Darwin or Design? Resolving the Conflict.

[Old Bateman]

Since AJ brought the subject up again, for those not afraid to open their minds to possibly opposing views:
Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
Save the Date!
Darwin or Design?
Resolving the Conflict
University of South Florida’s Sun Dome, Sept. 29th, 2006 at 7:00 p.m

Sponsored by Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.org

Featuring:

Dr. Michael Behe
Biochemist and author of Darwin’s Black Box

Dr. Jonathan Wells
Embryologist and author of Icons of Evolution

Dr. Ralph Seelke
Professor of biology & research scientist


Emcee:
Dr. Tom Woodward
Author of Doubts About Darwin
http://www.pssiinternational.com/save_the_date.htm

Cost $5 for non students. I'll be there!

[Dive4Blood]

This is bullshit. There is no debate because the group sponsoring the event is just a front for intelligent design advocacy. I might as well go listen to Mother Goose or the tales of the Brothers Grimm...it's just as plausible as the earth being created in six 24 hour time periods only 6,000-10,000 years ago.

[Old Bateman]

Physicians and Surgeons’ Statement of Dissent” which states "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory.” This statement is similar to that signed by over 500 scientists worldwide

Let me see AJ, base my beliefs on your bloviations, or go listen to these guys? Hard choice! ;)

[mbhalihunter]

500 scientists is a very small amount, there are over 100 at my graduate school, and i don't think one of them doubts darwin, even the extreme republican guy that sends right wing spam to everyone.

[apexpredator]

How does the theory of evolution conflict with Protestant Christian beliefs?

What do Protestant Christians believe about the appearance of life (new species) on this planet (ie the way this happens.)

How old is the earth?

Did dinosaurs ever exist and if they did how long ago was it when they walked the earth?

Would Christianity fail to exist if it were ever proven that evolution and natural selection are scientific fact undeniable by even the most scheptic.

Even if you recreate existance and the universe backwards right to the second of what could or could not have been a big bang that created this universe doesn't the unanswerable question of why and by whom/what remain?

Just wondering...

[fast97rs]

How does the theory of evolution conflict with Protestant Christian beliefs?

What do Protestant Christians believe about the appearance of life (new species) on this planet (ie the way this happens.)

How old is the earth?

Did dinosaurs ever exist and if they did how long ago was it when they walked the earth?

Would Christianity fail to exist if it were ever proven that evolution and natural selection are scientific fact undeniable by even the most scheptic.

Even if you recreate existance and the universe backwards right to the second of what could or could not have been a big bang that created this universe doesn't the unanswerable question of why and by whom/what remain?

Just wondering...

:D :thumps: .......... hit the nail on the head....

[DIVERTOM]

Hey people are allowed to be as dumb as they want to, its a free country.
They may try to dumb other people down but who's going to listen to them.
Sounds like a "Return to the Dark Ages" class. Have fun and don't forget the
beer nuts.

[Doc]

I have seen Dr Behe speak. Dr Behe's arguments against "darwanism" ARE thinly veiled arguments for "creationism" although he does not like to admit this to his audience... but did after I pressured him a bit.

His Scientific rationale for the existence of life on this planet was essentially "Well if darwin was wrong, then what other explanation could there be?" He seemed utterly fixed on Darwin; as he now is fixed on god, and seemed to discount the entire scientific body of knowledge in the feilds of biology, genetics, ecology, archeology, geology etc that has develloped in the time since then... and arguably all of which do not need a "creator" or "faith" to fills the gaps in logic or understanding as there are few left.

I would not give credence to ANY scientist who claimed to have once been a "devout Darwinist" as he did during his speech to us (this, in itself, is a religeous pronouncement, not a scientific one.)

I would never claim to have any of the answers to the big questions, but I can say assertively that If any one was looking for those answers, this is not the palce I would start my search.

[bikewrench]

I teach high school biology. Three weeks ago on the second day of school I mentioned evolution as one of the "themes of biology" that we would be studying this year, along with energy, cellular organization, homeostasis, growth and development, etc. When I said the word "evolution" this 10th grade girl in the front row closed her eyes tight, stuck her two index fingers in her ears and whispered to herself, "I'm not listening God, I'm not listening." I swear to god this actually happened.

[chuam]

I teach high school biology. Three weeks ago on the second day of school I mentioned evolution as one of the "themes of biology" that we would be studying this year, along with energy, cellular organization, homeostasis, growth and development, etc. When I said the word "evolution" this 10th grade girl in the front row closed her eyes tight, stuck her two index fingers in her ears and whispered to herself, "I'm not listening God, I'm not listening." I swear to god this actually happened.

Our future looks bleak with kids like these being our future......

[Don B]

Will this subject ever go away? I took a DCS hit Sunday, in the brain, and it didn't hurt my head as much as this subject. Their is no debate only argument, because NETHER side can prove beyond doubt that they are right. So why can't we believe what we want and respect others to do the same, because it don't make a damn bit of difference, it's not going to change the way the sun rises or the world goes around.

[snowstopsspears]

When I said the word "evolution" this 10th grade girl in the front row closed her eyes tight, stuck her two index fingers in her ears and whispered to herself, "I'm not listening God, I'm not listening." I swear to god this actually happened.

You should have told her to take a few deep breaths and slam back a xanax. Oh, yeah, and added, "Hey, hon, don't worry. God isn't listening either, so you can cover your mouth, too."

[fishhunta]

My faith aside......I highly doubt Darwin. It has nothing to do with what I do beleive, but everything to do with the scientific method, laws of physics, laws of thermodynamics, and the criteria for a theory to become fact.
Whether or not I think the earth is 500 years old, or aliens planted us here, or whatever, the fact the darwinian evolution is yet and far from being proven remains true.

[bfsc]

I might as well go listen to Mother Goose or the tales of the Brothers Grimm...it's just as plausible as the earth being created in six 24 hour time periods only 6,000-10,000 years ago.

Your right a much better explaination is that 10 billion years ago there was nothing (no universe, no "space", just a nothingness) except a particle the size of a pea. From this pea the universe was created instantly and has been constantly expanding for the past 10 billion years (all from something the size of a pea).

Both sides sound crazy?

[jackpine savage]

Believe what you want. The fact is that the scientific and educational world accept evolution as scientific fact. It has been proven using the scientific method and the results have withstood peer review. Teach your children whatever you want, but in a public school the curricula should remain what is a proven fact, not a religious dogma disguised as something its not. Send your kids to a religious school if you wish.

[chuam]

I believe it all came from the flying spaghetti monster.

http://www.venganza.org/

[jackpine savage]

That damn thing came out of nowhere one night when I was walking back from the pub. Damn freak was lucky I was drunk and my shot was off or I would have plugged him one

[bikewrench]

Fish, when people tell you that evolution can't be possible because of the laws of physics and thermodynamics it means one of two things: they are lying to you in order to brainwash you or they don't understand those Laws. And another thing... A theory is not a "fact" it is a model that explains something we see in nature (like the fossil record, the current diversity of life, the similarity between you and an earthworm, etc.) it is based on overwhelming observations and experimental testing performed by dozens or hundreds of different researchers who are trying to disprove each other, yet end up seeing the same results. And just as important a "good" theory predicts what will happen in the future. Scientific theories predict the future all the time (your computer would not be possible if theories did not predict the future). The "Theory" of Evolution does a great job at predicting experimental results all the time. A Religous doctrine might make you "feel good" about how it explains what we see around us but no religous statement has ever accurately predicted the future except maybe by accident. Oh by the way, the Catholic Church's official position on Darwinian Evolution is that it accepts it. Look it up.

[lens]

I think they just recently built some machine to test the Big Bang theory in a smaller contained system. I forget where I read this. But it has been mentioned in a few articles over the past weeks.

I am no physicist so I was not able to understand some of the information provided. I will do a search and see what I can come up with.

If this test does show or increase the possibility of the Big Bang theory, what will the ID or Creationist proponents say?

[dmay]

Have you found jebus?

[peterv]

We don't understand gravity very well.
Isaac Newton gave it a name and described the forces in 1687. We understand enough to fly planes & put objects in orbit but not gravity waves and how they attract matter and bend light. Does anyone not "believe" in gravity ?

I've been to the Galapagos Islands and to islands on the Wallace Line.
I've seen first hand minute differences in animals on adjacent islands.
Natural selection is the best explanation of a process by which populations of animals (or plants, or even E. Coli) may differ over time. Darwin & Wallace described what they saw and submitted a theory that is a reasonable fit.

I've studied Nature close up (operated the first SEM at UW-Madison).
I explored microscopic landscapes of plants, insects, and animal cells and saw things that humans had never seen before. I saw much which impressed me about the elegance of Nature. I saw nothing which denies a Creator.

We don't have a problem with gravity. Intelligent Falling ? No way.
Natural selection is just Nature's process for change.

[DIVERTOM]

The time line.

[jfjf]

I teach high school biology. Three weeks ago on the second day of school I mentioned evolution as one of the "themes of biology" that we would be studying this year, along with energy, cellular organization, homeostasis, growth and development, etc. When I said the word "evolution" this 10th grade girl in the front row closed her eyes tight, stuck her two index fingers in her ears and whispered to herself, "I'm not listening God, I'm not listening." I swear to god this actually happened.

I sure hope that you take the time to explain to the girl that nothing you are going to cover in class even remotely questions the existance of a God. If you are a decent biology teacher you will also make her understand that she DOES need to learn the theory of evolution to pass the class, however she is not required to believe any portion of it!

Lastly, I hope that you explain that no scientist has ever created life from non-living material, and that the entire theory of evolution is based on the ASSUMPTION (or premise) that life started "by iteself". When I taught biology, I always tried to stress these points. There was nothing I liked less than teaching a course that somehow caused a child to question their belief in God.

[Spearchucker]

Send your kids to a religious school if you wish.

Easy there Jackpine, my boys go to a Catholic School, as did I. Never, I mean NEVER, did a single priest, nun, or teacher even remotely refute Darwin or the theory of evolution. We were taught evolution, and only evolution. We were taught that the 6 days of creation in the bible was concocted in order for people, in much simpler times, to place some understanding on how they came about. The catholic church believes in the big bang, and that God was ultimately responsible for it. Hell, I went to Jesuit High School (same priests that run Boston College, Georgetown, Loyola, etc..), they are not dumb people.

That dogma regarding "creationism" is pretty much reserved for the evangelicals.

[inletsurf]

well put, John.

this topic is another example of how close-minded most religious people are. I mean, if I were a supreme being with no beginning or no end, then what is a day by definition? a day would have no meaning, like an hour or 1 billion years? whats the difference? and the center of the irony of fundamentalist christians are, that they take the bible, a book written by man, inspired by God, and translated over and over and over and over and over again, and take each sentence verbatim, as it came directly from God's mouth, all the while inconsitencies exist from one gospel to another.

How can someone say that the world was created in 7 days, 7 million years, or 7 billion years? You honestly think that Abraham or whoever was responsible for Genesis could fathom the real time it took to create the world? In their archaic ways and understanding of the world they lived in at the time.

The simple truth of the matter is this: fundamentalist christians believe a lot of crazy stuff because they are too scared to admit that the bible was really written and rewritten by man, and contains a lot of inconsistencies and errors.

You cannot refute scientific evidence, if you have the ability to understand it.

For the record, I am not an atheist nor agnostic. I have my beliefs and they remain to be mine and personal, and quite frankly I wished most of you had the same opinion. Religion and spirituality is personal, and everyone needs to understand that nobody wants to hear it unless they ask to.

[Castor]

How are we defining evolution? I don't think anyone doubts that animals adapt to their environment and that variations within a gene pool can be wide (look at a little dog vs. a Great Dane). This genetic variation allows you to grow rabbits in a warm climate and they have short hair or grow them in a cold climate and they may have long hair but they are limited genetically (i.e. they don't stop being rabbits). Is anyone arguing that our genes don't limit how much a critter can adapt to an environment?

The only way that they could "branch" into something else (i.e beyond what the genes would typically allow) would be through mutation. From what I've read the vast majority of mutations are negative (i.e. will kill the animal or make them more likely to be kill) and recessive (unlikely to be past on). If these mutations have been occuring regularly over a 100 million years, there would be evidence of this everywhere in the the fossil record. This evidence just isn't there!!! Why do you think that some scientists are always looking for the missing link? If evolution is true there should be billions of missing links and there would be no refuting it. The reality is that the fossil record shows just the opposite. The fossil record shows variation through adaptation but within genetic parameters. Go to the La Brea Tar Pits in LA, they have some great evidence of this.

For me, the evidence (regardless of faith) point towards design.

[Spearchucker]

Oh God, the idiots are out in full force today...

[PatMyGreen]

Your right a much better explanation is that 10 billion years ago there was nothing (no universe, no "space", just a nothingness) except a particle the size of a pea. From this pea the universe was created instantly and has been constantly expanding for the past 10 billion years (all from something the size of a pea).

Both sides sound crazy?

Yeah, thats as crazy as this microscopic stuff called DNA inside all our cells controlling the proteins that build each living thing alive today. I mean you can't even see it without one of those "scientific microscope things and it is supposed to control the very nature of all life... sounds like sacrilege to me.

I have always thought the big bang theory was such as small step for Christians to say hey maybe thats science observing God's first act of creation... you know Bang, "I am", whatever......

I am very happy to see a fellow pastafarian on board Chuam! May you be touched by his noodly appendage.

[Old Bateman]

I find it interesting that so many of the proponents of Macro-Evolution (change from one species into another) condemn those who would listen to opposing viewpoints. And refer to them as "idiots, crazy, close minded, etc". I posted this here so that interested people could have a chance to hear an opposing viewpoint.
Judging by the responses, it doesn't appear that the "religious" people are the close-minded ones!

[PatMyGreen]

Is he advocating something new or using the same psuedo scientific princibles to reaffirm that which he already believes? Creationism isn't a difficult subject to grasp, but understanding a scientific theory is rarely so simple. Most advocates for creationism don't even understand the basic scientific method and how it used to conduct and evaluate experiments. Bikewrench does a good job trying to explain here....


And another thing... A theory is not a "fact" it is a model that explains something we see in nature (like the fossil record, the current diversity of life, the similarity between you and an earthworm, etc.) it is based on overwhelming observations and experimental testing performed by dozens or hundreds of different researchers who are trying to disprove each other, yet end up seeing the same results. And just as important a "good" theory predicts what will happen in the future. Scientific theories predict the future all the time (your computer would not be possible if theories did not predict the future). The "Theory" of Evolution does a great job at predicting experimental results all the time.

[lens]

How are we defining evolution? I don't think anyone doubts that animals adapt to their environment and that variations within a gene pool can be wide (look at a little dog vs. a Great Dane). This genetic variation allows you to grow rabbits in a warm climate and they have short hair or grow them in a cold climate and they may have long hair but they are limited genetically (i.e. they don't stop being rabbits). Is anyone arguing that our genes don't limit how much a critter can adapt to an environment?

The only way that they could "branch" into something else (i.e beyond what the genes would typically allow) would be through mutation. From what I've read the vast majority of mutations are negative (i.e. will kill the animal or make them more likely to be kill) and recessive (unlikely to be past on). If these mutations have been occuring regularly over a 100 million years, there would be evidence of this everywhere in the the fossil record. This evidence just isn't there!!! Why do you think that some scientists are always looking for the missing link? If evolution is true there should be billions of missing links and there would be no refuting it. The reality is that the fossil record shows just the opposite. The fossil record shows variation through adaptation but within genetic parameters. Go to the La Brea Tar Pits in LA, they have some great evidence of this.

For me, the evidence (regardless of faith) point towards design.

Evolving is a slow development or adaptation to a condition or state. It is not some big scary complicated scientific answer. The above is a simple answer.

We can change the words all that we want. But Evolving, Adapting and Mutation are just different ways to say the same thing. “Change.”

I see the point that you are trying to make. I am not trying to argue with your beliefs; this is rather a rebuttal to your statement. The short instances you are using are not good examples. You also forgot to mention, how many animals we share traits with, not just on a physical level, but DNA and so many others that I cannot fathom. Viewable physical traits are not what Evolution is all about.


Your examples are not scientific, but rather what you understand on the surface, or only what you can see. I will admit that sometimes science is a leap of faith too. But…. With science, you jump into it, and are allowed to question it, and usually finds its answers from deductive reasoning. Creationism or ID finds its answers from inductive reasoning. Yes both sides call the kettle black. I see it as two different answers. One (ID or creationism) is an answer provided to you, the other (Evolution, adaptation, or mutation) is an answer we search for.

And yes we can argue how much genes play into Evolving or Adapting (Which ever word you choose.) Substantial changes can not be clearly seen in a matter of minutes or even years.

Let’s look at Evolving, Adaptation or Mutation on a smaller level, like viruses. (Rabbits, Dogs and Mon Chi Chi’s) are not good examples. We can see Viruses change, Evolve, adapt or mutate over relatively short periods of time. This may not be a relative example to you, but to science, virus mutation was a stepping stone to understanding how organisms evolve or change.

"Design" is relatively new and no research has been done. And “ Design” is "Faith" based. So saying that scientific evidence points you towards “Design” is a little condescending and an oxymoron.

Also, Creationism has never been a threat to Science or the theory of Evolution. But Creationist are threatened by Science and Evolution.

[Jumper]

Whew this is an interesting thread. I think there are more and more religious people that believe in the big bang theory, but and this is a huge but I have been told by many religious people that since I think there was nothing then there was something and that must have been caused by God that I am not a christian. However, I am also an engineer so I am very steeped in science. This conclusion or hypothesis I have works for me. Isnt what we are all searching for? "What works for us?"

Just my .02

[ObieWan2bWet]

Lets put it this way... science produces information. Science is purely logical theoretical testing by controlled, measurable, reproducable means to prove, or reject that theory. It is only a theory until proven, or not, if proven and repeated/repeatable it becomes fact. Repeatable, provable scientific facts cannot be debated by opinion or belief, regardless of how strongly one believes or how many believe it. Science to date is the only medium to present any hard provable facts, of which the preponderance of those facts are taught in school. Rightly so, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, and we can make more ducks, it certainly is'nt anything but a duck. Religion is a belief, a theory that cannot be tested by any means and proven fact, beliefs however also have an edge over science, because, as the argument goes, cannot be disproved either, this is where the problem lies, creationists use the argument that even thought they cannot prove it, science cannot disprove it either. I say that the universe and everything in it is an alien experiment. Can you prove it? Can you dis-prove it? No, and that is the same with religion. It is a personal thing and should remain that way, because science may not have all the answers, but they sure have a whole heap of more answers than religion about the way the world works, and can prove it. I don't believe God and creationism can ever really can be proven, unless the 'creator' reveals itself, and not on a cheese sandwich, or dogs butt. Every time this debate comes up, and science makes a discovery, religion and the bible uses the "well it's not meant to be literal and we can interpret it to mean something that fits what you have proven" (the existance of dino's prior to man for example, where the Bible says man was created first then beast) However in the same breath, other passages and quotes are taken to be absolutely literal. Science is not so fluid, it either is or it is'nt, or on the way to being one or the other by testing. So in the mean time, believe what you wish, that is your right, but until Religion can produce even the most infintessimal fact to dispute even the first bit of science, as science has undeniably disproved many things claimed by religion, (yes dinosaurs were real, and yes undeniably here/created before man) yell all you want, preach all you want, teach children to be closed minded all you want, I'll take something provable and tangible over something that is'nt everytime, and when you have even the most minute fact to dispute science and prove religion, I'll join you and believe with as much vigor, as I believe in science.

[jackpine savage]

Easy there Jackpine, my boys go to a Catholic School, as did I. Never, I mean NEVER, did a single priest, nun, or teacher even remotely refute Darwin or the theory of evolution. We were taught evolution, and only evolution. We were taught that the 6 days of creation in the bible was concocted in order for people, in much simpler times, to place some understanding on how they came about. The catholic church believes in the big bang, and that God was ultimately responsible for it. Hell, I went to Jesuit High School (same priests that run Boston College, Georgetown, Loyola, etc..), they are not dumb people.

That dogma regarding "creationism" is pretty much reserved for the evangelicals.
Good point.

[PatMyGreen]

It does seem worth mentioning that most people who call themselves Christian believe in evolution and it is only a small number of American evangelical denominations that think otherwise. All those other Christians aren't saying God didn't or couldn't create life and the universe, only that his method for so doing was evolution, as near as we can tell.

[ObieWan2bWet]

Just a question, coming for a once Catholic who had asked this many times, and was chastized for being so insulant, and never really answered, so I don't expect an exact answer, to be insulted, to bring debate or even to critisize those who believe, just curious to know how you explain it to yourselves.

If God is so loving and caring, and omnipotent, and here listening to our prayers and fullfilling them, why does he/she/it allow injustice and cause us to suffer for something we had nothing to do with? I get people who do bad should suffer, but why do we who do good suffer as well? And if God created us, and our prayers will truly be answered if we believe, why did'nt he create a balance where all can live without all the suffering and injustice of innocents? Whats the point of innocents suffering?

[chuam]

I find it interesting that so many of the proponents of Macro-Evolution (change from one species into another) condemn those who would listen to opposing viewpoints. And refer to them as "idiots, crazy, close minded, etc". I posted this here so that interested people could have a chance to hear an opposing viewpoint.
Judging by the responses, it doesn't appear that the "religious" people are the close-minded ones!

We are defending a scientific method. Intelligent design is a poor substitue for it. If you want to beliveve in intelligent design that is fine. Pushing for it to be taught in schools is the problem.

[inletsurf]

OK, if 'religious' people are not the closed minded ones then I challenge any 'religious' person to answer this one question:

Is it possible that the bible contains errors?

[Ironhed]

Is it possible that the bible contains errors?
NO, who am I to contest the word of god. If you are only a believer of part of the bible then it puts you in a position to be a judge of the bible. As a christian we are not in authority to question the word of god. I would rather leave that to someone that is a Non believer being they could care less if they go to hell. ;)

[chuam]

NO, who am I to contest the word of god. If you are only a believer of part of the bible then it puts you in a position to be a judge of the bible. As a christian we are not in authority to question the word of god. I would rather leave that to someone that is a Non believer being they could care less if they go to hell. ;)

The bible is an interpretation of gods word through man. It has been rewritten and interpretted over time. I have a feeling if we compared an original manuscript to what is currently being read there would be differences and errors. As a priest at the HS I went to used to say the bible is to be interpreted not read as fact.

I also agree with spearchucker. I went to St. Francis HS, run by the Jesuits. We were taught evolution in science class and the bible and religion in our religion class. They understood the distinction between science and religion. Even the Vatican believes in science and the fact that religion and science are compatible. It seems that the fundies are the only ones who can't seem to see the distinction.

[lens]

It does seem worth mentioning that most people who call themselves Christian believe in evolution and it is only a small number of American evangelical denominations that think otherwise. All those other Christians aren't saying God didn't or couldn't create life and the universe, only that his method for so doing was evolution, as near as we can tell.

Your right and it shows you how much influence the Evangelicals are having on our society. I.E. The Christmas tree bitching from last year. One guy somewhere in Cali wanted to call his Christmas tree a Holiday tree and the Evangelicals turned it into a national media storm. Man did that get blown out of proportion.

Same with Merry Christmas. The Evangelicals got their feathers in a ruffle because a few businesses (Wal-Mart, Macy’s and others.) wanted to say happy holidays.

I do not find that people who believe in the theory of evolution are threatened or even bothered by Creationism otherwise labeled as ID. I think the problem lies in Creationist or ID supporters trying to pass Creationism or ID as Scientifically proven or backed by facts.

[Marcus]

You know what bugs me is when somebody's life gets ripped to shreds, ie loses family, house, belongings, etc in a house fire or something and they survive...you always here them say "God must have been watching out for me". :rolleyes:

[Ironhed]

they are still alive aren't they, all this rat race about having a bunch of stuff is a bs way of life. none of it is really important and you know a fat wallet and a garage full of toys means nothing once your 6 feet under.

[ObieWan2bWet]

OK, if 'religious' people are not the closed minded ones then I challenge any 'religious' person to answer this one question:

Is it possible that the bible contains errors?

Iron heads point is a product of being taught blind faith, and that whatever religion you believe in is the only one, however even in the 300 or so differering Christian belief systems thier written word of God is dramatically different in certain areas, from one version to another. An example being the Jehovah's version has been re-written and interpreted in what they call... get this.. simple english of the current day.

Wrong, erronious, don't know, all I do know is they have been changed and re-written (interpeted) many many times, I just can't get a hold of how can the "word of God" of one particular version can be so vehemently defended... who's is correct, and who's is not?

[Redneck7]

I'm still waiting on the answer to Obie's question, as I've wondered the same thing.
I also wonder about the difference in Jewish God and Christian God: In the old testament God sure was a mean fella, and then in the new testament he turned into the old loving guy with a flowing white beard. So, since the Jewish faith doesn't have the new testament...are they still governed by an angry god and Christians by an old white bearded fella in the sky? If so, only one of them is right...so that means either the Jews or the Christians are ALL going to hell since they were worshiping the wrong god...for that matter only one religion PERIOD can go to heaven...and we all know thats the Mormons :thumps:

[Ironhed]

I think the difference is they do not believe jesus was the messiah and are still waiting for the messiah to arrive. Ob1, you are correct but it is pretty common to accept your bible to be the word of god no matter what interpretation it is or what christian faith you follow. I still do not question the word of god. I have nothing against other christian faiths either as they are one of us and just choose a different method of worship.

[ObieWan2bWet]

You know what bugs me is when somebody's life gets ripped to shreds, ie loses family, house, belongings, etc in a house fire or something and they survive...you always here them say "God must have been watching out for me". :rolleyes:

... or when someones wife... who never did anything but fervently believe in God and lived her life for that God, church, community and others entirely, and to the letter, helping others less fortunate to the detriment of herself can contract a brain tumor while pregnant, have bankrupting surgery 2 weeks after her son was born, not being able to interact with that innocent child the first 5 years of his life, go through 15 years of agony and suffering, and on top of all that then finding out her son has incurable Chrohn's disease and that our son may go through his entire life in pain and suffereing and then be told, praise and thank God and his divine wisdom. Well she did'nt thank him. Niether did I. His plan sucks, if there even is one. It does a whole lot more than bug me Marcus.

[Ironhed]

... or when someones wife... who never did anything but fervently believe in God and lived her life for that God, church, community and others entirely, and to the letter, helping others less fortunate to the detriment of herself can contract a brain tumor while pregnant, have bankrupting surgery 2 weeks after her son was born, not being able to interact with that innocent child the first 5 years of his life, go through 15 years of agony and suffering, and on top of all that then finding out her son has incurable Chrohn's disease and that our son may go through his entire life in pain and suffereing and then be told, praise and thank God and his divine wisdom. Well she did'nt thank him. Niether did I. His plan sucks, if there even is one. It does a whole lot more than bug me Marcus.
I can understand mike how you question god's plan for your family. but at the moment it seems you guys are doing well at this point, your enjoying life it seems taking your son diving and you are doing well financially it seems. I am happy for you, you have a nice home and fine boat and the ability to get out often enough. life has alot of bumps for everyone some more than others and it is during this time that our faith is tested. Not everyone will have good health nor do everyone prosper financially. No one said if you believe in god that life will be eternal bliss. I am sure all of us have alot we could sit around and bitch about but what good would that do and how will that enrich our lives.

[ObieWan2bWet]

... we could sit around and bitch about but what good would that do and how will that enrich our lives...

Andy... If I told you all that my family has done for God, and then told you all of the suffering my family and my relatives have gone through... I would make you cry. I have made many cry.

I don't bitch, I move on and do by my hand what is neccessary. I get up every single day and hang in there, I do everything I can to live each day for us, it gets so hard sometimes I have felt like giving up and leaving in the hands of God. If I chose that path, we would not be where we are now. I/we did not stop helping others whenever and wherever we can, I just don't do it in the name of God anymore, I do it because I can and they need help. I can say without doubt that during the storms of years past, I helped, boarded, tarped, offered my home to those in need, and did more to help others than myself. My wife and I did things like that for years. I will put off my plans in a heartbeat to help someone who asks if I can. God did not do that, or tell me too, we were'nt speaking at the time, and before that when I was communicating with God, I would not have. I would have prayed for them, or held a prayer meeting and asked God to help them. Did'nt work too often.

My life actually became what it is now, and the suffering stopped almost entirely, and I mean no dis-respect to anyones belief, when I gave up on God, and praying to him for help.

And to answer your question that is how our lives have been enriched.

Since I stopped going to church, stopped praying, and stopped missing every Sunday, Wednsday, and many many evenings to help God. I now have the time to dive with my son, I have the time to build and run my businesses, against Gods theories, I run them now without sacrifice, and hard work, my life, and my wife's life has been leaps and bounds better. The entire time I was religious, and prayed to the Allmighty for help, and spent my free time spreading the word, and believing by doing so, my seed would be allowed to grow, however my life was hell on Earth, and if that is what I have to go through to get to heaven, if that is what my God requires of me to get there, if heaven and God even exist, to live an entire life of suffering, I'll pass. I'm already used to suffering. Time for Mikey to play, time for Mikey's family.

Good luck to ya, I think your belief is just that.

[diverik]

well put, John.

this topic is another example of how close-minded most religious people are. I mean, if I were a supreme being with no beginning or no end, then what is a day by definition? a day would have no meaning, like an hour or 1 billion years? whats the difference? and the center of the irony of fundamentalist christians are, that they take the bible, a book written by man, inspired by God, and translated over and over and over and over and over again, and take each sentence verbatim, as it came directly from God's mouth, all the while inconsitencies exist from one gospel to another.

How can someone say that the world was created in 7 days, 7 million years, or 7 billion years? You honestly think that Abraham or whoever was responsible for Genesis could fathom the real time it took to create the world? In their archaic ways and understanding of the world they lived in at the time.

The simple truth of the matter is this: fundamentalist christians believe a lot of crazy stuff because they are too scared to admit that the bible was really written and rewritten by man, and contains a lot of inconsistencies and errors.

You cannot refute scientific evidence, if you have the ability to understand it.

For the record, I am not an atheist nor agnostic. I have my beliefs and they remain to be mine and personal, and quite frankly I wished most of you had the same opinion. Religion and spirituality is personal, and everyone needs to understand that nobody wants to hear it unless they ask to.
:stupid:

[richhermes]

One of my technician's is taking his wife and 9yr old daughter to this event at the SunDome. His daughter is getting extra credit for it in one of her extra classes she takes at a church. (She is a home schooled child.)

[Ironhed]

One of my technician's is taking his wife and 9yr old daughter to this event at the SunDome. His daughter is getting extra credit for it in one of her extra classes she takes at a church. (She is a home schooled child.)
event?

[ObieWan2bWet]

No one said if you believe in god that life will be eternal bliss..

But is'nt that the theme and the goal of believing and doing Gods work... eternal salvation and heavenly bliss? As a Catholic that is indeed what I was told. That is the prize, I was told that by sowing my seed of faith, doing Gods bidding, and living my life by the word, it would be returned 10 fold for the sacrifice... is it not? Was I mis-lead?... otherwise why are we doing it?

[JLittle44]

Uhh, this debate is way off track. Pure science has never intentionally tried to disprove the existence of God. Science is impasionate and objective. Anyone that trys to use the knowledge gained trough science to disprove a religion is quite simply not being scientific.

The bible never told me to wait for God to make my life better. That's just silly. I think the best way to put it is God helps those that help themselves. God never promised to rain riches down on me. He only asked that I believe. And quite frankly, science has never gotten in the way of that.

I have just never been able to see the conflict. Laid out side by side, the FACTS do not dispute my beliefs. Some theories may, but they have yet to be proven, and that is alright with me.

I will not dispute a fact. You'd have to brainless. But I will not abandon my faith because someone else came up with a nifty idea that kinda fits. A spotted moth doesn't prove evolution. It is a great observation though. I say keep going.

And guys, Darwin didn't come up with the Big-Bang Theory. Lets tackle one problem at a time huh?

[chuam]

Uhh, this debate is way off track. Pure science has never intentionally tried to disprove the existence of God. Science is impasionate and objective. Anyone that trys to use the knowledge gained trough science to disprove a religion is quite simply not being scientific.

The bible never told me to wait for God to make my life better. That's just silly. I think the best way to put it is God helps those that help themselves. God never promised to rain riches down on me. He only asked that I believe. And quite frankly, science has never gotten in the way of that.

I have just never been able to see the conflict. Laid out side by side, the FACTS do not dispute my beliefs. Some theories may, but they have yet to be proven, and that is alright with me.

I will not dispute a fact. You'd have to brainless. But I will not abandon my faith because someone else came up with a nifty idea that kinda fits. A spotted moth doesn't prove evolution. It is a great observation though. I say keep going.

And guys, Darwin didn't come up with the Big-Bang Theory. Lets tackle one problem at a time huh?

I agree with everything you said. The problem that has been stated over and over again is why is religion attacking science? ID/creationism should not be taught in science classes. That is the problem I have with anyone religious pushing these principles.

[Ironhed]

But is'nt that the theme and the goal of believing and doing Gods work... eternal salvation and heavenly bliss? As a Catholic that is indeed what I was told. That is the prize, I was told that by sowing my seed of faith, doing Gods bidding, and living my life by the word, it would be returned 10 fold for the sacrifice... is it not? Was I mis-lead?... otherwise why are we doing it?
you have not died yet, heavenly bliss would not be here on earth but rather in our after life. our life on earth is not a guarentee it will be a fun one. we get what we get no matter how great or how aweful it may seem. unfortunately you have been dealt a bad hand it seems but no matter how bad you think it is I can assure you there is plenty that have it much much worse than you. As far as a theme or goal of believing, We all want to think that our testament to god will reap us happiness and prosperity here on earth is probably what we wished could happen but the truth is this. in the eye of god wealth and prosperity means nothing, it is our tested faith to him that he is looking for. Yours has been tested now it is up to you how to deal with that. Mine has been tested as well and for awhile I could not understand why things happened like they did. My father died at the age of 58 of a heart attack even though he had been taking good care of himself and all his vitals were better than they had been in 10 yrs. then after he died he left pretty much all his wealth to his young wife and their new daughter almost leaving me completely out of the will. I resented my father for years about this. I had had some rocky times with my father but for the most part we had a good relationship. I think there was alot of influence of his wife when he wrote his will but this is a dead topic as there is nothing that can be done now. I am not talking small potatoes either were talking about close to a million bucks or more. I often would ask god why did he leave me here on this planet in the financial shape I was in and I could have had everything if he was just fair in the will. Well a good friend said to me, maybe all that money would have made me a bad person inside and maybe I would have gotten into bad things with that money. I have no choice in the matter now but to think he might be right as I am doing pretty well for myself considering I have had no help ever from either of my parents. I guess I am a stronger person now because of it. maybe god does have a plan for me, I also survived 2 accidents that honestly should have killed me or at least injured me critically yet somehow I came through with nothing more than bruises. call it luck or a miracle either way I am still here and I would like to think there is a reason other than posting on spearboard and buying material items.

[jadairiii]

But is'nt that the theme and the goal of believing and doing Gods work... eternal salvation and heavenly bliss? As a Catholic that is indeed what I was told. That is the prize, I was told that by sowing my seed of faith, doing Gods bidding, and living my life by the word, it would be returned 10 fold for the sacrifice... is it not? Was I mis-lead?... otherwise why are we doing it?


Mike,

It sounds like you are closer to living God's "plan" now than ever before. My reading of the Bible (particularly the New Testament) is to go out there and use the gifts you were given, be the "light unto the world" by the way you live, help others, don’t judge others, just like you are doing. By the sound of your prior post you are a better Christian now than ever before. Read the Bible again with the knowledge you have gained on your own. Read it through your own eyes and not what someone tells you it says. Read the passages directly quoting Christ and you may come to the conclusion (as I have) that the majority of "Bible pounders" of all faiths have totally missed the point.

To answer your question, yes I think your were misled. I am a Christian, but I have a hard time telling people that for fear of being lumped into the Pat Robertsons of the world and I immediately distrust anyone that tells me I should trust them because they are "a Christian". Good luck, to me faith is an endless personal journey of growth, learning and understanding (of all possibilities), not an end point. Remember that Jesus drank wine and partied with the "sinners" (like me), my kind of guy!

John

[wvandeman]

It doesn't make sense to me how someone can argue one way or another for something that happened anywhere from 10,000 to 1 billion years ago. Science is valuable in explaining measurable phenomenon and predicting future phenomemon based on observable facts. Yet anyone who puts their full confidence in "1 million year old forensics with circumstantial evidence" is exerting as much faith as someone who believes in an unseen entity beyond our understanding. Example we can all relate to: how healthy is the hogfish or jewfish population? Ask 100 different biologists and you will not get the same answer. Some are arguing out of their frame of reference or limited "real world" experience; some may have financial or emotional motives. There is a limit to the efficacy of science for explaining the world; ex. the difference between theory (evolution, creation) and law (gravity, thermodynamics).

I am guessing that many of you who condemn theories that challenge evolution couldn't tell me what the con arguments even consist of. That is not science- science is challenging and testing our beliefs. Our understanding of every other area of nature is constantly changing or evolving (our understanding of the human body, of weather, of fauna, flora and even what is really a planet). Yet no one seems willing to challenge the "holy grail" of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. Can you nme what the percieved flaws are in the theory (why it is not law)? You defend it because some smart person told you too. The majority is not always right. Just ask Galileo.

I can't convince you scientifically one way or the other. We are trying to explain something beyond the scope of science because of too little solid evidence or too many contradictions. Evolution specifically is very believable to me in cases of adaption within families or even species (moth becomes black over time when exposed to smoggy environment, etc.), but it seems a stretch to say man came from a molusc or algae.

In fact it takes a leap in logic, or faith, either way. I don't speak for God. I don't know why bad things happen to good people and good things to evil people. The fact that we even recognize an idea of a perfect world or fairness or good and evil is interesting to me. If we are only soulless animals that is. I believe because of what I see and what I have experienced. Is that "unscientific"? Ask yourself the next time you you are muscled off your dive spot by twenty "endangered" GGs.

[Ironhed]

in times like this I wish the EMO spearo would chime in, I am sure he has a sad story to tell. :D

[bikewrench]

The only problem with science is that it keeps making discoveries and inventing gizmos that religous people use to kill each other with.

[Don B]

The only problem with science is that it keeps making discoveries and inventing gizmos that religous people use to kill each other with.

bikewrench, do you believe that only religious people kill other people? how about the Nazis, the Communists? both of these groups were anti religious in fact science was their religion. Seems they Killed many.

[bikewrench]

You got me there! Killing people who don't look like you, think like you, agree with you, or believe like you is an equal opprotunity passtime. Its not just religous zelots who do it.

[Dive4Blood]

bikewrench, do you believe that only religious people kill other people? how about the Nazis, the Communists? both of these groups were anti religious in fact science was their religion. Seems they Killed many.

Nazis anti-religious? Sounds like you weren't paying attention in history class. Hitler and the Nazis used many elements of the Catholic and Protestant faiths, and perverted them to suit their goal of world domination. Not a far cry from the fundamental Islamic Jihadists or the radicalized bible thumping evangelicals which I would lump in the same category.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

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

[Megabeast]

Not a far cry from the fundamental Islamic Jihadists or the radicalized bible thumping evangelicals which I would lump in the same category.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

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

Be careful what you say. Some of the bible thumpers on the board will have this thread deleted too, in the name of holy censorship. :rolleyes:

[bikewrench]

bikewrench, do you believe that only religious people kill other people? how about the Nazis, the Communists? both of these groups were anti religious in fact science was their religion. Seems they Killed many.


Actually I just responded to quickly there. I'll second 4blood's question, "were you paying attention in history class?" One of the FIRST things that the communists and nazis did was exile, kill, or place in "summer camp" all the academics and scientists. Most totalitarian regimes do. Seems its hard to run an oppressive government with reason-minded people around.

[PatMyGreen]

wvandeman
It seems that your example of moths getting darker in a generation or two during the industrial revolution versus man arising from simpler life forms are the same thing, The difference is that the time period over which the latter occurred is simply on a geologic scale. Do you follow that there were several continents then one big one and then several again over this time period that is in question? That takes a LLLLLLOOOOOOONNNNNGGGGG time!

[wvandeman]

Actually I just responded to quickly there. I'll second 4blood's question, "were you paying attention in history class?" One of the FIRST things that the communists and nazis did was exile, kill, or place in "summer camp" all the academics and scientists. Most totalitarian regimes do. Seems its hard to run an oppressive government with reason-minded people around.

Actually, communists and nazis rounded up the academics and scientists WHO DID NOT AGREE WITH THEM AND POSED A THREAT.

The same thing with all the Christians, Jews and any other group who posed a threat.

Don't confuse people in pursuit of power with religion (or science). We see examples all the time of scientists (or religious leaders) who use science or religion as a tool for control. Dive4 Blood, you especially should recognize this as you have made so many people here aware of the entities that misuse fish science for personal or financial gain.

The key is the motive, not the method.

[wvandeman]

wvandeman
It seems that your example of moths getting darker in a generation or two during the industrial revolution versus man arising from simpler life forms are the same thing, The difference is that the time period over which the latter occurred is simply on a geologic scale. Do you follow that there were several continents then one big one and then several again over this time period that is in question? That takes a LLLLLLOOOOOOONNNNNGGGGG time!

How long does it take a virus to become a human?

[Don B]

Nazis anti-religious? Sounds like you weren't paying attention in history class. Hitler and the Nazis used many elements of the Catholic and Protestant faiths, and perverted them to suit their goal of world domination. Not a far cry from the fundamental Islamic Jihadists or the radicalized bible thumping evangelicals which I would lump in the same category.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

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


Aj your right Hitler and the Nazis use religious believes for their own purposes, excuses for their crimes, which is far different from being a people of faith. When church leaders refused their demands they where made examples to the rest of the congregation. But at their basics they were not religious, If you read your history you would find that Hitler was deeply involved in the occult which is at odds with Christianity, although some cults pervert and mix the two.

[PatMyGreen]

Hard to say since we aren't sure that viruses were the stepping point from which life emerged or another branch of the process leading to or from life. But life itself is considered to have emerged 3.9 to 3.5 billion years ago which is alittl before my time..... maybe Bill Mac knows?

[wvandeman]

Hard to say since we aren't sure that viruses were the stepping point from which life emerged or another branch of the process leading to or from life. But life itself is considered to have emerged 3.9 to 3.5 billion years ago which is alittl before my time..... maybe Bill Mac knows?

Hard to say... that is my point. And how do we know what happened 3.9 million years ago?
Carbon dating and even the historic timeline of geologic record have innacuracies that would not stand up in court.
My whole point is this is not as cut and dry as it is made out to be. There is alot of room for error and science alone cannot answer this.

[Spearchucker]

Vandemann

Not million, BILLION - that is what so many pople have a problem understanding - THE SCALE

[chuam]

Hard to say... that is my point. And how do we know what happened 3.9 million years ago?
Carbon dating and even the historic timeline of geologic record have innacuracies that would not stand up in court.
My whole point is this is not as cut and dry as it is made out to be. There is alot of room for error and science alone cannot answer this.

But we can create a theory from the rest of the fossil record to get a general idea of how things went. If you believe in ID then what theory can you put forth that can explain the fossil record? The only one I keep hearing so far is: because the bible tells me so.

[bikewrench]

It doesn't make sense to me how someone can argue one way or another for something that happened anywhere from 10,000 to 1 billion years ago. Science is valuable in explaining measurable phenomenon and predicting future phenomemon based on observable facts. Yet anyone who puts their full confidence in "1 million year old forensics with circumstantial evidence" is exerting as much faith as someone who believes in an unseen entity beyond our understanding. Example we can all relate to: how healthy is the hogfish or jewfish population? Ask 100 different biologists and you will not get the same answer. Some are arguing out of their frame of reference or limited "real world" experience; some may have financial or emotional motives. There is a limit to the efficacy of science for explaining the world; ex. the difference between theory (evolution, creation) and law (gravity, thermodynamics).

I am guessing that many of you who condemn theories that challenge evolution couldn't tell me what the con arguments even consist of. That is not science- science is challenging and testing our beliefs. Our understanding of every other area of nature is constantly changing or evolving (our understanding of the human body, of weather, of fauna, flora and even what is really a planet). Yet no one seems willing to challenge the "holy grail" of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. Can you nme what the percieved flaws are in the theory (why it is not law)? You defend it because some smart person told you too. The majority is not always right. Just ask Galileo.

I can't convince you scientifically one way or the other. We are trying to explain something beyond the scope of science because of too little solid evidence or too many contradictions. Evolution specifically is very believable to me in cases of adaption within families or even species (moth becomes black over time when exposed to smoggy environment, etc.), but it seems a stretch to say man came from a molusc or algae.

I understand that "it doesn't make sense to me how someone can argue one way or another..." It takes an open mind and an education to "make sense" of something. So what you are saying is that because something happened a long time ago we should forget it? Not try to investigate it? Not try to see how it has influenced how life on earth today? Might have been influenced by it? We should just believe some "feel good" story written 3000 (I suppose that is not a long time in your eyes?) years ago by who knows who? Jesus, this argument is assinine. You people who defend creationism and attack science have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Your confusion is overwhelming me. I only have the energy to point out one or two inaccuracies in your post. The difference between a friggin' scientific Law and a scientific theory is not how "correct" it is. It has to do with how concisely it can be stated. Laws are typically short, mathematical equations. Theories describe a more complex set of phenomena. When a scientist calls something a "theory" it does NOT mean she has less confidence in it than she would a law.

There ARE NO theories that challange Evolution Through Natural Selection. There are only BS fairytales by the thousands, one as silly as the next, made up by thousands of different cultures throughout history to help them go to sleep at night. They are NOT theories.
Neither you nor I "came from" a mollusc or algae. But both of us did come from common ancestor to these.
I don't blame you guys for thinking this gibberish. I blame a society and an education system that does such a poor job teaching many of its childeren

[chuam]

One of the best written articles against ID.

DEVOLUTION
Why intelligent design isn’t.
by H. ALLEN ORR
Issue of 2005-05-30
Posted 2005-05-23


If you are in ninth grade and live in Dover, Pennsylvania, you are learning things in your biology class that differ considerably from what your peers just a few miles away are learning. In particular, you are learning that Darwin’s theory of evolution provides just one possible explanation of life, and that another is provided by something called intelligent design. You are being taught this not because of a recent breakthrough in some scientist’s laboratory but because the Dover Area School District’s board mandates it. In October, 2004, the board decreed that “students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.”

While the events in Dover have received a good deal of attention as a sign of the political times, there has been surprisingly little discussion of the science that’s said to underlie the theory of intelligent design, often called I.D. Many scientists avoid discussing I.D. for strategic reasons. If a scientific claim can be loosely defined as one that scientists take seriously enough to debate, then engaging the intelligent-design movement on scientific grounds, they worry, cedes what it most desires: recognition that its claims are legitimate scientific ones.

Meanwhile, proposals hostile to evolution are being considered in more than twenty states; earlier this month, a bill was introduced into the New York State Assembly calling for instruction in intelligent design for all public-school students. The Kansas State Board of Education is weighing new standards, drafted by supporters of intelligent design, that would encourage schoolteachers to challenge Darwinism. Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, has argued that “intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.” An I.D.-friendly amendment that he sponsored to the No Child Left Behind Act—requiring public schools to help students understand why evolution “generates so much continuing controversy”—was overwhelmingly approved in the Senate. (The amendment was not included in the version of the bill that was signed into law, but similar language did appear in a conference report that accompanied it.) In the past few years, college students across the country have formed Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness chapters. Clearly, a policy of limited scientific engagement has failed. So just what is this movement?

First of all, intelligent design is not what people often assume it is. For one thing, I.D. is not Biblical literalism. Unlike earlier generations of creationists—the so-called Young Earthers and scientific creationists—proponents of intelligent design do not believe that the universe was created in six days, that Earth is ten thousand years old, or that the fossil record was deposited during Noah’s flood. (Indeed, they shun the label “creationism” altogether.) Nor does I.D. flatly reject evolution: adherents freely admit that some evolutionary change occurred during the history of life on Earth. Although the movement is loosely allied with, and heavily funded by, various conservative Christian groups—and although I.D. plainly maintains that life was created—it is generally silent about the identity of the creator.

The movement’s main positive claim is that there are things in the world, most notably life, that cannot be accounted for by known natural causes and show features that, in any other context, we would attribute to intelligence. Living organisms are too complex to be explained by any natural—or, more precisely, by any mindless—process. Instead, the design inherent in organisms can be accounted for only by invoking a designer, and one who is very, very smart.

All of which puts I.D. squarely at odds with Darwin. Darwin’s theory of evolution was meant to show how the fantastically complex features of organisms—eyes, beaks, brains—could arise without the intervention of a designing mind. According to Darwinism, evolution largely reflects the combined action of random mutation and natural selection. A random mutation in an organism, like a random change in any finely tuned machine, is almost always bad. That’s why you don’t, screwdriver in hand, make arbitrary changes to the insides of your television. But, once in a great while, a random mutation in the DNA that makes up an organism’s genes slightly improves the function of some organ and thus the survival of the organism. In a species whose eye amounts to nothing more than a primitive patch of light-sensitive cells, a mutation that causes this patch to fold into a cup shape might have a survival advantage. While the old type of organism can tell only if the lights are on, the new type can detect the direction of any source of light or shadow. Since shadows sometimes mean predators, that can be valuable information. The new, improved type of organism will, therefore, be more common in the next generation. That’s natural selection. Repeated over billions of years, this process of incremental improvement should allow for the gradual emergence of organisms that are exquisitely adapted to their environments and that look for all the world as though they were designed. By 1870, about a decade after “The Origin of Species” was published, nearly all biologists agreed that life had evolved, and by 1940 or so most agreed that natural selection was a key force driving this evolution.

Advocates of intelligent design point to two developments that in their view undermine Darwinism. The first is the molecular revolution in biology. Beginning in the nineteen-fifties, molecular biologists revealed a staggering and unsuspected degree of complexity within the cells that make up all life. This complexity, I.D.’s defenders argue, lies beyond the abilities of Darwinism to explain. Second, they claim that new mathematical findings cast doubt on the power of natural selection. Selection may play a role in evolution, but it cannot accomplish what biologists suppose it can.

These claims have been championed by a tireless group of writers, most of them associated with the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that sponsors projects in science, religion, and national defense, among other areas. The center’s fellows and advisers—including the emeritus law professor Phillip E. Johnson, the philosopher Stephen C. Meyer, and the biologist Jonathan Wells—have published an astonishing number of articles and books that decry the ostensibly sad state of Darwinism and extoll the virtues of the design alternative. But Johnson, Meyer, and Wells, while highly visible, are mainly strategists and popularizers. The scientific leaders of the design movement are two scholars, one a biochemist and the other a mathematician. To assess intelligent design is to assess their arguments.



Michael J. Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University (and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute), is a biochemist who writes technical papers on the structure of DNA. He is the most prominent of the small circle of scientists working on intelligent design, and his arguments are by far the best known. His book “Darwin’s Black Box” (1996) was a surprise best-seller and was named by National Review as one of the hundred best nonfiction books of the twentieth century. (A little calibration may be useful here; “The Starr Report” also made the list.)

Not surprisingly, Behe’s doubts about Darwinism begin with biochemistry. Fifty years ago, he says, any biologist could tell stories like the one about the eye’s evolution. But such stories, Behe notes, invariably began with cells, whose own evolutionary origins were essentially left unexplained. This was harmless enough as long as cells weren’t qualitatively more complex than the larger, more visible aspects of the eye. Yet when biochemists began to dissect the inner workings of the cell, what they found floored them. A cell is packed full of exceedingly complex structures—hundreds of microscopic machines, each performing a specific job. The “Give me a cell and I’ll give you an eye” story told by Darwinists, he says, began to seem suspect: starting with a cell was starting ninety per cent of the way to the finish line.

Behe’s main claim is that cells are complex not just in degree but in kind. Cells contain structures that are “irreducibly complex.” This means that if you remove any single part from such a structure, the structure no longer functions. Behe offers a simple, nonbiological example of an irreducibly complex object: the mousetrap. A mousetrap has several parts—platform, spring, catch, hammer, and hold-down bar—and all of them have to be in place for the trap to work. If you remove the spring from a mousetrap, it isn’t slightly worse at killing mice; it doesn’t kill them at all. So, too, with the bacterial flagellum, Behe argues. This flagellum is a tiny propeller attached to the back of some bacteria. Spinning at more than twenty thousand r.p.m.s, it motors the bacterium through its aquatic world. The flagellum comprises roughly thirty different proteins, all precisely arranged, and if any one of them is removed the flagellum stops spinning.

[chuam]

In “Darwin’s Black Box,” Behe maintained that irreducible complexity presents Darwinism with “unbridgeable chasms.” How, after all, could a gradual process of incremental improvement build something like a flagellum, which needs all its parts in order to work? Scientists, he argued, must face up to the fact that “many biochemical systems cannot be built by natural selection working on mutations.” In the end, Behe concluded that irreducibly complex cells arise the same way as irreducibly complex mousetraps—someone designs them. As he put it in a recent Times Op-Ed piece: “If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it’s a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it’s so obvious.” In “Darwin’s Black Box,” Behe speculated that the designer might have assembled the first cell, essentially solving the problem of irreducible complexity, after which evolution might well have proceeded by more or less conventional means. Under Behe’s brand of creationism, you might still be an ape that evolved on the African savanna; it’s just that your cells harbor micro-machines engineered by an unnamed intelligence some four billion years ago.

But Behe’s principal argument soon ran into trouble. As biologists pointed out, there are several different ways that Darwinian evolution can build irreducibly complex systems. In one, elaborate structures may evolve for one reason and then get co-opted for some entirely different, irreducibly complex function. Who says those thirty flagellar proteins weren’t present in bacteria long before bacteria sported flagella? They may have been performing other jobs in the cell and only later got drafted into flagellum-building. Indeed, there’s now strong evidence that several flagellar proteins once played roles in a type of molecular pump found in the membranes of bacterial cells.

Behe doesn’t consider this sort of “indirect” path to irreducible complexity—in which parts perform one function and then switch to another—terribly plausible. And he essentially rules out the alternative possibility of a direct Darwinian path: a path, that is, in which Darwinism builds an irreducibly complex structure while selecting all along for the same biological function. But biologists have shown that direct paths to irreducible complexity are possible, too. Suppose a part gets added to a system merely because the part improves the system’s performance; the part is not, at this stage, essential for function. But, because subsequent evolution builds on this addition, a part that was at first just advantageous might become essential. As this process is repeated through evolutionary time, more and more parts that were once merely beneficial become necessary. This idea was first set forth by H. J. Muller, the Nobel Prize-winning geneticist, in 1939, but it’s a familiar process in the development of human technologies. We add new parts like global-positioning systems to cars not because they’re necessary but because they’re nice. But no one would be surprised if, in fifty years, computers that rely on G.P.S. actually drove our cars. At that point, G.P.S. would no longer be an attractive option; it would be an essential piece of automotive technology. It’s important to see that this process is thoroughly Darwinian: each change might well be small and each represents an improvement.

Design theorists have made some concessions to these criticisms. Behe has confessed to “sloppy prose” and said he hadn’t meant to imply that irreducibly complex systems “by definition” cannot evolve gradually. “I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof,” he says—though he continues to believe that Darwinian paths to irreducible complexity are exceedingly unlikely. Behe and his followers now emphasize that, while irreducibly complex systems can in principle evolve, biologists can’t reconstruct in convincing detail just how any such system did evolve.

What counts as a sufficiently detailed historical narrative, though, is altogether subjective. Biologists actually know a great deal about the evolution of biochemical systems, irreducibly complex or not. It’s significant, for instance, that the proteins that typically make up the parts of these systems are often similar to one another. (Blood clotting—another of Behe’s examples of irreducible complexity—involves at least twenty proteins, several of which are similar, and all of which are needed to make clots, to localize or remove clots, or to prevent the runaway clotting of all blood.) And biologists understand why these proteins are so similar. Each gene in an organism’s genome encodes a particular protein. Occasionally, the stretch of DNA that makes up a particular gene will get accidentally copied, yielding a genome that includes two versions of the gene. Over many generations, one version of the gene will often keep its original function while the other one slowly changes by mutation and natural selection, picking up a new, though usually related, function. This process of “gene duplication” has given rise to entire families of proteins that have similar functions; they often act in the same biochemical pathway or sit in the same cellular structure. There’s no doubt that gene duplication plays an extremely important role in the evolution of biological complexity.

It’s true that when you confront biologists with a particular complex structure like the flagellum they sometimes have a hard time saying which part appeared before which other parts. But then it can be hard, with any complex historical process, to reconstruct the exact order in which events occurred, especially when, as in evolution, the addition of new parts encourages the modification of old ones. When you’re looking at a bustling urban street, for example, you probably can’t tell which shop went into business first. This is partly because many businesses now depend on each other and partly because new shops trigger changes in old ones (the new sushi place draws twenty-somethings who demand wireless Internet at the café next door). But it would be a little rash to conclude that all the shops must have begun business on the same day or that some Unseen Urban Planner had carefully determined just which business went where.



The other leading theorist of the new creationism, William A. Dembski, holds a Ph.D. in mathematics, another in philosophy, and a master of divinity in theology. He has been a research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University, and was recently appointed to the new Center for Science and Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. (He is a longtime senior fellow at the Discovery Institute as well.) Dembski publishes at a staggering pace. His books—including “The Design Inference,” “Intelligent Design,” “No Free Lunch,” and “The Design Revolution”—are generally well written and packed with provocative ideas.

According to Dembski, a complex object must be the result of intelligence if it was the product neither of chance nor of necessity. The novel “Moby Dick,” for example, didn’t arise by chance (Melville didn’t scribble random letters), and it wasn’t the necessary consequence of a physical law (unlike, say, the fall of an apple). It was, instead, the result of Melville’s intelligence. Dembski argues that there is a reliable way to recognize such products of intelligence in the natural world. We can conclude that an object was intelligently designed, he says, if it shows “specified complexity”—complexity that matches an “independently given pattern.” The sequence of letters “jkxvcjudoplvm” is certainly complex: if you randomly type thirteen letters, you are very unlikely to arrive at this particular sequence. But it isn’t specified: it doesn’t match any independently given sequence of letters. If, on the other hand, I ask you for the first sentence of “Moby Dick” and you type the letters “callmeishmael,” you have produced something that is both complex and specified. The sequence you typed is unlikely to arise by chance alone, and it matches an independent target sequence (the one written by Melville). Dembski argues that specified complexity, when expressed mathematically, provides an unmistakable signature of intelligence. Things like “callmeishmael,” he points out, just don’t arise in the real world without acts of intelligence. If organisms show specified complexity, therefore, we can conclude that they are the handiwork of an intelligent agent.

For Dembski, it’s telling that the sophisticated machines we find in organisms match up in astonishingly precise ways with recognizable human technologies. The eye, for example, has a familiar, cameralike design, with recognizable parts—a pinhole opening for light, a lens, and a surface on which to project an image—all arranged just as a human engineer would arrange them. And the flagellum has a motor design, one that features recognizable O-rings, a rotor, and a drive shaft. Specified complexity, he says, is there for all to see.

[chuam]

Dembski’s second major claim is that certain mathematical results cast doubt on Darwinism at the most basic conceptual level. In 2002, he focussed on so-called No Free Lunch, or N.F.L., theorems, which were derived in the late nineties by the physicists David H. Wolpert and William G. Macready. These theorems relate to the efficiency of different “search algorithms.” Consider a search for high ground on some unfamiliar, hilly terrain. You’re on foot and it’s a moonless night; you’ve got two hours to reach the highest place you can. How to proceed? One sensible search algorithm might say, “Walk uphill in the steepest possible direction; if no direction uphill is available, take a couple of steps to the left and try again.” This algorithm insures that you’re generally moving upward. Another search algorithm—a so-called blind search algorithm—might say, “Walk in a random direction.” This would sometimes take you uphill but sometimes down. Roughly, the N.F.L. theorems prove the surprising fact that, averaged over all possible terrains, no search algorithm is better than any other. In some landscapes, moving uphill gets you to higher ground in the allotted time, while in other landscapes moving randomly does, but on average neither outperforms the other.

Now, Darwinism can be thought of as a search algorithm. Given a problem—adapting to a new disease, for instance—a population uses the Darwinian algorithm of random mutation plus natural selection to search for a solution (in this case, disease resistance). But, according to Dembski, the N.F.L. theorems prove that this Darwinian algorithm is no better than any other when confronting all possible problems. It follows that, over all, Darwinism is no better than blind search, a process of utterly random change unaided by any guiding force like natural selection. Since we don’t expect blind change to build elaborate machines showing an exquisite coördination of parts, we have no right to expect Darwinism to do so, either. Attempts to sidestep this problem by, say, carefully constraining the class of challenges faced by organisms inevitably involve sneaking in the very kind of order that we’re trying to explain—something Dembski calls the displacement problem. In the end, he argues, the N.F.L. theorems and the displacement problem mean that there’s only one plausible source for the design we find in organisms: intelligence. Although Dembski is somewhat noncommittal, he seems to favor a design theory in which an intelligent agent programmed design into early life, or even into the early universe. This design then unfolded through the long course of evolutionary time, as microbes slowly morphed into man.

Dembski’s arguments have been met with tremendous enthusiasm in the I.D. movement. In part, that’s because an innumerate public is easily impressed by a bit of mathematics. Also, when Dembski is wielding his equations, he gets to play the part of the hard scientist busily correcting the errors of those soft-headed biologists. (Evolutionary biology actually features an extraordinarily sophisticated body of mathematical theory, a fact not widely known because neither of evolution’s great popularizers—Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould—did much math.) Despite all the attention, Dembski’s mathematical claims about design and Darwin are almost entirely beside the point.

The most serious problem in Dembski’s account involves specified complexity. Organisms aren’t trying to match any “independently given pattern”: evolution has no goal, and the history of life isn’t trying to get anywhere. If building a sophisticated structure like an eye increases the number of children produced, evolution may well build an eye. But if destroying a sophisticated structure like the eye increases the number of children produced, evolution will just as happily destroy the eye. Species of fish and crustaceans that have moved into the total darkness of caves, where eyes are both unnecessary and costly, often have degenerate eyes, or eyes that begin to form only to be covered by skin—crazy contraptions that no intelligent agent would design. Despite all the loose talk about design and machines, organisms aren’t striving to realize some engineer’s blueprint; they’re striving (if they can be said to strive at all) only to have more offspring than the next fellow.

Another problem with Dembski’s arguments concerns the N.F.L. theorems. Recent work shows that these theorems don’t hold in the case of co-evolution, when two or more species evolve in response to one another. And most evolution is surely co-evolution. Organisms do not spend most of their time adapting to rocks; they are perpetually challenged by, and adapting to, a rapidly changing suite of viruses, parasites, predators, and prey. A theorem that doesn’t apply to these situations is a theorem whose relevance to biology is unclear. As it happens, David Wolpert, one of the authors of the N.F.L. theorems, recently denounced Dembski’s use of those theorems as “fatally informal and imprecise.” Dembski’s apparent response has been a tactical retreat. In 2002, Dembski triumphantly proclaimed, “The No Free Lunch theorems dash any hope of generating specified complexity via evolutionary algorithms.” Now he says, “I certainly never argued that the N.F.L. theorems provide a direct refutation of Darwinism.”

Those of us who have argued with I.D. in the past are used to such shifts of emphasis. But it’s striking that Dembski’s views on the history of life contradict Behe’s. Dembski believes that Darwinism is incapable of building anything interesting; Behe seems to believe that, given a cell, Darwinism might well have built you and me. Although proponents of I.D. routinely inflate the significance of minor squabbles among evolutionary biologists (did the peppered moth evolve dark color as a defense against birds or for other reasons?), they seldom acknowledge their own, often major differences of opinion. In the end, it’s hard to view intelligent design as a coherent movement in any but a political sense.

It’s also hard to view it as a real research program. Though people often picture science as a collection of clever theories, scientists are generally staunch pragmatists: to scientists, a good theory is one that inspires new experiments and provides unexpected insights into familiar phenomena. By this standard, Darwinism is one of the best theories in the history of science: it has produced countless important experiments (let’s re-create a natural species in the lab—yes, that’s been done) and sudden insight into once puzzling patterns (that’s why there are no native land mammals on oceanic islands). In the nearly ten years since the publication of Behe’s book, by contrast, I.D. has inspired no nontrivial experiments and has provided no surprising insights into biology. As the years pass, intelligent design looks less and less like the science it claimed to be and more and more like an extended exercise in polemics.



In 1999, a document from the Discovery Institute was posted, anonymously, on the Internet. This Wedge Document, as it came to be called, described not only the institute’s long-term goals but its strategies for accomplishing them. The document begins by labelling the idea that human beings are created in the image of God “one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.” It goes on to decry the catastrophic legacy of Darwin, Marx, and Freud—the alleged fathers of a “materialistic conception of reality” that eventually “infected virtually every area of our culture.” The mission of the Discovery Institute’s scientific wing is then spelled out: “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.” It seems fair to conclude that the Discovery Institute has set its sights a bit higher than, say, reconstructing the origins of the bacterial flagellum.

The intelligent-design community is usually far more circumspect in its pronouncements. This is not to say that it eschews discussion of religion; indeed, the intelligent-design literature regularly insists that Darwinism represents a thinly veiled attempt to foist a secular religion—godless materialism—on Western culture. As it happens, the idea that Darwinism is yoked to atheism, though popular, is also wrong. Of the five founding fathers of twentieth-century evolutionary biology—Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Ernst Mayr, and Theodosius Dobzhansky—one was a devout Anglican who preached sermons and published articles in church magazines, one a practicing Unitarian, one a dabbler in Eastern mysticism, one an apparent atheist, and one a member of the Russian Orthodox Church and the author of a book on religion and science. Pope John Paul II himself acknowledged, in a 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, that new research “leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.” Whatever larger conclusions one thinks should follow from Darwinism, the historical fact is that evolution and religion have often coexisted. As the philosopher Michael Ruse observes, “It is simply not the case that people take up evolution in the morning, and become atheists as an encore in the afternoon.”

Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science. Meanwhile, more than eighty per cent of Americans say that God either created human beings in their present form or guided their development. As a succession of intelligent-design proponents appeared before the Kansas State Board of Education earlier this month, it was possible to wonder whether the movement’s scientific coherence was beside the point. Intelligent design has come this far by faith.

[f94gator]

Vandemann

Not million, BILLION - that is what so many pople have a problem understanding - THE SCALE

A teacher in a geology class I took at UF once told us that if the entire history/timespan of the earth's existence were represented as a tower the size of the World Trade Center, the amount of time that humans existed in that timespan would be the equivalent of a single piece of paper placed on top of the tower.

Feeling insignificant yet?

[ObieWan2bWet]

I think the the simplest organisms have got it dialed in. They don't have to deal with all this hyperbole, they only do my 3 most favorite things... eat... sleep... and breed... :D

[jackpine savage]

Uhh, this debate is way off track. Pure science has never intentionally tried to disprove the existence of God. Science is impasionate and objective. Anyone that trys to use the knowledge gained trough science to disprove a religion is quite simply not being scientific.

The bible never told me to wait for God to make my life better. That's just silly. I think the best way to put it is God helps those that help themselves. God never promised to rain riches down on me. He only asked that I believe. And quite frankly, science has never gotten in the way of that.

I have just never been able to see the conflict. Laid out side by side, the FACTS do not dispute my beliefs. Some theories may, but they have yet to be proven, and that is alright with me.

I will not dispute a fact. You'd have to brainless. But I will not abandon my faith because someone else came up with a nifty idea that kinda fits. A spotted moth doesn't prove evolution. It is a great observation though. I say keep going.

And guys, Darwin didn't come up with the Big-Bang Theory. Lets tackle one problem at a time huh?
:stupid:

[PatMyGreen]

Hard to say... that is my point. And how do we know what happened 3.9 million years ago?
Carbon dating and even the historic timeline of geologic record have innacuracies that would not stand up in court.
My whole point is this is not as cut and dry as it is made out to be. There is alot of room for error and science alone cannot answer this.

Why is it that you people think that that there is any room for question means that science has failed completely? That is why it is a theory and not a law, and doesn't claim to be more. It has stood up to the most rigorous testing without being disproved for the entire modern age! There isn't even a purely logical argument against it. The point that got this whole thread roling was there is a guy who believes that the shear diversity of life on earth (which is amazing) can't be explained by natural selection. It is exactly the same failure to appreciate the scale of time over which this has occured that keeps allowing very intelligent people to fall for this garbage. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it false, so stop preaching.

[seacrecher]

Creationism through evolution is my take on the subject.

[Don B]

for all of the pure evolutionist out there. I do not go for the creation in 6 days bit, but I also do not fall for the life began in a slop puddle and grew into the billions on organisms of today. Can you please point out where 1 science experiment has produced a single celled organism out of simple amino acids in a laboratory. It seems if this happened in mass to start life on our planet it should be no big deal for a laboratory.

[Marcus]

I can understand mike how you question god's plan for your family. but at the moment it seems you guys are doing well at this point

THANK THE LORD!! :rolleyes:

[Marcus]

it is our tested faith to him that he is looking for.

God is an egomaniac?? Why?

[ITSABOUTTIME]

. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it false, so stop preaching.
Same thing stands for Faith Pat

[wvandeman]

Why is it that you people think that that there is any room for question means that science has failed completely? That is why it is a theory and not a law, and doesn't claim to be more. It has stood up to the most rigorous testing without being disproved for the entire modern age! There isn't even a purely logical argument against it. The point that got this whole thread roling was there is a guy who believes that the shear diversity of life on earth (which is amazing) can't be explained by natural selection. It is exactly the same failure to appreciate the scale of time over which this has occured that keeps allowing very intelligent people to fall for this garbage. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it false, so stop preaching.

Pat,

I don't speak for "my people". I can only say what I have seen, experienced and read. My problem with using science to explain something as nebulous as the Origin of Man or the Origin of life is there is not enough solid evidence to be sure either way. I don't care what the theory is, and I am not saying these are not reasonable theories. I know the scope of time on Earth keeps coming up, but it is exactly this scope that makes me question how any man can know. We have a written record for a few thousand years and yet we are CERTAIN of events that happened billions of unobserved years ago.

I don't speak for every man's experience, but you are painting alot of smart, dumb and in the middle people with a very broad brush. I have looked long and hard at the evidence for BOTH sides, and came up with an explanation that I feel makes the most sense, but that doesn't mean everyone will see the same way.

You accuse me of preaching, but have you yourself heard all the arguments?
If you have, I respect your choice and your opinion. I know you're a smart guy and I have appreciated your insight on other topics. I also agree with your statement on the prior post that got zapped, that we all see through the lens of our own experience. My advice is this is not a cut and dry topic, and until you really know that person's lens you have no way of knowing how accurate it is.

[SoCal Fisher]

I'll admit I'm no theologian, but something that always bugged me was how ID believers, and general religious types can now concede that they don't believe the world was created in 7 days as the bible says. What they don't understand is that you must believe EVERYTHING the bible says or NONE of it! It's amazing how some people think they can pick and choose the pieces they like. Religion just wasn't designed that way. In fact, if you were to say ANYTHING contray to the letter of the Bible a few hundred years ago, you would be killed. Plain and simple.
I have a few friends that go to church on a regular basis, but let me tell you, they can party and raise hell with the best of them. Thats fine though. If it makes their life happy, more power to them. But it seems that they are always changing their faith depending on how much beer money they have, and so on.
All the rules and dogma of most religions were created thousands of yours ago, and was never intended to be changed. Ever. Unfortunately the basic "rules' for joining a religion are never to question its validity, and this is exactly what paints them into a corner. Science isn't perfect, but every year that goes by, they improve their theories, and discover something new, while opponents are forced to concede another step backward.
I'm a firm believer that real scientists do what they do for truth, not for political reasons. Religion, on the other hand, is almost strickly for political gain. Science is a direct threat to its power. Science may not be perfect, but always strives to be.

I forgot who said it but my favorite quote regarding these kinds of topics is "not only is the universe larger that we imagine, but it's larger than we CAN imagine."

By the way, did you know that 500 years ago it was a sin to think that wiches could fly, and 100 years after that, it was a sin to think they couldn't fly?
A little food for thought.

[jackpine savage]

But they seemed to always believed in witches

[fishkilla]

A teacher in a geology class I took at UF once told us that if the entire history/timespan of the earth's existence were represented as a tower the size of the World Trade Center, the amount of time that humans existed in that timespan would be the equivalent of a single piece of paper placed on top of the tower.

Feeling insignificant yet?

faith keeps any feeling of insignificance very far out of my mind. :D

believe what you want but evolution with no designer leaves us with a very bleak eternity. eternity compared to the existance of your life would be the equivalent of a speck of dust from a piece of a piece of paper on top of any sky scraper. a very long time to be dead wrong about your creator.

that would make me feel insignificant if i didn't have faith.

[bikewrench]

faith keeps any feeling of insignificance very far out of my mind. :D

believe what you want but evolution with no designer leaves us with a very bleak eternity. eternity compared to the existance of your life would be the equivalent of a speck of dust from a piece of a piece of paper on top of any sky scraper. a very long time to be dead wrong about your creator.

that would make me feel insignificant if i didn't have faith.

As a trained scientist and a science educator I have absolutely NO problem with people having the faith of their choice. Many of the giants of science were religous. Darwin himself was. As far as I know none ever renounced their faith because of the discoveries of science. They felt as though they were trying to understand the details of God's Universe. They were human enough to acknowledge their faith yet curious and open minded enough to not mindlessly "follow the leader". As I have mentioned earlier on this thread but no one has commented (at least I didn't see), the official position of the Catholic Church is they are in agreement with Darwin's theory. The problem is when organized faith becomes or tries to become public policy. Just as an example, look at what some proponents of Islam are using their "faith" to justify. Someone should start a thread on this site to talk about that issue. ;)
Dismissing evolution is a sign of intellectual laziness. No one who has argued against it here or elsewhere in the media, knows what it means or what the theory is about. I keep hearing the same bs arguments. I'm suprised no one has brought up the "moving moon" argument against the age of the earth. :rolleyes:

[BluewaterRocket]

It has been proven using the scientific method

Really? Then why is it still a Theory? The fact is that it has never been proven. And if you do apply the Scientific Method to Darwin's theory of evolution, or the multitude of competing evolutionary theories, none of them can maintain their integrity in the full light of real scientific scrutiny.

Natural selection is a real phenomenon - no disputes here. As evidenced on this thread, natural selection is often confused with evolution. White bunnies in a tundra will live longer than black bunnies in the tundra - this is natural selection. It has nothing to do with complex amino acids randomly mutating into a more survivable species.

[jackpine savage]

Natural selection is the basis of the Theory of Evolution. You have a scientific background so I assume you know the difference between a theory and a Scientific Theory.

[bikewrench]

With all due respect Blue water, you have no idea what you are talking about. Go to the local university (not the oral Roberts one) and take a course on general biology, then a course in evolution, then a course in genetics, etc. The only "problem" with science is that it requires much, much more effort to really understand than most people want to invest. It is much easier to listen to a simple "feel good" story.

[Spearchucker]

With all due respect Blue water, you have no idea what you are talking about. Go to the local university (not the oral Roberts one) and take a course on general biology, then a course in evolution, then a course in genetics, etc. The only "problem" with science is that it requires much, much more effort to really understand than most people want to invest. It is much easier to listen to a simple "feel good" story.

VERY well said :thumps:

[Marcus]

VERY well said :thumps:

Mmmmmm.... I noticed that his thread was edited by Spearchucker to which Spearchucker patted himself on the back for such a great post. :D

[BluewaterRocket]

Natural selection is the basis of the Theory of Evolution.

Jackpine - It is not the basis for the Theory of Evolution. It is one of two mechanisms used in the theory. Natural selection combined with different types of genetic mutations (depending upon which evolutionist you listen to) are the foundations of the theory. Do I believe that Natural Selection occurs? Yes. Do I believe that genetic mutations occur? Yes. Do I believe that the two work together to form new species? No. There is no consistent, logical, scientific evidence that demonstrates the theory of these two mechanisms working together.

You have a scientific background so I assume you know the difference between a theory and a Scientific Theory.

Scientific Theory expresses a model used to explain observed phenomenon. The difference between a Theory and a Scientific Theory is that one is supported with evidence, is predictable, testable, and is consistent across all elements of the theory; the other is a guess or a hunch.

[BluewaterRocket]

VERY well said :thumps:

You are very easily amused, Mr. Moderator.

[Spearchucker]

Mmmmmm.... I noticed that his thread was edited by Spearchucker to which Spearchucker patted himself on the back for such a great post. :D

He had a word misspelled, so I fixed it.

[bikewrench]

Spearchucker speaks the truth. Except for the misspelled word that is exactly what I wrote. I usually preview and proof read but the Patriots are killing the Bengals and I'm distracted. Thanks.

[BluewaterRocket]

With all due respect Blue water, you have no idea what you are talking about. Go to the local university (not the oral Roberts one) and take a course on general biology, then a course in evolution, then a course in genetics, etc. The only "problem" with science is that it requires much, much more effort to really understand than most people want to invest. It is much easier to listen to a simple "feel good" story.

No "feel good" here Bike. I've spent more time studying this topic over the past 25 years both as a secular rocket scientist, as well as an evangelical Christian. The latter for only the past 14 years.

Society has always placed a premium on science as the oracle of absolute and ultimate truth. The reality is that science is man's feeble attempt to describe reality. Remember that thing called the Copernican Revolution back in the 16 century? The science of the time was based on another scientist, Ptolemy who declared the earth was the center of the universe. Copernicus challenged "modern science" and was ridiculed for his ideas even though his math was simpler and more eloquent. It took 60 years for society to accept his ideas. Even with all of the great scientists that followed Copernicus, we're still scratching our head trying to figure out which models of the universe are the most valid.

My only point here is that "Science" is all to often used as a defense for something that should not and cannot be challenged. In this case, Macro Evolution has not proven itself to be a science based upon accepted standards, such as the scientific method.

As I've stated in previous threads on this topic, I believe the obvious inconsistencies and problems with evolution are ignored by otherwise rational thinking individuals for one reason. To consider the available alternatives (Intelligent Design and/or Creationism) introduces the possibility that their lives may be accountable to someone other than themselves.

[gogators27]

I will add my testimony to this post that I know that God lives, Jesus is the christ. We are all brothers and sisters spiritually, and god is the father of our spirits. We(our bodies and our spririts) were created in his image.
(this is the main issue)

As a side note -If you are still unsure whether you evolved from a monkey you can ask god when you stand before him and account for all your lifes decisions, at least all those that you did not repent for and use Christs attonement to become clean for. At that point, what would it matter anyway, the point is that you will know that there is a god and he looks like you do.. and you will be saying, why did I think that I could have been created without a creator?

True religion and true science are the same.

[BluewaterRocket]

He had a word misspelled, so I fixed it.

Very cool, Spearboard.com now has a spell check feature. Helluva lot better than that Florida Sportsman forum.

[aaron proffitt]

Well put, Bluewater. And that's coming from a...well, let's just say our spiritual paths and doctrines differ substantially.
Nevertheless, thank you for citing what should be the obvious to everyone.

[bikewrench]

Society has always placed a premium on science as the oracle of absolute and ultimate truth. The reality is that science is man's feeble attempt to describe reality.
Do you read this stuff before you post it? Have fun guys, I'm done with this thread. :sleep: I am going to the political/war threads. People are much more reasonable over there. :D

[inletsurf]

We are all brothers and sisters spiritually, and god is the father of our spirits.

So if I bone a chick, any chick, i'm really boning my sister? Dude thats incest.

[BluewaterRocket]

Do you read this stuff before you post it? Have fun guys, I'm done with this thread. :sleep: I am going to the political/war threads. People are much more reasonable over there. :D

Wish I could claim it as original thought, but it's not. It's one of the central themes of Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions .

[bikewrench]

Wish I could claim it as original thought, but it's not. It's one of the central themes of Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions .

Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. Try some original thought.

[calicojack]

Design - here's a really good arguement:
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

[Christof]

they take the bible, a book written by man, inspired by God, and translated over and over and over and over and over again, and take each sentence verbatim
Except when it doesnt suit their lifestyle, then it can be "interpreted" (i.e., 7th day sabbath, etc..)....
I was raised very religiously and have studied most modern religions.... Whether it is age or experience, I cant say, but I would probably be considered an agnostic now... I CAN blame organized religion for much of what I do or dont believe now (many really religious people are rude, unaccepting, or flat out nuts) and some of the worst treatment I have ever recieved has been from so called Religious people (yeah, Christ would be proud)...
Anyway, I am not a full believer in evolution beyond the simple adaptation view, of course animals and people adapt, whether we come from slime or a god, why wouldnt a supreme being create creatures that would evolve or adapt to their surroundings?
What I dont believe about the creation side is the bible... A book written by people (and we know how honest and un-self serving they are), that is as accurate as a Readers Digest condensed version of war and peace would be. Dont study the bible and think you know theology.. The original scrolls from which the present bible come from are not complete, and the words have been translated from 3 different languages, one that hasnt even been written for thousands of years. So much for accuracy there. Also, I cannot fathom how a being capable to create the universe, knows the end from the beginning, etc., would ever go thru with creation of this world much less it's inhabitants... Now for those that will scream "Blasphemy" I ask this.... You are able to know your entire childs life from birth to death in advance of conception... You see a child born with multiple health problems. Teen troubles, drug use, arrests, miserable troubled life ending in murder of several people and execution of said child..... But, his last words are "I love you dad and I am sorry"..... Now with that knowledge can you tell me that you would create that life?? Really?
I just cannot believe that this being would create this world, knowing the billions that would suffer, the pain endured, the problems "sin" would create, for no other good reason than to prove he was justified in destroying Lucifer and wiping out sin for good... Why bother? Is God that lonely with nothing but angels around him that he needed to create man? Would he create man so that (according to the bible) a small percentage of humans (true believers and forgiven sinners) could then live a life of bliss in his heaven?? Just doesnt add up in a logical sense... Created by a supreme power? Feasible. But the accepted biblical version simply has too many holes and imperfections in it to have ever originated from a perfect, supreme, God.....

They ya have it...

Christof

[Christof]

As a christian we are not in authority to question the word of god. Okay, so how about the word of Man, stated to be the word of God??? And as far as the "Inspired" theory you will surely use, well maybe God inspired me to say what I just did... If I claim he did, will you then use it as gospel??
The only supposed true written word of god are the stone tablets containing the ten commandments written with "The finger of God".... Okay, so why can no one find it?? We have documents written by man from earlier times than when the stone tablets were given to Moses, yet darn, the tablets disappeared..... How convenient....

Christof

[jackpine savage]

Dang Christof I am beginning to agree with you. Now thats evolution :D

[aaron proffitt]

Wow...never knew there were so many atheist about. Kind of sad that your world is only as good as what is tangible.

PS Jack, what happened to your Avatar of the guy holding the sign ? Thought that was kinda funny.

[SoCal Fisher]

It's simply the arrogance of man kind to insist that the wonders of the world MUST have been created by a person, and a person who looks just like him too. Wow.
I think you're right Christof, the bible just has too many holes. I tend to think that the original message Jeses tought was sensible and good. It took a few hundred years in the hands of priests to corrupt it and start burning people at the stake. So essentially they blew it.

As far as feeling insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe, I KNOW I'm insignificant. One way to think of it is when a child is killed, everyone is shocked and saddened. How can God allow such a thing to happen? Well it happened a lot in the past, so why aren't people still crying over it? Because in the grand scheme of life, it really doesn't matter. In the time line of the entire existance of this planet, from beginning to end, Human beings will look like just a blink of an eye.

[aaron proffitt]

I'm not sure of the Christian rationale behind the tragedies that Christof has mentioned. There are no easy anwers.
However, life is about harmony and balance. Yin and Yang if you will. The light cannot exist without darkness. The absence of pain is pleasure. Death begets life. Even the the joy of a new birth is only possible thru the violence of the process.

And...this had nothing to do with evolution. My bad !!

[jackpine savage]

Aaron-College football has begun. Received my BA from Wisconsin, so go Badgers

[aaron proffitt]

Ahhh....

Now on with the show !!

[Christof]

nazis did was exile, kill, or place in "summer camp" all the academics and scientists. Oh really? So thats why they nearly beat us to the nuclear bomb, built the first fighter jets, cruise missles (buzzbombs), and many other things, because the scientists had all been exiled or locked away.... Thats almost funny.

Christof

[Christof]

I will add my testimony to this post that I know that God lives, Jesus is the christ.
No you dont. You believe that you know.... Just as the evolutionists believe they know.. Now you had god over for dinner and he took you on a tour of his place on the other side of orion, then I will do two things.. Apologize for my insulance, then call Peace River to see if they have a bed for you....
Thats the really scary thing about religious types, no matter what faith, they cant just state they have blind faith, they expect everyone to believe that they know facts, and there are no facts in faith, or it wouldnt be faith. I can have faith that my wife is not sleeping around, but just believing it does not make it fact....

Christof

[aaron proffitt]

So again... Christof. By your way of thinking if something isn't tangible than it lacks the ability to exist ? However,since the topic at hand is religion,more specifically Christianity; and since right now it is very in vogue to bash Christianity, you agree that their are many things that exist that you will never see the evidence of. But these things don't involve a Deity ergo they are free from you being doubtful of them.
Am I reading you correctly ?
You have a very pragmatic way of looking at things.Not neccesarily a bad thing, but kinda 2 dimensional.

[Spearchucker]

Lets bear in mind, the ID advocates insist that ID has nothing to do with their religion, that it is simply another "scientific" theory.

Please show me one, JUST ONE, advocate of "Intelligent Design" that is not a born again evangelical Christian. ID is nothing more than "creationists" dressed in different clothes.

[inletsurf]

My only thing that irks me about the 'common Christians' is this:

They either want you to believe EXACTLY what they believe or they will isolate you from the church. Just like someone mentioned in one of the posts in this thread, if you admit that you study the bible and find inconsistencies and question some of the things you read, then the common Christian will pretty much rebuke you. Common Christians cannot accept the fact that the common man could have made errors in the bible, and that through hundreds of translations, and many different versions of many different gospels, of a man's account of that time in history, that mistakes have been made. Instead, it is the "irrefutable word of God".

If God is so confident that man wrote the bible right, then why did He have to come down to Mt Sinai to carve out the 10 commandments? Wouldn't he have just left it up to Moses? Sounds like the boss figured, "to do the job right, maybe you have to just do it yourself?"

Hmmmmm...

Truth:
The world was not created in 7 days.
The world is not younger than 20,000 years old.

Sounds like instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "blah blah blah blah", maybe some of you bright, well-studied bible students ought to take a break on verse memorization and other self brainwashing techniques, and dip into some real theology, open your minds, and perhaps theorize something realistic.

[wvandeman]

Aaron-College football has begun. Received my BA from Wisconsin, so go Badgers
Until they meet the Boilers!

[inletsurf]

Originally Posted by Ironhed
As a christian we are not in authority to question the word of god

That is the most common form of religious brainwashing there is. You are among those who thinks that scientologists and other cults are crazy, however they do their brainwashing in exactly the same matter.

Have any of you ever listened to the Jim Jones tapes? Where he tells everyone to drink the cool ade, mothers sons and daughters, and to not worry and do not question whats going on, just do it? Thank goodness someone put a bullet in him before he was able to high-tail it out of there before mass murdering thousands. So creepy to watch the video and hear the tape. It just shows how dangerous an intelligent, charismatic person using religion as a tool to fufill an agenda while leading a bunch of CLOSED MINDED PEOPLE who aren't taught to question all they hear, really is.

[wvandeman]

My only thing that irks me about the 'common Christians' is this:


Sounds like instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "blah blah blah blah", maybe some of you bright, well-studied bible students ought to take a break on verse memorization and other self brainwashing techniques, and dip into some real theology, open your minds, and perhaps theorize something realistic.

I totally agree with you on this. This is the point that I was hoping to get across earlier. There is so much we don't know, that we can't take any dogma at face value. I don't care if you are a Christian or a proponent of evolution or whatever. If you accept whatever you hear without testing this seriously then you will always have doubts in the back of your mind if you are honest with yourself. Personally I have never been a stronger beleiver but it came through some dark and undecided days weighing every possibility (including that God was not real) until I had a string of real life experiences that convinced me.

I wouldn't want anyone to take my word for anything. At the same time, I would hope in the search for TRUTH we would challenge everything we are told and read, and never come to a point where we think we know the answer (and that goes for beleivers as well).

[wvandeman]

It just shows how dangerous an intelligent, charismatic person using religion as a tool to fufill an agenda while leading a bunch of CLOSED MINDED PEOPLE who aren't taught to question all they hear, really is.

There are other tools, including science, philosophy. Just ask the marine biology scientists that are trying to shut down rec fishing for their personal agendas. I have seen my father who is a minister railroaded by others using the bible as a tool for control. But I have also seen this with friends and family who are in an academic environment. Any religion is vulnerable to man's selfish agendas, but don't think that science or academia are devoid of the exact same controlling and manipulative people.

If in doubt, follow the trail of money.

[ObieWan2bWet]

... If in doubt, follow the trail of money...

Ahh... the real issue finally surfaces...

It really is a shame that church sermons or Bible study groups don't discuss the abhorant, horrific and complete historical disregard for human rights and life while the "Church" was acquiring... err... seizing land, wealth, and power, from the... uh... non believers. It has been conveniently brushed under the carpet. People wish to forget how there word came to be, because it is indeed horrific, tortuous, on a level even greater than the Holocoust.

If God's word is so unflinching and interpreted so accurately, and has not changed to suit agenda over the millenia... how do you all explain the atrocities commited by religion, and more importantly how could any reasonably person with true human rights at heart associate themselves with that kind of climb to power?

Did you all know the Vatican City is the wealthiest country per capita by 10,000 times more than any other business, organization, or country in the entire world. Where do you think they got it from... I don't know of any product that was sold... I know of no service that was performed for a fee... I am not aware of any cash influx on that kind of scale coming from a collection plate... so tell me... where did it all come from then. We call that blood money... and all who believe are directly connected to it... so is Heaven really in your future after life?

Money... the root of all evil... and the church has more of it than God, or anybody for that matter.

[jadairiii]

dangerous an intelligent, charismatic person using religion as a tool to fufill an agenda while leading a bunch of CLOSED MINDED PEOPLE who aren't taught to question all they hear, really is. [/b]

That is something I have always had trouble understanding, how close minded some (many) Christians can be. The first time I read the New Testamant as an adult, Christ’s message was very clear, simple and easy to understand, “Love your God, Love your neighbor, deal with your own short-comings and don’t worry about your ‘brothers’”. And yet the Bible has been bastardized for over 2000 years to fit every psychopath that has an agenda, and never once will that psycho cite what Christ specifically stated was the most important “law”. Unfortunately there is a vast majority of people that prefer to be followers. I try to tell anyone that enquires about my faith that the first thing they need to do is forget everything that organized religion has told/taught them and to read the New Testament on there own, make up your own mind. No where does Christ tell us that we need to be mindless lemmings following some pink suit wearing idiot into the sea.

As for evolution, that is an extremely “faith” based theory. It works as long as we believe that “we” are UNIQUE in the universe, an infinite universe. Pretty bold assumption without a scintilla of proof. “We” may be as common as the hydrogen atom throughout this infinite universe, and if that is that case the theory of evolution fails miserably.

If you truly believe in an infinite God or Power (as I do), then why limit “him/her” (for lack of a better term), all is possible, his plan my be evolutionary, start with a single cell organism and let it go. No big deal to me, with an infinite universe I am educated enough to accept that I understand very little and will not denounce any possibility, but then again I am secure in my Faith and know that I am no better or worse than anyone else out there. Now lets talk about politics! :thumps:

John

[jadairiii]

Money... the root of all evil... and the church has more of it than God, or anybody for that matter.

THE CHUCH ≠ GOD

And the day after Christ died for our sins, it never has. Once you grasp that, everything else is easy.

John

[ObieWan2bWet]

THE CHUCH ≠ GOD

And the day after Christ died for our sins, it never has. Once you grasp that, everything else is easy.

John

?... ya lost me... I don't understand what you mean?

[jadairiii]

?... ya lost me... I don't understand what you mean?

IMHO organized religion does not equal Christ's message. Thats all. The Church has long forgotten its purpose. In too many instances it seems that people are worshiping the Church and/or the minister/priest/ect and following their message as apposed to what Christ wanted us to do.

Don’t get me wrong, I go to church, but not because I feel I have to. I can distinguish between the minister’s message and what Christ has told me to do (not that I always do it!)

John

[SoCal Fisher]

IMHO, you need to discard the whole new testament. It was assembled a long time after Jesas died, from many manuscripts. It was pieced together according to the churches agenda. Why were some used and some thrown away? It had to be established that the only way to heaven, was through the Catholic Church. You couldn't reach it on your own. Amazing.
A few years ago I want to Rome. A friend and I visited the Vatican and it was awesome. It was amazing how huge the place was. And then I though of how much money I took to build it and cover it in gold.

[JLittle44]

IMHO, you need to discard the whole new testament. It was assembled a long time after Jesas died, from many manuscripts. It was pieced together according to the churches agenda.

There was a History Channel episode about this a couple of weeks ago. Most scholars aparently date the books of the new testament at very near the death of Jesus. If I remember right, pretty much everyone agrees that they were written within 100 years and most think within 30 years. Additionally, everyone that has tried to disprove the New Testament as an accurate discription of the life of Jesus has not been able to accomplish it. The logic and the discussions from the atheistic, Jewish, and Christian scholars was consistent and solid.

Whether or not you believe in what it says about heaven or not, it is accurate about the life of Jesus.

Why is no one arguing about Irreducible Complexity? It is a fascinating argument. Did none of you read the article Chuam posted? There was also a video released about it a few years back. Someone here must have an opinion on the matter. I mean really, if the question can't be answered, then evolution can not be proven. Isn't that important enough to discuss?

[Marcus]

Why is no one arguing about Irreducible Complexity? It is a fascinating argument. I mean really, if the question can't be answered, then evolution can not be proven. Isn't that important enough to discuss?

Ever read this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducibly_complex#Criticisms_and_contrary_eviden ce

[jadairiii]

[QUOTE=SoCal Fisher]IMHO, you need to discard the whole new testament. It was assembled a long time after Jesas died, from many manuscripts. It was pieced together according to the churches agenda. Why were some used and some thrown away? ...QUOTE]

Common misconception, most scholars agree that the books were all written very early (see JLittle44's post) and as a combined agreed upon text the New Testament existed as early as the 2nd century. There is also no big conspiracy to the "other manuscripts" unless you read Dan Brown novels, they were all discarded for very logical reasons and even today’s scholars are in agreement to that. An ok book on biblical history is by Bart D. Ehrman "Misquoting Jesus", he takes some leaps in it but over all good for a historical view point. I have not only read the Bible but I am a history junky too.

John

[Spleen]

Why is there anything rather than nothing at all?

[JLittle44]

Ever read this?



No I hadn't, but it's freakin' fascinating. Kinda odd that Behe largely relied on philosophy to reach his conclusions and the A-AK-AMK-MK illustration has been around a very long time in one form or another in logic texts.

Good stuff Marcus.

Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

That guy was a genious of the first order.

[lens]

Additionally, everyone that has tried to disprove the New Testament as an accurate discription of the life of Jesus has not been able to accomplish it. The logic and the discussions from the atheistic, Jewish, and Christian scholars was consistent and solid.



I am willing to bet the Jews may disagree on the writings of the Bible (New Testament) and the actions of Jesus. :rolleyes:

Realize, just like Muslims, the Christians just re-wrote the Old Testament (That was written by the Jews.) and then wrote the New Testament and claimed theirs is better.

Because it was so long ago, it is hard to Prove or Disprove. we all know the old Telephone game.

[JLittle44]

I am willing to bet the Jews may disagree on the writings of the Bible (New Testament) and the actions of Jesus. :rolleyes:

No, according to the show at least, the educated ones don't. As to wether or not he was the son of God, yes of course they disagree. They didn't convert.

Realize, just like Muslims, the Christians just re-wrote the Old Testament (That was written by the Jews.) and then wrote the New Testament and claimed theirs is better.

No, they did not re-write it. The old testament is the same, and the new testment was added. They never said thiers was better, they said the Son of God has opened the gates of heaven and here is his story.

Because it was so long ago, it is hard to Prove or Disprove. we all know the old Telephone game.

The Jews were meticulous in copying the script. They counted the number of words and letters. They knew exactly how many A's there were in the text and any documents found to have any errors at all were completely destroyed. They weren't f-ing around.

[jadairiii]

I am willing to bet the Jews may disagree on the writings of the Bible (New Testament) and the actions of Jesus. :rolleyes:

Realize, just like Muslims, the Christians just re-wrote the Old Testament (That was written by the Jews.) and then wrote the New Testament and claimed theirs is better.

Because it was so long ago, it is hard to Prove or Disprove. we all know the old Telephone game.

Jews and Muslims do not disagree as to the existence of Jesus, just his claim as Messiah (he is seen by both religions as more of a prophet than Messiah)

As to the re-write, the New and Old Testaments can and do stand alone, Christians include it in "their" Bible as a precursor to the coming of Christ. But the New Testament is not a re-write of the Old, it actually contradicts much of the "Law" of the Old Testament.

And finally, it is not very hard to prove the origination of the Bible since extremely old texts still are around. Biggest issue for the Bible is the poor translation from Greek to English over the years.

John

[lens]

No, according to the show at least, the educated ones don't. As to wether or not he was the son of God, yes of course they disagree. They didn't convert.


No, they did not re-write it. The old testament is the same, and the new testment was added. They never said thiers was better, they said the Son of God has opened the gates of heaven and here is his story.



The Jews were meticulous in copying the script. They counted the number of words and letters. They knew exactly how many A's there were in the text and any documents found to have any errors at all were completely destroyed. They weren't f-ing around.

The Old Testament is the Christains name for the Torah. Over time, versions and tranlations, the Old Testament has changed. Just read the Torah. and you can see.

According to the educated ones huh?

Although Biblical archeology has confirmed the existence of some of the people, places, and events mentioned in the Bible, many critical scholars have argued that the Bible be read not as an accurate historical document, but rather as a work of literature and theology that often draws on historical events — and often draws on non-Hebrew mythology — as primary source material. For these critics the Bible reveals much about the lives and times of its authors. Whether the ideas of these authors have any relevance to contemporary society is left to clerics and adherents of contemporary religions to decide.


Again, Christians, just like Muslims, took a previous religion added their own additional text (Koran and New Testament) and claimed their religion is better.

No offense, just a matter of perspective.

[jackpine savage]

Until they meet the Boilers!
Purdue fan. You must have a lot of faith :D Guess we will have to wait to see who gets bragging rights

[JLittle44]

The Old Testament is the Christains name for the Torah. Over time, versions and tranlations, the Old Testament has changed. Just read the Torah. and you can see.

According to the educated ones huh?

Although Biblical archeology has confirmed the existence of some of the people, places, and events mentioned in the Bible, many critical scholars have argued that the Bible be read not as an accurate historical document, but rather as a work of literature and theology that often draws on historical events — and often draws on non-Hebrew mythology — as primary source material. For these critics the Bible reveals much about the lives and times of its authors. Whether the ideas of these authors have any relevance to contemporary society is left to clerics and adherents of contemporary religions to decide.

Again, Christians, just like Muslims, took a previous religion added their own additional text (Koran and New Testament) and claimed their religion is better.

No offense, just a matter of perspective.

No offense at all man, it's interesting.

Unfortunately, I'm too uneducated to be able to read the original version of the Torah. Kudos to you dude. Personally, I have to rely on what other scholars say, and that in and of itself is admitedly a problem.

I think the most compelling argument as to the accuracy or authenticity is that these people were willing to, and often did, die rather than admit they didn't believe. Jews and Christians both. With that degree of devotion, is it at all reasonable to suggest that changes could be made and widely distributed without the people or religious leaders screaming blasphemy at the top of their lungs? It wasn't like someone could just write up an altered copy and pass it around to everyone. These guys were and are VERY serious about they're history.

Translation problems yes, but those have been clearly documented as well.

[wvandeman]

Purdue fan. You must have a lot of faith :D Guess we will have to wait to see who gets bragging rights

A badger and a Pats fan! You poor soul. Seriously, I am always jazzed up for Saturday the 21st. Our game against Wisconsin always seems to dictate how our season ends up.

[jackpine savage]

While the books of the New Testament were all written within 100 years of Christs death, it took a much longer time for the Church to adopt what we now call the New Testament. It really wasn't until the mid 4th Century that all of the books were universally accepted within the Church, the main argument being over Revelations.

[jackpine savage]

A badger and a Pats fan! You poor soul. Seriously, I am really geeked up for the 21st. Our game against Wisconsin always seems to dictate how our season ends up.
Pats looked pretty good yesterday. Hate to admit it but they lucked out picking up Maroney in the draft. I like him but hate the Gophers

[wvandeman]

Pats looked pretty good yesterday. Hate to admit it but they lucked out picking up Maroney in the draft. I like him but hate the Gophers

We agree on one thing :)

Pats looked for real


Sorry for the hijack

[jackpine savage]

Badgers-Purdue in Lafayette of Madison?

[wvandeman]

Lafayette. "Boiler Spirit Weekend". Game time TBA

[jackpine savage]

Guess I will be in a sports bar that afternoon.

[wvandeman]

I have to find the game down here. Miss my season Tix being down here, but spearfishing and being close to the water will cause a man to do some desperate things.

[jackpine savage]

Lol, I feel the same way except the season is almost over up here so it doesn't really interfere with football. Might get 3-4 more weeks in. Guess we hijacked this thread, but Big Ten football is more important than evolution or ID.

[Spearchucker]

Big Ten football is a joke. SEC football is a RELIGION.

[jackpine savage]

I'll remember to repost that when Ohio State is winning the national title this year :D

[lens]

Jews and Muslims do not disagree as to the existence of Jesus, just his claim as Messiah (he is seen by both religions as more of a prophet than Messiah)

Glad to know that..........but.........No one said that.

But there is a fundamental difference. If my point was not clear, well sorry. Believing Jesus was a Messiah or the Son of God is a pretty big difference.


As to the re-write, the New and Old Testaments can and do stand alone, Christians include it in "their" Bible as a precursor to the coming of Christ. But the New Testament is not a re-write of the Old, it actually contradicts much of the "Law" of the Old Testament.

And finally, it is not very hard to prove the origination of the Bible since extremely old texts still are around. Biggest issue for the Bible is the poor translation from Greek to English over the years.

John

The origins of the Bible is not really a debate. I think my other post covers that. What it represents has always been my question?

And there is the problem in Translations and Verses.

I think it can be fair to say, since in the past the church has done wrong, the Bible could have been changed to fit the powers needs throughout history.

[lens]

Big Ten football is a joke. SEC football is a RELIGION.

Hell Yeah!!!!!!! :thumps: .........ooppss! :D

[emo spearo]

.who gives a crap either way.
.we all either become dust or feces in the end.
.religion is so depressing.

[jackpine savage]

Wll I guess that pretty much sums it up. Thanks kid.

[aaron proffitt]

.who gives a crap either way.
.we all either become dust or feces in the end.
.religion is so depressing.


Wow. Such inspiring words. And from just a wee lad,too. :rolleyes:

[chuam]

Here is my complaint. Evolution is the best theory we have. If we find something that can be proven that is better we can adjust our theory and change our views. That is the great thing about science. We can make discoveries that broaden our view. With ID it is set in stone. "This is how it happened." even if it is wrong. It cannot be proven nor disproven. That is not science. This is the same thing with religion. Blind faith does not make you religious. Doing good acts makes you a good person. I would be willing to bet God and Jesus would prefer you to be good in your actions towards others than to believe blindly in them without good acts. I know too many christians who go to church every sunday, say they are going to go to heaven and then act like complete morons and assholes during the week.

[aaron proffitt]

[QUOTE=Spearchucker]

Please show me one, JUST ONE, advocate of "Intelligent Design" that is not a born again evangelical Christian. QUOTE]

Nice to meet ya spearchucker. I'm glad I got to pop your cherry. :D

[SoCal Fisher]

In my earlier post I was talking about when the New Testiment was put together, not written. It took almost 400 years to put it all together. Thats a really long time. Think how the world has changed in the last 400 years compaired to now. Christianity started with a relatively small following, and over the centuries, multiplied and split into different factions with varied viewpoints. By the time the Bible was written, I believe it was pieced together in such a way as to bring all believers under one governing body (Rome). And if you weren't a believer, you damn well better convert!Now to me, thats an agenda.

One thing I've always wondered was, how come the Vatican won't open up their archive and let people study everything they have? If you think about it, nothing they own really belongs to them. It all belongs to the people who support Catholicism. What are they afraid of? Hmmm.

[Tally_Luke]

I know some of this has been said but my main problem with it is that many people who read the "Bible", King James Version for example, and accept it as the "Truth" don't realize what they are reading is not the true and whole Bible.

Some have brought up the the translations and copy errors. Very easy to do in an age when printing presses didn't exist and even today it is very very very easy to mistranslate something. An easy example is to go read something written in English by a foreign company. I saw tons of examples of this over in the Middle East and Central America...some were downright hillarious.

The other issue is that whole books and passages have been removed from the Bible and are no longer their. Some were just not included during the collation of all the various chapters stories and whatnot, but some have been excluded intentionally by the various organizations because they felt that the common person should not see them for whatever reasons.

I have a very very hard time accepting organized religion on these terms. I would say I swing more over to the scientific side of things, but at the same time I can allow for spirituality in there.


Luke

[aaron proffitt]

It' s not about organized or disorganized religion, Biblical interpretation or other source of medium or whether someone chooses to meet in church,coven,mosque,tabernacle and so forth. Or not at all.It is about a very personal and genuine feeling and desire to paticipate in something that transcends our own understanding.
The problem science has with spirtuality is the primary goal of science is to explain the world around us. Spirtuality goes beyond that, into realms that science cannot explain. This is a threatening view for science and the egos that run them. Not everything can be explained and for that matter needs to be.

[chuam]

It' s not about organized or disorganized religion, Biblical interpretation or other source of medium or whether someone chooses to meet in church,coven,mosque,tabernacle and so forth. Or not at all.It is about a very personal and genuine feeling and desire to paticipate in something that transcends our own understanding.
The problem science has with spirtuality is the primary goal of science is to explain the world around us. Spirtuality goes beyond that, into realms that science cannot explain. This is a threatening view for science and the egos that run them. Not everything can be explained and for that matter needs to be.

That is the most illogical response I have ever heard. The basis of science is to come up with logical explanations for natural occurences. It is based on theories that can be proved and disproved. The problem is is that people of faith view science as a threat because it disrupts their thinking by being able to explain natural processes. The church and religion are the ones that have been attacking science since the dawn of time. Science does not go out of its way to attack religion.

[aaron proffitt]

Chuam, how many arm-chair scientist began attacking religion right off the bat on this thread ? Sure ,their was a time when the "church" attacked science. Their was also a time when the church burned my people at the stake. Time to move on.
Furthermore, the problem with the theory is that all to often it is accepted as fact and left there.Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about. If that weren't the case then theoretical scientist(talk about a misnomer) would be about out of a job.

Not real clear on what was so illogical.Few things make scientist cringe more than having to say "We don't know...."

[chuam]

Chuam, how many arm-chair scientist began attacking religion right off the bat on this thread ? Sure ,their was a time when the "church" attacked science. Their was also a time when the church burned my people at the stake. Time to move on.
Furthermore, the problem with the theory is that all to often it is accepted as fact and left there.Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about. If that weren't the case then theoretical scientist(talk about a misnomer) would be about out of a job.

Not real clear on what was so illogical.Few things make scientist cringe more than having to say "We don't know...."

It is accepted as fact until we get new proof that it isn't. It is the most accepted theory until proven wrong. When it is proven wrong it can be tested to see if it is correct. It is dynamic learning. This happens all the time. World is flat, sun revolves around the earth, etc. Religion is believing things that have been told to you as fact. There is no way to prove or disprove. If new manuscripts came to light that shook religion they would be quickly dismissed as heresy. That is the problem I have with it.

[aaron proffitt]

Religion is believing things that have been told to you as fact. .


Not fact...but to borrow a Christian word ,'faith'. And to be quite honest with you their are alot of aspects of life, even if your a agnostic or atheist, that still require faith.
Heresy ? Now their's word you don't hear being used alot in say the past 300 years.

For a guy who has a feces themed avatar your pretty sharp. :)

[chuam]

Not fact...but to borrow a Christian word ,'faith'. And to be quite honest with you their are alot of aspects of life, even if your a agnostic or atheist, that still require faith.
Heresy ? Now their's word you don't hear being used alot in say the past 300 years.

For a guy who has a feces themed avatar your pretty sharp. :)

Lol, thanks, the poop olympics is a funny avatar. I'm pretty sharp on this stuff thanks to having lengthy debates with Jesuit teachers in high school. We were taught evolution in science class and religion in religious classes.

Faith is the correct term for it not facts. Unfortunately I think too many people take it as fact. There isn't any reason that science and religion can't coexist. There is a time and place for each. As of right now evolution is the best theory for explaining the origin of life. I'm sure there will be break throughs that will question the theory and some that will solidify it. That is the genius of science. It is fluid. I think the one thing that really seperates the two arguments is that most scientists will say if you can show me empirical evidence that I am wrong and this can be proved then you can change the theory. The fact that this isn't possible with ID creates the problem. With ID one has to believe that things are there because their faith tells them. That is what religion is based on not what science should be based on.

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Unfortunately too many people of faith see science as something that is out to destroy religion. I think that is the farthest from the truth. Science is out there to find answers to questions that we do not have the answers for yet. This is what has always put it at odds with religion. It does not base its search for knowledge on faith but repeatable fact.

The purpose of religions is a journey through life. It is the seeking of truth and knowledge to further ones body and spirit gained through epiphanies and learning through sciptures. It is a search for knowledge but one of a spiritual mind. It is a search for Truth (of the religious kind).

[bikewrench]

The problem science has with spirtuality is the primary goal of science is to explain the world around us. Spirtuality goes beyond that, into realms that science cannot explain. This is a threatening view for science and the egos that run them. Not everything can be explained and for that matter needs to be.

Aaron, you need to stop posting if this is the best you can do. This statement is simply not true. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Science has no issue with spirituality, it is and always has been the other way around. Again, the percentage of scientists who are spiritual reflects the general population. What you do not see in science are mindless followers of fundamentalism.

[Christof]

The Old Testament is the Christains name for the Torah. Over time, versions and tranlations, the Old Testament has changed. Just read the Torah. and you can see.

According to the educated ones huh?

Although Biblical archeology has confirmed the existence of some of the people, places, and events mentioned in the Bible, many critical scholars have argued that the Bible be read not as an accurate historical document, but rather as a work of literature and theology that often draws on historical events — and often draws on non-Hebrew mythology — as primary source material. For these critics the Bible reveals much about the lives and times of its authors. Whether the ideas of these authors have any relevance to contemporary society is left to clerics and adherents of contemporary religions to decide.


Again, Christians, just like Muslims, took a previous religion added their own additional text (Koran and New Testament) and claimed their religion is better.

No offense, just a matter of perspective.Wow, couldnt have said it better myself Lens.... :eek:

Even the Torah is a mix of many documents.... The Dead Sea scrolls are a large basis for much of the Torah and Bible, and parts of those scrolls were missing.. Much of ancient biblical history was lost in the thousand years after Christs death.. Much turmoil in that area, the Crusades, etc. caused many historical writings to either be destroyed or hidden... Dead Sea scrolls were found in a cave in some jars if I remember correctly... Also, the Torah was written and based on the creation, blessing of abraham, and coming of the messiah... It is based on those things, and the commandments of course. The Bible is based on some of that, but mostly on the messiah has been here and now will return again....
Just to show how some translation problems occur, there are parts in the original translation of the old testament, where it speaks of eating wine.... Now how the hell do you eat wine? So looking up the word, it uses an old aramaic (I think) word that translates loosely into the words fruit of the vine, which of course can mean grapes for wine, or, grapes for raisins, which there was a fruit treat made from raisins and dates/figs which they ate, so they were probably speaking of eating this treat... But it got turned into "wine"...

I can only imagine the many translating errors that occurred.... And remember, the KJV bible was translated how many hundreds of years ago???
Now, people think it was all written from a single document handed down by god himself.... Ask any religious young person what the dead sea scrolls were, they will not have a clue...

Christof

[lens]

It' s not about organized or disorganized religion, Biblical interpretation or other source of medium or whether someone chooses to meet in church,coven,mosque,tabernacle and so forth. Or not at all.It is about a very personal and genuine feeling and desire to paticipate in something that transcends our own understanding.
The problem science has with spirtuality is the primary goal of science is to explain the world around us. Spirtuality goes beyond that, into realms that science cannot explain. This is a threatening view for science and the egos that run them. Not everything can be explained and for that matter needs to be.


i have to agree to disagree. Religion is not a threat to Science. But Religion is threatened by science.

[Christof]

Also agreed.....
Religion fears one thing and one thing alone..... Anything that may cause their followers to doubt or question those that impose religious rules and control.....


Christof

[ObieWan2bWet]

Here's the ONLY real problem I have with religion. Even though I live my life in a good way. I don't hurt others. I don't judge others. I help whenever I can, in whatever way possible to the benefit of others without obligation. I don't lie, cheat, or steal. I raise my children to be the same, to be compassionate, respectful, helpful and positive contributors to mankind also. Yet... I will not go to heaven because I don't expressly praise or worship any given Diety, and I don't force my view on others.

If God parted the skies and came to Earth, became tangible and declared his existance... would any of you change the way you live? The way you treat others? Anyone who says yes, should review thier current ways.

If on the other hand, Science somehow proved beyond any doubt... dis-proved all of the Bible, found out Jesus was a womanizing drunken delusional gambler who sent perverted e-mails to kids... would you change the way you live? would you change the way you treat others? Anyone who says yes, should review thier currents ways.

God or not. We do live, we live here, on this planet, and we all live together. Period. What we do now in our lives is not questioned, it is tangible, it is fact, and it is what we can touch, taste, feel. Don't you all think this is what we should concentrate our efforts on, instead of what we DON'T know, or are not sure of?

I think, being this is Spearboard and all, and knowing there are many religious and political websites who would just love long drawn out round and round, solving absolutely nothing threads like this...

... I vote that we get back to talking about slaying monster fish, getting drunk, and bonin' chicks, or dudes for those of you on 'the other side'. (see how non judgemental I am) :D ... and preferably in that order... ;)

[bikewrench]

Here's the ONLY real problem I have with religion. Even though I live my life in a good way. I don't hurt others. I don't judge others. I help whenever I can, in whatever way possible to the benefit of others without obligation. I don't lie, cheat, or steal. I raise my children to be the same, to be compassionate, respectful, helpful and positive contributors to mankind also. Yet... I will not go to heaven because I don't expressly praise or worship any given Diety, and I don't force my view on others.

If God parted the skies and came to Earth, became tangible and declared his existance... would any of you change the way you live? The way you treat others? Anyone who says yes, should review thier current ways.

If on the other hand, Science somehow proved beyond any doubt... dis-proved all of the Bible, found out Jesus was a womanizing drunken delusional gambler who sent perverted e-mails to kids... would you change the way you live? would you change the way you treat others? Anyone who says yes, should review thier currents ways.

God or not. We do live, we live here, on this planet, and we all live together. Period. What we do now in our lives is not questioned, it is tangible, it is fact, and it is what we can touch, taste, feel. Don't you all think this is what we should concentrate our efforts on, instead of what we DON'T know, or are not sure of?

I think, being this is Spearboard and all, and knowing there are many religious and political websites who would just love long drawn out round and round, solving absolutely nothing threads like this...

... I vote that we get back to talking about slaying monster fish, getting drunk, and bonin' chicks, or dudes for those of you on 'the other side'. (see how non judgemental I am) :D ... and preferably in that order... ;)

I love it! I'm with you. :thumps:

[aaron proffitt]

Aaron, you need to stop posting if this is the best you can do. This statement is simply not true. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Science has no issue with spirituality, it is and always has been the other way around. Again, the percentage of scientists who are spiritual reflects the general population. What you do not see in science are mindless followers of fundamentalism.


Fundamentalism ?... Brother, do you have me all wrong.

[aaron proffitt]

i have to agree to disagree. Religion is not a threat to Science. But Religion is threatened by science.


No...evangelical teachings are threatened by science. Unfortunatly, all to often this comes over to religion as it were in general.

[aaron proffitt]

God or not. We do live, we live here, on this planet, and we all live together. Period. What we do now in our lives is not questioned, it is tangible, it is fact, and it is what we can touch, taste, feel. Don't you all think this is what we should concentrate our efforts on, instead of what we DON'T know, or are not sure of?

I think, being this is Spearboard and all, and knowing there are many religious and political websites who would just love long drawn out round and round, solving absolutely nothing threads like this...

)

Spoken like a true Pagan. :)

[BluewaterRocket]

The problem science has with spirtuality is the primary goal of science is to explain the world around us. Spirtuality goes beyond that, into realms that science cannot explain. This is a threatening view for science and the egos that run them. Not everything can be explained and for that matter needs to be.

That's hitting the nail on the head! Well stated AP.

Having spent the first 10 years of my career living and working in an environment with the highest concentration of Phd scientists in the world (Johnson Space Center), I believe you've characterized the problem well. That is not to say that every scientist maintains this perspective; to the contrary, many willingly confess that the more they learn, the more they realize how much they do not know and cannot explain - they tend to be more open to the possibility of a spiritual realm. Nonetheless, the egotisitcal science is reality camp remains entrenched in their athiestic world view of science as absolute truth.

[BluewaterRocket]

What we do now in our lives is not questioned


How do you know for sure?

[aaron proffitt]

He sounds like a man of faith !

[DIVERTOM]

Religion can hold people in ignorance like when I lived in various parts of the
world. In Naples this is what the great Catholic Church presents and I lived
right down the road from it. http://www.sangennarofeast.net/photos_naples_2006_01.htm
Look at the so called miracle that takes place every year. Do you believe
that this happens? Well a lot of peasants do. I don't want to live like this.

I'm proud to live in a country where we win the Noble prizes and not talk to
statues and worship nonsense.

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) -- Americans John C. Mather and George F. Smoot have won the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics for work that helped cement the big-bang theory of the universe.

Mather, 60, works at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Smoot, 61, works at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California.

Their work was based on measurements done with the help of the NASA-launched COBE satellite in 1989. They were able to observe the universe in its early stages about 380,000 years after it was born. Ripples in the light they detected also helped demonstrate how galaxies came together over time.

"The very detailed observations that the laureates have carried out from the COBE satellite have played a major role in the development of modern cosmology into a precise science," the academy said in its citation.

[chuam]

That's hitting the nail on the head! Well stated AP.

Having spent the first 10 years of my career living and working in an environment with the highest concentration of Phd scientists in the world (Johnson Space Center), I believe you've characterized the problem well. That is not to say that every scientist maintains this perspective; to the contrary, many willingly confess that the more they learn, the more they realize how much they do not know and cannot explain - they tend to be more open to the possibility of a spiritual realm. Nonetheless, the egotisitcal science is reality camp remains entrenched in their athiestic world view of science as absolute truth.

This is what I don't get. The whole point of science is that it answers questions while creating new ones. That is the point. If at one point you say, "You know what, there is so much I can't explain, I'm just going to contribute it to "God, Yahweh, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster..."" What kind of a scientist does that make you then? The search for the truth is what is behind science not blind faith. If people believed in blind faith Columbus would never have found the americas. Incredible discoveries could not have been made. To give up and say, God did it is a disservice to all the other answers that are out there waiting to be found. THAT is what scares religious people. It is the fact that they feel threatened by anything that might upset the applecart.

[aaron proffitt]

Why do you think everything can be answered, chuam ?

Furthermore, we Pagans were answering quetions about nature long before the scientist had a clue what we were talking about. Because we believed.

How long has the food chain,water cycle, and so on been taught in the school science books. It was being taught in ours before the Romans arrived in the UK.

[chuam]

Why do you think everything can be answered, chuam ?

Furthermore, we Pagans were answering quetions about nature long before the scientist had a clue what we were talking about. Because we believed.

How long has the food chain,water cycle, and so on been taught in the school science books. It was being taught in ours before the Romans arrived in the UK.

I think everything can be answered because that is what drives learning. I think to believe something based on faith stifles learning.

I don't have a problem with religion. I was born a methodist and went to catholic high school. Do I believe in an organized religion now? No. I believe that good actions throughout life are what we should all strive for whether you are religious or not. If I leave the earth a little better place before I die then I have done my purpose.

The problem that I have that I have stated multiple times is that ID is based on religion and not science. If you want to teach ID, it should be taught along with creationism, Brahman creating the world (hinduism), buddha, demiurge (ancient Greece), Judaism, Islam and all the other religions views of creation in a religious class not a science class.

That is how the Jesuits taught us in highschool, seperate religious and science classes.

I am not out to attack religions and those who follow them. To each his own. I have a problem when these beliefs are being pushed onto me and my children.

[mcjaret]

"The majority isn't always right. Just ask Galileo."

Oh yeah, there were those other tidbits of absolute biblical truth -- the sun revolves around the earth, and the earth is the center of the universe! Any of you still arguing those propositions?

[aaron proffitt]

What passage is that in,mcjaret ? Can't recall that in my limited biblical studies.Certainly don't remeber that in any of the Redes.

[smartin]

Just read Genesis. It clearly states,"Man was created in their image" not his image as has been commonly misquoted. ALIENS! FUKIN ALIENS MAN!

[aaron proffitt]

Finally..the truth has been revealed.Thank you,smartin.

[ObieWan2bWet]

What we do in ours lives is not questioned

How do you know for sure?

... sigh...

What I do is not questioned, like this very evening, I assisted 22 Beach Patrol Explorers/Junior Lifeguards learn how to treat a jellyfish sting... no question there... no doubt... I and about 30 others know for sure, the fact is I did. Next week we will all be doing our annual jump off of the Main Street Pier, there's no question about it. If I walk down the street, that is fact, there is no question about what I just did. If you wish to put some etheral meaning to the statement, like God will question my actions, then that is completely out of context of the statement. Now let me put the statement back into context and complete as presented originally:

"What we do in our lives is not questioned, it is fact."

This is a good point about interpretation also, the old tell a story to one person at a table, and by the time it gets back around it has changed. Or more appropriately what you just did with a pretty unambiguous statement that you intentionally chopped and presented out of context for effect and a specific agenda... (not meant to be insulting, it just is)

... so if you can do that to make a point, what makes you think a scribe could not have done the same, especially from spoken stories well after the fact while recalling and writing the words down for that particular religions bible? I don't recall anywhere reading that Jesus', or God's words were being dictated on the spot as spoken by a court reporter sworn to accuracy. And I have read the new and the old testament cover to cover, probably twice. I have read a majority of the translated Koran, as I have several others. Could it also be why there are so many different variations and hundreds and hundreds of different religions, and differing quotes? Is this too not possible, as science could not have all the answers, is it then not true that religion may not have them either? Quite logically so.

In all sciences the most ambiguous, intangible, absolute least credible evidence there is, is a human witness recollection and interpretation of events. You have proven that by your reply. It is just too easily adapted or mis-interpreted. Especially one with an agenda. I wonder why that is? (that was a rhetorical question :) )

In sales it's also pretty well known, and fairly well documented that 90% of what is said to a person is forgotten within 10 minutes. There is'nt much question there.

To prove it... scientifically if you will (and I have done this on many occasions training salesman) Recite a story to any person, of 100 words or less, and then 10 minutes later (without telling them you will ask this before it is read) ask them to re-write it, or recite it word for word.

You will see clearly as I have every single time, the human mind will barely be able to do more than give you an overview of what the story was about, let alone re-write/recite it with accuracy and quotation. 90% of it will be wrong.

My beliefs are mine. I force them on no one, nor expect anyone to believe as I do. Yours are yours and I completely respect that as your right. I believe every person should be free to do so, without judgement, and without persecution. Mmm... that sounds familiar... :D

I am now going to get a beer... or am I? :rolleyes:

[aaron proffitt]

... sigh...



I am now going to get a beer... or am I? :rolleyes:

Only you can be the master of your destiny...for I say as it harms none, do as ye will.

Beer me,too.

[Spearchucker]

Hey Bluewater - in case you missed the point, which it appears you did, the topic is whether ID is actually science, or just religious beliefs in disguise. We are all very happy for you that you are saved and all that crap, but ID has NO basis in Science, so comparing the two, as they will do in the speech being given at the SunDome, is pointless.

[Christof]

Science can many times hypothesize, even to the point of "WTF!", but science can never be accused of the ludicracy of religion.... Not even close....
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me", yet Catholics worship Mary more than God, and Islam worships Mohammed more than god... Right there they break one of the commandments...
And how about the idiots with the virgin in their pancake or taco? I mean seriously, these morons not only believe that god is going to waste his time making art out of their food, but the church will travel half way across the globe to authenticate it??
I have to laugh every time the Islamic radicals are condemned for their "ridiculous" beliefs, and the next piece will be on some poor mexican idiot who see's the virgin mother in her Mole'.....

Only the blind fail to see how really ridiculous it is....

Christof

[BluewaterRocket]

Hey Bluewater - in case you missed the point, which it appears you did, the topic is whether ID is actually science, or just religious beliefs in disguise. .

You want to tell that to these scientists from Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

[JLittle44]

Science can many times hypothesize, even to the point of "WTF!", but science can never be accused of the ludicracy of religion.... Not even close....
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me", yet Catholics worship Mary more than God, and Islam worships Mohammed more than god... Right there they break one of the commandments... Christof

I was pretty much done with this thread and hadn't even looked at it in a couple of days. Dude, this statement really pi$$ed me off.

Science has advanced our society in fantastic ways but has also spawned nuclear weapons, anthrax, and pushed dangerous and harmful drugs on us. This is not the fault of "science" per say, but of the people financing it.

Catholics do not "worship Mary more than God." I have no reason or desire to personally attack you, but please do not comment on things you rather obviously know nothing about.

[lens]

You want to tell that to these scientists from Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Common now!
I think you should also link these too, if you are going to use this as a reference. This so called website is against any kind of progressive Science.

http://www.discovery.org/bioethics/

http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReadings.php

http://www.discovery.org/csc/aboutCSC.php

http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php

This laste one is the best. It is complete rubbish.

The theory of evolution is about "questioning and finding answers." That is what science is about.

You cannot question ID (creationism). Or at least Creationist.

[lens]

Science has advanced our society in fantastic ways but has also spawned nuclear weapons, anthrax, and pushed dangerous and harmful drugs on us. This is not the fault of "science" per say, but of the people financing it.


From my knowledge we have never started a war in the name of Science. But many a wars have been started in the name of God.

[JLittle44]

Well if you want to play that game, I found this to be a rather profound statement:

You cannot question ID (creationism).

Just kidding dude. You're doing a good job of balancing, or rather presenting different opinions. But seriously, wars have been started for many reasons. If you agree with my logic of not blaming "science" but rather people, then you can also not blame God, but rather should blame people, not their faith.

I will however conceed the point without further debate.

[Christof]

Science has advanced our society in fantastic ways but has also spawned nuclear weapons, anthrax, and pushed dangerous and harmful drugs on us. This is not the fault of "science" per say, but of the people financing it.
So whats your point in regards to my thread that "pissed you off"? I never said science was without wrongdoings did I?

Catholics do not "worship Mary more than God." I have no reason or desire to personally attack you, but please do not comment on things you rather obviously know nothing about.Really again? I was raised catholic until I was old enough to figure things out... I remember the prayer we always started Mass out with... "Mary, mother of Jesus....." I dont ever remember starting any prayer out with "Dear God"....
What do you say about all the mary Idols, er, I mean statues involved with Catholic worship??? I seem to remember a bible passage about "graven images" which seemed to point to worship of idols and images other than god...
And the biggest one for me is the christian teachings that all we have to do to be forgiven sins is to simply ask god... Yet I was taught that I had to ask a priest to forgive me, to quote "Father please forgive me for I have sinned", which was directed at the priest.... Then of course came the pennance and so many "hail mary's" and all was forgiven....

Is this now where you condemn me to a fiery death in hell for my insulance and blasphemy for daring to question the church? And yet you fail to even attempt to answer my accusation of the "Mary in the toasted cheese sandwich" scenarios all too often seen in catholic faith? Please tell me why in the world would God do such a silly thing?? He wont reveal himself to us in form, but he has no problem doing it in a tostado??

Christof

[lens]

Well if you want to play that game, I found this to be a rather profound statement:



Just kidding dude. You're doing a good job of balancing, or rather presenting different opinions. But seriously, wars have been started for many reasons. If you agree with my logic of not blaming "science" but rather people, then you can also not blame God, but rather should blame people, not their faith.

I will however conceed the point without further debate.

I agree it is people that cause wars. But we do not have many Mad Scientist running around trying to rally the followers to kill others. Most good science is used to do bad things by bad people.

My point on Creationism (I.D.) is that it does not allow questions. It is what it is. It's followers stand by this too.

But they enjoy one of the benefits of the Theory of Evolution. And that is being able to ask Questions about the Theory of Evolution.

I personally have no problems with people who follow ID. their faith requires it. I just have a problem with Creationism being made into I.D. and trying to make it sound like Fact and proven theory in the world of Science. No matter how you dress it up, it still represnts a religious faith.

[JLittle44]

You make it tough dude. I'll grant you that.

So whats your point in regards to my thread that "pissed you off"? I never said science was without wrongdoings did I?

Please follow my logic. It seemed you blamed God but not people, and credited science but not people. It was a see-saw statement without consitency. And you did say, "not even close." My examples were posed to show a contrary harm.


Really again? I was raised catholic until I was old enough to figure things out... I remember the prayer we always started Mass out with... "Mary, mother of Jesus....." I dont ever remember starting any prayer out with "Dear God"....

I too was raised Catholic, attended a Catholic school and have not attended a single mass that started out this way. The quote you are most probably searching for is "Holly Mary mother of God..." This occurs toward the end of the Hail Mary prayer and is not normally used to begin mass. I am also unaware of any corporate prayers that read like a kindergarten letter or rather beginning with "Dear God" so you have a point there.

What do you say about all the mary Idols, er, I mean statues involved with Catholic worship??? I seem to remember a bible passage about "graven images" which seemed to point to worship of idols and images other than god...
And the biggest one for me is the christian teachings that all we have to do to be forgiven sins is to simply ask god... Yet I was taught that I had to ask a priest to forgive me, to quote "Father please forgive me for I have sinned", which was directed at the priest.... Then of course came the pennance and so many "hail mary's" and all was forgiven....

It is very sad that you feel this way. But you did somehow manage to miss the point. You seem to have a very simplistic and narrow perspective of Catholicism. Idolatry is prohibited at a core level of our beliefs. This should have been explained to you at a very early age. By "er...statues" I assume that it was explained, but you decided to reject it from the start. As far as the Sacrement of Confession is concerned... I'll just have to let that one go for now, but clearly you were done a great diservice.

( :mad: I got sucked in again! Penance will be a post in the Bikini Thread! :D )

Is this now where you condemn me to a fiery death in hell for my insulance and blasphemy for daring to question the church? And yet you fail to even attempt to answer my accusation

Christof, I am no where near that arrogant. This question is inflamatory, presumptuous and reflective of your narrow charachterizations of very diverse populations. Hopefully this post further explains why it upset me.

Please research the fallacy: Gross Generalization.

[bikewrench]

I once saw an image of Charles Darwin in a bowl of blueberry oatmeal. I saw it and said "Jesus Christ!"

[Old Bateman]

"The majority isn't always right. Just ask Galileo."

Oh yeah, there were those other tidbits of absolute biblical truth -- the sun revolves around the earth, and the earth is the center of the universe! Any of you still arguing those propositions?
Not sure where it says the Sun revolves around the earth, although there are many passages talking about the sun rising and setting on the earth. I use those phrases today, even though I know the earth revolves around the Sun.
However, Isaiah 40:22 (written around 800BC), states; "It is He who sitteth on the circle of the earth..." The word "circle" literally translated means "Sphere".

[Spearchucker]

OK Rick, you made me go and look it up. From the New American Bible:

Isaiah 40:22 = He sits enthroned above the vault of the Earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers....

Did not see "circle" in there anywhere.

[Old Bateman]

Sorry, I'm using King James and New International versions. The Hebrew word used is "chung" meaning circle or sphere. When used of the heavens or sky, it can mean "arch". The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and related languages.
Hey, I'm glad to see you reading your Bible! :thumps:

[bikewrench]

Big difference between a "circle" (flat) and a "sphere". Although I'm not arguing, I think by 800 BCE the Greeks (at least) knew the earth was a sphere. I would also believe that the religious elite, even if they knew and believed it, would tell the uneducated masses the earth was flat just to keep it simple (stupid).

[Old Bateman]

Big difference between a "circle" (flat) and a "sphere". Although I'm not arguing, I think by 800 BCE the Greeks (at least) knew the earth was a sphere. I would also believe that the religious elite, even if they knew and believed it, would tell the uneducated masses the earth was flat just to keep it simple (stupid).
Wow, I totally missed that in world history. I was taught we didn't discover the round earth for another 2000 years. And yes , there is a big difference, that is why it is interesting that the original language said the Earth is a sphere, not a flat circle, although I'm not arguing either.

[Christof]

You make it tough dude. I'll grant you that.


Christof, I am no where near that arrogant. This question is inflamatory, presumptuous and reflective of your narrow charachterizations of very diverse populations. Hopefully this post further explains why it upset me.

Please research the fallacy: Gross Generalization.I apologize for any indication I am condemning people of faith... Yes, a large generalization, but one can only generalize when broadly discussing something such as religion and faith.
For what it's worth, I have met more truly good people of faith than I have people of no faith. If we could have one religion with only one rule, it would be the religion of Humanity and the rule would be the Golden rule (Do unto others)... That would cover everyone and every action would it not? But, it would not control people, so we will never see such a simple, common sense religion....
We could debate Catholicism all day, neither would change their mind. Keep in mind that my disdain for the Catholic Church is equal amoung all other "organized" religions and for the same reasons. I dont expect you or anyone to explain your faith or why you have that faith. It is really none of my or anyones business.... But discussing faith along with Darwinism is the core of this thread, and along with it will come personal observations and opinions of both... I also have some big problems with Darwinism, believe me...

Great discussion, and it really stayed suprisingly civil, amazing considering the subject matter.. Kudos to us all for that...

Christof

[aaron proffitt]

Great discussion, and it really stayed suprisingly civil, amazing considering the subject matter.. Kudos to us all for that...

Christof
And to think I was sitting here reading this and packing my BC full of C4 and ball bearings so I could stroll out onto a marina. Gosh. :)

[wreckchick]

Really, the best part about this thread is that the same theme is running on two diving boards simultaneously and AFAIK neither thread has had to be overly moderated which is pretty nice considering the subject matter. The other thread is at 1560 posts.

Kudos.

Rachel

[Bill McIntyre]

When i saw the title, I laughed out loud. I am not known for being shy about arguments and this is a subject about which I have strong feelings, but even I chose to sit this one out.

I have not read a single post, so tell me. Is the conflict resolved yet? :)

If not, I hope someone will send me a PM when it finally is.

But hurry, I'm 67.

[aaron proffitt]

Yep,Bill. It's been decided that God created the world we live in and She's pissed that we ever thought otherwise. :)

[bikewrench]

Yep,Bill. It's been decided that God created the world we live in and She's pissed that we ever thought otherwise. :)

Ha Ha Ha, good one Aaron :lol: That's funny.

[Bill McIntyre]

Not having read all the thread, I don't know if this has been covered, but I doubt it. My wife subscribes to a Catholic magazine, The Liquorian, and this article in the October issue presents the Catholic POV. It seems pertinent to the title of the thread, so here is is. Note that it says that while parts of the bible are historical naratives, other parts use ancient Middle Eastern myths reshaped to convey a different message.
************************************
The Evolution Debate: A Catholic Response

By William J. Parker, C.Ss.R.


Inherit the Wind is a fictionalized drama based on the famous Monkey Trial, which took place in 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. In the actual trial a young high school teacher, John Scopes, was convicted of teaching evolution in his biology class. What made the trial a great courtroom drama was the clash of two very powerful public figures: Clarence Darrow, an agnostic defense attorney, and William Jennings Bryan, a fundamentalist orator and three-time presidential candidate who participated in the prosecution of the case.

Inherit the Wind cleverly pits the Book of Genesis and Darwin’s On The Origin of Species against each other and asks which is true. The last scene of the play is telling. Henry Drummond, the fictional character based on Clarence Darrow, is about to leave the empty courtroom. Although he lost the case, he is confident he will win on appeal. He sees the Bible and Darwin’s book left behind on the table. He picks them both up, balancing them as if his two hands were scales. Then he slaps the two books together, smiles, and sticks them both into his briefcase. Perhaps by doing so he suggests that these two very different views of human origin might exist side by side.

The Bible and science have clashed repeatedly over the centuries but perhaps never more dramatically than over the question of evolution. Other scientific theories, such as Einstein’s theory of relativity, have not generated the controversy that evolution has. Why? Evolution offers a view of our origin that conflicts with the one in Genesis and seems to diminish the role of God in Creation. For these and several other reasons, many ardent Christians, especially fundamentalists, see Darwin’s theory as dangerously false. Darwin’s theory deals with the origin of living organisms, but other scientific theories, like the Big Bang theory and the extended dating of geological periods, have also challenged biblical views of Creation and its aftermath. Science and the Bible, it seems, are destined to be at odds with each other.

In recent years proponents of the biblical view (both creationism and intelligent design) have tried to force public schools to teach the biblical account as an alternative to evolution. More recently they have appealed to the American sense of fair play by challenging science courses to “teach the controversy,” that is, present both viewpoints and let the student decide.

This article will show that the biblical descriptions of Creation and a three-tiered universe (heaven-earth-Sheol) were never intended to be scientific explanations of the origin of the universe. The Bible and science do not need to be at odds with each other, though they may need separate classrooms. But the Bible and the scientific view of evolution can do more than simply coexist if we understand their purposes and methods properly.

The man behind all this controversy was himself hardly controversial. Charles Darwin (1809–1882) once considered becoming an Anglican minister so that he would have time to pursue his deeper interest in nature. He grew up and studied in an environment that supported a religious view of natural science. For example, William Paley’s book Natural Theology, published in 1802, examined nature in great detail, using the best biological knowledge of the time, and concluded that nature revealed such an obvious design it could only come from a divine Designer.

After graduating from college in 1831, Darwin accompanied Captain Robert Fitzroy on a five-year voyage around the world. The ever-curious naturalist took notes on everything he saw. In the Galapagos Islands, off the coast of Ecuador, his observations began to shape a revolutionary idea: the enormous variety of animals and plants were the result of an evolutionary process that took place by means of natural selection. Darwin proposed that instead of a specific divine act of creation for every species of plant and animal in the world, all living organisms were constantly faced with changes in their environment, and those that successfully adapted to the changes survived and passed on those survival skills to their off-spring.

Darwin did not immediately publish his thoughts because they needed more refinement, and he also knew how explosive his view was. He continued gathering evidence in support of his theory of evolution by natural selection. In 1859 he published his findings in a book entitled On the Origin of Species, and a firestorm of controversy followed.

Darwin’s collision with the Bible came at a time when some biblical scholars were beginning to rethink their understanding of the Bible in light of new discoveries. For centuries the Bible had been considered the historical record of God’s saving deeds. But archaeological discoveries in the late nineteenth century and the decipherment of ancient cuneiform tablets found at these sites changed the way scholars looked at the biblical narratives. As scholars began to understand the written records left by ancient Near Eastern civilizations, they learned more about the way people in those civilizations understood themselves and their world. It became abundantly clear that the human authors of the Book of Genesis were people of their own time and were fully aware of the beliefs and outlook of their ancient neighbors.

The Bible is literature. Christians and Jews believe it is very sacred literature, the written word of God, but it is still literature. Our understanding of how this literature came to be written makes all the difference in the world. Catholic teaching and Protestant fundamentalism answer this question very differently. Fundamentalists interpret the Bible literally. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the Bible is the word of God in human words. God did not dictate the Bible to humans, who simply copied down every word that God spoke. Instead, both God and humans are the authors. What this teaching means, then, is that if we want to understand what God is saying, we have to understand what the human author wrote. In other words, we must deal with the literature.

(I had to divide this into two parts)

[Bill McIntyre]

(second part)
The study of literature, whether sacred or secular, has its own methods to achieve its purpose, which is an understanding of the meaning or meanings in a written text. One consideration in understanding a text is its literary form. Reading a newspaper today, for example, requires that the reader understand its different literary forms. A front-page news story is different from a back-page editorial. A news story gives the basic facts of the story as they are currently known, whereas an editorial presents an opinion about the news. The opinion is that of the editor, and it is only one side of the story. A reader misunderstands the form if he or she considers the editorial to be an objective news report.

In the same way, the Bible is a written document with a wide variety of literary forms, to which readers must pay attention. Sometimes we presume that the entire Bible is historical simply because some parts use the literary form of a historical narrative. Biblical scholars have long recognized that Genesis 1–11 is a section of the Bible quite unlike the rest of the Old Testament. It employs a number of literary forms: liturgical recitals, genealogies, epic stories, and myths. To understand the stories found in Genesis 1–3, which are at the center of the controversy over evolution, we must realize that the authors were using some ancient Near Eastern myths. But they didn’t just borrow the myths; they reshaped them to convey a different message.

The word myth raises warning flags for many Christians. It sounds as if I am saying that the stories in Genesis 1–11 are not true. But that myths are untrue is a misunderstanding of that literary form. It also reflects a modern preconception that only “history” is true. A myth is a story, usually about the gods and their interaction among themselves or with humans. But it is not just an entertaining story; it captures an essential truth about human nature or some divine mystery. Basically the theology of ancient civilizations, myths present religious mysteries in a way that can be understood by humans. To us, the stories can seem silly, even preposterous. But myths were not something silly to the ancients; they helped explain why life was the way it was.

The early chapters of Genesis contain many other literary forms as well. To understand what the human author, inspired by God, was trying to say, we must pay attention to these literary forms, even though they are not in use today. God chose these human authors, who lived in an ancient civilization. If we want to understand what God is saying, we must understand how these authors composed their stories.

Just as people today often misunderstand the Bible because they do not take seriously the way the human authors wrote four thousand years ago, so, too, many people misunderstand the purpose of science and its methods. Science is simply a body of knowledge that has been preserved about our world and our lives. Scientists must use a rigorous methodology to add new data to that body of knowledge.

Scientists observe some particular phenomenon in the real world and ask why it is that way. At first they may not know the answer to this question. They reflect on what is already known and make a deduction; at this point it is an educated guess. They then propose a hypothesis and test it by means of experimentation. When repeated tests with new data confirm the hypothesis, it becomes a theory. If other scientists’ experiments continue to support the hypothesis, the theory grows stronger. However, if new, verifiable data disproves the hypothesis, the theory is discarded and a new theory to explain the research is developed. For scientists, it is the theory that provides a framework for understanding some aspect of the physical world under study.

It strikes me that in the Bible-versus-science debate, neither side adequately understands the other’s methods or vocabulary. Religious proponents argue that evolution is “just a theory,” using the word theory as if it were just a guess, a hunch like those found in detective novels. That is not what the word theory means to a scientist. On the other hand, those who champion the scientific side of the debate dismiss biblical accounts of Creation as “just a bunch of myths,” using the word myth as if it were an entertaining story and nothing more. That is not what the word myth means to a biblical scholar.

The purpose of science is to find out why something is the way it is. The purpose of religion is to find out Who it is that stands behind all reality. The why of things can be tested and retested in carefully controlled settings. The Who of life can only be encountered through faith. Scientists misunderstand their own methodologies and purpose when they declare that there is no God behind this universe simply because this data is not subject to experiment. And religionists misunderstand the Bible when they ignore the literary forms in which it was written and presuppose that God is trying to tell us how the world began.

It might seem, then, that the solution to the debate is to keep science and religion separate, teaching the Bible in religion classes and evolution in biology classes. That has been a workable solution for most people, but it presupposes that the Bible has nothing to say to science and that science has nothing to add to our faith; they simply coexist. Theologians today are examining another possibility. If truth cannot contradict itself, then truths learned from science should enhance the truths found in the Bible.

Many theologians, such as John F. Haught, are now looking for connections between science and religion. Could it be that the theory of evolution shows us that creation is unfinished, and when God said to this creation, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28), this command meant far more than we first thought? Could it be that with all that we do know, God reminds us, in very physical ways, that there is more to be discovered—and Someone to be encountered—in the beauty and complexity of this created world?


Father William Parker has degrees in Biblical Studies and Semitic Languages from the Catholic University of America. He has served both as associate pastor and as pastor and has conducted numerous parish Bible-study programs.

[jackpine savage]

Interesting. How do the ID folks stand on Einstein's Theory of Relativity, how about plate tectonics? Why do they only have a problem with evolution and not other scientific theorys which challenge their interpretation of the Bible. Just curious.

[inletsurf]

My only question is this: Why did God take one of our ribs to make a woman? Isn't it bad enough that they take everything from us anyway, let alone one of our ribs before we were even born.

The next time my gf says she's got a headache I'm gonna ask for my rib back.

[Bill McIntyre]

This week's Time cover story probably has creationists in a snit (assuming they will read it).

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541283,00.html

[diverik]

This week's Time cover story probably has creationists in a snit (assuming they will read it).

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541283,00.html
I don't think that magazine is reputable enough! :D

[Marcus]

Wouldn't it be cool to see a random mutation in our lifetime...a mutation that would eventually wipe out the current human paradigm. That would only lead to a war though. The mutants versus the Christian fundamentalists who attempt to wipe out the mutants so that Darwin isn't proven right. :D

[Old Bateman]

Dang, Marcus is on to us! Run away!!!! Run Away!!!!!

[Marcus]

Dang, Marcus is on to us! Run away!!!! Run Away!!!!!
:D:D

[lens]

:stick:

"Tell a devout Christian that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever." -Samuel Harris

:D

[Christof]

LOL.... Yeah, aint faith a wonderful thing Lens??
Whats even more strange to me is that dare you even question that faith, you are evil and misguided...

[bikewrench]

YES! This thread is hot again. Awesome :thumps:

[stickitfishy]

I stopped believing in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus long ago, like when I was 5. Why are so many of you brainwashed into believing a fairy tale (the bible), that is just a set of principles developed in a time when there were none. Many other religions have been around longer and make more sense than that drivel. Oh and if I was to choose a God, I'd call him energy. Without him there would be nothing! Oh and bible thumpers, thanks for Bush. Good choice. NOT!!!

[aaron proffitt]

:sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:
It's run it's course......allow this to go to sleep.

[Froggy]

Thump! :eek:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
(Rom 1:18)

because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
(Rom 1:19)

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
(Rom 1:20)

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(Rom 1:21)

Professing to be wise, they became fools,
(Rom 1:22)

and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
(Rom 1:23)

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
(Rom 1:24)

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
(Rom 1:25)

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
(Rom 1:26)

and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
(Rom 1:27)

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
(Rom 1:28)

being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
(Rom 1:29)

slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
(Rom 1:30)

without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
(Rom 1:31)

and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
(Rom 1:32)

[chuam]

Thump! :eek:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
(Rom 1:18-32)

And the point of this is??????????????????? :rolleyes:

[Christof]

Hmmmm.. Almost sounds like alot of what the Islamics spew right before they saw someones head off with a dull knife....

I think his basic point is "Death to the Infidels"....

[jackpine savage]

What scares me is who he thinks the infidels are

[phins fan]

i was just watching a news bite, and caught a quote from a former modern day evolutionist(turn creationist)....i missed his name, but i found his quote interesting....he stated that after all his years investigating and studying the evolutionary theory as portrayed by Darwin, it would be easier to believe in a salvage yard full of automobile parts coming together in a whirlwind and forming a new car........

[phins fan]

from a religious point of view (and i studied most of the eastern and western beliefs).........i found that muhammmad, buddha and ALL the other religious founders/leaders would say "come, and let me show you the way", or "or follow me and i will lead you".....only Christ said "I AM the way".......that is the main thing that seperates Christianity from all the other "religions" of the world......was he a liar?, arrogant cult leader?...... His teaching was that the way to eternal life is VERY NARROW......but His love was very broad........i guess its all a roll of the dice for those who think that we are here just to die........if that is the case, why do we have any standards to live by.........

[Froggy]

Friend,

I am not trying to make a point. I have none to make. I am just supplying text (info) from the written Word about the discussed topic and those who supress the evidences of ID. The Word makes its' own point(s).

I have edited my original post with another version of the text. This one being NASB which is easier to understand. I highlighted the text which is refering to Creation although the whole text is about it.

Do what you want/will with it.

May God richly bless all of you involved in sincerely seeking His Truth.

[lens]

May God richly bless all of you involved in sincerely seeking His Truth.

Thanks for the post, but "Truth" is in the eye of the beholder. In life you have a choice; to seek out truth for yourself or to be “told” what the truth is.

Phins,
I understand your point, but most of the “Evolution to ID (Creationism) conversion’s.” where not actual Scientist that practiced the theory nor did they study it, rather they were from a general or non associated science background, and use that minimal accreditation for a credible stance.

On the other hand, can you count how many people were brought up with the ideals of ID (creationism) ahmmmmmm.......The Pope.......and eventually converted there thoughts (or Evolved) and believe in the possibility of Evolution? I am willing to bet the numbers are greater.

Theory of Evolution= Evolution and Faith can coexist. Defined by relevance of time.

ID (Creationist)= Faith cannot exist with the Theory of Evolution. Therefore it is a threat.

[mcjaret]

This entire discussion breaks down into a single question:

Do you believe the Bible is the pure, unadulterated, inerrent word of God, literally true as history and delivered directly to man from God as the base text for all time?

If you do, then you've answered your own question in regards to Darwin and most of the rest of modern scientific knowledge that might be seen to conflict with the literal words of the Bible -- if a question ever arose to you in the first place.

If you don't, then creationism/intellegent design re Genesis does not compute. Never has and never will.

The chance of anything said by a person in one camp to one in the other changing their respective minds is about the same as that junkyard car coming out of the whirlwind and winning a NASCAR championship. Not likely at all. Thus, the effort represented by preceeding 16 pages is absolutely meaningless except to allow each side to "preach to their own choir" and tweak the collective noses of the other camp.

Let it die.

[Marcus]

i guess its all a roll of the dice for those who think that we are here just to die........if that is the case, why do we have any standards to live by.........


Propagation of the species

[lens]

if that is the case, why do we have any standards to live by.........

There were standards and laws before Christianity. Humans have a conscious, and always will. Also understand that the “standards” you think that would fall apart, are contemporary.



ALL the other religious founders/leaders would say "come, and let me show you the way", or "or follow me and i will lead you".....only Christ said "I AM the way".......that is the main thing that seperates Christianity from all the other "religions" of the world.........


I am not quite sure that is right. :rolleyes:

Have you really studied other cultures and religions? Because that is not what seperates Christianity from other religions.

Remember Christianity like Islam, is a spin off of Judaism.

[Froggy]

Just found another good textual referrence in the written Word relating to creation when God challenged Job (a mere human) on his understanding and wisdom of this all.

Food for thoughts that's all.

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
(Job 38:1)

"Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?
(Job 38:2)

"Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
(Job 38:3)

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding,
(Job 38:4)

Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it?
(Job 38:5)

"On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,
(Job 38:6)

When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
(Job 38:7)

"Or who enclosed the sea with doors When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb;
(Job 38:8)

When I made a cloud its garment And thick darkness its swaddling band,
(Job 38:9)

And I placed boundaries on it And set a bolt and doors,
(Job 38:10)

And I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop'?
(Job 38:11)

"Have you ever in your life commanded the morning, And caused the dawn to know its place,
(Job 38:12)

That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, And the wicked be shaken out of it?
(Job 38:13)

"It is changed like clay under the seal; And they stand forth like a garment.
(Job 38:14)

"From the wicked their light is withheld, And the uplifted arm is broken.
(Job 38:15)

"Have you entered into the springs of the sea Or walked in the recesses of the deep?
(Job 38:16)

"Have the gates of death been revealed to you, Or have you seen the gates of deep darkness?
(Job 38:17)

"Have you understood the expanse of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this.
(Job 38:18)

"Where is the way to the dwelling of light? And darkness, where is its place,
(Job 38:19)

That you may take it to its territory And that you may discern the paths to its home?
(Job 38:20)

"You know, for you were born then, And the number of your days is great!
(Job 38:21)

"Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, Or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,
(Job 38:22)

Which I have reserved for the time of distress, For the day of war and battle?
(Job 38:23)

"Where is the way that the light is divided, Or the east wind scattered on the earth?
(Job 38:24)

"Who has cleft a channel for the flood, Or a way for the thunderbolt,
(Job 38:25)

To bring rain on a land without people, On a desert without a man in it,
(Job 38:26)

To satisfy the waste and desolate land And to make the seeds of grass to sprout?
(Job 38:27)

"Has the rain a father? Or who has begotten the drops of dew?
(Job 38:28)

"From whose womb has come the ice? And the frost of heaven, who has given it birth?
(Job 38:29)

"Water becomes hard like stone, And the surface of the deep is imprisoned.
(Job 38:30)

"Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades, Or loose the cords of Orion?
(Job 38:31)

"Can you lead forth a constellation in its season, And guide the Bear with her satellites?
(Job 38:32)

"Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, Or fix their rule over the earth?
(Job 38:33)

"Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, So that an abundance of water will cover you?
(Job 38:34)

"Can you send forth lightnings that they may go And say to you, 'Here we are'?
(Job 38:35)

"Who has put wisdom in the innermost being Or given understanding to the mind?
(Job 38:36)

"Who can count the clouds by wisdom, Or tip the water jars of the heavens,
(Job 38:37)

When the dust hardens into a mass And the clods stick together?
(Job 38:38)

"Can you hunt the prey for the lion, Or satisfy the appetite of the young lions,
(Job 38:39)

When they crouch in their dens And lie in wait in their lair?
(Job 38:40)

"Who prepares for the raven its nourishment When its young cry to God And wander about without food?
(Job 38:41)

[Spearchucker]

Jesus Froggy, give it a rest. Your ENTIRE argument is "cause God said so!"

[Froggy]

Like I said Spear: "food for thoughts" that's all.

I really have nothing original or powerfully argumentative to say. I am just referrencing relevant scriptures in light of the topic for folks to consider since no one brought any up so far. If one cares to read or not that is their business.

Scriptures make their own point and if one is called to understanding then that is to the credit of the Creator Himself. Not me or anything I or anyone said out of their own wisdom.

Thanks for the feedback.

In good spirit to all.

Then what do I know right? I'm just an ugly frog. ;)

[phins fan]

bottom line.....free will......Christ stated, That He was THE way, THE truth, THE life, and No one comes to the Father but by Him......Christ was either Lord, a major liar, or a lunitic.......i think even if the odds were a million to one that without Him we could spend ETERNITY seperated from our Maker, in a place that is certainly described as less than pleasant......its worth a thought......if not, roll the dice.....gamblin's never been too good to me.......just my opionion ( like if I thought I had the cure for a person's terminal disease, shouldnt I at least offer it, the person may scoff at me, but I feel I need to make mention, but not force feed) not gonna preach anymore, goin back and drool over yesterday's spearin pics out of ponce

[bikewrench]

This entire discussion breaks down into a single question:

Do you believe the Bible is the pure, unadulterated, inerrent word of God, literally true as history and delivered directly to man from God as the base text for all time?

If you do, then you've answered your own question in regards to Darwin and most of the rest of modern scientific knowledge that might be seen to conflict with the literal words of the Bible -- if a question ever arose to you in the first place.

If you don't, then creationism/intellegent design re Genesis does not compute. Never has and never will.

The chance of anything said by a person in one camp to one in the other changing their respective minds is about the same as that junkyard car coming out of the whirlwind and winning a NASCAR championship. Not likely at all. Thus, the effort represented by preceeding 16 pages is absolutely meaningless except to allow each side to "preach to their own choir" and tweak the collective noses of the other camp.

Let it die.
I don't know about letting it die, I do wish it would evolve though.

[Bill McIntyre]

I really have nothing original or powerfully argumentative to say.

I'm starting to notice that.

[SoCal Fisher]

Does anyone notice that when "believers" try to make a point, the simply cite passages from the bible as if it is irrefutable proof. Don't they understand that much of the opposing sides argument is based on the belief that the bible is hogwash written with an agenda in the first place? It seems that when someone does "research" on Christianity, their main resource starts with the bible as if it a historical work. It's amazing how much Catholic dogma has permiated our collective psyche.

[jackpine savage]

I don't care anymore if the fish had evolved or were designed just so long as they are on the end of my spear.

[Froggy]

Does anyone notice that when "believers" try to make a point, the simply cite passages from the bible as if it is irrefutable proof. Don't they understand that much of the opposing sides argument is based on the belief that the bible is hogwash written with an agenda in the first place? It seems that when someone does "research" on Christianity, their main resource starts with the bible as if it a historical work. It's amazing how much Catholic dogma has permiated our collective psyche.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
(2Ti 3:16)

so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
(2Ti 3:17)

:D :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :D Just could not resist!

[junior]

Here's one for you Froggy. Enjoy:D

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

[Froggy]

Here's one for you Froggy. Enjoy:D

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Entertaining. Thanks. :D :D :D

[Froggy]

Hey folks,

I thought some of you would be interested in the following article:

"A ³100 Million Year Old Bird² Is Still a Bird [Excerpts]

Another Bird Fossil
The secular scientific community has announced the recent discovery by
American and Chinese paleontologists of an alleged "100 million year old"
missing avian link, possibly with soft tissue. Despite claims that Gansus
yumenensis is "the missing link on the evolution of birds," all indications
show it is in fact just a bird.

Creation Scientists are Ecstatic
Creation scientists are even more excited than their secular counterparts
about recent bird fossils uncovered in the Xiagou Formation 1,200 miles west
of Beijing. For not only are these fossils revealing 100% bird traits, but
the tissue from some of these fossils is possibly still soft. Both of these
physical manifestations are clearly within the creation model.

A recent CNN.com story says "the new fossils demonstrate that Gansus clearly
is a bird . . . . the oldest example of the nearly modern birds, . . .
.similar to loons or diving ducks" (CNN.com 2006). With such repeated
graphic descriptions, there seems to be no reason to claim this bird is a
"missing link." National Geographic.com crows that Gansus "is strikingly
similar to today's birds, considering that it lived alongside dinosaurs"
(Norris 2006). Indeed, a majority of evolutionists maintain birds evolved
from dinosaurs and today, are dinosaurs: "So, in fact, birds are not some
separate biological entity, distinct and apart from 'reptiles.' Birds are
dinosaurs" (Fastovsky & Weishample 1996).

But this fossil discovery shows these birds "lived alongside dinosaurs"
supporting not Darwinism, but the creation model that states dinosaurs have
always been dinosaurs and birds have always been birds. According to
creationism, finding the two groups together is natural and to be expected.

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/2956/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------"