as you stated. It is referred to as Christianity, singular, indicating one overwhelming body of organization. It seems that this singular entity falls in line with the definition you supplied of an institution.

Write me down as closed mind then. I think the idea of Adam & Eve is ridiculous, and impossible. Basically, I subscribe to the idea that Judeaism and Christianity were concepts brought out by early male clerics to dispense of powerful female deities in matriarcal societies and thereby allow men to take back the social powerbase.

Hence, Adam came before and was used to create Eve, Eve is the one who brought on the evil, god is a male figure as is Jesus. The concept of man as superior to women was founded around the same time as the Judaic culture. Makes one wonder...

Don't know about you, but according to the history of ancient Rome and Greece... two very pagan societies... females have have even less powers than that granted to females under ancient Israel... at least under Israel, females were not only honored, but have laid claim to positions of power and/or influence. In Greece and Rome, you'd be hard pressed to find a female in any high position or, in some cases, considered citizens at all. Also, the theory of female predominance has to be based on the idea that, historically, that ability to reproduce is a basis of power rather than military might. However, agrarian societies clearly developed after hunter/gatherer period. Moreover, it is more likely one can argue that the existance of gods pertaining to reproduction, etc. existed as charms and are worshipped to wives so that they may be blessed with a child so that their status in the community may be improved. Nonetheless, it is the pagans that began the deterioration of female power, had there been one historically... but during times when brute force was important in survival then defense... the power of women was not taken by clerics but by force of arms. Do not overestimate the influence of religion over politics... it is usually vice versa.

Don't know about you, but according to the history of ancient Rome and Greece... two very pagan societies... females have have even less powers than that granted to females under ancient Israel... at least under Israel, females were not only honored, but have laid claim to positions of power and/or influence. In Greece and Rome, you'd be hard pressed to find a female in any high position or, in some cases, considered citizens at all. Also, the theory of female predominance has to be based on the idea that, historically, that ability to reproduce is a basis of power rather than military might. However, agrarian societies clearly developed after hunter/gatherer period. Moreover, it is more likely one can argue that the existance of gods pertaining to reproduction, etc. existed as charms and are worshipped to wives so that they may be blessed with a child so that their status in the community may be improved. Nonetheless, it is the pagans that began the deterioration of female power, had there been one historically... but during times when brute force was important in survival then defense... the power of women was not taken by clerics but by force of arms. Do not overestimate the influence of religion over politics... it is usually vice versa.

In ancient Rome, woman could also hold some lower Plebian offices, own their own land, vote, and divorce.

That is what God is called in Hebrew.

Actually, 'Elohim' is plural, in Hebrew - and means 'gods'... not 'god'.

Sure I can understand the semantic difference between plural and singular. For example, we do not refer to it as Chirtianities (I guess that is how it would be spelled) which would indicate that is composed of a set of organizations as you stated. It is referred to as Christianity, singular, indicating one overwhelming body of organization. It seems that this singular entity falls in line with the definition you supplied of an institution.

One problem: There is no singular overwhelming body of organization known as Christianity. The verb Christianity refers to a set of organizations and personal beliefs, without having them all organized into one.

"Computer industry" refers to a set of companies involved in compters. It is singular, but not an organization. The organizations are the individual companies. IBM, Hewlett Paccard, Intel, etc. Surely you wouldn't say that IBM, Hewlett Paccard, Intel, Apple, etc. were all one organization?

Every noun is not an organization.

Just for safe measure:
Main Entry: 1or·ga·ni·za·tion
Pronunciation: "or-g&-n&-'zA-sh&n, "org-n&-
Function: noun
1 a : the act or process of organizing or of being organized b : the condition or manner of being organized
2 a : ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY <charitable organizations> b : an administrative and functional structure (as a business or a political party); also : the personnel of such a structure

Please to be demonstrating how the entirety of Christianity is a single administrative and functional structure?

If that's the way former Mormons act, then I think I'd rather be one of them than one of you.

This is the way a bitter Mormon acts.

Oh? Then how about this (KJV):

Genesis 3
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

If you think "gods" in this context implies the existence of multitudes of gods, I think you're misinterpreting. Pay attention to context.

Oh? John the Revelator disagreed:

Revelation 12
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Care to point out how this mentions Adam?

The word "bash" was my fault - I was talking to someone while typing.

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel

The first "bruise" is best translated as "crush". Look it up.

"Best translated" is a matter of opinion. Look it up where?

All right, let's talk about what was said:

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow (if there was going to now be pain, then there would be lots of sorrow to go around) and thy conception; (having children hurts - she didn't have any until the fall) in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children (ditto); and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Check out the Dead Sea Scrolls - it has what the husband was to do: he was required to follow God; Eve wasn't required to do that unless he fulfilled that requirement. This part is prominently taught by Jesus in the NT.)

She's still basically her husband's property. Back in the days before the Romans conquered Israel, Jewish women would call their husbands "master". Dead Sea scrolls though are another issue. They aren't part of the Bible, thus I will not consider them to be an authority on anything.

I never said that one sex is superior to the other. Now if you think that women writers are inferior, then you've never read J.K. Rowling.

You implied women were more intelligent. Rowling is a child's author. Harry Potter just happens to be a loveable story, but not an adult one. Sorry to break that news to you.

Gee, I guess they do. Is that how you got kicked out?

I left because it was insane. Being told that Jews left Israel circa 600 BC and traversed the Atlantic Ocean, built up civilizations in the Americas, and then all physical trace missing, as well as genetic (Indians are not Jewish, they are Mongoloid), lets me know that it's all bullshit. No civilizations in the New World ever had Jewish aspects, culturally or linguistically.

And what about Joseph Smith? Apparently he was a charlatan and treasure-seeker (http://www.lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtml). And then to believe that Jesus came to the North American "Nephites" following his resurrection is just silly.

Explain to me how this insanity and irrationality can seem like reality to you. I was only 12 when I realized how silly all of this was.

In ancient Rome, woman could also hold some lower Plebian offices, own their own land, vote, and divorce.
And... uhh... this helps your case, how? Besides... the practice of kidnapping girls was accepted until the twilight of the Roman Empire... sounds like a society that respects women... *rolleyes*

And... uhh... this helps your case, how?


Considering women in the the US couldn't vote or count as land owners until pretty recently, I'd say it helps the case.

Considering womein the the US couldn't vote or count as land owners until pretty recently, I'd say it helps the case.
So? Doesn't address the point that, in most of Ancient Greece, women weren't even considered citizens. So are you saying American politics resemble more of the pagan religions? doesn't quite fit the argument the was forwarded before.

It seems to me that with all the empirical evidence that evolution is part of the natural scientific order of the world that religious people would have a rather hard time countering it.

So what exactly is the argument? Evolution (and the Big Bang) have been proven to be factual. Why deny what has been seen?

I believe in devolution: that mankind is gradually (or not so gradually) getting stupider, and the evidence for that is all around me. ;) I myself am stupider than I was when I was 18. Back then I knew EVERYTHING!! Nowadays I realize that I've been wrong a few times. :p

If god created earth, why did he create a dead moon for it?

To maintain the rotation of the Earth, regulate tides and provide a goal for mankind to strive to - Expansion to the other bodies of the heavens.

Though if you include evolution, for what I know about early man (I guess pre-Homo Sapiens, though I don't know the names of all the steps or classifications of getting from monkey to current humans) they were more animal-lie, if you will, in instinct, action, and ability. They did not have justice, they did not love as we think of it, and I would hardly call them creative (I guess I'm thinking of Homo Erectus, or the early man that was around in the wooly mammoth era, that went around with clubs and very crude weapons. Not sure if that's HE, or some other one).

Perhaps your meaning the evolution of these ideas to what we have today. If so, then I have misread your post. But one first reading it sounds like your saying early man had these types of things, to which I have no knowledge of that being so. As you state, we are all imperfect, so I am not by any means saying you are lying; merely that I am not aware of that being the case.

Well, there's no telling what was "man" in the "image" sense; though most early Homo Sapiens and/or Homo Sapien Neaderthalis could clearly be delineated as possessing a similtude of "divine" attributes as we do.

However, The Mammoth was a contemporary of both we (Homo Sapien Sapiens) and Homo Sapien Neaderthalis as well as the earler Homo Erectus. However, little is actually known of Homo Erectus' social structure; though they clearly had an inventive capacity; as we are taling about the first Humans to "harness" fire...

Who's Elohim??

"Elohim" is the latinized version of the "name" used for God in the first couple of Chapters of Genesis: Literally in means "Strong One". Though the word is "plural" in Hebrew; it's used with singular verbs; indicating it representing multiplicity operating in conjunction. In some theological circles; this is seen as an early representation of the Trinity.

In addition to many other names are used throughout the OT:
El : (the mighty)
El Shaddai : (Strength All Sufficient)
Adonai : (Lord, as an adress to a King, or prince)
Yahweh : (Self-Existant; literally "to be" or "I AM")
Abhir : (Mighty One)
Kadosh : (Holy One)
Shaphat : (Judge)
Kanna : (Jealous)
Palet : (Deliverer)
Gaol : (Redeemer)
Magen : (Shield)
Tsaddiq : (Righteous One)
Zur : (Rock)
Melketh : (King)

This is the way a bitter Mormon acts.
You're not Mormon.

Care to point out how this mentions Adam?

I believe it mentions "the whole world," probably including Adam.

"Best translated" is a matter of opinion. Look it up where?

I don't know if it's "best translated"; I do know, however, that God was talking to the serpent when he said, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." The "it" that bruises the serpent's head is "her seed"; the "his heel" also belongs to her seed.

She's still basically her husband's property. Back in the days before the Romans conquered Israel, Jewish women would call their husbands "master". Dead Sea scrolls though are another issue. They aren't part of the Bible, thus I will not consider them to be an authority on anything.

First- Who's being sexist here?

Second- The Dead Sea Scrolls do include parts of the Bible, though. They just weren't in the Roman Catholic church's hands when the Bible in its present-day form was solidified. To not leave room for additional inspiration is folly.

(Besides, the book that mentions "gods" - a term still ambiguous to Mormons - is not Moses, but the Book of Abraham. The Book of Moses, we believe, is divine revelation correcting parts of Genesis and reinserting parts - the story of Enoch - that were changed or taken out over time and translation.)

You implied women were more intelligent. Rowling is a child's author. Harry Potter just happens to be a loveable story, but not an adult one. Sorry to break that news to you.

No, he didn't say they were more intelligent than men; he simply said that they possess an "innate intelligence." And to say that there is no female Shakespeare to support your "male superiority" point shows that you have little understanding of history: mostly, women were never given the chance to showcase their intelligence as Shakespeare was. Besides, have you ever heard of Toni Morrison? Emily Dickinson? Anne Bradstreet? Margaret Atwood?

I left because it was insane. Being told that Jews left Israel circa 600 BC and traversed the Atlantic Ocean, built up civilizations in the Americas, and then all physical trace missing, as well as genetic (Indians are not Jewish, they are Mongoloid), lets me know that it's all bullshit. No civilizations in the New World ever had Jewish aspects, culturally or linguistically.

The assumption that there have been no Hebraic remnants discovered as of yet in the Americas is an ill-thought-out one. Evidence of early trans-Atlantic crossings has been found (tobacco and corn images in Algeria, cocaine in Egypt) and it has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that early civilizations could make transoceanic voyages.

In addition, no one ever said that all Native Americans were Hebraic in ancestry. All evidence points to most being Mongoloid; however, that does not rule out the possibility that a small Hebraic group could have been genetically assimilated into a larger group of Mongoloid residents that were already in the Americas. Besides, there are (and were) many different cultures in the Americas. Some resemble Hebrew ones more than others. Some believe their ancestors came from across the sea (like the Book of Mormon peoples); some don't. Assuming that there is a pan-American culture and genetic makeup is a fallacy.

And what about Joseph Smith? Apparently he was a charlatan and treasure-seeker. And then to believe that Jesus came to the North American "Nephites" following his resurrection is just silly.

Hmmm... the allegation of being a charlatan is all opinion. Some thought that of Moses, Christ, Elijah - there are too many to name - were charlatans. And treasure seeking? It was a common practice at the time. Everyone had done it. And if you're thinking about the Salamander letter, that was a fake.

And Christ coming to America? Why is that silly? In John 10:16 he says he at least was going somewhere after his resurrection to visit "other sheep"; why can't these be Nephites?

Explain to me how this insanity and irrationality can seem like reality to you. I was only 12 when I realized how silly all of this was.
First, lots of things can appear to be "insane" and "irrational" and "silly" depending on your experience. In seventh grade, I thought it was insane, irrational and silly that you had to use "nor" with "neither." I also thought the same thing about Charles Dickens. And symbolism. And physical education. And fine art.

Wow, I had the world figured out at twelve too.

And to say that there is no female Shakespeare to support your "male superiority" point shows that you have little understanding of history: mostly, women were never given the chance to showcase their intelligence as Shakespeare was. Besides, have you ever heard of Toni Morrison? Emily Dickinson? Anne Bradstreet? Margaret Atwood?

Yay! for Emily Dickinson.

Mary Shelley did alright for herself (once she could get published), and the Bronte sisters aren't unheard of... neither is Jane Austen.

And, of course - although it is fairly certain a 'William Shakespeare' lived, and even penned plays... we have no idea how much of the material was 'all his own work'.

It was not unusual, at that point, for the script of a play to evolve over years of performances - which hardly suggests the mental endeavour of ONE man.

You're not Mormon.

Of course I'm no longer Mormon.

I believe it mentions "the whole world," probably including Adam.

"Probably"? Sounds like you're jumping to conclusions. How do you go from ambiguousness straight into saying with certainty that Adam was tempted? Considering no reference of such a thing exists anywhere else in the Bible?

I don't know if it's "best translated"; I do know, however, that God was talking to the serpent when he said, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." The "it" that bruises the serpent's head is "her seed"; the "his heel" also belongs to her seed.

First- Who's being sexist here?

Second- The Dead Sea Scrolls do include parts of the Bible, though. They just weren't in the Roman Catholic church's hands when the Bible in its present-day form was solidified. To not leave room for additional inspiration is folly.

(Besides, the book that mentions "gods" - a term still ambiguous to Mormons - is not Moses, but the Book of Abraham. The Book of Moses, we believe, is divine revelation correcting parts of Genesis and reinserting parts - the story of Enoch - that were changed or taken out over time and translation.)

Sexist? Probably the statement made by your friend. If you're going to call me sexist for stating facts about old Jewish society, you're just being immature.

Perhaps the Dead Sea Scrolls do. However, they aren't included in the Bible, and while I don't hold the Bible in any sort of sacred regard, I'm not going to give creedence to new things found or discovered because frankly it's not my concern and I doubt the authenticity.

Gods isn't ambiguous to Mormons. I remember being told that I could eventually rule over my own planet and be a God.

You might believe in those books. Do you believe in Galatians? A while ago, I saw a quote posted by someone, from Galatians, saying to the effect "beware of any new revelations beyond this". Those are pretty good words of wisdom, things Joseph Smith forgot to read when he put together the Book of Mormon.

No, he didn't say they were more intelligent than men; he simply said that they possess an "innate intelligence." And to say that there is no female Shakespeare to support your "male superiority" point shows that you have little understanding of history: mostly, women were never given the chance to showcase their intelligence as Shakespeare was. Besides, have you ever heard of Toni Morrison? Emily Dickinson? Anne Bradstreet? Margaret Atwood?

Of course they haven't had a chance. It was because this world is male-dominated. And to be frank with you, they really don't compare to Shakespeare. They're good, but not as good. There may never be anyone who reaches his level again. I was making no male superiority point. I stated I believed gender superiority was silly, and that people of any gender should be judged on their own character. What they have between their legs is of no consequence. And even saying women possess some sort of special intelligence sounds pretty moronic to me. I might as well say that since the world had been male-dominated almost in full, that males possess a dominating trait in all other aspects of intelligence. And I've met plenty of women who really seem only interested in decorating themselves selfishly like a Christmas tree.

The assumption that there have been no Hebraic remnants discovered as of yet in the Americas is an ill-thought-out one. Evidence of early trans-Atlantic crossings has been found (tobacco and corn images in Algeria, cocaine in Egypt) and it has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that early civilizations could make transoceanic voyages.

In addition, no one ever said that all Native Americans were Hebraic in ancestry. All evidence points to most being Mongoloid; however, that does not rule out the possibility that a small Hebraic group could have been genetically assimilated into a larger group of Mongoloid residents that were already in the Americas. Besides, there are (and were) many different cultures in the Americas. Some resemble Hebrew ones more than others. Some believe their ancestors came from across the sea (like the Book of Mormon peoples); some don't. Assuming that there is a pan-American culture and genetic makeup is a fallacy.

Assumption? Scientific evidence says your entire cult is full of shit, but apparently logic doesn't exist. The only evidence of any trans-Atlantic voyage prior to Christopher Colombus were the Norweigan Vikings that landed in Newfoundland. Besides that, none ever took place, certainly not close to two thousand years prior to that, the world simply did not have the necessary technology to undertake a trans-Oceanic voyage.

As for "tobacco and corn images... and cocaine", those are flat-out lies. I challenge you to provide credible evidence for those claims.

And yes, various people have shown that it is *possible* to cross the Atlantic in Viking longboat replicas. However, as of yet, I haven't heard of any attempt ever undertaken by someone trying to replicate the ships of circa 600 BC and cross the Atlantic straight from Israel to the New World.

Saying that there is a possibility of Jewish elements in the population of the Native Americans is also another lie. There is no evidence whatsoever, not even any genetic proof whatsoever that correspond to prevailing Jewish genetic makeup. As I said before, Jews never got into sailing boats of the circa 600 BC world and sailed into the Atlantic Ocean, because they didn't have the means.

So which cultures remotely resemble Jewish culture? I again challenge you to provide credible evidence to support your wild claims.

Hmmm... the allegation of being a charlatan is all opinion. Some thought that of Moses, Christ, Elijah - there are too many to name - were charlatans. And treasure seeking? It was a common practice at the time. Everyone had done it. And if you're thinking about the Salamander letter, that was a fake.

And Christ coming to America? Why is that silly? In John 10:16 he says he at least was going somewhere after his resurrection to visit "other sheep"; why can't these be Nephites?

I shall provide links to the evidence Joseph Smith was a charlatan, liar, and treasure-hunter. If you notice, the first link was written by a well-researched Mormon, on an unofficial pro-Mormon website.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/jsmith.shtml
http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page58.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AZ59R1MUCLLD5/102-6921404-4298567?_encoding=UTF8
http://home.teleport.com/~packham/card-bom.htm
http://www.cc.utah.edu/~nahaj/Mormon/

Also, quite a few websites seem to say that the Apocrypha (Such as Dead Sea Scrolls) were explained in D&C as having some revelation, but much corruption and errors. So, officially, you're somewhat on the ball.

The reason they probably aren't the imaginary civilization called the "Nephites" is because there's not enough evidence, even from Bible standards, to say that Jesus was going off to the New World to talk to the imaginary Jews living there. Oh, and because that verse could mean lots of things. Some Christians believe Jesus ascended from Hades/Hell, and saved those souls that didn't deserve eternal damnation/limbo/whatever. Perhaps some Christians could interpret that verse as meaning Jesus meant to conquer Hell afterwards. Who knows. I'm not a Christian. And Neither are Mormons. The mere fact the Bible contains passages such as "Beware of false prophets", and passages such as "Accursed be he who reveal false prophecies" basically tells me enough from a Christian perspective.

First, lots of things can appear to be "insane" and "irrational" and "silly" depending on your experience. In seventh grade, I thought it was insane, irrational and silly that you had to use "nor" with "neither." I also thought the same thing about Charles Dickens. And symbolism. And physical education. And fine art.

Wow, I had the world figured out at twelve too.

I really only consider things insane when they make absolutely no sense or are deliberately illogical (Such as Jews traveling in sail boats of the circa 600 BC technological period across the entire Atlantic Ocean). I certainly did not have the world figured out. I simply rejected the most immediate thing in my life that made no sense whatsoever: rationally or even realistically.

Of course I'm no longer Mormon.

Sexist? Probably the statement made by your friend. If you're going to call me sexist for stating facts about old Jewish society, you're just being immature.
I'm sorry - truly sorry - if I was flamebaiting. I wasn't sure if you were talking about the ancient Jews o you own views; I misinterpreted your comment.

Perhaps the Dead Sea Scrolls do. However, they aren't included in the Bible, and while I don't hold the Bible in any sort of sacred regard, I'm not going to give creedence to new things found or discovered because frankly it's not my concern and I doubt the authenticity.
That's understandable. It's sometimes just nice to compare texts with similar ones of the period to perhaps better understand the author's point of view or statements made in a certain book.

Gods isn't ambiguous to Mormons. I remember being told that I could eventually rule over my own planet and be a God.
I will not argue with the doctrine of deification; in the LDS church, it's called Progression (we can all progress infinitely forward, becoming better and better throughout all eternity if we do what is necessary at each level. On Earth, the goal is to become perfect as Christ.). But in the context of Abraham it is ambiguous. We worship only our Heavenly Father; there were other progressed beings involved in the earth's creation. What is left is to find out who the other "gods" are: Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, or even Heavenly Mother (we believe God is married)? No one honestly knows.

You might believe in those books. Do you believe in Galatians? A while ago, I saw a quote posted by someone, from Galatians, saying to the effect "beware of any new revelations beyond this". Those are pretty good words of wisdom, things Joseph Smith forgot to read when he put together the Book of Mormon.
I believe in Galations. It's quite a good book. The only thing is that there were other books in the Bible written after it: Revelation is a very notable example. And then you have Amos 3:7, which states that God will reveal himself through prophets whenever something is to be made known. It's all opinion on whether you believe in continuing revelation or not. I do.

Of course they haven't had a chance. It was because this world is male-dominated. And to be frank with you, they really don't compare to Shakespeare. They're good, but not as good. There may never be anyone who reaches his level again. I was making no male superiority point. I stated I believed gender superiority was silly, and that people of any gender should be judged on their own character. What they have between their legs is of no consequence. And even saying women possess some sort of special intelligence sounds pretty moronic to me. I might as well say that since the world had been male-dominated almost in full, that males possess a dominating trait in all other aspects of intelligence. And I've met plenty of women who really seem only interested in decorating themselves selfishly like a Christmas tree.
I'm sorry; I misinterpreted this statement as well. Shakespeare was a marvelous playwright. I wasn't saying either that I believe that women have an "innate intelligence"; I was just trying to clarify how I read Jaredites' remark. I don't think he was pushing female superiority; I think he was just trying to defend Eve against allegations of being a Pandora-like character.

Assumption? Scientific evidence says your entire cult is full of ****, but apparently logic doesn't exist. The only evidence of any trans-Atlantic voyage prior to Christopher Colombus were the Norweigan Vikings that landed in Newfoundland. Besides that, none ever took place, certainly not close to two thousand years prior to that, the world simply did not have the necessary technology to undertake a trans-Oceanic voyage.

As for "tobacco and corn images... and cocaine", those are flat-out lies. I challenge you to provide credible evidence for those claims.
I will not try to convince you of anything, but there was once a time when even the Viking colonization was dismissed as stupidity.

I must correct myself. The corn reference was found in Libya among the Garamante people, contemporaries of the Romans. (David Mattingly, in Archaeology Odyssey 3/2 (March-April))

Pictures of maize (American in origin) have been found in India, and evidence of the crop has been found on Indonesia's Timor island dating to 2500BC. (Carl Johannessen & Wang Siming in Pre-Columbiana: A Journal of Long-Distance Contacts, 1998; Ian C. Glover, "The Late Stone Age in Indonesia," World Archaeology June 1977)

A Greek ship that sunk at Kyrenia, Cyprus in the 4th century BC was found to have used a Mexican plant (the agave) as caulking (J. Richard Steffy, "The Kyrenia Ship: An Interim Report on Its Hull Construction," American Journal of Archaeology 89/1 Jan.).

In addition, it has been shown that "primitive" peoples could cross large stretches of ocean. People got to Australia 60000 years ago, for example (A. Thorne et al., "Australia's Oldest Human Remains: Age of the Lake Mungo 3 Skeleton," Journal of Human Evolution, June 1999).

And of course you've heard of Kon-Tiki.

And yes, various people have shown that it is *possible* to cross the Atlantic in Viking longboat replicas. However, as of yet, I haven't heard of any attempt ever undertaken by someone trying to replicate the ships of circa 600 BC and cross the Atlantic straight from Israel to the New World.
Most scholars believe the Nephites went the other way - through the Indian and Pacific Oceans - but that is of no consequence.

Saying that there is a possibility of Jewish elements in the population of the Native Americans is also another lie. There is no evidence whatsoever, not even any genetic proof whatsoever that correspond to prevailing Jewish genetic makeup. As I said before, Jews never got into sailing boats of the circa 600 BC world and sailed into the Atlantic Ocean, because they didn't have the means.
No one demanded prevailing Jewish genetic makeup. There was only a small group that crossed, descedants of just 5 adults (Lehi, Sariah, Ishmael and his wife, and Zoram) whose genetics cannot (1) be assumed to be typically Jewish and (2) to have made such a considerable impact on Mesoamerican genetics without modification over the years to be able to be easily detectable today. Besides, in order to prove that there was no Jewish incursion on genetics, you would have to sample every individual descended from Native Americans.

Also: the Lumba people of South Africa, who had long claimed to be of Jewish descent, had many features that automatically turned people off: dark skin and a blatantly non-Hebraic language were two big ones. But they were eventually proved to be descended from Jewish ancestors.

So which cultures remotely resemble Jewish culture? I again challenge you to provide credible evidence to support your wild claims.

I am sorry; I cannot produce any cultural examples from the top of my head. I have heard of such connections, but I would need to research a bit more to provide you with that "evidence."

One type of evidence that is fairly concrete is linguistic. It is true that many languages of the Americas bear no resemblance whatsoever to Hebrew; that was never a viable view. However, Linguist Brian Stubbs, a specialist in Uto-Aztecan and Near Eastern languages, has embarked on a study to illuminate connections between the two language families. Whereas, for example, only 15% of modern English's vocabulary derives from Old English, Stubbs has found that about 30 to 40% of Uto-Aztecan's vocabulary could be derived from Hebrew with several Arabic and Egyptian links as well. This is not simply finding pairs of words that look alike (though he has found over 1,000) but also providing for consistent sound changes, standard through many of the relationships, that catalogue the changes that would cause Hebrew to adapt to modern Uto-Aztecan; for example, in many cases a Hebrew b would evolve into a UA p, while the Hebrew glottal stop (') changes to w in Uto-Aztecan. Simply interesting studies.

I shall provide links to the evidence Joseph Smith was a charlatan, liar, and treasure-hunter. If you notice, the first link was written by a well-researched Mormon, on an unofficial pro-Mormon website.
The links only say that he was a charlatan treasure-hunter. Oh well. Not to point out the fact that people will do many things to discredit a person they don't like (his 61 neighbors signing that paper).

Also, quite a few websites seem to say that the Apocrypha (Such as Dead Sea Scrolls) were explained in D&C as having some revelation, but much corruption and errors. So, officially, you're somewhat on the ball.
D&C 91 talks about The Apocrypha; not all apocryphal writings. I believe I talked about the Dead Sea Scrolls earlier.

The reason they probably aren't the imaginary civilization called the "Nephites" is because there's not enough evidence, even from Bible standards, to say that Jesus was going off to the New World to talk to the imaginary Jews living there. Oh, and because that verse could mean lots of things. Some Christians believe Jesus ascended from Hades/Hell, and saved those souls that didn't deserve eternal damnation/limbo/whatever. Perhaps some Christians could interpret that verse as meaning Jesus meant to conquer Hell afterwards. Who knows. I'm not a Christian. And Neither are Mormons. The mere fact the Bible contains passages such as "Beware of false prophets", and passages such as "Accursed be he who reveal false prophecies" basically tells me enough from a Christian perspective.
I realize that there are many interpretations of the somewhat ambiguous John 10:16. For exactly that reason it cannot be ruled impossible that Christ visited the Americas just as it cannot be impossible that he visited spirits in the afterlife (which we believe also; see D&C 138).

The very fact that we believe in Christ as the sole savior of the world without which mankind cannot be redeemed should be enough to put us in the "Christian" camp, though, and Bible verses do not say that all subsequent prophets would be false. Again, Amos 3:7. And who's to say that the revelations given to Joseph Smith and his successors are false prophecies? That's a matter of opinion and religious belief.

I really only consider things insane when they make absolutely no sense or are deliberately illogical (Such as Jews traveling in sail boats of the circa 600 BC technological period across the entire Atlantic Ocean). I certainly did not have the world figured out. I simply rejected the most immediate thing in my life that made no sense whatsoever: rationally or even realistically.
I'm sorry if I was flaming there; I was just feeling sarcastic. I apologize.

However, I hope I have helped elucidate the possibility of the Book of Mormon's truth. I mean not to prove; as was discussed earlier, that is impossible. I only mean to show that things (like trans-oceanic travel BC) cannot be dismissed quite so easily as some think. Einstein's relativity was once cast aside as lunacy.

Besides, my faith does not rely on sunken Greek ships or Language connections; it rests primarily on faith, which by its very nature, is something that cannot be proven.

Again I apologize for any offensive comments. To offend is my last intention.

I'm sorry - truly sorry - if I was flamebaiting. I wasn't sure if you were talking about the ancient Jews o you own views; I misinterpreted your comment.

I was certainly angry and upset when I wrote my initial posts. I hadn't been to bed yet. I just woke up at 11 PM.

That's understandable. It's sometimes just nice to compare texts with similar ones of the period to perhaps better understand the author's point of view or statements made in a certain book.

I always held the Gospel of St Thomas in high regard, because of the initial sentences within, but it's not part of the Bible, simply Dead Sea Scroll material.

I will not argue with the doctrine of deification; in the LDS church, it's called Progression (we can all progress infinitely forward, becoming better and better throughout all eternity if we do what is necessary at each level. On Earth, the goal is to become perfect as Christ.). But in the context of Abraham it is ambiguous. We worship only our Heavenly Father; there were other progressed beings involved in the earth's creation. What is left is to find out who the other "gods" are: Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, or even Heavenly Mother (we believe God is married)? No one honestly knows.

I was once a Mormon, I do know all about these things. Wasn't aware of the deification doctrine being called "Progression", perhaps that's a new term; never heard it used like that.

I believe in Galations. It's quite a good book. The only thing is that there were other books in the Bible written after it: Revelation is a very notable example. And then you have Amos 3:7, which states that God will reveal himself through prophets whenever something is to be made known. It's all opinion on whether you believe in continuing revelation or not. I do.

I don't believe in the Bible, period. I was just pointing out relevent scripture.

I'm sorry; I misinterpreted this statement as well. Shakespeare was a marvelous playwright. I wasn't saying either that I believe that women have an "innate intelligence"; I was just trying to clarify how I read Jaredites' remark. I don't think he was pushing female superiority; I think he was just trying to defend Eve against allegations of being a Pandora-like character.

It seemed he was making sexist statements. If you read his post, it certainly can seem that way, considering he spends no time explaining what he means. It's just left to the reader to determine why he would suggest women have more of some intelligence assumedly than men.

I will not try to convince you of anything, but there was once a time when even the Viking colonization was dismissed as stupidity.

I must correct myself. The corn reference was found in Libya among the Garamante people, contemporaries of the Romans. (David Mattingly, in Archaeology Odyssey 3/2 (March-April))

Pictures of maize (American in origin) have been found in India, and evidence of the crop has been found on Indonesia's Timor island dating to 2500BC. (Carl Johannessen & Wang Siming in Pre-Columbiana: A Journal of Long-Distance Contacts, 1998; Ian C. Glover, "The Late Stone Age in Indonesia," World Archaeology June 1977)

A Greek ship that sunk at Kyrenia, Cyprus in the 4th century BC was found to have used a Mexican plant (the agave) as caulking (J. Richard Steffy, "The Kyrenia Ship: An Interim Report on Its Hull Construction," American Journal of Archaeology 89/1 Jan.).

In addition, it has been shown that "primitive" peoples could cross large stretches of ocean. People got to Australia 60000 years ago, for example (A. Thorne et al., "Australia's Oldest Human Remains: Age of the Lake Mungo 3 Skeleton," Journal of Human Evolution, June 1999).

And of course you've heard of Kon-Tiki.

I'm pretty sure there are examples of pictures of helicopters and airplanes in the New World, I've seen ancient jewelry supposedly in the shape of an airplane. Looked more like a fly of some sort. I haven't read those articles, perhaps the Greek ship's "agave" was simply a plant in the same genetic family. They simply didn't have the technology to cross the Ocean.

Most scholars believe the Nephites went the other way - through the Indian and Pacific Oceans - but that is of no consequence.


No one demanded prevailing Jewish genetic makeup. There was only a small group that crossed, descedants of just 5 adults (Lehi, Sariah, Ishmael and his wife, and Zoram) whose genetics cannot (1) be assumed to be typically Jewish and (2) to have made such a considerable impact on Mesoamerican genetics without modification over the years to be able to be easily detectable today. Besides, in order to prove that there was no Jewish incursion on genetics, you would have to sample every individual descended from Native Americans.

Also: the Lumba people of South Africa, who had long claimed to be of Jewish descent, had many features that automatically turned people off: dark skin and a blatantly non-Hebraic language were two big ones. But they were eventually proved to be descended from Jewish ancestors.

But again, there's no evidence of anything the Book of Mormon says it is true. I could write a book about how 4 ancient Chinese individuals sailed across the Pacific Ocean, populated the New World, and then collapsed and fell apart.

Not really familiar with the Lumba people. Speaking of Africa, there are Africans in Ethiopia that insist Jesus came to them during Jesus's childhood years, but they're probably just full of it too.

I am sorry; I cannot produce any cultural examples from the top of my head. I have heard of such connections, but I would need to research a bit more to provide you with that "evidence."

One type of evidence that is fairly concrete is linguistic. It is true that many languages of the Americas bear no resemblance whatsoever to Hebrew; that was never a viable view. However, Linguist Brian Stubbs, a specialist in Uto-Aztecan and Near Eastern languages, has embarked on a study to illuminate connections between the two language families. Whereas, for example, only 15% of modern English's vocabulary derives from Old English, Stubbs has found that about 30 to 40% of Uto-Aztecan's vocabulary could be derived from Hebrew with several Arabic and Egyptian links as well. This is not simply finding pairs of words that look alike (though he has found over 1,000) but also providing for consistent sound changes, standard through many of the relationships, that catalogue the changes that would cause Hebrew to adapt to modern Uto-Aztecan; for example, in many cases a Hebrew b would evolve into a UA p, while the Hebrew glottal stop (') changes to w in Uto-Aztecan. Simply interesting studies.

I could do studies on how much Russian is connected to Aboriginal Australian language. It would be biased and tainted, and not very professional science.

As for the "scientist" you mention, I simply state again that the Native Americans are Mongoloid, and any coincidences whatsoever between them and Jews are simply coincidences. All languages have some similarities, regardless of how isolated or different they are.

The links only say that he was a charlatan treasure-hunter. Oh well. Not to point out the fact that people will do many things to discredit a person they don't like (his 61 neighbors signing that paper).


D&C 91 talks about The Apocrypha; not all apocryphal writings. I believe I talked about the Dead Sea Scrolls earlier.

They say quite a bit more than that.

I realize that there are many interpretations of the somewhat ambiguous John 10:16. For exactly that reason it cannot be ruled impossible that Christ visited the Americas just as it cannot be impossible that he visited spirits in the afterlife (which we believe also; see D&C 138).

The very fact that we believe in Christ as the sole savior of the world without which mankind cannot be redeemed should be enough to put us in the "Christian" camp, though, and Bible verses do not say that all subsequent prophets would be false. Again, Amos 3:7. And who's to say that the revelations given to Joseph Smith and his successors are false prophecies? That's a matter of opinion and religious belief.


I'm sorry if I was flaming there; I was just feeling sarcastic. I apologize.

However, I hope I have helped elucidate the possibility of the Book of Mormon's truth. I mean not to prove; as was discussed earlier, that is impossible. I only mean to show that things (like trans-oceanic travel BC) cannot be dismissed quite so easily as some think. Einstein's relativity was once cast aside as lunacy.

Besides, my faith does not rely on sunken Greek ships or Language connections; it rests primarily on faith, which by its very nature, is something that cannot be proven.

Again I apologize for any offensive comments. To offend is my last intention.

I don't think they're false prophecies. I simply think Joseph Smith was a liar.

Bump.

I once lived in a treehouse, I lived in a cake, but I never saw the way that the orange slayed the rake.

Do religious people believe in Evolution?

--> Some do, some don't (I do.)
BTW, do all secular people believe in Evolution?

Do religious people believe in Evolution?

--> Some do, some don't (I do.)
BTW, do all secular people believe in Evolution?


I'm a secular person and I believe in evolution. Although Darwins theory was flawed and incomplete (As was newtons original theory of gravity. and countless other theories) we now have a greater understanding of how evolution works.

Religious people often dont believe in evolution because they believe that everything was created for a purpose, eg an earlier post suggests the moon was vreated to regulate tides etc, when in reality its just a big ball of rock that happens to orbit our bigger ball of rock. The fact that it does regulate the tides is incidental.

The point is They see an organism and think it is that way for a reason, eg a giraffe has a long neck so it can reach leaves on tall trees. But evolution doesnt work that way. It works by natural selection. The giraffe has a long neck for no reason, but survives when its short necked buddies die because having a long neck gives it an advantage.

I dont mean to generalise about religious people by the way, it was just the impression i got from reading the forums.

Personally, I do believe that there's a sense behind all that. Evolution is part of God's plan, imho. I think, evolution (and science in general) and religion work well together.
Evolution is just a theory. It could be wrong. But I think it's right.
My religious belief is just a belief. It could be wrong. But I think it's right.
I don't see any problem in believing in both.

Personally, I do believe that there's a sense behind all that. Evolution is part of God's plan, imho. I think, evolution (and science in general) and religion work well together.
Evolution is just a theory. It could be wrong. But I think it's right.
My religious belief is just a belief. It could be wrong. But I think it's right.
I don't see any problem in believing in both.
I second that. (I should've thought of your wording when I tried to put my thoughts down!). Thanks :D

To maintain the rotation of the Earth, regulate tides and provide a goal for mankind to strive to - Expansion to the other bodies of the heavens.

So...god wants us to expand out into the universe to find a place where it's likely his holy hold will diminish over time since the only thing he seems concerned with, according to the christian faith, is life on earth?

Seems odd to me. Doesn't add up.

One problem: There is no singular overwhelming body of organization known as Christianity. The verb Christianity refers to a set of organizations and personal beliefs, without having them all organized into one.

"Computer industry" refers to a set of companies involved in compters. It is singular, but not an organization. The organizations are the individual companies. IBM, Hewlett Paccard, Intel, etc. Surely you wouldn't say that IBM, Hewlett Paccard, Intel, Apple, etc. were all one organization?

Every noun is not an organization.

Just for safe measure:


Please to be demonstrating how the entirety of Christianity is a single administrative and functional structure?


Administrative, I wouldn't agree to. There are so many "splinter groups" in Christianity that there could never be one adminstrative structure. Functional, however. You would have to admit that if there wasn't a functional structure, Christianity (and really any religion) would have fallen by the wayside a long time ago.

The idea behind a lot of christianity is unity as a community via the Church. The church would be the functional (not administrative always, although sometimes) structure that binds christianity as an institution.

Again, I am not saying this is the case for all christians. I know many people that "follow the word of Christ", yet don't attend services or do anything in an organized way. The are still a part of christianity though not in an organized sense.

And... uhh... this helps your case, how? Besides... the practice of kidnapping girls was accepted until the twilight of the Roman Empire... sounds like a society that respects women... *rolleyes*

Pointing out the kidnapping was good, however only partially diminishes my point. Let's take American society for example. Even though it strains now to say we aren't Christian-based, we really are (especially with so many people believing that Bush was appointed by god (another good argumanet for being an athiest)). Yet up until the 1950's, and to a certain extent afterwards, women were allowed to be beaten by their husbands.

You will not find a perfect society. We can go back and forth on this all day long. However, prior to the advent of christianity, women had more power around the world, that post-advent.

It seems I came in this conversation pretty late, but I wanted to see what you thought of my opinion.

I am Christian, but was completely open to the theory of evolution, until I started reading books by evolutionists, and books by people who didn't believe in evolution (creationists and undecideds). There are holes in Evolution that evolutionists don't seem to be able to answer, namely irreducible complexity, the Cambrian explosion, the lack of evidence for microevolution, ect. Usually when evolutionists are confronted with these questions, they use circular reaoning to defend the theory. I'd be happy to elaborate on these holes in the theory, if anyone is interested. Also, if anyone has read a good answer to these holes, holding evolution together, please post.

Administrative, I wouldn't agree to. There are so many "splinter groups" in Christianity that there could never be one adminstrative structure. Functional, however. You would have to admit that if there wasn't a functional structure, Christianity (and really any religion) would have fallen by the wayside a long time ago.

The idea behind a lot of christianity is unity as a community via the Church. The church would be the functional (not administrative always, although sometimes) structure that binds christianity as an institution.

Again, I am not saying this is the case for all christians. I know many people that "follow the word of Christ", yet don't attend services or do anything in an organized way. The are still a part of christianity though not in an organized sense.

And this is exactly my point. Even the functional unit you list - the church - does not encompass all of Christianity. An individual church is its own institution, but all of Christianity is not. An individual denomination is its own institution, but all of Christianity is not a single institution. It is a collection of all of these institutions, plus the individual faiths that are a part of none of them.

I am Christian, but was completely open to the theory of evolution, until I started reading books by evolutionists, and books by people who didn't believe in evolution (creationists and undecideds). There are holes in Evolution that evolutionists don't seem to be able to answer, namely irreducible complexity, the Cambrian explosion, the lack of evidence for microevolution, ect. Usually when evolutionists are confronted with these questions, they use circular reaoning to defend the theory. I'd be happy to elaborate on these holes in the theory, if anyone is interested. Also, if anyone has read a good answer to these holes, holding evolution together, please post.

First off: There are holes in any theory, even the theory of gravity. That is why there is still study ongoing. If we had a perfect explanation for everything, why would science still be around?

Second: Creationists and IDers try to point to something they see as a problem in evolution (which generally isn't, if you know anything at all about the theory or about science) and try to say that such problems support their theory. That is idiotic. It is like being in a murder trial and saying, "It looks like there are four minutes when we can't figure out where Bob was. Obviously, this means that George Bush killed our victim."

Third: Nothing like "irreducible complexity" has been demonstrated. It has been talked about quite a bit, but there hasn't been a single trait brought up for which a plausible scientific explanation could not be produced. There is no "lack of evidence" for evolution. There can always be more evidence, certainly. But there is quite a bit as it is.

The reason people point problems out in Evolution, and use them as arguments for ID, is there are not any other mainstream theorys out there. If one circumstance is not allowed for in Evolution, but ID is perfectly fine with it, then the circumstance serves to both weaken Evolution, and strengthen ID.

As far as irreducible complexity, ID scientists point to traits or organs and publish articles saying that they are instances of irreducible complexity. Evolutionists generally say, "We can't know that." Because Evolution is a theory that must be proved, it is Darwinist scientists' job to prove that these traits do not, in fact, exhibit irreducible complexity.

The reason people point problems out in Evolution, and use them as arguments for ID, is there are not any other mainstream theorys out there. If one circumstance is not allowed for in Evolution, but ID is perfectly fine with it, then the circumstance serves to both weaken Evolution, and strengthen ID.



No. Even if Evolution turned out to be complete fiction, that wouldn't make ID ANY MORE TRUE.


As far as irreducible complexity, ID scientists point to traits or organs and publish articles saying that they are instances of irreducible complexity. Evolutionists generally say, "We can't know that." Because Evolution is a theory that must be proved, it is Darwinist scientists' job to prove that these traits do not, in fact, exhibit irreducible complexity.

Irreducible complexity is something of a non-entity. The ID side says things like "But, Bacterial Flagella are Irreducibly Complex"... and the Evolutionist side points out that there are THOUSANDS of different 'types' of bacterial flagella, serving a variety of different purposes. They ask for a specific bacterial flagella, and none are forthcoming.

You should try looking at BOTH sides of this debate... Irreducible Complexity has been pretty thoroughly debunked EVERYWHERE outside of Creationist propoganda.

Irreduceable complexity is a very weak argument. For it to actually contradict evolution there would have to be examples of traits that could not possibly have evolved through natural selection. The best it has been able to achieve is finding traits that we do not yet understand fully.

The biggest weakness of ID and creationism is that they don't make any testable predictions, and instead rely on attempting to pick holes in evolutionary theory. There have been holes in evolutionary theory from the start but all these have done is to produce refined versions of the same theory. Examples include altruistic behaviour in nature, which Darwin was unable to explain with his own theory. This has been since explained and is now part of the theory of evolution. So pick holes in evolution all you want. That's the process of science and works to support evolutionary theory. It does nothing to support ID or creationism though.

The reason people point problems out in Evolution, and use them as arguments for ID, is there are not any other mainstream theorys out there.

It still doesn't work. Like I said, if you have no other murder suspects, you can't just point to George Bush if there is a problem in the evidence.

If one circumstance is not allowed for in Evolution, but ID is perfectly fine with it, then the circumstance serves to both weaken Evolution, and strengthen ID.

Of course, no one has shown any such circumstance.

As far as irreducible complexity, ID scientists point to traits or organs and publish articles saying that they are instances of irreducible complexity.

...with no evidence of the same other than, "It's soooooo complicated. It must be irreducible!"

Evolutionists generally say, "We can't know that." Because Evolution is a theory that must be proved, it is Darwinist scientists' job to prove that these traits do not, in fact, exhibit irreducible complexity.

Actually, that is completely untrue. That is not how science works. The person making the positive statement (ie. an IDer stating that something is irreducibly complex) must provide adequate evidence for it. Otherwise, there is no reason to make the assumption that it is.

Science does not prove anything. It either disproves a given hypothesis or theory, or it supports it. "I said so," is not a support for a theory, but it is really all IDers have.

And this is exactly my point. Even the functional unit you list - the church - does not encompass all of Christianity. An individual church is its own institution, but all of Christianity is not. An individual denomination is its own institution, but all of Christianity is not a single institution. It is a collection of all of these institutions, plus the individual faiths that are a part of none of them.


I think we are starting to see each other's point of view on this and perhaps it was some sort of semantics barrier, but I think we are actually agreeing. My point is, regardless of the various groups that practice outside the "realm" of THE CHURCH, the church itself is an institution. Are we in agreement on that point?

I think we are starting to see each other's point of view on this and perhaps it was some sort of semantics barrier, but I think we are actually agreeing. My point is, regardless of the various groups that practice outside the "realm" of THE CHURCH, the church itself is an institution. Are we in agreement on that point?

Basically, yes, although I am still not sure if you are referring to "the church" as some sort of all-encompassing church that presides over Christianity as a whole or if you are using it to refer to individual churches, which I think would be more correct. Any given church is, of course, an institution.

The reason people point problems out in Evolution, and use them as arguments for ID, is there are not any other mainstream theorys out there. If one circumstance is not allowed for in Evolution, but ID is perfectly fine with it, then the circumstance serves to both weaken Evolution, and strengthen ID.

As far as irreducible complexity, ID scientists point to traits or organs and publish articles saying that they are instances of irreducible complexity. Evolutionists generally say, "We can't know that." Because Evolution is a theory that must be proved, it is Darwinist scientists' job to prove that these traits do not, in fact, exhibit irreducible complexity.

First: There is no such thing as an "Evolutionist".

Second: Anthropologists, the studiers of evolution and culture, have never been known to say "We can't know that". They often say "We do not have sufficient evidence to support that hypothesis AT THIS TIME."

Third: ID has no scientific evidence. Follwing this path, we can have anyone present any idea with sufficient argument and allow that to be debated as well.

Those on the cutting edge of Evolutionary Theory will not debate with the IDers because it isn't a scientific theory based on evidence. It is just political conjecture. Nothing that has gone back and forth thus far has strengthened ID or weakened the theory of evolution in the eyes of the scientific community.

Basically, yes, although I am still not sure if you are referring to "the church" as some sort of all-encompassing church that presides over Christianity as a whole or if you are using it to refer to individual churches, which I think would be more correct. Any given church is, of course, an institution.

BINGO! We are talking about the same thing. Whew...it only took us 4 days to figure out we meant the same thing. Sorry for all the "heated confusion".

...with no evidence of the same other than, "It's soooooo complicated. It must be irreducible!"


Hey, are WE allowed to use the same reasoning?

"Intelligent Design just seems dumb. Therefore: Evolution must be true".

Woot!

So...god wants us to expand out into the universe to find a place where it's likely his holy hold will diminish over time since the only thing he seems concerned with, according to the christian faith, is life on earth?

Seems odd to me. Doesn't add up.

Actually, we are to expand, multiply and hold dominion over all we survey. This seems to imply an expansion into the heavens themselves.

*BUMP-oo*

Actually, we are to expand, multiply and hold dominion over all we survey. This seems to imply an expansion into the heavens themselves.

What is the point of all that? Especially if the bible only says Jesus will return to Earth.

Sounds like another misinterpretation of a poorly translated and politically slanted document.

Hey, are WE allowed to use the same reasoning?

"Intelligent Design just seems dumb. Therefore: Evolution must be true".

Woot!

That sounds elementary. Let's try this:

Evolution has specified items of support, such as the fossil record. Intelligent Design is merely conjecture with no supporting evidence.


...so ID is dumb.

Yes, even the once stronghold of old-fashioned views, the Catholic Church, has excepted evolution. Though the religious belief that God influences evolution according to his plan.

Well, yes, that is tue. The Catholic church has certainly EXCEPTED evolution.

I personally believe that God created the earth, and everything on it in six days. Now, that may not be six days in Idonea time, but six days where ever God resides, which could take into account what seems to us to have evolved over millions of years, only took 7 days where God lives. It is in this manner of thinking that we can co-exist.

Sincerely,
Jeremy Robert Furbish
AT-NH2ME2000
FSP-MN2NH2004
www.freestateproject.org
Blaze a trail to freedom!

Well, yes, that is tue. The Catholic church has certainly EXCEPTED evolution.

I personally believe that God created the earth, and everything on it in six days. Now, that may not be six days in Idonea time, but six days where ever God resides, which could take into account what seems to us to have evolved over millions of years, only took 7 days where God lives. It is in this manner of thinking that we can co-exist.

Sincerely,
Jeremy Robert Furbish
AT-NH2ME2000
FSP-MN2NH2004
www.freestateproject.org
Blaze a trail to freedom!

Very true, I cannot understand why the non-religous people of this forum don't get that most Christians believe in a "guided" evolution. So, we don't believe in the mysterious cosmos of the universe control evolution. I think intelligent design just has some wording flaws.

Very true, I cannot understand why the non-religous people of this forum don't get that most Christians believe in a "guided" evolution. So, we don't believe in the mysterious cosmos of the universe control evolution. I think intelligent design just has some wording flaws.
No, don't think it has just wording flaws. I think it is a dumb idea that belittles god and it's only use is to masquerade creationsim to make it more palatable to people who are not religious fundamentalists.

No, don't think it has just wording flaws. I think it is a dumb idea that belittles god and it's only use is to masquerade creationsim to make it more palatable to people who are not religious fundamentalists.

Hmmm. . .
Hmmm. . .
No, it's a way for the religious to except the ideas of science, but to be skeptical about the absence of a god.

People should be happy that they have given leeway at all.

Hmmm. . .
Hmmm. . .
No, it's a way for the religious to except the ideas of science, but to be skeptical about the absence of a god.

People should be happy that they have given leeway at all.
But science doesn't equate the absence of god. ID, however, gives me a god who needs to tinker because he didn't get it right first time. This I find incompatible with my faith.

But science doesn't equate the absence of god. ID, however, gives me a god who needs to tinker because he didn't get it right first time. This I find incompatible with my faith.

Ehh. . . have faith in your God. He knows what He's doing, even if we don't.

Hemingsoft, you should probably be made aware that "except" and "accept" are mutually exclusive ideas. It would be in your interest to use the right word.

But science doesn't equate the absence of god. ID, however, gives me a god who needs to tinker because he didn't get it right first time. This I find incompatible with my faith.

Not that it is my usual tact, but let me take the bible on this one.

If god needed to create a flood and have Noah "save" the creatures of the Earth, didn't that mean he didn't get it right the first time. Then there is the whole Adam and Eve thing...that got all botched up.

I don't believe in any of this...but your own holy book says he didn't get it right the first (or second) time.

Not that it is my usual tact, but let me take the bible on this one.

If god needed to create a flood and have Noah "save" the creatures of the Earth, didn't that mean he didn't get it right the first time. Then there is the whole Adam and Eve thing...that got all botched up.

I don't believe in any of this...but your own holy book says he didn't get it right the first (or second) time.
No, there's a marked difference here. The flood (which I take to be allegorical, anyway) was necessary because the humans moved further and further away from god, because they had free will. So it wasn't god who got it wrong, but people.
But if I have a theory that says says that after creating life god had to fine-tune it, then it sounds to me as if god got it wrong!

As someone already pointed out earlier, several parts of the Old Testament aren't to be taken literally but metaphorically (including the Genesis), and are meant to be parables. I'm Catholic and don't deny evolution, by no means, but I believe it was influenced by God. I never reject nor ignore what science has discovered. It has yet to discover something that truly compromises Christianity, and I believe that'll only happen VERY far into the future, if it ever does...

Non-Christians always think we take everything from the Bible as it's written, but that's an erroneous assumption.

No, there's a marked difference here. The flood (which I take to be allegorical, anyway) was necessary because the humans moved further and further away from god, because they had free will. So it wasn't god who got it wrong, but people.
But if I have a theory that says says that after creating life god had to fine-tune it, then it sounds to me as if god got it wrong!

sounds like they didn't believe in him so he wiped them out. That's not exactly fine-tuning but tuning none the less.

Why doesn't he do this now? There are fewer Christians in the world (per capita) than before. People are straying from Yahweh all the time. I'm waiting for a few rainy days, and yet I see sunshine.

That Yahweh (which is your Christian god's name by the way) is rather inconsistent.

As someone already pointed out earlier, several parts of the Old Testament aren't to be taken literally but metaphorically (including the Genesis), and are meant to be parables. I'm Catholic and don't deny evolution, by no means, but I believe it was influenced by God. I never reject nor ignore what science has discovered. It has yet to discover something that truly compromises Christianity, and I believe that'll only happen VERY far into the future, if it ever does...

Non-Christians always think we take everything from the Bible as it's written, but that's an erroneous assumption.

Actually, I (the non-christian that started this post) pointed it out. The problem is, some people seem to like to use the metaphorical parts of the bible as evidence. A metaphor isn't literal, and therefore can't be used as a point of reference.

Why doesn't he do this now? There are fewer Christians in the world (per capita) than before. People are straying from Yahweh all the time. I'm waiting for a few rainy days, and yet I see sunshine.

Well we have torrential rains and flooding at the moment. In fact a brand new 11 Million Euro bridge is in danger of being swept away as we speak (or type)!

Actually, I (the non-christian that started this post) pointed it out. The problem is, some people seem to like to use the metaphorical parts of the bible as evidence. A metaphor isn't literal, and therefore can't be used as a point of reference.
Exactly my point. However, I have to disagree on your opinion about the flood, or lack thereof. This, again, has to be taken metaphorically, since it represents a global climatic cataclysm. Now, can you explain why are we NOT going towards that? :p

Contamination is currently affecting the way climate works all over the world. For example, unseasonal temperatures, tsunamis and global warming. This last issue is the most troubling. Let me link it up to the biblical disaster for you:

Man contaminates the air ---> Greenhouse effect ---> Polar ice caps melt ---> FLOOD!

Hmm, it seems this one isn't so metaphorical... =/

As a Catholic there is no conflict between my faith and evolution.

Evolution is not a question at all: evolution is simply the phenomenon that earlier species are supplanted by later and more advanced ones.

Darwinism states that the mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which is a logical mechanism to a point.
It breaks down when it encounters structures with no obvious biological function, such as body ornamentation and so on.

Some say that these are caused by the mechanism of random mutations, which is plausible.
This theory, along with Darwinism, falters when it encounters structures of immense complexity, such as a bird's wing, the human eye, or even cellular structure.

There aren't any more theories at this point, and IDers are basically creationist from here on. I disagree with them because so far we have theorized mechanisms that are possible for different aspects of evolution, and it is possible that we will discover further theories in the future.

Creation needs a starting point, and all of these mechanisms need something to put them in motion. That's God.

I haven't actually participated in this discussion yet, but as it is I think there is no good reason why God would not have created the world in six days when he states plainly that he did. And for the flood being metaphorical? I don't think so. Have you ever heard of the time when people found ancient fish remains near the top of a very high mountain? That example only confirms my belief.

And has anyone ever considered that God created the universe with the appearance of age?

Exactly my point. However, I have to disagree on your opinion about the flood, or lack thereof. This, again, has to be taken metaphorically, since it represents a global climatic cataclysm. Now, can you explain why are we NOT going towards that? :p

Contamination is currently affecting the way climate works all over the world. For example, unseasonal temperatures, tsunamis and global warming. This last issue is the most troubling. Let me link it up to the biblical disaster for you:

Man contaminates the air ---> Greenhouse effect ---> Polar ice caps melt ---> FLOOD!

Hmm, it seems this one isn't so metaphorical... =/

Interesting twist...touche. However, there is a point, possibly two. Man contaminates the air. Not god. So it would be humankind brining the flood, for lack of interest in moving into cleaner fuels (they just aren't profitable says GWB). I agree this is a horrible thing, but far from a glocal climatic cataclysm. While global warming is a recognized problem, it would likely be another 100- 500 years before acute results are seen (i.e. ice caps melting causing world wide flooding).

The other point...global warming is caused by the lack of pirates...see Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (http://www.venganza.org) to understand...

I haven't actually participated in this discussion yet, but as it is I think there is no good reason why God would not have created the world in six days when he states plainly that he did. And for the flood being metaphorical? I don't think so. Have you ever heard of the time when people found ancient fish remains near the top of a very high mountain? That example only confirms my belief.

And has anyone ever considered that God created the universe with the appearance of age?


Ummm...all those points were brought up and shot down in the 18th century.

Fish fossils found in mountain tops doesn't prove there was god's flood. It proves that Ocean levels were higher in the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian eras. Most of North America was under water.

Ummm...all those points were brought up and shot down in the 18th century.

Fish fossils found in mountain tops doesn't prove there was god's flood. It proves that Ocean levels were higher in the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian eras. Most of North America was under water.

Apparently, I am arguing with a lack of information at hand; yet would you say to the theory that God created with the appearance of age?

Fish fossils found in mountain tops doesn't prove there was god's flood. It proves that Ocean levels were higher in the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian eras. Most of North America was under water.
Not to mention that the mountains were probably a bit flatter. ;)

"Metaphorical" has become the new catch-phrase. It's no longer special.

I wonder how many who use it actually know what it means?

I haven't actually participated in this discussion yet, but as it is I think there is no good reason why God would not have created the world in six days when he states plainly that he did. And for the flood being metaphorical? I don't think so. Have you ever heard of the time when people found ancient fish remains near the top of a very high mountain? That example only confirms my belief.

As far as rocks in the ground contradict Biblical stories, we must assume the Bible to be non-literal. Why? Because truth cannot contradict truth.

There are only two options.
#1. Completely logical and unbiased evidence - the objective reality of fossils, and the logical experiments determining their age - is completely false, untrue, and hallucinated. (This one says that there's no such thing as logic, science, or natural order.)
#2. The Biblical tales which seem to contradict this objective evidence aren't actually meant to contradict it.

Presumably, these fossils are present on the Earth in accordance with God's Plan. Presumably, their discovery by humans is also in accordance to the same Plan. God's Truth is absolute. It can't be divided or antagonistic.


The Bible stories dealing with Creation can be taken as spiritual or literal. Either way, they are matters of faith.

However, ignoring or twisting objective evidence (such as positing that "God created the appearance of age" - as though He somehow saw the need to decieve His own adoptive children!!!) amounts to the subordination of our God-given senses (including our powers of reasoning) to our own desires and beliefs. This does not give glory to God.

Interesting twist...touche. However, there is a point, possibly two. Man contaminates the air. Not god. So it would be humankind brining the flood, for lack of interest in moving into cleaner fuels (they just aren't profitable says GWB). I agree this is a horrible thing, but far from a glocal climatic cataclysm. While global warming is a recognized problem, it would likely be another 100- 500 years before acute results are seen (i.e. ice caps melting causing world wide flooding).

The other point...global warming is caused by the lack of pirates...see Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (http://www.venganza.org) to understand...
Add to that the creation science quiz!

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0101/sciencequiz.html

As far as rocks in the ground contradict Biblical stories, we must assume the Bible to be non-literal. Why? Because truth cannot contradict truth.

There are only two options.
#1. Completely logical and unbiased evidence - the objective reality of fossils, and the logical experiments determining their age - is completely false, untrue, and hallucinated. (This one says that there's no such thing as logic, science, or natural order.)
#2. The Biblical tales which seem to contradict this objective evidence aren't actually meant to contradict it.

Presumably, these fossils are present on the Earth in accordance with God's Plan. Presumably, their discovery by humans is also in accordance to the same Plan. God's Truth is absolute. It can't be divided or antagonistic.


The Bible stories dealing with Creation can be taken as spiritual or literal. Either way, they are matters of faith.

However, ignoring or twisting objective evidence (such as positing that "God created the appearance of age" - as though He somehow saw the need to decieve His own adoptive children!!!) amounts to the subordination of our God-given senses (including our powers of reasoning) to our own desires and beliefs. This does not give glory to God.


Not to be sarcastic but I will be...

You are so right. How could I possibly want to believe in the empirical evidence I've been given and deny that a non-substantial, invisible, unknowable force didn't create everything? Shame on me...

But seriously, when will somone give empirical (not "I have faith") evidence of god?

I haven't actually participated in this discussion yet, but as it is I think there is no good reason why God would not have created the world in six days when he states plainly that he did.

God told you that? Personally?

If not, then your faith lies not in God, but in those who told the stories for hundreds of years and eventually wrote them down, as well as each and every scribe between the first writing and the last, as well as every translator who had a hand in the version of the Bible you are reading.

Meanwhile, in Scripture, there are two separate Creation stories discussed. Only one of them (the Priestly version) appears to have occurred in 6 days. (And even those do not necessarily have to be human days, or even days at all, as the word used could mean "period of time")

And for the flood being metaphorical? I don't think so. Have you ever heard of the time when people found ancient fish remains near the top of a very high mountain? That example only confirms my belief.

Have you ever studied geology? Your "example" demonstrates that you have not.

And has anyone ever considered that God created the universe with the appearance of age?

I don't believe in a God who engages in trickery. The God I believe in wants human beings to discover all that they can.

Not to be sarcastic but I will be...

You are so right. How could I possibly want to believe in the empirical evidence I've been given and deny that a non-substantial, invisible, unknowable force didn't create everything? Shame on me...

But seriously, when will somone give empirical (not "I have faith") evidence of god?

You may want to re-read my first sentence. Actually, you may not have understood it, so let me paraphrase it for you:

IF THE BIBLE CONTRADICTS OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, YOU'RE READING THE BIBLE THE WRONG WAY.

Do not condescend to allies. They don't enjoy it.

Meanwhile, in Scripture, there are two separate Creation stories discussed. Only one of them (the Priestly version) appears to have occurred in 6 days. (And even those do not necessarily have to be human days, or even days at all, as the word used could mean "period of time")

Just for the sake of argument...

There is also the point of translation. Some people interpret that when the 6 days were written about, then translated into Latin they were marked as "Deius" or god. This suggests that there weren't 6 days but 6 forms of god each being an attribute of "god". This lends itself to the animistic belief that god is the earth, air, water, etc. not an entity or being. An idea that fits more logically into the scientific schema of things.

But seriously, when will somone give empirical (not "I have faith") evidence of god?

Empirical evidence of the existence (or non-existence) of God is a logical impossibility.

There is also the point of translation. Some people interpret that when the 6 days were written about, then translated into Latin they were marked as "Deius" or god. This suggests that there weren't 6 days but 6 forms of god each being an attribute of "god". This lends itself to the animistic belief that god is the earth, air, water, etc. not an entity or being. An idea that fits more logically into the scientific schema of things.

That is certainly a possible way of looking at it, but I don't see how it is any more fitting with science than the idea that God created that which currently exists through the mechanisms we study with science.

Just for the sake of argument...

There is also the point of translation. Some people interpret that when the 6 days were written about, then translated into Latin they were marked as "Deius" or god. This suggests that there weren't 6 days but 6 forms of god each being an attribute of "god". This lends itself to the animistic belief that god is the earth, air, water, etc. not an entity or being. An idea that fits more logically into the scientific schema of things.

And an idea that clashes with the entirety of the Old and New Testaments. Some argument. If God is the elements, then ID, or creationism for that matter, is the same exact thing as evolution and Darwinism.

So there isn't any frikking argument at all!

Interesting twist...touche. However, there is a point, possibly two. Man contaminates the air. Not god. So it would be humankind brining the flood, for lack of interest in moving into cleaner fuels (they just aren't profitable says GWB). I agree this is a horrible thing, but far from a glocal climatic cataclysm. While global warming is a recognized problem, it would likely be another 100- 500 years before acute results are seen (i.e. ice caps melting causing world wide flooding).
Yes, man contaminates the air, and that's our screw-up. Why did the first great flood take place? Because man strayed too far from God. Who brought the first flood and will bring the next one if we keep polluting? God. We contaminate, He floods.

As for the scientific part, I'm not sure. I personally agree with you, but a scientist friend of mine tells me the world's going apesh*t within the next 20-30 years, and he's making preparations to go to live to the areas of the world which'll supposedly take the least damage.

And an idea that clashes with the entirety of the Old and New Testaments. Some argument. If God is the elements, then ID, or creationism for that matter, is the same exact thing as evolution and Darwinism.

So there isn't any frikking argument at all!

I suggest you re-read your scripture, my friend... it really isn't THAT hard to find 'elementalist' evidence of god... from the burning bush, to the voice of thunder, to Jesus turning death into life, through converting wine to blood.

Walking on water, the Baptism, the Spear of Destiny and Jesus' leaking blood and water on the soil, the formation of man from dust... really, the 'element' story is there throughout.

Yes, man contaminates the air, and that's our screw-up. Why did the first great flood take place? Because man strayed too far from God. Who brought the first flood and will bring the next one if we keep polluting? God. We contaminate, He floods.

As for the scientific part, I'm not sure. I personally agree with you, but a scientist friend of mine tells me the world's going apesh*t within the next 20-30 years, and he's making preparations to go to live to the areas of the world which'll supposedly take the least damage.

If there IS another flood, it would be evidence that god 'lied', would it not?

Or are you saying that the Diluvium was not godlike interference, just the result of pollution?

I suggest you re-read your scripture, my friend... it really isn't THAT hard to find 'elementalist' evidence of god... from the burning bush, to the voice of thunder, to Jesus turning death into life, through converting wine to blood.

Walking on water, the Baptism, the Spear of Destiny and Jesus' leaking blood and water on the soil, the formation of man from dust... really, the 'element' story is there throughout.
This bread is my body, this wine is my blood. ...something like that.

How is wine associated with death? Blood is the 'stuff of life'.

Yes, man contaminates the air, and that's our screw-up. Why did the first great flood take place? Because man strayed too far from God. Who brought the first flood and will bring the next one if we keep polluting? God. We contaminate, He floods.

As for the scientific part, I'm not sure. I personally agree with you, but a scientist friend of mine tells me the world's going apesh*t within the next 20-30 years, and he's making preparations to go to live to the areas of the world which'll supposedly take the least damage.

If god punished for straying from his word he probably should have done something during the Holocaust. What kind of god lets millions of his followers be destroyed?

I'd never follow a jerk like that.

This bread is my body, this wine is my blood. ...something like that.

How is wine associated with death?

Well, the seeds are the faith, the vine is the belief... so the fruit is the... well, 'fruit' of faith and belief.

Thus, the wine is either the 'essence' of faith, or is the 'blood' of the dead fruit.

Either way works... but considering the metaphor of death/resurrection, (and the 'death of man' versus 'resurrection', and 'death of faith' versus 'bron-again') the wine as the 'dead fruit' being reborn in Christ, seems to make more sense.

im catholic and i belive in evolution. the whole thing about the 6 days to make the world and 1 to rest makes a week may be true, but time was different back then, one day could mean millions of years, as for adam and eve, they may have been real, like god had apes and decided to give a certain species and extra boost that made people, it all ends up working out.