NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Although I have great sympathy for people of faith, I have little or no tolerance for those who think the very foundations of their "faith" are dependent upon "proving" that evolution is wrong. Evolution is a fact, no longer a theory, and to base your faith on something as flimsy as the story of Genesis is the ultimate in foolishness. If your "faith" is that weak, you really need to reconsider whether your "faith" is worth the effort. God does not need you to feel threatened by anything as mundane as science.


Challenged by Creationists,
Museums Answer Back (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/science/20doce.html?th&emc=th)


By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: September 20, 2005

ITHACA, N.Y. - Lenore Durkee, a retired biology professor, was volunteering as a docent at the Museum of the Earth here when she was confronted by a group of seven or eight people, creationists eager to challenge the museum exhibitions on evolution.

Warren D. Allmon of Museum of the Earth advises, "Be firm and clear, not defensive."

They peppered Dr. Durkee with questions about everything from techniques for dating fossils to the second law of thermodynamics, their queries coming so thick and fast that she found it hard to reply.

After about 45 minutes, "I told them I needed to take a break," she recalled. "My mouth was dry."

That encounter and others like it provided the impetus for a training session here in August. Dr. Durkee and scores of other volunteers and staff members from the museum and elsewhere crowded into a meeting room to hear advice from the museum director, Warren D. Allmon, on ways to deal with visitors who reject settled precepts of science on religious grounds.

Similar efforts are under way or planned around the country as science museums and other institutions struggle to contend with challenges to the theory of evolution that they say are growing common and sometimes aggressive.

One company, called B.C. Tours "because we are biblically correct," even offers escorted visits to the Denver Museum of Science and Nature. Participants hear creationists' explanations for the exhibitions.

So officials like Judy Diamond, curator of public programs at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln, are trying to meet such challenges head-on.

Dr. Diamond is working on evolution exhibitions financed by the National Science Foundation that will go on long-term display at six museums of natural history from Minnesota to Texas. The program includes training for docents and staff members.

"The goal is to understand the controversies, so that people are better able to handle them as they come up," she said. "Museums, as a field, have recognized we need to take a more proactive role in evolution education."

Dr. Allmon, who directs the Paleontological Research Institution, an affiliate of Cornell University, began the training session here in September with statistics from Gallup Polls: 54 percent of Americans do not believe that human beings evolved from earlier species, and although almost half believe that Darwin has been proved right, slightly more disagree.

"Just telling them they are wrong is not going to be effective," he said.

Instead, he told the volunteers that when they encounter religious fundamentalists they should emphasize that science museums live by the rules of science. They seek answers in nature to questions about nature, they look for explanations that can be tested by experiment and observation in the material world, and they understand that all scientific knowledge is provisional - capable of being overturned when better answers are discovered.

"Is it against all religion?" he asked. "No. But it is against some religions."

There is more than one type of creationist, he said: "thinking creationists who want to know answers, and they are willing to listen, even if they go away unconvinced" and "people who for whatever reason are here to bother you, to trap you, to bludgeon you."

Those were the type of people who confronted Dr. Durkee, a former biology professor at Grinnell College in Iowa. The encounter left her discouraged.

"It is no wonder that many biologists will simply refuse to debate creationists or I.D.ers," she said, using the abbreviation for intelligent design, a cousin of creationism. "It is as if they aren't listening."

Dr. Allmon says even trained scientists like Dr. Durkee can benefit from explicit advice about dealing with religious challenges to science exhibitions.

"There is an art, a script that is very, very helpful," he said.

A pamphlet handed out at the training session provides information on the scientific method, the theory of evolution and other basic information. It offers suggestions on replying to frequently raised challenges like "Is there lots of evidence against evolution?" (The answer begins, simply, "No.")
When talking to visitors about evolution, the pamphlet advises, "don't avoid using the word." Rehearse answers to frequently asked questions, because "you'll be more comfortable when you sound like you know what you're talking about."

Dr. Allmon told his audience to "be firm and clear, not defensive." The pamphlet says that if all else fails, and docents find themselves in an unpleasant confrontation, they excuse themselves by saying, "I have to go to the restroom."

Eugenie C. Scott, who directs the National Center for Science Education and is conducting training sessions for Dr. Diamond's program, said that within the last year or so efforts to train museum personnel and volunteers on evolution and related topics had substantially increased. "This seems to be a cottage industry now," Dr. Scott said.

Robert M. West, a paleontologist and former science museum director who is now a consultant to museums, said several institutions were intensifying the docents' training "so they are comfortable with the concepts, not just the material but the intellectual, philosophical background - and they know their administrations are going to support them if someone criticizes them."

At the Denver science museum, the staff and docents often encounter groups from B.C. Tours, which for 15 years has offered tours of the museum based on literal readings of the Bible. The group embraces young-earth creationism, the view that the earth and its plants, animals and people were created in a matter of days a few thousand years ago.

"We present both sides from an objective perspective and let the students decide for themselves," said Rusty Carter, an operator of the group.

Mr. Carter praised the museum, saying it had been "very professional and accommodating, even though they do not support us." A typical group might have 30 or 40 people, he added.

Kirk Johnson, a paleontologist who is the chief curator at the museum, was philosophical about the group. "It's interesting to walk along with them," he said.

Participants pay the admission fee and have as much right as anyone else to be in the museum, Dr. Johnson said, but sometimes "we have to restrain our docents from interacting with them."

John G. West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, whose researchers endorse intelligent design, said he was not aware of organized efforts to challenge museum exhibitions on evolution. He added, "It is not unheard of for museum exhibits to be wrong scientifically."

Dr. Scott, who trained as a physical anthropologist, said that in training docents she emphasized "how the public understands or misunderstands evolution and some of the misconceptions they come in with." She hopes to combat the idea that people must choose between science and faith - "that you are either a good Christian creationist or an evil atheist evolutionist."

"It's your job," she told docents, "not to slam the door in the face of a believer."

At the American Museum of Natural History, which is about to open what it describes as "the most in-depth exhibition ever" on Darwin and his work, curators and other staff members instruct volunteer "explainers" on the science behind its exhibitions, according to Stephen Reichl, a spokesman. If visitors challenge the presentations, the explainers are instructed to listen "and then explain the science and the evidence."

Sarah Fiorello, an environmental educator at the Finger Lakes State Parks Region who took part in the Ithaca training session in August, said she was now prepared to take the same approach. When she describes the region's geological history on tours of its gorges, visitors often object - as even a member of her family once did - that "it does not say that in the Bible."

Now, she said, she will tell them, "The landscape tells a story based on geological events, based on science."

Dr. Durkee also said she found the session helpful. "When you are in a museum, you can't antagonize people," she said. "Your job is to help them, to explain your point of view, but respect theirs.

"I like the idea of stressing that this is a science museum, and we deal with matters of science."

LOL. Silly Creationists.

Their arguements would have slightly more weight if they could read the bible in its original form. Then they'd have to explain to me how Aramite is capable of capturing complex scientific terms and why the ten commandments shouldn't be subject to interpretation.

Their argument would have slightly more weight if they didn't claim anything current science can't prove is scientific proof of intelligent design.

I can't believe it's actually come to this. But then again, I had a feeling when the argument began and a school district gave creedance to these people that this was the road we headed on.

54% of Americans don't believe we evolved from earlier species? Maybe it's time to move to a more intelligent country.

I understand the anger you have, it's kind of frustrating. I've never understood people who can take the Bible literally: I prefer to think of it as a book of metaphores, with examples for Christians to better themselves morally. But what would I know?

Yeah. In my belief, we figure that Creation's a pretty complicated and inexplicable process, hence the two versions of it in Genesis that somehow come together to describe it.

You don't see many fundamentalists arguing that humans were created first, with all the plants of the world sprouting later, and with animals coming into existance to be man's companion until woman--the perfect mate--was found. That's starting from Genesis 2:4.

I still think Genesis explains Creation, just not in the way 'Creationists' think it does.

It's very hard to fathom that in the year 2005 this is still an issue in a developed country.

I can't believe it's actually come to this. But then again, I had a feeling when the argument began and a school district gave creedance to these people that this was the road we headed on.

54% of Americans don't believe we evolved from earlier species? Maybe it's time to move to a more intelligent country.
No. DO NOT leave! Stay and protect logic. We need you. ( Much as I often disagree with you! ) :p

Yeah. In my belief, we figure that Creation's a pretty complicated and inexplicable process, hence the two versions of it in Genesis that somehow come together to describe it.

You don't see many fundamentalists arguing that humans were created first, with all the plants of the world sprouting later, and with animals coming into existance to be man's companion until woman--the perfect mate--was found. That's starting from Genesis 2:4.

I still think Genesis explains Creation, just not in the way 'Creationists' think it does.
Genesis is the written version of an oral tradition, passed down through God only knows how many generations, and is intended to be seen as an allegory, NOT as fact!

Genesis is the written version of an oral tradition, passed down through God only knows how many generations, and is intended to be seen as an allegory, NOT as fact!

Tell that to the people who take it literally and see what happens :rolleyes:

Why has all this creationism stuff only started increasing recently? Have these Christian fundamentalists not always existed?

Tell that to the people who take it literally and see what happens :rolleyes:
Oh, trust me ... I HAVE! And my ex was one of them! Groan! :(

Oh, trust me ... I HAVE! And my ex was one of them! Groan! :(

That had to be a fun conversation. And by fun I would mean the feeling you get when you have a dental procedure minus the novicane.

Why has all this creationism stuff only started increasing recently? Have these Christian fundamentalists not always existed?
Basically, they felt as though they were under attack from secularists, what with removing any and all religious symbols from public property, all references to religion being forbidden in schools, etc. They felt as though they were being marginalized, much as the Muslims felt they were being subjugated by a secular West. A few years back, they went on the offensive, with people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell leading the way.

That had to be a fun conversation. And by fun I would mean the feeling you get when you have a dental procedure minus the novicane.
Actually, I quite enjoy it! Especially since I was raised in a fundamentalist church and know all the arguments, and understand science from a layman's perspective. That's one of the main reasons my ex and I parted company ... I kept winning! :D

Christians have denounced bits and bobs in the bible, others are out of date...i recalll reading about how the wife of a man who is captured by his enemy has to shave her head and eye brows...But they wont let adam an eve go, if the catholics renounce creationalism men are no longer powerful but equal, women would stop being penalised for original sin as well there could be a female pope etc
being christian is fine but i doont think people should have any guidlines like the bible or the church they should think for themselfs, rather than hang on to weak superstitions.
Its blindingly obvios god isnt trying to scew with our heads by puting dinasour bones here and there if were supposed to go to hell for losing our faith. wede have 'god is watching you'and'sex is wrong' stamped on our babies heads like tobaco pouches if the catholic attitude was just.
i like to think what i like about religieon for my sake and change the way i see the world daily.

Actually, I quite enjoy it! Especially since I was raised in a fundamentalist church and know all the arguments, and understand science from a layman's perspective. That's one of the main reasons my ex and I parted company ... I kept winning! :D

Hmm winning arguements or sex, winning arguements or sex. Yea I'm going to have to get back to you on this one. :rolleyes:

Hmm winning arguements or sex, winning arguements or sex. Yea I'm going to have to get back to you on this one. :rolleyes:
LOL! That was the OTHER primary reason we split: nada of the wild thang! ;)

Why has all this creationism stuff only started increasing recently? Have these Christian fundamentalists not always existed?

mostly because they've got millions of dollars now, a network of friendly 'think tanks', a huge pile of elected officials, and a number of pr firms.

Christians have denounced bits and bobs in the bible, others are out of date...i recalll reading about how the wife of a man who is captured by his enemy has to shave her head and eye brows...But they wont let adam an eve go, if the catholics renounce creationalism men are no longer powerful but equal, women would stop being penalised for original sin as well there could be a female pope etc
being christian is fine but i doont think people should have any guidlines like the bible or the church they should think for themselfs, rather than hang on to weak superstitions.
Its blindingly obvios god isnt trying to scew with our heads by puting dinasour bones here and there if were supposed to go to hell for losing our faith. wede have 'god is watching you'and'sex is wrong' stamped on our babies heads like tobaco pouches if the catholic attitude was just.
i like to think what i like about religieon for my sake and change the way i see the world daily.
The Bible is based mostly on oral traditions, particularly the Old Testament, and has been rewritten time after time, with parts added, parts deleted, and entire books cast asside. The core beliefs of Christianity should be based on a personal decision about the teachings of Christ, and on very little else.

The unexamined faith is actually no faith at all.

I'd like to turn this question on its head, if I may.

I'm wondering why it seems so vitally important to some people to establish the so-call "facts" of evolution. It seems logical to me that, barring any eyewitness account, how life originated is a matter of speculation. Since no one currently living saw these events, nor anyone in recorded history, for that matter, all we can deduce about the origins of life is that we're here now, that we are the descendents of others, and that if you trace our ancestry back far enough, you'll have your answer. However, the liklihood of being able to do so is slim, if not nil.

For all I know, the universe began when the Flying Spaghetti God sneezed us all out of his immense sinuses. That theory is at least as provable as all the others.

Basically, they felt as though they were under attack from secularists, what with removing any and all religious symbols from public property, all references to religion being forbidden in schools, etc. They felt as though they were being marginalized, much as the Muslims felt they were being subjugated by a secular West. A few years back, they went on the offensive, with people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell leading the way.

with groundwork laid by the rise of christian fundamentalism as a general reaction against modernism and the increasingly liberal theologies of the mainstream churches.

I'd like to turn this question on its head, if I may.

I'm wondering why it seems so vitally important to some people to establish the so-call "facts" of evolution. It seems logical to me that, barring any eyewitness account, how life originated is a matter of speculation. Since no one currently living saw these events, nor anyone in recorded history, for that matter, all we can deduce about the origins of life is that we're here now, that we are the descendents of others, and that if you trace our ancestry back far enough, you'll have your answer. However, the liklihood of being able to do so is slim, if not nil.

For all I know, the universe began when the Flying Spaghetti God sneezed us all out of his immense sinuses. That theory is at least as provable as all the others.Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That's abiogenesis and is a whole different field. Evolution is merely the best explanation of the fossil record we have.

COMMENTARY: Although I have great sympathy for people of faith, I have little or no tolerance for those who think the very foundations of their "faith" are dependent upon "proving" that evolution is wrong. Evolution is a fact, no longer a theory, and to base your faith on something as flimsy as the story of Genesis is the ultimate in foolishness. If your "faith" is that weak, you really need to reconsider whether your "faith" is worth the effort. God does not need you to feel threatened by anything as mundane as science.
*sniped*
Great statement! Intelligent and well written.

BTW, a second cousin of mine is young earth creationist and I'm a biologist. I can't convince him not to bother me with fruitless discussions because we will never agree on this topic. He is totally convinced that he has to save me from hell. Makes family reunions the hell on earth for me. :(

I'd like to turn this question on its head, if I may.

I'm wondering why it seems so vitally important to some people to establish the so-call "facts" of evolution. It seems logical to me that, barring any eyewitness account, how life originated is a matter of speculation. Since no one currently living saw these events, nor anyone in recorded history, for that matter, all we can deduce about the origins of life is that we're here now, that we are the descendents of others, and that if you trace our ancestry back far enough, you'll have your answer. However, the liklihood of being able to do so is slim, if not nil.

For all I know, the universe began when the Flying Spaghetti God sneezed us all out of his immense sinuses. That theory is at least as provable as all the others.
Evolution isn't about how the universe began, at least not directly. Evolution is about how life grew, expanded and diversified. It's important to make sure the facts are known based on things like fossil evidence, radio-carbon dating, DNA evidence, and so on. The reason it's important is that science and logic and reason are all we have to work with in this world. Faith is great on a personal level if it helps you to cope with and make sense of the world, but if you reject logic, the universe will eventually kick your ass for ignoring it!

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That's abiogenesis and is a whole different field. Evolution is merely the best explanation of the fossil record we have.

OK, my mistake. What I still don't understand is, why do some people feel it's so vitally important to believe in it, especially if it's only a "best explanation?" That in itself assumes that it's not the ONLY explanation. I'm still voting for the Flying Spaghetti God theory, myself. ;)

Evolution isn't about how the universe began, at least not directly. Evolution is about how life grew, expanded and diversified. It's important to make sure the facts are known based on things like fossil evidence, radio-carbon dating, DNA evidence, and so on. The reason it's important is that science and logic and reason are all we have to work with in this world. Faith is great on a personal level if it helps you to cope with and make sense of the world, but if you reject logic, the universe will eventually kick your ass for ignoring it!

I ignore logic all the time! And my life runs so much better for doing so. :p

It's amazing to me how many christians think they know exactly what God did and how. The bible only states "God created....." it does NOT state how, when or with what method. Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. It's extremely possible that God used evolution as part of his creation process. We're talking about an all knowing, all powerful being here so I figure trying to completely understand God and his methods to be an exercise in futility. i.e. If I could understand God with my puny little brain, he wouldn't be God.

It's amazing to me how many christians think they know exactly what God did and how. The bible only states "God created....." it does NOT state how, when or with what method. Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. It's extremely possible that God used evolution as part of his creation process. We're talking about an all knowing, all powerful being here so I figure trying to completely understand God and his methods to be an exercise in futility. i.e. If I could understand God with my puny little brain, he wouldn't be God.

That's part of the problem all the way around: Lots of people with "puny little brains" thinking they know the answer to things they haven't witnessed and which can't possibly be proven. Back to the Flying Spaghetti God's sneeze theory for me. ;)

It's very hard to fathom that in the year 2005 this is still an issue in a developed country.

Indeed. It's almost unbelievable.

Thanks for posting this, Eutrusca. For once, we think alike. Ignorance is by far one of the major problems with mankind. Most of what is depressingly wrong with our species can, I think, ultimately be linked back to ignorance - often wilful ignorance at that, and sometimes agressively asserted wilful ignorance.

OK, my mistake. What I still don't understand is, why do some people feel it's so vitally important to believe in it, especially if it's only a "best explanation?" That in itself assumes that it's not the ONLY explanation. I'm still voting for the Flying Spaghetti God theory, myself. ;)

People don't think it is vitally important to believe in it, it is just that they get irritated if people start insisting it is all nonsense using flawed reasoning and untestable statements.

Biggest problem currently however is that many seem to think that if evolution is disproven, all science will suddenly support ID/science will be worthless. This is of course nonsense: ID is not considered to be a theory backed by valid science, and if evolution gets disproven that is in fact a *victory* for the scienctific method. The only thing which could truly defeat science is proof that God exists and likes to changes every natural law/rule at a whim every once in a while.

Of course *if* evolution is proven wrong, there will be the small problem of needing a new main theory. But that happened before with Lamarckism.
And a true scientist does not have a problem with saying "I do not know the answer yet" ;)

People don't think it is vitally important to believe in it, it is just that they get irritated if people start insisting it is all nonsense using flawed reasoning and untestable statements.


Then again, don't you suppose certain other people get irritated having others insisting that they're right despite rather uncertain evidence? What I can't understand is why BOTH sides can't see how they are irritating to the other, and why both sides are so insistent that only they can be right. After all, nobody was there at the time of creation, however it occurred, and the same facts can be used to support totally opposite conclusions (not just in this matter, but in MOST matters).

Then again, don't you suppose certain other people get irritated having others insisting that they're right despite rather uncertain evidence? What I can't understand is why BOTH sides can't see how they are irritating to the other, and why both sides are so insistent that only they can be right. After all, nobody was there at the time of creation, however it occurred, and the same facts can be used to support totally opposite conclusions (not just in this matter, but in MOST matters).

Aaah - but "rather uncertain" is better than "none at all" ;)

Science does NOT claim it is right by the way. It claims to produce theories that are based in facts. If the facts were falsified, so will the results be.

And a true scientist does not have a problem with saying "I do not know the answer yet" ;)

Must be a lot of "untrue" scientists out there, then. ;)

Science does NOT claim it is right by the way. It claims to produce theories that are based in facts. If the facts were falsified, so will the results be.

But I've already stated that the same set of facts can be used to support different conclusions, and tests can be run to "prove" those conclusions either way. Basically, we're better off saying "We just DON'T KNOW!"

It's very hard to fathom that in the year 2005 this is still an issue in a developed country.

Yes, I'm wondering if there is any chance of a panic due to supposed demon-related activity in the deep South or something.

I am a Christian, I belong to what you all would consider a fundamentalist sect of Christianity. I am also what most of you would consider evangelical. I admit it because I don't really see the problem. ( I know many of you hate me by now just reading the first couple of sentences, but please read on)

From what I can gather from the other "evangelical fundies" that I hang out with a lot of them don't have a basic understanding of evolution and equate it with 'big bang' and thus assume that if you believe that then you don't believe in God. They feel that teaching these things are the same as saying there is NO God.

I know in my heart there is a God. I know for a fact that evolution happens, survival of the fittest and such. I studied in science about moths in China who were dark colored to blend in with the scenery and by some environmental tragedy had to relocate to a place where the trees were a different color, over many years they evolved into a lighter color, to better protect themselves from predators. I know that is a very simple example but it happend quick enough (over 20 something years) to be studied and proven that these were the same moths. I don't know that a specific theory of where we came from has ever been proven, but some form of evolution is plausable. I do not understand why it is such a hot button issue, other than many people's sincere belief that if evolution is true then God can't exist. I think that is flawed logic.

But I've already stated that the same set of facts can be used to support different conclusions, and tests can be run to "prove" those conclusions either way. Basically, we're better off saying "We just DON'T KNOW!"Maybe a better way to put it is that science doesn't know what happened, but it shows what didn't happen ;)

Fuck Creationism.

Thank you.

... agressively asserted wilful ignorance.
Ahhh! My favorite breakfast treat! :D

I think that is flawed logic.
Of course it is. And you are to be commended for recognizing it as such. And no, we don't hate you! :fluffle:

with groundwork laid by the rise of christian fundamentalism as a general reaction against modernism and the increasingly liberal theologies of the mainstream churches.
Yepperz. You got it. :)

I am a Christian, I belong to what you all would consider a fundamentalist sect of Christianity. I am also what most of you would consider evangelical. I admit it because I don't really see the problem. ( I know many of you hate me by now just reading the first couple of sentences, but please read on)

From what I can gather from the other "evangelical fundies" that I hang out with a lot of them don't have a basic understanding of evolution and equate it with 'big bang' and thus assume that if you believe that then you don't believe in God. They feel that teaching these things are the same as saying there is NO God.

I know in my heart there is a God. I know for a fact that evolution happens, survival of the fittest and such. I studied in science about moths in China who were dark colored to blend in with the scenery and by some environmental tragedy had to relocate to a place where the trees were a different color, over many years they evolved into a lighter color, to better protect themselves from predators. I know that is a very simple example but it happend quick enough (over 20 something years) to be studied and proven that these were the same moths. I don't know that a specific theory of where we came from has ever been proven, but some form of evolution is plausable. I do not understand why it is such a hot button issue, other than many people's sincere belief that if evolution is true then God can't exist. I think that is flawed logic.
Very well said.

Also, it occurs to me that, by insisting that evolution cannot possibly be true, and that the world can only have been made in the way described in genesis, these people are in effect telling god what he may or may not do. Faced with a reality that doesn't match the bible, bible-literalists say reality is false rather than saying whatever exists is god's work, regardless of what the bible says or how we thought we understood it. In essence, they're restricting god to a limited set of rules. That seems presumptuous. To me, it is in keeping with the "Jesus is my personal savior" attitude, which in fact actually treats Jesus as more of a personal assistant who keeps track of their finances, a personal trainer who helps them lose weight, and a personal stylist who picks out their clothes, music, food, furniture, etc.

Maybe that's part of the psychology driving the increasingly aggressive insistence on their point of view over all others. Their whole idea of religion seems designed to make them feel like they're the center of god's attention. Hard to maintain that ego-trip if you're just a step in an on-going process of evolving creation.

And I think it's important to emphasize that this is an extremist and minority point of view, no matter how loud and aggressive they are being right now.

And BTW, yay to Eutrusca for starting this thread. I give you a hard time on other things, but on the stuff that matters, we are team mates. :D

Evolution is a fact, no longer a theory,

Technically incorrect. Evolution is a scientific theory, as is the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the "laws" of thermodynamics. Theory is as good as you get in science, as everything is open to being disproven.

Of course, evolutionary theory is well past the layman's definition of the word theory, which is basically just, "An idea I had..."

But they wont let adam an eve go, if the catholics renounce creationalism men are no longer powerful but equal, women would stop being penalised for original sin as well there could be a female pope etc

The funny thing about this is that Creationism usually isn't based in the second (Adam and Eve, "Yahwist") story. It is usually based in the first creation story - the Priestly one (and God said, "Let there be light", etc.). In that story, men and women are created together - equally.

OK, my mistake. What I still don't understand is, why do some people feel it's so vitally important to believe in it, especially if it's only a "best explanation?"

Anyone who "believes in" evolution isn't doing it right. Science isn't about beliefs.

Meanwhile, everything we know from science is only a "best explanation". All of it is open to being disrpoven or improved upon. Do you think we should throw out all of science because of that?

But I've already stated that the same set of facts can be used to support different conclusions, and tests can be run to "prove" those conclusions either way. Basically, we're better off saying "We just DON'T KNOW!"

I'm afraid you're overlooking the mountainous amounts of evidence suggesting evolution. You're acting as if there's a little evidence here, and a littel evidence there. This simply is untrue. The combination of fossil records, DNA analysis, etc. is simply overwhelming. What would be required to overturn evolution at this point would be some kind of clear cut evidence for something else.

Dude, the evidence has been accumulating for over 100 years.

If there are other conclusions out there supported by the scientific evidence, what are they? All I've ever seen is ID (supported by nothing,) Young Earth Creationism (easily contradicted by so much scientific information that it's ridiculous anyone could believe it,) and Evolution (enough evidence to choke a dinosaur.)

Then again, don't you suppose certain other people get irritated having others insisting that they're right despite rather uncertain evidence?

Scientists don't insist that we are right. We insist that we are going about things in a scientific manner. The argument isn't over whether or not Creationism/ID is possible, it is over whether or not it can be considered to be science. Neither follows the scientific method and both are based in untestable assumptions. Thus, neither is science.

Maybe a better way to put it is that science doesn't know what happened, but it shows what didn't happen ;)

I'm not certain it always does that, either. ;)

Scientists don't insist that we are right. We insist that we are going about things in a scientific manner. The argument isn't over whether or not Creationism/ID is possible, it is over whether or not it can be considered to be science. Neither follows the scientific method and both are based in untestable assumptions. Thus, neither is science.

Any theory can be proven by tests. You just need to test the right things. For example, I believe that the entire universe was created when the Flying Spaghetti God sneezed. My proof is that we all have mucous membrane, and we sneeze in a similiar manner to the creator. That fact that I have spaghetti stains on my shirt adds to the evidence. Evolution is like a booger. If you leave it alone long enough, it grows into something capable of ruling the world. QED. ;)

Any theory can be proven by tests.

Incorrect. The scientific method cannot prove anything at all. The logic doesn't work that way. A theory can be supported or disproved by tests. It can never be proven and is always open to falsification.

This is the beauty of science. The logic is self-correcting, as you can never assume that you are absolutely correct, no matter how much evidence you seem to have for your theory.

Fuck Creationism.

Fuck Everything!

Meanwhile, everything we know from science is only a "best explanation". All of it is open to being disrpoven or improved upon. Do you think we should throw out all of science because of that?

Did I say that? If so, I certainly didn't mean to.

Incorrect. The scientific method cannot prove anything at all. The logic doesn't work that way. A theory can be supported or disproved by tests. It can never be proven and is always open to falsification.

.

Thank you. I have no problem buying that. :)

It's very hard to fathom that in the year 2005 this is still an issue in a developed country.
I know this depresses me immensely

I want to work at a museum now! Educating the ignorant is an important job and these guys are doing it. :D

Fuck Creationism.Thank you.

You want to have sex with a concept? Interesting. How does one go about doing that? :confused:

Technically incorrect. Evolution is a scientific theory, as is the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the "laws" of thermodynamics. Theory is as good as you get in science, as everything is open to being disproven.

Of course, evolutionary theory is well past the layman's definition of the word theory, which is basically just, "An idea I had..."
Of course ID’ers either on purpose or through lack of education don’t seem to acknowledge that difference

(not all ... just the most vocal groups specificaly trying to get ID into the science class room)

I am a Christian, I belong to what you all would consider a fundamentalist sect of Christianity. I am also what most of you would consider evangelical. I admit it because I don't really see the problem. ( I know many of you hate me by now just reading the first couple of sentences, but please read on)

From what I can gather from the other "evangelical fundies" that I hang out with a lot of them don't have a basic understanding of evolution and equate it with 'big bang' and thus assume that if you believe that then you don't believe in God. They feel that teaching these things are the same as saying there is NO God.

I know in my heart there is a God. I know for a fact that evolution happens, survival of the fittest and such. I studied in science about moths in China who were dark colored to blend in with the scenery and by some environmental tragedy had to relocate to a place where the trees were a different color, over many years they evolved into a lighter color, to better protect themselves from predators. I know that is a very simple example but it happend quick enough (over 20 something years) to be studied and proven that these were the same moths. I don't know that a specific theory of where we came from has ever been proven, but some form of evolution is plausable. I do not understand why it is such a hot button issue, other than many people's sincere belief that if evolution is true then God can't exist. I think that is flawed logic. I don't hate you. :fluffle: Maybe an NS Sensible Christians club should be set up.

54% of Americans don't believe we evolved from different forms of man? WHAT? Of course we are at least likely to have - even when you don't look at all the evidence! We've lived in different environments, therefore we adapted to different environments. Honestly… I take it that most of the 54% would be people voting that way out of a feeling they "should".

I want to work at a museum now! Educating the ignorant is an important job and these guys are doing it. :D

I've heard it said that you probably belong in a museum. ;)

Of course, evolutionary theory is well past the layman's definition of the word theory, which is basically just, "An idea I had..."
I really wish that highschools would make sure that their students are aware of what a scientific theory exactly is, it's almost distressing to hear "Oh, it's just a theory" and even moreso to hear "You can't prove it" (well, duh) coming from people in debates, not just on here, in one of my classes called "The Big Questions" some of my classmates were suggesting that the big bang was "just a theory" that "couldn't be proven" and thus was likely wrong. It's sad in a way, having to explain to university students what a scientific theory is.

I've heard it said that you probably belong in a museum. ;)
How so?

Is it because I'm a work of art?

You want to have sex with a concept? Interesting. How does one go about doing that? :confused:

Well, considering how many holes there are in Creationism "theory"...

You want to have sex with a concept? Interesting. How does one go about doing that? :confused:

If my country can wage war on the concept of "terror," I can certainly have my way with the concept of "creationism!"

I bet I'll be a lot more satisfied in the end too.

I'm afraid you're overlooking the mountainous amounts of evidence suggesting evolution. You're acting as if there's a little evidence here, and a littel evidence there. This simply is untrue. The combination of fossil records, DNA analysis, etc. is simply overwhelming. What would be required to overturn evolution at this point would be some kind of clear cut evidence for something else.

Dude, the evidence has been accumulating for over 100 years.

If there are other conclusions out there supported by the scientific evidence, what are they? All I've ever seen is ID (supported by nothing,) Young Earth Creationism (easily contradicted by so much scientific information that it's ridiculous anyone could believe it,) and Evolution (enough evidence to choke a dinosaur.)

Did I say there's a shortage of evidence? There's no shortage of evidence for most things. My points are: 1) Nothing is conclusive about any theory, and B) one I haven't really noted before now: my life, and yours as well, I'd imagine, is completely unaffected by whichever theory is true, be it evolution, creationism, or if we were all just sneezed out of the Great Spaghetti God's nose. Fact is, we're here now. How we got to be here affects me not at all. Does it affect you, and if so, how?

How so?

Is it because I'm a work of art?


You got it! :p

If my country can wage war on the concept of "terror," I can certainly have my way with the concept of "creationism!"

I bet I'll be a lot more satisfied in the end too.

Whatever turns your crank. I'd rather have a woman, personally. ;)

Well, considering how many holes there are in Creationism "theory"...

Any port in a storm, eh? ;)

Why has all this creationism stuff only started increasing recently? Have these Christian fundamentalists not always existed?
I could be wrong, but I think "Creationism" as a movement began when evolution was first proposed? It was seen as a threat to the literal interpretation of Genesis (implying that before then there were no viable threats to it).

Whatever turns your crank. I'd rather have a woman, personally. ;)

Oh, well actually the government fights 'Terror' by killing 'terrorists.'

In a similar way, I am fucking Creationism by fucking Creationists!

(Creationist women, that is.)

Oh, well actually the government fights 'Terror' by killing 'terrorists.'

In a similar way, I am fucking Creationism by fucking Creationists!

(Creationist women, that is.)
stay away from me... I'm married....

Oh, well actually the government fights 'Terror' by killing 'terrorists.'

In a similar way, I am fucking Creationism by fucking Creationists!

(Creationist women, that is.)

Get many takers?

stay away from me... I'm married....

Looks like he just got a rejection, poor guy. Still, I bet that happens to him a lot. ;)

I could be wrong, but I think "Creationism" as a movement began when evolution was first proposed? It was seen as a threat to the literal interpretation of Genesis (implying that before then there were no viable threats to it).

Actually, the movement of Creationism, as it were, didn't come about until about 150 years after Darwin died and they finally started teaching his ideas to the mainstream. That is when it became an issue. Before that, what we call Creationism, was taken for granted as the end all be all explaination of how everything started.

I could be wrong, but I think "Creationism" as a movement began when evolution was first proposed? It was seen as a threat to the literal interpretation of Genesis (implying that before then there were no viable threats to it).

There probably weren't. Oddly enough, science still made many advances.

I'd like to turn this question on its head, if I may.

I'm wondering why it seems so vitally important to some people to establish the so-call "facts" of evolution. It seems logical to me that, barring any eyewitness account, how life originated is a matter of speculation. Since no one currently living saw these events, nor anyone in recorded history, for that matter, all we can deduce about the origins of life is that we're here now, that we are the descendents of others, and that if you trace our ancestry back far enough, you'll have your answer. However, the liklihood of being able to do so is slim, if not nil.

For all I know, the universe began when the Flying Spaghetti God sneezed us all out of his immense sinuses. That theory is at least as provable as all the others.
Well, no, that's not all we can deduce. Sherlock Holmes, the master of deductive reasoning, was not present at any of the crimes he solved, yet he managed to deduce the facts of the events.

No. DO NOT leave! Stay and protect logic. We need you. ( Much as I often disagree with you! ) :p

Thanks, it's good to feel needed even if it's as the other side of a debate! ;)

As far as leaving, it's more difficult than some might think. The impression these outrageous Americans give off make the rest of us seem just as stupid. So other countries aren't exactly whipping out the job offers my way. But you never know.

And if I go, I'll still be here on the forum at least.

my life, and yours as well, I'd imagine, is completely unaffected by whichever theory is true, be it evolution, creationism, or if we were all just sneezed out of the Great Spaghetti God's nose. Fact is, we're here now. How we got to be here affects me not at all. Does it affect you, and if so, how?

pretty much everything in modern medicine is rather intimately tied up with evolution - without understanding it we just have to call it magic when diseases become resistant to our drugs.

our understanding of the environment (and therefore ecosystem management, protection, and restoration issues) relies on evolution to make much sense.

we use artificial selection to influence the evolution of certain plants and animals in order to have better and more reliable food sources. etc.

of course, you don't need to know how evolution works, just like how you don't need to know how gravity works. but society in general does.

Have you ever noticed that the people who start these threads often leave them shortly afterwards? Is it because they just like to stir up trouble? :confused:

Technically incorrect. Evolution is a scientific theory, as is the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the "laws" of thermodynamics. Theory is as good as you get in science, as everything is open to being disproven.

Of course, evolutionary theory is well past the layman's definition of the word theory, which is basically just, "An idea I had..."
Whew! I've been scrolling through this thread waiting for someone (more qualified than me) to say it.

Have you ever noticed that the people who start these threads often leave them shortly afterwards? Is it because they just like to stir up trouble? :confused: If the truth is trouble, then I, sir, shall become a rioter.

of course, you don't need to know how evolution works, just like how you don't need to know how gravity works. but society in general does.

Then why worry about it, unless you've chosen science as a career?

I don't even think you need to worry about it in many areas of science, for that matter. After all, does it matter whether or not the creators of the cell phone believed in evolution or not? Was this belief essential to their ability to invent the cell phone?

Did I say there's a shortage of evidence? There's no shortage of evidence for most things. My points are: 1) Nothing is conclusive about any theory, and B) one I haven't really noted before now: my life, and yours as well, I'd imagine, is completely unaffected by whichever theory is true, be it evolution, creationism, or if we were all just sneezed out of the Great Spaghetti God's nose. Fact is, we're here now. How we got to be here affects me not at all. Does it affect you, and if so, how?

Evolution can help in lots of ways...for example:

Finding out why some of our close primate relatived cannot get AIDS while others can. In countless other ways, the theory of evolution has spurred investigation into genetics and DNA, which in turn helps us to heal the sick and feed the hungry.

Uncovering more of the fossil record may lead to engineering breakthroughs, as some devices have been based on designs inspired by biological adaptations.

Understanding mass extinctions may help us avert or ameliorate global disasters. In general, it gives us a better understanding of the environment and Ecology.

I'm sure there are more examples.

If the truth is trouble, then I, sir, shall become a rioter.

Ah, so you believe you know the truth in all matters. That's more than I can ever admit, I'm afraid.

And, by the way, you are NOT the person who started this thread, unless you have two IDs. So already you're being untruthful, LOL! :p

I don't hate you. :fluffle: Maybe an NS Sensible Christians club should be set up.

Yay!

54% of Americans don't believe we evolved from different forms of man? WHAT? Of course we are at least likely to have - even when you don't look at all the evidence! We've lived in different environments, therefore we adapted to different environments. Honestly… I take it that most of the 54% would be people voting that way out of a feeling they "should".

A study posted up here recently showed that 1 in 5 American adults think the sun revolves around the Earth. A large proportion could not name DNA as the source of traits that are passed from parent to offspring. Many couldn't describe what a molecule is, other than that they said it was really small. We aren't exactly raising well-informed inividuals here.

I really wish that highschools would make sure that their students are aware of what a scientific theory exactly is,

Amen to that!


Then why worry about it, unless you've chosen science as a career?

I have chosen science as a career, but that isn't the only reason I worry about what is and is not being taught to children as science. I worry about it because I will have children one of these days, and I want them to be properly taught what science is, and what science is not, just as I want them to be properly taught mathematics, English, music, etc.

I could be wrong, but I think "Creationism" as a movement began when evolution was first proposed? It was seen as a threat to the literal interpretation of Genesis (implying that before then there were no viable threats to it).

it actually picked up several decades after darwin. before the scientific revolution, it was just sort of assumed that genesis was literal (to some extent, anyways). but by darwin's time, the official position was falling in line with the knowledge of geology which told us that earth was rather old. they largely accepted the fact that not all species were created at once, and that things went extinct from time to time. darwin's stuff was scandalous, but didn't create an instantaneous creationist movement. the conservative reaction is against all of science and modernism, and it took a while to form modern creationism out of the various theological positions being pushed by members of this reaction. they've picked up the banner of anti-evolution as one of their main rallying points, but it isn't really about evolution so much as the entire scientific project and liberal theology and modernism in general.

Well, no, that's not all we can deduce. Sherlock Holmes, the master of deductive reasoning, was not present at any of the crimes he solved, yet he managed to deduce the facts of the events.

Nor for that matter are most of the real life detectives or paleontologists for that matter.

If we can only believe what we can see or have lived to see, how would we know there were dinosaurs, or anything prior to written history. To further rail against Hoos argument, none of us here saw Jesus...did he exist?

Evolution can help in lots of ways...for example:

Finding out why some of our close primate relatived cannot get AIDS while others can. In countless other ways, the theory of evolution has spurred investigation into genetics and DNA, which in turn helps us to heal the sick and feed the hungry.

Uncovering more of the fossil record may lead to engineering breakthroughs, as some devices have been based on designs inspired by biological adaptations.

Understanding mass extinctions may help us avert or ameliorate global disasters. In general, it gives us a better understanding of the environment and Ecology.

I'm sure there are more examples.

I've no doubt you're right. If a theory can produce useable results, then it should be used, even if it's false. (Note I'm not saying, nor have I said, which theory, if any, I believe.)

stay away from me... I'm married....

Like that'd ever stop you. Come on, Jesus died for your sins! He died so now it's OK to sin! ;)

Get many takers?

Hey, I'm the taker here...

Looks like he just got a rejection, poor guy. Still, I bet that happens to him a lot.

Nonsense. There was nothing to reject! This is an online forum after all.

It's amazing how little people care about theories of origin in real life...

I don't hate you. :fluffle: Maybe an NS Sensible Christians club should be set up.

Not fair! I want a non-sensible Christians club, as well as a sensible atheists club as well!!

And I don't hate Demipublicents either...for the record. Although we don't always see eye to eye.

Nor for that matter are most of the real life detectives or paleontologists for that matter.

If we can only believe what we can see or have lived to see, how would we know there were dinosaurs, or anything prior to written history. To further rail against Hoos argument, none of us here saw Jesus...did he exist?

That's just another unprovable theory. It can be supported by certain known facts, but, in the end, whether or not he existed as an historical personage is, indeed, subject to a great amount of theory.

Then why worry about it, unless you've chosen science as a career?

because i like living in a society that isn't regressing. because i like being able to get a good education here, rather than having to leave the country to go to school elsewhere. because science is one of the greatest human achievements - it almost makes it worthwhile for our ancestors to have suffered the crimes and horrors of civilization for the past 8,000 years. and because in a modern democratic society, it is vitally important that people have at least a general grasp of the nature of our current understanding of the world in order to make informed decisions about how that society runs and where it is headed.

It's amazing how little people care about theories of origin in real life...

Give us a good reason to care.

That's just another unprovable theory. It can be supported by certain known facts, but, in the end, whether or not he existed as an historical personage is, indeed, subject to a great amount of theory.

Can you point out what known facts can prove the existence of Jesus?

Not to start a full tangent, but there are bones of dinosaurs. Just as there are bones of austraelopiticines (an early ancestor of homo sapiens) to support the theory of evolution.

because i like living in a society that isn't regressing. because i like being able to get a good education here, rather than having to leave the country to go to school elsewhere. because science is one of the greatest human achievements - it almost makes it worthwhile for our ancestors to have suffered the crimes and horrors of civilization for the past 8,000 years. and because in a modern democratic society, it is vitally important that people have at least a general grasp of the nature of our current understanding of the world in order to make informed decisions about how that society runs and where it is headed.

You might just as well say, "Because I like people to believe as I do, and to consider as important the same things I consider to be important." How does that differentiate you from the people you claim do the same to you?

Can you point out what known facts can prove the existence of Jesus?
.

Was it my point to? You seem to be the one stuck on that theory. I believe in the Great Spaghetti God myself, proof of whom can be found at Olive Garden. ;)

Give us a good reason to care.

Give me a good reason to give you a good reason to care.

Like that'd ever stop you. Come on, Jesus died for your sins! He died so now it's OK to sin! ;)
I know that you are kidding but as an evangelical I really can't help myself.....

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Romans 6:15-16

btw God gave me a real man, so I don't really have the need for anything else or the desire to look elsewhere anyway.... (not that you aren't a real man or anything, just I think most women cheat because they feel cheated out of things they desire from thier guy)

I know that you are kidding but as an evangelical I really can't help myself.....

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Romans 6:15-16

btw God gave me a real man, so I don't really have the need for anything else or the desire to look elsewhere anyway.... (not that you aren't a real man or anything, just I think most women cheat because they feel cheated out of things they desire from thier guy)
God gave me a real man to love too
:D (btw I am male)

I know that you are kidding but as an evangelical I really can't help myself.....

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Romans 6:15-16

btw God gave me a real man, so I don't really have the need for anything else or the desire to look elsewhere anyway.... (not that you aren't a real man or anything, just I think most women cheat because they feel cheated out of things they desire from thier guy)

Smunkee, you must be cute to get constantly pulled into these things... ;)

I know that you are kidding but as an evangelical I really can't help myself.....

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Romans 6:15-16

btw God gave me a real man, so I don't really have the need for anything else or the desire to look elsewhere anyway.... (not that you aren't a real man or anything, just I think most women cheat because they feel cheated out of things they desire from thier guy)

Hmm... well its true I am not a real man. Actually I have breasts. That's not the point though.

You raise an interesting point about motives for adultery. That's why I think all couples should communicate and have innovative sex with each other more often. When partners cant communicate their needs to each other, its logical that they start looking to satiate themselves elsewhere.

Smunkee, you must be cute to get constantly pulled into these things... ;)
cute?

Hmm... well its true I am not a real man. Actually I have breasts. That's not the point though.

You raise an interesting point about motives for adultery. That's why I think all couples should communicate and have innovative sex with each other more often. When partners cant communicate their needs to each other, its logical that they start looking to satiate themselves elsewhere.
very true.

cute? He has an odd definition of cute.

I'm sure he does.

God does not need you to feel threatened by anything as mundane as science.

So true, and this is what I shall take away in mind from this thread. Everything else? Eh ::shrugs:: Not really interested in getting into debates that don't concern me.

I look at it both ways, a moderate if you will. I believe in a Creator, so if he Created everything in an Instant, then ok. If he did it over time, alright.

All I know is to look at other peoples views and listen to them, not to judge. In my belief, in my opinion, I will find out the truth when I meet my Creator, face-to-face, in Heaven.

does anybody here thinks his ancestors were chimps? well, then i'm sure you're right. on the other hand, there are still a few people who don't descend from animals.

you say that evolution is a fact, instead of a theory.

let me quote you and the article here....... Evolution is a fact, no longer a theory...

....
Similar efforts are under way or planned around the country as science museums and other institutions struggle to contend with challenges to the theory of evolution that they say are growing common and sometimes aggressive.
....
A pamphlet handed out at the training session provides information on the scientific method, the theory of evolution and other basic information. It offers suggestions on replying to frequently raised challenges like "Is there lots of evidence against evolution?" (The answer begins, simply, "No.")
When talking to visitors about evolution, the pamphlet advises, "don't avoid using the word." Rehearse answers to frequently asked questions, because "you'll be more comfortable when you sound like you know what you're talking about."
....

If that's the case, why does the article call it the "theory of evolution" ?

i'm not gonna say my position either way in the matter. because i think it's stupid that people will argue this till they are blue in the face w/o changing the other person's opinion. i just wanted to point out a flaw in your first statement.

you say that evolution is a fact, instead of a theory.

let me quote you and the article here...

If that's the case, why does the article call it the "theory of evolution" ?

i'm not gonna say my position either way in the matter. because i think it's stupid that people will argue this till they are blue in the face w/o changing the other person's opinion. i just wanted to point out a flaw in your first statement.A theory has SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE backing it up.

does anybody here thinks his ancestors were chimps? well, then i'm sure you're right. on the other hand, there are still a few people who don't descend from animals.
Yeah they are called imaginary people

does anybody here thinks his ancestors were chimps? well, then i'm sure you're right. on the other hand, there are still a few people who don't descend from animals. Humans did not descend from chimps. Nobody in my knowledge has a chimp for an ancestor. Nobody who knows anything about the Theory of Evolution should be saying that we do have chimps or monkeys as ancestors.

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey
Wow. That's worthy of The Sphinx.

Sorry, I watched Mystery Men last night...

does anybody here thinks his ancestors were chimps? well, then i'm sure you're right. on the other hand, there are still a few people who don't descend from animals.
No one but an ignorant would believe we are descended from chimps. They're our cousins, not our grandparents.

...on the other hand, there are still a few people who don't descend from animals.
Don't you mean trees? :D

Don't you mean trees? :D
*groans*

lol that was bad

Give me a good reason to give you a good reason to care.

I can't think of any. Oh well ... :)

I look at it both ways, a moderate if you will. I believe in a Creator, so if he Created everything in an Instant, then ok. If he did it over time, alright.

All I know is to look at other peoples views and listen to them, not to judge. In my belief, in my opinion, I will find out the truth when I meet my Creator, face-to-face, in Heaven.

A person after my own heart. :)

cute?

Yup...cute...

Humans did not descend from chimps. Nobody in my knowledge has a chimp for an ancestor. Nobody who knows anything about the Theory of Evolution should be saying that we do have chimps or monkeys as ancestors.

Exactly Lisk...thanks for making the point while I was busy writing scripts.

A person after my own heart. :) We really shouldn't bow down before ignorance. Smile at it and humour it, but not let it run over us.
Yup...cute... You seem to think that Christian fundamentalists are inexplicably cute/sexy… how odd… ;)

Yup...cute...
care to clarify? Liskeinland has me very curious about what exactly your definition of cute is.

I mean what if you are insulting me and I don't even know it. (not that I would care, but I would like to know) lol

care to clarify? Liskeinland has me very curious about what exactly your definition of cute is.

I mean what if you are insulting me and I don't even know it. (not that I would care, but I would like to know) lol

Well...it just seems that people find you irrestible. You seem to get hit on in everything. I suppose since sans pictoral evidence it must be in your words. Since the aren't sexy, they must be contrued as cute. Therefore, you must be cute.

Is that clearer...?

You seem to think that Christian fundamentalists are inexplicably cute/sexy… how odd… ;)

I don't find you cute Lisk...but you are ok. Then again, if I found you cute I'd seriously have to question my beliefs, being a guy after all. :D

Well...it just seems that people find you irrestible. You seem to get hit on in everything. I suppose since sans pictoral evidence it must be in your words. Since the aren't sexy, they must be contrued as cute. Therefore, you must be cute.

Is that clearer...?
sure. thanks.:) I kinda get hit on in real life a lot too. I don't know why. I don't find myself all that appealing but my husband says I have a Jodie Foster quality about me. (whatever that means)

sure. thanks. I kinda get hit on in real life a lot too. I don't know why. I don't find myself all that appealing but my husband says I have a Jodie Foster quality about me. (whatever that means) Good, it would be worrying if you found yourself appealing.

Good, it would be worrying if you found yourself appealing.
and why is that?

sure. thanks.:) I kinda get hit on in real life a lot too. I don't know why. I don't find myself all that appealing but my husband says I have a Jodie Foster quality about me. (whatever that means)

Jodie Foster quality? Like your so hot people tried to kill Reagan to impress you?

Does your husband read Catcher in the Rye alot?

Jodie Foster quality? Like your so hot people tried to kill Reagan to impress you?

Does your husband read Catcher in the Rye alot?
ROFL :D no I tease him about it all the time though. He has had a mini crush on her since she was in Freaky Friday when she was 13 (he was prepubecent then)
His great accomplishment was that he was recently in a movie with Patrick Baucho(sp?) who was in Panic Room with Jodie Foster, so there is only 1 degree of separation between them. (we play 6 degrees of separation a lot with just random movie stars)

ROFL :D no I tease him about it all the time though. He has had a mini crush on her since she was in Freaky Friday when she was 13 (he was prepubecent then)
His great accomplishment was that he was recently in a movie with Patrick Baucho(sp?) who was in Panic Room with Jodie Foster, so there is only 1 degree of separation between them. (we play 6 degrees of separation a lot with just random movie stars)

Your husband is an actor?

I have only been involved in two movies. One a documentary about people's college bedrooms (appropriately titled "Bedrooms") and my band was featured in the soundtrack of an independent film.

Your husband is an actor?

I have only been involved in two movies. One a documentary about people's college bedrooms (appropriately titled "Bedrooms") and my band was featured in the soundtrack of an independent film.
He is just starting out in movies, mostly he has done theater (guys and dolls ect.) He is in Wisteria: The story of Albert Fish (http://imdb.com/title/tt0478329/) and he just finished filming an independent film this weekend called "Jack and Jude"

He is just starting out in movies, mostly he has done theater (guys and dolls ect.) He is in Wisteria: The story of Albert Fish (http://imdb.com/title/tt0478329/) and he just finished filming an independent film this weekend called "Jack and Jude"

Good for him. And good luck. As a musician I know how tough it can be to "break in". (I still haven't)

does anybody here thinks his ancestors were chimps? well, then i'm sure you're right. on the other hand, there are still a few people who don't descend from animals.

If you hear anybody making such a claim, that's a hint they don't understand Evolution. We shared a common ancestor at one point. The chimps split off on the road that became us. Think of them more along the lines of cousins.

As to animals? Did you forget we are mammels?

I have some relatives that might give you wonder. Some of them give clear evidence that the Neandertal didn't die off! :eek:

*Brings out a banjo and starts playing the deliverance music* Ahhh Kentucky Hillbillies.

Hmmm my branch of the family has evolved from them. Is that proof? :p

you say that evolution is a fact, instead of a theory.

let me quote you and the article here...

If that's the case, why does the article call it the "theory of evolution" ?

i'm not gonna say my position either way in the matter. because i think it's stupid that people will argue this till they are blue in the face w/o changing the other person's opinion. i just wanted to point out a flaw in your first statement.
It's hardly a "flaw." When a theory has been substantiated time and time again by a wide variety of evidence, there comes a point in time when it makes the transition from theory to fact. Evolution has long ago crossed that line.

Why has all this creationism stuff only started increasing recently? Have these Christian fundamentalists not always existed?

It's the "Culture of Lie" that the current ruling party is incubating. When your leaders political allies include James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Billy Graham, then you know you're in for a lot of support for right-wing lunacy.

It's hardly a "flaw." When a theory has been substantiated time and time again by a wide variety of evidence, there comes a point in time when it makes the transition from theory to fact. Evolution has long ago crossed that line.

Still not technically true. Nothing in science makes any such transition. It becomes supported enough that laypeople may treat it as fact. It becomes supported enough that further investigations are based upon it, but it never "transitions from theory to fact."

That simply isn't the way that science works.

Still not technically true. Nothing in science makes any such transition. It becomes supported enough that laypeople may treat it as fact. It becomes supported enough that further investigations are based upon it, but it never "transitions from theory to fact."

That simply isn't the way that science works.
Well, being a layperson, I chose to frame the issue that way. Sue me. :D

It's the "Culture of Lie" that the current ruling party is incubating. When your leaders political allies include James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Billy Graham, then you know you're in for a lot of support for right-wing lunacy.
Well, lumping Billy Graham in amongst those others isn't very enlightened of you, but other than that you're correct, to a degree.

Well, being a layperson, I chose to frame the issue that way. Sue me. :D

Nah! It's not nice to pick on old people! :p

Unless you like poking the religious types, :D it's probably better to say it's the better explanation.

The one thing that does annoy some of them is repeating the mantra "Evolution has never sought to prove or disprove the existence of God"

The one thing that does annoy some of them is repeating the mantra "Evolution has never sought to prove or disprove the existence of God"
That's my personal favorite line. I can usually make a quick escape while they sputter in annoyed frustration.

Well, lumping Billy Graham in amongst those others isn't very enlightened of you, but other than that you're correct, to a degree.

You have to look at it in a linear order though, Eut. Billy Graham was in the beginning to give Bush and his people some "Christian Legitmacy". Only later to he move away from Graham and closer to the kooks like Pat Robertson. Really GWB is more a Robertson christian than a Graham.

Graham isn't far from being a kook, just a well spoken one, so it's less obvious.

You have to look at it in a linear order though, Eut. Billy Graham was in the beginning to give Bush and his people some "Christian Legitmacy". Only later to he move away from Graham and closer to the kooks like Pat Robertson. Really GWB is more a Robertson christian than a Graham.

Graham isn't far from being a kook, just a well spoken one, so it's less obvious.
Perhaps, but at least Mr. Graham has been consistent his entire life ( so far as I know ), being one of the most honest and compassionate people in public life.

Nah! It's not nice to pick on old people! :p

Unless you like poking the religious types, :D it's probably better to say it's the better explanation.

The one thing that does annoy some of them is repeating the mantra "Evolution has never sought to prove or disprove the existence of God"
Heh!

Well, you're free to pick on this particular "old people," if you dare. Mwahahaha! :D

Perhaps, but at least Mr. Graham has been consistent his entire life ( so far as I know ), being one of the most honest and compassionate people in public life.

Sure. Caring and compassionate as a religious zealot who travels around trying to convert anything that doesn't look/act/think like him can be.

But I digress, he has done good things. But arguably, so has Pat Roberts (though he is nuttier than a poop house rat).

We really shouldn't bow down before ignorance. Smile at it and humour it, but not let it run over us.

I don't mean to be rude, or mean to be....offensive. But, may I ask one simple question?

Was that directed towards my statement?

If it was, I'd really enjoy conversation on your views on what I said.

If it wasn't, then please forgive my ignorance in asking this.

Thanks.

It seems like most of the faithful posting here accept the theory of evolution and mold it to fit their religious belief. I'm surprised, as I tend to encounter more the creationist type (similar to in the article) than the free flowing faithful in this thread.

Sure. Caring and compassionate as a religious zealot who travels around trying to convert anything that doesn't look/act/think like him can be.

But I digress, he has done good things. But arguably, so has Pat Roberts (though he is nuttier than a poop house rat).
you do have to realize though that as Christians, we do have a greater motivation than most other groups to convert people. We aren't doing it because we want a world full of robots who look/act/think alike in our veiw we are trying to save your life. I know that there are a lot of Christian nutjobs in the limelight but not all of us are the hateful people that we are portrayed as. If we have the freedom to practice our religion, and one of the greatest comandments we have recieved is to spread the gospel throughout the world, then shouldn't we also have the freedom to evangelize??

sorry to get off topic. Billy Graham is a compasionate Christian and is very moderate compared to most evangelists, please don't lump him together with the nutjobs.... ;)

you do have to realize though that as Christians, we do have a greater motivation than most other groups to convert people. We aren't doing it because we want a world full of robots who look/act/think alike in our veiw we are trying to save your life. I know that there are a lot of Christian nutjobs in the limelight but not all of us are the hateful people that we are portrayed as. If we have the freedom to practice our religion, and one of the greatest comandments we have recieved is to spread the gospel throughout the world, then shouldn't we also have the freedom to evangelize??

sorry to get off topic. Billy Graham is a compasionate Christian and is very moderate compared to most evangelists, please don't lump him together with the nutjobs.... ;)

I think the key to what your saying here is you believe you are "trying to save" us. In my system of beliefs, I don't require any such saving. So to me proselytizing is just an annoyance added on to a system I already feel is chaotic for it's lack of understanding other people.

Sure, Christianity has some good ideals. But when you try to make everyone see something your way, you aren't saving, you're damaging. When you say to someone, "Question how you live, for it is not THE way," what you are really saying is, "You are wrong...CHANGE". There is nothing to say that I am wrong or right or you are wrong or right (of course I'm right though (just kidding)), so why not live and let live?

A major point to the church bringing about proselytizing, one must remember, was to increase the number of people bringing money into the church.

I don't mean to be rude, or mean to be....offensive. But, may I ask one simple question?

Was that directed towards my statement?

If it was, I'd really enjoy conversation on your views on what I said.

If it wasn't, then please forgive my ignorance in asking this.

Thanks.

I think it was arrogance under the guise of being all-knowing (omniscience, a godlike attribute). I'm not saying that God DID create the universe in an instant, but if he couldn't do so if he so deigned, he isn't God. This is a point of view that our friend doesn't seem to be able to accept.

you do have to realize though that as Christians, we do have a greater motivation than most other groups to convert people. We aren't doing it because we want a world full of robots who look/act/think alike in our veiw we are trying to save your life. I know that there are a lot of Christian nutjobs in the limelight but not all of us are the hateful people that we are portrayed as. If we have the freedom to practice our religion, and one of the greatest comandments we have recieved is to spread the gospel throughout the world, then shouldn't we also have the freedom to evangelize??
Life is what we have before we die. :)

so why not live and let live?

A major point to the church bringing about proselytizing, one must remember, was to increase the number of people bringing money into the church.
first for us to "live and let live" is a sin because we are disobeying God. I do understand how it would annoy you (and I try not to evangelize people who are totally against the idea, mainly because it is a waste of energy)
I do have to disagree about the church just looking for more people to bring in money, that is really offensive to me. I don't understand why people think we always have all these ulterior motives, can't we just out of compasion want to help you?

Life is what we have before we die. :)
to you yes. to me life is more of a spiritual thing than a physical state. I am not trying to convince anyone here otherwise, I was just trying to explain why I am the way I am.;)

first for us to "live and let live" is a sin because we are disobeying God. I do understand how it would annoy you (and I try not to evangelize people who are totally against the idea, mainly because it is a waste of energy)
I do have to disagree about the church just looking for more people to bring in money, that is really offensive to me. I don't understand why people think we always have all these ulterior motives, can't we just out of compasion want to help you?

It is possible that people just want to help. Although, as the late great Samuel Clemens said, "There is no such thing as true altruism...everyone always wants something in return."

And to quote the late great Robert Heinlien character Jubal Harshaw (from Stranger in a Strangeland and Number of the Beast), "As my grandpa said, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

It is possible that people just want to help. Although, as the late great Samuel Clemens said, "There is no such thing as true altruism...everyone always wants something in return."

And to quote the late great Robert Heinlien character Jubal Harshaw (from Stranger in a Strangeland and Number of the Beast), "As my grandpa said, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
yeah. but what if I am getting out of it is the satisfaction that I am obeying God? why does everyone always jump to money as being the only thing worth striving for?
I want to be a servant of God, to do that I must obey his commands.

first for us to "live and let live" is a sin because we are disobeying God. I do understand how it would annoy you (and I try not to evangelize people who are totally against the idea, mainly because it is a waste of energy)
I do have to disagree about the church just looking for more people to bring in money, that is really offensive to me. I don't understand why people think we always have all these ulterior motives, can't we just out of compasion want to help you?
Some evangelists won't let the matter go when someone asks them to, though. My problem with proselytizing is that it's a stranger poking their nose into my most private affairs and critiquing them. Christians don't like it when non-Christians make assumptions about them, but they show the same discourtesy when trying to convert others.

Evangelists who simply live their lives visibly, as an example of their beliefs, and make it known that they are willing to help others join their faith if they want to, but who avoid challenging others' beliefs or repeating judgmental rhetoric (like anyone who won't convert is damned, etc.), are doing it the right way -- if they must do it at all.

Some people like to conveniently forget certain parts of the bible, like, for instance, the story of the good Samaritan who had god's grace because of his compassion for a sick man, even though the Samaritan was a pagan. The point is, if a person is living right and doing right, they don't need to be converted. Your life determines your afterlife, not your church credentials.

Why has all this creationism stuff only started increasing recently? Have these Christian fundamentalists not always existed?

But of course they did. Now they get stirred so people start bickering about rubbish like whether creationism or evolution is the 'right' thing so they don't look at how the economy takes a downturn and how the war in Iraq goes wrong horribly.

You need to give people something to get irate over, preferably with another group of people, or they will start looking into stuff that really matters and that could push you out of power.

Some evangelists won't let the matter go when someone asks them to, though. My problem with proselytizing is that it's a stranger poking their nose into my most private affairs and critiquing them. Christians don't like it when non-Christians make assumptions about them, but they show the same discourtesy when trying to convert others.

Evangelists who simply live their lives visibly, as an example of their beliefs, and make it known that they are willing to help others join their faith if they want to, but who avoid challenging others' beliefs or repeating judgmental rhetoric (like anyone who won't convert is damned, etc.), are doing it the right way -- if they must do it at all.

Some people like to conveniently forget certain parts of the bible, like, for instance, the story of the good Samaritan who had god's grace because of his compassion for a sick man, even though the Samaritan was a pagan. The point is, if a person is living right and doing right, they don't need to be converted. Your life determines your afterlife, not your church credentials.

I do try to bring up the conversation, and feel out people's reactions, if it is a very negative reaction I drop it. I do agree that some evangelicals push people away by being judgemental and overzealous, I try not to be like that.
It is very important to veiw your life as a witnessing tool, it's like my preacher says "sometimes you are the only Jesus, someone will ever see".

As far as your comment that if someone is living right and doing right that they don't need to be converted, that is where Christians and many others disagree. Everyone has sinned, we are all sinners, no one is rightous, sin leads to death, the only way to gain life is through Jesus. Being good will not get you to heaven, being Catholic, being Baptist, being Mormon, or calling yourself a Christian won't either.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I think it was arrogance under the guise of being all-knowing (omniscience, a godlike attribute).

If I am reading this correctly, I seemed to have been....acting all-knowing? If not, then what does this referr to? Forgive me, I seek not to poke at things, just to know what you were talking about. :D

I'm not saying that God DID create the universe in an instant, but if he couldn't do so if he so deigned, he isn't God.

I would have to agree with that statement, for if the Creator I believe in did not create, then either he doesn't exist or, as you say, isn't a God.

But I am unable to know this, nor am I able to know if he created the Universe. I just go on Belief, on Faith, even if it is foolish to some people. :D

This is a point of view that our friend doesn't seem to be able to accept.

May I ask whom you referr to in this statement as well?

Can you point out what known facts can prove the existence of Jesus?

Not to start a full tangent, but there are bones of dinosaurs. Just as there are bones of austraelopiticines (an early ancestor of homo sapiens) to support the theory of evolution.

He said it was unprovable. He said there were facts that support it, not prove it.

So true, and this is what I shall take away in mind from this thread. Everything else? Eh ::shrugs:: Not really interested in getting into debates that don't concern me.

I look at it both ways, a moderate if you will. I believe in a Creator, so if he Created everything in an Instant, then ok. If he did it over time, alright.

All I know is to look at other peoples views and listen to them, not to judge. In my belief, in my opinion, I will find out the truth when I meet my Creator, face-to-face, in Heaven.

perfect ;)

If I am reading this correctly, I seemed to have been....acting all-knowing? If not, then what does this referr to? Forgive me, I seek not to poke at things, just to know what you were talking about. :D


I may have lost track of who was saying what. The first statement was not directed at you, but at the person to whom you were responding. I'll admit to being too lazy to go back and check. ;)

perfect ;)

I agree. :)

Jodie Foster quality? Like your so hot people tried to kill Reagan to impress you?




:eek: :D

Well...it just seems that people find you irrestible. You seem to get hit on in everything. I suppose since sans pictoral evidence it must be in your words. Since the aren't sexy, they must be contrued as cute. Therefore, you must be cute.

Is that clearer...?

You could be right, they might also find her irresistable because her words are quite intelligent. Of course she could easily be both cute AND intelligent. ;)

Some people like to conveniently forget certain parts of the bible, like, for instance, the story of the good Samaritan who had god's grace because of his compassion for a sick man, even though the Samaritan was a pagan.

Technically, Samaritans (they still exist today in Israel) are not pagans. Their "Bible" is the Torah, i.e., the first five books of the Old Testament. Supposedly they are the descendents of the remnants of the Ten "Lost" Tribes, the majority of whom were evicted from Palestine following the Assyrian invasion. They worship Yahweh.

You could be right, they might also find her irresistable because her words are quite intelligent. Of course she could easily be both cute AND intelligent. ;)
I can be both? cool. I thought I was gonna have to choose one. If I did have to choose I was leaning to intelligent, see since I am already married, I don't have much use for cute anymore.... :D

It's the "Culture of Lie" that the current ruling party is incubating. When your leaders political allies include James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Billy Graham, then you know you're in for a lot of support for right-wing lunacy.


I think the reason it has become more of an issue than in the past is because recently believers have felt "under fire" more than they did in the past. What with removing all things God from all things public, the need to stand up and fight back is now greater than it was a few years ago. I don't think it has a thing to do with Bush or Graham.

He said it was unprovable. He said there were facts that support it, not prove it.

Fine...I rephrase my question. Please provide facts that support the idea that a) Christ lived and b) he enacted miracles. As the bible is not historical evidence, please use another resource.

I think the reason it has become more of an issue than in the past is because recently believers have felt "under fire" more than they did in the past. What with removing all things God from all things public, the need to stand up and fight back is now greater than it was a few years ago. I don't think it has a thing to do with Bush or Graham.

But at the same time, these things didn't come to the forefront when they decided to add "god" to all things public. The government puteth god on money and in the pledge, now the government should taketh away.

Fine...I rephrase my question. Please provide facts that support the idea that a) Christ lived and b) he enacted miracles. As the bible is not historical evidence, please use another resource.

I think that just the fact that a world-wide religion centering on Jesus which sprang up almost "overnight" following his supposed death is supportive enough of his existence to me. If you require more supportive evidence than that, then you are too cynical to be convinced of the existence of any ancient historical personage.

However, as I'll repeat, it is not my intention to prove or disprove the existence of Christ. I follow the Great Spaghetti God, remember? In fact, I went to Olive Garden (a chain restaurant in the U.S. featuring Italian food) to worship him just last night. ;)

But at the same time, these things didn't come to the forefront when they decided to add "god" to all things public. The government puteth god on money and in the pledge, now the government should taketh away.

what they should and shouldn't do isn't quite the point. I'm only speculating on why it has recently become such a hot button and its because some [edited in some for more clarification] Christians feel as though there's a concerted effort to wipe their beliefs out of existance or, if not wiped out, they fear they may end up forced to worship in hiding.

I think that just the fact that a world-wide religion centering on Jesus which sprang up almost "overnight" following his supposed death is supportive enough of his existence to me. If you require more supportive evidence than that, then you are too cynical to be convinced of the existence of any ancient historical personage.

However, as I'll repeat, it is not my intention to prove or disprove the existence of Christ. I follow the Great Spaghetti God, remember? In fact, I went to Olive Garden (a chain restaurant in the U.S. featuring Italian food) to worship him just last night. ;)

I am a Christian, myself, but I'm often guilty of wandering into the church of your spaghetti god now and then. Olive Garden rocks! ;)

LOL! That was the OTHER primary reason we split: nada of the wild thang! ;)


Well, that was a little more than we actually needed to know... :fluffle: :eek:

what they should and shouldn't do isn't quite the point. I'm only speculating on why it has recently become such a hot button and its because Christians feel as though there's a concerted effort to wipe their beliefs out of existance or, if not wiped out, they fear they may end up forced to worship in hiding.
very well put. I just hope that others can understand our (Christians) point of veiw so well (even if they don't agree)

I am a Christian, myself, but I'm often guilty of wandering into the church of your spaghetti god now and then. Olive Garden rocks! ;)


Please. his proper name is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. :D

I can be both? cool. I thought I was gonna have to choose one. If I did have to choose I was leaning to intelligent, see since I am already married, I don't have much use for cute anymore.... :D

you may not, but stay cute. Your husband probably still has a use for it. :D

you may not, but stay cute. Your husband probably still has a use for it. :D
true. I better try to stay both so he doesn't wander off.... ;)

I think that just the fact that a world-wide religion centering on Jesus which sprang up almost "overnight" following his supposed death is supportive enough of his existence to me. If you require more supportive evidence than that, then you are too cynical to be convinced of the existence of any ancient historical personage.

I wouldn't consider a small cult that began approximately 50 years after he died, not achieving status as a religion for another 150 years (that's 200 years now) and not having any document toward his teachings for another 200 years after that. Hardly overnight. And besides, the only documentation stating anything about Jesus was written by people hand selected to make him look good so they could sell the religion to the masses and hope for a resurggance of Neo-Roman culture.

However, as I'll repeat, it is not my intention to prove or disprove the existence of Christ. I follow the Great Spaghetti God, remember? In fact, I went to Olive Garden (a chain restaurant in the U.S. featuring Italian food) to worship him just last night. ;)

A couple of points here...

a) It's Flying Spaghetti Monster not Great Spaghetti God
b) I'm American and I am aware of Olive Garden (though I avoid it as much as possible because one person can only eat so much).

Enjoy your worship...just watch your cholesterol ;)

what they should and shouldn't do isn't quite the point. I'm only speculating on why it has recently become such a hot button and its because some [edited in some for more clarification] Christians feel as though there's a concerted effort to wipe their beliefs out of existance or, if not wiped out, they fear they may end up forced to worship in hiding.

I think part of this is due to the Judeo/Christian (and more specifically Catholic, although they don't jump into these hot button frays) guilt factor and feeling that they are constantly persecuted. If they aren't, then they feel they aren't suffering enough and therefore must create persecutions to feel closer to Christ or whatever. In this country (US) there are still mroe Christians/Catholics than anything else. You won, you're the majority, you make the rules. Anyone not in your club seems to be more persecuted than you.

(When I say you I don't mean anyone specifically, but Christians as a group).

a) It's Flying Spaghetti Monster not Great Spaghetti God


We obviously have grave theological differences. You worship your god and I'll worship mine! By the way, the Great Spaghetti God also flies! And he also makes fetticine Alfredo, not just spaghetti. ;)

I don't mean to be rude, or mean to be....offensive. But, may I ask one simple question?

Was that directed towards my statement?

If it was, I'd really enjoy conversation on your views on what I said.

If it wasn't, then please forgive my ignorance in asking this.

Thanks. You are ignorant, but I will forgive it. ;)
It was actually directed at someone saying that it's not worth arguing about evolution. To which my comment about not letting ignorance get its way was directed.

We obviously have grave theological differences. You worship your god and I'll worship mine! By the way, the Great Spaghetti God also flies! And he also make fetticine Alfredo, not just spaghetti. ;)
You show those pedantists. ;)

We obviously have grave theological differences. You worship your god and I'll worship mine! By the way, the Great Spaghetti God also flies! And he also make fetticine Alfredo, not just spaghetti. ;)

It is good to diversify. But as lunch approaches and I am hungry I'd like to stop the food part of this conversation. I am salivating and it seems to be ilsdagfa effevting mmmy lkkkeeueydsboard.

I wouldn't consider a small cult that began approximately 50 years after he died, not achieving status as a religion for another 150 years (that's 200 years now) and not having any document toward his teachings for another 200 years after that. Hardly overnight. And besides, the only documentation stating anything about Jesus was written by people hand selected to make him look good so they could sell the religion to the masses and hope for a resurggance of Neo-Roman culture.


A lot of assumption here

And besides, the only documentation stating anything about Jesus was written by people hand selected to make him look good so they could sell the religion to the masses and hope for a resurggance of Neo-Roman culture.


Hand selected by who? And who are "they" trying to make "look good," a fictional character?

Most historians (of which I am one, sort of. OK, I work in the history department of a library. Close enough?) accept the historicity of the person known as Jesus Christ whether they are Christians or not. The epistles, many of which can be definitely dated as first century, show that the "cult" had spread as far as Rome and Greece by that time, and Nero (circa A.D. 64) thought them enough of a threat to have them persecuted (as did several other early Roman emperors). I believe that there are also Roman documents telling of these persecutions (or "entertainments," as they saw them). In any event, this is enough circumstantial evidence for most historians to accept the fact of the actual existence of someone named Jesus Christ. The spread of the religion based on him makes little sense if he never existed. At least, not to me. But then, some people just can never accept the obvious.

Edit: By the way, I also believe in Mohammed and Buddha as historical personages upon whom religions are based, and in Homer and Socrates as well. Yet many historians today dispute the existence of Homer, saying that his writings are merely complilations of tales credited to a common, and apparently fictional, author. Also, comtemporary accounts of Socrates are mentioned nowhere other than in Plato. Yet I have the sneaking suspicion that a historical Homer and Socrates actually existed based almost entirely upon circumstantial evidence. Call me naive, I guess. ;)

I may have lost track of who was saying what. The first statement was not directed at you, but at the person to whom you were responding. I'll admit to being too lazy to go back and check. ;)

Alrighty. Thanks.

You are ignorant, but I will forgive it. ;)
It was actually directed at someone saying that it's not worth arguing about evolution. To which my comment about not letting ignorance get its way was directed.

Wait.......wasn't that Hoos Bandoland? Wasn't it him who I was talking to first?! Whats goin on here? Who was I talking to?

::looks back at posts::

Oh...I was origionally talking to you. Ah....well....thanks for answering. Got mixed up between your response and Hoos Nadoland. Lol, sorry.

I believe that my mind is open to other possibilities, and I enjoy hearing what other people say concerning their opinions and beliefs. But, like I said before, whether out of ignorance or Faith, I will find out the truth when I die. I respect other peoples opinions and beliefs on the subject, of course. But, in the end, I shall maintain my personal beliefs. However, always enjoying to hear yours and others. :D

"Judge not, least ye be judged." Thats what I try to go by. :)

Anyway, since it seems I'm finished here. Good Day!

i dislike christians like that...they give the rest of us a bad name. you know, since the time periods are not literally recorded, both evolution and the genisis story can be correct at the same time, and i believe they are. i don't like how you say that evolution is a proven fact though, it's not, it is still a theory. it does an excellent job of explaining how life develops...but does nothing to explain where life came from originally. in my opinion, God made the world, and life, and used evolution to make it what it is today.

Hand selected by who? And who are "they" trying to make "look good," a fictional character?
The Emperor Constantine on his decision to make Christianity the new state religion of Rome?

Most historians (of which I am one, sort of. OK, I work in the history department of a library. Close enough?) accept the historicity of the person known as Jesus Christ whether they are Christians or not. The epistles, many of which can be definitely dated as first century, show that the "cult" had spread as far as Rome and Greece by that time, and Nero (circa A.D. 64) thought them enough of a threat to have them persecuted (as did several other early Roman emperors). I believe that there are also Roman documents telling of these persecutions (or "entertainments," as they saw them). In any event, this is enough circumstantial evidence for most historians to accept the fact of the actual existence of someone named Jesus Christ. The spread of the religion based on him makes little sense if he never existed. At least, not to me. But then, some people just can never accept the obvious.
There's no question of Christ's existence: it's the interpretation that tends to get put on this fact by halfwits that causes the problems.

There's no question of Christ's existence: it's the interpretation that tends to get put on this fact by halfwits that causes the problems.

Thank you! The poster for whom my post was intended was denying even the historical existence of Christ. :)

i dislike christians like that...they give the rest of us a bad name. you know, since the time periods are not literally recorded, both evolution and the genisis story can be correct at the same time, and i believe they are. i don't like how you say that evolution is a proven fact though, it's not, it is still a theory. it does an excellent job of explaining how life develops...but does nothing to explain where life came from originally. in my opinion, God made the world, and life, and used evolution to make it what it is today.

Yeah!!

We obviously have grave theological differences. You worship your god and I'll worship mine! By the way, the Great Spaghetti God also flies! And he also makes fetticine Alfredo, not just spaghetti. ;)
...you're not being serious - are you?

Thank you! The poster for whom my post was intended was denying even the historical existence of Christ. :)
It can't be fully proven that he existed, but there's a fair bit of evidence that someone of that description existed.
The business with the dead rising and walking on water and suchlike I'm a lot less inclined to take very seriously.

It can't be fully proven that he existed, but there's a fair bit of evidence that someone of that description existed.
The business with the dead rising and walking on water and suchlike I'm a lot less inclined to take very seriously.

Yeah...it doesn't really matter whether Christianity is built on 'impossibilities' because...well, that's what it's built on.

It seems like most of the faithful posting here accept the theory of evolution and mold it to fit their religious belief. I'm surprised, as I tend to encounter more the creationist type (similar to in the article) than the free flowing faithful in this thread.

This makes me wonder where you live. I have met very few people (other than online) who are staunch Creationists.

you do have to realize though that as Christians, we do have a greater motivation than most other groups to convert people. We aren't doing it because we want a world full of robots who look/act/think alike in our veiw we are trying to save your life. I know that there are a lot of Christian nutjobs in the limelight but not all of us are the hateful people that we are portrayed as. If we have the freedom to practice our religion, and one of the greatest comandments we have recieved is to spread the gospel throughout the world, then shouldn't we also have the freedom to evangelize??

I think the real problem is that the method of evangelizing employed by many does more to turn people away from Christianity than towards if. If a Christian approaches the conversation with an, "I am absolutely right and you need to agree with me to be saved," type of attitude - if they constantly "get in the face" of someone who doesn't want to hear it, all they are doing is making that person hostile to Christianity.

Jesus did preach (he was a rabbi, what do you expect?) but that isn't all, or even the bulk of what he did. For the most part, Jesus taught by example and praised the actions of others that he thought were setting a good example. If someone wants to discuss religion with you, then yes, it is your duty to discuss it with them. If you believe yourself to be right, you will want to convince them of your view, but you also must listen to theirs, and consider it. Anything else is not "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you." While I doubt that anything they say will turn you away from your faith, it might make you look at some part of it in a new light, or further understand their viewpoint.

And most of all, live by example! Be compassionate. Be charitable. Be polite. If anyone asks you why you do these things, tell them! I knew a guy who went to China to teach English to students there. He was out with his students when they saw a woman on the side of the street, obviously dehydrated and ready to pass out. The students, of a higher class than her, were ready to simply pass her by. Instead, he walked into a nearby store and bought her a bottle of water. Even she was surprised by his actions! The students then all asked why he had done that - why had he spent his money on a common stranger, and he explained that his faith requires him to be charitable. It may not have made any instant converts, but it gave them something to think about - and they may come to it on their own.

Yeah...it doesn't really matter whether Christianity is built on 'impossibilities' because...well, that's what it's built on.
actually I could argue that Christianity is built on "improbibilities" because nothing is impossible.

This makes me wonder where you live. I have met very few people (other than online) who are staunch Creationists.



I think the real problem is that the method of evangelizing employed by many does more to turn people away from Christianity than towards if. If a Christian approaches the conversation with an, "I am absolutely right and you need to agree with me to be saved," type of attitude - if they constantly "get in the face" of someone who doesn't want to hear it, all they are doing is making that person hostile to Christianity.

Jesus did preach (he was a rabbi, what do you expect?) but that isn't all, or even the bulk of what he did. For the most part, Jesus taught by example and praised the actions of others that he thought were setting a good example. If someone wants to discuss religion with you, then yes, it is your duty to discuss it with them. If you believe yourself to be right, you will want to convince them of your view, but you also must listen to theirs, and consider it. Anything else is not "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you." While I doubt that anything they say will turn you away from your faith, it might make you look at some part of it in a new light, or further understand their viewpoint.

And most of all, live by example! Be compassionate. Be charitable. Be polite. If anyone asks you why you do these things, tell them! I knew a guy who went to China to teach English to students there. He was out with his students when they saw a woman on the side of the street, obviously dehydrated and ready to pass out. The students, of a higher class than her, were ready to simply pass her by. Instead, he walked into a nearby store and bought her a bottle of water. Even she was surprised by his actions! The students then all asked why he had done that - why had he spent his money on a common stranger, and he explained that his faith requires him to be charitable. It may not have made any instant converts, but it gave them something to think about - and they may come to it on their own. You're weird! Stop making sense, it's scaring me!

actually I could argue that Christianity is built on "improbibilities" because nothing is impossible.
Come off it. All kinds of things are impossible: try jumping out of a seventh story window and changing your mind before you hit the ground, for one example...

54 percent of Americans do not believe that human beings evolved from earlier species, and although almost half believe that Darwin has been proved right, slightly more disagree.

This is an absolutely absurd stat. Not to be one of those "self-loathing Americans", but we might just be pretty stupid as a whole. The information is readily available, the ideas are simple logic, yet over half of the nation do not believe in evolution. That cannot be construed in any way as a sign of intelligence.

Come off it. All kinds of things are impossible: try jumping out of a seventh story window and changing your mind before you hit the ground, for one example... You don't know it's impossible until you've tried it.
However, I fail to see why the dead rising is impossible.

Come off it. All kinds of things are impossible: try jumping out of a seventh story window and changing your mind before you hit the ground, for one example...
okay. I can tell that I may have left out something in my post. I am sorry.
I don't believe that anything is impossible, although things can be so highly improbable that they would seem impossible.

They felt as though they were being marginalized, much as the Muslims felt they were being subjugated by a secular West. A few years back, they went on the offensive, with people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell leading the way.

Dear Gods.... can you imagine if these two groups managed to find some common ground. That would be one scary terrorist organization. :sniper: :mp5:

Come off it. All kinds of things are impossible: try jumping out of a seventh story window and changing your mind before you hit the ground, for one example...

But it's not impossible that you might land in a soft bale of hay. ;)

...you're not being serious - are you?

Well ... I didn't say it was GOOD fettuccine Alfredo. :rolleyes:

Hand selected by who? And who are "they" trying to make "look good," a fictional character?

Most historians (of which I am one, sort of. OK, I work in the history department of a library. Close enough?) accept the historicity of the person known as Jesus Christ whether they are Christians or not. The epistles, many of which can be definitely dated as first century, show that the "cult" had spread as far as Rome and Greece by that time, and Nero (circa A.D. 64) thought them enough of a threat to have them persecuted (as did several other early Roman emperors). I believe that there are also Roman documents telling of these persecutions (or "entertainments," as they saw them). In any event, this is enough circumstantial evidence for most historians to accept the fact of the actual existence of someone named Jesus Christ. The spread of the religion based on him makes little sense if he never existed. At least, not to me. But then, some people just can never accept the obvious.

I'll agree in principle. As far as hand picked and by who, the who is Emperor Constantine. The Emperor wanted to move Christianity into mainstream Roman culture as resistance to Christians was both costly and time consuming and he himslef was a "closet Christian". so he brought together 30-40 (the number was never established) historians, scribes, and oral traditionalists. They complied "the best" stories of Christ for the new testament and made it palpable to the masses of Roman culture.

I used the phrase "cult" as a religious group not recoginized as such by the state. For example, although a religion to some, Scientology is considered a cult by most of society.

The spread of religion makes sense whether he did or did not exist. See "The Life of Brian", while a comedy, very poignant. Not to mention that there is much documentation of people during that time, yet no one Jesus like among them. Not even tracking his Aramaic/Hebrew name of Yeshua.


Edit: By the way, I also believe in Mohammed and Buddha as historical personages upon whom religions are based, and in Homer and Socrates as well. Yet many historians today dispute the existence of Homer, saying that his writings are merely complilations of tales credited to a common, and apparently fictional, author. Also, comtemporary accounts of Socrates are mentioned nowhere other than in Plato. Yet I have the sneaking suspicion that a historical Homer and Socrates actually existed based almost entirely upon circumstantial evidence. Call me naive, I guess. ;)

I have heard the Homer argument before. Not sure where I stand on that. As far as Mohammed and Buddha, both came from cultures that were known for documenting at current instead of relying on an oral history.

I'm not arguing whether he did or did not exist, just for a decent historical proof of existence. But I understand your point of how can so many people be wrong.

You're weird! Stop making sense, it's scaring me!

Uh-oh...Lisk is scared again... :)

okay. I can tell that I may have left out something in my post. I am sorry.
I don't believe that anything is impossible, although things can be so highly improbable that they would seem impossible.

But it can be said that saying nothing is in impossible, but things are improbable, is like saying that everything is improbable to some degree.

Kinda like "Everyone is special" means the same thing as "No one is special".

Yeah...it doesn't really matter whether Christianity is built on 'impossibilities' because...well, that's what it's built on.

"With God all things are possible," or so I've been told. Actually, that's our state's (Ohio's) motto. I knew I'd heard it somewhere! :p

Uh-oh...Lisk is scared again... :) Livin' in fear ain't livin' at all.
:eek:
I'm… I'm undead!

But it can be said that saying nothing is in impossible, but things are improbable, is like saying that everything is improbable to some degree.

Kinda like "Everyone is special" means the same thing as "No one is special".
:eek: gonna have to think about that..... darn you for making me think :headbang:

But it can be said that saying nothing is in impossible, but things are improbable, is like saying that everything is improbable to some degree.

Kinda like "Everyone is special" means the same thing as "No one is special".

LOL! The real funny thing is: that actually made sense to me! :p

This is an absolutely absurd stat. Not to be one of those "self-loathing Americans", but we might just be pretty stupid as a whole. The information is readily available, the ideas are simple logic, yet over half of the nation do not believe in evolution. That cannot be construed in any way as a sign of intelligence.

well the stat doesn't say that over half the population do not believe in evolution, it says they don't believe humans evolved from earlier species. There's a difference there.

Come off it. All kinds of things are impossible: try jumping out of a seventh story window and changing your mind before you hit the ground, for one example...

Changing your mind is easy. It's changing direction that's so hard.

Changing your mind is easy. It's changing direction that's so hard.

very good point Galloism, as a matter of fact, I imagine changing your mind before you hit the ground is quite likely.

Basically, they felt as though they were under attack from secularists, what with removing any and all religious symbols from public property, all references to religion being forbidden in schools, etc. They felt as though they were being marginalized, much as the Muslims felt they were being subjugated by a secular West. A few years back, they went on the offensive, with people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell leading the way.

You can't say that without making note of the neo-cons, and reagans, decision to play up to them in search of votes. Which, i believe, on Reagans part was simple belief (scary as it sounds)...but on the vast majority of neo-conservative politicians side was more about cynical vote grabbing.

How can i say it? I think Bush believes similar things to these people, and it scares me a little. I think Rove believes it's important to manipulate these people, and that scares me a hell of a lot.

well the stat doesn't say that over half the population do not believe in evolution, it says they don't believe humans evolved from earlier species. There's a difference there.


Huh? Meaning what? They think humans are immune to the process? :confused:

Huh? Meaning what? They think humans are immune to the process? :confused:

Obviously. Because god made us. Out of a handful of dust. And then the creatures evolved around us but we stayed the sa...nah, not working for me either.

well the stat doesn't say that over half the population do not believe in evolution, it says they don't believe humans evolved from earlier species. There's a difference there.

and although almost half believe that Darwin has been proved right, slightly more disagree.

I took that to mean that slight over half disagree with evolution. But no matter if it only extends to humans, it takes a great deal of either forced or inherent stupidity to not believe in evolution.

COMMENTARY: Although I have great sympathy for people of faith,
Why is this? Perhaps it is better to have sympathy for those who do not have any faith?

I have little or no tolerance
I have noticed this.....

for those who think the very foundations of their "faith" are dependent upon "proving" that evolution is wrong.
What about the non believers "who think the very foundations of their "truths" are dependent upon "proving" that evolution is right?

Evolution is a fact, no longer a theory,
Since when? Man may evolve but the theory of evolution is still just a theory?

and to base your faith on something as flimsy as the story of Genesis is the ultimate in foolishness.
Perhaps belief in the book of Genesis is not the sole requirement for a belief in God?

If your "faith" is that weak, you really need to reconsider whether your "faith" is worth the effort.
When anybodies "faith" is challenged, they will defend it, whether you think it is right, wrong, or indifferent is irrelevant?

God does not need you to feel threatened by anything as mundane as science.
God gives us tests all the time, and the results of the tests either strengthens or diminishes ones faith. There are many lost souls wandering around that are filled with anger, hate, and petty jealousies, and they wonder why they can find no inner peace.

Are these people right to question these displays? God only knows?

Are they "pathetic" because they do so? I don't think so.

Livin' in fear ain't livin' at all.
:eek:
I'm… I'm undead!

Really? Like Zombie undead or vampire undead?

I once wrote a paper about the Cultural Implications of Vampires, based on the idea that every documented culture in written history has some sort of Vampire belief/myth. It was good, I got an A and got to travle to New Orleans for research.

well the stat doesn't say that over half the population do not believe in evolution, it says they don't believe humans evolved from earlier species. There's a difference there.

Only slightly. And still it implies and belief that humans just popped up on the scene, all cocky, walking upright and using tools. Keep in mind that Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis are different species. So if we didn't evolve from them, according to that 54%, where did we come from?

Only slightly. And still it implies and belief that humans just popped up on the scene, all cocky, walking upright and using tools. Keep in mind that Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis are different species. So if we didn't evolve from them, according to that 54%, where did we come from?
nobody really knows. I think that is the whole point of the thread..... ;)

I do try to bring up the conversation, and feel out people's reactions, if it is a very negative reaction I drop it. I do agree that some evangelicals push people away by being judgemental and overzealous, I try not to be like that.
It is very important to veiw your life as a witnessing tool, it's like my preacher says "sometimes you are the only Jesus, someone will ever see".

As far as your comment that if someone is living right and doing right that they don't need to be converted, that is where Christians and many others disagree. Everyone has sinned, we are all sinners, no one is rightous, sin leads to death, the only way to gain life is through Jesus. Being good will not get you to heaven, being Catholic, being Baptist, being Mormon, or calling yourself a Christian won't either.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
The fact that you didn't preface any of that with "I believe that" or "My religion teaches that" is why I don't like evangelism. Also, the fact that that statement ignores parts of the bible that might require evangelists to think about how they go about things (like the Samaritan story). I don't think you're doing it to be nasty. I just don't think you can see the effect of such words, even when it's pointed out to you. It's like a kind of blindness.

Technically, Samaritans (they still exist today in Israel) are not pagans. Their "Bible" is the Torah, i.e., the first five books of the Old Testament. Supposedly they are the descendents of the remnants of the Ten "Lost" Tribes, the majority of whom were evicted from Palestine following the Assyrian invasion. They worship Yahweh.
The ancient people known as Samaritans (who may or may not have been local to ancient Judea) were not Hebrews, not a lost tribe, and not monotheists. Among polytheists then and now, it is/was common to practice more than one religion -- you'd attend local temples to be polite to your host country's or neighbors' god(s) even if you were just passing through. The version of the story I learned describes the character as a [EDIT: traveling*] merchant and a Samaritan, thus ethnically differentiating him from the local, supposedly righteous Hebrews. The point of the story is that being in the club doesn't make you righteous. Living a righteous life of compassion, charity, humility, etc., is what makes a person righteous.

[*Not to imply there were no Hebrew merchants, but that in the story as I read and learned it, the Samaritan was a foreigner.]

nobody really knows. I think that is the whole point of the thread..... ;)

There I must disagree, O' cute Smunkee one. We do know that humans did not simply pop-up out of nowhere. Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis are verifying factors of that. Neanderthal man is still a bit misleading (although I feel the research recently that they lives at the same times as Homo Sapiens shows they were more like cousins than an evolutionary step, is pretty convincing). No where is there any support for the "Poof, there's the humans" theory.

The ancient people known as Samaritans (who may or may not have been local to ancient Judea) were not Hebrews, not a lost tribe, and not monotheists. Among polytheists then and now, it is/was common to practice more than one religion --.

I think more than a few of your assumptions are wrong.


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

The fact that you didn't preface any of that with "I believe that" or "My religion teaches that" is why I don't like evangelism. Also, the fact that that statement ignores parts of the bible that might require evangelists to think about how they go about things (like the Samaritan story). I don't think you're doing it to be nasty. I just don't think you can see the effect of such words, even when it's pointed out to you. It's like a kind of blindness.

Actually, Christianity was originally designed to be somewhat confrontational.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Words of Christ, Matthew 10:34 ;)

I think more than a few of your assumptions are wrong.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan
"Samaritans are both a religious and an ethnic group. Ethnically, they are descended from a group of inhabitants that have connections to ancient Samaria from the beginning of the Babylonian Exile up to the beginning of the Christian era. Religiously, they are the adherents of Samaritanism, a religion based on the Torah. Samaritans claim that their worship is the true religion of the ancient Israelites, predating the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, but Samaritanism has historically been rejected by normative Judaism."

My statements were not assumptions. There is a difference between the modern lifestyle of Samaritans today and who and what the Samaritans were when the story was written. The paragraph above is the lead of the article you linked to. There is nothing in it that contradicts me, imo. They are ethnically and religiously distinct. And if it is your position that a superfine difference of opinion as to whether ancient Samaritans were Jews or not completely disqualifies my argument that living a good life is more important than joining this or that church, then frankly, I don't agree, won't agree, and won't waste my time arguing over such tiny details. Address my point, or dismiss it. Your choice.

I hope Eut doesn't mind me responding to this...but since we rarely support each other...

Why is this? Perhaps it is better to have sympathy for those who do not have any faith?

Those who don't have faith need no sympathy. They have found "spirtual power" within themselves, thereby requiring no crutch or support inherent in religion. I also believe he felt sympathy towards those non-closed minded faithful whose names get dragged in by the Fundy sub-culture they are only tangentally associated with.


I have noticed this.....

I can't argue with you on this point. Eut is very opinionated, then again, so are most people. It is what makes it delightful to debate with him.


What about the non believers "who think the very foundations of their "truths" are dependent upon "proving" that evolution is right?

Actually, those that have found evolution to be correct will point out no need to prove anything as it is an ongoing process that never ends and can therefore never be 100% "proven".


Since when? Man may evolve but the theory of evolution is still just a theory?

Do we really need to go over the definition of Scientific Theory again for the 300000000000000th time? Look it up. It does not mean the same as a laymen theory.


Perhaps belief in the book of Genesis is not the sole requirement for a belief in God?

That is pretty much where the Creationist beliefs come from. No one said that was the sole requirement for a belief in god, however it is what Creationists site in an attempt to discredit evolution.


When anybodies "faith" is challenged, they will defend it, whether you think it is right, wrong, or indifferent is irrelevant?

Umm...sure. But it can be defended without harassing docents at a Museum of Natural Science. That is just being a jerk.


God gives us tests all the time, and the results of the tests either strengthens or diminishes ones faith. There are many lost souls wandering around that are filled with anger, hate, and petty jealousies, and they wonder why they can find no inner peace.

Apprently I've been exempt from these tests or I didn't register for the class. I have not been tested by god(s) at any point in time, although if I did, based on my test taking history, I'd do quite well.

Are these people right to question these displays? God only knows?

Are they "pathetic" because they do so? I don't think so.

No, they are not right to question displays supported by empirical evidence and researched for over 100 years. These displays change with the theories (unless they are "science history" displays, but that's a different issue). Are they pathetic because they go to a museum with no other purpose than to harass someone? No...they are socially inept, backwoods jerks bent on trying to make someone else feel bad so they can feel bad.

If I were a christian, I'd be embarassed by these people.

Actually, Christianity was originally designed to be somewhat confrontational.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Words of Christ, Matthew 10:34 ;)
Well, then some Christians should quit complaining when others push back.

Well, then some Christians should quit complaining when others push back.

Based on that bible quote...I agree.

Actually, Christianity was originally designed to be somewhat confrontational.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Words of Christ, Matthew 10:34 ;)
I think that's out of context.

This is what The Message has to say about that passage:
"Don't think I've come to make life cozy. I've come to cut-- make a sharp knife-cut between son and father, daughter and mother, bride and mother-in-law-- cut through these cozy domestic arrangements and free you for God. Well-meaning family members can be your worst enemies. If you prefer father or mother over me, you don't deserve me. If you prefer son or daughter over me, you don't deserve me.

"If you don't go all the way with me, through thick and thin, you don't deserve me. If your first concern is to look after yourself, you'll never find yourself. But if you forget about yourself and look to me, you'll find both yourself and me."
Matthew 10:34-39

..which makes more sense in the context of the overall speech of Mathew 10.

"Samaritans are both a religious and an ethnic group. Ethnically, they are descended from a group of inhabitants that have connections to ancient Samaria from the beginning of the Babylonian Exile up to the beginning of the Christian era. Religiously, they are the adherents of Samaritanism, a religion based on the Torah. Samaritans claim that their worship is the true religion of the ancient Israelites, predating the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, but Samaritanism has historically been rejected by normative Judaism."

My statements were not assumptions. There is a difference between the modern lifestyle of Samaritans today and who and what the Samaritans were when the story was written. The paragraph above is the lead of the article you linked to. There is nothing in it that contradicts me, imo. They are ethnically and religiously distinct. And if it is your position that a superfine difference of opinion as to whether ancient Samaritans were Jews or not completely disqualifies my argument that living a good life is more important than joining this or that church, then frankly, I don't agree, won't agree, and won't waste my time arguing over such tiny details. Address my point, or dismiss it. Your choice.

"the Samaritans have always claimed to be the descendants of Israelites of the Northern Kingdom who remained behind during the Babylonian Captivity, and thus introduced none of the religious changes brought about among the Jews during this time. Some modern scholars agree. A genetic study (Shen, et al., 2004) concluded from Y-chromosome analysis that Samaritans descend from the Israelites (including Cohen, or priests), and mitochondrial DNA analysis shows descent from Assyrians and other foreign women, effectively validating both local and foreign origins for the Samaritans." From the article.

Ummm, you had a point?

Well, then some Christians should quit complaining when others push back.

And vice-versa. ;)

I think that's out of context.

This is what The Message has to say about that passage:
"Don't think I've come to make life cozy. I've come to cut-- make a sharp knife-cut between son and father, daughter and mother, bride and mother-in-law-- cut through these cozy domestic arrangements and free you for God. Well-meaning family members can be your worst enemies. If you prefer father or mother over me, you don't deserve me. If you prefer son or daughter over me, you don't deserve me.

"If you don't go all the way with me, through thick and thin, you don't deserve me. If your first concern is to look after yourself, you'll never find yourself. But if you forget about yourself and look to me, you'll find both yourself and me."
Matthew 10:34-39..which makes more sense in the context of the overall speech of Mathew 10.

You are exactly right! A Christian is to follow Christ above all others, even family. This makes for quite a lot of division, however, and the non-Christians are bound to be offended by such sentiment.

The fact that you didn't preface any of that with "I believe that" or "My religion teaches that" is why I don't like evangelism. Also, the fact that that statement ignores parts of the bible that might require evangelists to think about how they go about things (like the Samaritan story). I don't think you're doing it to be nasty. I just don't think you can see the effect of such words, even when it's pointed out to you. It's like a kind of blindness.
I am sorry, I didn't even realize that I was doing something so rude. I will try to watch how I word things in the future. However I don't think I am ignoring any of the Bible, if you could please explain that point I am interested in knowing.

Actually, Christianity was originally designed to be somewhat confrontational.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Words of Christ, Matthew 10:34 ;)

That's actually a misinterpretation of the passage. Early Christians were very far from confrontational, at least in terms of physical violence. Most refused to carry weapons on religious principles. While primitive Christians were willing to discuss and, yes, prosthelytize for their faith, to imply that they did so at sword-point is incorrect.

Why is this? Perhaps it is better to have sympathy for those who do not have any faith?

Perhaps the correct word would have been empathy. I highly doubt Eutrusca was saying he pities people of faith, although this seems to be what you are implying.

What about the non believers "who think the very foundations of their "truths" are dependent upon "proving" that evolution is right?

Just as silly (and unscientific) as the fundamentalists in religion.

Perhaps belief in the book of Genesis is not the sole requirement for a belief in God?

Exactly! ((Wait, are you agreeing with Eutrusca here? How weird!))

When anybodies "faith" is challenged, they will defend it, whether you think it is right, wrong, or indifferent is irrelevant?

Incorrect. Many approach their faith in a logical manner. When their faith is challenged, they examine the evidence, examine the point of view they have been exposed to, and determine what they believe now.

Those who cannot politely challenge their own faith have none at all.

Are these people right to question these displays? God only knows?

They should question everything, but they should also listen to the answers. They may not be satisfied with the answers, they may not agree with the answers, but science is science and religion is religion and they should be polite about the whole thing.

Meanwhile, if they ask questions, they should be willing to listen to and consider the answers, not simply try to talk over the person, or repeat the same mantra when it has already been shown to be in error.

Are they "pathetic" because they do so? I don't think so.

No, they may be seen as pathetic because they act as though their faith depends on empirical measurement and physical "proof", rather than on, well, faith. These people are Doubting Thomas, needing physical proof of their faith, and pissed off if the physical evidence doesn't seem to mesh with it.

"the Samaritans have always claimed to be the descendants of Israelites of the Northern Kingdom who remained behind during the Babylonian Captivity, and thus introduced none of the religious changes brought about among the Jews during this time. Some modern scholars agree. A genetic study (Shen, et al., 2004) concluded from Y-chromosome analysis that Samaritans descend from the Israelites (including Cohen, or priests), and mitochondrial DNA analysis shows descent from Assyrians and other foreign women, effectively validating both local and foreign origins for the Samaritans." From the article.

Ummm, you had a point?
You're being deliberately thick. There is nothing in this quote that invalidates my statements, either. And your closing remark is bitchy. I conclude you have no valid argument against me, and you're just being argumentative for no reason (a trend in all your posts in this thread, imo).

That's actually a misinterpretation of the passage. Early Christians were very far from confrontational, at least in terms of physical violence. Most refused to carry weapons on religious principles. While primitive Christians were willing to discuss and, yes, prosthelytize for their faith, to imply that they did so at sword-point is incorrect.

Right. The whole sword point type proselytizing didn't come into play until the Crusades. :)

That's actually a misinterpretation of the passage. Early Christians were very far from confrontational, at least in terms of physical violence. Most refused to carry weapons on religious principles. While primitive Christians were willing to discuss and, yes, prosthelytize for their faith, to imply that they did so at sword-point is incorrect.
not so much a misinterpretation as being taken out of context and the sword is used here as a symbol. Jesus did that a lot to help explain things to the uneducated, go figure....

Right. The whole sword point type proselytizing didn't come into play until the Crusades. :)
Ouch. :)

not so much a misinterpretation as being taken out of context and the sword is used here as a symbol. Jesus did that a lot to help explain things to the uneducated, go figure....

For the record, Jesus probably never said anything like that, but it was translated as such to make a point (no pun intended). More than likely his language was more plain, less of this flowery, metaphorical stuff in the bible. If anyone talked like that in Jesus' day they probably would have stoned them.

It's akin to using Shakespearan english in conversation.

For the record, Jesus probably never said anything like that, but it was translated as such to make a point (no pun intended). More than likely his language was more plain, less of this flowery, metaphorical stuff in the bible. If anyone talked like that in Jesus' day they probably would have stoned them.

It's akin to using Shakespearan english in conversation.
oh so since he really wasn't saying anything big then they just crucified him instead? okay now I get it....

oh so since he really wasn't saying anything big then they just crucified him instead? okay now I get it....
What he said was big. The words he used probably weren't. ;)

Those who don't have faith need no sympathy. They have found "spirtual power" within themselves, thereby requiring no crutch or support inherent in religion. I also believe he felt sympathy towards those non-closed minded faithful whose names get dragged in by the Fundy sub-culture they are only tangentally associated with.

This comment struck me and I wanted to respond.

It is, of course, interesting that you single out religion as the only belief system containing "crutches". While it is certainly true that the dictates of a religious life may be misused as "crutches" in place of careful consideration of issues and beliefs, it is not any more "inherant" in religion than it is in science. Indeed, it could be said that the statement, "Science will explain everything, eventually," is just as much a cruch as the statement, "Religion offers all explanations through faith."

The fact is that all human beings have faith in something, be it religion or science or their own selves. Faith and believe are as intrinsic to the human experience as breathing. All we do, we only accomplish because we first believe we can do it. Without that initial belief, any action is impossible. Religious thought is simply an extension of the fundamental human exercise of belief into a realm with no verifiable proof. It may be an ultimately futile exercise, but it is one as necessary to human existance as drinking water.

So no, people without faith do not require pity, because no one lacks faith. That faith may be different or hard to neatly categorize into "Faith in One Particular God" or "Faith in the Fundamental Ability of Mankind", but it's alway present, regardless of the individual's specific feelings about religion.



Actually, those that have found evolution to be correct will point out no need to prove anything as it is an ongoing process that never ends and can therefore never be 100% "proven".

Which is, quite frankly, as big a dodge as a fundamentalist saying that you must have faith in Creationism. Before you go off the hilt and claim I'm some religious nut attacking Evolution, I do understand the theory behind it and have the alphabet after my name to prove it. However, to blithely and somewhat smugly say that no one worries about proving Evolutionary theory if they truly accept it because it's fundamental nature is ongoing and, thus, unprovable certainly sounds like another concept that has been in hot debate for not only the past 2000 years but since mankind first looked up at the stars and wondered what was beyond them.

The nature of Evolution does not absolve the scientist from attempting to "prove" it's validity. That's sloppy reasoning. If it is correct by the scientific method, it should be demonstrably so. If it is not, then it should be modified by new hypothesis until it is.


Do we really need to go over the definition of Scientific Theory again for the 300000000000000th time? Look it up. It does not mean the same as a laymen theory.

Actually, yes it does. It is simple snobbery that leads to a statement like that. A scientfic theory is a model of the universe, as falsifiable way of saying "If A, then B." It is perhaps more rigorous than a "layman" theory, but the concept of "theory" is the same in both of them.


Umm...sure. But it can be defended without harassing docents at a Museum of Natural Science. That is just being a jerk.

Well, that's a given. Sharing one's opinion regarding religion or Creationism when asked is one thing. Shoving it down someone's throat for no reason other than to score meaningless points in some childish game of "I'm Right, You're Wrong, And If I Yell Loud Enough, I Can Prove You're Wrong And Hopefully Drown Out This Nagging Gooey Center Of Doubt That Lives In My Soul." Still, one might also say the same for someone who tries to separate science from "laymen" by imposing a vocabulary.


Apprently I've been exempt from these tests or I didn't register for the class. I have not been tested by god(s) at any point in time, although if I did, based on my test taking history, I'd do quite well.

A very flip response. I'm tempted to say that by the nature of life, a test that you are aware of is meaningless. Still, that treads dangerously close to my critique of your "Evolution Absolutionism", so I won't. I will, however, say perhaps the word "test" should be reframed into "pop quiz".


No, they are not right to question displays supported by empirical evidence and researched for over 100 years. These displays change with the theories (unless they are "science history" displays, but that's a different issue). Are they pathetic because they go to a museum with no other purpose than to harass someone? No...they are socially inept, backwoods jerks bent on trying to make someone else feel bad so they can feel bad.

Of course they have a right to question these displays. Not only does saying,
"You can't question this" violate scientific principle and methodology, but indeed violates the very basic tenants of the country where this incident occured. They are indeed right to question. The museums are then within their right to answer those questions and show them for the psuedo-scientific shams they are. But to claim they are not right to even question in the first place smacks strongly of the beginnings of technocracy, the bastard cousin on it's mother's side of aristocracy.

You are correct that their approach is completely unacceptable and marrs their questioning (sort of like Michael Moore...Right Idea, Terrible Execution...except there's probably no "right idea" here). They still have a right to do it, however, and almost a responsibility to scientific process if they truly believe the displays to be in error.


If I were a christian, I'd be embarassed by these people.

These people affect my spirituality not at all. They are on their own roads and, while I certainly appreciate their right to pursue them, I completely and fundamentally disagree with them. Therefore their behaviors have no impact on my whatsoever. I would be as embaressed by them as a Christian as I am embaressed as a biologist by Richard Dawkins' supercilious and spurious "logic".

What he said was big. The words he used probably weren't. ;)
I know, my point was that whether the translation is perfect or not, he must have been saying something pretty controversial to get killed for it.


and to the person whom I have forgotten your name (sorry allergy pills attack!)
If early Christians weren't bold, then how do you account for Peter? Did you ever actually read the Gospels? I would say he was pretty confrontational standing in front of the Highest Court in the land, in front of the same people who killed Jesus for blaspheme and proclaiming that He (Jesus) was the one true God, risen from the dead....

Right. The whole sword point type proselytizing didn't come into play until the Crusades. :)

Granted. I tried to come up with a flip response concerning holding the whole of science accountable for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but found it hard to be flip about human suffering. Glad to see you don't have such a problem.

What he said was big. The words he used probably weren't. ;)

Thanks...that was my point. And I forgive Smunkee her sarcasm, as they forgive me for the sarcasm against them. ;)

Thanks...that was my point. And I forgive Smunkee her sarcasm, as they forgive me for the sarcasm against them. ;)
sorry about the sarcasm. ;) I have sorta a short fuse today. I ripped the tendon in my knee at church last night and am home alone with my kids, and thus unable to partake in the mophine my doctor so lovingly prescribed me. I am sorry I took it out on you. You are not an enemy I want to make. Then who would I have interesting civil debates with? :)

I know, my point was that whether the translation is perfect or not, he must have been saying something pretty controversial to get killed for it.


and to the person whom I have forgotten your name (sorry allergy pills attack!)
If early Christians weren't bold, then how do you account for Peter? Did you ever actually read the Gospels? I would say he was pretty confrontational standing in front of the Highest Court in the land, in front of the same people who killed Jesus for blaspheme and proclaiming that He (Jesus) was the one true God, risen from the dead....

There's a sizeable difference between being "bold" and "bloodthirsty". Yes, I did read the Gospels. I still do, frequently. The point is, however, that the "Gospels" themselves didn't come into physical existance until some 500 years after the Christ and the nebulous founding of Christianity.

I never said primitive Christians weren't bold, just that to imply that they were initially bold only because they were willing to slaughter unbelievers is incorrect and factually untrue. What happened later is another story completely.

Besides, Paul is a hateful, violent, misogynistic nightmare and hardly the person you want as poster-boy for a religion, except possibly one where Cthulhu receives a lot of attention.