NationStates Jolt Archive

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 initial bold only because they were willing to slaughter unbelievers is incorrect. 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.
yes a big difference between "bold" and "bloodthirsty" sorry I misunderstood and jumped on you (read earlier post about my knee)
otherwise interesting point of veiw....

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.

you don't like evangelism because people don't always preface with the words I believe?

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.

It might be stored alongside the "poof, there's the matter" theory.

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.




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).

Um, no, Creationists don't site Genisis in their attempt to discredit evolution. They site faults of evolution, missing data, and the lack of origin of life theories in their attempt to discredit evolution.

It wouldn't be scientific if we didn't question theories supported by empirical evidence now would it. Of course its right to question it, otherwise you're going by blind faith and non-christians hate that.

.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."

I was in no way saying that religion is the only belief system that is used as a crutch. Nor, did I actually say that. People can use science as a crutch, however, it is not as inerant or implied. Religion says, "You need to depend on this to make a better afterlife." whereas science makes no such claims.

Even Scientists do not believe they will explain "everything" eventually. That is the unattainable goal, but it isn't realistic so to speak, and that is part of the process, never running out of room to grow, explore and understand.



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.

Faith in science or faith in one's self is not truly faith based. It is based on concrete things that can be experienced. I'm sure you will say "you can experience god", but that can be attributed to faith and sublimation, 2 things that are not "real" (we can get into the whole real debate elsewhere, I use is for lack of a better word). I don't believe that religious experience, or faith, is as necessary to human life as drinking water. If you don't drink water you die. I know many that have survived without faith.

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.

I still disagree, for the reasons I've presented. It could be that belief in one's self is a different type of faith, I suppose I can grant that. I guess we can diversify between faith in one's self and faith in the divine. It would be the latter that I am referring to.




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.

I think I misspoke on this one. My point was more that evolution is a scientific process that doesn't end. Will we ever have all the answers? I don't know, no one does. So to claim to have all the answers because "the Bible tells me so" is just as bad as to say "Darwin said it's this, so it is". I don't agree with those people that say evolution is a closed case, either.

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.

Absolutely! That was my point, but perhaps those letters after your name helped to word it better than I did. ;) Again, I apologize for my semantic mistakes.



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.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis supported by (or not supported by for that matter) empirical data analysis. The layman's theory is any idea that one can develop to explain something, whether supported by empirical data analysis or not. For example, "I have a theory that the moon will crash into the ocean at moonset". Really, where'd you get that idea? "It's just my theory."



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.

I disagree on the point of vocabulary. The average "layman" won't understand things using the jargon of science, philosophy or theology, which is why there is a seperation.



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".

It was a very flip response and intended as such. I make no retraction here as "Tests of God" are not verifiable as far as I am concerned. Tests of Nature, I'll accept.

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.

So by the nature of this I can go into a Catholic Church and start question the nature of the crucifix, or the stations? What answers would I get? Would they simply ask me to leave, or would they be open and say, "It is but a depiction of how we think it happened?"? Which is the same as this woman was saying in the mueseum, and is an assumption when anyone has any such display depicting something from the past. Why question when you know why it is there?

I'll give that they can question the display, it is their right, but at the same time, it doesn't necessarily mean they should question it. After all, it is only a display, not a monniker of all things anti-religious.




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".

I don't believe they affect your spirituality, more that they bring down the image of those that can discuss things in a polite manner as you have here and make it seem like "all the nuts are in one basket" so to speak (no offence intended, I don't think all Christians are nuts).

you don't like evangelism because people don't always preface with the words I believe?
Yeah. *I believe* it's more polite that way.

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.

It has nothing to do with the nature of Evolution, but with the nature of science itself. Logically, the scientific method can never prove anything. Thus, to try and prove anything using it is a futile attempt. Science can disprove hypotheses or it can support them. It can never actually prove them.

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.

That rigor is a rather large difference. To your average layperson, theory simply means, "An idea." No testing is necessary, falsifiability is not necessary, even logic is not necessary. You hear people all the time saying, "My theory is that so-and-so just doesn't like me," or some other such idea. This is not something they can actually test. This is often not something they have any evidence for. It is often illogical. But it is the way that most people use the word. At best, theory is used in common speech in the same way that hypothesis is used in science.

In science, there is a great deal of rigor applied before one can call something a theory. It must meet all available evidence, or be discarded or changed. It must have backing in supported hypotheses and have been tested quite a bit.

There is a rather large difference there.

Just to be absolutely clear:

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

The scientific definition is bolded, although there is no exposition on exactly what is scientifically acceptable or considered plausible by science. The general usage is underlined.

This is, of course, leaving out the usage of defnition #3, which is generally (as is the scientific definition) specific to a given profession or area (like music theory).

Still, one might also say the same for someone who tries to separate science from "laymen" by imposing a vocabulary.

Every profession is separated from those who are not a part of it by vocabulary. If you go into any profession, you will find that there is vocabulary to learn, and some of it consists of words you might normally use in a different manner.

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.

Absolutely. What they are doing wrong is not listening to the answer. They question with no intention of listening to or considering the answer. It would be like me going, "I'm going to believe that 2+6=9 no matter what you say. Why do you say that 2+6=8?"

Um, no, Creationists don't site Genisis in their attempt to discredit evolution. They site faults of evolution, missing data, and the lack of origin of life theories in their attempt to discredit evolution.

Discrediting evolution does not provide any support at all for Creationism. If I disproved the idea that 2+5=9, it would not lend any support at all for the idea that 2+5=10.

The main problem with Creationists and IDers is that their so-called "science" is to say, "We are not satisfied with the currrent theory (which meets the evidence so found so far, or it would be discarded). Therefore God did it." In the case of Creationists, they even claim to know how God did it and in what order, which was simply to say, "Let there be...." over a course of 6 days and create everything. Of course, then they have to try and work around the fact that there are two separate Genesis stories, and the second one is a bit different.... But most seem to simply stick to the Priestly account.

Faith in science or faith in one's self is not truly faith based. It is based on concrete things that can be experienced. I'm sure you will say "you can experience god", but that can be attributed to faith and sublimation, 2 things that are not "real" (we can get into the whole real debate elsewhere, I use is for lack of a better word).

A layperson basically takes it on faith that scientists have done their job and explained things properly.

A scientist takes it on faith that the scientific process itself is not flawed. This is something that has been argued philosophically for quite some time, and the process and logic involved was eventually settled upon. However, there is always that chance that the methodology of science is inherently flawed, in which case science itself woul dbe none of what you describe.

Um, no, Creationists don't site Genisis in their attempt to discredit evolution. They site faults of evolution, missing data, and the lack of origin of life theories in their attempt to discredit evolution.

It wouldn't be scientific if we didn't question theories supported by empirical evidence now would it. Of course its right to question it, otherwise you're going by blind faith and non-christians hate that.
Okay, then on what less faulty basis do they advocate Genesis as an alternate theory?

A layperson basically takes it on faith that scientists have done their job and explained things properly.

A scientist takes it on faith that the scientific process itself is not flawed. This is something that has been argued philosophically for quite some time, and the process and logic involved was eventually settled upon. However, there is always that chance that the methodology of science is inherently flawed, in which case science itself woul dbe none of what you describe.

Again, I think what is lacking here is a more open definition of faith. I feel just as there a definite difference between theory and scientific theory, there is a difference between faith in the divine, and faith in the scientists. I consider it more trust than faith.

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.

You don't read ALL the posts, do you? That's OK, I don't either! Just jump in whenever you want! Makes no difference if the point has already been covered! LOL! :p

Yeah. *I believe* it's more polite that way.

do you also dislike metaphors? Do you get irked when someone says things like the "scales of justice"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoberbudt
Um, no, Creationists don't site Genisis in their attempt to discredit evolution. They site faults of evolution, missing data, and the lack of origin of life theories in their attempt to discredit evolution.



Discrediting evolution does not provide any support at all for Creationism. If I disproved the idea that 2+5=9, it would not lend any support at all for the idea that 2+5=10.

The main problem with Creationists and IDers is that their so-called "science" is to say, "We are not satisfied with the currrent theory (which meets the evidence so found so far, or it would be discarded). Therefore God did it." In the case of Creationists, they even claim to know how God did it and in what order, which was simply to say, "Let there be...." over a course of 6 days and create everything. Of course, then they have to try and work around the fact that there are two separate Genesis stories, and the second one is a bit different.... But most seem to simply stick to the Priestly account.



Agreed, I'm not attempting to discredit evolution. I'm stating that those are the most common ways (correct or incorrect) Creationists attempt to discredit evolution. Not Genisis, as Balipo claimed.

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.
I didn't mean necessarily that *you* are ignoring any part of the bible, but the generally "my way or the highway" "all or nothing" approach to evangelism does. The bible is really remarkable because it is full of caveats for believers not to get too confident that they understand what god wants them to do. But many people ignore those parts. It creates a loose way of talking that alienates the very people you may be trying to reach because it sounds hostile.

We only have to watch our words when we're trying to explain ourselves or win people over. My religious beliefs are in harmony with science, so most of the time I just say that evolution is the truth. But if I’m going to debate the matter with people who don’t agree with me, then I have to differentiate between my opinion and the facts as I know them. In this case, I must say that I accept evolution as truth, which is not the same as saying it IS the absolute and final truth. Then I can go on to lay out my reasons for believing this. If I fail to persuade the person I’m talking to, I’m not going to keep pressuring them about it. My belief is enough for me. Who knows? Maybe someday the evidence will persuade them and they will find a way to harmonize it with their faith.

Likewise, if someone wants to win me over to their beliefs, they're more likely to succeed by acknowledging our differences and letting the example of their actions speak for them. Like St. Francis. And frankly, if you fail to win over everyone, you'll just have to accept that, just like I have to accept that some people will choose to reject science.

Yeah. *I believe* it's more polite that way.

Then you should preface your assertions with "I believe" as well. Notice that I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out the inconsistencies and failures to listen of all sides.

just like I have to accept that some people will choose to reject science.

Has anyone here gone on record as saying that they "reject science?"

I didn't mean necessarily that *you* are ignoring any part of the bible, but the generally "my way or the highway" "all or nothing" approach to evangelism does. The bible is really remarkable because it is full of caveats for believers not to get too confident that they understand what god wants them to do. But many people ignore those parts. It creates a loose way of talking that alienates the very people you may be trying to reach because it sounds hostile.
please note that I am not trying to argue with you or anything, but could you give examples of some of what you are talking about. I am interested in this point of veiw.

do you also dislike metaphors? Do you get irked when someone says things like the "scales of justice"?
Don't be ridiculous. Saying, "Evidence is weighed in the scales of justice" is nothing at all like saying "Christ is the only way to salvation." The first is a mere figure of speech, the second is stating a belief as if it were an indisputable fact. I was saying that I don't like it when people state their beliefs as facts. I think it's a rude thing to do -- rude to people who hold other beliefs.

Sometimes people don't realize they're doing it. Sometimes, a person doesn't care or is doing it deliberately to provoke people. You can't tell which until you call them on it.

Has anyone here gone on record as saying that they "reject science?"
Not in this thread.

Then you should preface your assertions with "I believe" as well. Notice that I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out the inconsistencies and failures to listen of all sides.
I do my best to do that. Of course, I'm not so slavish that I'll go about saying "I believe today is September 20," but I try to at least introduce my opinions as such.

I do my best to do that. Of course, I'm not so slavish that I'll go about saying "I believe today is September 20," but I try to at least introduce my opinions as such.

Today's the 21st...

Don't be ridiculous. Saying, "Evidence is weighed in the scales of justice" is nothing at all like saying "Christ is the only way to salvation." The first is a mere figure of speech, the second is stating a belief as if it were an indisputable fact. I was saying that I don't like it when people state their beliefs as facts. I think it's a rude thing to do -- rude to people who hold other beliefs.

Sometimes people don't realize they're doing it. Sometimes, a person doesn't care or is doing it deliberately to provoke people. You can't tell which until you call them on it.


But can't it be just taken as a given that its what they believe? Just like the metaphor is a given that there really aren't scales there?

Don't be ridiculous. Saying, "Evidence is weighed in the scales of justice" is nothing at all like saying "Christ is the only way to salvation." The first is a mere figure of speech, the second is stating a belief as if it were an indisputable fact. I was saying that I don't like it when people state their beliefs as facts. I think it's a rude thing to do -- rude to people who hold other beliefs.

Sometimes people don't realize they're doing it. Sometimes, a person doesn't care or is doing it deliberately to provoke people. You can't tell which until you call them on it.
It is a common practice to state beliefs as facts; in fact, it is the preferred method. It lends weight to the belief, which is then demonstrated as well as stated. It is also common practice in English to leave off parts of a sentence that are implied, such as the "I believe" in such an obvious statement of opinion.

You did it yourself, when you said, "The bible is really remarkable because it is full of caveats for believers not to get too confident that they understand what god wants them to do. But many people ignore those parts. It creates a loose way of talking that alienates the very people you may be trying to reach because it sounds hostile."

It doesn't sound hostile to everyone. This is your opinion, stated as fact.

Today's the 21st...
Good thing I didn't say I believed it, then.

please note that I am not trying to argue with you or anything, but could you give examples of some of what you are talking about. I am interested in this point of veiw.
I'll be happy to explain myself later. I'm desperate to get out of this office first. :)

But can't it be just taken as a given that its what they believe? Just like the metaphor is a given that there really aren't scales there?
Please see my post #264. In general, yes, we all go about just saying the things we believe without preamble, but in the context of a debate about the often hostile conflict between belief systems, I think it is necessary to be more clear.

It is a common practice to state beliefs as facts; in fact, it is the preferred method. It lends weight to the belief, which is then demonstrated as well as stated. It is also common practice in English to leave off parts of a sentence that are implied, such as the "I believe" in such an obvious statement of opinion.

You did it yourself, when you said, "The bible is really remarkable because it is full of caveats for believers not to get too confident that they understand what god wants them to do. But many people ignore those parts. It creates a loose way of talking that alienates the very people you may be trying to reach because it sounds hostile."

It doesn't sound hostile to everyone. This is your opinion, stated as fact.
I believe ( ;) ) I am stating facts in the quote above. The Bible does contain such messages ("judge not lest ye be judged", for instance), and there is plenty of history to back up the statement that many people choose to ignore them. There is also ample evidence that many others find such statements alienating. Case in point, this thread, and a good many others on this forum recently.

If I then go on to say why I think people do that, then in this coversation, I had better preface that with "I think", "I believe" or "In my opinion."

I believe ( ;) ) I am stating facts in the quote above. The Bible does contain such messages ("judge not lest ye be judged", for instance), and there is plenty of history to back up the statement that many people choose to ignore them. There is also ample evidence that many others find such statements alienating. Case in point, this thread, and a good many others on this forum recently.

If I then go on to say why I think people do that, then in this coversation, I had better preface that with "I think", "I believe" or "In my opinion."
As I said, the assertion that it "sounds hostile" is opinion.

There are many advantages to stating belief as fact, not the least of which (as I said) is that it demonstrates, right there and then, how much the statement is thoroughly believed. This is proper (note, that's my opinion).

:rolleyes: Sigh, ho-hum, pass the butter, etc.

As I said, the assertion that it "sounds hostile" is opinion.

There are many advantages to stating belief as fact, not the least of which (as I said) is that it demonstrates, right there and then, how much the statement is thoroughly believed. This is proper (note, that's my opinion).
Cool. We have a microscopically tiny point of disagreement.

:rolleyes: Sigh, ho-hum, pass the butter, etc.
You might as well go see what's on tv for a while, because Smunkeeville asked me to explain myself -- and I'm going to. (But then I'll shut up.) ;) :D

please note that I am not trying to argue with you or anything, but could you give examples of some of what you are talking about. I am interested in this point of veiw.
Okay, this took a while, and I hope it makes any sense because I'm bone tired from a miserable work day. It's not so much examples as an explanation of my opinion/statemtns. I broke it into three parts just because it was too freaking long otherwise. It's still not short. Sorry.

Here goes:

I. What did I mean when I said some evangelists ignore certain parts of the Bible?

I said that bald statements of religious belief without any qualification that they are beliefs rather than facts are the reason I don’t like evangelism. I think such statements are rude because they don’t acknowledge other people’s different beliefs. I also said I think such statements ignore certain parts of the Bible in favor of others.

It’s normal for people to latch onto evidence/authorities that support their opinions and ignore those that don’t. There is no reason to suppose that religious people are less likely to do this than non-religious ones. It is a fact that some Christian denominations believe there is only one way for souls to be saved, that people who don’t follow this way are spiritually in danger, and that they must convert non-believers in order to save them. Some feel this so strongly that they are willing to use non-religious means -- the law, public schools, etc. -- to get people to follow the rules they think are necessary. In their zeal, they end up attacking others’ beliefs even more than expressing their own.

Of course, there are verses in the Bible that explain/support their beliefs. A few such verses have been quoted in this thread. But there are other verses that do not support their particular stance. The Bible also tells us, in various verses, that we should not presume to understand god’s plan, that we should live in peace with those who are different from us, etc.

I understand that it is extremely difficult to balance out all the subtle, contradictory messages in the Bible (though I actually don’t they they are contradictory). But I believe that evangelists should at least try to strike a balance between zeal and humility/love for others, or else they should acknowledge that they have decided to pick one over the other.

Dear Smunkeeville -- Part Deux of my notes:

II. Why do I think this?

Well, for the same reason I believe the theory of evolution. I had to look at everything -- the physical/geological evidence plus my personal spiritual beliefs, which include belief in the immortal soul -- and strike a balance between my beliefs and reality. If I couldn’t make them balance, I would have looked for a different religion. In fact, I did change religions several times before finding one that is spiritually meaningful to me and is in harmony with reality as I see it. But I would not have rejected reality or edited my religion to force them to match. I feel that some evangelists are editing their own religion in order to justify their chosen attitude.

Dear Smunkeeville -- and if we learn nothing else, we learn not to ask Muravyets to explain herself. :rolleyes: <rolls eyes at self>

III. Why does this matter to me?

Because this isn’t some abstract issue of opinion.

A lot of people act as if the debates on this forum are happening in a cyberspace vacuum where nothing is relevant unless it is specifically brought up in the thread. That’s fine for role playing games or court trials, but I don’t buy into it otherwise. We’re talking about real world issues and experiences, and I believe we should be sensitive to the real world tensions that come with them.

I mean, look at what this thread is about. It’s about extremists verbally harassing museum staffers just because an exhibit doesn’t match their religion. This topic is full of mistrust on all sides. I don’t think I’m out of line to ask for greater sensitivity to people’s differences.

A couple of people asked why I can’t just take the “I believe” as understood when it’s clear that someone is expressing an opinion. I would answer them by pointing out that it often happens on this forum that a person presents opinion as fact, someone takes offense and counters with their own opinion-as-fact, and they end up just trading insults until the thread peters out.

Obviously, in normal social chat, we don’t have to qualify our statements. When my like-minded friends and I are having a bitch session over martinis and burgers, we freely assume the absolute truth of our opinions, but we know each other and are unlikely to get offended by a high-handed remark. But, when I’m talking with strangers, especially about contentious subjects, I try to be as clear as I can about the difference between facts and my own opinion, because I feel that, when a person states their opinion openly, it invites others to do likewise, but when opinion is presented as fact, it feels like counter opinions are not invited.

Now I'll yield the floor. :D

*CanuckHeaven mops the floor. :D

*CanuckHeaven mops the floor. :D
Yeah, I guess it needed mopping. Thanks.

*snip* ... I try to be as clear as I can about the difference between facts and my own opinion, because I feel that, when a person states their opinion openly, it invites others to do likewise, but when opinion is presented as fact, it feels like counter opinions are not invited.
Trust me: holding back on opinion is not a problem on these forums. ;)

Trust me: holding back on opinion is not a problem on these forums. ;)

I've never had an issue with holding back my opinion...and you all love me for it! :D

Okay, this took a while, and I hope it makes any sense because I'm bone tired from a miserable work day. It's not so much examples as an explanation of my opinion/statemtns. I broke it into three parts just because it was too freaking long otherwise. It's still not short. Sorry.

Here goes:

I. What did I mean when I said some evangelists ignore certain parts of the Bible?

I said that bald statements of religious belief without any qualification that they are beliefs rather than facts are the reason I don’t like evangelism. I think such statements are rude because they don’t acknowledge other people’s different beliefs. I also said I think such statements ignore certain parts of the Bible in favor of others.

It’s normal for people to latch onto evidence/authorities that support their opinions and ignore those that don’t. There is no reason to suppose that religious people are less likely to do this than non-religious ones. It is a fact that some Christian denominations believe there is only one way for souls to be saved, that people who don’t follow this way are spiritually in danger, and that they must convert non-believers in order to save them. Some feel this so strongly that they are willing to use non-religious means -- the law, public schools, etc. -- to get people to follow the rules they think are necessary. In their zeal, they end up attacking others’ beliefs even more than expressing their own.

Of course, there are verses in the Bible that explain/support their beliefs. A few such verses have been quoted in this thread. But there are other verses that do not support their particular stance. The Bible also tells us, in various verses, that we should not presume to understand god’s plan, that we should live in peace with those who are different from us, etc.

I understand that it is extremely difficult to balance out all the subtle, contradictory messages in the Bible (though I actually don’t they they are contradictory). But I believe that evangelists should at least try to strike a balance between zeal and humility/love for others, or else they should acknowledge that they have decided to pick one over the other.

In my study of the Bible, I have found no verses that state there is any other way to salvation than Jesus. and yes I study the Bible for a minimum of 3 hours a day, more on weekends, and when I say study I don't mean I read a few verses and decide what they say, I mean I really study, I look up the history and find out the who, what when, where, why and how of everthing I read so that I don't take things out of context.
Speaking of taking things out of context... you keep refering to "judge not lest ye be judged" you know that is only a partial verse right?
the entire thing is...
Mattew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye."
It is not refering to Christians pointing out others wrongs it is refering to hypocrites who will nitpick others to move the attention from themselves when they are commiting the same sins.
JOHN 7:14: "Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

LUKE 12:57: "Yea, and why not even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?"

PSALM 37:30: "The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment."

PROVERBS 31:9: "Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy."

LUKE 17:3: "Take heed... If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him."
are a few other verses about judgment in the Bilbe, what is your take on these? Believe me I could come up with about 60 more if you need me to.

I do love others, and out of this love I feel compelled to present them with the Gospel of Jesus. It is not offensive to me when they reject it, because they are not rejecting me. but rejecting the One who sent me..

Dear Smunkeeville -- and if we learn nothing else, we learn not to ask Muravyets to explain herself. :rolleyes: <rolls eyes at self>

III. Why does this matter to me?

Because this isn’t some abstract issue of opinion.

A lot of people act as if the debates on this forum are happening in a cyberspace vacuum where nothing is relevant unless it is specifically brought up in the thread. That’s fine for role playing games or court trials, but I don’t buy into it otherwise. We’re talking about real world issues and experiences, and I believe we should be sensitive to the real world tensions that come with them.

I mean, look at what this thread is about. It’s about extremists verbally harassing museum staffers just because an exhibit doesn’t match their religion. This topic is full of mistrust on all sides. I don’t think I’m out of line to ask for greater sensitivity to people’s differences.

A couple of people asked why I can’t just take the “I believe” as understood when it’s clear that someone is expressing an opinion. I would answer them by pointing out that it often happens on this forum that a person presents opinion as fact, someone takes offense and counters with their own opinion-as-fact, and they end up just trading insults until the thread peters out.

Obviously, in normal social chat, we don’t have to qualify our statements. When my like-minded friends and I are having a bitch session over martinis and burgers, we freely assume the absolute truth of our opinions, but we know each other and are unlikely to get offended by a high-handed remark. But, when I’m talking with strangers, especially about contentious subjects, I try to be as clear as I can about the difference between facts and my own opinion, because I feel that, when a person states their opinion openly, it invites others to do likewise, but when opinion is presented as fact, it feels like counter opinions are not invited.

I think you can assume that what I say is what I believe or what is my opinion, and I think others on her know that I am open to hearing others beliefs and discussing them. I don't see why I have to qualify my beliefs when others don't. But like Paul said " I will become all things to all people" so if it offends you for me not to say "I believe" then I will try to remember my wording when debating with you.

Smunkee...do you feel you were sent by Jesus?

Smunkee...do you feel you were sent by Jesus?
simple answer yes. I have commited my life to serving Him. He has given me a commandment to go out into all the nations a preach the gospel so that others may know God. I believe that He has a purpose for my life and by obedience I can achieve His goals for me.

simple answer yes. I have commited my life to serving Him. He has given me a commandment to go out into all the nations a preach the gospel so that others may know God. I believe that He has a purpose for my life and by obedience I can achieve His goals for me.

Wow...that is...well...interesting.

I'm glad I was just put here be a biological process involving my parents. Puts a lot less responsibility on my shoulders. ;)

Wow...that is...well...interesting.

I'm glad I was just put here be a biological process involving my parents. Puts a lot less responsibility on my shoulders. ;)
see. I said simple answer. besides you think of everything in the physical realm, whereas I rely more on the spiritual.

I don't think I am the product of a virgin birth or anything like that. I do know that I am in this world for the same reason most are 2 horny people forgot the birth control measures.

I do believe that Jesus does have a specific purpose for me, just like he does for everyone. I am no more important than anyone else until I slack off on my job. ;)

see. I said simple answer. besides you think of everything in the physical realm, whereas I rely more on the spiritual.

I don't think I am the product of a virgin birth or anything like that. I do know that I am in this world for the same reason most are 2 horny people forgot the birth control measures.

I do believe that Jesus does have a specific purpose for me, just like he does for everyone. I am no more important than anyone else until I slack off on my job. ;)

So what is his purpose for me? To decry his followers and try to help them understand that life on earth is more important than a possible (not even probable) afterlife?

So what is his purpose for me? To decry his followers and try to help them understand that life on earth is more important than a possible (not even probable) afterlife?
could be that you are here to test me ;) j/k
I don't know. You have to talk to God about your purpose, but since you don't seem to believe in him, I guess you could make up your own purpose in life.... hmm interesting.

Dear Smunkeeville -- and if we learn nothing else, we learn not to ask Muravyets to explain herself. :rolleyes: <rolls eyes at self>

III. Why does this matter to me?

Because this isn’t some abstract issue of opinion.

A lot of people act as if the debates on this forum are happening in a cyberspace vacuum where nothing is relevant unless it is specifically brought up in the thread. That’s fine for role playing games or court trials, but I don’t buy into it otherwise. We’re talking about real world issues and experiences, and I believe we should be sensitive to the real world tensions that come with them.

I mean, look at what this thread is about. It’s about extremists verbally harassing museum staffers just because an exhibit doesn’t match their religion. This topic is full of mistrust on all sides. I don’t think I’m out of line to ask for greater sensitivity to people’s differences.

A couple of people asked why I can’t just take the “I believe” as understood when it’s clear that someone is expressing an opinion. I would answer them by pointing out that it often happens on this forum that a person presents opinion as fact, someone takes offense and counters with their own opinion-as-fact, and they end up just trading insults until the thread peters out.

Obviously, in normal social chat, we don’t have to qualify our statements. When my like-minded friends and I are having a bitch session over martinis and burgers, we freely assume the absolute truth of our opinions, but we know each other and are unlikely to get offended by a high-handed remark. But, when I’m talking with strangers, especially about contentious subjects, I try to be as clear as I can about the difference between facts and my own opinion, because I feel that, when a person states their opinion openly, it invites others to do likewise, but when opinion is presented as fact, it feels like counter opinions are not invited.

ok, I can go with that. Very well put. ;)

could be that you are here to test me ;) j/k
I don't know. You have to talk to God about your purpose, but since you don't seem to believe in him, I guess you could make up your own purpose in life.... hmm interesting.

My life's purpose it isn't to annoy/test you. I think...maybe...

I was just wondering if you knew ;)

My life's purpose it isn't to annoy/test you. I think...maybe...

I was just wondering if you knew ;)
nope I have no clue. I only get my purpose in little bite size peices myself, kinda here is what you need to do today... I have no real understanding of what all is going to happen, I just have faith that if I keep up the hard work things will work out.

It's quite likely that all of what I'm about to say has been said before, but I really couldn't be arsed to check through 20 pages of posts just to be sure, so here goes:

The story of Genesis may not be as metaphorical - or stupid, depending on how you look at it - as many people think. Now I'd like to just point out here that I am by no means a Creationist, although I am a devout Christian, so don't go forming any judgements just yt, just hear me out first.

Ok, for starters, Genesis does in fact get the order right - the way it describes all the things being created (fish then birds then animals or whatever, can't remember exactly). The order in which the creatures appear in the Bible is the same as that which scientists say life evolved on Earth. So surely the Bible must be getting something right there?

The most common argument I hear against Genesis is the time scale - 'science has proven time and again that the world evolved over millions of years, not six days' people say, and they're right. However, where they're wrong is in assuming that this disproves the Bible completely; in 2 Peter I believe it is (New Testament. Could be 1 Peter though, not completely certain) it says 'a day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day'. Now here is where it could be somewhat metaphorical; if a day with the Lord can be like a thousand years, then why not a million? Maybe the 'days' in Genesis, with the Lord as they were, were in fact millions of years.

Then you might say 'so why doesn't it just say in the Bible 'during the first million years God created...' Well remember that it was written somewhere in the region of about 6000 years ago (I think I'm right in assuming that it was Moses who is supposed to have actually written down the first few books of the Old Testament aren't I?). People were pretty primitive back then, and their science was even more so. God had to work through man - the Bible is 'God breathed' meaning that God 'spoke' through man to get it written - so He'd have had to make it comprehensible for man back then, otherwise it would've been pointless wouldn't it - a Holy Book that no-one understands. So perhaps He sort of scaled it down a bit to make it understandable.

Then of course people say 'but evolution proves creation wrong anyway! Animals didn't just pop into existence, they evolved gradually over millions of years'. Well, we've covered the time-frame bit, so the popping into existence bit; why is it so impossible that God creating life can't simply mean creating them thorugh evolution? Why must science be the ultimate answer to God? Surely if we have proved that we evolved, and yet we are told that God created us, then the only conclusion we can draw from that is that God created us through the medium of evolution.

It's like all these natural things that could've caused the ten plagues of Egypt that people say means the Bible is wrong. Can't it simply be that God used these natural things to be the plagues rather than just making them happen? I love science, particularly physics, but unlike many other scientists, I don't see every scientific advancement as a further belittlement of God, rather I'm awed even further by the awesome extent of His flawless design of our universe. Why do science and religion have to be so completely seperated? Surely they simply compliment and explain one another.

Still, that's just my view. Hope you enjoyed it :D

nope I have no clue. I only get my purpose in little bite size peices myself, kinda here is what you need to do today... I have no real understanding of what all is going to happen, I just have faith that if I keep up the hard work things will work out.

mmmmmmmm...bite size pieces :drool:

;)

I prefer to think that life has no purpose. I just enjoy things as they come and deal with things that aren't enjoyable. Worrying about pleasing some entity in order to gain later isn't for me. I'd rather try to have fun with the entities I have here and now...especially my little ones.

So what is his purpose for me? To decry his followers and try to help them understand that life on earth is more important than a possible (not even probable) afterlife?
Life on earth is very important indeed and I would rather follow HIM to the end of it, rather than follow some false prophets. :)

It's quite likely that all of what I'm about to say has been said before, but I really couldn't be arsed to check through 20 pages of posts just to be sure, so here goes:

The story of Genesis may not be as metaphorical - or stupid, depending on how you look at it - as many people think. Now I'd like to just point out here that I am by no means a Creationist, although I am a devout Christian, so don't go forming any judgements just yt, just hear me out first.

Ok, for starters, Genesis does in fact get the order right - the way it describes all the things being created (fish then birds then animals or whatever, can't remember exactly). The order in which the creatures appear in the Bible is the same as that which scientists say life evolved on Earth. So surely the Bible must be getting something right there?

Scientists don't say that is the order. Fish and birds coexisted, although there were sea creatures prior to creatures with flight. Though neither could be called birds or fish. I don't recall an dinosaurs in Genesis either.

Sorry, I'm a nitpicker :)

The most common argument I hear against Genesis is the time scale - 'science has proven time and again that the world evolved over millions of years, not six days' people say, and they're right. However, where they're wrong is in assuming that this disproves the Bible completely; in 2 Peter I believe it is (New Testament. Could be 1 Peter though, not completely certain) it says 'a day with the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day'. Now here is where it could be somewhat metaphorical; if a day with the Lord can be like a thousand years, then why not a million? Maybe the 'days' in Genesis, with the Lord as they were, were in fact millions of years.

Although not a new idea, I'm sure plenty will have something to say about that. Remember that there are generally 2 types of Creationists: Young Earth Creationists and Genesis as Metaphor Creationists. You seem to be taking the track of the latter.

Then you might say 'so why doesn't it just say in the Bible 'during the first million years God created...' Well remember that it was written somewhere in the region of about 6000 years ago (I think I'm right in assuming that it was Moses who is supposed to have actually written down the first few books of the Old Testament aren't I?). People were pretty primitive back then, and their science was even more so. God had to work through man - the Bible is 'God breathed' meaning that God 'spoke' through man to get it written - so He'd have had to make it comprehensible for man back then, otherwise it would've been pointless wouldn't it - a Holy Book that no-one understands. So perhaps He sort of scaled it down a bit to make it understandable.

I didn't know Moses wrote the bible. The Torah had been around, although some scholars say that the Torah and therefore the Old Testament, have only been in written form since about 1000 BC.

Then of course people say 'but evolution proves creation wrong anyway! Animals didn't just pop into existence, they evolved gradually over millions of years'. Well, we've covered the time-frame bit, so the popping into existence bit; why is it so impossible that God creating life can't simply mean creating them thorugh evolution? Why must science be the ultimate answer to God? Surely if we have proved that we evolved, and yet we are told that God created us, then the only conclusion we can draw from that is that God created us through the medium of evolution.


It's like all these natural things that could've caused the ten plagues of Egypt that people say means the Bible is wrong. Can't it simply be that God used these natural things to be the plagues rather than just making them happen? I love science, particularly physics, but unlike many other scientists, I don't see every scientific advancement as a further belittlement of God, rather I'm awed even further by the awesome extent of His flawless design of our universe. Why do science and religion have to be so completely seperated? Surely they simply compliment and explain one another.

Still, that's just my view. Hope you enjoyed it :D


That's the type of logical thinking that the people in the museum (the article that started this thread) aren't hearing.

Life on earth is very important indeed and I would rather follow HIM to the end of it, rather than follow some false prophets. :)

And how do you know your prophet isn't false?

Jesus wasn't the first to be thought the savior of the Jewish people. There have been others, even so far from the community as in India, that have the same story.

mmmmmmmm...bite size pieces :drool:

;)

I prefer to think that life has no purpose. I just enjoy things as they come and deal with things that aren't enjoyable. Worrying about pleasing some entity in order to gain later isn't for me. I'd rather try to have fun with the entities I have here and now...especially my little ones.
I wouldn't say that I worry about pleasing God to gain later... but I do understand your point of view.

Ok, for starters, Genesis does in fact get the order right - the way it describes all the things being created (fish then birds then animals or whatever, can't remember exactly). The order in which the creatures appear in the Bible is the same as that which scientists say life evolved on Earth. So surely the Bible must be getting something right there?

Are we talking about the Priestly or the Yahwist version of creation? The orders are different in each, with each having some things wrong. The main problem in the Priestly that I can think of off the top of my head is the idea that the Earth was here before the sun. The main problem in the Yahwist is the man created, then rain, then animals, then woman thing.

The most common argument I hear against Genesis is the time scale - 'science has proven time and again that the world evolved over millions of years, not six days' people say, and they're right.

Ok, we're talking about the Priestly version. Good. Could it, perhaps, be that a priest had a vision over the course of 7 days? That he interpreted what he saw in the best manner he could, and wrote it in such a way that he could demonstrate the majesty of God to the followers of the time?

God had to work through man - the Bible is 'God breathed' meaning that God 'spoke' through man to get it written - so He'd have had to make it comprehensible for man back then, otherwise it would've been pointless wouldn't it - a Holy Book that no-one understands. So perhaps He sort of scaled it down a bit to make it understandable.

So maybe the idea that the "days" were visions that the priest had over several days might work? That's my little pet explanation for it right now. =)

Then of course people say 'but evolution proves creation wrong anyway! Animals didn't just pop into existence, they evolved gradually over millions of years'. Well, we've covered the time-frame bit, so the popping into existence bit; why is it so impossible that God creating life can't simply mean creating them thorugh evolution?

That kind of depends on how you view the Priestly (Let there be light....) and Yahwist (Adam and Eve) versions of creation. The Adam and Eve one, taken literally, is pretty clear that the animals were created after Adam, but before Eve. It is also clear that there were plants in Eden, but no rain yet.

I love science, particularly physics, but unlike many other scientists, I don't see every scientific advancement as a further belittlement of God,

In truth, very few scientists see it that way. Most of us are theists, some are agnostic, and a few are atheists. However, religiosity studies seem to suggest that the actual percentage of atheists in science isn't much higher (if it is higher at all) than that in the general public.

Why do science and religion have to be so completely seperated? Surely they simply compliment and explain one another.

Within a given person, they can compliment one another. For science to follow the scientific method, it cannot bring religion in. However, an individual can certainly look at what science discovers in light of what they believe about God.

Still, that's just my view. Hope you enjoyed it :D

=) Yup.

And how do you know your prophet isn't false?

Jesus wasn't the first to be thought the savior of the Jewish people. There have been others, even so far from the community as in India, that have the same story.

Because Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies and rose from the dead. The others did not.

[edit] I mean to say, we (christians) BELIEVE this. ;)

Because Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies and rose from the dead. The others did not.

Okay...that would be a faith based answer, not a fact based one.

Do you have any footage of this?

Okay...that would be a faith based answer, not a fact based one.

Do you have any footage of this?

I havn't transferred it to DVD yet, its still on Super 8. :D

Because Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies and rose from the dead. The others did not.

[edit] I mean to say, we (christians) BELIEVE this. ;)
So he was a contextually accurate fictional character … I see

I havn't transferred it to DVD yet, its still on Super 8. :D

It's a good thing you have a sense of humor. :)

My point was more that there is no reason to believe he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.

If anyone today started saying they were immaculately conceived and they were the son of god we'd lock 'em up. Jesus just had better timing.

Originally posted by Balipo
Scientists don't say that is the order. Fish and birds coexisted, although there were sea creatures prior to creatures with flight. Though neither could be called birds or fish. I don't recall an dinosaurs in Genesis either.

Are you sure that isn't the way? Fish and birds were created on the same day (and I say it that way only for the sake of convenience) so isn't that kinda the right order? I dunno really - I'm a physicist lol. And you say dinosaurs aren't mentioned in Genesis - but then neither are cows, or pigs, or whales, and they sure as hell exist (after all, it's pretty hard to miss a whale existing ;) )

Although not a new idea, I'm sure plenty will have something to say about that. Remember that there are generally 2 types of Creationists: Young Earth Creationists and Genesis as Metaphor Creationists. You seem to be taking the track of the latter.

Are there? I didn't know that, I just go by what it says in Genesis of my Bible - Light first, then stars and planets, then the Earth and animals and all that jazz lol.

I didn't know Moses wrote the bible. The Torah had been around, although some scholars say that the Torah and therefore the Old Testament, have only been in written form since about 1000 BC.

That's just what I've heard - it's entirely possible that I'm wrong, but even so, the point remains valid - it was written waaaay before people had any real understanding of the science involved, and probably even before they could handle the numbers.

That's the type of logical thinking that the people in the museum (the article that started this thread) aren't hearing.

Why thank you - I try my best :)

Originally posted by Dempublicents1
Are we talking about the Priestly or the Yahwist version of creation? The orders are different in each, with each having some things wrong. The main problem in the Priestly that I can think of off the top of my head is the idea that the Earth was here before the sun. The main problem in the Yahwist is the man created, then rain, then animals, then woman thing.

Are there two? I was basing my reasoning on the NIV Bible - light first, then planets and stars, then all the rest, as I said above - and in there it says that man was created last - although I think there is a little thing in there that says different, but I tend to go with the first.

Ok, we're talking about the Priestly version. Good. Could it, perhaps, be that a priest had a vision over the course of 7 days? That he interpreted what he saw in the best manner he could, and wrote it in such a way that he could demonstrate the majesty of God to the followers of the time?

Quite possibly - frankly I have no idea how it happened. I just put forward my thesis - I prefer it mainly because it means that the Bible isn't wrong or contradicting itself - there's evidence in there that backs up Genesis. I dunno really lol - eithers good I suppose :)

That kind of depends on how you view the Priestly (Let there be light....) and Yahwist (Adam and Eve) versions of creation. The Adam and Eve one, taken literally, is pretty clear that the animals were created after Adam, but before Eve. It is also clear that there were plants in Eden, but no rain yet.

It does? It is? Well you'd probably know better than me lol, I didn't even know that there were two Creationist theories lol.

Within a given person, they can compliment one another. For science to follow the scientific method, it cannot bring religion in. However, an individual can certainly look at what science discovers in light of what they believe about God.

Oh no, I'm not saying that we should involve religion in scientific method - obviously science has to be impartial, but I'm saying that surely the advance of science only reveals more of God's glory, and of the marvel of His creation, rather than disproving His existence.

=) Yup.

Marvellous - glad to hear it :)

Suprisingly, it doesn't seem that too many people haven't gone off the edge in here! Amazing.....General has matured in a sense....and all this time I didn't think anyone was ready for conversations like these. XD

Anywho...I'm being an a**, I know. Sorry.

But really, I'm seriously suprised. I would have thought it would have become a hate-fest by now. Suprisingly, it seems most people have restraint! Not saying anything bad about anybody, but you know the terrible and dark history of "The General Forum".

Kudo's on keeping it real, people.

Are there two? I was basing my reasoning on the NIV Bible - light first, then planets and stars, then all the rest, as I said above - and in there it says that man was created last - although I think there is a little thing in there that says different, but I tend to go with the first.

Even in the NIV Bible, there are two separate Creation stories. They have simply been run together in most translations. From what I've read of theological scholars, the difference is even more pronounced in the Hebrew. Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is the Priestly version of Creation. It focuses on the greatness of God and leaves humankind (man and woman) as the pinnacle of creation. The Priestly author is the same author (or set of authors) believed to have compiled all of the laws listed in the OT. This author uses a very formal style and generally focuses on the majesty of God and tends to leave more of a separation between God and humankind.

From 2:4-2:25 is the Yahwist creation story. It focuses more on demonstrating that the world was made for man (and yes, I use man instead of humankind for a reason). In this story, man is made before plants and animals. In fact, it seems that they are made for him. Then, woman is made for him as well. The Yahwist author is the same author (or set of authors) believed to have compiled many of the stories, most of which had been passed down verbally for generations, of the ancient Hebrews. The style used is less formal, more of a story-telling attitude. God is portrayed as being closer to man, and is sometimes even portrayed as being flawed in some ways - of showing some human failings.

Quite possibly - frankly I have no idea how it happened. I just put forward my thesis - I prefer it mainly because it means that the Bible isn't wrong or contradicting itself - there's evidence in there that backs up Genesis. I dunno really lol - eithers good I suppose :)

It is interesting to think about. How would God go about demonstrating creation to someone with no knowledge at all of science? How much of it would the person understand, and how much could they pass on to those even less knowledgable? If God were to decide to give someone today a vision of creation, how would that vision, and the account of it they might tell, be different?

Sure, none of us can know for certain, but it is interesting to think about.

It does? It is? Well you'd probably know better than me lol, I didn't even know that there were two Creationist theories lol.

I don't know a whole lot about it - just enough to be dangerous I suppose. A few theology classes really opened my eyes to some of the discussion of these things. While I can see how these classes might have actually turned some people away, it just further convinced me that I needed to study these things more.

Suprisingly, it doesn't seem that too many people haven't gone off the edge in here! Amazing.....General has matured in a sense....and all this time I didn't think anyone was ready for conversations like these. XD

Anywho...I'm being an a**, I know. Sorry.

But really, I'm seriously suprised. I would have thought it would have become a hate-fest by now. Suprisingly, it seems most people have restraint! Not saying anything bad about anybody, but you know the terrible and dark history of "The General Forum".

Kudo's on keeping it real, people.


WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE WHAT IS REAL AND WHERE IT IS KEPT!!?!?!?!

Just kidding... :)

Someone needed to fly off the handle...

Originally posted by Dempublicents1
Even in the NIV Bible, there are two separate Creation stories. They have simply been run together in most translations. From what I've read of theological scholars, the difference is even more pronounced in the Hebrew. Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 is the Priestly version of Creation. It focuses on the greatness of God and leaves humankind (man and woman) as the pinnacle of creation. The Priestly author is the same author (or set of authors) believed to have compiled all of the laws listed in the OT. This author uses a very formal style and generally focuses on the majesty of God and tends to leave more of a separation between God and humankind.

From 2:4-2:25 is the Yahwist creation story. It focuses more on demonstrating that the world was made for man (and yes, I use man instead of humankind for a reason). In this story, man is made before plants and animals. In fact, it seems that they are made for him. Then, woman is made for him as well. The Yahwist author is the same author (or set of authors) believed to have compiled many of the stories, most of which had been passed down verbally for generations, of the ancient Hebrews. The style used is less formal, more of a story-telling attitude. God is portrayed as being closer to man, and is sometimes even portrayed as being flawed in some ways - of showing some human failings.

Yeah that's the one. Hmm, intriguing. Well, I can't pretend like I can explain that particular mystery (perhaps we should get Scooby and the gang in?) Perhaps this is more of a back-up for the whole priest's vision theory - maybe two of them had visions? Maybe God wanted to communicate both His majesty and His love for us, so He gave us both stories. If I were you I'd ask someone with a firmer base in theology for answers to that one lol.

It is interesting to think about. How would God go about demonstrating creation to someone with no knowledge at all of science? How much of it would the person understand, and how much could they pass on to those even less knowledgable? If God were to decide to give someone today a vision of creation, how would that vision, and the account of it they might tell, be different?

Sure, none of us can know for certain, but it is interesting to think about

Intriguing indeed. This is a similar problem to the one tha philosophers face even today - how can we comprehend something that is so far beyond our understanding? Most of the time we can't even put words to it.

WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE WHAT IS REAL AND WHERE IT IS KEPT!!?!?!?!

Just kidding... :)

Someone needed to fly off the handle...

Lol, indeed. :D

Back to the whole idea...I think we are missing something here.

The point is, should people be allowed to go into a Museum of Science and unrelentingly question a docent there?

While some docents are scientists, most are not, they are merely volunteers. No one goes to a Eucharistic Minister and asks for a full explanation of the Bible, Christ, God, and the Universe.

This line of debate, of attack really, would be better addressed in a letter to the NSF or other scientific body than a museum employee.

And as for denying evolution, that is, in my mind, idiocy. You can say god helped it along or whatever, but don't deny that it happened.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I found this quote to be very succinct...

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I found this quote to be very succinct...

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)
that is a very interesting quote. I think I like it.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I found this quote to be very succinct...

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)

The real problem is: What if you don't really "dismiss" any possible gods, but believe that they are all aspects of one?

The real problem is: What if you don't really "dismiss" any possible gods, but believe that they are all aspects of one?

That's an interesting concept. But that's an awful lot of gods you have to contend with. Roman, Greek, Christian, Muslim, Egyptian, Norse, Hindu, etc...that adds up to a large pantehon of one don't you think?

Because Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies and rose from the dead. The others did not.

[edit] I mean to say, we (christians) BELIEVE this. ;)
Hearty handshake! :D

In my study of the Bible, I have found no verses that state there is any other way to salvation than Jesus. <snip>

Speaking of taking things out of context... you keep refering to "judge not lest ye be judged" you know that is only a partial verse right?
the entire thing is...
Mattew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye."
It is not refering to Christians pointing out others wrongs it is refering to hypocrites who will nitpick others to move the attention from themselves when they are commiting the same sins.<snip>

1. I never said there were any. What I said was that the Bible *also* contains numerous verses that, in my opinion, encourage believers to stop and think about how they interact with others and also not to be too complacently confident that they fully understand god. I suppose this would mean believers must always be willing to question their own motives as well as their preachers' and be willing to apply the golden rule to everyone, including non-believers. It is my contention, that *some* evangelists fail to do this. If they would stop and think about it, I think they would either decide that they should do it, or have to admit that they choose not to do it.

2. Regarding that verse -- yes, precisely. That's why I quoted it. Its length is why I didn't quote it entirely. (I think my posts are long enough, don't you?)

Back to the whole idea...I think we are missing something here.

The point is, should people be allowed to go into a Museum of Science and unrelentingly question a docent there?

While some docents are scientists, most are not, they are merely volunteers. No one goes to a Eucharistic Minister and asks for a full explanation of the Bible, Christ, God, and the Universe.

This line of debate, of attack really, would be better addressed in a letter to the NSF or other scientific body than a museum employee.

And as for denying evolution, that is, in my mind, idiocy. You can say god helped it along or whatever, but don't deny that it happened.

Well I'll agree with you that these people should not be stirring up shit at the museum. They want to join up in groups and discuss it amongst themselves that is their right, but no, they have no business accosting docents.

Hearty handshake! :D

I thought you'd like that. :D Especially for you. ;)

I think you can assume that what I say is what I believe or what is my opinion, and I think others on her know that I am open to hearing others beliefs and discussing them. I don't see why I have to qualify my beliefs when others don't. But like Paul said " I will become all things to all people" so if it offends you for me not to say "I believe" then I will try to remember my wording when debating with you.
I'm not asking anyone to qualify (or justify) their beliefs, but I am asking EVERYONE to qualify the way they state their beliefs in the context of these debates. I think it would be just as rude for people who oppose your view to simply say, "There is no god; you're wrong," and leave it at that.

Please don't think I'm directing my objections at you personally. Far from it; you're a peach on these threads. ;) But my point about these debates not happening in a vacuum is that we have to be aware that there is a lot of negativity happening in the world, we all come into these threads affected by it more or less, and if we don't take care in how we express ourselves, we can easily trigger a fight without meaning to. Communication shuts down, and we all end up just going round and round, growling and barking and pissing over the same tree forever.

EDIT: I should point out that I have no objection to a good fight, or even to being rude. I just believe one should never do it by accident. :p

I thought you'd like that. :D Especially for you. ;)
Much appreciated.

<thinking of baking a new kind of cookie -- consideration crisps? chewy clarity nutbars?>

I'm not asking anyone to qualify (or justify) their beliefs, but I am asking EVERYONE to qualify the way they state their beliefs in the context of these debates. I think it would be just as rude for people who oppose your view to simply say, "There is no god; you're wrong," and leave it at that.

Please don't think I'm directing my objections at you personally. Far from it; you're a peach on these threads. ;) But my point about these debates not happening in a vacuum is that we have to be aware that there is a lot of negativity happening in the world, we all come into these threads affected by it more or less, and if we don't take care in how we express ourselves, we can easily trigger a fight without meaning to. Communication shuts down, and we all end up just going round and round, growling and barking and pissing over the same tree forever.

EDIT: I should point out that I have no objection to a good fight, or even to being rude. I just believe one should never do it by accident. :p

that was much clearer to me. thank you. I will try to watch myself for rudeness. I understand now. thank you. ;)

I probably won't watch myself for rudeness...

But then everyone here thinks I'm an arrogant jerk / science nerd...

Only half true I might add.. I'm a science jerk. Kinda like a soda jerk, I dispense Science.

A theory has SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE backing it up.
That doesn't mean that future evidence won't discredit the evidence you have. It's like the meteor thing. Most people believed that meteors were made of solid metal, not porous, and if one of the "killer meteors" is in collision w/ earth, they would use a nuclear weapon to "deflect" the meteor out of earth's path. However, if the meteor is porous, the nuclear weapon would have hardly any effect (studies show), so they hafta devise a different method.

Anyways, my point is is that Eut is using his opinion to spread untruths about a "theory."



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.

I agree w/ Dempublicents here. A theory a fact does not make. It's your opinion that it's fact, while the science world still calls it a theory.

That doesn't mean that future evidence won't discredit the evidence you have. It's like the meteor thing. Most people believed that meteors were made of solid metal, not porous, and if one of the "killer meteors" is in collision w/ earth, they would use a nuclear weapon to "deflect" the meteor out of earth's path. However, if the meteor is porous, the nuclear weapon would have hardly any effect (studies show), so they hafta devise a different method.

Anyways, my point is is that Eut is using his opinion to spread untruths about a "theory."

You are right, the theory of evolution is a theory. And theories can change as data changes it. However, can it be unproven? Not really. The body of evidence thus far prevents us from saying "There is no way evolution happened", it did happen. All the details are not ironed out yet, maybe they never will be. But to go through this "it's a theory and therefore not fact" BS again is ridiculous.

The theory to which you are referring is supported by FACTUAL evidence.

You are right, the theory of evolution is a theory. And theories can change as data changes it. However, can it be unproven? Not really. The body of evidence thus far prevents us from saying "There is no way evolution happened", it did happen. All the details are not ironed out yet, maybe they never will be. But to go through this "it's a theory and therefore not fact" BS again is ridiculous.

The theory to which you are referring is supported by FACTUAL evidence.
this is why i said i'm not getting into the arguement of disproving/proving the theory of evolution, but just saying that Eut was wrong in calling it a fact. It's a theory, and yes theories are based on facts, but it's still theory. Get back to me when the scientists of the world call it fact, and show that everything is proven.

*edit*

i REPEAT, i am not arguing either way on fact or fiction on the theory of evolution, just on what Eut called it.

That's an interesting concept. But that's an awful lot of gods you have to contend with. Roman, Greek, Christian, Muslim, Egyptian, Norse, Hindu, etc...that adds up to a large pantehon of one don't you think?

Have you ever heard the story of the three blind men and the elephant?

this is why i said i'm not getting into the arguement of disproving/proving the theory of evolution, but just saying that Eut was wrong in calling it a fact. It's a theory, and yes theories are based on facts, but it's still theory. Get back to me when the scientists of the world call it fact, and show that everything is proven.

*edit*

i REPEAT, i am not arguing either way on fact or fiction on the theory of evolution, just on what Eut called it.
Because the common definition of a fact is very close to that of the scientific definition of a theory.

Because the common definition of a fact is very close to that of the scientific definition of a theory.
very close doesn't make it true ;)

*edit*
rather, not true, but one and the same.

That's an interesting concept. But that's an awful lot of gods you have to contend with. Roman, Greek, Christian, Muslim, Egyptian, Norse, Hindu, etc...that adds up to a large pantehon of one don't you think?
Images of god.

very close doesn't make it true ;)

*edit*
rather, not true, but one and the same.

Who cares? Its as close to fact as makes no difference and if the only reason you think it didnt happen is because it cant be proven then nothing we say can convince you.

And how do you know your prophet isn't false?

Jesus wasn't the first to be thought the savior of the Jewish people. There have been others, even so far from the community as in India, that have the same story.
Let me put it this way to you...

First and foremost, it is all about faith and....

There certainly has been more written about Jesus than there has been about you and your theory. Until you can prove that my God doesn't exist, then you might just as well piss up a rope.

And....

Since you think life is "finite", why are you here trying to convince others that their faith is misplaced? Shouldn't you be out and about enjoying life to the fullest? Why should you care whether people worship God or not?

Let me put it this way to you...

First and foremost, it is all about faith and....

There certainly has been more written about Jesus than there has been about you and your theory. Until you can prove that my God doesn't exist, then you might just as well piss up a rope.

And....

Since you think life is "finite", why are you here trying to convince others that their faith is misplaced? Shouldn't you be out and about enjoying life to the fullest? Why should you care whether people worship God or not?
So, what you're saying is:
1. If a person has faith they don't need to answer questions about god.
2. Popularity makes right.
3. Extraordinary physical acts can replace the need for questions about god (presumably with some element of self-gratification?).
4. That we "live forever" means we should be too busy with life now to ask questions about god.
EDIT: That should be "don't 'live forever'".

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.

evolution is not fact, adaptation is fact, thats not the same as evolution, evolution remains a theory, and wil simply remain a theory forever, unless time travel comes to be about some how. alot of science is theory, and even more is theory using previous theorys as facts. im not against the evolution theory, but dont call it a fact, it has not and can not be proven at the moment.

the story as genises is also a theory, some will argue with me there, so it has just about the same scientific weight as evolution. it may sound a bit more unrealistic and there may be more physical evidence going to evolution, but both are theorys and both will remain theorys untill the end of time.

dont start a religious battle here, unless you just so happen to be a 14 year old that just got off school and has nothing better to do.

EDIT-adding more
alot of the worlds issues are not from people not getting facts right, but from thinking theorys are facts.

think of it this way, im sure most here went to high school, how many rumors went around that school?, how many of those were thought to be real?, how many were not real?, now replace rumors with theorys.

So, what you're saying is:
1. If a person has faith they don't need to answer questions about god.
2. Popularity makes right.
3. Extraordinary physical acts can replace the need for questions about god (presumably with some element of self-gratification?).
4. That we "live forever" means we should be too busy with life now to ask questions about god.
You are free to interpret my reply any way that you wish, even if your interpretation does not reflect exactly what I was saying?

My reply was directed in particular to Balipo, and to be honest with you, I have not been following your point of view on this topic.

evolution is not fact, adaptation is fact, thats not the same as evolution, evolution remains a theory, and wil simply remain a theory forever, unless time travel comes to be about some how. alot of science is theory, and even more is theory using previous theorys as facts. im not against the evolution theory, but dont call it a fact, it has not and can not be proven at the moment.

the story as genises is also a theory, some will argue with me there, so it has just about the same scientific weight as evolution. it may sound a bit more unrealistic and there may be more physical evidence going to evolution, but both are theorys and both will remain theorys untill the end of time.

dont start a religious battle here, unless you just so happen to be a 14 year old that just got off school and has nothing better to do.

Anyone who claims evolution isn't a fact either has a screw loose or hasn't studied the subject.

Anyone who claims evolution isn't a fact either has a screw loose or hasn't studied the subject.

Careful.

Science doesn't deal in facts.

Even in evolution we don't all agree on the process. We agree however, that it explains why we are the way we are......

evolution is not fact, adaptation is fact, thats not the same as evolution, evolution remains a theory, and wil simply remain a theory forever, unless time travel comes to be about some how. alot of science is theory, and even more is theory using previous theorys as facts. im not against the evolution theory, but dont call it a fact, it has not and can not be proven at the moment.

the story as genises is also a theory, some will argue with me there, so it has just about the same scientific weight as evolution. it may sound a bit more unrealistic and there may be more physical evidence going to evolution, but both are theorys and both will remain theorys untill the end of time.

dont start a religious battle here, unless you just so happen to be a 14 year old that just got off school and has nothing better to do.

EDIT-adding more
alot of the worlds issues are not from people not getting facts right, but from thinking theorys are facts.

think of it this way, im sure most here went to high school, how many rumors went around that school?, how many of those were thought to be real?, how many were not real?, now replace rumors with theorys.

God, not this theory crap again. Could you please read the thread before repeating this? Then, if you have a specific problem with the definition of theory, you can intelligently debate, instead of regurgitating something that has been refuted so much that it has been relegated to the status of a cliche.

the story as genises is also a theory, some will argue with me there, so it has just about the same scientific weight as evolution. it may sound a bit more unrealistic and there may be more physical evidence going to evolution, but both are theorys and both will remain theorys untill the end of time.

I mean, right here you contradict yourself. How can something have the same scientific weight when there is more physical evidence for the countering theory?

Sorry, but Creation has NO scientific basis. The existence of God can not be tested or falsified. It's simply not science. Does this mean it's untrue? Of course not. It just isn't science.

This is so basic...so central to the debate, that ignorance of it critically weakens the basis of any points you might make.

God, not this theory crap again. Could you please read the thread before repeating this? Then, if you have a specific problem with the definition of theory, you can intelligently debate, instead of regurgitating something that has been refuted so much that it has been relegated to the status of a cliche.



I mean, right here you contradict yourself. How can something have the same scientific weight when there is more physical evidence for the countering theory?

Sorry, but Creation has NO scientific basis. The existence of God can not be tested or falsified. It's simply not science. Does this mean it's untrue? Of course not. It just isn't science.

This is so basic...so central to the debate, that ignorance of it critically weakens the basis of any points you might make.

what i was getting to is theorys have the same scientific weight, even if one theory has more physical evidence and may sound more realistic, that doesnt make it any different then any other theory, what does make a difference is if it gets proven, which neither has, so they are both still theories and remain theorys. they are not greater or lesser to each other

Anyone who claims evolution isn't a fact either has a screw loose or hasn't studied the subject.

i believe its the other way around, if you claim theory = fact then you have issues. theory is not fact, and fact is not theory, the difference is being able to prove it.

what i was getting to is theorys have the same scientific weight, even if one theory has more physical evidence and may sound more realistic, that doesnt make it any different then any other theory, what does make a difference is if it gets proven, which neither has, so they are both still theories and remain theorys. they are not greater or lesser to each other

But you are wrong. Your definition of theory is incorrect. The very basis of science is that nothing can be proven...so you let the weight of evidence sort it out. Theories do vary in weight, depending on the amount of evidence, experimentation, duplication and the period of time the theory has gone unchallenged in it's basics.

Remember, to science, gravity is just a theory. Conservation of energy/matter is just a theory.

But you are wrong. Your definition of theory is incorrect. The very basis of science is that nothing can be proven...so you let the weight of evidence sort it out. Theories do vary in weight, depending on the amount of evidence, experimentation, duplication and the period of time the theory has gone unchallenged in it's basics.

Remember, to science, gravity is just a theory. Conservation of energy/matter is just a theory.
Conservation of matter and energy have actually been disproven (at least theoretically in the case of energy) in the right circumstances.

Conservation of matter and energy have actually been disproven (at least theoretically in the case of energy) in the right circumstances.

...on a quantum level...sometimes...maybe.

Which proves my point. That's why science never rules anything out. It just goes by the evidence at hand. When the evidence changes, so do the theories.

Evolution is still around, still getting sharpened, still having gaps filled. It's not a completed product, and it never will be, but it has a whooooooole lot more going for it than any competing theories.

Remember, to science, gravity is just a theory.
Actually, gravity is a myth.....the earth sucks. :D

evolution remains a theory, and wil simply remain a theory forever, unless time travel comes to be about some how.

Evolution will remain a theory forever because no explanation in science can progress beyond theory.

Meanwhile, time travel is hardly necessary to study the theory of evolution, which describes a process, not a particular lineage.

alot of science is theory,

All of science is either theory, hypothesis, or direct measurement.

it has not and can not be proven at the moment.

The scientific method cannot prove anything. The logic doesn't work for it.

the story as genises is also a theory,

It is a lay-theory, but does not even come close to meeting the requirements to be a scientific theory.

some will argue with me there, so it has just about the same scientific weight as evolution.

And this is where you say something completely incorrect. The theory of evolution has been determined through the use of the scientific method. It meshes with all available evidence. Literal Creationism, following the Priestly or Yahwist versions of creation in Genesis, has not been determined through the scientific method, and does not mesh with all available evidence.

it may sound a bit more unrealistic and there may be more physical evidence going to evolution, but both are theorys and both will remain theorys untill the end of time.

This is like saying, "Flat-Earthism and Round-Earthism are both theories, and are therefore equal." These are both possible explanations for many things, but the idea that the Earth is rounded has much, much more evidence backing it. It is, thus, the better theory according to science.

think of it this way, im sure most here went to high school, how many rumors went around that school?, how many of those were thought to be real?, how many were not real?, now replace rumors with theorys.

You are using theory in lay-terms, instead of scientific ones. A theory in science must be backed by an incredible amoount of evidence and experimentation to be considered a theory. It is not simply an idea that someone comes up with.

i believe its the other way around, if you claim theory = fact then you have issues. theory is not fact, and fact is not theory, the difference is being able to prove it.

Then, at least in the case of evolution, you are wrong. We see evolution working every day - it is now a confirmed FACT.

Ok, we do not have a complete evolution record, but if we can see it working today, and we see it working in enough places in the past, then it is safe to say that is has worked throughout history.

We see evolution working every day
We can? Really? I think you are kinda stretching here?


it is now a confirmed FACT.
And WHO has confirmed this "fact"?

Ok, we do not have a complete evolution record, but if we can see it working today, and we see it working in enough places in the past, then it is safe to say that is has worked throughout history.
That would be an assumption on your part and not a confirmed fact.

We can? Really? I think you are kinda stretching here?The fact that insects are now more resistant to pesticides used in the past is an example of evolution. The insects incapable of surviving the pesticides died and were removed in from the gene pool. The insects capable of surviving it made up the larger part of the gene pool and lead to a greater portion of insects resistant to pesticides in the population as a whole.
The same thing can be applied to bacteria and antibiotics, which is why it is advisable not to use antibiotics when they wouldn't do you any good anyway...

The fact that insects are now more resistant to pesticides used in the past is an example of evolution. The insects incapable of surviving the pesticides died and were removed in from the gene pool. The insects capable of surviving it made up the larger part of the gene pool and lead to a greater portion of insects resistant to pesticides in the population as a whole.
The same thing can be applied to bacteria and antibiotics, which is why it is advisable not to use antibiotics when they wouldn't do you any good anyway...
I understand this, I was being a bit tongue in cheek with the humour because the poster stated that we can see evolution working everyday.

I understand this, I was being a bit tongue in cheek with the humour because the poster stated that we can see evolution working everyday.I know ;)
But then again, if anyone really looked, they could see evolution occuring every day in all sorts of places. :D

I know ;)
But then again, if anyone really looked, they could see evolution occuring every day in all sorts of places. :D
Unfortunately, some people are evolving in reverse. :eek:

I will call that the "evilution" of man. :eek:

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!

Yeah, I understand that. I'm a firm Christian believer, but don't take that Genesis tells the whole story. It's in essence why dinosaurs aren't mentioned, for example: you don't need to. If the whole story of creation were told in the Bible, it'd probably become the greater proportion of the book, and let's face it: the philosophical, part is the more important part. Sure, there's some actual history in there, but certainly not more than is absolutely necessary.

Now, survival of the fittest works because it works. No reason more.

I have respect for science, it's a useful tool for finding how things work. However, inevitably, there usually is flaws with theories which need to be amended, etc etc. In this way, I view science (when used wisely) as a good thing.

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."

Personally I believe in both. I believe we evolved as we did because it was God's will. As for science in general and believing it automatically = fact. Disagree there. Science itself is just human interpretation of evidence, which at best is faulty as the norm. People will find what they want based on their intended goal after all. All the data they gather will be based towards supporting their goal. And since most scientists / drs / headshrinkers think they are GOD, ofcourse their goal is to discredit the true God. Anyhow, just my 2 cents on this

evolution is not fact, adaptation is fact, thats not the same as evolution, evolution remains a theory, and wil simply remain a theory forever, unless time travel comes to be about some how. alot of science is theory, and even more is theory using previous theorys as facts. im not against the evolution theory, but dont call it a fact, it has not and can not be proven at the moment.
I go the other route: I refer to it as "fact" simply because it doesn't matter whether it really is or not. As a fact, it has use.
"Just-a-theories" are meaningless. "As-a-facts" are useful.

the story as genises is also a theory, some will argue with me there, so it has just about the same scientific weight as evolution. it may sound a bit more unrealistic and there may be more physical evidence going to evolution, but both are theorys and both will remain theorys untill the end of time.
I'm one who would argue with you, there. :) Genesis is a collection of mythological/historical stories, so it cannot properly be compared to evolution. Whatever "weight" each has is assigned by you, the individual viewing them in an attempt at comparison, at the moment of comparison. Just my two cents.

dont start a religious battle here, unless you just so happen to be a 14 year old that just got off school and has nothing better to do.
Are scientific and semantical battles okay, though? ;)

EDIT-adding more
alot of the worlds issues are not from people not getting facts right, but from thinking theorys are facts.

think of it this way, im sure most here went to high school, how many rumors went around that school?, how many of those were thought to be real?, how many were not real?, now replace rumors with theorys.
Thinking theories are facts is how we make use of them. Would you be able to predict the trajectory of a thrown object if you didn't think gravity was a fact?

Originally Posted by Brenchley
Anyone who claims evolution isn't a fact either has a screw loose or hasn't studied the subject.
Careful.

Science doesn't deal in facts.
But it does deal in mechanics. ;)

Evolution "as a fact" may not be a fact, but we must trust it is to make use of the mechanic of it. "As-a-facts" are useful.

Personally I believe in both. I believe we evolved as we did because it was God's will.

However, if you are honest with yourself, you would admit that your belief that it was God's will is faith-based, while the idea of evolution is science-based.

As for science in general and believing it automatically = fact. Disagree there.

I should hope so. All the people out there looking at it that way are truly missing the point of science.

Science itself is just human interpretation of evidence, which at best is faulty as the norm.

Science is based upon the scientific method, which is based in logic. Human interpretation certainly is faulty, but by constantly reexamining something and discussing it, we can get closer to the truth.

People will find what they want based on their intended goal after all. All the data they gather will be based towards supporting their goal.

Not if they are following the scientific method, which demands that you try to [b]disprove[/i] your hypothesis. If you don't disprove it with your experiment/observation, it is supported, but not proven. If you disprove it, it is thrown out/modified.

And since most scientists / drs / headshrinkers think they are GOD, ofcourse their goal is to discredit the true God.

What a bunch of bullshit, considering that most scientists and doctors are actually theists, just as most of the general population consists of theists.

Personally I believe in both. I believe we evolved as we did because it was God's will. As for science in general and believing it automatically = fact. Disagree there. Science itself is just human interpretation of evidence, which at best is faulty as the norm. People will find what they want based on their intended goal after all. All the data they gather will be based towards supporting their goal. And since most scientists / drs / headshrinkers think they are GOD, ofcourse their goal is to discredit the true God. Anyhow, just my 2 cents on this

This was interesting to read as it starts with a personal statement of acquiesence to both science and religion, then completely denegrates to science is wrong and trying to knock god out of the picture.

I'm glad I read the whole thing before I considered you enlightened.

*tosses Tyma's 2 cents back*

What a bunch of bullshit, considering that most scientists and doctors are actually theists, just as most of the general population consists of theists.
Although a bit angry, Dempublicent's statement is right, imo, and just goes to show that religion and science are not mutually exclusive because they serve two completely different functions in our lives.

I think it's time to stop arguing over which "theory" is "right" and instead address the question of why some people won't accept that they are different and allow both to exist in their own separate spheres. It's been asked several times here: If scientists don't insist that evolution be preached in churches, why should some theists think it's okay for them to insist that creation be taught in science classes/museums?

Although a bit angry, Dempublicent's statement is right, imo, and just goes to show that religion and science are not mutually exclusive because they serve two completely different functions in our lives.

I think it's time to stop arguing over which "theory" is "right" and instead address the question of why some people won't accept that they are different and allow both to exist in their own separate spheres. It's been asked several times here: If scientists don't insist that evolution be preached in churches, why should some theists think it's okay for them to insist that creation be taught in science classes/museums?

Well...I don't know about "right" but I will continue to push and examine the theory of evolution because it is supported by data.

I think though, your question brings an excellent point.

Careful.

Science doesn't deal in facts.

All the science I've ever studied deals with facts.

Even in evolution we don't all agree on the process. We agree however, that it explains why we are the way we are......

The finer details of the process are a little open, in the sense that there is more than one driving force to evolution.

i believe its the other way around, if you claim theory = fact then you have issues. theory is not fact, and fact is not theory, the difference is being able to prove it.

By the time theory becomes Theory you are dealing with facts.

Evolution is a fact, we can see it happening in nature all the time.

But you are wrong. Your definition of theory is incorrect. The very basis of science is that nothing can be proven...

Don't talk rubbish.

so you let the weight of evidence sort it out. Theories do vary in weight, depending on the amount of evidence, experimentation, duplication and the period of time the theory has gone unchallenged in it's basics.

Remember, to science, gravity is just a theory. Conservation of energy/matter is just a theory.

Again, don't talk rubbish.

We can? Really? I think you are kinda stretching here?


Try investigating things like Aids(HiV), Bird Flu or MRSA.


And WHO has confirmed this "fact"?

Scientists all over the world.


That would be an assumption on your part and not a confirmed fact.

No assumption, just working with facts.

Don't talk rubbish.

Again, don't talk rubbish.

It isn't rubbish my dear. It is the way science works. The scientific method cannot logically prove anything. No matter how many times we repeat something, it might be different the next time. No matter how many times we measure something, it might be different the next time. Now, if we've measured something 1000 times, and it's always been the same, the chance of it being different on the 1001 time is miniscule, but is there. This is the logical reason that science can never claim to have proven anything.

We can get tomes of evidence that evolution occurs. We can get tomes of evidence that there is a force we call gravity and that it works a certain way. However, those things are evidence, not proof. Science doesn't work in proof. A single contradicting experiment can cause us to drop or significantly change a theory.

It isn't rubbish my dear. It is the way science works. The scientific method cannot logically prove anything. No matter how many times we repeat something, it might be different the next time. No matter how many times we measure something, it might be different the next time. Now, if we've measured something 1000 times, and it's always been the same, the chance of it being different on the 1001 time is miniscule, but is there. This is the logical reason that science can never claim to have proven anything.

We can get tomes of evidence that evolution occurs. We can get tomes of evidence that there is a force we call gravity and that it works a certain way. However, those things are evidence, not proof. Science doesn't work in proof. A single contradicting experiment can cause us to drop or significantly change a theory.
Not to mention that which is euphemistically referred to as "peer review," which basically means that if you come up with some new theory, every single one of your peers within your field will kill themselves trying to disprove it. :D

It isn't rubbish my dear. It is the way science works. The scientific method cannot logically prove anything. No matter how many times we repeat something, it might be different the next time. No matter how many times we measure something, it might be different the next time. Now, if we've measured something 1000 times, and it's always been the same, the chance of it being different on the 1001 time is miniscule, but is there. This is the logical reason that science can never claim to have proven anything.

There are some things that can only be different is the laws of physics were to change.

We can get tomes of evidence that evolution occurs. We can get tomes of evidence that there is a force we call gravity and that it works a certain way. However, those things are evidence, not proof. Science doesn't work in proof. A single contradicting experiment can cause us to drop or significantly change a theory.

Science does work with facts, as a result many Theories stand proven. Some theories are expanded later to deal with special situations, in the way that the Theories of Relativity expanded the explenation of gravity given by Newton. It didn't make Newton wrong and it certainly didn't change the fact of gravity.

All the science I've ever studied deals with facts.

Well I would be curious to what you studied as there are no absolutes in science.

Demp as usual has suficiently explained things; read her comments.....

Well...I don't know about "right" but I will continue to push and examine the theory of evolution because it is supported by data.

I think though, your question brings an excellent point.
Thanks. Now let's see if anyone picks it up (especially as it's an attempt to get back to the point of the thread). ;)

Well I would be curious to what you studied as there are no absolutes in science.

My main area is cosmology and particle physics. But I've studied many other disciplines at one time or another.

Demp as usual has suficiently explained things; read her comments.....

Read and replied.

There are some things that can only be different is the laws of physics were to change.

No,the correct thing would be to say, "There are some things that can only be different if we are wrong about what we believe the laws of physics to be."

We've been wrong before (ie. Newton's laws), and there is no reason to believe with absolute certainty that we know them now. Our measurements have given us the best approximation of the laws of the universe we can currently discover, but further study is always ongoing. Physics experiments have demonstrated that electrons do things we cannot yet explain. They essentially had electrons teleport through a wall. They were inside, never hit the wall, and then were outside. It's happened more than once. This tells us that some of what we call the "laws of physics" are probably incorrect, since nothing we currently have can predict this behavior.

Science does work with facts, as a result many Theories stand proven.

To the layman, they might seem proven. To the scientist, everything, no matter how much backing it has, is open to the possibility of being disproven.

Some theories are expanded later to deal with special situations, in the way that the Theories of Relativity expanded the explenation of gravity given by Newton. It didn't make Newton wrong and it certainly didn't change the fact of gravity.

The fact that they had to be changed absolutely did make Newton's laws wrong. In fact, even on the scale at which we use Newton's laws, they are in error. The difference is that the error is so far out as to be irrelevant in most measurements. The theory of relativity didn't expand Newton's laws, it is an entirely different way of explaining the phenomena we see.

Meanwhile, even an expansion measns that something about what we considered to be the "laws" was incorrect. If they don't apply in all cases, they are not actually laws at all.

No,the correct thing would be to say, "There are some things that can only be different if we are wrong about what we believe the laws of physics to be."

But the laws of physics are, well, the laws of physics.

We've been wrong before (ie. Newton's laws),

But Newton wasn't wrong - as I've pointed out before.

and there is no reason to believe with absolute certainty that we know them now. Our measurements have given us the best approximation of the laws of the universe we can currently discover, but further study is always ongoing. Physics experiments have demonstrated that electrons do things we cannot yet explain. They essentially had electrons teleport through a wall. They were inside, never hit the wall, and then were outside. It's happened more than once.

I think you have misunderstood the concept of quantum entanglement. If not then please explain what you are talking about.

This tells us that some of what we call the "laws of physics" are probably incorrect, since nothing we currently have can predict this behavior.

If we are talking about quantum entanglement then this is predicted.

To the layman, they might seem proven. To the scientist, everything, no matter how much backing it has, is open to the possibility of being disproven.

There are a lot of "laws" which are proven, which are involate and form the backbone of all other physics.

The fact that they had to be changed absolutely did make Newton's laws wrong.

But Newton WASN'T wrong - that is the point.

In fact, even on the scale at which we use Newton's laws, they are in error. The difference is that the error is so far out as to be irrelevant in most measurements. The theory of relativity didn't expand Newton's laws, it is an entirely different way of explaining the phenomena we see.

No, Relativity took things to the next stage. Without Newton there could have been no Relativity.

Meanwhile, even an expansion measns that something about what we considered to be the "laws" was incorrect. If they don't apply in all cases, they are not actually laws at all.

No it doesn't. Newtons laws explain things in the everyday (non-relitavistic) universe There is nothing wrong with them and they still hold their place in science. The fact that relativity is needed once we start to think of either fast moving observers, of large gravity wells, doesn't undermine Newton.

But the laws of physics are, well, the laws of physics.

The laws of physics are the laws of physics, but to claim that we know them with 100% certainty is absolute arrogance - and a really silly statement to make. We don't knojw what the laws of physics are - not completely. We only know what we have so far determined that they might be.

I think you have misunderstood the concept of quantum entanglement. If not then please explain what you are talking about.

I am talking about particle accelerator experiments in which physicists kept "losing" electrons. A screen left outside the walls of the reactor later, they discovered that the electrons were somehow jumping through the walls, but without actually ever entering the walls themselves.

There are a lot of "laws" which are proven, which are involate and form the backbone of all other physics.

They are not proven. They are supported to the point that they may as well be proven, but, like all things in science, they are open to possibly being disproven.

No it doesn't. Newtons laws explain things in the everyday (non-relitavistic) universe There is nothing wrong with them and they still hold their place in science. The fact that relativity is needed once we start to think of either fast moving observers, of large gravity wells, doesn't undermine Newton.

Actually, Newton's laws are incorrect, as the relativity applies everywhere. However, the errors caused by using Newton for everyday applications are so far out in the decimal places that they simply don't matter. We could use the equations derived from the theory of relativity to describe all cases, but they are much more complicated, so we use Newton's laws (which provide a very good approximation) instead. They do, however, have error in them, as all aspects are not taken into account.

Edit: In addition, even if there were no error in the use of Newton's laws in everyday situations, one would still be in error in calling them laws. Physical laws of the universe can't be case-specific. A law applies in all situations. At the moment, the closest we have to an actual physics law is detailed by the theory of relativity. However, the details of that one are still under discussion. And, just like all theories (and even those we have called laws because they have so much backing), they are open to the possibility of falsification.

I cant stand those bible maniacs, they would probably be the christian version of 'extremists'. sure, i know a great deal of christians, but i have only met the extreme few that believe humankind came solely from two(2) humans, and one of those humans came from the other human (eve from adams hip) and that all their offspring had sex with one another to form the human race. :gundge:

perhaps it is just me, or does anyone else think that what i have just said is completely NUTZ. :confused:

the only logical answer is we evolved from a less complex lifeform, or at least we adapted to our current environment to form what we now call ourselves, humans.

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.
Actually Darwinism qualifies as a religion since too much of it must be taken on faith and most of the so called facts are just theories. The main goal by Darwinists is to continue feeding the gullible "facts" in an attempt to legitimize their position and make their religion the only universally accepted. Again sounds like religions the world over!

Actually Darwinism qualifies as a religion since too much of it must be taken on faith and most of the so called facts are just theories. The main goal by Darwinists is to continue feeding the gullible "facts" in an attempt to legitimize their position and make their religion the only universally accepted. Again sounds like religions the world over!

Your tinfoil hat was intelligently designed too.

Actually Darwinism qualifies as a religion since too much of it must be taken on faith and most of the so called facts are just theories. The main goal by Darwinists is to continue feeding the gullible "facts" in an attempt to legitimize their position and make their religion the only universally accepted. Again sounds like religions the world over!
LOL you are so silly

Specialy how you keep reffering to evolution as darwanism

Gave me a good giggle

Actually Darwinism qualifies as a religion since too much of it must be taken on faith and most of the so called facts are just theories.


Faith has no place in science.

"Just theories" suggests you really haven't studied science.


The main goal by Darwinists is to continue feeding the gullible "facts" in an attempt to legitimize their position

Gulliable "facts"? You don't know any scientists do you? They tend to label any new ideas or challenges as being complete stupidity. Peer review. Nobody in science ever became famous for not challenging things.


and make their religion the only universally accepted. Again sounds like religions the world over!

Cool! Where do they meet for worship? :rolleyes:

The laws of physics are the laws of physics, but to claim that we know them with 100% certainty is absolute arrogance - and a really silly statement to make. We don't knojw what the laws of physics are - not completely. We only know what we have so far determined that they might be.

We don't know ALL the laws of physics yet, but that doesn't mean we don't know some with absolute certainty.

I am talking about particle accelerator experiments in which physicists kept "losing" electrons. A screen left outside the walls of the reactor later, they discovered that the electrons were somehow jumping through the walls, but without actually ever entering the walls themselves.

Please provide a reference.

They are not proven. They are supported to the point that they may as well be proven, but, like all things in science, they are open to possibly being disproven.

Without some proven facts it is impossible to build the diverse world of physics today.


Actually, Newton's laws are incorrect, as the relativity applies everywhere. However, the errors caused by using Newton for everyday applications are so far out in the decimal places that they simply don't matter. We could use the equations derived from the theory of relativity to describe all cases, but they are much more complicated, so we use Newton's laws (which provide a very good approximation) instead. They do, however, have error in them, as all aspects are not taken into account.

Edit: In addition, even if there were no error in the use of Newton's laws in everyday situations, one would still be in error in calling them laws. Physical laws of the universe can't be case-specific. A law applies in all situations. At the moment, the closest we have to an actual physics law is detailed by the theory of relativity. However, the details of that one are still under discussion. And, just like all theories (and even those we have called laws because they have so much backing), they are open to the possibility of falsification.

Newtons laws are now considered as a good working subset of the laws relating to gravity. They work, they still work, and in most case are still used in everyday science.

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.

Question: How has Evolution been proven? Both Creationism and Evolution are myths, so how has Evolution been Proven?

Oh, and Genesis is not flismy. It is another way to describe the Big Bang Theory, which was set forth by a Christian Monk in 1917 I believe.

Personally I would ignore them stating,
'I will only answer Intellegent questions.' And if I'm in a museam and some Creationist comes up trying to say how wrong it is, I'm tazing them, just a friendly warning. I can claim I was defending against Harassment.

Newtons laws are now considered as a good working subset of the laws relating to gravity. They work, they still work, and in most case are still used in everyday science.Only at low speeds, where the error that occurs is only marginal. You could use Einstein's accurate formulas, but the difference is close enough to zero to ignore it unless precision is necessary.
Newton's laws were verified by experiment and observation for over 200 years, and they are excellent approximations at the scales and speeds of everyday life. As we approach the atomic scale, they become a poorer approximation to quantum mechanics, and at speeds comparable to the speed of light, they become a poorer approximation to relativity. Just as they fail for material objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light, they fail for light itself.Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law)

Since no one has answered my question, I will continue!

Creationism is perhaps the most reasonable form of existance we have today. Considering the Extinction rate of many species, and how evolution is not exactly helping us out (AKA We have weaker arms, teeth, and bodies. But, heck, we're smarter!).

However, I believe that God Created the Human being, then watched closely and occaisonally gave us pushes to where we are today.

This also could be called Panspermia, the belief that life was seeded on earth.

Since no one has answered my question, I will continue!

Creationism is perhaps the most reasonable form of existance we have today. Considering the Extinction rate of many species, and how evolution is not exactly helping us out (AKA We have weaker arms, teeth, and bodies. But, heck, we're smarter!).

However, I believe that God Created the Human being, then watched closely and occaisonally gave us pushes to where we are today.

This also could be called Panspermia, the belief that life was seeded on earth.

Panspermia is an alternative to abiogenesis, not to evolution

Question: How has Evolution been proven? Both Creationism and Evolution are myths, so how has Evolution been Proven?

Evolution has been proven by watching microbes and short-lived creatures like the fruit fly.

Oh, and Genesis is not flismy. It is another way to describe the Big Bang Theory, which was set forth by a Christian Monk in 1917 I believe.

Genesis is a fairy story - a good one I admit, but nothing more.

Creationism is perhaps the most reasonable form of existance we have today. Considering the Extinction rate of many species, and how evolution is not exactly helping us out (AKA We have weaker arms, teeth, and bodies. But, heck, we're smarter!).
Evolution isn't about survival of the fittest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest) actually (it just gets falsely attributed to Darwin). It's about competition and natural selection. Let's use an economic example:
Two restaurants open in a street. Both compete and one might go bankrupt (ie extinct). Now if a restaurant and a clothes shop open in the same street, there's no likelihood of them competing, is there? Both shops have found their "economic" niche, just like most species find an "environmental" niche. Now if these shops were species, the employees must be the individuals of the species, and here the competition is tougher, with the good employees not being laid off in times of need and the bad employees being fired outright.
Likewise, just because a crocodile is more powerful than a mudfish, neither truly compete and extinction won't be based on one species being "fitter".

I mind the best way to deal with creatonists is a swift kick to the nuts. Quick. Simple. Removes them from the gene pool. I call it, survival of the fitest.

Question: How has Evolution been proven? Both Creationism and Evolution are myths, so how has Evolution been Proven?

Oh, and Genesis is not flismy. It is another way to describe the Big Bang Theory, which was set forth by a Christian Monk in 1917 I believe.
Evolution isn't proven. It has been proven to be overwhelmingly accurate. There is a staggeringly huge difference.

Genesis isn't flimsy, no. It's the culmination of several thousand years worth of creational myths, from a vast assortment of prior and contemporary religions.

The big bang theory isn't proven either. It's the best explanation we have that fit the knowledge we have. Exactly like evolution is.

Just like the evolution theories (and even overall concept) is only vaguely similar to what Darwin proposed, the theories about the big bang only have a superficial semblance to 1920's beliefs.

The same is true for almost all other fields of science.

Creationism & ID, whether you think it's the same thing or not, has nothing to do with science. There are two reasons for this:
1. Both introduce a concept science cannot be aplied to (God or a Designer).
2. Both are preconcieved ideas, with no basis in observation. To be honest, both twist (or simply ignore) observations, to fit the preconcieved idea. A scientific theory is a conclusion based on observations, not the other way around.

I mind the best way to deal with creatonists is a swift kick to the nuts. Quick. Simple. Removes them from the gene pool. I call it, survival of the fitest.
Or rather, extermination of the unfit. Sounds just like a stunt some guy pulled 60 years ago, doesn't it?

Evolution isn't proven. It has been proven to be overwhelmingly accurate. There is a staggeringly huge difference.

Genesis isn't flimsy, no. It's the culmination of several thousand years worth of creational myths, from a vast assortment of prior and contemporary religions.

The big bang theory isn't proven either. It's the best explanation we have that fit the knowledge we have. Exactly like evolution is.

Just like the evolution theories (and even overall concept) is only vaguely similar to what Darwin proposed, the theories about the big bang only have a superficial semblance to 1920's beliefs.

The same is true for almost all other fields of science.

Creationism & ID, whether you think it's the same thing or not, has nothing to do with science. There are two reasons for this:
1. Both introduce a concept science cannot be aplied to (God or a Designer).
2. Both are preconcieved ideas, with no basis in observation. To be honest, both twist (or simply ignore) observations, to fit the preconcieved idea. A scientific theory is a conclusion based on observations, not the other way around.

Cookie for you! And yes, this is true. Tis why I believe both are possible, and both are impossible.

I was wondering. Could this whole ID problem be due too the US love of symbols? The Iders seems to be using certain words that make sense in a general context (which is how most people see it) as opposed to a specific.

If have a theory that...all NSers are in fact french people who like to role play being US+other nationalities. My personal theory. So yay its a theory. But of course it is not a scientific theory as it does not meet the criteria.

Actually Darwinism qualifies as a religion since too much of it must be taken on faith and most of the so called facts are just theories. The main goal by Darwinists is to continue feeding the gullible "facts" in an attempt to legitimize their position and make their religion the only universally accepted. Again sounds like religions the world over!

I'm sorry...I could barely hear you over the broil of your crack pipe...


Darwinism is not a religion. People do not worship Darwin. Evolution is supported by facts (unlike religion). To say that Darwinism is a religion is a ploy by Fundamentalist Christians to take away from the ideas presented by evolution and supported by the data of biologists and anthropologists.

I was wondering. Could this whole ID problem be due too the US love of symbols? The Iders seems to be using certain words that make sense in a general context (which is how most people see it) as opposed to a specific.

If have a theory that...all NSers are in fact french people who like to role play being US+other nationalities. My personal theory. So yay its a theory. But of course it is not a scientific theory as it does not meet the criteria.

But I don't wanna eat no froggies... :(

Damn good example though :)

Question: How has Evolution been proven? Both Creationism and Evolution are myths, so how has Evolution been Proven?

Oh, and Genesis is not flismy. It is another way to describe the Big Bang Theory, which was set forth by a Christian Monk in 1917 I believe.

More information on The Big Bang (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html)

Which says, for those who are anti-link, the theory was developed by a Belgian priest after analyzing data provided by astronomers. Georges Lemaître's theory had nothing to do with god, he just happened to be a priest.

YAY PAT ROBERTSON! You guys honestly think you came from a frickin monkey?! Suit yourself. But speakin of intelligence and rationality, considering that people will argue the beginnings of our human history is about pond scum, big bangs, or Creation, NO ONE KNOWS! But as the laws of thermodynamics point out, there was a beginning that created the whole universe. Something everyone can agree with. SO WHY THE HELL DO YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE YOU'RE A FRICKIN ANIMAL WITH NO HIGHER MORAL DUTIES, and why not believe in God. You'll be smarter. I promise.

YAY PAT ROBERTSON! You guys honestly think you came from a frickin monkey?! Suit yourself. But speakin of intelligence and rationality, considering that people will argue the beginnings of our human history is about pond scum, big bangs, or Creation, NO ONE KNOWS! But as the laws of thermodynamics point out, there was a beginning that created the whole universe. Something everyone can agree with. SO WHY THE HELL DO YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE YOU'RE A FRICKIN ANIMAL WITH NO HIGHER MORAL DUTIES, and why not believe in God. You'll be smarter. I promise.

Dude, the Theory of Evolution neither proves nor disproves, nor does it even try to prove or disprove, the existance of God.

YAY PAT ROBERTSON! You guys honestly think you came from a frickin monkey?! Ape, not monkey. Monkey's have long tails and swing around in trees.
Suit yourself. But speakin of intelligence and rationality, considering that people will argue the beginnings of our human history is about pond scum, big bangs, or Creation, NO ONE KNOWS! Some of those are completely inconsistent with the evidence, hence skepsis concerning creationism. (And this has nothing to do with evolution).
But as the laws of thermodynamics point out, there was a beginning that created the whole universe. Something everyone can agree with. SO WHY THE HELL DO YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE YOU'RE A FRICKIN ANIMAL WITH NO HIGHER MORAL DUTIES, and why not believe in God. You'll be smarter. I promise.I'm a bit confused what you're trying to say with the last bit.

YAY PAT ROBERTSON! You guys honestly think you came from a frickin monkey?! Suit yourself. But speakin of intelligence and rationality, considering that people will argue the beginnings of our human history is about pond scum, big bangs, or Creation, NO ONE KNOWS! But as the laws of thermodynamics point out, there was a beginning that created the whole universe. Something everyone can agree with. SO WHY THE HELL DO YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE YOU'RE A FRICKIN ANIMAL WITH NO HIGHER MORAL DUTIES, and why not believe in God. You'll be smarter. I promise.

<sarcasm>
Right...because to deny scientific discovery and intelligent conjecture is to be smarter. Let's just base everything on a big guy in the sky and hope it all works out. </sarcasm>

What makes us stand out from animals is that fact that we can reason about our origin. (That and the fact that we are the only species that comes up with new and more interesting ways to kill other members of our species, usually in the name of god). So, since science makes us smarter than the rest of us, yet religion keeps us on the same level as Neanderthal Man, I'll go with science.

And by the way...we didn't "come from monkeys" or there wouldn't be any monkeys around.

We don't know ALL the laws of physics yet, but that doesn't mean we don't know some with absolute certainty.

The logical process of science means that we don't know them with absolute certainty, as the scientific method itself can only disprove or support a hypothesis, but can never prove it.

Please provide a reference.

Oh dear, that was an article I read several years ago. I'll look around.

Without some proven facts it is impossible to build the diverse world of physics today.

Hardly. You simply have to assume that the things which have so much support that they seem true actually are true. However, you still leave yourself open to the possibility that they are not, in case you get results inconsistent with them.

Newtons laws are now considered as a good working subset of the laws relating to gravity. They work, they still work, and in most case are still used in everyday science.

You know, reading isn't as hard as you are making it look. I made it very clear that I am aware that Newton's Laws are still used. This doesn't meant hat they have no error - it is because they are much less complicated than quantum mechanics - and because the error is so small as to be insignificant in certain cases that we still use them.

It is kind of like making the assumption in an engineering calculation that something is a closed system, or that gravity is not a factor. These things are not true, and a fully accurate calculation would not make these assumptions. However, in some cases, the contribution from outside the system or the contribution of gravity to the calculation are so insignificant that adding them simply makes your job harder, without providing anything in return.

The same is true with Newton's Laws. They are in error and we know it - not taking into account those factors which are included in quantum mechanics. However, when working with large masses and relatively slow speeds, using quantum mechanics adds an awful lot of work for an insignificant loss of error. Thus, we use Newton's Laws because they are adequate for what we are doing, not because they are correct.

I think you have misunderstood the concept of quantum entanglement. If not then please explain what you are talking about.

Actually, a little more research turns up the fact that, since I read about the original experiment, this has been much better defined. It isn't quantum entanglement, although it is dependent upon entanglement. It is quantum tunneling.

The theory *now* predicts it, but did not at the time of the experiment I described. Of course, that's how science works. We get results that don't mesh with the current understanding, so we change the theory. We alter what we think the rules are so that they can describe all behavior, including whatever we just found that doesn't seem to fit in. Of course, this means that we were wrong before on what the rule were, but we are always getting closer and closer to the actual rules.

The logical process of science means that we don't know them with absolute certainty, as the scientific method itself can only disprove or support a hypothesis, but can never prove it.[quote]

There are some things that are known with absolute certainty. The speed of light, the characteristic impedance of a vacuum or ant one of dozens of constants on which the rest of physics is based.

[quote]Oh dear, that was an article I read several years ago. I'll look around.

Don't worry, I have that problem all the time. Often I know the book, and more or less where in the book it is - but can I remember where the book is ???

Hardly. You simply have to assume that the things which have so much support that they seem true actually are true. However, you still leave yourself open to the possibility that they are not, in case you get results inconsistent with them.

Yes, I believe there are some things that we do now know well enough to put them beyond question.

You know, reading isn't as hard as you are making it look. I made it very clear that I am aware that Newton's Laws are still used. This doesn't meant hat they have no error - it is because they are much less complicated than quantum mechanics - and because the error is so small as to be insignificant in certain cases that we still use them.

The point is that though they do not work at high speeds or in small areas, that doesn't make them wrong. Rather they are now a subset of Relativity which is in itself now becoming a subset of ever greater laws.

It is kind of like making the assumption in an engineering calculation that something is a closed system, or that gravity is not a factor. These things are not true, and a fully accurate calculation would not make these assumptions. However, in some cases, the contribution from outside the system or the contribution of gravity to the calculation are so insignificant that adding them simply makes your job harder, without providing anything in return.

The same is true with Newton's Laws. They are in error and we know it - not taking into account those factors which are included in quantum mechanics. However, when working with large masses and relatively slow speeds, using quantum mechanics adds an awful lot of work for an insignificant loss of error. Thus, we use Newton's Laws because they are adequate for what we are doing, not because they are correct.

But they ARE correct at the level we use them.

There are some things that are known with absolute certainty. The speed of light, the characteristic impedance of a vacuum or ant one of dozens of constants on which the rest of physics is based.

You have chosen things that are measured and claim we know them with absolute certainty???!?!?!?!?!?!

One of the principles of physics, engineering, and all science is that all measurements have error. They are limited by the instruments we use, error introduced by the person doing the measuring, and depending on the situation, even the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

You can hardly state that a measurement is known with absolute certainty.

Yes, I believe there are some things that we do now know well enough to put them beyond question.

In science, nothing is beyond question. The moment you try to place it there, you have stepped outside the scientific method and into the realm of faith.

The point is that though they do not work at high speeds or in small areas, that doesn't make them wrong.

And I have never made any claim that they do. Again, you aren't reading what I write.

They are wrong because they are wrong. Using Newton introduces error even at slow speeds and large masses. However, we can ignore that error because, in these cases, it is insignificant to what is being measured. That doesn't mean that the error isn't there.

Rather they are now a subset of Relativity which is in itself now becoming a subset of ever greater laws.

(a) Newton's laws are not a "subset of relativity". They are an approximation of quantum mechanics that are only adequate in a certain subset of possible situations. The most accurate way we have to measure these things is to apply quantum mechanics to everything, and leave Newton's laws in the dust. However, that would be an awful lot of work to get rid of an error that we aren't worried about anyways. So we don't do it.

(b) In the laws of physics, there really are no "subsets of laws." A true physics law would apply in every case, not in a subset of cases. If something only applies in certain cases, it isn't a subset, it is an approximation and something is being left out that is necessary to make it apply in all cases.

But they ARE correct at the level we use them.

They are correct in much the same way that assuming that gravity has no effect on a system or that the system is a completely closed system is correct. I am leaving out factors that do affect my system. However, the effect they have is so small that I can be "creatively lazy" (as one of my old profs would say) and choose to leave them out. My calculations have error introduced because I left those factors out, but the error is not large enough to affect the use of my calculations, so it is easier to leave it out. That doesn't make it "correct." It makes it "good enough."

There sure is a lot of nitpicking going on here. But I must admit, it's fun to watch an actually intelligent scientific debate in place of "god says" vs. "science says".

Actually, a little more research turns up the fact that, since I read about the original experiment, this has been much better defined. It isn't quantum entanglement, although it is dependent upon entanglement. It is quantum tunneling.

The theory *now* predicts it, but did not at the time of the experiment I described. Of course, that's how science works. We get results that don't mesh with the current understanding, so we change the theory. We alter what we think the rules are so that they can describe all behavior, including whatever we just found that doesn't seem to fit in. Of course, this means that we were wrong before on what the rule were, but we are always getting closer and closer to the actual rules.

Quantum tunneling has been known for a long time, certainly since the late 70s, but it doen't do what you claim. It only works at atomic levels. Look at http://thetunneller.co.uk/quantum%20tunneling%20explanation.htm for a graphic representation.

I say let them believe that. If it makes them happy what the hell

I think Genesis makes sense on an evolutionary level (as an oral tradition with some basis in fact) if you can accept Terrence McKenna's theory (http://www.cia.com.au/peril/texts/features/tmk-out.htm) that our pre-human primate ancestors ate psychedelic mushrooms (forbidden fruit) which helped us to develop what we now call higher intelligence, and speech capabilities.
Who knows? Interesting hypothesis, though.

I think Genesis makes sense on an evolutionary level (as an oral tradition with some basis in fact) if you can accept Terrence McKenna's theory (http://www.cia.com.au/peril/texts/features/tmk-out.htm) that our pre-human primate ancestors ate psychedelic mushrooms (forbidden fruit) which helped us to develop what we now call higher intelligence, and speech capabilities.
Who knows? Interesting hypothesis, though.

Interesting, yes, accurate, probably not. If our evolutionary ancestors (I won't say primate because we are also primates) ate psycho-tropic things and therefore evolved, then something similar things would happen to Homo Sapiens if we were to do the same.

Interesting, yes, accurate, probably not. If our evolutionary ancestors (I won't say primate because we are also primates) ate psycho-tropic things and therefore evolved, then something similar things would happen to Homo Sapiens if we were to do the same.
I used to do a lot of psychedelics in my teens, and can definitely attribute (in part, at least) my current success as a commercial artist to their use.

Also, I'm pretty damn sure they have allowed me to absorb knowledge at a faster pace than would've been possible otherwise, and to see things from perspectives that wouldn't have been available to me had I not indulged.
Those doors of perception would've remained locked.

But, to each his own.

I used to do a lot of psychedelics in my teens, and can definitely attribute (in part, at least) my current success as a commercial artist to their use.

Also, I'm pretty damn sure they have allowed me to absorb knowledge at a faster pace than would've been possible otherwise, and to see things from perspectives that wouldn't have been available to me had I not indulged.
Those doors of perception would've remained locked.

But, to each his own.

A good point. But I think I've improved as a musician (not successful, but still doing it) since stopping all that.

Quantum tunneling has been known for a long time, certainly since the late 70s, but it doen't do what you claim. It only works at atomic levels. Look at http://thetunneller.co.uk/quantum%20tunneling%20explanation.htm for a graphic representation.

That same uncertainty could allow electrons to teleport. In fact, from what I could dig up, quantum tunneling is the basis of research into possible teleportation. Of course, we don't fully understand it yet, nor can we fully predict it yet, so it's still something being worked out.

A good point. But I think I've improved as a musician (not successful, but still doing it) since stopping all that.
Yeah, I got what was to be had from the use of hallucinogenics, and don't do them anymore. They were more of a stepping stone.
I still smoke grass while I'm creating, but tripping would hinder my project's progress.
I'm speaking in terms of what it did to my long-term elasticity of perception, not that there's an inherent advantage to being on them while creating.

As a musician, you don't feel that they've helped you at all, in terms of perception and perspective? Or have they helped you to experiment with styles and the like?

There sure is a lot of nitpicking going on here.

True. I've gotten in the habit of doing that in these debates, though, because it is impossible to really have a discussion on these things without making sure that those involved truly understand how science works. If someone doesn't understand the scientific method and the logic behind it - what it can and cannot be used for and what its strengths and limitations are - it is impossible to explain to them, for instance, that "just a theory" is a silly thing to say.

If someone is not aware of the fact that the existence or non-existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being is outside that which science can study, they will never understand what is meant when we say that science does not try to prove or disprove the existence of a deity.

Of course, this is a rather lofty goal. Most times, it's hard enough just explaining to some that evolutionary theory and the big bang aren't one and the same, and, in fact, aren't even dependent on one another.

Most times, it's hard enough just explaining to some that evolutionary theory and the big bang aren't one and the same, and, in fact, aren't even dependent on one another.
Thank Buddha someone else has noticed this too! Captain Obvious needs to smack some sense into those people.

Or rather, extermination of the unfit. Sounds just like a stunt some guy pulled 60 years ago, doesn't it?
Only the mentally unfit and noone suggested extermination, just castration. :D It's like friendly genocide.

so in the beginning there was just an empty earth, right? then came a lightning, or whatever, and created some dna fragments. they evolved into bacteria, amfibians, reptiles, insects, mamals and birds. makes perfect sense :D . after that, some bizzare animal, now extinct, not even closely as intelligent as the apes, began to evolve and there came men and chimps, close cousins. after that, making a giant leap from the condition of an ant-eater and tree climber, man started to write down "i think, therefore i am", which is, of course, the perfectly logical next step from the condition of a mindless animal. and now man is trying to colonize mars. and all that from a lightning and some imaginary primordial soup. that is, indeed, a perfectly rational explanation :D compared to the one that claims that there is a higher force that built it all. we forgot to mention that a system with a certain degree of complexity cannot create or evolve into something with a higher degree of complexity, so it would actually be impossible for a bacteria to evolve into an ape, or an ape to create an mp3 player.

Evolution is a fact no it isint infact you cant prove it exist unless you see it in action which none of us can claim you atheist yet again prove your arrogance even towards things you belive

Evolution is a fact no it isint infact you cant prove it exist unless you see it in action which none of us can claim you atheist yet again prove your arrogance even towards things you belive

Could you please stat using puctuation in your posts - it is very hard to work out exactly what you are saying.

But, if what you are saying is that you can't prove evolution until you see it in action, then it stands proved. We do see evolution in action, in the lab and under controlled conditions.

so you see evolution in action in labs? like new speecies being created from others? wow, that's amazing, but you should know one thing: drugs are bad for you, man :D.

the only thing you can actually SEE are genetic mutations or genetic manipulations. i never heard of a single fact where a completely new species was develope from an old one.

so you see evolution in action in labs? like new speecies being created from others? wow, that's amazing, but you should know one thing: drugs are bad for you, man :D.

Idiot!

the only thing you can actually SEE are genetic mutations or genetic manipulations. i never heard of a single fact where a completely new species was develope from an old one.

What the firking hell do you think evolution is then? Species don't spring fully formed in the blink of an eye, that requires belief in these mythical gods some idiots believe in. The evolution of one species into another takes hundreds of generations. But we can see evolution at work in short-lived organisms like microbes and even in some higher lifeforms.

Find out the facts before you post, then you will not look stupid.

HE has a point evolution of a different species would take at least a thousand years or so. In a lab you would only see mutations but not a change of species (e.g. cannot reproduce to create fertile offspring). Although if you did have some lab rats and a couple of thousands years to spare I can't see why not..

HE has a point evolution of a different species would take at least a thousand years or so. In a lab you would only see mutations but not a change of species (e.g. cannot reproduce to create fertile offspring). Although if you did have some lab rats and a couple of thousands years to spare I can't see why not..

Microevolution, in a species or subspecies, can take place over a relatively short time, anywhere from 15 to 50 years.

We can use this as a comparison to larger scale changes (Macroevolution) over larder periods of time. In the same way that we can examine changes in a sub-culture to take the view of a culture over time. Often the changes are similar, if not identical.

HE has a point evolution of a different species would take at least a thousand years or so. In a lab you would only see mutations but not a change of species (e.g. cannot reproduce to create fertile offspring). Although if you did have some lab rats and a couple of thousands years to spare I can't see why not..

A different species comes about after a passage of time following a mutation (or two). Two lines of descent diverge for long enough and you get two species.

As for the reproduction side. Do we consider the Chihuahua and the Pyrenean Mountain Dog to be two different species? Or how about the lion and the tiger?