NationStates Jolt Archive


Intolerance of Southern Christians (all christians really)

Undbagarten
21-02-2007, 18:25
Yesterday, in biology 101 (I have failed like 3 times already) our professor was talking about the Theory of Evolution. ( if you don't know what is.. shame on you; but here is help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) anyway, he was talking about it and several Tennessean bible thumpers started raising hell about how the theory of evolution is heresy and the work of the devil; that humans were created from gods image... and that (according to them) humans are the same as they were 6000 years (6000 being the reletive age of the world-acording to them-) I told them I believed in the theory of evolution and they called me atheist. bastards!

I wanted to punch them, I don't mind people having real faith in their religion.. I really don't, but I believe that you shouldn't take science and throw religion into the middle of it.. it just doesn't work.

What do you think, should I have punched them for being stupid and intolerant to other peoples beliefs. What would you have done?
Anti-Social Darwinism
21-02-2007, 18:31
So they're idiots. Doesn't mean you have to be an idiot, too.
Vetalia
21-02-2007, 18:32
What do you think, should I have punched them for being stupid and intolerant to other peoples beliefs

So...you would respond to them by being even more stupid and intolerant? That makes perfect sense. I mean, clearly violence is the justified response to someone you disagree with. As annoying as they are, they deserve far more criticism for interrupting a class than they do for believing in creationism, as ridiculous as it might be. Being rude is being rude no matter what.

Btw, three people do not speak for all Christians.
Undbagarten
21-02-2007, 18:34
So...you would respond to them by being even more stupid and intolerant? That makes perfect sense. I mean, clearly violence is the justified response to someone you disagree with. As annoying as they are, they deserve far more criticism for interrupting a class than they do for believing in creationism, as ridiculous as it might be. Being rude is being rude no matter what.

Btw, three people do not speak for all Christians.

It is just what I felt like doing, they wouldn't listen to reasoning, and when I say all christians I am coming from my own perspective. Every Christian I have talked to has denied full heartedly the validity of evolution. We would not have been here if we had not evolved. Plain and simple. Christians just need to drop the standpoint that they are always right and that their book is always correct.
Farnhamia
21-02-2007, 18:35
What they were doing would earn them a quick deletion from NSG. It's called trolling. Sadly, you fell for it, though I grant you it's easy to get sucked in when people pull that kind of crap. Punching them might have made you feel better ultimately but they'd have won, because they'd have been able to say, "See? All those atheistic evolutionsts can do is resort to violence!" And you'd have to deal with an assault charge. I'd have ignored them, or laughed at them.
Undbagarten
21-02-2007, 18:35
Acting stupid in response for others acting stupid never ends well. Although momentarily it can be quite satisfying.

true.
The Brevious
21-02-2007, 18:35
What would you have done?

I would have tested their reading/comprehension skills, and after that, i would have tasked them to show explicitly where the bible sets a priority that specifically disavows evolution as the natural mechanism for god's creation of things.
And then i'm sure things would go well from there.
Ashmoria
21-02-2007, 18:35
you were in an introductory college class on biology and the professor was lecturing on evolution when students stood up and disrupted the class to protest?

i dont know what i would have done but i sure would have been pissed at the waste of my class time.
Peepelonia
21-02-2007, 18:35
Yeah I'm all for it!

Ohhh heh ohh this is not a what do you think about being intolerant to Christians thread then?

Meh treat people how they treat you, call them Christian scum! Or cry intolerance and complain to the school.
Snafturi
21-02-2007, 18:36
Acting stupid in response for others acting stupid never ends well. Although momentarily it can be quite satisfying.
Drunk commies deleted
21-02-2007, 18:36
Not all Christians are ignorant, deluded, or dishonest enough to deny that evolution has happened.
Undbagarten
21-02-2007, 18:36
What they were doing would earn them a quick deletion from NSG. It's called trolling. Sadly, you fell for it, though I grant you it's easy to get sucked in when people pull that kind of crap. Punching them might have made you feel better ultimately but they'd have won, because they'd have been able to say, "See? All those atheistic evolutionsts can do is resort to violence!" And you'd have to deal with an assault charge. I'd have ignored them, or laughed at them.

It pisses me off though that they can not stand to hear anything that they don't believe in. It's bullshit, you don't have to believe it, but don't condem others for believing it.
Undbagarten
21-02-2007, 18:37
Not all Christians are ignorant, deluded, or dishonest enough to deny that evolution has happened.

All of them south of kentucky appear to be though, especially in Tennessee.
Vetalia
21-02-2007, 18:40
It is just what I felt like doing, they wouldn't listen to reasoning, and when I say all christians I am coming from my own perspective. Every Christian I have talked to has denied full heartedly the validity of evolution. We would not have been here if we had not evolved. Plain and simple. Christians just need to drop the standpoint that they are always right and that their book is always correct.

Well, of course they're not going to listen to reasoning. Arguing with creationists gives them the kind of legitimacy they don't deserve.

Even so, it's a Biology 101 class; honestly, these guys aren't going to be involved in science to any degree, so might as well leave them alone and get them out of they way than try and fight a battle you can't win. It's not worth getting worked up about, since they're a minority at the very least.

And anyways, how many students in that class were Christian? I'd say a good 70-80% or more; so, that leaves three students causing trouble while the rest of them either accept evolution or don't care. That sort of disrupts the idea that all Christians don't accept evolution.
Farnhamia
21-02-2007, 18:43
It pisses me off though that they can not stand to hear anything that they don't believe in. It's bullshit, you don't have to believe it, but don't condem others for believing it.

Yes, I know. It sucks, but you descending to their level means they've won. Again, laughter helps a great deal in such situations. I like the line, "I like you, you're silly." And then ask the professor if the class could get back on topic.
Drunk commies deleted
21-02-2007, 18:43
All of them south of kentucky appear to be though, especially in Tennessee.

Well that's your problem right there.
Undbagarten
21-02-2007, 18:44
Well, of course they're not going to listen to reasoning. Arguing with creationists gives them the kind of legitimacy they don't deserve.

Even so, it's a Biology 101 class; honestly, these guys aren't going to be involved in science to any degree, so might as well leave them alone and get them out of they way than try and fight a battle you can't win. It's not worth getting worked up about, since they're a minority at the very least.

And anyways, how many students in that class were Christian? I'd say a good 70-80% or more; so, that leaves three students causing trouble while the rest of them either accept evolution or don't care. That sort of disrupts the idea that all Christians don't accept evolution.

Its just the fact that they accused me of being and atheist, they called the professor and atheist, and they called what you supect to be 70-80% of the class atheists for not standing up and refusing to listen to this heresyas they called it. I really don't like getting envolved in debates with die hard christians who believe everyword in the bible and hate the word evolution, because you can't win, you cant win because they won't listen.
Deus Malum
21-02-2007, 18:45
I'm curious as to what a bunch of young earth creationists were doing in Bio 101. Surely they must have known going in there that evolution would be a common topic and that it would be held to be fact.

Were they merely their to be trolls? Or were that closeted that they weren't aware of the basic tenets of Biology?
Undbagarten
21-02-2007, 18:46
I'm curious as to what a bunch of young earth creationists were doing in Bio 101. Surely they must have known going in there that evolution would be a common topic and that it would be held to be fact.

Were they merely their to be trolls? Or were that closeted that they weren't aware of the basic tenets of Biology?

They most likely weren't aware that evolution would be mentioned. They thought the professor was a good ol' country christian.
Soluis
21-02-2007, 18:46
Sadly, this kind of anti-intellectualism is by no means limited to Christians. But it is extremely irritating when evidence is dismissed in favour of ad hominem attacks. Grrrrr.
Were they merely their to be trolls? Uh… you get trolls on the net, not in classrooms. ;)
Undbagarten
21-02-2007, 18:47
Well that's your problem right there.


The northerners accept modern scientific fact do they, maybe I should move.
The Brevious
21-02-2007, 18:47
Well that's your problem right there.

QFT.
Cybach
21-02-2007, 18:47
It is just what I felt like doing, they wouldn't listen to reasoning, and when I say all christians I am coming from my own perspective. Every Christian I have talked to has denied full heartedly the validity of evolution. We would not have been here if we had not evolved. Plain and simple. Christians just need to drop the standpoint that they are always right and that their book is always correct.

Then move away from the ultra Protestant doom zone area. Move to Boston or so and meet some Roman Catholics, they are much more enlightened about evolution on whole trust me. Especially seeing the Pope said that Evolution does not contradict the teachings of the Church.
Soluis
21-02-2007, 18:48
Well, they're just assholes...there's no changing that.

I have no doubt the rest of the class loathes them just as much as you do, and chances are with that kind of attitude they're not going to get very far to begin with. Hell, I'm seriously wondering how they would even pass the class. There are many university courses founded firmly in wishful thinking and fuzzy logic. Something for everyone.
Bolol
21-02-2007, 18:49
I...wait no...Well...not so much...

So the Stokes Monkey Case in the 1920s condemns all Southern Christians...and by association all other Christians are condemned as well...including such Christians like...Leonardo Da Vinci?

And you want to punch them...
Farnhamia
21-02-2007, 18:49
I'm curious as to what a bunch of young earth creationists were doing in Bio 101. Surely they must have known going in there that evolution would be a common topic and that it would be held to be fact.

Were they merely their to be trolls? Or were that closeted that they weren't aware of the basic tenets of Biology?
Could be a requirement in some course of study. Even in Tennessee they probably don't waive the Bio 101 requirement if you're a Young Erth Creationist. Not yet.

Sadly, this kind of anti-intellectualism is by no means limited to Christians. But it is extremely irritating when evidence is dismissed in favour of ad hominem attacks. Grrrrr.
Uh… you get trolls on the net, not in classrooms. ;)
Oh, trust me, there are trolls everywhere in real life. Ever been to a professional sporting event? Or to a campaign speech? And have you looked under that bridge on the outskirts of town, down by the deserted railroad crossing? Hmm? :p
Vetalia
21-02-2007, 18:49
Its just the fact that they accused me of being and atheist, they called the professor and atheist, and they called what you supect to be 70-80% of the class atheists for not standing up and refusing to listen to this heresyas they called it. I really don't like getting envolved in debates with die hard christians who believe everyword in the bible and hate the word evolution, because you can't win, you cant win because they won't listen.

Well, they're just assholes...there's no changing that.

I have no doubt the rest of the class loathes them just as much as you do, and chances are with that kind of attitude they're not going to get very far to begin with. Hell, I'm seriously wondering how they would even pass the class.
Undbagarten
21-02-2007, 18:49
I...wait no...Well...not so much...

So the Stokes Monkey Case in the 1920s condemns all Southern Christians...and by association all other Christians are condemned as well...including such Christians like...Leonardo Da Vinci?

And you want to punch them...

I didn't mean it like that, and yes at that particular moment in time, with those particular people in the classroom, after arguing with them for nearly twenty minutes, I wanted to punch their faces in for continuing to quote gennesis, it was annoying as hell.
Drunk commies deleted
21-02-2007, 18:50
The northerners accept modern scientific fact do they, maybe I should move.

Not all of us, but enough where incidents like you described are extremely rare.
Undbagarten
21-02-2007, 18:51
Well, they're just assholes...there's no changing that.

I have no doubt the rest of the class loathes them just as much as you do, and chances are with that kind of attitude they're not going to get very far to begin with. Hell, I'm seriously wondering how they would even pass the class.

I didn't see them in class today so they must have dropped it. I think some of the students in my class secretly agree with them though, but as you said, the christians in the class probably didn't take to well to being called atheists.
Undbagarten
21-02-2007, 18:52
Not all of us, but enough where incidents like you described are extremely rare.

Yes, I will definatly have to move, at least the people up north listen to reasoning. As I said if you disagree, fine, but at least listen to my side of the argument.
Polytricks
21-02-2007, 18:55
What do you think, should I have punched them for being stupid and intolerant to other peoples beliefs. What would you have done?

Well, Jesus would have turned the other cheek.


Not saying that's what your Xian pals would have done, seeing how modern Christianity really doesn't resemble much of the teachings of Christ, but that's certainly what Jesus would do.
The Treacle Mine Road
21-02-2007, 18:56
I have to disagree with anyone who calls a believer in evolutionary theory an Atheist. I accept the theory of evolution as almost undeniable fact and yet definately a Christian.
Undbagarten
21-02-2007, 18:56
Well, Jesus would have turned the other cheek.


Not saying that's what your Xian pals would have done, seeing how modern Christianity really doesn't resemble much of the teachings of Christ, but that's certainly what Jesus would do.

quite true. But then again he wasn't called atheist, I really don't think he would have liked that, seeing as he is the son of god.
Bolol
21-02-2007, 18:57
Yes, I will definatly have to move, at least the people up north listen to reasoning. As I said if you disagree, fine, but at least listen to my side of the argument.

Wanna bet? I've got people in my town who laugh at the phrase "flame retardant" because it has the word "retard" in it.

Just face it: you find reasonable, and on the other end of the spectrum, closed-minded people everywhere you go.
Undbagarten
21-02-2007, 18:58
Wanna bet? I've got people in my town who laugh at the phrase "flame retardant" because it has the word "retard" in it.

Just face it: you find reasonable, and on the other end of the spectrum, closed-minded people everywhere you go.

Close-minded people....ugh, they make me queasy with their ignorance. I bet you have snickered a time or two at the phrase "flame retardant" come on , you have haven't you?
Vetalia
21-02-2007, 18:59
I didn't see them in class today so they must have dropped it. I think some of the students in my class secretly agree with them though, but as you said, the christians in the class probably didn't take to well to being called atheists.

Well, yeah; that's just plain insulting and mean (although technically "atheist" shouldn't be an insult, it is to someone who is genuinely religious...it's an attack on their faith), and quite un-Christian if you ask me. Being a jerk is being a jerk no matter how much you've deluded yourself in to thinking you're doing the right thing.

Personally, it sounds more like they were there with the express purpose of disrupting the class; that's pretty horrible considering we pay for college, and they're effectively stealing the money paid towards your education to advance their wrong and ignorant position.
Undbagarten
21-02-2007, 18:59
Well, yeah; that's just plain insulting and mean (although technically "atheist" shouldn't be an insult, it is to someone who is genuinely religious...it's an attack on their faith), and quite un-Christian if you ask me. Being a jerk is being a jerk no matter how much you've deluded yourself in to thinking you're doing the right thing.

Personally, it sounds more like they were there with the express purpose of disrupting the class; that's pretty horrible considering we pay for college, and they're effectively stealing the money paid towards your education to advance their wrong and ignorant position.

I should sue their asses.
Vetalia
21-02-2007, 19:02
Not saying that's what your Xian pals would have done, seeing how modern Christianity really doesn't resemble much of the teachings of Christ, but that's certainly what Jesus would do.

Seeing as how the majority of the class did nothing, I'd say they actually turned the other cheek rather well. That was a very responsible thing to do.
Vetalia
21-02-2007, 19:03
I should sue their asses.

I doubt you could do that, although in principle I wouldn't mind it. Make them pay for what they did.
Drunk commies deleted
21-02-2007, 19:03
I should sue their asses.

Why does everyone want to sue? Can't people just settle their differences like civilized people? Key their cars, knock their heads in with a baseball bat, piss in their drinks, do something quick and easy that doesn't waste the time of judges and juries.
Farnhamia
21-02-2007, 19:04
Why does everyone want to sue? Can't people just settle their differences like civilized people? Key their cars, knock their heads in with a baseball bat, piss in their drinks, do something quick and easy that doesn't waste the time of judges and juries.

A duel! "Pistols at dawn, sir, is the only way this stain upon my family's escutcheon can be erased!"
Infinite Revolution
21-02-2007, 19:05
i'd probably just laugh at them derisively. at my old school that kind of person would have been suspended or given saturday detention pretty quickly for needlessly disrupting class and lying anyway. and they'd also probably have been beaten the minute the teacher was out of sight.
Arthais101
21-02-2007, 19:06
It pisses me off though that they can not stand to hear anything that they don't believe in.

I told them I believed in the theory of evolution and they called me atheist. bastards!

I wanted to punch them

You mean...kinda like you?
Arthais101
21-02-2007, 19:07
I should sue their asses.

for...what, exactly?

I see your understanding of civics is about as advancedas your understanding of biology.
Bolol
21-02-2007, 19:08
Close-minded people....ugh, they make me queasy with their ignorance. I bet you have snickered a time or two at the phrase "flame retardant" come on , you have haven't you?

Maybe...when I was FIVE. I'm talking about 20 year olds here.

Let me ask you...Wouldn't it be healthier if whenever you encountered a "closed-minded" person, you just turned away? You could avoid the whole blood-pressure and associated nausea problem.
Arthais101
21-02-2007, 19:10
I doubt you could do that, although in principle I wouldn't mind it. Make them pay for what they did.

what they did? What was that? Piss him off?

Being a dick is not an actionable offense.
Drunk commies deleted
21-02-2007, 19:10
A duel! "Pistols at dawn, sir, is the only way this stain upon my family's escutcheon can be erased!"

Why did we ever outlaw dueling? It usually settled matters to the satisfaction of both parties and it didn't require lengthy court procedures.
Farnhamia
21-02-2007, 19:13
Why did we ever outlaw dueling? It usually settled matters to the satisfaction of both parties and it didn't require lengthy court procedures.

Exactly. By now we could have professional seconds that you would hire, and they'd ensure that all the rules were followed. We could even use rubber bullets, from what I hear, when you're hit by one of those you might not die but you sure want to, and you'd apologize for stuff your grandparents did before you were born.
Drunk commies deleted
21-02-2007, 19:13
It would solve that nasty overpopulation problem.

Yeah, plus free entertainment. On the weekends you can visit your local park and watch people shoot each other or fight to the death with swords.
Bolol
21-02-2007, 19:14
Why did we ever outlaw dueling? It usually settled matters to the satisfaction of both parties and it didn't require lengthy court procedures.

It would solve that nasty overpopulation problem.
Gift-of-god
21-02-2007, 19:28
It would solve that nasty overpopulation problem.

And to tie it back to the OP, it would be a stunning example of how natural selection removes the slow and inaccurate from the gene pool. Evolution in action!
The Jade Star
21-02-2007, 19:30
I'll say it again:

ITT:
Ignorance and hate
Dunkelien
21-02-2007, 19:34
It is just what I felt like doing, they wouldn't listen to reasoning, and when I say all christians I am coming from my own perspective. Every Christian I have talked to has denied full heartedly the validity of evolution. We would not have been here if we had not evolved. Plain and simple. Christians just need to drop the standpoint that they are always right and that their book is always correct.

Those Christians are the stupid Christians that the vast majority of Christians dislike because they make them look bad because foolish people assume that Christians as a whole are dumb enough that these people are representative of them. If you are in America then the majority of people around you are probably Christians. I noticed that you didn't say that 80% of the class denied Evolution, only 3 or 4 of them.
HotRodia
21-02-2007, 22:43
It is just what I felt like doing, they wouldn't listen to reasoning, and when I say all christians I am coming from my own perspective. Every Christian I have talked to has denied full heartedly the validity of evolution.

Then you've just met one who doesn't. Oh happy day. And for a bonus, I'm a Christian raised in the South, and I know plenty of other Christians who believe in evolution.

We would not have been here if we had not evolved. Plain and simple. Christians just need to drop the standpoint that they are always right and that their book is always correct.

I suspect they'll drop it about the same time many of their opponents on evolution drop the standpoint that scientific methodology and documentation are the only things worth having.
Smunkeeville
21-02-2007, 22:48
Yesterday, in biology 101 (I have failed like 3 times already) our professor was talking about the Theory of Evolution. ( if you don't know what is.. shame on you; but here is help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) anyway, he was talking about it and several Tennessean bible thumpers started raising hell about how the theory of evolution is heresy and the work of the devil; that humans were created from gods image... and that (according to them) humans are the same as they were 6000 years (6000 being the reletive age of the world-acording to them-) I told them I believed in the theory of evolution and they called me atheist. bastards!

I wanted to punch them, I don't mind people having real faith in their religion.. I really don't, but I believe that you shouldn't take science and throw religion into the middle of it.. it just doesn't work.

What do you think, should I have punched them for being stupid and intolerant to other peoples beliefs. What would you have done?
I probably would have spent more time focusing on my own studies.
Vetalia
21-02-2007, 22:52
what they did? What was that? Piss him off?

Being a dick is not an actionable offense.

You pay for college classes, and every minute of every class is paid for by your tuition. That means every minute of class that is disrupted comes out of the students' or parents' pockets and is pretty much no more than theft of their tuition money.

I go to college to get the education I pay for, not to have it disrupted by someone who refuses to follow the rules. That's my money going down the drain because of their stupidity.
HotRodia
21-02-2007, 22:53
You should have punched them and laughed because i agree with undbagarten u can't throw religion in the middle of science and it make any sense! Plus i know undbagarten and i think he is and atheist bastard....lol


And he is a big fat bitch! lol

:upyours: southern christians

Trolling Southern Christians is just as much against the rules as doing it to atheists. So let's not do it to either.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia
Prodigal Penguins
21-02-2007, 22:54
You should have punched them and laughed because i agree with undbagarten u can't throw religion in the middle of science and it make any sense! Plus i know undbagarten and i think he is and atheist bastard....lol


And he is a big fat bitch! lol

:upyours: southern christians

Right. And that makes any sense whatsoever.

What was this about ignorance and bigotry?
Cabra West
21-02-2007, 22:55
Why the hell would somebody be this offended for being called an atheist? :confused:
German Nightmare
21-02-2007, 22:56
Laugh at them. Laugh at them hard, loudly, and for a prolonged time.

There's nothing else you can or should do.
Vetalia
21-02-2007, 22:57
Why the hell would somebody be this offended for being called an atheist? :confused:

Well, if you believe in God it's an outright attack on your faith. I'd be rather irritated if someone called me an atheist because I'm not.
Farnhamia
21-02-2007, 22:59
Laugh at them. Laugh at them hard, loudly, and for a prolonged time.

There's nothing else you can or should do.

QFT :D
Machiavellian Heaven
21-02-2007, 23:00
Sounded like to me you should have whaled on them for bashing Tennesseeans. To all NS posters: We of Tennessee are NOT all bigoted rednecks! I'll concede that we have our fair share of em ( a lot where I live to be truthful) but it is at bottom a rural-urban thing as opposed to Northern-Southern. People are rural areas tend to be more traditional( read: conservative) than their urban brothers and sisters no matter WHERE you go.

One more thing:

With regards to them bashing evolution, it sounds like they were being very ignorant. On the other hand, if there were any fundamentalists in the room who took offense, I tell you ( and this is based off of my own experience, which I'd submit is fairly broad) that they might not have listened to a rational argument any more than a straight-up castigation of their belief system.
Cabra West
21-02-2007, 23:00
Well, if you believe in God it's an outright attack on your faith. I'd be rather irritated if someone called me an atheist because I'm not.

If somebody obviously had no clue what they're talking about in the first place?
That would be the equivalent of somebody calling me French or American....
Machiavellian Heaven
21-02-2007, 23:03
To Wiggly God: Not all Southern Christians are bigots either. Honestly, dude, come on.
Deus Malum
21-02-2007, 23:09
If somebody obviously had no clue what they're talking about in the first place?
That would be the equivalent of somebody calling me French or American....

I generally just laugh that sort of thing off. I actually was asked once if I was French in a class. I'm Indian, with fairly dark skin, so I just laughed. Then I realized he was serious.
Cabra West
21-02-2007, 23:10
I generally just laugh that sort of thing off. I actually was asked once if I was French in a class. I'm Indian, with fairly dark skin, so I just laughed. Then I realized he was serious.

That would have made me laugh even harder :D
Deus Malum
21-02-2007, 23:15
That would have made me laugh even harder :D

I was just too busy being shocked. I found out later he thought I might be from France from Algerian parents, and based that largely on the fact that I tend to enunciate. There still was about a minute there were I was just sitting there going :eek:
Arthais101
21-02-2007, 23:21
You pay for college classes, and every minute of every class is paid for by your tuition. That means every minute of class that is disrupted comes out of the students' or parents' pockets and is pretty much no more than theft of their tuition money.

I go to college to get the education I pay for, not to have it disrupted by someone who refuses to follow the rules. That's my money going down the drain because of their stupidity.

unfortunatly that's not exactly how it works.
Yootopia
21-02-2007, 23:23
I told them I believed in the theory of evolution and they called me atheist. bastards!

Urmm... quite what is so offensive about being called an atheist?

Classic example of prejudice right there - maybe I should punch you in the face or some other crappy way to solve my problems, eh?
Polytricks
22-02-2007, 00:03
quite true. But then again (Jesus) wasn't called atheist, I really don't think he would have liked that, seeing as he is the son of god.

Actually, he was called quite worse than that, and underwent much worse than name-calling, and still turned the other cheek. You might consider doing a little reading on the subject.

I hear there's a whole book about it. Fairly widely circulated, too.




FWIW, the best way to rebut ignorant Christians is to learn the Bible.
New Mitanni
22-02-2007, 00:42
It is just what I felt like doing, they wouldn't listen to reasoning, and when I say all christians I am coming from my own perspective. Every Christian I have talked to has denied full heartedly the validity of evolution. We would not have been here if we had not evolved. Plain and simple. Christians just need to drop the standpoint that they are always right and that their book is always correct.

Obviously you haven't talked to enough Christians.

It might surprise you, for example, that the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano (January 17, 2006 edition) published an article that characterized Darwin's theory of evolution as "the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth," and declared that Intelligent Design "doesn't belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin's explanation is unjustified."

The original story is archived at the L'Osservatore Romano website and can be back-ordered, but the story was widely reported. See, e.g.,
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600273.htm
(NB: there are some differences in the Italian translation in this reference from my quote.)

And if you reply that "Catholics aren't Christians," I will personally call down enough lightning bolts to fry your computer ;)

BTW: I'm waiting for all those valiant and intrepid advocates of religious freedom (and you know who you are) to leap to the defense of Christianity when "Christians" are the subject of blanket accusations, just as you do whenever someone looks cross-eyed at a Moslem.
Zarakon
22-02-2007, 00:45
Why the hell would somebody be this offended for being called an atheist? :confused:

You know eventually people we catch on and start using stuff like straight, christian, and virgin as insults.

Well, that last one is probably used in some places.
Vetalia
22-02-2007, 00:48
unfortunatly that's not exactly how it works.

It's close enough for the point I'm making. ;)
Ohshucksiforgotourname
22-02-2007, 00:55
Yesterday, in biology 101 (I have failed like 3 times already) our professor was talking about the Theory of Evolution. ( if you don't know what is.. shame on you; but here is help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) anyway, he was talking about it and several Tennessean bible thumpers started raising hell about how the theory of evolution is heresy and the work of the devil; that humans were created from gods image... and that (according to them) humans are the same as they were 6000 years (6000 being the reletive age of the world-acording to them-) I told them I believed in the theory of evolution and they called me atheist. bastards!

I wanted to punch them, I don't mind people having real faith in their religion.. I really don't, but I believe that you shouldn't take science and throw religion into the middle of it.. it just doesn't work.

What do you think, should I have punched them for being stupid and intolerant to other peoples beliefs. What would you have done?

The THEORY of Evolution (and it IS just a theory) is nothing more than a fairy-tale for grown-ups, invented in an attempt to get out of having to deal with a God who holds people personally accountable for their actions, because they don't want to stand before Him and give account of themselves.

And as for your question, "What would I have done?", I would have stood up and shouted "Amen!" Not to calling you atheist (because that was rude), but to contradicting the THEORY of Evolution, because I don't believe in it either.
Similization
22-02-2007, 01:08
You know eventually people we catch on and start using stuff like straight, christian, and virgin as insults.

Well, that last one is probably used in some places.Aren't they all?
PootWaddle
22-02-2007, 01:14
Doesn't this entire post come off as a troll post?

Yesterday, in biology 101 (I have failed like 3 times already) our professor was talking about the Theory of Evolution. ( if you don't know what is.. shame on you; but here is help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) anyway, he was talking about it and several Tennessean bible thumpers started raising hell about how the theory of evolution is heresy and the work of the devil; that humans were created from gods image... and that (according to them) humans are the same as they were 6000 years (6000 being the reletive age of the world-acording to them-) I told them I believed in the theory of evolution and they called me atheist. bastards!

I wanted to punch them, I don't mind people having real faith in their religion.. I really don't, but I believe that you shouldn't take science and throw religion into the middle of it.. it just doesn't work.

What do you think, should I have punched them for being stupid and intolerant to other peoples beliefs. What would you have done?

1. Who can fail Biology 101 3 times and be an adamant supporter of it?
2. Who can have 350+ posts here in the last couple of months and still think they might have to explain what evolution is?
3. Saying Bible thumpers were raising hell... It sounds like a slogan looking for a place to be said.
4. Why would they be in the class in the first place, and why did it take a student to confront them? Suspicious sounding to me.
5. Should I punch them for being intolerant of other people's beliefs? Pure irony, too much to be a coincidence if you ask me...
Rejistania
22-02-2007, 01:17
I would ask them three questions: "Are you joking?", "Come on, are you really being serious here?" and "Do you use Windows on your computer?" then laugh unless they use Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris, Minix, FreeDos, the HURD, SkyOS or OS/2.
Deus Malum
22-02-2007, 01:44
You know eventually people we catch on and start using stuff like straight, christian, and virgin as insults.

Well, that last one is probably used in some places.

Been used on me a few times...:(

The THEORY of Evolution (and it IS just a theory) is nothing more than a fairy-tale for grown-ups, invented in an attempt to get out of having to deal with a God who holds people personally accountable for their actions, because they don't want to stand before Him and give account of themselves.

And as for your question, "What would I have done?", I would have stood up and shouted "Amen!" Not to calling you atheist (because that was rude), but to contradicting the THEORY of Evolution, because I don't believe in it either.

What, in your opinion, constitutes JUST a theory? Are you referring to a generalized theory? Or perhaps a scientific theory, one based on scientific method? There happens to be a huge difference between the two, and I suggest you do some reading on it.

And if you are a Protestant, from what I've seen your god doesn't hold people personally accountable for their actions. That's the entire point of "giving yourself over to the will of god." You can roughly translate that to "doing bad things, repenting, and not having to worry about it, anymore." Evidenced by the fact that, apparently, a vicious, murdering serial killer can repent in your religion and still be perfectly fine and dandy as long as his conversion is genuine.

There is no accountability there. The only case to be made for that is Catholicism, where from what I've seen your faith AND your deeds matter in getting you into heaven.
The Kaza-Matadorians
22-02-2007, 02:05
Gravity's just a theory, too...

That said, the OP shouldn't have taken it so personally. Neither side of the debate (evolution and creationism) can be proven, so either must be accepted on faith alone.

We could sit here and argue all the old arguments again, but let's not. Let's just say that the OP should have just ignored them as much as possible and continued his education instead of making it a point to go out of his way to feel like punching them. Meh.
Arthais101
22-02-2007, 02:07
Gravity's just a theory, too...

That said, the OP shouldn't have taken it so personally. Neither side of the debate (evolution and creationism) can be proven, so either must be accepted on faith alone.

Bullshit. Evolution has a mountain of data and observaton backing it.

Creationism has....a book. And overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The Kaza-Matadorians
22-02-2007, 02:16
And if you are a Protestant, from what I've seen your god doesn't hold people personally accountable for their actions. That's the entire point of "giving yourself over to the will of god." You can roughly translate that to "doing bad things, repenting, and not having to worry about it, anymore." Evidenced by the fact that, apparently, a vicious, murdering serial killer can repent in your religion and still be perfectly fine and dandy as long as his conversion is genuine.

There is no accountability there. The only case to be made for that is Catholicism, where from what I've seen your faith AND your deeds matter in getting you into heaven.

Of course there is, just not in the way you're thinking. Alright, so Jesus dies and he's carrying the sins of the world and dies on the cross then rises again after 3 days, right (we've all heard the story, surely)? Right, so he dies so we don't have to. None of us are capable of entering Heaven on our own merits because we're all sinners, so we have to make things right with God. Here's a good analogy, let's say God lends you a truck to drive around, and while driving around, you total the truck. Since God's all-forgiving, he forgives you for destroying his truck, but someone's got to pay the bill, but you don't have a job or any kind of money whatsoever. Guess who has to pick up the tab? Ya, God. So he does. And all he asks in return is that you truly believe that he paid the tab (saved you from your sins) you were supposed to pick up and try to live a life without recking any trucks (trying with all your heart to not sin again). Are we clear?

Sorry about furthering the off-topic shoot. Let's get back on topic.
Socialist Pyrates
22-02-2007, 02:16
Gravity's just a theory, too...

That said, the OP shouldn't have taken it so personally. Neither side of the debate (evolution and creationism) can be proven, so either must be accepted on faith alone.

We could sit here and argue all the old arguments again, but let's not. Let's just say that the OP should have just ignored them as much as possible and continued his education instead of making it a point to go out of his way to feel like punching them. Meh.

evolution-theorized, observed and proven

creationism-last gasp of desperate theists trying to justify their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary...
Arthais101
22-02-2007, 02:19
Of course there is, just not in the way you're thinking. Alright, so Jesus dies and he's carrying the sins of the world and dies on the cross then rises again after 3 days, right (we've all heard the story, surely)? Right, so he dies so we don't have to. None of us are capable of entering Heaven on our own merits because we're all sinners, so we have to make things right with God. Here's a good analogy, let's say God lends you a truck to drive around, and while driving around, you total the truck. Since God's all-forgiving, he forgives you for destroying his truck, but someone's got to pay the bill, but you don't have a job or any kind of money whatsoever. Guess who has to pick up the tab? Ya, God. So he does. And all he asks in return is that you truly believe that he paid the tab (saved you from your sins) you were supposed to pick up and try to live a life without recking any trucks (trying with all your heart to not sin again). Are we clear?


There's one problem with your analogy. To make it fit with christian dogma it goes something more like this..

god cut the break lines on the truck before you ever rode in it. He causes the accident in the first place knowing you could never pay for it. So when you crash the truck (an accident he caused, and one he knew you'd get into when you got into the truck in the first place), and then holds it over your head about how nice he is to you because he pays for the accident he causes in the first place, and then starts asking you favors trying to trick you into being grateful because of his supposed generosity, when in fact the accident was entirely his fault to begin with.

yeah, you crashed the truck, because he sabatoged it in the first place.
Arthais101
22-02-2007, 02:21
you are very funny.. and not in a "witty i agree with you" sort of way... there are still gaps in Darwinism. i am not going to take one side or the other, but i find it VERY hypocritical of you to say that "Christians just need to drop the standpoint that they are always right"... you are doing the exact same thing, just for the other team... two sides of the same coin my friend. also, maybe you should consider speaking to more Christians if you plan on branding them all with the same label. i see where you are coming from, but i still think that your comments were ignorant.

while it i a degree of arrogance to claim that either side is ABSOLUTLY right, supporting evolution is ot nerly as illogical as supporting creationism. Two sides of the same coin my ass. Supporting evolution is a logical choice. Creationism is illogical

I will always support a logical choice over an illogical one.
Indecline
22-02-2007, 02:21
It is just what I felt like doing, they wouldn't listen to reasoning, and when I say all christians I am coming from my own perspective. Every Christian I have talked to has denied full heartedly the validity of evolution. We would not have been here if we had not evolved. Plain and simple. Christians just need to drop the standpoint that they are always right and that their book is always correct.

you are very funny.. and not in a "witty i agree with you" sort of way... there are still gaps in Darwinism. i am not going to take one side or the other, but i find it VERY hypocritical of you to say that "Christians just need to drop the standpoint that they are always right"... you are doing the exact same thing, just for the other team... two sides of the same coin my friend. also, maybe you should consider speaking to more Christians if you plan on branding them all with the same label. i see where you are coming from, but i still think that your comments were ignorant.
Deus Malum
22-02-2007, 02:22
Of course there is, just not in the way you're thinking. Alright, so Jesus dies and he's carrying the sins of the world and dies on the cross then rises again after 3 days, right (we've all heard the story, surely)? Right, so he dies so we don't have to. None of us are capable of entering Heaven on our own merits because we're all sinners, so we have to make things right with God. Here's a good analogy, let's say God lends you a truck to drive around, and while driving around, you total the truck. Since God's all-forgiving, he forgives you for destroying his truck, but someone's got to pay the bill, but you don't have a job or any kind of money whatsoever. Guess who has to pick up the tab? Ya, God. So he does. And all he asks in return is that you truly believe that he paid the tab (saved you from your sins) you were supposed to pick up and try to live a life without recking any trucks (trying with all your heart to not sin again). Are we clear?

Sorry about furthering the off-topic shoot. Let's get back on topic.

Thank you for the clarification. But wouldn't it be more to the point of personal accountability if God puts you to work on his...farm on your time off (since we're already working with analogies here) to pay off the bill? Rather than just forgiving the debt entirely on the stipulation that you be grateful for him having done so, you consign yourself to pay the debt. It just seems to me (I guess this is largely because I'm not Christian myself, nor have I ever been) to be somewhat of a strange way of doing things.
Indecline
22-02-2007, 02:24
I would ask them three questions: "Are you joking?", "Come on, are you really being serious here?" and "Do you use Windows on your computer?" then laugh unless they use Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris, Minix, FreeDos, the HURD, SkyOS or OS/2.

oh... my.... God...
The Kaza-Matadorians
22-02-2007, 02:28
Bullshit. Evolution has a mountain of data and observaton backing it.

Creationism has....a book. And overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Fine. I wanted to avoid one of these arguments because they always end up as petty disputes with nobody getting anywhere, but apparently you want this (as well as SP) so let's go and get this over with...

Let's talk about this mountain of evidence, because alot of things used to "prove" evolution have been proven to be either a staged photo-shoot (peppered moths), outright wrong (the Miller-Urey (sp?) experiment) or outright frauds (whats-his-faces pictures of fetuses in early stages of development (humans, pigs, fish), the name escapes me). Why are there so many fakes/frauds "proving" evolution? If evolution is true, why do people need to fake things to make people believe it?

And by the way, every single one of those things mentioned above are still used in biology classes across the country as "evidence" of evolution, so don't be so quick to dismiss them.
Europa Maxima
22-02-2007, 02:30
Anti-Christian rants... NSG as usual. :)
Arthais101
22-02-2007, 02:30
Fine. I wanted to avoid one of these arguments because they always end up as petty disputes with nobody getting anywhere, but apparently you want this (as well as SP) so let's go and get this over with...

Let's talk about this mountain of evidence, because alot of things used to "prove" evolution have been proven to be either a staged photo-shoot (peppered moths), outright wrong (the Miller-Urey (sp?) experiment) or outright frauds (whats-his-faces pictures of fetuses in early stages of development (humans, pigs, fish), the name escapes me). Why are there so many fakes/frauds "proving" evolution? If evolution is true, why do people need to fake things to make people believe it?

And by the way, every single one of those things mentioned above are still used in biology classes across the country as "evidence" of evolution, so don't be so quick to dismiss them.


I never said proof. I said evidence. Nothing proves evolution, you can't prove a theory. I can't even take you seriously in this conversation if you can't get the terminology right.

I said there was EVIDENCE for evolution. Not proof.

Now if you want EVIDENCE for evolution, I suggest you start here (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html). I can provide more when you've finished absorbing these.

Now where's your evidence?
Rejistania
22-02-2007, 02:32
Let's talk about this mountain of evidence, because alot of things used to "prove" evolution have been proven to be either a staged photo-shoot (peppered moths), outright wrong (the Miller-Urey (sp?) experiment) or outright frauds (whats-his-faces pictures of fetuses in early stages of development (humans, pigs, fish), the name escapes me). Why are there so many fakes/frauds "proving" evolution? If evolution is true, why do people need to fake things to make people believe it?

And by the way, every single one of those things mentioned above are still used in biology classes across the country as "evidence" of evolution, so don't be so quick to dismiss them.

Yes, things were doctored... so? given enough time there'd be at least as much doctored creationism 'proofs' . And no, they are not included in class. Also the embryo-pictures were intended as evidence for something completely different. Xiiiiiu!
The Kaza-Matadorians
22-02-2007, 02:40
Thank you for the clarification. But wouldn't it be more to the point of personal accountability if God puts you to work on his...farm on your time off (since we're already working with analogies here) to pay off the bill? Rather than just forgiving the debt entirely on the stipulation that you be grateful for him having done so, you consign yourself to pay the debt. It just seems to me (I guess this is largely because I'm not Christian myself, nor have I ever been) to be somewhat of a strange way of doing things.

Your welcome, but I guess my analogy was missing a key point: His Son paid the debt for you, free of charge, so you don't have a debt to pay anymore. All you have to do is let Him pay the debt and then everything's fine (this, oddly enough, is the hard part). All you need to do now is simply thank Him for paying the debt while trying not to go around totalling trucks, if you know what I mean.
Arthais101
22-02-2007, 02:43
Your welcome, but I guess my analogy was missing a key point: His Son paid the debt for you, free of charge, so you don't have a debt to pay anymore. All you have to do is let Him pay the debt and then everything's fine (this, oddly enough, is the hard part). All you need to do now is simply thank Him for paying the debt while trying not to go around totalling trucks, if you know what I mean.

I still wonder why I have to pay for an accident that he caused in the first place.
Arthais101
22-02-2007, 02:45
...how are we all gonna feel, when it turns out the creationists were right all along?

I am not overly concerned either way. Either:

1) they're wrong, and I don't have to worry about it

OR

2) they're right, that an omnipotent and all knowing god made the universe exactly the way he wanted it, in which case my skepticism of that i as a resultof god, and he made me that way and there's nothing I can do about it.
Ghost Tigers Rise
22-02-2007, 02:46
Well, of course they're not going to listen to reasoning. Arguing with creationists gives them the kind of legitimacy they don't deserve.

...how are we all gonna feel, when it turns out the creationists were right all along?
Zerania
22-02-2007, 02:48
I believe in the theory of Evolution, God's image can be ever changing. I believe God works through science and sometimes miracles.
The Kaza-Matadorians
22-02-2007, 03:05
I never said proof. I said evidence. Nothing proves evolution, you can't prove a theory. I can't even take you seriously in this conversation if you can't get the terminology right.

I said there was EVIDENCE for evolution. Not proof.

Now if you want EVIDENCE for evolution, I suggest you start here (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html). I can provide more when you've finished absorbing these.

Now where's your evidence?

Well, too bad you don't speak for biology teachers, because most of them use said evidence to "prove" evolution to their hapless students. And I know the difference. Forgive me for trying to type fast.

Here's a paragraph from your site: Again, consider the fossil horses; Hyracotherium lived during the Eocene whereas Equus lived during the Pleistocene and Recent. In intervening rocks, we find a geochronologic succession (Norell & Novacek, 1992) of horse species and genera that exhibit gradual, progressive morphologic change from four toes (digits II - V) to one toe (digit III) on the front feet (Simpson, 1951; Carroll, 1988, p. 533-536; MacFadden, 1992). First, digit V (pinkie) was reduced to a splint and disappeared resulting in horses with three functional toes. Subsequently, digits II and IV (index and ring finger, respectively; flank the middle toe/finger on each side) were reduced in size simultaneously, resulting first in non-functional toes (they did not contact the ground) and ultimately in tiny splints as in the modern horses (Simpson, 1951; Carroll, 1988, p. 533-536; MacFadden, 1992). Significant changes in size and shape of the skull and body, along with teeth morphology, also happened in parallel (Simpson, 1951; Carroll, 1988, p. 533-536; MacFadden, 1992). That is descent with modification, and provides very strong, incontrovertible evidence for evolution."
Alright, so we have horses with few toes and slightly different skeletal shapes. What we now have is something that barely earns itself a "new species" title. We do not have, say, an intelligent horse, and as far as I can tell, it can't run faster, see better, or anything associated with natural selection. Why, then, is this such a big deal? They're still horses! And this in no way "provides strong, incontrovertible evidence for evolution." Now, if these new changes had created, say, a talking horse, or one with human-like intelligence, then I'd bow out now. But as it stands...

So you want some of my evidence? Look up the Cambrian period.

Yes, things were doctored... so? given enough time there'd be at least as much doctored creationism 'proofs' . And no, they are not included in class. Also the embryo-pictures were intended as evidence for something completely different. Xiiiiiu!

What?! If something's doctored, it is false and shouldn't be used in any sort of serious debate whatsoever.

Show me this "doctored creationism proof."

Have you been in a biology class lately? I have, and those are still used as evidence of evolution, without ever mentioning that they're fake/false/doctored/etc.

I don't believe you, but even if they were used for something else, that doesn't make the fact that they're fake any better. They've been used by evolutionists for (how long now?) to help "prove" their theory.


Does anybody care if I bring in a debater friend of mine to arbitate this? He rarely agrees with me on anything, so this isn't some personal move. He'll be fair.
Socialist Pyrates
22-02-2007, 03:06
creationist evidence-a book written by some drug crazed priests over thousands of years, translated from several different languages and edited over and over and over again.....no verifiable theories just blind faith

evolution-masses of evidence but because there are gaps in the knowledge creationist point this out and claim it's in error...the truth is if the history of evolution of all species could all could be put in an encyclopedia of evolution, it would contain several hundred billion volumes and of that we only have a million volumes...creationists have one,a volume of myths...
Walther Realized
22-02-2007, 03:06
Not all Christians are ignorant, deluded, or dishonest enough to deny that evolution has happened.

qfft.
PootWaddle
22-02-2007, 03:08
I still wonder why I have to pay for an accident that he caused in the first place.

According to your analogies, i.e., that everything is God's fault, for building the car and creating the accident and none of us have any personal responsibility with our own condition, then we are simply puppets, like drawings on paper, or we are like wet clay being molded, whatever we become our final result is entirely beyond our control...

IF that is so, then just like a drawing that I mess up, I'm free to throw it away without apology to my drawing, I'm free to throw the clay sculpture that doesn't turn out to my specifications into the trash bin and begin work on my next project, without concern nor care about the wasted clay.

If God is entirely responsible for everything, than it's entirely up to God to choose which works of art he will keep and which ones will be thrown away...

IMO, your analogy goes too far. We are not just puppets, we DO help discern our own existence, we make choices, and if those choices we make serve God's purposes then God is more pleased with his artwork.
Arthais101
22-02-2007, 03:12
Here's a paragraph from your site:
Alright, so we have horses with few toes and slightly different skeletal shapes. What we now have is something that barely earns itself a "new species" title.

What is that supposed to mean "barely earnes itself a new species title?" Is a zebra a different species than a horse? or just a horse with stripes?

What's your standard in determining what is a new speces? You say evolution doesn't create new species, and when prevented with contrary evidence, you claim it's not "different enough".

Nice shiftin of the goalposts.

We do not have, say, an intelligent horse, and as far as I can tell, it can't run faster, see better, or anything associated with natural selection. Why, then, is this such a big deal? They're still horses! And this in no way "provides strong, incontrovertible evidence for evolution."

Now, if these new changes had created, say, a talking horse, or one with human-like intelligence, then I'd bow out now. But as it stands...

Ohhh now I understand.

You have no fucking clue how evolution actually works. OK.

So you want some of my evidence? Look up the Cambrian period.

What about it? You mean the period of time 550 million years ago?

Gee, were there humans walking around then?

No?

Wonder where they came from...
Deus Malum
22-02-2007, 03:19
According to your analogies, i.e., that everything is God's fault, for building the car and creating the accident and none of us have any personal responsibility with our own condition, then we are simply puppets, like drawings on paper, or we are like wet clay being molded, whatever we become our final result is entirely beyond our control...

IF that is so, then just like a drawing that I mess up, I'm free to throw it away without apology to my drawing, I'm free to throw the clay sculpture that doesn't turn out to my specifications into the trash bin and begin work on my next project, without concern nor care about the wasted clay.

If God is entirely responsible for everything, than it's entirely up to God to choose which works of art he will keep and which ones will be thrown away...

IMO, your analogy goes too far. We are not just puppets, we DO help discern our own existence, we make choices, and if those choices we make serve God's purposes then God is more pleased with his artwork.

Great, you've stated your belief on the matter. That still does nothing to address the point he was trying to make, that in the absence of free will (which itself is a matter of belief) god is responsible for everything that is good or bad that has or will ever happen.
If that is the case, then we can not be held personally accountable for anything that happens, which is contrary to what one of other posters had said was the case.
The Kaza-Matadorians
22-02-2007, 03:26
What is that supposed to mean "barely earnes itself a new species title?" Is a zebra a different species than a horse? or just a horse with stripes?

What's your standard in determining what is a new speces? You say evolution doesn't create new species, and when prevented with contrary evidence, you claim it's not "different enough".

Nice shiftin of the goalposts.

I meant that it's basically the difference between a zebra with stripes in a different pattern than that of the zebra standing next to the first one.

Ohhh now I understand.

You have no fucking clue how evolution actually works. OK.

Hey, let's not stoop this low. Evolution is the gradual change in a species over time. What I fail to understand about that part of the article is why it's such a big deal that a horse now has fewer toes and a different skeletal structure. I was implying that this step in the evolutionary process was useless.

What about it? You mean the period of time 550 million years ago?

Gee, were there humans walking around then?

No?

Wonder where they came from...

Huh? We weren't talking about humans. I was talking about horses. You asked for my evidence supporting creationism, and I gave it to you.

To answer your first question, yes, all those plants suddenly appeared within a relatively short period of time, much shorter than what would be needed for plants from pre-Cambrian to evolve into the Cambrian plants. Basically, they popped up overnight as if they had been planted there...
Rejistania
22-02-2007, 03:28
What?! If something's doctored, it is false and shouldn't be used in any sort of serious debate whatsoever.

Show me this "doctored creationism proof."

Have you been in a biology class lately? I have, and those are still used as evidence of evolution, without ever mentioning that they're fake/false/doctored/etc.

I don't believe you, but even if they were used for something else, that doesn't make the fact that they're fake any better. They've been used by evolutionists for (how long now?) to help "prove" their theory.


Does anybody care if I bring in a debater friend of mine to arbitate this? He rarely agrees with me on anything, so this isn't some personal move. He'll be fair.

You misunderstood me, su? I said: Given enough time, cheating occurs. It's in human nature to cheat, and ID proponents are no better or more moral people than others*. Also people do not cheat to prove a theory. they cheat because they are fame-hungry b*st*rds!

Now, you want a proof of cheating? Irreducable complexity is IMHO a cheating because Behe just states it occurs without defining it scientifically. He does not give a procedure by which it can be determined whether system X is irreducable complex or not.

* There was a study which showed that devotion to religion and crime did not correlate. Even nationality had a bigger impact than religion. I however do not find the link atm.
Arthais101
22-02-2007, 03:28
According to your analogies, i.e., that everything is God's fault, for building the car and creating the accident and none of us have any personal responsibility with our own condition, then we are simply puppets, like drawings on paper, or we are like wet clay being molded, whatever we become our final result is entirely beyond our control...

IF that is so, then just like a drawing that I mess up, I'm free to throw it away without apology to my drawing, I'm free to throw the clay sculpture that doesn't turn out to my specifications into the trash bin and begin work on my next project, without concern nor care about the wasted clay.

There is a problem with that. Artists create for a few purposes. We may do some work to practice and improve our skills, or we may try to create something. This version of god, being all powerful, needs no practice. This version of god, being all knowing, would know the outcome already, and could not mess up.

God has four qualities in this:

1) he knows what results he wants
2) he knows what is necessary to be done to bring about those results
3) he is capable of doing those things necessary
4) he knows inadvance if he will succeed

God knows what he wants, knows how to do it and is capable of doing it and knows in advance whether or not it will be successful. Thus god can't mess up. God can't make an error

If God is entirely responsible for everything, than it's entirely up to God to choose which works of art he will keep and which ones will be thrown away...

IMO, your analogy goes too far. We are not just puppets, we DO help discern our own existence, we make choices, and if those choices we make serve God's purposes then God is more pleased with his artwork.


No, we don't make choices. All knowing means you know everything. Every thought of every person, every motivaton, every desire, the position of ever single atom n the niverse, all at once. Everything. All data.

All powerful means just that. The ability to do anything.

God, in this scheme, knows what I think, knows what I am doing, knows what sins I have committed. What I will commit.

He knows everything I have ever done or will ever do. And he knew this long before I was ever born.

He created the universe knowing EXACTLY WHAT I WILL DO every single moment of my life. That is what all knowing means.

If this version is to be believed I have no choice. I have no option. Every single instance of my life transpires as god wished it to transpire. Because he knew exactly HOW it would transpire, and can have had it happen another way.

He knew what i would do, and had the power to change what i would do. Thus he wanted me to do it. Now how can you say I have free will when god knew exactly what i would do before he made the universe, and made the universe in such a way that I would do EXACTLY what he knew I would do?
PootWaddle
22-02-2007, 03:30
Great, you've stated your belief on the matter. That still does nothing to address the point he was trying to make, that in the absence of free will (which itself is a matter of belief) god is responsible for everything that is good or bad that has or will ever happen.
If that is the case, then we can not be held personally accountable for anything that happens, which is contrary to what one of other posters had said was the case.

IF that is the case, then we have no accountablity which He has to answer to us for either, like trash has no accountability, God can discard it or keep it without consulting the trash. If we have no free will, then God doesn't have to care if we like it or not.
Rejistania
22-02-2007, 03:31
Hey, let's not stoop this low. Evolution is the gradual change in a species over time. What I fail to understand about that part of the article is why it's such a big deal that a horse now has fewer toes and a different skeletal structure. I was implying that this step in the evolutionary process was useless.
It was not because the territory, they lived in changed and the new form helped them surviving.




Huh? We weren't talking about humans. I was talking about horses. You asked for my evidence supporting creationism, and I gave it to you.


To answer your first question, yes, all those plants suddenly appeared within a relatively short period of time, much shorter than what would be needed for plants from pre-Cambrian to evolve into the Cambrian plants. Basically, they popped up overnight as if they had been planted there...
Okay... Have you considered that only a fraction of the existing plants leave fossils? Educated guess: They evolved in a less fortunate position in terms of fossils and spread. :)
Cyrian space
22-02-2007, 03:35
Well, too bad you don't speak for biology teachers, because most of them use said evidence to "prove" evolution to their hapless students. And I know the difference. Forgive me for trying to type fast.

Here's a paragraph from your site:
Alright, so we have horses with few toes and slightly different skeletal shapes. What we now have is something that barely earns itself a "new species" title. We do not have, say, an intelligent horse, and as far as I can tell, it can't run faster, see better, or anything associated with natural selection. Why, then, is this such a big deal? They're still horses! And this in no way "provides strong, incontrovertible evidence for evolution." Now, if these new changes had created, say, a talking horse, or one with human-like intelligence, then I'd bow out now. But as it stands...
A talking horse? maybe he could tell you what your talking about, because I don't think you know.

The changing toes is significant, though you must understand that toes are not the only thing that changed. Natural selection selects for toes, especially when they are hooves. Obviously, having four toes must have been a disadvantage, because that species has died out We know it existed, and we know it died out. And we know that it's descendents are still around, and they have one toe (a hoof)

Furter examples of evolution: Nearly every animal has little vestigial bones where five fingers should be, even those without hands (bat wings have five protrusions, so do bird wings, so does the fins of whales and dolphins. And Snakes even have little bones in their bodies that once upon a time had been legs.

So you want some of my evidence? Look up the Cambrian period.
You have to be more specific than that.



What?! If something's doctored, it is false and shouldn't be used in any sort of serious debate whatsoever.

Show me this "doctored creationism proof."

Have you been in a biology class lately? I have, and those are still used as evidence of evolution, without ever mentioning that they're fake/false/doctored/etc.

I don't believe you, but even if they were used for something else, that doesn't make the fact that they're fake any better. They've been used by evolutionists for (how long now?) to help "prove" their theory.


Does anybody care if I bring in a debater friend of mine to arbitate this? He rarely agrees with me on anything, so this isn't some personal move. He'll be fair.

Some Biology teachers may not know that these are fakes, and may be using old textbooks. They aren't in some conspiracy to convert the pure little christian children to a life of atheist excess.

And for some fake creationist proofs, try theese: http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm
Patentedly bullshit.
Arthais101
22-02-2007, 03:36
I was implying that this step in the evolutionary process was useless.

Here's your problem. Here's where you fail to understand. Evolution isn't a utility. It doesn't have a purpose. It doesn't have a direction. It is a forced of nature.

This change may have been useless. And that's perfectly fine. All evolution means is that over time, changes happen.

Sometimes they're good. Sometimes they're bad. Sometimes they're absolutly neutral. There is no plan to evolution. Evolution means exactly two things:

1) mutations occur
2) positive mutations are favored more than negative mutations

This does NOT mean:

1) all mutations are positive
2) negative mutations don't get passed on
3) all positive mutations get passed on

Sometimesa negative mutation will get passed on. Sometimes a positive one won't. Evolution only states that:

1) mutations occur
2) positive mutaions are favored more than negative mutations



To answer your first question, yes, all those plants suddenly appeared within a relatively short period of time, much shorter than what would be needed for plants from pre-Cambrian to evolve into the Cambrian plants.

One question.

If you can't even get simple concepts on how evolution works right, how in the world are you qualified to talk about how long it would take?

How the hell do you know how much time it would have taken for pre-Cambrian plants to evolveinto Cambrian plants? By what scientific standard do you use to determine how long will take?

Mutations occur partially as a result of enviornment, enviornmental changes can speed up the rate of mutation.

Gaps in fossil record can make a longer period seem shorter

Basically, they popped up overnight as if they had been planted there...

or....

What caused the Cambrian explosion?

Understanding why the Cambrian explosion happened when it did revolves around three major themes: i) extrinsic forcing events such as environmental change; ii) intrinsic mechanisms such as the acquisition of complex genomes; and iii) intrinsic mechanisms such as the natural consequences of metazoan ecology.


The role of oxygen

Of the first class of explanation, by far the most popular, dating back at least to Nursall in the 1950s, is that animals did not evolve before the beginning of the Cambrian because of low atmospheric oxygen. Low oxygen levels could prevent animals from evolving either by preventing the synthesis of collagen, present in metazoans, and now also known in other eukaryotes, which requires at least 1% of present atmospheric levels (the “Towe limit”). However, more likely would be a physiological constraint. Animals living in low oxygen environments today tend to have low diversity, have thin shells and low metabolic activity. Whilst oxygen levels thus do certainly have an effect on animal life, it is not currently clear what atmospheric levels of oxygen were during the close of the Proterozoic, to what extent available oxygen was sequestered away by reduced mineral compounds, and what adaptations purported Proterozoic animals had to low oxygen conditions (presumably, they, like many living animals, possessed effective anaerobic metabolic pathways).


Snowball Earth?

A related explanation, and a current popular one, is “Snowball Earth”, which ties the severe glaciations towards the end of the Proterozoic to profound changes in oxygen levels and ocean chemistry. The explanatory power of such a hypothesis depends on I) how convincing the evidence for Snowball Earth is and II) providing a clear mechanistic link between what would undoubtedly have been a severe global upheaval and the subsequent radiation of the animals. As well as global cooling, global warming, perhaps as the result of massive methane release into the atmosphere has been posited, as well as variety of other less exotic mechanisms such as continental breakup, together with increased shelf area. Another example is a facilitating change in oceanic chemistry that allowed the formation of hard parts for the first time, although this cannot of course explain why some organisms seem to start diversifying before the origin of hard parts.


Developmental mechanisms

Of the second class of explanation, interest has centered on the timing of acquisition of the homeotic genes that all animals seem to possess and use to a greater or lesser extent in laying out their body architecture during development. It has been argued that the radiation of animals could not take place before a certain minimum complexity of such genes had been acquired, to give them the necessary genetic toolbox for subsequent diversification. Clearly, the evolution of development is critical in the history of the animals. However, it is currently difficult to disentangle the origins of bilaterian genetic architectures from their morphological diversification. Recent studies seem to suggest that the genes responsible for bilaterian development were largely present before they radiated, although it is quite possible that they were performing somewhat differing tasks at this time, later being co-opted into the classical patterns of bilaterian development.


Ecological explanations

In addition, several recent examinations of the Cambrian explosion have suggested that ecological diversification is the primary motor for the Cambrian explosion, even that the Cambrian explosion is simply ecological diversification. Given the evolution of multicellularity in heterotrophic organisms, it could be argued, a dynamic would be set up that would inevitably lead to the familiar food webs consisting of primary and secondary consumers, parasites, and especially with the advent of mobility, deposit feeding and trophic recuperation. While it has been claimed that certain “key innovations” (most notably the origin of sight, by Parker) were critical in driving the whole process decisively forward, most of these can themselves be seen as products of earlier ecological pressure. In this view, the Cambrian become the first and most spectacular “adaptive radiation” as posited for evolution in general by especially G.G. Simpson.
PootWaddle
22-02-2007, 03:37
...
No, we don't make choices. All knowing means you know everything. Every thought of every person, every motivaton, every desire, the position of ever single atom n the niverse, all at once. Everything. All data.

All powerful means just that. The ability to do anything.

God, in this scheme, knows what I think, knows what I am doing, knows what sins I have committed. What I will commit.

He knows everything I have ever done or will ever do. And he knew this long before I was ever born.

He created the universe knowing EXACTLY WHAT I WILL DO every single moment of my life. That is what all knowing means.

If this version is to be believed I have no choice. I have no option. Every single instance of my life transpires as god wished it to transpire. Because he knew exactly HOW it would transpire, and can have had it happen another way.

He knew what i would do, and had the power to change what i would do. Thus he wanted me to do it. Now how can you say I have free will when god knew exactly what i would do before he made the universe, and made the universe in such a way that I would do EXACTLY what he knew I would do?

IF we don't make choices, we can't discern it from our existence, it serves no purpose to us then. We must still act like we have choices to make...

IF God dictates everything, then a waste product of that theoretical universe would have nothing to complain about after it is thrown away because it likely served some purpose or another and then was discarded... No reason to reward it or keep it around thereafter, it deserves no concern of it's own, like a tool that will never be needed again it is clutter and should be thrown away.
Arthais101
22-02-2007, 03:38
IF that is the case, then we have no accountablity which He has to answer to us for either, like trash has no accountability, God can discard it or keep it without consulting the trash. If we have no free will, then God doesn't have to care if we like it or not.

which is why that version of god, should it exist, is in no way deserving of my worship.
The Kaza-Matadorians
22-02-2007, 03:38
You misunderstood me, su? I said: Given enough time, cheating occurs. It's in human nature to cheat, and ID proponents are no better or more moral people than others*. Also people do not cheat to prove a theory. they cheat because they are fame-hungry b*st*rds!

Now, you want a proof of cheating? Irreducable complexity is IMHO a cheating because Behe just states it occurs without defining it scientifically. He does not give a procedure by which it can be determined whether system X is irreducable complex or not.

* There was a study which showed that devotion to religion and crime did not correlate. Even nationality had a bigger impact than religion. I however do not find the link atm.

OK, fair enough. It may be human nature to cheat, but get this: the scientific community claimed that it knew all along that the forgeries were, in fact, forgeries, but declined to tell us this while they constitently tried to sell the rest of us on evolution. There's no excuse for that.

I'm not sure what you're talking about in your second paragraph... sorry, but it's getting late and my brain's not moving as fast as it can normally...
Rejistania
22-02-2007, 03:43
OK, fair enough. It may be human nature to cheat, but get this: the scientific community claimed that it knew all along that the forgeries were, in fact, forgeries, but declined to tell us this while they constitently tried to sell the rest of us on evolution. There's no excuse for that.

I'm not sure what you're talking about in your second paragraph... sorry, but it's getting late and my brain's not moving as fast as it can normally...
To use a comparism:

Think of a big keg into which every scientist filled in wine (evidence for evolution). Now, some people filled in water (ie cheated), however if the contents of the keg have a so high intensity of wine that you would not realize that people put water in it, you can say that the cheating did not matter.
PootWaddle
22-02-2007, 03:46
which is why that version of god, should it exist, is in no way deserving of my worship.

He didn't have to make you at all. He didn't have to share with you the pleasures found during the experience of life itself, He didn't have to let you watch the theater of the Universe that he created. Like a movie producer/director that holds all the tickets, he didn't have to let you into the show to watch the creation.

If you don't enjoy life, if you don't enjoy existence, if you don't enjoy people and food and the world around us, then no, you have no reason to be thankful.

IF you spend even half of one second being happy though, that happiness was a gift you didn't create or earn on your own, according to your analogy of existence, but if you did enjoy a moment of existence than you should be thankful for it. Saying thank you when someone gives you something is simply proper manners, its the first thing mother's teach to small children.
The Kaza-Matadorians
22-02-2007, 03:47
Okay... Have you considered that only a fraction of the existing plants leave fossils? Educated guess: They evolved in a less fortunate position in terms of fossils and spread. :)

So bascially your argument is "my evidence didn't fossilize"?

Gotcha.
NERVUN
22-02-2007, 03:47
So bascially your argument is "my evidence didn't fossilize"?

Gotcha.
Or they haven't been found yet. They're finding new ones all the time and we can guess the general shape of what we're missing from everything that we do have.

There is, after all, a lot of Earth and we haven't bothered to dig everything up just yet.
Cyrian space
22-02-2007, 03:49
So bascially your argument is "my evidence didn't fossilize"?

Gotcha.

Actually, that argument does make sense, provided that there was in fact other evidence. case in point:
A man is stabbed with a knife. There is blood on the knife, and it is known to be owned by another man, who also had a motive to kill the first man, and his alibi was no good, and relatives mention in silenced tones that they knew there was bad blood between them and that he had a mean streak a mile wide, and you have witnesses who saw him go into the building, and you have camera evidence that he and the guy who was killed were the only ones in the room. However, the suspect does not have blood on his hands. I might say that he wore a glove, and then threw that glove away. Even if we failed to find the glove, it would be a usable explanation.
The Kaza-Matadorians
22-02-2007, 03:50
To use a comparism:

Think of a big keg into which every scientist filled in wine (evidence for evolution). Now, some people filled in water (ie cheated), however if the contents of the keg have a so high intensity of wine that you would not realize that people put water in it, you can say that the cheating did not matter.

True, but I'd raise Hell if I found out someone watered down my wine.
Socialist Pyrates
22-02-2007, 03:50
Here's your problem. Here's where you fail to understand. Evolution isn't a utility. It doesn't have a purpose. It doesn't have a direction. It is a forced of nature.

This change may have been useless. And that's perfectly fine. All evolution means is that over time, changes happen.

Sometimes they're good. Sometimes they're bad. Sometimes they're absolutly neutral. There is no plan to evolution. Evolution means exactly two things:

1) mutations occur
2) positive mutations are favored more than negative mutations

This does NOT mean:

1) all mutations are positive
2) negative mutations don't get passed on
3) all positive mutations get passed on

Sometimesa negative mutation will get passed on. Sometimes a positive one won't. Evolution only states that:

1) mutations occur
2) positive mutaions are favored more than negative mutations





One question.

If you can't even get simple concepts on how evolution works right, how in the world are you qualified to talk about how long it would take?

How the hell do you know how much time it would have taken for pre-Cambrian plants to evolveinto Cambrian plants? By what scientific standard do you use to determine how long will take?

Mutations occur partially as a result of enviornment, enviornmental changes can speed up the rate of mutation.

Gaps in fossil record can make a longer period seem shorter



or....

good summation of evolution, short and sweet

but the effort is wasted on someone who has no intention of learning something that would turn their belief system upside down...
NERVUN
22-02-2007, 03:50
True, but I'd raise Hell if I found out someone watered down my wine.
Uh... Science does so. That's its error correcting that is built into science itself.
Soyut
22-02-2007, 03:51
I take Darwin's "The Origin of Species" very seriously. Everything else about evolution I tend to treat with much more skepticism.
Chrintium
22-02-2007, 03:52
Let's get this clear right off the bat. As a Christian and a fan of logic, I realize that I must recognize one clear fact: The beliefs surrounding Christianity rely on too many a priori assumptions to be logical. Therefore, Christianity is logical only if you assume certain unprovable ideas, which makes these beliefs unscientific.

This does not dissuade those who believe in the a priori, because under the Christian a priori, scientific backing has a proper role. However, one can never EVER logically prove creationism, ID, etc, to one who is not of the opinion that God exists.

Therefore, a Christian must make the "leap of faith" to be "illogical." This results in the "well, once you're over here, it makes sense" argument, which does, in fact, make sense to those of us "on the other side of the fence." But we must realize that it doesn't make sense to others, and this is due to logic, and is an intelligent asssumption of others to not consider Christianity's beliefs to make sense.

As for evolution, the endorsement of the pope of the theory of evolution is a great example of a Christian who accepts the scientify validity of this theory, which can never be proven, but does in fact have evidence. A theory is any scientific idea which through experimentation has gained scientific validity, yet has not yet been "proven." Since evolution takes a very long time to happen, it makes sense that it has not been proven yet, but that in itself does not prove anything. Need I remind the creationists that God's existence hasn't been "proven." This leaves us at a theological stalemate.

The result is that we must accept the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, understand that natural selection is in fact real, leaving Christians with plenty of room to understand the way God created the universe. Need I remind you that he also wrote the laws of science (making evolution his intellectual property, if you are of the Christian belief)

As for the idea of free will and pununishment, the idea is that God values free will, but free will inherently leads to action that is "rebellious" in nature. He wants to be chosen, not just followed. The only way to save everybody is to make sure that everybody acts according to his will, which would violate free will. We'd all be his followers, but we'd be slaves and therefore unable to appreciate this. I accept this doctrine, but again I do so under a leap of faith, so I hold no grudges against athiests. I'm a big fan of existentialism anyways.

Most of this is my opinion, and I ask it to be taken as such. Thank you for letting me have a soapbox.
Cyrian space
22-02-2007, 04:21
Let's get this clear right off the bat. As a Christian and a fan of logic, I realize that I must recognize one clear fact: The beliefs surrounding Christianity rely on too many a priori assumptions to be logical. Therefore, Christianity is logical only if you assume certain unprovable ideas, which makes these beliefs unscientific.

This does not dissuade those who believe in the a priori, because under the Christian a priori, scientific backing has a proper role. However, one can never EVER logically prove creationism, ID, etc, to one who is not of the opinion that God exists.

Therefore, a Christian must make the "leap of faith" to be "illogical." This results in the "well, once you're over here, it makes sense" argument, which does, in fact, make sense to those of us "on the other side of the fence." But we must realize that it doesn't make sense to others, and this is due to logic, and is an intelligent asssumption of others to not consider Christianity's beliefs to make sense.

As for evolution, the endorsement of the pope of the theory of evolution is a great example of a Christian who accepts the scientify validity of this theory, which can never be proven, but does in fact have evidence. A theory is any scientific idea which through experimentation has gained scientific validity, yet has not yet been "proven." Since evolution takes a very long time to happen, it makes sense that it has not been proven yet, but that in itself does not prove anything. Need I remind the creationists that God's existence hasn't been "proven." This leaves us at a theological stalemate.

The result is that we must accept the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, understand that natural selection is in fact real, leaving Christians with plenty of room to understand the way God created the universe. Need I remind you that he also wrote the laws of science (making evolution his intellectual property, if you are of the Christian belief)

As for the idea of free will and pununishment, the idea is that God values free will, but free will inherently leads to action that is "rebellious" in nature. He wants to be chosen, not just followed. The only way to save everybody is to make sure that everybody acts according to his will, which would violate free will. We'd all be his followers, but we'd be slaves and therefore unable to appreciate this. I accept this doctrine, but again I do so under a leap of faith, so I hold no grudges against athiests. I'm a big fan of existentialism anyways.

Most of this is my opinion, and I ask it to be taken as such. Thank you for letting me have a soapbox.

So let's say I have an ant farm. I want the ants to follow my finger as I run it across the ground. I don't want to make the ants do this out of any kind of training, or by making it impossible to not follow my finger with some sort of box or something. So I run my finger across the ground, and some ants follow it. I lead those ants to some sugar I put somewhere. All the other ants I collect and spend the next week pulling their legs and antennae off.

Sound about right?
Arthais101
22-02-2007, 04:26
He didn't have to make you at all. He didn't have to share with you the pleasures found during the experience of life itself, He didn't have to let you watch the theater of the Universe that he created. Like a movie producer/director that holds all the tickets, he didn't have to let you into the show to watch the creation.

If you don't enjoy life, if you don't enjoy existence, if you don't enjoy people and food and the world around us, then no, you have no reason to be thankful.

IF you spend even half of one second being happy though, that happiness was a gift you didn't create or earn on your own, according to your analogy of existence, but if you did enjoy a moment of existence than you should be thankful for it. Saying thank you when someone gives you something is simply proper manners, its the first thing mother's teach to small children.


Perhaps, but let's tkae a few things here:

1) god creates sin
2) god did not HAVE to create sin

Ergo god chose to create sin

OK, so presumtion #1, god chose to make man a sinner

second situation:

1) sin sends you to hell
2) god did not have to create hell or send sinner to hell

presumption #2, god chose to send sinners to hell.

Combine those two premises....god chooses to send people to hell.

third situation:

1) god knows what you will do, and created the unierse so that you would do it (including your sin)
2) god could have done it otherwise

presumption #3, god chooses who sins and who does not.

Combined the three...god chooses who goes to hell, and who does not

If someone ejects me with ebola and says he'll give me a cure, just as long as I thank him for giving me the chance to getthe cure to the ebola he gave me...am I expected to be GRATEFUL in this situation?
The Kaza-Matadorians
22-02-2007, 04:28
Here's your problem. Here's where you fail to understand. Evolution isn't a utility. It doesn't have a purpose. It doesn't have a direction. It is a forced of nature.

This change may have been useless. And that's perfectly fine. All evolution means is that over time, changes happen.

Sometimes they're good. Sometimes they're bad. Sometimes they're absolutly neutral. There is no plan to evolution. Evolution means exactly two things:

1) mutations occur
2) positive mutations are favored more than negative mutations

This does NOT mean:

1) all mutations are positive
2) negative mutations don't get passed on
3) all positive mutations get passed on

Sometimesa negative mutation will get passed on. Sometimes a positive one won't. Evolution only states that:

1) mutations occur
2) positive mutaions are favored more than negative mutations

I get that, but the article states just that and then claims it just proved evolution.

good summation of evolution, short and sweet

but the effort is wasted on someone who has no intention of learning something that would turn their belief system upside down...

See? See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. This petty statement is why I didn't want to start an argument in the first place; it always comes down to some sort of baseless personal attack.
Socialist Pyrates
22-02-2007, 04:28
Let's get this clear right off the bat. As a Christian and a fan of logic, I realize that I must recognize one clear fact: The beliefs surrounding Christianity rely on too many a priori assumptions to be logical. Therefore, Christianity is logical only if you assume certain unprovable ideas, which makes these beliefs unscientific.

This does not dissuade those who believe in the a priori, because under the Christian a priori, scientific backing has a proper role. However, one can never EVER logically prove creationism, ID, etc, to one who is not of the opinion that God exists.

Therefore, a Christian must make the "leap of faith" to be "illogical." This results in the "well, once you're over here, it makes sense" argument, which does, in fact, make sense to those of us "on the other side of the fence." But we must realize that it doesn't make sense to others, and this is due to logic, and is an intelligent asssumption of others to not consider Christianity's beliefs to make sense.

As for evolution, the endorsement of the pope of the theory of evolution is a great example of a Christian who accepts the scientify validity of this theory, which can never be proven, but does in fact have evidence. A theory is any scientific idea which through experimentation has gained scientific validity, yet has not yet been "proven." Since evolution takes a very long time to happen, it makes sense that it has not been proven yet, but that in itself does not prove anything. Need I remind the creationists that God's existence hasn't been "proven." This leaves us at a theological stalemate.

The result is that we must accept the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, understand that natural selection is in fact real, leaving Christians with plenty of room to understand the way God created the universe. Need I remind you that he also wrote the laws of science (making evolution his intellectual property, if you are of the Christian belief)

As for the idea of free will and pununishment, the idea is that God values free will, but free will inherently leads to action that is "rebellious" in nature. He wants to be chosen, not just followed. The only way to save everybody is to make sure that everybody acts according to his will, which would violate free will. We'd all be his followers, but we'd be slaves and therefore unable to appreciate this. I accept this doctrine, but again I do so under a leap of faith, so I hold no grudges against athiests. I'm a big fan of existentialism anyways.

Most of this is my opinion, and I ask it to be taken as such. Thank you for letting me have a soapbox.

a Christian opinion I can respect, excellent post...as an atheist I don't say that often
Arthais101
22-02-2007, 04:29
I get that, but the article states just that and then claims it just proved evolution.

evolution, as I said, is two things:

1) mutations will result in speciation
2) positive mutations will be more likely to be passed on then negative mutations.

They just provided you an example of speciation.

Do you REALLY need to be walked through the logic of "a mutation that is helpful makes you more likely to survive and live long enough to pass on your genes, including the mutation, to offspring, who, given the same beneficial mutation, will ALSO live longer, etc"?
Socialist Pyrates
22-02-2007, 04:35
I get that, but the article states just that and then claims it just proved evolution.



See? See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. This petty statement is why I didn't want to start an argument in the first place; it always comes down to some sort of baseless personal attack.

oh! go cry to your mommy...

you argue pointlessly while others attempt to make points with debate, there is difference....
PootWaddle
22-02-2007, 04:42
...snip...
If someone ejects me with ebola and says he'll give me a cure, just as long as I thank him for giving me the chance to getthe cure to the ebola he gave me...am I expected to be GRATEFUL in this situation?

Worse than the Ebola virus, everyone that is born, everyone, will suffer death and die, everyone. Does the fact that we will suffer, usually unexpectedly we will be visited by death, vulnerable at any given moment to be reduced to death, does this make life itself into something not worth experiencing at all? I don't think so. Even a short and mostly painful life is worth being thankful for, there is more in living than there is in not having lived at all. At the point of self awareness we owe a debt to God. A reason for thankfulness even if nothing else good ever happens to us.

Additionally, during our brief and momentary existence, God offers eternal Life to those that will accept it. God knows that not everyone accepts it. Does this mean that it shouldn't have been offered at all? Apparently not, those that accept it make the offering worth making or else God wouldn't bother making the offer at all.

So the group of self-aware have a reason to be thankful, and of them, those that are self aware and accept eternal life should be even MORE thankful. But none of the self-aware have no reason to be thankful. Even with death and suffering simple life is worth being thankful for.
The Kaza-Matadorians
22-02-2007, 04:45
Do you REALLY need to be walked through the logic of "a mutation that is helpful makes you more likely to survive and live long enough to pass on your genes, including the mutation, to offspring, who, given the same beneficial mutation, will ALSO live longer, etc"?

No, I understand the concept, but maybe you can explain to me how fewer toes leads to longer lives.
Chrintium
22-02-2007, 04:49
So let's say I have an ant farm. I want the ants to follow my finger as I run it across the ground. I don't want to make the ants do this out of any kind of training, or by making it impossible to not follow my finger with some sort of box or something. So I run my finger across the ground, and some ants follow it. I lead those ants to some sugar I put somewhere. All the other ants I collect and spend the next week pulling their legs and antennae off.

Sound about right?

Hehehe, people as ants. I like it.

I will concede that from my arguments, that's a logical extension. It is, after all, hard to put my theories of life, the universe, and everything into a small speech.

Under your analogy, I am quite different from God. First, I started with the ants, second, I place sugar knowing that they are going to go straight to it, and third, I pick apart the ants' legs because of not following the sugar.

Under the ant analogy, it would be more like that you release the ants, because you want them to have free will. They build their colony right by a stream which frequently floods. A flood is coming, and you put a stick to help them out. The ants that come up the stick escape the destruction, whereas those who don't accept your act of help drown.

Again, this analogy has its flaws (I don't hold judgement to be as heartless or simple as this, sin's nature is different), but the intent I think is nailed.

Again, I base my beliefs off of a leap of faith, and recognize the logical leap required to accept this. That's why I hold a high degree of respect for athiests, particularly those on this forum who deal with a lot of "opinionated" Christian fellows (ie Kaza).
AchillesLastStand
22-02-2007, 04:53
Yesterday, in biology 101 (I have failed like 3 times already) our professor was talking about the Theory of Evolution. ( if you don't know what is.. shame on you; but here is help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) anyway, he was talking about it and several Tennessean bible thumpers started raising hell about how the theory of evolution is heresy and the work of the devil; that humans were created from gods image... and that (according to them) humans are the same as they were 6000 years (6000 being the reletive age of the world-acording to them-) I told them I believed in the theory of evolution and they called me atheist. bastards!

I wanted to punch them, I don't mind people having real faith in their religion.. I really don't, but I believe that you shouldn't take science and throw religion into the middle of it.. it just doesn't work.

What do you think, should I have punched them for being stupid and intolerant to other peoples beliefs. What would you have done?

Punching them would be kind of intolerant on your side, no?

I understand your frustration, ignorance is a daunting obstacle. I do, however, think that this provided an excellent opportunity for your teacher to have a debate about evolution and creationism, and demolish them.
Chrintium
22-02-2007, 04:55
No, I understand the concept, but maybe you can explain to me how fewer toes leads to longer lives.

It did, though. The point is that the animal was the ancestor of the horse.

I don't understand if you're arguing for "scientific merit" or for defense of God, but we're achieving neither by your logic.

Again, not all mutations are positive. Maybe fewer toes leads to a shorter life, but by luck it got passed on. However it works, we know that species have mutated, and the logical extension of that is the theory of evolution.
Jocabia
22-02-2007, 04:57
Doesn't this entire post come off as a troll post?



1. Who can fail Biology 101 3 times and be an adamant supporter of it?
2. Who can have 350+ posts here in the last couple of months and still think they might have to explain what evolution is?
3. Saying Bible thumpers were raising hell... It sounds like a slogan looking for a place to be said.
4. Why would they be in the class in the first place, and why did it take a student to confront them? Suspicious sounding to me.
5. Should I punch them for being intolerant of other people's beliefs? Pure irony, too much to be a coincidence if you ask me...


Well, it was bound to happen. I totally agree. I noticed all of these things as well. I don't know if I'm just that sick or if this is the end of the world.
PootWaddle
22-02-2007, 04:57
Well, it was bound to happen. I totally agree. I noticed all of these things as well. I don't know if I'm just that sick or if this is the end of the world.

*Faints in dead shock*

;)
Arthais101
22-02-2007, 04:57
No, I understand the concept, but maybe you can explain to me how fewer toes leads to longer lives.

it probably doesn't. That's why they aren't around.

It does demostrate how mutations result in speciation.

And positive mutations will, logically, propogate.

So if evolution requires two things...evidence that mutation results in speciation, and the simple logic that positive speciation will be more likely to propogate than negative speciation...and you have evidence of speciation, and you can't refute the logic....

what more do you need?
Socialist Pyrates
22-02-2007, 06:03
it probably doesn't. That's why they aren't around.

It does demostrate how mutations result in speciation.

And positive mutations will, logically, propogate.

So if evolution requires two things...evidence that mutation results in speciation, and the simple logic that positive speciation will be more likely to propogate than negative speciation...and you have evidence of speciation, and you can't refute the logic....

what more do you need?

longer toes? fewer toes?...adaptations that survive always help the organism survive in a changing environment... in the case of herbivores such as a horse they are either an adaptation to new food sources/habitats or an adaptation to new improved predators...there isn't much doubt that the early tiny multi-toed horse was not as fast as todays horse or was it as capable of defending itself against large predators as the modern horse...
Arthais101
22-02-2007, 06:05
longer toes? fewer toes?...adaptations that survive always help the organism survive in a changing environment... .

Um, that's not true. Adaptations can survive that are entirely neutral or, in fact, downright harmful. Evolution is not some magical force that forces that.

Sometimes even things that are harmful get passed on.
Angels World
22-02-2007, 06:51
Yesterday, in biology 101 (I have failed like 3 times already) our professor was talking about the Theory of Evolution. ( if you don't know what is.. shame on you; but here is help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) anyway, he was talking about it and several Tennessean bible thumpers started raising hell about how the theory of evolution is heresy and the work of the devil; that humans were created from gods image... and that (according to them) humans are the same as they were 6000 years (6000 being the reletive age of the world-acording to them-) I told them I believed in the theory of evolution and they called me atheist. bastards!

I wanted to punch them, I don't mind people having real faith in their religion.. I really don't, but I believe that you shouldn't take science and throw religion into the middle of it.. it just doesn't work.

What do you think, should I have punched them for being stupid and intolerant to other peoples beliefs. What would you have done?

It seems to me that you were the one being intolerant. Christians have just as much right as believers in evolution to talk about what they believe in the classroom. I for one, am a Creationist, which is what the Christians in your classroom are. And if someone is teaching about evolution, I think we have the right to express our views. Why should we be any different than you? We shouldn't. Just like if a teacher is teaching about Creation and evolutionists stand up and say that evolution is the way to believe. It's just a part of life, and different viewpoints, no matter how right or wrong you may think they are.
Pirated Corsairs
22-02-2007, 07:35
Worse than the Ebola virus, everyone that is born, everyone, will suffer death and die, everyone. Does the fact that we will suffer, usually unexpectedly we will be visited by death, vulnerable at any given moment to be reduced to death, does this make life itself into something not worth experiencing at all? I don't think so. Even a short and mostly painful life is worth being thankful for, there is more in living than there is in not having lived at all. At the point of self awareness we owe a debt to God. A reason for thankfulness even if nothing else good ever happens to us.

Additionally, during our brief and momentary existence, God offers eternal Life to those that will accept it. God knows that not everyone accepts it. Does this mean that it shouldn't have been offered at all? Apparently not, those that accept it make the offering worth making or else God wouldn't bother making the offer at all.

So the group of self-aware have a reason to be thankful, and of them, those that are self aware and accept eternal life should be even MORE thankful. But none of the self-aware have no reason to be thankful. Even with death and suffering simple life is worth being thankful for.
Here's the problem: he, according to your religion, doesn't just end the existence of the nonbelievers. He submits them to unimaginably terrible torture for all eternity. This is CRUEL. Cruelty is evil. Therefore, it logically follows that God is evil. Enjoying the suffering of others is evil; I'm sure you will agree. (And yes, he must enjoy it, and here's why:
1. God is all-powerful
2. Therefore, he decides everything that happens.
3. He wouldn't decide to do things he doesn't want to.
4. He wants to do things he enjoys.
5. He creates people, knowing ahead of time that they will endure unimaginable torture for all eternity.
6. Therefore, he enjoys it when people suffer for all eternity.)
It seems to me that you were the one being intolerant. Christians have just as much right as believers in evolution to talk about what they believe in the classroom. I for one, am a Creationist, which is what the Christians in your classroom are. And if someone is teaching about evolution, I think we have the right to express our views. Why should we be any different than you? We shouldn't. Just like if a teacher is teaching about Creation and evolutionists stand up and say that evolution is the way to believe. It's just a part of life, and different viewpoints, no matter how right or wrong you may think they are.

The problem is that Creationism is an entirely religious belief, and not a scientific, logical one. If you want to believe in it, that's fine, but religious beliefs have no place in science. Only logical conjecture based on evidence. And that's what evolution is.

EDIT: Sorry if that wasn't very coherent. I've got a habit of posting on forums and facebook walls when I'm drunk.
Angels World
22-02-2007, 07:52
I would have tested their reading/comprehension skills, and after that, i would have tasked them to show explicitly where the bible sets a priority that specifically disavows evolution as the natural mechanism for god's creation of things.
And then i'm sure things would go well from there.

I would like to take your reading/comprehension test. But I'll go ahead and skip that part and move on to the "explicit" proof.

Genesis Chapter 1: The Beginning

Starting with verse 1: "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
"And God said, '"Let there be light,"' and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light '"day,"' and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--on the first day. And God said, '"Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."' So God made the expanse and separate the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse '"sky."' And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day. And God said, '"Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear."' And it was so. God called the dry ground '"land,"' and the gathered waters he called '"seas."' And God saw that it was good.
"Then God said, '"Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds."' And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day. And God said, '"Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years."' And it was so. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day. And God said, '"Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."' So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, '"Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."' And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day. And God said, '"Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind."' And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
"Then God said, '"Let us make man in our image, and in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
"God blessed them and said to them, '"Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves over the ground."'
"Then God said, '"I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beast of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food."' And it was so.
"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day."
NERVUN
22-02-2007, 07:59
I would like to take your reading/comprehension test. But I'll go ahead and skip that part and move on to the "explicit" proof.
Neat. Here's mine:
At the beginning of time, the heavens and the earths were mixed together in a great cloud. Slowly, the clearer, lighter parts of the cloud rose up and became heaven. The heavier parts of the cloud descended and became an ocean of muddy water. Between the heavens and the earth, a pale green sprout began to grow. It grew swiftly and was extremely strong. When the plant's flower burst open, the First God emerged. This First God then created Izanagi, is the god of all that is light and heavenly. Izanagi, whose name means "the male who invites", and his wife and sister Izanami, whose name means "the female who invites". The First God gave Izanagi the task of finishing the creation of the world.

Standing on rainbow called Ama-no-ukihashi (the floating bridge of the heavens), they plunged a jewel crested spear into the ocean. When they pulled it free, the water that dripped from the spear coagulated and formed the first island of the Japanese archipelago. Izanagi and Izanami went down to this island and settled down on it. Together, on this island, they made the islands of Japan.

When Izanami died giving birth, Izanagi went to the underworld to retrieve her, but she refused to come back with him and they parted forever. When Izanagi returned from the underworld, he started the first cleaning rites. He washed his left eye and thus created the sun goddess Amaterasu. When he washed his right eye, the moon goddess Tsuki-Yumi came forth. From his nose he created Susanowo, the god of the seas and the storms.

Later, he created the first people and animals of the island.

Or there's

In the beginning, Ginnungagap yawned across the great void between the realms of fire and cold. When the warm air from the south met the cold air from the north, the ice of Ginnungagap began to melt. Drop by drop fell forming Ymir, the Frost Giant and first living thing of all. And from Ymir sprang the race of Frost Giants. The drops of melting ice from Ginnungagap also formed Audhumla, the primal cow. Her milk nourished Ymir at the start of creation. As Audhumla licked and licked at the ice of Ginnungagap, she revealed something frozen in the ice. She licked for days and finally Buri, the first man, was freed from his frozen prison. Buri, had a son, Bor, who married Bestla, the daughter of a Frost Giant. They in turn had three sons, Odin, Vili, and Ve. These were the first gods.

The three brothers grew tired of the brutality of the evil Ymir, so they did battle with the Frost Giants and slew Ymir. The blood of the fallen Giant flowed, flooding the land and drowning all of his Frost children, except for Bergelmir and his wife whom fled using a hollowed tree trunk as a boat. It is these two who continued the race of Frost Giants in the land of Jotunheim.
The gods Odin, Vili, and Ve then used Ymir's carcass to create Midgard, the world of men. They used his flesh to create the earth, his broken bones to make the mountains, his teeth to make the rocks, and his hair to create the trees. From his blood they made the lakes and the sea and from his skull the brothers fashioned the sky, placing four dwarfs, Nordi, Sudri, Austri, and Vestri, at its corners to hold it up. Then the three gods used sparks to create the sun, the moon, and the stars.

Later, the gods found some driftwood on the seashore. They took the fallen ash tree and created man. And from the fallen elm tree they fashioned woman. Odin breathed life into them. Vili gave them intelligence and emotion, and Ve gave them the ability to see and hear. Thus were created the first man and woman on Midgard.

Perhaps you'd like:

In the beginning , the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos. The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself. After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep. He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might to crack open the egg. The light, clear part of it floated up and formed the heavens, the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth. Pan Gu stood in the middle, his head touching the sky, his feet planted on the earth. The heavens and the earth began to grow at a rate of ten feet per day, and Pan Gu grew along with them. After another 18 thousand years, the sky was higher, the earth thicker, and Pan Gu stood between them like a pillar 9 million li in height so that they would never join again.

When Pan Gu died, his breath became the wind and clouds, his voice the rolling thunder. One eye became the sun and on the moon. His body and limbs turned to five big mountains and his blood formed the roaring water. His veins became far-stretching roads and his muscles fertile land. The innumerable stars in the sky came from his hair and beard, and flowers and trees from his skin and the fine hairs on his body. His marrow turned to jade and pearls. His sweat flowed like the good rain and sweet dew that nurtured all things on earth.

See? I can quote books too. That does not make explicit evidence.
BongDong
22-02-2007, 08:14
It seems to me that you were the one being intolerant. Christians have just as much right as believers in evolution to talk about what they believe in the classroom. I for one, am a Creationist, which is what the Christians in your classroom are. And if someone is teaching about evolution, I think we have the right to express our views. Why should we be any different than you? We shouldn't. Just like if a teacher is teaching about Creation and evolutionists stand up and say that evolution is the way to believe. It's just a part of life, and different viewpoints, no matter how right or wrong you may think they are.

Yes, but according to him the creationists present werent offering any contstructive rebuttals to what was being taught, instead they resorted to calling it the "Devils work" etc. Adding nothing useful and wasting other peoples time.
Socialist Pyrates
22-02-2007, 08:16
Um, that's not true. Adaptations can survive that are entirely neutral or, in fact, downright harmful. Evolution is not some magical force that forces that.

Sometimes even things that are harmful get passed on.

nope...harmful adaptations are eliminated, only man with science can neutralize the effects of a negative mutation...

....the flightless Dodo lost it's ability to fly which was ultimately a negative adaptation but it survived for thousands of years, in the short term not flying did it no harm as it had no predators.... long term losing it's ability to fly caused it's extinction when a new predator (man) arrived on the scene...

evolution is a result of constant arms race between predator and prey, every species must make the correct adaptation or become extinct...
Cyrian space
22-02-2007, 08:27
I would not tolerate creationism being preached in a science classroom any more than I would tolerate Denial of the Holocaust being taught in a history classroom. If you want your misguided beliefs to be heard, then there's a nice street corner we made just for you.
Socialist Pyrates
22-02-2007, 08:30
Um, that's not true. Adaptations can survive that are entirely neutral or, in fact, downright harmful. Evolution is not some magical force that forces that.

Sometimes even things that are harmful get passed on.

and if that were true there would be horses running about with legs growing out of their foreheads and horns out of their arses all over the place ....while there are horses with harmful mutations they are eliminated very quickly they do not go on to form a new species...

a four or three toed horse just doesn't evolve into a one toed horse for no reason...it's an adaptation to a change in it's environment, the random mutation that best allowed the horse to cope in it's changed environment thrived, all others that were harmful or did not benefit it, did not....
Cyrian space
22-02-2007, 08:44
and if that were true there would be horses running about with legs growing out of their foreheads and horns out of their arses all over the place ....while there are horses with harmful mutations they are eliminated very quickly they do not go on to form a new species...

a four or three toed horse just doesn't evolve into a one toed horse for no reason...it's an adaptation to a change in it's environment, the random mutation that best allowed the horse to cope in it's changed environment thrived, all others that were harmful or did not benefit it, did not....

It's not simply a question of the one toed horse being better, it's a question of the four toed horse not being good enough to survive. If no species ever went extinct, evolution would be ridiculously obvious.
NERVUN
22-02-2007, 09:02
a four or three toed horse just doesn't evolve into a one toed horse for no reason...it's an adaptation to a change in it's environment, the random mutation that best allowed the horse to cope in it's changed environment thrived, all others that were harmful or did not benefit it, did not....
Actually, yes, it happened for no reason. Harmful mutations do and are passed on. Evolution isn't interested in anything after all. There's also the matter that, from a strict POV, the whole idea is for an individual critter to be able to pass on its genes. That's it, end of story. So if a harmful mutation still allows its carrier to mate and pass on its genes, it will be carried along for the ride, even if said mutation ends up killing said critter later on in his or her or its life.
Socialist Pyrates
22-02-2007, 09:44
Actually, yes, it happened for no reason. Harmful mutations do and are passed on. Evolution isn't interested in anything after all. There's also the matter that, from a strict POV, the whole idea is for an individual critter to be able to pass on its genes. That's it, end of story. So if a harmful mutation still allows its carrier to mate and pass on its genes, it will be carried along for the ride, even if said mutation ends up killing said critter later on in his or her or its life.

obviously you're not understanding the debate.....there is huge difference between an individual passing on a defective gene to another individual.... and an entire new species being created by a harmful gene, that doesn't happen...we don't have herds of horses running around with a fifth leg sticking out of their foreheads...

for an entire species to evolve from a four toed animal to a one toed horse there must have been benefits to each step of that evolution...a four toed horse who carries a three toed gene doesn't suddenly cause an entire species become three toed, there had to be environmental advantages for having three toed horses replacing four toed horses......

....if a environmental change makes it an advantage for a horse with a fifth leg to survive vs horses with 4 legs then we'll have herds of 5 legged horses...
Andaras Prime
22-02-2007, 10:00
Well, I think it'd be very difficult to teach geology, anthropology, and zoology without evolution. I don't believe it's contradictory to believe in science and believe in God.

One is based on science, the other is based on faith. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, it's a religious belief. And The US Constitution does not allow for the teaching of religion in US public schools.

Can't we agree that the inclusion of non-scientific explanations into the science curriculum of our schools misrepresents the nature of science? And therefore compromises a central purpose in our public education which is the preparation of a scientifically literate workforce. I think so.
NERVUN
22-02-2007, 10:43
obviously you're not understanding the debate.....there is huge difference between an individual passing on a defective gene to another individual.... and an entire new species being created by a harmful gene, that doesn't happen...we don't have herds of horses running around with a fifth leg sticking out of their foreheads...
So the fact that we have genetic diseases within our species then means... what now?

Bad genes do get passed on. As long as they don't kill the critter in question before it can mate, along it goes.

As to it creating a new species... that's harder to state as there's an awful lot of overlap and no one has ever found the boundary line between species A and species B.
Cyrian space
22-02-2007, 10:43
obviously you're not understanding the debate.....there is huge difference between an individual passing on a defective gene to another individual.... and an entire new species being created by a harmful gene, that doesn't happen...we don't have herds of horses running around with a fifth leg sticking out of their foreheads...

for an entire species to evolve from a four toed animal to a one toed horse there must have been benefits to each step of that evolution...a four toed horse who carries a three toed gene doesn't suddenly cause an entire species become three toed, there had to be environmental advantages for having three toed horses replacing four toed horses......

....if a environmental change makes it an advantage for a horse with a fifth leg to survive vs horses with 4 legs then we'll have herds of 5 legged horses...

Well, that's supposing that at least a few horses gain a fifth leg by mutation, which seems rather unlikely, at least from what we've seen in genetics so far. I certainly couldn't see it happen in one mutation.
PootWaddle
22-02-2007, 16:31
Here's the problem: he, according to your religion, doesn't just end the existence of the nonbelievers. He submits them to unimaginably terrible torture for all eternity. This is CRUEL. Cruelty is evil. Therefore, it logically follows that God is evil. Enjoying the suffering of others is evil; I'm sure you will agree. (And yes, he must enjoy it, and here's why:

You are using a logical fallacy to reach your conclussion... I'll use your steps to answer it specifically.

1. God is all-powerful
He is even powerful enough to have created a universe with true free will for us, as hard as that is for us to concieve of, all things are possible for him.

2. Therefore, he decides everything that happens.
see above; If he is all powerful and determined to allow free will, he would succeed. He decided to allow us to choose from a couple of options what happens to us.

3. He wouldn't decide to do things he doesn't want to.
You have made an unsupported postion statement here. It is not a given that he only does what he desires to do. If he desires free will then he desires to restrict himself from choosing for us.

4. He wants to do things he enjoys.
This is not established from the steps above, I don't see where that conclussion is supported at all.

5. He creates people, knowing ahead of time that they will endure unimaginable torture for all eternity.
He creates people hoping they will choose eternal life.

6. Therefore, he enjoys it when people suffer for all eternity.
This is not at all established by the points above, the steps do not lead here, thus this series of steps is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

Additionally: I’m not so sure about the “suffer for all eternity” part you mentioned either. Permanent death for all eternity and separation from God forever, sure. But eventual destruction does seem to be a possibility from what the scripture says, thus it would not mean eternal torture but eventual death/destruction…

2 Thessalonians 1:8-10
…in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

The “Second death” doesn’t sound like tortured for all eternity to me, it sounds like throwing away and discarding unredeemed garbage. Torture is not the intent of throwing away trash.
Prodigal Penguins
22-02-2007, 16:33
It's not simply a question of the one toed horse being better, it's a question of the four toed horse not being good enough to survive. If no species ever went extinct, evolution would be ridiculously obvious.

Ergo, the one toed horse is better by virtue of the fact that it was good enough to survive, while the four toed horse was not good enough to survive.
Prodigal Penguins
22-02-2007, 16:38
obviously you're not understanding the debate.....there is huge difference between an individual passing on a defective gene to another individual.... and an entire new species being created by a harmful gene, that doesn't happen...we don't have herds of horses running around with a fifth leg sticking out of their foreheads...

for an entire species to evolve from a four toed animal to a one toed horse there must have been benefits to each step of that evolution...a four toed horse who carries a three toed gene doesn't suddenly cause an entire species become three toed, there had to be environmental advantages for having three toed horses replacing four toed horses......

....if a environmental change makes it an advantage for a horse with a fifth leg to survive vs horses with 4 legs then we'll have herds of 5 legged horses...

There first would have to be a mutation in which horses were born with a fifth leg for this to be a plausibility. If the environment is more conducive to five legs than four, four legged horses may still survive with them. A random mutation that sprouts a fifth leg would eventually take their place, but until such a mutation occurred the environmental advantage for fifth-leggers goes unrealized, and thus insignificant.
Arthais101
22-02-2007, 16:48
nope...harmful adaptations are eliminated, only man with science can neutralize the effects of a negative mutation...

....the flightless Dodo lost it's ability to fly which was ultimately a negative adaptation but it survived for thousands of years, in the short term not flying did it no harm as it had no predators.... long term losing it's ability to fly caused it's extinction when a new predator (man) arrived on the scene...

evolution is a result of constant arms race between predator and prey, every species must make the correct adaptation or become extinct...

the problem is you define a negative mutation as a harmful one, one that will cause the species to go extinct if that mutation propogates.

This is not necessarily true. A mutation can occur to...I dunno...lessen eyesight. This would be a negative mutation. It doesn't mean that a species that no longer sees as well will go extinct, it may have other toos to deal with its situation.
Socialist Pyrates
22-02-2007, 19:46
So the fact that we have genetic diseases within our species then means... what now?

Bad genes do get passed on. As long as they don't kill the critter in question before it can mate, along it goes.

As to it creating a new species... that's harder to state as there's an awful lot of overlap and no one has ever found the boundary line between species A and species B.

strangely enough genetic diseases often aid in a species survival that's why they persist...a disease that will ultimately kill an individual organism often protects the species from other illnesses by insuring the some will survive...

Sickle Cell Anemia is ultimately a fatal genetic ailment but it's victims have a resistance to malaria allowing many of them to survive long enough to procreate and raise their offspring...if it were not for this harmful genetic disease entire populations could be eradicated...Tay-Sachs disease suffers have an apparent resistance to TB....

so are bad genes really "bad genes" or part of a natural process that helps species cope with the ever changing environment?...
Drunk commies deleted
22-02-2007, 20:34
strangely enough genetic diseases often aid in a species survival that's why they persist...a disease that will ultimately kill an individual organism often protects the species from other illnesses by insuring the some will survive...

Sickle Cell Anemia is ultimately a fatal genetic ailment but it's victims have a resistance to malaria allowing many of them to survive long enough to procreate and raise their offspring...if it were not for this harmful genetic disease entire populations could be eradicated...Tay-Sachs disease suffers have an apparent resistance to TB....

so are bad genes really "bad genes" or part of a natural process that helps species cope with the ever changing environment?...

I think the resistence to malaria is also passed on to a person heterozygous for sickle cell, therefore about half of the offspring of a heterozygous couple would exhibit no sickle cell symptoms and still enjoy protection from malaria. Sounds like a survival advantage to me.
The Kaza-Matadorians
22-02-2007, 21:12
I think the resistence to malaria is also passed on to a person heterozygous for sickle cell, therefore about half of the offspring of a heterozygous couple would exhibit no sickle cell symptoms and still enjoy protection from malaria. Sounds like a survival advantage to me.

Sure, but I'd sure hate to be part of the other half of the offspring.
Cyrian space
22-02-2007, 22:31
Sure, but I'd sure hate to be part of the other half of the offspring.

Evolution is not a gentle force. Then again, neither is gravity.
Cyrian space
22-02-2007, 22:32
You are using a logical fallacy to reach your conclussion... I'll use your steps to answer it specifically.

1. God is all-powerful
He is even powerful enough to have created a universe with true free will for us, as hard as that is for us to concieve of, all things are possible for him.

2. Therefore, he decides everything that happens.
see above; If he is all powerful and determined to allow free will, he would succeed. He decided to allow us to choose from a couple of options what happens to us.

3. He wouldn't decide to do things he doesn't want to.
You have made an unsupported postion statement here. It is not a given that he only does what he desires to do. If he desires free will then he desires to restrict himself from choosing for us.

4. He wants to do things he enjoys.
This is not established from the steps above, I don't see where that conclussion is supported at all.

5. He creates people, knowing ahead of time that they will endure unimaginable torture for all eternity.
He creates people hoping they will choose eternal life.

6. Therefore, he enjoys it when people suffer for all eternity.
This is not at all established by the points above, the steps do not lead here, thus this series of steps is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

Additionally: I’m not so sure about the “suffer for all eternity” part you mentioned either. Permanent death for all eternity and separation from God forever, sure. But eventual destruction does seem to be a possibility from what the scripture says, thus it would not mean eternal torture but eventual death/destruction…

2 Thessalonians 1:8-10
…in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

The “Second death” doesn’t sound like tortured for all eternity to me, it sounds like throwing away and discarding unredeemed garbage. Torture is not the intent of throwing away trash.

Why are you ignoring all the stuff about "lake of fire" and "brimstone" and inflicting vengeance, and suffering punishment, and all that? Hell is the basis of this whole "God must be evil" argument, so hell not existing would go quite some way to God not being such a horrible person.
TotalDomination69
22-02-2007, 22:45
Its simply the fact that the Christain religion is on the downward slope of its time and itself is on the way to extinction. Religoins too evolve, just like animals. And when the religion is unable to adapt with its enviroment it will die off. Much like the polytheistic religons of ancient times. And I'm sure many can agree, that Christans today are almost 100% different than the christans of 34 B.C.
TotalDomination69
22-02-2007, 22:52
You are using a logical fallacy to reach your conclussion... I'll use your steps to answer it specifically.

1. God is all-powerful
He is even powerful enough to have created a universe with true free will for us, as hard as that is for us to concieve of, all things are possible for him.

2. Therefore, he decides everything that happens.
see above; If he is all powerful and determined to allow free will, he would succeed. He decided to allow us to choose from a couple of options what happens to us.

3. He wouldn't decide to do things he doesn't want to.
You have made an unsupported postion statement here. It is not a given that he only does what he desires to do. If he desires free will then he desires to restrict himself from choosing for us.

4. He wants to do things he enjoys.
This is not established from the steps above, I don't see where that conclussion is supported at all.

5. He creates people, knowing ahead of time that they will endure unimaginable torture for all eternity.
He creates people hoping they will choose eternal life.

6. Therefore, he enjoys it when people suffer for all eternity.
This is not at all established by the points above, the steps do not lead here, thus this series of steps is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

Additionally: I’m not so sure about the “suffer for all eternity” part you mentioned either. Permanent death for all eternity and separation from God forever, sure. But eventual destruction does seem to be a possibility from what the scripture says, thus it would not mean eternal torture but eventual death/destruction…

2 Thessalonians 1:8-10
…in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

The “Second death” doesn’t sound like tortured for all eternity to me, it sounds like throwing away and discarding unredeemed garbage. Torture is not the intent of throwing away trash.

You know, I'm not trying to flame here... but this is how I see it, really.

God is a Divine Rapist... Why you might ask? think of it this way...

You must love God to get into heaven and avoid being tourtered or vanquished or whatever... If you don't love him, you are punished.

That, my freinds, is Forced Love. Forced Love is Rape.

So, I highly dought the exsistance of a hell or something like it. Because I dont believe a being as powerful and awesome as a God, would waste its time getting off by rapeing poor lowly humans.
Angels World
23-02-2007, 23:44
Neat. Here's mine:
At the beginning of time, the heavens and the earths were mixed together in a great cloud. Slowly, the clearer, lighter parts of the cloud rose up and became heaven. The heavier parts of the cloud descended and became an ocean of muddy water. Between the heavens and the earth, a pale green sprout began to grow. It grew swiftly and was extremely strong. When the plant's flower burst open, the First God emerged. This First God then created Izanagi, is the god of all that is light and heavenly. Izanagi, whose name means "the male who invites", and his wife and sister Izanami, whose name means "the female who invites". The First God gave Izanagi the task of finishing the creation of the world.

Standing on rainbow called Ama-no-ukihashi (the floating bridge of the heavens), they plunged a jewel crested spear into the ocean. When they pulled it free, the water that dripped from the spear coagulated and formed the first island of the Japanese archipelago. Izanagi and Izanami went down to this island and settled down on it. Together, on this island, they made the islands of Japan.

When Izanami died giving birth, Izanagi went to the underworld to retrieve her, but she refused to come back with him and they parted forever. When Izanagi returned from the underworld, he started the first cleaning rites. He washed his left eye and thus created the sun goddess Amaterasu. When he washed his right eye, the moon goddess Tsuki-Yumi came forth. From his nose he created Susanowo, the god of the seas and the storms.

Later, he created the first people and animals of the island.

Or there's

In the beginning, Ginnungagap yawned across the great void between the realms of fire and cold. When the warm air from the south met the cold air from the north, the ice of Ginnungagap began to melt. Drop by drop fell forming Ymir, the Frost Giant and first living thing of all. And from Ymir sprang the race of Frost Giants. The drops of melting ice from Ginnungagap also formed Audhumla, the primal cow. Her milk nourished Ymir at the start of creation. As Audhumla licked and licked at the ice of Ginnungagap, she revealed something frozen in the ice. She licked for days and finally Buri, the first man, was freed from his frozen prison. Buri, had a son, Bor, who married Bestla, the daughter of a Frost Giant. They in turn had three sons, Odin, Vili, and Ve. These were the first gods.

The three brothers grew tired of the brutality of the evil Ymir, so they did battle with the Frost Giants and slew Ymir. The blood of the fallen Giant flowed, flooding the land and drowning all of his Frost children, except for Bergelmir and his wife whom fled using a hollowed tree trunk as a boat. It is these two who continued the race of Frost Giants in the land of Jotunheim.
The gods Odin, Vili, and Ve then used Ymir's carcass to create Midgard, the world of men. They used his flesh to create the earth, his broken bones to make the mountains, his teeth to make the rocks, and his hair to create the trees. From his blood they made the lakes and the sea and from his skull the brothers fashioned the sky, placing four dwarfs, Nordi, Sudri, Austri, and Vestri, at its corners to hold it up. Then the three gods used sparks to create the sun, the moon, and the stars.

Later, the gods found some driftwood on the seashore. They took the fallen ash tree and created man. And from the fallen elm tree they fashioned woman. Odin breathed life into them. Vili gave them intelligence and emotion, and Ve gave them the ability to see and hear. Thus were created the first man and woman on Midgard.

Perhaps you'd like:

In the beginning , the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos. The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself. After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep. He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might to crack open the egg. The light, clear part of it floated up and formed the heavens, the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth. Pan Gu stood in the middle, his head touching the sky, his feet planted on the earth. The heavens and the earth began to grow at a rate of ten feet per day, and Pan Gu grew along with them. After another 18 thousand years, the sky was higher, the earth thicker, and Pan Gu stood between them like a pillar 9 million li in height so that they would never join again.

When Pan Gu died, his breath became the wind and clouds, his voice the rolling thunder. One eye became the sun and on the moon. His body and limbs turned to five big mountains and his blood formed the roaring water. His veins became far-stretching roads and his muscles fertile land. The innumerable stars in the sky came from his hair and beard, and flowers and trees from his skin and the fine hairs on his body. His marrow turned to jade and pearls. His sweat flowed like the good rain and sweet dew that nurtured all things on earth.

See? I can quote books too. That does not make explicit evidence.

Who created the cloud? Who created the sprout? And who created the brains of the gods?]
Angels World
23-02-2007, 23:53
I would not tolerate creationism being preached in a science classroom any more than I would tolerate Denial of the Holocaust being taught in a history classroom. If you want your misguided beliefs to be heard, then there's a nice street corner we made just for you.

Why not? Isn't creation science too? And wouldn't that be against the law of freedom of speech? ... At any rate, we will see who is correct and who is "misguided" come judgement day. In the meantime, I'll leave you to your thoughts.
Eve Online
23-02-2007, 23:56
Yesterday, in biology 101 (I have failed like 3 times already) our professor was talking about the Theory of Evolution. ( if you don't know what is.. shame on you; but here is help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) anyway, he was talking about it and several Tennessean bible thumpers started raising hell about how the theory of evolution is heresy and the work of the devil; that humans were created from gods image... and that (according to them) humans are the same as they were 6000 years (6000 being the reletive age of the world-acording to them-) I told them I believed in the theory of evolution and they called me atheist. bastards!

I wanted to punch them, I don't mind people having real faith in their religion.. I really don't, but I believe that you shouldn't take science and throw religion into the middle of it.. it just doesn't work.

What do you think, should I have punched them for being stupid and intolerant to other peoples beliefs. What would you have done?


1. How does that translate into your title's claim of "all Christians really". A lot of Christians, including myself, believe in evolution.

2. How did you fail Biology 101 three times? Let me guess.
Angels World
24-02-2007, 00:04
You are using a logical fallacy to reach your conclussion... I'll use your steps to answer it specifically.

1. God is all-powerful
He is even powerful enough to have created a universe with true free will for us, as hard as that is for us to concieve of, all things are possible for him.

2. Therefore, he decides everything that happens.
see above; If he is all powerful and determined to allow free will, he would succeed. He decided to allow us to choose from a couple of options what happens to us.

3. He wouldn't decide to do things he doesn't want to.
You have made an unsupported postion statement here. It is not a given that he only does what he desires to do. If he desires free will then he desires to restrict himself from choosing for us.

4. He wants to do things he enjoys.
This is not established from the steps above, I don't see where that conclussion is supported at all.

5. He creates people, knowing ahead of time that they will endure unimaginable torture for all eternity.
He creates people hoping they will choose eternal life.

6. Therefore, he enjoys it when people suffer for all eternity.
This is not at all established by the points above, the steps do not lead here, thus this series of steps is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

Additionally: I’m not so sure about the “suffer for all eternity” part you mentioned either. Permanent death for all eternity and separation from God forever, sure. But eventual destruction does seem to be a possibility from what the scripture says, thus it would not mean eternal torture but eventual death/destruction…

2 Thessalonians 1:8-10
…in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

The “Second death” doesn’t sound like tortured for all eternity to me, it sounds like throwing away and discarding unredeemed garbage. Torture is not the intent of throwing away trash.

"second death" is spiritual death, not physical death. And why should people who choose who don't believe in Christ worry about Heaven? If they don't believe in Christ then they must not believe in Heaven or Hell. You can't have one without the other.
The blessed Chris
24-02-2007, 00:08
They're morons. They believe in a set of misinterpreted and mistranslated Judaic ancient texts, and allow blind stupidity to overcome the glaringly obvious; Christianity is bollocks, with no reasonable justification for its tenets, and a history marred by bloodshed and slaughter.
Drunk commies deleted
24-02-2007, 00:34
Why not? Isn't creation science too? And wouldn't that be against the law of freedom of speech? ... At any rate, we will see who is correct and who is "misguided" come judgement day. In the meantime, I'll leave you to your thoughts.

No, creation can't be science. Science conserns itself with the study of the natural world through observations of the natural world. Creation appeals to a supernatural being as an explanation. You can't observe a god, you can't test for the presence of a god, and you can't make predicitons based on a god because the god can change it's minds. That makes creation religion, not science.

Freedom of speech is fine, as long as it doesn't infringe on the free exercise of religion. If teachers forced students to listen to the creation story of one religion they're violating the rights of other students who don't accept that myth or that god. Science is religion neutral. I don't care if you're a Jew, Christian, Atheist, or a shaman from some Amazon tribe, the natural world is the same.
NERVUN
24-02-2007, 05:54
Who created the cloud? Who created the sprout? And who created the brains of the gods?]
Who created yours?
Katganistan
24-02-2007, 06:00
Yesterday, in biology 101 (I have failed like 3 times already) our professor was talking about the Theory of Evolution. ( if you don't know what is.. shame on you; but here is help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) anyway, he was talking about it and several Tennessean bible thumpers started raising hell about how the theory of evolution is heresy and the work of the devil; that humans were created from gods image... and that (according to them) humans are the same as they were 6000 years (6000 being the reletive age of the world-acording to them-) I told them I believed in the theory of evolution and they called me atheist. bastards!

I wanted to punch them, I don't mind people having real faith in their religion.. I really don't, but I believe that you shouldn't take science and throw religion into the middle of it.. it just doesn't work.

What do you think, should I have punched them for being stupid and intolerant to other peoples beliefs. What would you have done?

Turned the other cheek.
Darknovae
24-02-2007, 06:01
Not all Christians are ignorant, deluded, or dishonest enough to deny that evolution has happened.

I believed in evolution when I was still Christian.

The reason I'm no longer Christian is that most Christians follow Paul's teachings rather than Jesus Christ's, which disturbs my inner hippie.
Non Aligned States
24-02-2007, 06:04
What do you think, should I have punched them for being stupid and intolerant to other peoples beliefs. What would you have done?

You could have always replied "I'm sorry, I'm terribly afraid of germs, and if I pay attention to you, I might catch stupiditis"
Darknovae
24-02-2007, 06:06
Who created the cloud? Who created the sprout? And who created the brains of the gods?]

1. Water Vapor
2. plant cells
3. gods do not exist, and whoever created their brains does not exist either.
PootWaddle
24-02-2007, 06:20
I believed in evolution when I was still Christian.

The reason I'm no longer Christian is that most Christians follow Paul's teachings rather than Jesus Christ's, which disturbs my inner hippie.

Jesus came and lived and walked with the Jews, the covenant was through Judaism and the Old Testament and the Tabernacle, then Temple, and Jesus came to fulfill that promise to God’s people. As Jesus said they would though, the entrenched religion of the day in Judaism rejected the new covenant of Christ. Which open the door for others. As Jesus said;

Matthew 22:1-10
And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.' But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them.

The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.' And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.

Paul was sent out after the first invitation was rejected, he invited and taught not to the Jews but to the Gentiles, he told them how they too could accept the gift of Salvation through Jesus Christ, AND he taught that they didn't need to become Jews before they become Christians, needing to follow Jesus, not Moses.

Since you reject Paul's epistles to the Gentiles, you willing choose to follow the Law of Moses and the OT? You would choose that instead of freedom in Christ? Interesting.

I would have thought a hippy would want the freedom granted through Christ for the people, not a bunch of laws telling them how to live and what to eat...Why would you expect Gentile Christians to become like Orthodox Jews?
New Stalinberg
24-02-2007, 06:27
*eats popcorn while laughing at thread*
Darknovae
24-02-2007, 06:29
Since you reject Paul's epistles to the Gentiles, you willing choose to follow the Law of Moses and the OT? You would choose that instead of freedom in Christ? Interesting. Err... no, you miss my point. What Jesus taught actually contradicted most of the OT, plus Paul taught that Jesus was the Son of God, when Jesus may have been the Messiah, but certainly not the son of some imaginary cloud-guy.

I would have thought a hippy would want the freedom granted through Christ for the people, not a bunch of laws telling them how to live and what to eat...Why would you expect Gentile Christians to become like Orthodox Jews?

Your post tells me you are a devout Christian. I am an atheist. For one, he OT is mostly myths and ancient laws, laws based on myths and rivalries and whatever else. Two, my inner hippie would like to remind you that Jesus taught differently from Judaism. Have you noticed God's change of heart in the NT? Yeah, Jesus taught differently than what was in the OT. Three, my inner hippie would also like to remind you that your "freedom throguh Jesus Christ" is saying "accepting Christ as your Savior" which is Paul's teachings, not Jesus's teachings.
PootWaddle
24-02-2007, 06:58
Err... no, you miss my point. What Jesus taught actually contradicted most of the OT, plus Paul taught that Jesus was the Son of God, when Jesus may have been the Messiah, but certainly not the son of some imaginary cloud-guy.



Your post tells me you are a devout Christian. I am an atheist. For one, he OT is mostly myths and ancient laws, laws based on myths and rivalries and whatever else. Two, my inner hippie would like to remind you that Jesus taught differently from Judaism. Have you noticed God's change of heart in the NT? Yeah, Jesus taught differently than what was in the OT. Three, my inner hippie would also like to remind you that your "freedom throguh Jesus Christ" is saying "accepting Christ as your Savior" which is Paul's teachings, not Jesus's teachings.

O RLY? Jesus DID say to believe in him so that you do not remain in darkness... Jesus also said to believe in him was to believe in the Father who sent him...

John 11:21-27
Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you." Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" She said to him, "Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world."


John 12:44-50
And Jesus cried out and said, "Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment--what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me."

I think Jesus disagrees with your assessment of the situation.
Poliwanacraca
24-02-2007, 07:31
Evolution is not a gentle force. Then again, neither is gravity.

You know, this may be the first quote I've ever seen on these forums that I've been seriously tempted to sig. Well done! :)
Cyrian space
24-02-2007, 08:15
You know, this may be the first quote I've ever seen on these forums that I've been seriously tempted to sig. Well done! :)

Please do. I might actually start feeling like a regular.
Cyrian space
24-02-2007, 08:21
Why not? Isn't creation science too? And wouldn't that be against the law of freedom of speech? ... At any rate, we will see who is correct and who is "misguided" come judgement day. In the meantime, I'll leave you to your thoughts.

Creationism is not science. Intelligent design could be pawned off as philosophy, but Creationism is nothing but faith.

Also, nothing in the first amendment says that you should get a captive audience to berate, and that is what a public school classroom is. you can say what you want on the streetcorner, but there is no guarantee that anyone will listen to you. If you have money, you can even print up a book and hawk it, but if no one wants to read it, then no one wants to read it. But you have no right to a captive audience of schoolkids.