Are You a Creationist or an Evolutionist? (See Post For Details)

[Stealth Hunter]

Before you vote, I don't need to know what you voted for or why you voted for it, OR who you are. This is just one of those curiosity questions. It's not here to cause a fuss, I'm just wanting to do a bit of research on the numbers of creationists and/or evolutionists because my current job requires it (nothing specific, just find numbers; that's all I was required to do).

Now, for a bit more info on these topics:



What is Evolution?

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


What is Creationism?

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


These videos have been split up due to YouTube's policy of 10 minutes or less on the time and less than 100 MB on size.


What evidence supports Evolution?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85diEXbJBIk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmphlbRhLu8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewtw_nZUIDQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkwRTIKXaxg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jBD8xfbf4Y&feature=related


What evidence supports Creationism?*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCKxq9f8Teg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZzg3CQ8SJs




*Evidence not scientifically conclusive. This isn't an attack on religion, though. The "scientist" brought on the first half of the video claims that Creationism can be proven because the Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old and light that has revealed to us other galaxies, stars, etc. would take billions of years to reach Earth according to Evolutionist scientists, PROVING that Creationism and the word of the Bible are both true. Also note that the second half, in which the same scientist explains hyperspace, is not at all true. Read more about it. However, don't let that influence your voting. I am required to enlighten you on this. My job requires this to be done. Also, "ideology" does not mean "unproven beliefs".

[joea]

Well I didn't really like any of the options, so chose neither/or.

My religious background is Greek Orthodox yet I do believe in evolution, as do many theologians in my church, including traditionalist ones. There is some disagreement but overall it has not been a problem. Keep ID in religion class or whatever, keep science in science class please.

I've posted lots on this so let me direct you to this post:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=274511&postcount=15

[Dowly]

I bet my money on the big bang thingy. :yep:

[Skybird]

On the question of how things and matter and life and mind develope and why, and if there is any: what structure and relations these factors form, I recommend this one-in-a-century literature that ranks amongst the most impressive and well-thought books I have ever read. I know the man and his books since 20 years, he has influenced and structured my thinking tremendously - maybe more than anyone else:

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Ecology-Spirituality-Spirit-Evolution/dp/1570627444/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4/002-4079841-6732823?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203161728&sr=8-4

Very well thought out, well-funded in reason and references (appenidx alone is 200 pages) and simply breathtaking in its elegant intellectual approach once the basics have been formed out.

On the book, from: wikipedia:

Content

Published in 1995 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995), SES (as it is sometimes abbreviated) is the work in which Wilber grapples with modern philosophical naturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism), attempting to show its insufficiency as an explanation of being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being), evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution), and the meaning of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life). He also describes an approach, called vision-logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision-logic), which he finds qualified to succeed modernism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism).
Wilber's project in this book requires nothing less than a complete re-visioning of the history of Eastern and Western thought. There are four philosophers that Wilber finds to be of the highest importance:

Plotinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus), Neo-Platonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Platonism) philosopher, who introduced the first nondual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondual) philosophy to the West
Nagarjuna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna), Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism) philosopher, who did the same in the East
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_Joseph_von_Schelling), German Idealist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Idealism) who created the first evolutionary nondual philosophy in the West and
Sri Aurobindo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo), Hindu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu) Vedantin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta) philosopher who did the same in the EastThis is, of course, radically different from the usual history of philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_philosophy), in which Plato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato), Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle), Thomas Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas), René Descartes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes), Immanuel Kant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant) and sometimes Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel) and Friedrich Nietzsche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche) are typically seen as the greatest Western philosophers, and, if Eastern thinkers are considered, Confucius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius), Laozi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi), Gautama Buddha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha), and Adi Shankara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara) are among the greatest Eastern thinkers.
Wilber emphasizes that the account of existence presented by the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) is incomplete—it ignores and represses the spiritual and noetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noetic) components of existence. He accordingly avoids the term cosmos, which is associated with merely physical existence. He prefers the term kosmos to refer to the sum of manifest existence, which harks back to the usage of the term by the Pythagoreans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreans) and other ancient mystics. Wilber conceives of the Kosmos as consisting of several concentric spheres: matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter) (the physical universe) plus life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life) (the vital realm (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_vital_realm&action=edit)) plus mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind) (the mental realm (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_mental_realm&action=edit)) plus soul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul) (the psychic realm (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_psychic_realm&action=edit)) plus Spirit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit) (the spiritual realm (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_spiritual_realm&action=edit)).


The structure and theses of SES


Introduction

Wilber describes the deeply dysteleological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysteleology) perspective of contemporary philosophical naturalism as "the philosophy of 'oops'".
He describes the spiritual inadequacies of philosophical naturalism as the source of the contemporary world's menacing ecological crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_crisis).
He describes his methodology as outlining "orienting generalizations"—points on which agreement can be found that will reveal a shared world-space.Book One

1. The Web of Life

Arthur Lovejoy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Lovejoy)'s account of the Great Chain of Being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chain_of_Being) is used to show how the mechanistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_%28philosophy%29), materialistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism) modern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism) worldview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview) triumphed over the West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture)'s traditional, holistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holistic), hierarchical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy) view.
The prevalence of pathological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathology), dominating hierarchies throughout history has given hierarchy a bad name. But hierarchy is ultimately inescapable. Thus, we should concentrate on discovering which hierarchies actually do exist and on healing them.2. The Pattern That Connects The Twenty Tenets

Arthur Koestler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Koestler)'s account of holism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism) and holarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holarchy) and Ludwig von Bertalanffy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Bertalanffy)'s General Systems Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_Theory) are used to describe (approximately) twenty tenets of all holons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holons).
Wilber calls the holistic version of the Great Chain of Being the "Great Nest of Spirit", because this account emphasizes that higher levels include as well as transcend lower ones.3. Individual And Social

Erich Jantsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Jantsch)'s account of co-evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-evolution) and self-organizing systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organizing_systems) is described.4. A View From Within

Two fundamental aspects of existence are described: the "Left-hand path" (interiority) and the "Right-hand path" (exteriority).
Gross Reductionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism)—atomism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism), for example—consists of reducing a whole to its parts. Subtle Reductionism—systems theory, for example—consists of reducing the interior to the exterior. Charles Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_%28philosopher%29)'s work is used to show that the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) paradigm suffers from both Gross and Subtle Reductionism.
When Individual and Social spheres are added to the Interior and Exterior aspects of existence, four quadrants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqal#Quadrants) emerge.5. The Emergence Of Human Nature

Jean Gebser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Gebser)'s account of the development of human consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness) is used to show how the West progressed from the magic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_%28paranormal%29) to the mythic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology) to the rational (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational) mentalities.
This acknowledgment that all of existence is in development adds a third fundamental dimension—depth, or verticality—to Wilber's model of consciousness.6. Magic, Mythic And Beyond

Jean Piaget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget)'s theory of developmental psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology) is used to describe the individual development of the contemporary human being.
The "Pre/Trans Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber#The_Pre.2FTrans_Fallacy)" is described. This is Wilber's term for "romantic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism)" approaches, like deep ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology) and ecofeminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofeminism), that mistake earlier and more exclusivist modes of being for more mature, more inclusive modes.7. The Farther Reaches Of Human Nature

Jürgen Habermas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas)' account of socio-cultural development is used to describe collective human development.
Vision-logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision-logic) is described, a non-dominating, global awareness of holistic hierarchy, in which the pathological dissociations of Nature from Self, interiority from exteriority, and creativity from compassion are transformed into healthy differentiations.
The validity claims of mystics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism) are compared to Thomas Kuhn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn)'s account of scientific paradigms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm).8. The Depths Of The Divine

The accounts of four mystics are used to describe the possibilities for further individual spiritual development.
The Transcendentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalist) Ralph Waldo Emerson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson) on nature mysticism
The Christian saint Teresa of Avila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_Avila) on deity mysticism
Meister Eckhart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meister_Eckhart) on formless mysticism
The Hindu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu) guru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru) Ramana Maharshi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi) on nondual mysticismBook Two

9. The Way Up Is The Way Down

According to the Neo-Platonist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Platonist) Plotinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus)' nondual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondual) metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics), "Ascending" philosophies are those that embrace the One, or the Absolute. "Descending" philosophies are those that embrace the Many, or Plenitude. Both ascent (driven by Eros (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_%28love%29), or creativity) and descent (driven by Agape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape), or compassion) are indispensable for a healthy, whole view.
Plato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato)'s metaphysics, which also included both ascending and descending drives, is described.
Plotinus' attack on Gnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism) is described in order to trace differences between healthy and pathological approaches to ascent.10. This-Wordly, Otherworldly

Attempts to repair modernism's fractured and flattened worldview are described, especially Schelling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schelling)'s existential (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential) idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism).11. Brave New World

The liberating advantages as well as the spiritually crippling disadvantages of the modern, scientific mentality are described.12. The Collapse Of The Kosmos

Charles Taylor's account of the effects of the Enlightenment paradigm is used to show how vertical depth was collapsed into horizontal span and how the ascending drive was dissociated into the "Ego camp" (Kant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant)'s and Fichte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichte)'s Transcendent Ego) and the "Eco camp" (Spinoza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza)'s deified Nature).
Utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism) is described as mistaking sensory pleasure for Spirit, which ultimately resulted in a fixation on hedonism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism) and sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex) in modern society.13. The Dominance Of The Descenders

Describes how the West tried to embrace the Many through science, but failed to embrace the One through mysticism.
The result was the rise of Thanatos (Freud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freud)'s death drive), and Phobos (existential fear), which are the respective pathological versions of Agape and Eros.14. The Unpacking Of God

Aspects of particular historical nondual views that could possibly heal the noetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noetic) fissures in the West are described, especially spiritual practice as understood by Zen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen) & Dzogchen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen) Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism).At The Edge Of History

Includes a meditation on Emptiness as the ground of Being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being) in which all entities are ontologically healed.

despite the very massive agreement the book has triggered, I am aware of the criticism wilber has received from some academics - but most often if not always found these to be based on offended narcissism, especially when Wilber criticised the usual views of the critics achademic perspective. To say that wilber knows not what he is talking of, is silly - too massive his references and links to literature from most diverse fields of science and philosophy are given in this and other books. In fact he gains new perpsectives on known things by refusing to limit himself to following the orthodxy only. his method is to reduce all to the lowest common denominator - and use this as the basis of his explorations and arguments. This has two effects: it is very difiicult to find possibilities to attack his views, since they are basing on the LCD, and you become aware of how much we already know and agree on - despite all borders of sciences, traditions and disciplines.

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/Walsh_on_Wilber_95.html
http://www.integralworld.net/rev/rev_ses_puhakka.html

[antikristuseke]

Id rather base my understanding of biology on one of the most tested theories in modern science rather than on bronze age mythology. As we were on posting youtube links here anyway, here are two series id like to recomend to everyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY
http://www.youtube.com/profile_video_blog?user=Thunderf00t&page=4
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=potholer54&p=r

And here is something for people with more patience

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGND4bEOtS8

[Onkel Neal]

Ok, just a word of caution, you post a poll like this, you are likely to get a lot of strong opinions, so don't flood me with "Reported posts".

[joea]

I said my piece so no problem from me. Skybird, looks very interesting that book. :yep:

[Tchocky]

The one that makes sense.

[Platapus]

I am an Evolutionist, but I believe the scientists have it backwards.

I believe that man is evolving TO the apes not from.

Think about it. What does a male gorilla do?

-Sleeps 16 hours a day
-Grabs some food when he is hungry
-Grabs a female Gorilla when he is "lonely"
-Goes back to sleep

What do I do as the "advanced" primate?

-I go to bed when I am not tired
-I get up when I am tired
-I work 40+ hours a week doing something I don't like, just in hopes that maybe, perhaps on a weekend I can:

--Sleep 16 hours a day
--Grab some food when I am hungry
--Grab a female when I am "lonely"

Higher life form? Yeah right, the Gorillas are laughing at me at this moment.:damn:

[Brag]

I find it curious that people of a supposedly advanced nation choose to ignore reality and take shelter in myth. When one observes nature one cannot help but see the hand of God.

[Skybird]

I said my piece so no problem from me. Skybird, looks very interesting that book. :yep:
It is! :up: Once the basics got dealt with, the reading is smooth, and keeps you hooked. And as I said: It's hard to argue with a man who has a library in his brain.

[geetrue]

Before you vote, I don't need to know what you voted for or why you voted for it, OR who you are. This is just one of those curiosity questions. It's not here to cause a fuss ...
.

This is a fuss buster ... :lol:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

God created man from the clay of the earth this is true ...

Genesis 1:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

God put Adam into a deep sleep and removed a rib (so he could throw a baseball better) and made woman from the rib.

Genesis 1:18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”

Thank God he did ... or we would all be sleeping with each other.

But man has evolved into something God doesn't like and He knew this before hand so God's plan
for the end is written in the Book of Revelation's.

Revelations 3:10 Jesus said, "Because you have kept My command to persevere,
I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world,
to test those who dwell on the earth".

[antikristuseke]

That would be a fuss buster if you could now proove that the bible is true, good luck with that one.

[STEED]

We will all find out one day. :yep:

[Laufen zum Ziel]

You can't go wrong if you stick with the GWX big bang.



Wenn Ihr Rad ist nicht gebrochen nicht fix it.

[Stealth Hunter]

You can't go wrong if you stick with the GWX big bang.



Wenn Ihr Rad ist nicht gebrochen nicht fix it.

http://www.kegetys.net/misc/shots/sh3.jpg

[Fish]

We will all find out one day. :yep:

You can't find out anything after you die, because you are dead then. :nope:

[CCIP]

I don't subscribe to evolution in any political way, but once you break it down conceptually, I guess that's what I'm largely into.

[Fish]

What evidence supports Creationism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCKxq9f8Teg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZzg3CQ8SJs

From the video:

I have found by repeated testing that the Bible is scientifically reliable. So now I use the Bible as a roadmap to guide me into new scientific territory. ...

I require any theory ... to conform to what the scripture clearly says. ;)

I guess two things jumping out at me - Why aren't all the stars the same age. And if the light could cross the universe in two days (by whatever means) Why did it stop.

[Blacklight]

The evidence for evolution is pretty much overwhelming if you look at the genetic components of different species...and there's proof that it's still going on even in humans. We're evolving along with our environment and through our own doing. IE.. We are taller than we were in the past. We live a lot longer. etc...
This is due to medical advances and also changes to our environment that we have made.:know:

[kiwi_2005]

I would have to go Creationism the religous type.

[Sailor Steve]

I find it curious that people of a supposedly advanced nation choose to ignore reality and take shelter in myth. When one observes nature one cannot help but see the hand of God.
What you see is only 'evidence' if you're predisposed to believe it. The more I look, the less real evidence I see.

[antikristuseke]

I have to agree here, the more our understaning of nature advances the less need there is of the supernatural to explain it.

[Sea Demon]

The acknowledgement of the mechanisms of nature, does not negate the hand of God. I've always believed in the nature of the universe, the physical principles as their foundation, as a creation of God himself. The existence of science, does not negate God's existence in anyway whatsoever. In fact, the order and balance of it all, gives me greater faith in the hand of God. The more I understand nature, the stronger the relationship to God becomes. To me, the order and balance of things simply cannot be a cosmic accident.

[Sea Demon]

The evidence for evolution is pretty much overwhelming if you look at the genetic components of different species...and there's proof that it's still going on even in humans. We're evolving along with our environment and through our own doing. IE.. We are taller than we were in the past. We live a lot longer. etc...
This is due to medical advances and also changes to our environment that we have made.:know:

Agreed. But one can say that evolutionary processes have been put in motion to allow for changes in genetic code to changing environmental factors. Perhaps that's the way God intended. I don't believe that God and scientific principles need be exclusive of one another.

[antikristuseke]

The acknowledgement of the mechanisms of nature, does not negate the hand of God. I've always believed in the nature of the universe, the physical principles as their foundation, as a creation of God himself. The existence of science, does not negate God's existence in anyway whatsoever. In fact, the order and balance of it all, gives me greater faith in the hand of God. The more I understand nature, the stronger the relationship to God becomes. To me, the order and balance of things simply cannot be a cosmic accident.

I can understand your point of view, and I agree that science doe not exlcude God or gods. Actualy science does not comment on anything supernatural because by definition the supernatural is outside of its realm.
But science does not claim that all that we have before us was a cosmic accident, that is a straw man argument commonly used by creationists (not accusing you, just pointing out an observation). For me personaly the natural laws, even concidering how little we really understand them, are ennough to explain our existance and the existance of the universe without there being anything of the supernatural involved.

This is where my limited English really gets in the way of trying to communicate what I mean, but hopefully this is ennough to get my viewpoint across.

[Fish]

I started with believing Genesis, then moved to Sea Demon's point of view.
Now I am with Antikristuseke.

[XLjedi]

Personally, these topics don't bother me at all. I do think atheists sometimes don't like to be confronted with the concept of an infinite God though.

I prefer to just rely on faith for my personal saving knowledge of Christ, but scientifically speaking, there are just too many unknowns to be so absolutely certain that God's hand can just be dismissed...

Do I need to prove there's a God? Could I even introduce perhaps a shadow of a doubt in the mind of an atheist? What represents our understanding of the infinite universe? If the universe were finite and represented a 12'x12' wall could I point to a pin-sized dot on the wall and say, "Here's what we understand?" Does it not take as much, if not more, faith to suggest that God doesn't exist in that vast infinite area that we know nothing about? :hmm:

Is it beyond the power of an infinite God to create humans who perhaps grow a tad larger over time due to improved health conditions? ...or perhaps in the same species of turtle give one a longer neck to more easily reach the food it needs? Darwin recanted his own theories before he died, and it's also fairly well known that his origin of the species was targetted more at racial superiority. Must I believe that because scientists dig up remains that they claim to be millions of years old that the Earth must therefore be that old? I s'pose it's beyond the power of God to just form the crust of the Earth with interesting things to discover already contained in it... or I dunno maybe Satan wanders around hollowing out strange shapes in the Earth just to cast doubt?

All I can say to those who dismiss God is... I hope for your own sake, you're right. In which case, all you need to endure is your own pointless life. The full realization of that must certainly be a depressing point to ponder. If God does exist however, and if the Bible is in fact true, perhaps not all believers in creation are wasting away their precious Sunday morning nap time paying homage to some fictitious being. Perhaps the uplifting and joyful message of the Gospel is not all just blissful ignorance.

The worst case scenario for me is, I end up no better off than an atheist. Although, the hope of living happily into eternity gives me a more joyful outlook during my short existance on this planet. In terms of eternity, is there really any upside for an atheist? ...anything to look forward to?

To me, the argument that there is no creator is akin to looking at a painting and suggesting there is no painter... Through a series of random events, it just happened to come into existance. Which by the way, sounding as ridiculous as it may, is more statistically likely to happen than a whole infinite universe just popping out of an infinitely small point. ...and even if you do subscribe to the big bang tiny point theory... What caused the infinite universe to exist in a single tiny point to begin with?

Perhaps it was God putting his plan into motion that caused the eruption of life from infinite nothingness?

[Iceman]

The acknowledgement of the mechanisms of nature, does not negate the hand of God. I've always believed in the nature of the universe, the physical principles as their foundation, as a creation of God himself. The existence of science, does not negate God's existence in anyway whatsoever. In fact, the order and balance of it all, gives me greater faith in the hand of God. The more I understand nature, the stronger the relationship to God becomes. To me, the order and balance of things simply cannot be a cosmic accident.

I cannot add to this. :up:

[Iceman]

What caused the infinite universe to exist in a single tiny point to begin with?

Perhaps it was God putting his plan into motion that caused the eruption of life from infinite nothingness?

Genesis 1

[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

BANG!

[4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
[5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

"Please do not presume to know what a Day is to a being that exsists in an eternal state.This is ignorance on the part of man."

[6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

...the rest is our life. :)

[CCIP]

Personally, these topics don't bother me at all. I do think atheists sometimes don't like to be confronted with the concept of an infinite God though.

While I don't consider myself an atheist per se, it's not the concept of an infinite God that bothers me, but quite the opposite: traditional religious views of God, in my opinion, actually very much lower him to the role of a babysitter for the human race. I'm actually uncomfortable with the idea of a God who I can talk to when I want, who will save me when I ask for it, and who is otherwise responsible for many of the human behaviours I see around me. It's illogical and contradictory - if that's what God is, then I want no part of that God because that's just not a good God and he's got some explaining to do for the human race he seems so obsessed with.

I'm not an atheist per se and I do believe in what could be called supernatural energies out there involved in the universe, and I do believe in natural laws being essentially godlike, but there's no way you'll get me to believe in a conscious, actively responsive God that is specifically obsessed with interfering directly in human life on earth. On the other hand I feel it to be beautiful and right to be a finite part of something so great as an infinite universe of an infinite god.

[antikristuseke]

Is it beyond the power of an infinite God to create humans who perhaps grow a tad larger over time due to improved health conditions? ...or perhaps in the same species of turtle give one a longer neck to more easily reach the food it needs? Darwin recanted his own theories before he died, and it's also fairly well known that his origin of the species was targetted more at racial superiority.

This is an outright lie, allso it is completely irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution. You should really look into Darwins life, if you were to do so you would find that he was not a racist, not even by a longshot. If you try to "refute" this by quoting the full title of his "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" and refering to the word races, then I could safely say you have not read his work, because in context the word race as he used it has the same meaning as the word species nowadays.

[mrbeast]

Personally, these topics don't bother me at all. I do think atheists sometimes don't like to be confronted with the concept of an infinite God though.

Have you not considered that its perhaps theists that don't like being confronted with the concept of a an indifferent godless universe?

I prefer to just rely on faith for my personal saving knowledge of Christ, but scientifically speaking, there are just too many unknowns to be so absolutely certain that God's hand can just be dismissed...

Do I need to prove there's a God?

Well, scientifically speaking yes you do.

Darwin recanted his own theories before he died,

Darwin never recanted any of his scientific views on his death bed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html


and it's also fairly well known that his origin of the species was targetted more at racial superiority.

Again this is not true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html

All I can say to those who dismiss God is... I hope for your own sake, you're right. In which case, all you need to endure is your own pointless life. The full realization of that must certainly be a depressing point to ponder. If God does exist however, and if the Bible is in fact true, perhaps not all believers in creation are wasting away their precious Sunday morning nap time paying homage to some fictitious being. Perhaps the uplifting and joyful message of the Gospel is not all just blissful ignorance.

Oh don't worry about us atheists. While your spending all of your time wondering about what 'the next life' is like we'll actually be living this one.

The worst case scenario for me is, I end up no better off than an atheist.

Not so, what if you have been worshipping the wrong god?

Although, the hope of living happily into eternity gives me a more joyful outlook during my short existance on this planet. In terms of eternity, is there really any upside for an atheist? ...anything to look forward to?

Well actually, it would be nice to live on after death, but as I have not seen any evidence for the excistance of an after-life; and the evidence would suggest that I will die at some point in the future (something which I cannot change) then there is no point worrying about it. All I can do is attempt to make the best of my exsistence as long as it continues.

If you only see your life as 'killing time' until you get to heaven then I can only say that you are a truely impoverished human.

To me, the argument that there is no creator is akin to looking at a painting and suggesting there is no painter... Through a series of random events, it just happened to come into existance.

You are assuming that there has to be a creator.

If we accept that everything has a creator then consider this: Who created god?

Afteral something must have created him he didn't appear through a series of random events.

Which by the way, sounding as ridiculous as it may, is more statistically likely to happen than a whole infiinite universe just popping out of an infinitely small point. ...and even if you do subscribe to the big bang tiny point theory... What caused the infinite universe to exist in a single tiny point to begin with?

No one knows, but the Big Bang theory is based upon scientific evidence not faith so there is no comparison between a creator god and scientific explanations of the beginning of the universe.

Perhaps it was God putting his plan into motion that caused the eruption of life from infinite nothingness?

maybe but until you have scientific evidence of this, heres one unbeliever who will continue to 'un-believe'

[CCIP]

Oh don't worry about us atheists. While your spending all of your time wondering about what 'the next life' is like we'll actually be living this one.


:up::up::up:

I'll drink to that!

[antikristuseke]

Oh don't worry about us atheists. While your spending all of your time wondering about what 'the next life' is like we'll actually be living this one.


:up::up::up:

I'll drink to that!

Hear Hear!:rock:

[XLjedi]

I'm not an atheist per se and I do believe in what could be called supernatural energies out there involved in the universe, and I do believe in natural laws being essentially godlike, but there's no way you'll get me to believe in a conscious, actively responsive God that is specifically obsessed with interfering directly in human life on earth. On the other hand I feel it to be beautiful and right to be a finite part of something so great as an infinite universe of an infinite god.

The Bibilical definition of God is not defined as "supernatural energies". I'm afraid by your own difinition, in contrast to the Bible, you are an atheist. You either believe in the one all knowing, all powerful, infinite, eternal, perfect, unchanging God. ...or you don't.

I guess you could put up the common argument that, "God is whatever I choose to believe him to be." Which is OK, I guess... but you have to realize you're putting yourself in the position to judge and/or create God. It's no different than worshipping a golden calf or some other graven image that we should happen to dream up.

It's pandemic in the minds of man to view God as an unfair celestial being who interferes in our lives as opposed to the One that is in control. We don't come right out and say it, but we prefer to elevate ourselves and think of ourselves as God-like while trying to downplay the importance of God or to somehow put him subserviant to man. As if God needs or owes man anything...

I do happen to enjoy the practice of evangelism in my daily life. A common objection I hear is similar to one of yours, "God is Love, and if He loves us how can He let bad things happen to us?" God has chosen to allow sin to exist.. it's sin that causes the pain in your life. We brought it on ourselves, our free will combined with our self-centered aspirations to become God or God-like was our own undoing. God is loving, but God is also just. He is perfectly righteous and just, and does not allow sin to go unpunished. We have all sinned and fall short of what God requires of us, none have perfectly kept His commandments. Only a fool would stand before a rightous God and demand justice; you beg for mercy. You deserve his wraith, and instead he offers you a gift, out of love. He did for us, what no man could do, and for some reason, He allows you and I our free will to accept or reject His most gracious gift.

...one day I intend to ask Him why He chose to single me out.

What would you say if you were standing before God and he should happen to ask, "Why should I let you into my Heaven?" :hmm:

[XLjedi]

It's OK, I'm use to hostility... I'm told to fully expect it.

I'll be happy to browse for info on Darwin's work, perhaps I've been somewhat misguided. Admittedly, I'm speaking a bit from things I've heard. I shouldn't have mentioned it really, since Darwin's stance doesn't really influence my faith anyway.

Will you in return read the book of Mark?
(I'm not even asking you to read John)

[antikristuseke]

It's OK, I'm use to hostility... I'm told to fully expect it.

I'll be happy to browse for info on Darwin's work, perhaps I've been somewhat misguided. Admittedly, I'm speaking a bit from things I've heard. I shouldn't have mentioned it really, since Darwin's stance doesn't really influence me anyway.

Will you in return read the book of Mark?
(I'm not even asking you to read John)

My intention was not to be hostile, but frustration got the better of me, I appologize. Lies like that are often repeated by profesional creationists who make money progagatng this kind of misinformation.
And I do definately intend to read the bible in full again, but im not sure yet as to which version to choose.

[XLjedi]

And I do definately intend to read the bible in full again, but im not sure yet as to which version to choose.

It's nearly impossible to pick up and literally read the Bible from beginning to end and fully comprehend its message. Just read Mark (carefully) and give me your impressions... some very interesting things in there about how Jesus interacted with his disciples. These twelve really come across as misfit misguided children... perhaps not the story you would expect to read. And certainly not the qualities you would expect to see in folks who are supposed to be the foundation for a religion. I try to put myself in Jesus shoes having to deal with these guys, and I think, "I'm done dealing with you hard-headed totally ignorant people." With His own disciples he had to do things with them, two, three times... and it still didn't sink in. He fed the multitudes, not once, but twice! He seemingly had to do everything at least twice... There's even a verse in Mark where Jesus asks, "Good? Why do you call me good? Only God is good." It's pretty remarkable actually.

King James version (KJV) can be difficult... I think people like to use that version when talking from the pulpit or for reading specific passages aloud during the holidays. It's got a certain historical grammatical appeal I s'pose...

New International Version (NIV) seems to have taken some liberties in some areas. I've noted that theologens seem to like this version the least, although I'm not saying they don't like it, or necessarily strongly disagree with it, just not the favorite.

I like the New American Standard version (NAS); seems to strike a happy balance. I can comprehend it, and the translation seems to be most on par with the KJV.

A friend of mine has a (very thick) version which has every single verse of the Bible in all three versions, to compare and contrast. Occasionally, he'll come across a verse where it's helpful in understanding to read all three.

[CCIP]

The Bibilical definition of God is not defined as "supernatural energies". I'm afraid by your own difinition, in contrast to the Bible, you are an atheist. You either believe in the one all knowing, all powerful, infinite, eternal, perfect, unchanging God. ...or you don't.
Not to sound hostile, that's not my intention - but unless you're coming from a Christian perspective (which you are, and that's fine) - the Bible certainly doesn't have a monopoly on definitions of God. There have been many others and I have chosen my own view based on evidence. For one, I consider myself to be no less (and of course no more) Buddhist than Christian in that sense. Both have their own religious views and one certainly wouldn't call a Buddhist "atheist".


Personally, I will be very happy when scientists finally discover God at the sub-atomic level (the elusive "god particle" they've been talking about for a while). That will satisfactorily answer all my questions as to the nature of things.
As far as...
What would you say if you were standing before God and he should happen to ask, "Why should I let you into my Heaven?" Putting aside my beliefs (or lack thereof) into this sort of situation, I'd note that I've lived my life with what I believe to be a Christian mindset and acted based on what I see as the Christian philosophy - in which, however you slice it, the first and foremost thing is love for fellow man and all creation, acting with a clear conscience, and exercising goodwill come well before faith in scriptural dogma. Within human limits, I believe I've followed this with conviction. All in all, I consider myself to have lived a conscientious life, did my work quietly and helped other people as well as I could. And if God sends me to hell for living that way - well, I'll go down laughing at him.

I'm very familiar with religion mind you. I went to church for most of my childhood and went to a religious high school. My supposed 'atheism' doesn't come from rejection of religious values, simply from a qualification of them based on my own expereince and knowledge. I think there is an essential good in religions - many different religions - but it comes from aspects of their philosophies, not their dogmas. In Christianity, I have no interest in "the Word of God" but a lot of interest in "what would Jesus do?", basically.

[Sailor Steve]

The Bibilical definition of God is not defined as "supernatural energies". I'm afraid by your own difinition, in contrast to the Bible, you are an atheist. You either believe in the one all knowing, all powerful, infinite, eternal, perfect, unchanging God. ...or you don't.
While that is true in the strictest context, not believing in the Christian God is not what makes one an atheist. By definition, and atheist believes in no god at all, and that's not what CCIP said.

I personally have gone from being a believing Christian to being more of a deist, slightly to the right of an agnostic. The fact that I don't know which is right, and choose to reserve judgement, may make me wrong, but does not make me an atheist.

After all, a lot of Romans defined both Jews and Christians as athiests, precisely because they only believed in one god.

[TarJak]

I just want to know who created evolution...:doh:

[XLjedi]

What would you say if you were standing before God and he should happen to ask, "Why should I let you into my Heaven?" Putting aside my beliefs (or lack thereof) into this sort of situation, I'd note that I've lived my life with what I believe to be a Christian mindset and acted based on what I see as the Christian philosophy - in which, however you slice it, the first and foremost thing is love for fellow man and all creation, acting with a clear conscience, and exercising goodwill come well before faith in scriptural dogma. Within human limits, I believe I've followed this with conviction. All in all, I consider myself to have lived a conscientious life, did my work quietly and helped other people as well as I could. And if God sends me to hell for living that way - well, I'll go down laughing at him.

That's actually the most common response.

We hope that God will "grade on a curve" so to speak. That we've done more good things than bad. Therefore, a just God would not punish my shortcomings, He would instead weigh it against the things I've done that are good. It's what's referred to as a "works-based" response... If we committed murder just once, would a "good" judge let it go unpunished? What if we just drove over the speed limit once? Would a "good" judge waive the fee? ...then what should we expect of a perfect judge, one who is without flaw?

Man has a very difficult time acknowledging the need for a savior. We would much rather prefer to think that we have full control over our own salvation, that we can save ourselves, without God's help. ...and if God doesn't like it; fine, I'll go to hell. That's an interesting and very defiant position to take. :hmm:

[XLjedi]

The worst case scenario for me is, I end up no better off than an atheist.

Not so, what if you have been worshipping the wrong god?



:rotfl:

Well, in that case, I guess you and I will eventually get to meet... and then we can spend eternity pondering our ignorance face to face.

[mrbeast]

The worst case scenario for me is, I end up no better off than an atheist.

Not so, what if you have been worshipping the wrong god?



:rotfl:

Well, in that case, I guess you and I will eventually get to meet... and then we can spend eternity pondering our ignorance face to face.

You never know that scorned god might have something nasty in store for you. I can expain away my non-belief as simple dumbkopf ignorance of any god, but you would have been willfully worshipping a false one.:damn: :yep:

[Sea Demon]

I started with believing Genesis, then moved to Sea Demon's point of view.
Now I am with Antikristuseke.

This is a topic where I see people just voicing their own personal belief system. The beliefs they have come to accept for themselves. Nothing wrong in any of that. I'm not trying to change minds in this topic. In a way, I think Darwin was right. But he only knew of some of the processes. And looked at how changes in environmental aspects, could affect how life based systems were affected. He did not understand the origins. Darwin tried to make a case about evolutionary processes, but could not answer the big $64,000 questions of where "it all came from". IMO, these evolutionary processes are from God himself. I see DNA as a divinely based mechanism. To me, God made the system, but does not intervene in every cell or every life process.

[Onkel Neal]

Do I need to prove there's a God? Could I even introduce perhaps a shadow of a doubt in the mind of an atheist? What represents our understanding of the infinite universe? If the universe were finite and represented a 12'x12' wall could I point to a pin-sized dot on the wall and say, "Here's what we understand?" Does it not take as much, if not more, faith to suggest that God doesn't exist in that vast infinite area that we know nothing about?



Nice way to make a point.

[Tex]

Hi guys. If you haven't seen this film it's worth a look. It's in 3 parts and the first part discusses christianity. Alot of it made sense. It's a long film if you watch all 3 parts, but staying on topic with this thread, part 1 is the only part you need to see.

Part 1 starts after a lengthy intro:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[XLjedi]

The worst case scenario for me is, I end up no better off than an atheist.

Not so, what if you have been worshipping the wrong god?



:rotfl:

Well, in that case, I guess you and I will eventually get to meet... and then we can spend eternity pondering our ignorance face to face.

You never know that scorned god might have something nasty in store for you. I can expain away my non-belief as simple dumbkopf ignorance of any god, but you would have been willfully worshipping a false one.:damn: :yep:

No... I would still be reporting to the same one infinite eternal God, I just would've been (in your mind) giving Him more credit than he deserved. In which, case I would say, beg your pardon God, I was just trying to give You the credit for everything in my life and all of existance. I think He would understand. ...and surely a God of all love would accept me with all my shortcomings. Especially since I was erring in the direction of His sovereignty.

On the other hand, if I'm right...

[XLjedi]

Perhaps it was God putting his plan into motion that caused the eruption of life from infinite nothingness?

maybe but until you have scientific evidence of this, heres one unbeliever who will continue to 'un-believe'

One of the 11 most famous Christians to ever live shared your belief, for a while...
His words were identical to yours, and his account preserved in the Bible.

If God had chosen to manifest himself in the present day and age instead of 2000 years ago, He may have said to Thomas. Look here in this microscope, and now look here beyond infinity in this telescope and tell me what you see. "My Lord and my God!"

Jesus goes on to say to Thomas, "Because you have seen you believe. Blessed are those who believe and have not seen."

[August]

I'm a Creating Evolutionary, or was that an Evolving Creationist? :hmm: Ah fuggedabout it, just don't call me late for supper! :smug:

[Boris]

I'm a Creating Evolutionary, or was that an Evolving Creationist? :hmm: Ah fuggedabout it, just don't call me late for supper! :smug:

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I could call myself kinda the same...

I'm no atheist, but still accept that the rise of life was an evolutionary process. To take the Bible literally is folly. Sure the spark of life my have been created at some point... but not all at once.

[August]

To take the Bible literally is folly.

Exactly. The way i see it, the concept of God is something that the human race barely begins to comprehend. The Bible is just an attempt to explain the unexplainable, quantify the infinite, define the undefinable.

If you want to really understand the point of the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran or any other religious text then you must think of them as being written like a childrens book where characters and their actions are used to illustrate a lesson or moral rather than recount a specific historical event.

For example nobody thinks there was an actual "Boy Who Cried Wolf" but the moral behind it; that nobody believes a liar even when he speaks the truth, is well illustrated by telling the story.

[geetrue]

I've found the best way to understand God is to just believe that God is in three persons ...

God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit

One of them lives in me at all times and He doesn't have to go ask the other two anything.

God is so big and so real that we the people are finite ...

We can not understand God due to the fact that He is infinite ...

[XLjedi]

To take the Bible literally is folly.

Generally speaking, the problem isn't with folks who take the Bible literally. There are most certainly parts of the Bible that are poetic prose and indeed do have some allegorical qualities. But the allegory has a specific and literal meaning behind it. The parts of the Bible (Genesis, Psalms, Song of Soloman, Revelation) are indeed poetic and artful in their presentation at times, but the underlying message conveyed is pretty clear and meant to be taken literally.

The problem is when people refuse to take the parts of the Bible literally that are clearly not meant to be allegorical. You can tell which books have these specific overtones.

The argument being, "Well, you don't take the Bible literally do you?" In other words, I can read whatever I want into any verse and interpret it however it happens to suit me. ...and if for some reason I don't happen to like what it's telling me, I can easily just dismiss it as poetical nonsense. Or even though an entire book of the Bible is written without allegory, I can just say this one verse here is allegorical and I can interpret it however I like.

For those few books, I take them literally in the sense that there is a specific theme that was trying to be conveyed that I should pay attention to and do my best to understand as presented... as opposed to approaching each chapter/passage with my own pre-conceived notions and looking for loopholes.

Believe it or not, the great majority of books, chapters, and verses contained in the Bible are not subject to too much debate. We get all caught up in things like "What is a day to an infinite being?", "How many angels can fit on the head of pin?", "Did Adam have a belly button?", "Will my dog go to Heaven?" All interesting questions to ponder and perhaps one day pose to God, but too often given as some basis for dismissing the entire Bible outright.

When Jesus said to forgive your brother 7x70 times for instance, He was using a mathematical practice of the time that the people understood. They expressed very large (maybe even infinite) numbers by multiplication with larger numbers in multiples of 10 or 100 or even 1000. In Revelation where it talks of the 12 tribes of Israel and 12x12000 going to Heaven, that was meant to represent all nations of Earth... not literally, there's only 144,000 seats in Heaven.

Most good study (and non-denominational) study Bibles will include notes to help you understand the context of what's being conveyed.

[Fish]

And I do definately intend to read the bible in full again, but im not sure yet as to which version to choose.

It's nearly impossible to pick up and literally read the Bible from beginning to end and fully comprehend its message. Just read Mark (carefully) and give me your impressions... some very interesting things in there about how Jesus interacted with his disciples. These twelve really come across as misfit misguided children... perhaps not the story you would expect to read. And certainly not the qualities you would expect to see in folks who are supposed to be the foundation for a religion. I try to put myself in Jesus shoes having to deal with these guys, and I think, "I'm done dealing with you hard-headed totally ignorant people." With His own disciples he had to do things with them, two, three times... and it still didn't sink in. He fed the multitudes, not once, but twice! He seemingly had to do everything at least twice... There's even a verse in Mark where Jesus asks, "Good? Why do you call me good? Only God is good." It's pretty remarkable actually.

King James version (KJV) can be difficult... I think people like to use that version when talking from the pulpit or for reading specific passages aloud during the holidays. It's got a certain historical grammatical appeal I s'pose...

New International Version (NIV) seems to have taken some liberties in some areas. I've noted that theologens seem to like this version the least, although I'm not saying they don't like it, or necessarily strongly disagree with it, just not the favorite.

I like the New American Standard version (NAS); seems to strike a happy balance. I can comprehend it, and the translation seems to be most on par with the KJV.

A friend of mine has a (very thick) version which has every single verse of the Bible in all three versions, to compare and contrast. Occasionally, he'll come across a verse where it's helpful in understanding to read all three.

I wonder, what makes you believe Mark? Mark is written 40 or 60 years after "Jesus' dead.
Long enough a time to make up some stories.
I ask you because there is not a single letter written about him (Jesus) during his live.
Not by romans, not by Jews while his live is full of wonders, waking the dead, walking on water, making wine from water etcetera etcetera.
For me the story could just be a hoax. They (the writers) know about the profetys, so they could use them to make the story even better.

[Skybird]

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9726/creationismdx6.gif (http://imageshack.us)


http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/6700/kansasevolutionbu4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6631/idvennns1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/8927/miracle3gx2.gif (http://imageshack.us)


http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/3691/17938889ljr3.gif (http://imageshack.us)


http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/807/scientificmethodnw9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/3050/edits800jh2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=712905&archival=&posts=9 (http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=712905&archival=&posts=9)

[August]

And the athiests trash yet another discussion. God forbid they feel left out...

[XLjedi]

I wonder, what makes you believe Mark? Mark is written 40 or 60 years after "Jesus' dead.
Long enough a time to make up some stories.
I ask you because there is not a single letter written about him (Jesus) during his live.
Not by romans, not by Jews while his live is full of wonders, waking the dead, walking on water, making wine from water etcetera etcetera.
For me the story could just be a hoax. They (the writers) know about the profetys, so they could use them to make the story even better.

That's a great question. ...and something I wondered myself before I began to study the Bible. Let's be clear though, you're not just asking about Mark. You're really asking, "Why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?"

I happend to pick Mark, just because most Christians would tell you to read John, in which case you would've said, "Pffft... Typical, John 3:16 Christian nonsense." Am, I right?

My main question back to you then is, "Why didn't the writers make their stories better?"

One of the reasons (mind you, I said one) I believe the Bible is inspired is because it very specifically does not paint its "heros" in a favorable light... as you might expect from an historical account that has been influenced by man's natural tendencies toward revisionist history. The Biblical heros are all horribly tarnishd by at least one of the following: murder, selfishness, adultery, incest, lust, lack of faith, disobedience, idoletry, and drunkeness... I mean you name it, they did it. I look at the story of Noah in the old testament and wonder, "Why on Earth would the person writing this want to mention Noah layed out naked in a drunken stuper?" ...and then likewise, in the book of Mark I see Jesus asking people why they call him good if only God is good? Could someone not point to this and say, "Look here's Jesus himself saying He's not God."

If I were a writer, attempting to give an account of something that happened in my life, would I not be at least somewhat inclined to make myself look a little better in this picture? Mark speaks of the total ineptness, corruption, lack of faith, and failings of the apostles? They're a bunch of misfits. Is that really how I want to be remembered for all eternity. What man-made religion would want to start out with that storyline? ...these are suppose to be the founders of my religion!

I agree with you, "Wouldn't the writers want to make the story better?"

Also, the writers of the Bible were giving individual accounts, sometimes 30 and sometimes 100 or more years apart; in isolation of one another, in different parts of the world, some were even in jail at the time. There was not a concerted effort in the hearts of these writers to produce a single book to found a religion upon. Yet that's exactly what God had in mind as He inspired the writings.

All these stories, accounts, letters, poetry, and parables seem to overlap perfectly and tell the same repeated story. When combined into a single book they are intended to be proof that the authors were not only sincere but inspired by God. You may not believe one individuals account... so here's a whole book full of overlapping testimony. It actually makes it much more difficult to deny.

I have to view the Bible like a detective or scientist searching for the truth. I have done enough research to learn that there were many writers and eyewitnesses to the events that took place. The stories and letters were documented at different times, different places, in isolation of one another. The accounts overlap in details, chronology, and description of events. Individually I may not believe a single one... but together they make a very compelling argument that I just can't deny.

There's an underlying theme and correlation here between accounts that appears to me as being perfect in its execution. That's why I believe it to be the inspired Word of God, inerrant and infallible.

But like many, I did not easily or quickly come to that conclusion... and I was very skeptical. I was not raised as a Christian, so the notion of the Bible being literally from God was very difficult for me to accept. My honest attitude was, "Yeah, OK prove to me the Bible came from God before you expect me to believe any of it." ...and I am not one who is easily persuaded. Granted, I'm no genius but I don't consider myself a simpleton either. I've been thru 6 years of college, finished a Masters degree, worked in the business world for a decade, and have a pretty decent programming-mathematical-logic-oriented background. I honestly never expected that I would one day be arguing from this side of the street.

[XLjedi]

And the athiests trash yet another discussion. God forbid they feel left out...

Hey, those cartoons above...

That would've been my post 15 years ago. :yep:

[silentrunner]

A tip I like for Atheists and Christians loosing their faith look at the most beutifull thing you have ever seen it could be your wife, a photograph of something your favorite place to go etc. and ask yourself: Could something so beutifull have been just a coincidence. That is my intire reason for being a religious person.

[Skybird]

Hey, those cartoons above...

That would've been my post 15 years ago. :yep:

Well, cartoons and mockery is all this kind of polite debates with religious zealots deserve, for religion claims too much of what it has no right to demand, and again becomes a threat to the surviving of our civilisation, and strangely cliams to be the bringer of peace and hope, but acchieves only hate and violence and intolerance - in the name of the god concept depending on the Abrahamic cult. So expect all determined laughter and mockery from me - but do not even dream of me ever ennobling it by being polite and respectful towards it. There is nothing respectable around it, there is no saving in it, and no miracle-like rescue or heavenly justice - there is only a lethal, unforgiving threat, and the smell of death and - as zealots hope: infionite - doom.

And if you read the Gospels carefully, you will eventually find out that Jesus said exactly this about the cult whose pharisees confronted him over allegations of heresy. but since most religious people are not about the truth of their god, but their own image of what they think he should be like, this part often is ignored. Better no truth at all, than an unwelcomed truth.

What a poor way to waste one's natural potentials - to reject what nature has given you in good and abundance, or abusing it for destructive purposes that all to often are motivated by precious religious ambitions - that is what I would call sin. If Satan would exist, he would come under the cover of religion, and creep into people's minds by their prayers.

time stamp 180 seconds and following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cXWElb-GE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5JtxrR6msg

[Skybird]

A tip I like for Atheists and Christians loosing their faith look at the most beutifull thing you have ever seen it could be your wife, a photograph of something your favorite place to go etc. and ask yourself: Could something so beutifull have been just a coincidence. That is my intire reason for being a religious person.
I am atheist, and anti-theist. And still I am religious, going far beyond brute materialism. What now? ;)


You theistic hardliners have to stop thinking that religion automatically means theism, and if it is not theistic cult, then it cannot be a religious, or if you like it better: spritual drive behind a person. But you see: it is called Atheism - not Areligion. there are relgious cults with not only one, but many, and myriads of deities. And there are relgious traditions without a single deity. and most of these have been there long since before the Bible was written.

[August]

Whenever I read Skybirds arrogant and hate filled posts I thank God he didn't make me that way...

[Boris]

Whenever I read Skybirds arrogant and hate filled posts I thank God he didn't make me that way...

Uh, since when is Skybird arrogant and hate-filled? I think you've been misreading him for a long time.

[August]

Uh, since when is Skybird arrogant and hate-filled? I think you've been misreading him for a long time.

Really? *I've* been misreading him? :roll:

So how would you characterize his posts in this thread then Boris? Humble and loving?

While you're formulating your answer here's a couple quotes of his right from this thread to chew on:

"Well, cartoons and mockery is all this kind of polite debates with religious zealots deserve"

"So expect all determined laughter and mockery from me"

And how about this one:

You theistic hardliners have to stop thinking that religion automatically means theism

It don't get much arrogant than that, telling people how to think about their religion.

[CCIP]

You theistic hardliners have to stop thinking that religion automatically means theism
It don't get much arrogant than that, telling people how to think about their religion.

He didn't say "their" anywhere in his post.

I don't know, I tend to be less aggressive than Skybird on this but I generally agree. Perhaps his tone is a response. I for one don't like some of the suggestions in this thread that those here following religious beliefs are x number of years or y amount of wisdom ahead of the "atheists". I for one had to work hard to define my own position and come to conclusions through what one might call god-given reason, and I don't take kindly to the suggestion. :-?

[XLjedi]

I for one don't like some of the suggestions in this thread that those here following religious beliefs are x number of years or y amount of wisdom ahead of the "atheists". I for one had to work hard to define my own position and come to conclusions through what one might call god-given reason, and I don't take kindly to the suggestion. :-?

Is that how I come across? Then I've been misunderstood. You see, there seems to be a general misperception that creationists are non-scientifical simple-minded people. I try to counter that assumption, but I don't believe I put others down in the process.

I thought all of my postings on this thread were quite civil and non-zealot like. I've only responded when challenged. I don't need to say any more on the topic if people have no more interest or questions.

I'll go read a little Darwin, same as when I go read the Kuran when asked, hopefully some here might read a little of what I've suggested.

[silentrunner]

I have to agree with August on this one, maybe some of you disagree because you have never been the target of his rants. He will not take any crap about his beliefs but he will make any body that doesn't think like he does out to be a war loving narrow minded fool.

[XLjedi]

If you wish to get back on the poll topic, we should clearly define evolution and creationism.

There are two types of creationism (or intelligent design), deism and theism. Under deism you may believe that a god or intelligent being set forth a system under which all life could form from atoms to humans but the deity had no particular interest in the creation process... he merely set up the rules and then chose to retire or is indifferent to how his creation grows. I've heard some people say that a god created the laws of physics and chemistry, by which all things sprang from, therefore, indirectly god is creator.


Theism takes it a step further to suggest the intelligent being not only setup the rules but had a purposeful intent on how the creation would unfold.

You can assign yourself to either of these scenarios and not necessarily be a Christian. I would say Christians by true definition fall into the theist category.

Evolution (naturism or naturalism) on the other hand suggests nature in and of itself is responsible for all creation and was able to achieve it thru a remarkable and spontaneous series of events over a vastly long period of time sparked initially by a large bang which contained all atoms and elements necessary to form everything we know to be in existance. And specificaly without any interference or guidance from god or any other celestial being. I would say atheists fall into this category, because it specifically denies the involvement of an intelligent being.

I believe those who voted "Other" are in some way categorizing themselves as deists, but not necessarily theists. Those who voted "Creation" are thinking in terms of theism, but not necessarily Christianity. Those who voted "Evolution" are atheist, or may have been deists but didn't realize it at the time.

[XLjedi]

Hey, those cartoons above...

That would've been my post 15 years ago. :yep:

Well, cartoons and mockery is all this kind of polite debates with religious zealots deserve, for religion claims too much of what it has no right to demand, and again becomes a threat to the surviving of our civilisation, and strangely cliams to be the bringer of peace and hope, but acchieves only hate and violence and intolerance - in the name of the god concept depending on the Abrahamic cult. So expect all determined laughter and mockery from me - but do not even dream of me ever ennobling it by being polite and respectful towards it. There is nothing respectable around it, there is no saving in it, and no miracle-like rescue or heavenly justice - there is only a lethal, unforgiving threat, and the smell of death and - as zealots hope: infionite - doom.

And if you read the Gospels carefully, you will eventually find out that Jesus said exactly this about the cult whose pharisees confronted him over allegations of heresy. but since most religious people are not about the truth of their god, but their own image of what they think he should be like, this part often is ignored. Better no truth at all, than an unwelcomed truth.

What a poor way to waste one's natural potentials - to reject what nature has given you in good and abundance, or abusing it for destructive purposes that all to often are motivated by precious religious ambitions - that is what I would call sin. If Satan would exist, he would come under the cover of religion, and creep into people's minds by their prayers.

time stamp 180 seconds and following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cXWElb-GE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5JtxrR6msg

With all undue respect...

1) I was just saying I understand where folks are coming from, I was there myself... about 15 years ago. It's not impossible to have a change of heart. He's no different than I was.

2) I have read the Bible carefully, and I can assure you, although Jesus did in fact rebuke the pharisees and saducees (religious leaders of the time), He NEVER said or implied anything remotely like this: "There is nothing respectable around it, there is no saving in it, and no miracle-like rescue or heavenly justice - there is only a lethal, unforgiving threat, and the smell of death and - as zealots hope: infionite - doom."

That is so opposite the message of the Gospel that I don't know how anyone could possibly read the New or Old Testament and actually come away with that?

[Sailor Steve]

A tip I like for Atheists and Christians loosing their faith look at the most beutifull thing you have ever seen it could be your wife, a photograph of something your favorite place to go etc. and ask yourself: Could something so beutifull have been just a coincidence. That is my intire reason for being a religious person.
I have come to realize that yes, it could easily be a coincidence. That is why I have ceased to be a religious person.

August: I agree that sometimes Skybird can be overbearing, but you don't seem to realize that a lot of us see your "arrogant and hate-filled" comment as every bit as arrogant as anything you accuse him of. Also, at least one of those cartoons, the one comparing 'scientific methods' looks pretty spot-on to me. And the Doonesbury one: normally I dislike Gary Trudeau's work, as I dislike anyone who is highly biased and habitually only takes one side; but you have to admit, that one was pretty witty.

Aaronblood: A good number of Christians accept that most scientists aren't trying to "prove" anything; they just take what they see and try to apply reason to it. I see no reason to deny that there could be a guiding hand behind it all - I have just come to see no reason to accept it, either. Your arguments for what you call 'Creationism' are good ones. The problem is that most 'Creationists' insist on the exact interpretation of Genesis and the 'Young Earth' idea (I can't even bring myself to call it a theory), and have bad names and bad words for other Christians who disagree with them.

I'm pretty sure I voted 'Evolutionist', because I look at all the theories and the facts as presented seem to support that conclusion. I felt that way even when I was a devout Christian. Today I don't consider myself an atheist, deist or anywhere in between. I guess I'm some kind of agnostic, but I'm not even sure about that.

Funny thing about atheists, though: they come in as many varieties as believers do. Hardcore Christians dismiss them as a "Godless religion". For some that's true; witness Ellen Johnson, editor of American Atheist magazine. Her editorials usually read exactly like the ravings of a religious fanatic. On the other hand, I've met people who could only say "Sorry, I just can't bring myself to believe there's a God." Pigeon-holing people who disagree is always easier than having a rational discussion. I've been having a running dialogue with a devout socialist, who thinks he's the only one who can save the world. Every time I see him he asks me "So, have we reached an accord on our latest disagreement?" And every time I answer "What you're really asking is "Have I come around to your way of thinking yet?" The funny part is, this particular socialist is also a devout believer who attends church every week.

I find it all fascinating.

[Onkel Neal]

[/URL]


[URL="http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=712905&archival=&posts=9"]http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=712905&archival=&posts=9 (http://imageshack.us)


I have to say, if you have to resort to ridicule, it makes me wonder how secure you are in your beliefs.

[August]

August: I agree that sometimes Skybird can be overbearing, but you don't seem to realize that a lot of us see your "arrogant and hate-filled" comment as every bit as arrogant as anything you accuse him of.

Well you just believe what you want Steve. What you see as overbearing I choose to describe in a little more detail. Unlike Skybird however I wouldn't attempt to mock you for having a different opinion than I do.

[XLjedi]

Aaronblood: A good number of Christians accept that most scientists aren't trying to "prove" anything; they just take what they see and try to apply reason to it. I see no reason to deny that there could be a guiding hand behind it all - I have just come to see no reason to accept it, either. Your arguments for what you call 'Creationism' are good ones. The problem is that most 'Creationists' insist on the exact interpretation of Genesis and the 'Young Earth' idea (I can't even bring myself to call it a theory), and have bad names and bad words for other Christians who disagree with them.

That's too bad... I have no problem with the concept of an infinite eternal all powerful God winking and causing all things to exist in a milli-second, an instant, an hour... day, seven days. So you must have contempt for me being one who would take the position that what the Bible says is true. :hmm: If God willed that the Earth and all of the Heavens be created some mere 7000 years or so ago, He most certainly could've done it. ...to think that God is somehow bounded to not be able to create things instantly, perhaps even in their mid or ending life cycles, is just placing a limiting box around what is supposed to be His infinite power. Genesis doesn't mention God creating Adam or Eve as infants.

But again, it's one of those interesting points to ponder and ask God to clarify one day. It's certainly not an issue that's going to interfere with God's plan or my salvation. Therefore, I see no reason to get excited over it one way or the other. If the Bible says it, I like to believe it.

[geetrue]

Food goes in one end and out the other makes us equal with everyone on the planet earth ...

It's our faith that separates us from each other ... :yep:

[Skybird]

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=712905&archival=&posts=9 (http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=712905&archival=&posts=9)


I have to say, if you have to resort to ridicule, it makes me wonder how secure you are in your beliefs.
And I have to say ennobling what is to be ridiculed, by taking it as something substantial, treating it as an equal, while it claims a status in public and demands rights that it does not deserve and wants to have a seat beside science in public education - doesn'T make it any better. Mockery where mockery is fit. I see no reason in teraching the earth is a globe and the earth is a disc - and letting the kids chose which they like better (under influence of their parents and grandparents anyway.) chemistry and alchemy at school? Physics and astrology? Hahaha, save me, please. too much already got lost by taking this nonsens more serious and dealing with it reasonably and polite. TV and gaming already turns people into zombies - do we really need creationism at schools and universities and relgion playing that kind of role in public life again that in europe since centuries led to bloodshed to bloodshed - in the name of saving souls and in the name of a god allegedly loving man?

I can't criticise Islam - and at the same time remain silent about christian fundamentalism. If doing so, I would contradict myself. Both are offsprings of the same kind of blind and evil mind. Or of the same satan, if you like that better.

[Skybird]

And for all others: I never, nowhere have told anybody what they should believe in, or that they should believe at all. at best I described my own position, and attack that of others whose position I see as extremely questionable, that is nature of discussion/debate, you have to live with it. I don't care for the colour of the walls in your kichen - believe what you want - as long as you keep it private and do not try to make your religion a public dogma that violates the separation of state and church or forces those not agreeing nevertheless to adapt in their social manners, behaviors and possibilities to act - then you are demanding more than is yours, and you step over a line. KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELVE. When I hear creationism being recommended to be tought side by side with sciences at school, when I hear creationists saying their pseudo-science is as substantial and logical and reasonable and commited to the scientific method than "standard" science", and when I read and being told about people in fundamentlist cities and towns fearing for their future chances and for their kids if they would let their oh so wonderfully religious environment known that they do not share their beliefs, and when I see how "atheism" in the US has become another name for Satan, communism, and all of what is evil, sick and mentally derranged in the world - then these accusations of me (or atheists) being arrogant, hatefilled, immoral morons who nevertheless should consider themsleves lucky to benefit from God'S mercy on judgement day in reality mean that YOU are the offensive and arrogant ones, not me (or us), and that you are intolerantly striking against everybody not sharing your views (but complaining if the ones you taregt defend themselves against your attempt to creep to power and silently subjugate society), and you are the source of evil things to come, not me (us). Atheists these days serve as a spitting-pot where relgious hardliners see all the evil and stupidity that they cause with enthusiasm themselves.

the way you interpret the role of religion, and the content of Christ's message, led to bloodshed and bloodshed and bloodshed. It mad elife in europe miserable for centuries and centuries. It caused intolerance and hate and the inquisition. What is in the bible before christ, is bloodshed and crime and conqeust, and inhumanity and brutality - ordered by God. Judaism and Islam are not any better. - And that tells everything important one needs to know about these relgions. If any god authorized this outcome, it shows his sick, psychopathic mindset and he then does not deserve the smallest quantum of loyalty. and if he meant something different but his letter caused all this evil to happen, then I am not impressed with his abilities to deliver his message correctly. And if it all should be just our own fault - I would like to ask him what this tells us about him, if we were made accroding to His own image and picture, and why the hell he did not try harder to make us any better than just himself.

And finally, for all those exemplaric religious people thinking that religion is theism, and theism is religion, and if there is no theism and deities involved, there is no religion, b that claiming that all true relgion can only be THEIR religion (that'S what it really is about: YOUR religion above all and everything else):


A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally organized around supernatural and moral claims, and often codified as prayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer), ritual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual), and religious law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_law). Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition), writings, history, and mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology), as well as personal faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith) and mystic experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism). The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

In the frame of European religious thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_religious_thought),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#_note-0) religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred-profane_dichotomy).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#_note-1) Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural), sacred, divine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity), or of the highest truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth). Moral codes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_code), practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripture) are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy). Religion is also often described as a "way of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Way_of_life)".

The development of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_religion) has taken many forms in various cultures. "Organized religion" generally refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of beliefs, often taking the form of a legal entity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juristic_person) (see religion-supporting organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion-supporting_organization)). Other religions believe in personal revelation. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith)" or "belief system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system),"[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#_note-2) but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions

The ultimate origins of Latin religio are obscure. It is usually accepted to derive from ligare "bind, connect"; likely from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect." This interpretation is favoured by modern scholars such as Tom Harpur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harpur) and Joseph Campbell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell), but was made prominent by St. Augustine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo), following the interpretation of Lactantius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius). Another possibility is derivation from a reduplicated *le-ligare. A historical interpretation due to Cicero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero) on the other hand connects lego "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully".

from wikipedia, (but you could read it as well in non-fictional literature oin mythology and religious science.)

So: every theism qualifies to be a cult or religion. But not every religion necessarily must be theism.

[Sailor Steve]

That's too bad... I have no problem with the concept of an infinite eternal all powerful God winking and causing all things to exist in a milli-second, an instant, an hour... day, seven days. So you must have contempt for me being one who would take the position that what the Bible says is true. :hmm: If God willed that the Earth and all of the Heavens be created some mere 7000 years or so ago, He most certainly could've done it. ...to think that God is somehow bounded to not be able to create things instantly, perhaps even in their mid or ending life cycles, is just placing a limiting box around what is supposed to be His infinite power. Genesis doesn't mention God creating Adam or Eve as infants.
I have no contempt for you, or anyone else. And I have no problem with the concept of an all-powerful God creating the universe in an instant - or in seven days. I just don't see any evidence outside of the Bible itself that would indicate that that's how it happened.

I love a good discussion, including disagreements, but one of the problems I continually have is that I'm a true doubter, meaning I doubt myself as well. This causes trouble with true believers of any type, because they almost always take the attitude that since I admit I don't know I'm right then I have to admit that they may be. And it's true; but true believers are usually just that, and since they already know that they're right, there isn't any room left for discussion. This goes for the devout atheist as well as the religious person. You seem to be different, and at least you have a sense of humor about yourself.

[Letum]

I'm with Karl Popper on this one. If it can't be refuted by a new discovery, then it isn't reliable knowledge.

To a lesser extent I am with Occam.
"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

[Konovalov]

I have to agree with August on this one, maybe some of you disagree because you have never been the target of his rants. He will not take any crap about his beliefs but he will make any body that doesn't think like he does out to be a war loving narrow minded fool.

No, I disagree with you while yet on many occassions being the 'target of his rants' as you put it. There seems to be a touch of a double standard here. :hmm:

Most people find it all well and dandy when Skybird posts on Islam and Muslims yet when he talks about other religions or other peoples faiths such as Christianity there are these direct accusations or attacks at Skybird himself. While I can sympathize to a degree, there is no need to make digs at Skybird.

Skybird can have his say. Others have the choice to either counter his arguments while remaining civil or just simply ignore/don't read them as I tend to do at times if life is getting me down or I'm not in the right frame of mind. As I said earlier, I can sympathize because matters of faith and religion are deeply personal and when someone constantly writes every week on this forum about my religion, faith, and Muslims it gets tiresome, frustrating, and just a tad depressing. So I understand the frustration of some here. But hey look on the bright side it could be worse. Try being a Muslim like me. Now I really have got it bad. :lol:

It would also probably help if those wanting to discuss such topics excercise a litte self restraint. By this I mean not talking the subject to death day after day. Just a little balance would be nice along with variety. :up:

Anyway that is my 2 cents as I must plan my next convoy attack off the west coast of Ireland for tonight. I'm trying to break the 100,000k tonnage mark in this, my 7th patrol mid 1940. :arrgh!:

[XLjedi]

That's too bad... I have no problem with the concept of an infinite eternal all powerful God winking and causing all things to exist in a milli-second, an instant, an hour... day, seven days. So you must have contempt for me being one who would take the position that what the Bible says is true. :hmm: If God willed that the Earth and all of the Heavens be created some mere 7000 years or so ago, He most certainly could've done it. ...to think that God is somehow bounded to not be able to create things instantly, perhaps even in their mid or ending life cycles, is just placing a limiting box around what is supposed to be His infinite power. Genesis doesn't mention God creating Adam or Eve as infants.
I have no contempt for you, or anyone else. And I have no problem with the concept of an all-powerful God creating the universe in an instant - or in seven days. I just don't see any evidence outside of the Bible itself that would indicate that that's how it happened.

I love a good discussion, including disagreements, but one of the problems I continually have is that I'm a true doubter, meaning I doubt myself as well. This causes trouble with true believers of any type, because they almost always take the attitude that since I admit I don't know I'm right then I have to admit that they may be. And it's true; but true believers are usually just that, and since they already know that they're right, there isn't any room left for discussion. This goes for the devout atheist as well as the religious person. You seem to be different, and at least you have a sense of humor about yourself.

Well... in your previous post you said you had bad words to throw at people just like me. I interpretted that as contempt, I'm glad you've clarified.

The doubts can only be overcome with time and study... which I would encourage all to do. There are logical explanations for all those nagging questions and doubts, you just have to go find them for yourself.

[August]

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=2192&pst=712905&archival=&posts=9

I have to say, if you have to resort to ridicule, it makes me wonder how secure you are in your beliefs. And I have to say ennobling what is to be ridiculed, by taking it as something substantial, treating it as an equal, while it claims a status in public and demands rights that it does not deserve and wants to have a seat beside science in public education - doesn'T make it any better. Mockery where mockery is fit. I see no reason in teraching the earth is a globe and the earth is a disc - and letting the kids chose which they like better (under influence of their parents and grandparents anyway.) chemistry and alchemy at school? Physics and astrology? Hahaha, save me, please. too much already got lost by taking this nonsens more serious and dealing with it reasonably and polite. TV and gaming already turns people into zombies - do we really need creationism at schools and universities and relgion playing that kind of role in public life again that in europe since centuries led to bloodshed to bloodshed - in the name of saving souls and in the name of a god allegedly loving man?

I can't criticise Islam - and at the same time remain silent about christian fundamentalism. If doing so, I would contradict myself. Both are offsprings of the same kind of blind and evil mind. Or of the same satan, if you like that better.

Sounds to me like Neal is spot on in his assessment...

[silentrunner]

I have to agree with August on this one, maybe some of you disagree because you have never been the target of his rants. He will not take any crap about his beliefs but he will make any body that doesn't think like he does out to be a war loving narrow minded fool.
No, I disagree with you while yet on many occassions being the 'target of his rants' as you put it. There seems to be a touch of a double standard here. :hmm:

Most people find it all well and dandy when Skybird posts on Islam and Muslims yet when he talks about other religions or other peoples faiths such as Christianity there are these direct accusations or attacks at Skybird himself. While I can sympathize to a degree, there is no need to make digs at Skybird.

Skybird can have his say. Others have the choice to either counter his arguments while remaining civil or just simply ignore/don't read them as I tend to do at times if life is getting me down or I'm not in the right frame of mind. As I said earlier, I can sympathize because matters of faith and religion are deeply personal and when someone constantly writes every week on this forum about my religion, faith, and Muslims it gets tiresome, frustrating, and just a tad depressing. So I understand the frustration of some here. But hey look on the bright side it could be worse. Try being a Muslim like me. Now I really have got it bad. :lol:

It would also probably help if those wanting to discuss such topics excercise a litte self restraint. By this I mean not talking the subject to death day after day. Just a little balance would be nice along with variety. :up:

Anyway that is my 2 cents as I must plan my next convoy attack off the west coast of Ireland for tonight. I'm trying to break the 100,000k tonnage mark in this, my 7th patrol mid 1940. :arrgh!:
You have made a good point sir. I guess I have been offended too much by Skybird's comments. I sometimes act as if my religion is the most hated thing in the world, but I close my eyes to the fact that I have hardley ever been the target of prejudice. It must be terible to be in your shoes when so many people make your religion out to be the greatest evil in the world. I have no idea what it is like to walk around the streets and be shuned for your beliefs. I deeply apologize for not being able to accept other people's criticism.

Regards
Silentrunner

[Sailor Steve]

Well... in your previous post you said you had bad words to throw at people just like me. I interpretted that as contempt, I'm glad you've clarified.
What I said was, The problem is that most 'Creationists' insist on the exact interpretation of Genesis and the 'Young Earth' idea (I can't even bring myself to call it a theory), and have bad names and bad words for other Christians who disagree with them.
I thought it was clear I was referring to ardent fundamentalist creationists who call anyone who says that Genesis might not be literally true things like "Liberal Christians", or even "False Christians".

As I said, I've been wrong enough times in my life to make me constantly doubt my own sanity, let alone correctness. And while I love to discuss all manner of things, I have little time nor respect for people who go into a discussion already holding the attitude that they are right and need to convince me. It's too much like talking to a salesman.

As I also said, from what I've read of your writings, I don't consider you to be one of them.

[joea]

I believe those who voted "Other" are in some way categorizing themselves as deists, but not necessarily theists. Those who voted "Creation" are thinking in terms of theism, but not necessarily Christianity. Those who voted "Evolution" are atheist, or may have been deists but didn't realize it at the time.

Disagree, I voted Other but then I thought of "Creation" as the very narrow fundamentalist "Young Earth" sort that you do not represent. In that sense I believe in a sort of creation process.

[Iceman]

Herein lies a big problem with believers...

True Christianity teaches one must realize that there is no way to reach a non-believer...period. It is not something that is within the power of a child of God to do.

The two are opposites and enimity with each other. The fleshly mind cannot grasp the the things of the spirit until God so chooses to show them the door.

So all a Christian can do is try to keep the porch light on showing there is a door...a way , a path. And so it will be as in the time of Naoh....Read the parable of the bridesmaids.

He that is unholy let him be unholy still. Only once God has revealed the Son to a person and that person "accepts and surrenders to God" can salvation and new life come....

until then they have ears but do not hear,eyes but don't see, they are dead...so do not become disheartened when they reject you...so did they to your master.

and what an honor to suffer some of the same as Christ.

Peace and do not cast your pearls before swine lest they trample them under foot.

[XLjedi]

I believe those who voted "Other" are in some way categorizing themselves as deists, but not necessarily theists. Those who voted "Creation" are thinking in terms of theism, but not necessarily Christianity. Those who voted "Evolution" are atheist, or may have been deists but didn't realize it at the time.

Disagree, I voted Other but then I thought of "Creation" as the very narrow fundamentalist "Young Earth" sort that you do not represent. In that sense I believe in a sort of creation process.

OK, that's exactly what I said... You voted "Other" but you ascribe to the belief that there was a creation process involved. You fall under the category creationist deist. I suspect most who are voting "Other" have similar leanings toward some sort of intelligent design theory.

I defined the difference between creationism and evolution. I mentioned that Christians (by true definition) fall under the "theist" category. The difference between evolution and creation is black and white... there is not a third gray-area category.

Evolution theory specifically argues the non-existance of any God-like or otherwise intelligent being anywhere in the process of creation. Creation evolved from nothingness without the help of any sentient being.

Creation or intelligent design theory suggests there is an intelligence working behind the scenes at some level.

Atheists fear the "Intelligent Design" concept is merely a front for pushing Christianity. By definition (and the acknowledgement of folks on this very thread) I've shown that creationist theory is a belief that can be held independently of religious affiliation. To simply exclude it from school curriculum is to specifically argue or present only the "there is no God of any type, period..." argument.

On a side note, I also previously mentioned, I do like to believe the Bible is literal when it speaks of creation occuring in 7 days. ...I'll repeat again, I have no problem believing almighty God could wink the universe into existance in a mere millisecond (much less 7 days) in mid or late life cycle with all it's wonders and interesting time-carbon-based, space-time-lightyear, nuances there for us to explore, ponder, and learn from. A scientist digs up a bone and reports it being a b'zillion years old... or points to the Earth's layers and crust... and just says, "An all-powerful God could not possibly have made it this way." and I say, "Why not?"

Not sure why I see these Christian scientific movements so bent on proving that dirt and rock is literally only 7000 years old. I have to ask, "Why do they feel so compelled to prove anything?" "Is the God of the Bible, that you believe in, not perfectly capable of creating it that way?" Perhaps the intent was to test YOUR faith Christian! ...again, does the Bible teach that God was somehow limited in power and needed to form Adam as a seed that needed to grow?

The arguments for/against evolution/creation should really have very limited focus on something as small and limited as time... Time is not the pivotal issue.. It's more fundamental... God or no God

[Tchocky]

Evolution theory specifically argues the non-existance of any God-like or otherwise intelligent being anywhere in the process of creation.
What?

Evolution describes how lifeforms change and adapt, the process of dominance and survival.
It is not a theory on the origins of life.
It says nothing about gods.

[Skybird]

A lot of things would be much easier if theists would not be so obsessed with the idea of giving the assumed factor of non-randomness in the developement of the universe, matter and life a personlaised image, turning it into a divine personality, a character, a supernatural divine individual - on which than all man's weaknesses and flaws got projected - the God in the old testament is not described as a god, but an immoral, powerhungry, brutal, tyrannic egoist like so many other rulers have been in human history.

It also would be easier if people could just admit that some things there are of which we must conclude that - we simply do not know. making assumption, describing fantasies, forming images, and build - like tolkien did - mythologies and systems of rites and habits around this lack of knowledge - does not turn it suddenly into knowledge, or experience. It remains to be lacking knowledge. people just have started to deceive themselves about this fact, becasue for man it is a tough psychological burden to imagine himself being surrounded by a universe which is not really interested in his personal individual wellbeing, and which is so much beyond his control that he cannot make safe assumptions about his future life and his role in it all. Unsecurity is one thing that is very difficult to bear for most people. But I compare it to a swimmer in the pool who is too afraid to let go the hand-contact to the edge of the pool. But only if you let it go, you are able to dive in the open ocean and see the beauty hidden below the surface, or you can surf on the waves, and feel being carried by the ocean. Ironically, you are the more unsafe the more you cling to the egde of your little pool. freedom does not come before you do not let it go.

Christians mystics like Meister Eckehardt etc. represented such a thinking that loosened itself from the classical understanding of God demanding you to paddle inside your pool and never stop grabbing the edge of it, or the end of the stick that he holds to you, and that he beats you with if you do not obey. They realised that freedom of mind cannot be gained if sticking to the old concpetions and rules and dogmas. Not before you transcend your conception of God, and letting go the personalised image you made of him, you can see that this quality you maybe would to describe as being "divine" (means: going beyond the cause of just mechanically interacting matter; means also: self-awareness, consciousness), you become free to see that indeed everything that exists is of one essence, is one thing in that every aspect of it "has Buddha nature", if you forgive that foreign cultural terminus.

But as long as you separate the world into sacral and profance, you are caught in dualistic polarisation that will not stop to feed and blow up your ego by making you imagine that what you do is right, and what the others do is evil if they do not do like yourself. All that is man-made complication, and it is not needed. There is no Mr God. that does not mean that everything that exists is by random chance only. It is not. but the basis of this purpose behind it is the simple fact that matter itself has the ability of self-awareness, and the higher the structures it forms, the more it becomes aware of itself. Self-understanding is the motor behind the process of constant changing, transforming and developing that we call evolution. So much for survival of the fittest and me being representative for Darwin'S thinking - there are parallells between him and me, obviously - but I go beyond him while at the same time including him. As I see it and experienced it in meditation, there is no time, and there is no space that would be without my mind creating and forming them. they both are a function of my brain being active as an expression of the one quality of mind that in the end all universe and cosmos are made of, and caused by. and that is why I am not hesitant to say - and hopefully will drive all fundamentalists crazy and blowing up their heads over my heresy and arrogance ;) - that I am not more and not less God than you are, and my table is, and Jesus has been, and God himself should be. and that is the reason why Jesus said nobody reaches the father than through him, and other according quotes I do not take the time to write down again now. Only when seeing him in the light of this meaning, what Jesus said actually makes any sense that is beyond pure mysticism and miracle-believing. If you take him literally, you drown in confusion.

the problem is not me being a heretic and blowing my own existence up in importance - the problem is that some of you are so very happy to minimise themselves as much as possible. You want to be small and weak, and that's why you are small and weak in your superstitious beliefs. but nobody hinders you but your own traditions and religious institutions. The right to claim all freedom - is yours, since your birth. You are meant to grab it, and act responsibly on it. That is why you are what you are, and are not any different than that.

The key to many problems we have lies on a higher level of evolutional developement (=self-realisation of mind). That'S why there is no going back to the old good times - they only offer solutions that helped with probelms from mankind'S past. But any higher level we reach may bring the cure for problems of the present - but at the same time introduce new challenges and problems that do not beging to exist before reaching that new level. To heal this self-deception that there is a loving god caring for you - you need to gain more self-awareness - and that is much more than just sitting in silence and closing your eyes. It means mental developement, and leave your mental childhood behind when you believed in fairy tales and good fairies and shining knoights fighting the dragon to save you. that works nice for kids - from adults, we demand taking responsibility, and accepting the consequences from our acting or non-acting, and not worshipping the brothers Grimm. This is what Buddha said. This is what Jesus said, in different words. This is how the gospels make any sense - and then reveal a lot of reason and insight - they are no superficial fairytale to be taken literally. This is how the Christian mystics understood it, and lived it. and it also is the true and necessary basis for true love and understanding. and that is what it all is about: love. Believing in deities prevents you from really understanding that, forever, becasue you make it a deal of obeying and demanding in return. It makes you willing to limit yourself playing with puppets only that your forefathers have created. It makes you attaching strings to yourself and allow others to make you dance to their scriptures' jusic - or their interests. Of course you can do that, and find it enjoyable. but you waste this precious opportunity that your life is, and life a puppet's life only, controlled by ghosts of the far away past. Maybe that is good enough for some. But it is not good enough for me, and since I am already beyond that state of infantility and wishing to be save in the fairy tale garden, there is no way back for me - thank God! :lol:I do not tell anybody what to believe, and to believe like I do. I only give you this culture-free advise that I have quoted often before in this forum, and try to argue with it or see it as evil, if you can - it's your loss only, not mine. that is the most reasonable spiritual advise you could ever need:

Do not put faith in traditions, even though they have been accepted for long generations and in many countries. Do not believe a thing because many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on the authority of one or another of the sages of old, nor on the ground of statements as found in the books. Never believe anything because probability is in its favour. Do not believe in that which you yourselves have imagined, thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe nothing merely on the authority of the teachers or the priests. After examination, believe that which you have tested for yourself and found reasonable, which is in conformity with your well being and that of others

[Skybird]

Herein lies a big problem with believers...

True Christianity teaches one must realize that there is no way to reach a non-believer...period. It is not something that is within the power of a child of God to do.

The two are opposites and enimity with each other. The fleshly mind cannot grasp the the things of the spirit until God so chooses to show them the door.

So all a Christian can do is try to keep the porch light on showing there is a door...a way , a path. And so it will be as in the time of Naoh....Read the parable of the bridesmaids.

He that is unholy let him be unholy still. Only once God has revealed the Son to a person and that person "accepts and surrenders to God" can salvation and new life come....

until then they have ears but do not hear,eyes but don't see, they are dead...so do not become disheartened when they reject you...so did they to your master.

and what an honor to suffer some of the same as Christ.

Peace and do not cast your pearls before swine lest they trample them under foot.

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9726/creationismdx6.gif (http://imageshack.us/)

Congrats, and I wish you a happy honourable suffering.;)

[joea]

OK, that's exactly what I said... You voted "Other" but you ascribe to the belief that there was a creation process involved. You fall under the category creationist deist. I suspect most who are voting "Other" have similar leanings toward some sort of intelligent design theory.



Actually I am an Orthdox Christian (Greek Orthodox). I posted links explaining our view.

Mostly interesting thread.

[Skybird]

Mostly interesting thread.
I could imagine that not everybody agrees. :lol:

;) Anyway, for my own part I'm out here now. ;)

[StarFox]

Anyone ever heard of the FSM Church....at the least, it will make you laugh

[Jimbuna]

Mostly interesting thread.
I could imagine that not everybody agrees. :lol:

;) Anyway, for my own part I'm out here now. ;)

No! Wait! I've just arrived and can't sleep http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/1769/yawnbigji2.gif

[geetrue]

I can't criticise Islam - and at the same time remain silent about christian fundamentalism. If doing so, I would contradict myself. Both are offsprings of the same kind of blind and evil mind. Or of the same satan, if you like that better.


I don't like that better ... your thoughts of evil coming from the same source of good. Are these yours alone?

Romans 12:21 "Be ye not overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good"

[Tex]

"Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery."
Robert G. Ingersoll
1833-1899

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRJlVBQkSSI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncj_Y3POK24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDGMV4D__4I



Full movie here:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[Iceman]

I Love ya Skybird :up: I too wish you success in your endeavors.

Daniel 12
[10] Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

[XLjedi]

Nah... best to let the Darwin discussion just die.
Irrelevent anyway.

[XLjedi]

Evolution theory specifically argues the non-existance of any God-like or otherwise intelligent being anywhere in the process of creation.
What?

Evolution describes how lifeforms change and adapt, the process of dominance and survival.
It is not a theory on the origins of life.
It says nothing about gods.

Actually, it was a definition I had from a high school biology teacher...

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

It specifically states an unsupervised, impersonal and natural process based on chance.

[joegrundman]

Stop it Aaronblood, You know full well that the power of the theory of evolution does not in the slightest hinge on whether or not Darwin was racist. For heaven's sake he was an Englishman in the 19th century! He was a man of his times.

it is even irrelevant if he recanted on his deathbed.

[XLjedi]

Yeah I know... it's not really on topic... Should I just wipe it.

I sorta told folks I would read the stuff.

[joegrundman]

:rotfl: up to you! That last post is priceless. Be a shame to lose that too!:D

[XLjedi]

What? ...the wipe-it comment? It can stay.

Growing a tad tired of the whole thread anyway...

Gotta be a target intercept thead around here somewhere I can drudge up.

[Fish]

I sorta told folks I would read the stuff.

Here is good point to start.:up:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

And

Direct evidence for the Homo-Pan clade.
Wimmer R, Kirsch S, Rappold GA, Schempp W.
Institute of Human Genetics and Anthropology, University of Freiburg, Germany. For a long time, the evolutionary relationship between human and African apes, the 'trichotomy problem', has been debated with strong differences in opinion and interpretation. Statistical analyses of different molecular DNA data sets have been carried out and have primarily supported a Homo-Pan clade. An alternative way to address this question is by the comparison of evolutionarily relevant chromosomal breakpoints. Here, we made use of a P1-derived artificial chromosome (PAC)/bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) contig spanning approximately 2.8 Mb on the long arm of the human Y chromosome, to comparatively map individual PAC clones to chromosomes from great apes, gibbons, and two species of Old World monkeys by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. During our search for evolutionary breakpoints on the Y chromosome, it transpired that a transposition of an approximately 100-kb DNA fragment from chromosome 1 onto the Y chromosome must have occurred in a common ancestor of human, chimpanzee and bonobo. Only the Y chromosomes of these three species contain the chromosome-1-derived fragment; it could not be detected on the Y chromosomes of gorillas or the other primates examined. Thus, this shared derived (synapomorphic) trait provides clear evidence for a Homo-Pan clade independent of DNA sequence analysis.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

[Sailor Steve]

Actually, it was a definition I had from a high school biology teacher...

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

It specifically states an unsupervised, impersonal and natural process based on chance.
His personal opinion, not everyone's.

[Hakahura]

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9726/creationismdx6.gif (http://imageshack.us/)

Good Cartoon.

I voted for Evolutionist.
Not sure I can buy into the Creation myth as prestented by Christianity.
That doesn't mean there isn't a God though.


and it's possible she's black....



_

[XLjedi]

Actually, it was a definition I had from a high school biology teacher...

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

It specifically states an unsupervised, impersonal and natural process based on chance.
His personal opinion, not everyone's.

The teacher was quoting it from the 1995 National Association of Biology Teachers position on teaching evolution. I'm at least pleased to see that since then it has been slightly revised, and the "unsupervised" part was removed... That's at least good.

[Tchocky]

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

It specifically states an unsupervised, impersonal and natural process based on chance.
Yes, and completely disconnected from any religion. Not endorsing or ruling out any spiritual belief, because it is a scientific theory, making no prounouncement on religion.
It may go against what some religious texts claim, in some religions. But that is not important.

[DeepIron]

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.
This certainly is true enough. You can see in everyday in the species of cats, dogs, birds, etc that exist in the current time. However, using Darwinist Evolutionary Theory as applicable to Man is somewhat flawed. The "tree of life" as Darwin describes it simply doesn't exist.

To wit, Darwinist Theory breaks down in a number of areas and unfortunately, a number of observations and experiments that "support" it, having been proved false or flawed, are still taught in schools and universities to this day.

1. How do you explain the "Cambrian Explosion" the rapid occurance of most of the complex animals in the fossil record about 530 million years ago? Darwin himself saw this as a major issue against his theory of evolution by natural selection.
2. Darwin theorised that species evolve through the success of "traits" that helped them survive, the classic "survival of the fittest". If Darwinist Evolutionary theory is solely responsible for a success of a species, why don't we see more "intermediate forms" in the fossil record or in the present time?
3. The Miller/Urey experiment of 1953 where Miller created a few simple amino acids, the "building blocks of life" in a closed lab experiment was severly flawed. The "atmosphere" Miller used was not at all like the early atmosphere of the earth. Besides, the "amino acids" that were created were more like formadehyde, an "anti-life" compound.
4. Haeckle's Embryos. It has been conclusively shown that Haeckle not only chose embryos in varying stages of development, but that he actually "altered" the drawings to support his evolutionist conclusions.
5. Science has determined that the known universe is approximately 15 billion years old, and most astronomers and scientists acknowledge the "Big Bang" theory as having the most validity when compared to other theories. The possibility that atomic elements could combine to together to form compounds, thence amino acids, thence proteins, all in the correct sequences to create life (not to mention DNA and RNA chains), would far exceed the time the universe has been in existence.

[Tchocky]

You're an intermediate form,as am I.

[DeepIron]

You're an intermediate form, as am I. If indeed we are an "intermediate form" why don't we see this in other species? ;)

[August]

You're an intermediate form, as am I. If indeed we are an "intermediate form" why don't we see this in other species? ;)

Ever see a Mudskipper?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Periophthalmus_gracilis.jpg

[geetrue]

Speaking of fish ...

Did you know that there are over one hundred thousand different species of things under the ocean and that doesn't even include the fish.

Nobody can prove anything till they die ... then it's too late.

Dead men don't talk :arrgh!:

[antikristuseke]

You're an intermediate form, as am I. If indeed we are an "intermediate form" why don't we see this in other species? ;)

Allright ill give you just a single example, tiktaalik, look it up

[Tchocky]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Humanevolutionchart.png

[Skybird]

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.
This certainly is true enough. You can see in everyday in the species of cats, dogs, birds, etc that exist in the current time. However, using Darwinist Evolutionary Theory as applicable to Man is somewhat flawed. The "tree of life" as Darwin describes it simply doesn't exist.

To wit, Darwinist Theory breaks down in a number of areas and unfortunately, a number of observations and experiments that "support" it, having been proved false or flawed, are still taught in schools and universities to this day.

1. How do you explain the "Cambrian Explosion" the rapid occurance of most of the complex animals in the fossil record about 530 million years ago? Darwin himself saw this as a major issue against his theory of evolution by natural selection.
2. Darwin theorised that species evolve through the success of "traits" that helped them survive, the classic "survival of the fittest". If Darwinist Evolutionary theory is solely responsible for a success of a species, why don't we see more "intermediate forms" in the fossil record or in the present time?
3. The Miller/Urey experiment of 1953 where Miller created a few simple amino acids, the "building blocks of life" in a closed lab experiment was severly flawed. The "atmosphere" Miller used was not at all like the early atmosphere of the earth. Besides, the "amino acids" that were created were more like formadehyde, an "anti-life" compound.
4. Haeckle's Embryos. It has been conclusively shown that Haeckle not only chose embryos in varying stages of development, but that he actually "altered" the drawings to support his evolutionist conclusions.
5. Science has determined that the known universe is approximately 15 billion years old, and most astronomers and scientists acknowledge the "Big Bang" theory as having the most validity when compared to other theories. The possibility that atomic elements could combine to together to form compounds, thence amino acids, thence proteins, all in the correct sequences to create life (not to mention DNA and RNA chains), would far exceed the time the universe has been in existence.
All that is valid objection, and too interesting as if I could stay away :)

I recommend to make yourself familiar with concepts as developed by Erich Jantsch, Franesco Varela, Ilya Prigogine, Humberto Maturana, Hermann Haken, Ken Wilber, Heinz von Foerster, as well as (more speculative but still unobjected) Rupert Sheldrake.

as I said above, matter seem to have an inherent ability of self-organisation, meaning that in a chaos-theoretic sense structures are enfolded inside of it and unfold in an unpredictable (too complex thus chaotic) yet preconditioned manner. We also know from quantum sciences that two particles can be linked in a non-time-depending manner and their mutual behavior influenced by mind, as if they respond with a kind of mind by their own.

There is not really a linear "tree of life" as Darwin suggested. It is not that a species forms and transforms always towards a more modern and better design, and it also is not that there always is only one example of a developement tree - the spearhead of modernisation, so to speak. In fact, species from many time phases of earth'S history can coexist in time, for a longer or shorter period of time. Even some relics from the time of the dinosaurs continue to exist until today. Other first design studies, like the very huge single-cellular life forms that once have existed and reached sizes of up to 1-2 meters (all being just one single cell) may prove to be so unusable that they dissapear very quickly again. Evolution is not really any linear, but circular, it is not necessarily imporving, but sometimes even goes backward, or is simply changing. Only the general trend seem to be "upwards", while inside this trend single species nevertheless can get stuck, or move backward. the cambrium explosion oif lifeforms may have come from the fact that high developed multiple cell-lifeforms were relatively new, and little "experience" regarding how to approach such designs in the best way were "available" for Mrs Evolution. It s loike with econimoc growth of countries raising from a catastrophe or a war: in the beginning, everything is flat and empty, and thus high econmical growth rates are possible, but the more developed the economy is, the smaller the growth rates become, and the harder they are to be maintained.

for a fascinating and very enjoyable summary (600 pages) of the developement of life throughout the different phases of Earth's history, and the history of the oceans, I recommend frank Schätzing's "Nachrichten aus einem unbekannten Universum". It is aimed at the public market, and written in a very amusing, entertaining style. It is a great bestseller in Germany, since long time now.

I personally do not "believe" in the Big Bang. The theory raises more questions than it gives answers. Fact is - if something happend, why it happend, and when - we do not know. It has become a tradition of western thinking of the past 2000 years to think in linear time concepts (it has not always been like this, at least not exclusively), where quantums of time pass by and create a flow from the past towards the future. this way of thinking is challenged by physic scientists in some branches of theories, and it is replaced with a circular thinking in Asian philosophy. That we think there must have been a point in time that marks a beginning, comes from our linear time concept. In circles, you have no beginning. So, when philosophizing about the "beginning", or "origin" of existence, you cannot avoid to take the context of your thiniking's developement into account. In other words: it may be thats cience is not fit to answer the question for beginning(s) of universe(s). and in the infinite-world theory by Everett Gordon and Wheeler, every single event on quantum level already creates a splitiing of the universe in which it takes place: into one universe where it took place, and another universe where it did not take place. In other, a myriad of universes is created every i every moment, right now, ad infinitum. theory, yes. But on this matter, we probably will never have anything more than theories. seen pragmatically, it maybe doe snot make sense for john Smith to waste too much time on thinking about this all this. And even if he would find an answer that pleases him more than other theories - he still would need to live his life right here, and deal with the daily routines and challenges, and the reality as he perceives it. that puts the value of this effort into relation, i think. the same is true for mythologic explanations of why the universe, as we understand and interpret it, is there, instead of nothing.

Heraklit: panta rhei - probably one of the most reasonable and modest statements both in science and philosophy ever. In the end, the only thing we can be sure of only one thing, that in the world of form and matter, there is never a standstill, but everything chnages, and transforms, and gets tranformed into other forms. Lasting truths, final knowledge, maybe are not possible in that kind of everchanging world.

But maybe beyond this veil of Maya?

[Konovalov]

Speaking of evolution, a missing link has been found according to this article. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/02/21/1203467216357.html)

[DeepIron]

I recommend to make yourself familiar with concepts as developed by Erich Jantsch, Franesco Varela, Ilya Prigogine, Humberto Maturana, Hermann Haken, Ken Wilber, Heinz von Foerster, as well as (more speculative but still unobjected) Rupert Sheldrake.
These authors write mostly in the theoretical realms. Wilbers entwines mysticism with philosophy, Jantsch *assumes* self organizing, Haken's "Synergistics" is build on "self organization" which can be proven not to work when accessed as a system from which organic life has sprung. The other authors provide theories which are not proveable in their entirety. I'm not closed their points of view, it's simply that at some point, their theories break down leaving more than a few questions.


As I said above, matter seem to have an inherent ability of self-organisation, meaning that in a chaos-theoretic sense structures are enfolded inside of it and unfold in an unpredictable (too complex thus chaotic) yet preconditioned manner. We also know from quantum sciences that two particles can be linked in a non-time-depending manner and their mutual behavior influenced by mind, as if they respond with a kind of mind by their own. Matter is self organizing only at the most simplistic levels and is not capable of organizing into the more complex structures necessary to create life. To wit: to self organize molecules of sodium chloride will only result in repetitive chains of sodium chloride. There is no affinity for a sodium chloride molecule to organize with any other molecule.
What is missing is the ability to organize the far greater structure of even the simplest cell, an organism that is powered, reproduced and made unique of "molecular machines", each with it's own unique structure, and requiring its own organization.

For life to have arisen from "self organization" is simply too astronomically remote to consider.

There is not really a linear "tree of life" as Darwin suggested. It is not that a species forms and transforms always towards a more modern and better design, and it also is not that there always is only one example of a developement tree - the spearhead of modernisation, so to speak. In fact, species from many time phases of earth'S history can coexist in time, for a longer or shorter period of time. Even some relics from the time of the dinosaurs continue to exist until today. Other first design studies, like the very huge single-cellular life forms that once have existed and reached sizes of up to 1-2 meters (all being just one single cell) may prove to be so unusable that they dissapear very quickly again. Evolution is not really any linear, but circular, it is not necessarily imporving, but sometimes even goes backward, or is simply changing. Only the general trend seem to be "upwards", while inside this trend single species nevertheless can get stuck, or move backward. the cambrium explosion oif lifeforms may have come from the fact that high developed multiple cell-lifeforms were relatively new, and little "experience" regarding how to approach such designs in the best way were "available" for Mrs Evolution. It s loike with econimoc growth of countries raising from a catastrophe or a war: in the beginning, everything is flat and empty, and thus high econmical growth rates are possible, but the more developed the economy is, the smaller the growth rates become, and the harder they are to be maintained. The unfortunate aspect of this theory is that there is absolutely no record of this ascension in the fossil record. The other aspect is that the Cambrian Explosion occured in a very short (geologically speaking) span of time. There has been nothing like it since..

Another issue, in your example of economies, *something* acts as a stimulus...


for a fascinating and very enjoyable summary (600 pages) of the developement of life throughout the different phases of Earth's history, and the history of the oceans, I recommend frank Schätzing's "Nachrichten aus einem unbekannten Universum". It is aimed at the public market, and written in a very amusing, entertaining style. It is a great bestseller in Germany, since long time now. I will have to look into it. Thank you.

I personally do not "believe" in the Big Bang. The theory raises more questions than it gives answers. Fact is - if something happend, why it happend, and when - we do not know. It is a tradition of western thinking to think in linear time concepts, where quantums of time pass by and create a flow from the past topwards the future. this way of thining is questioned by phasicists in some branches of theories, and it is replaced with a circular thinking in Asian ophilosophy. That we think there must have been a point in time that marks a beginning, comes from our linear time concept. In circles, you have no beginning. So, when philosophizing about the "beginning", or "origin" of existence, you cannot avoid to take the context of your thiniking's developement into account. In other words: it may be thats cience is not fit to answer the question for beginning(s) of universe(s). and in the infinite-world theory by Everett Gordon and Wheeler, every single event on quantum level already creates a splitiing of the universe in which it takes place: into one universe where it took place, and another universe where it did not take place. In other, a myriad of universes is created every i every moment, right now, ad infinitum. theory, yes. But on this matter, we probably will never have anything more than theories. seen pragmatically, it maybe doe snot make sense for john Smith to waste too much time on thinking about this all this. And even if he would find an answer that pleases him more than other theories - he still would need to live his life right here, and deal with the daily routines and challenges, and the reality as he perceives it. that puts the value of this effort into relation, i think. the same is true for mythologic explanations of why the universe, as we understand and interpret it, is there, instead of nothing.
I think you would find the Kalam Cosmological Argument very interesting. I has been around for a very long time and has been passed down for centuries. Simply stated, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is constituted by 3 sub-arguments:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

A practical example. If you and a friend were sitting at an outdoor cafe and a car nearby "backfired", and your friend asked, "what caused that?" You wouldn't say, "Nothing caused it." Why? Because something caused it.

Speaking of evolution, a missing link has been found according to this article. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/02/21/1203467216357.html) Hmm, I think a "missing link" concerning a particular simple single celled organism and algae is interesting, but a far cry from the evolutionist thinking regarding the ascension of Man from the apes... for which no "missing link" has ever been found.
Please note also the article calls it "the nearest relative". This certainly doesn't validate at all that the organism IS from the same phyllum or species branch and leaves much detail unanswered.

[XLjedi]

The unfortunate aspect of this theory is that there is absolutely no record of this ascension in the fossil record. The other aspect is that the Cambrian Explosion occured in a very short (geologically speaking) span of time. There has been nothing like it since..

Obviously, you have not read X-Men.

[DeepIron]

Obviously, you have not read X-Men.
Ouch! :cry: I place the X-Men and Darwins Evolutionary Theories in the same context of non-reality. Except I like the X-Men better...:up:

Allright ill give you just a single example, tiktaalik, look it up.
Regarding the Tiktaalik: In Canada, paleontologists have discovered parts of the skeleton of a three-metre-long animal which made a far-reaching step in evolution, i.e. the transition from water to land around 375 million years ago. The creature called Tiktaalit had fins resembling legs.
"Parts of an animal"... Hmm, ok. I'll give them that. Sounds like the same story that was used to describe the Archaeopteryx, ( of which at least 8 specimes were found, the first in 1861 ) as the "missing link" between reptiles and birds. However, it has been proven since that there are FAR too many structural differences between Archaeopteryx and modern birds for the latter to be descendents of the former.

Considering that the Tiktaalik remnants are so newly found (2006) and so few (one instance), I think it presumptive to declare it as the "missing link" between amphibians and reptiles.

BTW, Owen used a evolutionist argument that used the homology of vertebrate limbs as a common "archetype" to support evolution. He compared the forelimbs of a bat, a porpoise, a horse and a human and declared them to be homologous. Unfortunately Owen's argument was circular, he defined homology as similarity due to common descent then used it as evidence for common descent.

Another point, biologists have known for centuries that homologous features are NOT due to similar genes, so the mechanism that produces them are still unknown.

So, I wouldn't jump on the "conclusive evidence bandwagon" of the Tiklaalik quite yet...

Ever see a Mudskipper?
A Mudskipper is an amphibian, no more or less. In this regards, it no more unique than a frog, newt or salamander. In what way does a Mudskipper prove itself to be an intermediate form of ???

[XLjedi]

:lol: Ohhh... ya know, sometimes I just utterly fail to exercise any restraint.

I was just about to unsubscribe too...

[August]

[A Mudskipper is an amphibian, no more or less. In this regards, it no more unique than a frog, newt or salamander. In what way does a Mudskipper prove itself to be an intermediate form of ???

Frogs, Newts or Salamanders do not have gills. A mudskipper does. That alone makes it more than your average amphibian.

[DeepIron]

[A Mudskipper is an amphibian, no more or less. In this regards, it no more unique than a frog, newt or salamander. In what way does a Mudskipper prove itself to be an intermediate form of ???
Frogs, Newts or Salamanders do not have gills. A mudskipper does. That alone makes it more than your average amphibian.
Actually, I must correct my previous error. Mudskippers are members of the family Gobiidae, or Gobies, a fish. Not Amphibia as I posted earlier. Hence the gills...

The Mudskipper therefore has shown an adaptation to its environment, and this certainly does not invalidate natural selection. However, we don't see a fish evolving to walk on land in this case. Instead, we see a survival trait that has been continued in the species as successful.

One could argue that because the legs of the mudskipper allow it more effectively on land, that this is significant to an evolutionary line of reasoning. But again, however, we don't see the mudskipper "evolving" past its current anatomical form, nor do we see "ascendents" deriving from the mudskipper.

Perhaps we should consider "anti-evolution", as manifested in the sharks, crocodiles and the ancient coelacanth, to name a few. The latter having not evolved in millions of years to the modern day and supported by such evidence as found the fossil record.

[antikristuseke]

Actually, I must correct my previous error. Mudskippers are members of the family Gobiidae, or Gobies, a fish. Not Amphibia as I posted earlier. Hence the gills...

The Mudskipper therefore has shown an adaptation to its environment, and this certainly does not invalidate natural selection. However, we don't see a fish evolving to walk on land in this case. Instead, we see a survival trait that has been continued in the species as successful.

One could argue that because the legs of the mudskipper allow it more effectively on land, that this is significant to an evolutionary line of reasoning. But again, however, we don't see the mudskipper "evolving" past its current anatomical form, nor do we see "ascendents" deriving from the mudskipper. Well adaptation to environment is what evolution is. What you seem to be against is speciation, which has allso been observed. Leaving your position with little to no ground to stand on

Perhaps we should consider "anti-evolution", as manifested in the sharks, crocodiles and the ancient coelacanth, to name a few. The latter having not evolved in millions of years to the modern day and supported by such evidence as found the fossil record.
they have changed over time, but to a very small degree due to the fact that they are allready very well adapted to surviving in their given environments.

[Skybird]

Deepiron, the scientists I mentioned partially are theoretic workers, yes, however that does not necessarily minimize their conclusions and insights which have influence far beyond the scientists oroginal field (and else the Nobel comittee would have been more carefully, I assume), and anyway: I just wanted to point at that scientific thinking as well as certain philosophical and mystic traditions agree in what I would describe as a general trend, an inherent characterstic of material existence: that it has a self-emerging ability, a inherent potential to develope from an inferior to a superior order of complexity, and that the emerging of consciousness has something to do with it. Different to what some people here may think about me, I do not think that science alone will ever be complete an approach to the the existential question if you leave out the philosophical and spiritual dimension - and the latter are uncomplete without the scientific approach. what imo must be the common basis for all three, is reason, else creative science turns into fruitless dogma, philosophy turns into shallow mysticism, and spirituality turns into superstition.

to bring all these different approaches together, give them their just place in the spectrum of existence, but also define the borders and limits of each of these appraoches, is the service of Ken Wilber. As you described him, it sounded as if you think he mixes it up. but he does not - exactly the opposite.

Self-emerging order seem to be present on many if not all levels, and in many if not all fields of scientific observation, from chemistry over physical phenomenons to social communities, the synchronicity of new developements in nature as well as man's history, the behavior of galaxies or the coordinated movement of fish swarms. We have just begun to discover these phenomenons on the meta-level, I mean: outside laboratory conditions when handling with test tubes. Science and spirituality are not contradictory, imo. In fact, they need each other, and are mutually stimulating, as long as reason is the leading principle that binds both. As one of my favourite quotes goes, by einstein: "Imagination is more important than knowing facts." Vision is what gives sciences it's direction, and spirituality it's cause. I there would be no vision of something different - why would there be any need for the one or the other? How could there be ever any understanding that does not stagnate, but is growing in itself? And if I should see it right indeed and evolution means nothing else than a growing degree of the cosmos becoming aware of itself and realizing itself - how could that ever be possible without the realm of what is known trying to explore the realm of what still is unknown - by reason, science and spirituality? - If I eventually just "believe" in something like other believe in their religion - this is as close to it as it gets. And that is why I describe myself as atheistic, antitheistic, spiritual, and basing on logic and reason as well as subjective experience. In the end, what I call reality is inside my brain, inside my mind, inside my thoughts, and if my reality is pictured and imagined the same as yours - we will never know for sure in this phase of our mental evolution.

Or in short: evolution is a state of mind.

[August]

But again, however, we don't see the mudskipper "evolving" past its current anatomical form, nor do we see "ascendents" deriving from the mudskipper.

Of course not, it's very difficult to detect motion from a snapshot.

[DeepIron]

Well adaptation to environment is what evolution is. That is one aspect of evolution and not one that I'm particularly against. In actuality I support evolutionary theory in this context. As for speciation, I'm sure that it's a fact. The upshot of speciation is simple, species differ within their own family. What you don't see are creatures like centaurs, or merfolk... Which, if you take Darwin's theories at face value, one should be properly expected to see.

And of course, the Platypus, is certainly one of the oddest creatures known. A duckbilled, warm blooded mammal that lays eggs... Darwin must turn over in his grave on that one!

What I don't believe or support is Darwins theory that we all share a common ancestor, which is the crux of his Theory of Evolution. Frankly, the evidence supporting it simply doens't bear up under careful and logical scrutiny. I do believe, and moreover, modern science is bearing out the arguments for Intelligent Design which would fall into the Creationist camp, and the real topic of the thread anyway.

Of course not, it's very difficult to detect motion from a snapshot. What I fail to understand is in what timeframe do we quantify "a shotshot"?

[August]

What I fail to understand is in what timeframe do we quantify "a shotshot"?

"Shotshot"? :D

[DeepIron]

What I fail to understand is in what timeframe do we quantify "a shotshot"?
"Shotshot"? :D

Hey, I'm evolving... lemme be...
http://www.northrim.net/jhouck/images/Calvin_and_Hobbes_sm.jpg

[mrbeast]

1. How do you explain the "Cambrian Explosion" the rapid occurance of most of the complex animals in the fossil record about 530 million years ago? Darwin himself saw this as a major issue against his theory of evolution by natural selection.

Scientists are not quite sure why the 'Cambrian explosion' happend. But it doesn't neccesarily invalidate Darwin. Sudden or rapid in a geological sense is a very long time, its only rapid when you put it in a geological context. In this case we could be talking anywhere between 10 to 40 million years. Evolution can speed up or slow down, it does not occur at a constant rate. As environmental conditions change or go through periods of virtual status quo, so evolution speeds and slows. Take human evolution from early Homonids to Homo Sapiens; 4 to 3 million years? Then look at the changes in evironmental conditions in Africa then, the fairly rapid change from rain forrest to grassland. Could there be a corelation between that and our appearance? In the Cambrian case the earth had recently come out of a global ice age, that warming and the evolution of lifeforms prior to that could well have combined to see the explosion. Also bear in mind that Darwin does not have access to the 150 or so years of scientific advances and discoveries that we do. If we could resurect Darwin would he still be as stumped by the 'Cambrian explosion'?.


2. Darwin theorised that species evolve through the success of "traits" that helped them survive, the classic "survival of the fittest". If Darwinist Evolutionary theory is solely responsible for a success of a species, why don't we see more "intermediate forms" in the fossil record or in the present time?

As Tchoky posted, 'we are all intermediate forms'. species don't have a point where they stop evolving. For example; a wolf won't stop evolving now just because we now identify as a wolf and like it that way. Agreed animals may reach an optimum adapted form for the current evironmental conditions that they live in. But these conditons will not remain indefinately. But even then they don't stop evolving, the adaptations may simply slow or become less noticable. If the conditions change the species will either evolve to adapt or nature will select it for extincton. Its sobering to think that the vast majority of species that ever lived are now extinct and most will never be known to us.

There are also many problems with the fossil record, it is far from complete. The formation of fossils is not particularly common and there are many ways in which fossils can be destroyed by nature. So it may be that the fossils simply no longer exsist. Also the vaults of museums are packed with unstudied fossils crated up and gathering dust, who is to say how many intermediate species are lying around unknown.

3. The Miller/Urey experiment of 1953 where Miller created a few simple amino acids, the "building blocks of life" in a closed lab experiment was severly flawed. The "atmosphere" Miller used was not at all like the early atmosphere of the earth. Besides, the "amino acids" that were created were more like formadehyde, an "anti-life" compound.

The results of Millers experaments do not debunk evolution. There is a lot we don't know about what the conditions which life appeared were. Miller's tests were not the be all and end all. There have been other experiments done using different atmospheric conditions which have produced amino acids. Also life may have begun away from the amosphere on the sea floor for example, perhaps it hitched a lift as microbes on a meteor or commet? Also some chemicals which can be toxic are actually part of the process of building compounds like amino acids, their toxicity is irrellevant in this case.

4. Haeckle's Embryos. It has been conclusively shown that Haeckle not only chose embryos in varying stages of development, but that he actually "altered" the drawings to support his evolutionist conclusions.

He did indeed falsify some of his evidence or skate over other parts. But again that does not debunk evolution. Similarities between embryos of different species do exsist but also why should we accept all embryos to look the same? That was Haeckle's mistake.

5. Science has determined that the known universe is approximately 15 billion years old, and most astronomers and scientists acknowledge the "Big Bang" theory as having the most validity when compared to other theories. The possibility that atomic elements could combine to together to form compounds, thence amino acids, thence proteins, all in the correct sequences to create life (not to mention DNA and RNA chains), would far exceed the time the universe has been in existence.

15 billion years is a very looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. :hmm::o


Good post though DeepIron, something that can be engaged with, not just a torrent of Biblical rhetoric. :up:

A question for creationists though: Why do humans have vestigial tails?

[joegrundman]

This whole debate is pointless. It may sound like the two sides are having a debate, but they aren't. Both are speaking what may as well be different languages because they are coming from such very different positions. This position is best illustrated by that cartoon that skybird posted regarding the different epistomological methods. You know, scientists look at facts and ask for supportable conclusions whereas it's the other way around with creationists.

What the debate amounts to is:

evolution supporters say "look at this vast amount of evidence and the sheer logical force of the argument and you must accept it". Whereas creationists say "Don't you see? Look in the Bible, first book! This is what God did!"

No matter how many times this is repeated, it won't work because neither party is using a line of argument that the other gives any credence to. The fact that more evidence and more spurious counterarguments can be wheeled into play is irrelevent - there are always more, or rehashed counterarguments, the evidence can always be ignored or denied. The purpose of creationist counter-arguments anyway is not, i suspect, to convince the other side, but to convince themselves that they may continue believing in creationism and still claim to be logical, truthful and scientific in the process.

(Forget ID, no one believes it. Scientists do not and neither do creationists as that fully contradicts the genesis story too.)

DOn't believe me? OK I'll ask Deep Iron as a representative creationist. After how much more evidence has been presented and after how many of the creationists' spurious counter-arguments have been carefully demolished and after how many of the wrinkles of the theory have been ironed out (for it is a living theory that is still being refined) will you turn around and say, you know what, you are right and I'm wrong, and I guess I'm just going to have to get on with the difficult task of reconciling evolution with my faith and Chrisitanity and the conclusion that the bible cannot be entirely, literally true?

I'll ask Tchocky as a representative evolutionist. After how many times of having the relevant passages of the bible pointed out to you, and after how many times of clever but ultimately spurious counter-arguments pointed out to you, will you turn around and say, you know what, you are right and I'm wrong. You have planted doubt in my mind regarding the validity of evolution theory and logic and that means that the biblical tale is likely the literal truth. It is God's word, as you say, and best not to disagree with the big fellow.

Personally I really don't understand why so many Christians are so hostile to evolution and see it as such a threat.

I'll tell you all this: Both Christianity and Evolution are here to stay. That goes for other religions and the rest of science too. You can continue to fight about it, or you can try and learn to live together and accept perhaps that you don't know how to exactly reconcile these seeming areas of contradiction. Perhaps both are true. After all Jesus can be all God and all man at the same time.

Another thing. Christian fundamentalists have just had 8years of the most friendly government they are likely to see for some time, and they did not intervene in this debate. They allowed Christians to make some plays, for to lose their votes would be foolish, but when it was defeated in the courtroom, they allowed the momentum to whither. They do not want an end to real science.

The high-tech sector is very important to the US economy, and that includes big pharmaceutical companies that need world-class biologists and big oil that needs world-class geologists. To become these things you need to have faith in the validity of the scientific method and the confidence that your own conclusions, that may contradict preconceived beliefs, may in fact be the right ones, and that the previous authority was wrong. Thus creationists will never "win" the battle to get creationism taught in the science class.

Well, ultimately I don't care. I'm not American, but I do know a lot of european and east asian scientists. In fact I'm married to one. If the demand for world-class scientists increases because of a decrease in the quantity of American ones, that will increase our family's disposable income. So I in fact will be a winner if creationists get their way in US science classes, so go on boys and girls, don't give up the fight:arrgh!:

[Boris]

What people should keep in mind is that evolution occurs over thousands of generations for even the slightest change.
One very small example of human evolution is that Europeans can tolerate lactose far better than almost all other races, since the people of western Europe were the first to drink raw milk thousands of years ago. Europeans have evolved to tolerate drinking milk. In fact, about 70% of the world's popualtion is still lactose intolerant.

This is hardly concrete proof of evolution, but it's an example of a change which has happened within our species, within a (relatively) short time span.

Evolution has in fact been proven though, it is occurring everywhere and it's easily measureable.
Micro-organisms go through several generations at incredible speed, and thus their evolutionary progress can be seen from one day to the next. This is FACT. Evolution is happening at the bacterial level at the very least. This alone is enough to debunk the literal interpreation of creationism.

[DeepIron]

@Mrbeast, I think there is a big difference between those who search out the truth of Creation, and those who simply accept it. I'm trying to argue from the point of a "scientific and proveable" argument for Intelligent Design. I read the Scriptures certainly, and some of what is there is pretty strange, but after reading and considering the mounting evidence, and yes, one can call it evidence to support ID, my acceptance of the teachings of Jesus Christ have become more understandable and desirable too.

A question for creationists though: Why do humans have vestigial tails?
For the same reason we have an appendix? :lol: Actually, the vestigial tail is considered be a case of spina bifida, where the embryonic structure supporting the formation of the spinal cord is not completely absorbed during fetal development. So say the physicians and biologists.

Don't believe me? OK I'll ask Deep Iron as a representative creationist. After how much more evidence has been presented and after how many of the creationists' spurious counter-arguments have been carefully demolished and after how many of the wrinkles of the theory have been ironed out (for it is a living theory that is still being refined) will you turn around and say, you know what, you are right and I'm wrong, and I guess I'm just going to have to get on with the difficult task of reconciling evolution with my faith and Chrisitanity and the conclusion that the bible cannot be entirely, literally true?
You appear argue from the standpoint that you think I'm close minded to the thoughts of Darwinist Evolution. This is not true. As I've stated before, I don't prescribe to Mankind ascending from a common ancestor as Darwin theorizes. Other than that, I have don't have issues reconciling evolutionary changes with my belief in God.

The other issue I have is the continuing education of the public in the iconic examples of Darwinist Evolution that have long been debunked or simply proven false. The Miller/Urey experiment is still taught as being valid, the Haeckle Embryos are still taught as valid. Owen's Homology is still taught as valid. The truth is this, they, and other examples of Darwins evolution are not valid as proven in the face of modern scientific methods and research.

"Ironically, to say that science is the only begetter of truth is contridicting, because that statement by itself cannot be tested by the scientific method. It's a self defeating philosphical assumption" ~ Stephen C Meyer, Ph.D.

(Forget ID, no one believes it. Scientists do not and neither do creationists as that fully contradicts the genesis story too.)
You are quite wrong in this point. The scientific community has come to embrace more and more the idea of Intelligent Design. In practically all disciplines, cosmology, geology, biology, etc, the scientific community has come to a realization that increasingly, the theory that our universe and the life within is the result of ID. Some prominent scientists (all Ph.Ds) of which you might care to read would be Johnathan Wells, Stephen C. Meyer, William Lane Craig, Robin Collins, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards, Michael J. Behe, J.P. Moreland but to name a few.

Why is this? Simple really. All other theories fall short. "Science is the search for truth" and why does a universe designed by intelligence invalidate the truth of it? Science and faith are not opposites, they are complimentary. In many cases, scientists, prominent in their fields of research have admitted that their relationship with an Intelligent Creator, or God, if you will, has been created and strengthened. These are men not given to wild speculations, but the most painstaking research and fact finding.

Consider the words of William Provine of Cornell University, "If Darwinism is true, there are five inescapable conclusions":

1. There is no evidence for God
2. There's no life after death.
3. There's no absolute foundation for right or wrong.
4. There's no ultimmate meaning for life.
5. People don't really have free will.

I don't argue or counter-argue my belief in an Intelligent Creator from the standpoint of some starry eyed, empty-headed Jesus freak. I test my faith and resolve by reading, understanding and questioning the world around me. To be frank, it's taken my a long, long time to reconcile my intelligent self to my spiritual self. And I still have doubts everyday.

BTW, I've found this thread to be a lot of fun and useful in its course. :yep:

[Skybird]

As a matter of fact, creationism is no longer an exclusivly american phenomenon, but has become popular in europe, esoecially some of the former soviet satellite nations, and even was able to jump into nthe Muslim world. In turkey, creationism is becoming very popular, in some branches of Islam, creationistic ideas have always been present since Rumi, and this fella here has started a huge and highly successful offensive of adopting the American version of creationism, tailoring and redesigning it according to Islamic demands, and publishing it en masse.

http://www.hyahya.org/
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_01.php
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_II/atlas_creation_II_01.php
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_III/atlas_creation_III_01.php

meanwhile, fundamental sects in Germany have increased their efforts to gain independence from obligatory public school aducation, and the reawakening of orthodox or even fundamentalistic interpretations of christinaity is to be seen and felt throughout the Western world, partially due to the raising uncertainity of the future (economy, job, environment), partially in response to excessive materialism, and partially in response to the perceived intimidatin threat of Islam. At the same time, creatinists have challenged public education and school in america for several time in the Us over the last couple of years.

So, joegrundman, it is not as harmless as you may think when saying that "they allowed the momentum to wither". certain branches of sciences are also still under debate in the US, stem cell research for example, which ics blocked by Bush himself (who also propagated in public that intelligent design should be taught at schools).

Else I agree with you. We do not have a cause in this debate, we have a hobby. and we find it entertaining. ;)

[Skybird]

"If Darwinism is true, there are five inescapable conclusions":

1. There is no evidence for God
2. There's no life after death.
3. There's no absolute foundation for right or wrong.
4. There's no ultimmate meaning for life.
5. People don't really have free will.


That is nonsens.

[Boris]

Consider the words of William Provine of Cornell University, "If Darwinism is true, there are five inescapable conclusions":

1. There is no evidence for God
2. There's no life after death.
3. There's no absolute foundation for right or wrong.
4. There's no ultimmate meaning for life.
5. People don't really have free will.


That's just BS rhetoric. Where the hell did this William Provine pull that from. Inescapeable conclusions??? The concept of evolution does none of those things... not one.

BTW: I already mentioned evolution is a proven process which can be observed. End of argument.

[joegrundman]

You appear argue from the standpoint that you think I'm close minded to the thoughts of Darwinist Evolution. This is not true. As I've stated before, I don't prescribe to Mankind ascending from a common ancestor as Darwin theorizes. Other than that, I have don't have issues reconciling evolutionary changes with my belief in God.

You mean you are not even a creationist? You believe in evolution but not as it would therefore apply to humans. Bah! Is that how the Bible describes it?

I at least respect the integrity of strict new earth creationists - it's what it says in the bible, no variation. But your kind of thing..?

Why don't you spell out what you think happened, more or less when, and how and why. Then we'll all take a look. Maybe you are right, you know. That's the way it works. Lay your theory out in one post (if it will fit) in a logical and clear presentation and let everyone test it.

But let's not re-hash ID - you are wrong about the rising acceptance of ID among scientists and naming a handful of people as some kind of proof. A dozen names out of millions doesn't prove much. Among the science community ID has been thoroughly and fatally discredited.

As for rising creationism in Europe, yes, it's an issue but i think much less of one than in the US. But i do care much more about what happens in Europe than in the US, for sure, and I do believe that "our creationists" follow American creationists' lead, or rather perceived success. In this regard what happens in the US does have consequences in Europe. But that muslims wish to jump on this bandwagon troubles me not in the slightest. In fact I am amused at the possibility of an axis of fundamentalism some way down the road, even if in reality it's no laughing matter.

I think that stem cell research is a red herring. It's likely that there will be ways around the problem within a few years. And besides, even if there isn't a way around, this just gives a comparative advantage to european science and pharmaceutical companies. Why should that trouble me?

[Sailor Steve]

End of argument.
:rotfl:
Like that'll ever happen.

[Onkel Neal]

It sure sounded final, though :)

[DeepIron]

That's just BS rhetoric. Where the hell did this William Provine pull that from. Inescapeable conclusions??? The concept of evolution does none of those things... not one. Did you take the time to see who William Provine is? From your post I'd assume not. Let me provide you with a URL: http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/provine/provineworks.html (http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/provine/provineworks.html)
It's interesting to note that a man so distinguished as Provine would make such an observation as that I have posted. Especially since the man is an atheist and a staunch opponent of intelligent design! Get the drift? He's a supporter of Evolution Theory and STILL has made the previously posted points! Unless you operate at the same educated and intellectual level as Dr. Provine, I can scarcely consider your opinion of his conclusions "BS rhetoric".

BTW: I already mentioned evolution is a proven process which can be observed. End of argument. Not quite...;)

That is nonsense. Why? Let's consider the points:
1. Darwin asserts that life is a result of random chance coupled with natural selection to perpetuate a species. Random chance in that atomic elements somehow combined to form the building blocks of life, while life itself, to quote Darwin, "arose in some small, warm pool of water". Pretty vague a beginning for Man. Then natual selection takes over to continue desirable traits and afford enough diversity to create all the phyla we have today. No need for God when these two principal forces are at work.
2. If God doesn't exist, then the whole scriptural story of the Resurrection (or the Bible itself for that matter) didn't happen and Jesus was a fraud and didn't raise from the dead. John 3:16 is meaningless.
3. Without God, there is no right or wrong. We can make up our morals as we go and the basis for all we believe is destroyed. Atrocities like torturing children and raping women would be just fine if society deemed it so. (BTW, ask yourself if these things are right or wrong, how you know the difference and from whence you learned it.)
4. We're born, we live, we die. Period. Life has no higher meaning than that we can create for ourselves in our finite meaningless lives. We're just a bunch of complicated monkeys.
5. The concept of free will becomes invalid. Your life choices all lead to the same end. Death and finality.

You mean you are not even a creationist? You believe in evolution but not as it would therefore apply to humans. Bah! Is that how the Bible describes it? Evidently you haven't read my previous posts too well. And what, labeling me a "Creationist" must certainly conjure up some preconceived notions regarding my intelligence and personality. Probably in the negative... Do you find it difficult to accept that I can reconcile aspects of evolution with faith in God? Guess it just doesn't fit because I'm a "Creationist"... and hence, stupid or narrow-minded... or worse, blindly, unquestioningly faithful... :lol:

Why don't you spell out what you think happened, more or less when, and how and why. Then we'll all take a look. Maybe you are right, you know. That's the way it works. Lay your theory out in one post (if it will fit) in a logical and clear presentation and let everyone test it. If I had all the answers then I would be God, but I don't so I'm not. Do you have all the answers and would you care to substantiate and share them? I'm open-minded enough to consider your point of view.

But let's not re-hash ID But Intelligent Design is integral with creation. Does the thought of having been designed bother you? If you consider yourself just a "complicated monkey" then so be it. Have a nice life.


- you are wrong about the rising acceptance of ID among scientists and naming a handful of people as some kind of proof. A dozen names out of millions doesn't prove much. But I've at least substantiated my point to a degree, and a few names out of "millions" are something, while you, on the other hand, have done nothing but emptily refuted it.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
The list which started with 100 prominent scientists just a few years ago, has now risen to over 700. Hmm, seems to be a trend here... There is a link on the page to a .pdf containing the names of those who have signed.

Among the science community ID has been thoroughly and fatally discredited.You might take note that this list contains some of the most notable names for almost all fields of science. BTW, I challenge you to provide any substatiation for your "discredited" statement. Certainly, as sure as your are about your information in this regards, providing a few credible links shouldn't be hard. Right?

Two more quotes:
"Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology," says dissent list signer Dr. Michael Egnor. Egnor is a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook and an award-winning brain surgeon named one of New York's best doctors by New York Magazine.

"We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others," added Egnor. "The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions. They've never asked scientifically if random mutation and natural selection can generate the information content in living things."


Quite interesting statements from a "complex monkey" methinks... ;)

[joegrundman]

You mean you are not even a creationist? You believe in evolution but not as it would therefore apply to humans. Bah! Is that how the Bible describes it?
Evidently you haven't read my previous posts too well. And what, labeling me a "Creationist" must certainly conjure up some preconceived notions regarding my intelligence and personality. Probably in the negative... You seem find it difficult to accept that I can reconcile aspects of evolution with faith in God? Guess it just doesn't fit your bias towards me because I'm a "Creationist"... and hence, stupid or narrow-minded... or worse, blindly faithful... :lol:

errm..ok...whatever dude. Really I have no problem with people trying to reconcile their beliefs and the scientific developments. I see it all the time with scientists who are also religious. In fact i think it's somehting that has to happen, but how this reconciliation occurs is important. ID is not it, i'm afraid, as the ID drive on schools was really an assault on science, not an attempt to reconcile.

Why don't you spell out what you think happened, more or less when, and how and why. Then we'll all take a look. Maybe you are right, you know. That's the way it works. Lay your theory out in one post (if it will fit) in a logical and clear presentation and let everyone test it. If I had all the answers then I would be God, but I don't so I'm not. Do you have all the answers and would you care to substantiate and share them? I'm open-minded enough to consider your point of view.


Don't be silly. Although if you are now claiming you don't have a theory, I'll accept that. As for my theory why don't we just say it is the theory of evolution.


But let's not re-hash ID
But Intelligent Design is integral with creation. Does the thought of having been designed bother you? If you consider yourself just a "complicated monkey" then so be it.


It doesn't really bother me, no, I just don't believe it. More to the point, why does it bother you so much to think that you did evolve through random mutation?

Incidentally, as an IDer do you not also believe monkeys are intelligently designed?


The list which started with 100 prominent scientists just a few years ago, has now risen to over 700. Hmm, seems to be a trend here... There is a link on the page to a .pdf containing the names of those who have signed.


Yes i looked at that. I know a lot of MD's and Phds, and I'm afraid the 700 does not make a drop in the ocean. Frequently there are 700 in the same room as me, and i talk to them. I can tell you from first hand experience, you are not infallible once you have a phd or md, and nor do you all become experts in every field. Look how many phd's and highly educated people are in the 911 truth movement for an example.

this is not to say i hold phd's in low regard. the opposite is in fact the case, and they are a worthy thing to aspire to.

Certainly, as sure as your are about your information in this regards, providing a few credible links shouldn't be hard. Right?


Surely you jest. Very droll. Otherwise you couldn't possibly make out you haven't heard any of the vast amount of literature on the matter, or even that well known court case.

why not try a google search on "debunking ID" and another on "ID and creationism" and tell me when you've finished reading it all.

OK, good luck and nice talking to you, I'm outta here.

Joe

[DeepIron]

Quote:
You mean you are not even a creationist? You believe in evolution but not as it would therefore apply to humans. Bah! Is that how the Bible describes it?
Evidently you haven't read my previous posts too well. And what, labeling me a "Creationist" must certainly conjure up some preconceived notions regarding my intelligence and personality. Probably in the negative... You seem find it difficult to accept that I can reconcile aspects of evolution with faith in God? Guess it just doesn't fit your bias towards me because I'm a "Creationist"... and hence, stupid or narrow-minded... or worse, blindly faithful... :lol:

errm..ok...whatever dude.
C'mon refute me! Show a little of that randomly created mass of grey matter!


Quote:
Why don't you spell out what you think happened, more or less when, and how and why. Then we'll all take a look. Maybe you are right, you know. That's the way it works. Lay your theory out in one post (if it will fit) in a logical and clear presentation and let everyone test it.
If I had all the answers then I would be God, but I don't so I'm not. Do you have all the answers and would you care to substantiate and share them? I'm open-minded enough to consider your point of view.

Don't be silly. Although if you are now claiming you don't have a theory, I'll accept that. As for my theory why don't we just say it is the theory of evolution. To begin with, I never stated I had a theory, only that I don't accept all of what Darwinism extolls as fact. Secondly, I was asked if I had all the answers and I answered honestly that I don't. You, on the other hand simply fell back on the works of Darwin, calling it "your theory". Fine, if not uncreative.



Quote:
But let's not re-hash ID
But Intelligent Design is integral with creation. Does the thought of having been designed bother you? If you consider yourself just a "complicated monkey" then so be it.


It doesn't really bother me, no, I just don't believe it. More to the point, why does it bother you so much to think that you did evolve through random mutation? Because I don't believe my life is meaningless and also that science is proving more and more that life is not random. The discipline of mathematics is proving that the chances of life arising from "random events" is so incredibly, astronomically high, as to be virtually impossible.

Incidentally, as an IDer do you not also believe monkeys are intelligently designed? Monkeys are made from the same organic compounds as humans.

Quote:
The list which started with 100 prominent scientists just a few years ago, has now risen to over 700. Hmm, seems to be a trend here... There is a link on the page to a .pdf containing the names of those who have signed.


Yes i looked at that. I know a lot of MD's and Phds, and I'm afraid the 700 does not make a drop in the ocean. Frequently there are 700 in the same room as me, and i talk to them. I can tell you from first hand experience, you are not infallible once you have a phd or md, and nor do you all become experts in every field. Look how many phd's and highly educated people are in the 911 truth movement for an example.
Ah yes, the world is just full of Ph.Ds isn't it? I'm sorry but I can't equate the 911 truth movement with the current topic. Simply not in the same scope.

this is not to say i hold phd's in low regard. the opposite is in fact the case, and they are a worthy thing to aspire to. As long as they don't confess an interest in Intelligent Design by your definition.



Quote:
Certainly, as sure as your are about your information in this regards, providing a few credible links shouldn't be hard. Right?


Surely you jest. Very droll. Otherwise you couldn't possibly make out you haven't heard any of the vast amount of literature on the matter, or even that well known court case.

why not try a google search on "debunking ID" and another on "ID and creationism" and tell me when you've finished reading it all.
I've read quite a bit of the material refuting Darwinism and Creationist dogma. I simply asked you to provide some resources as a demonstration that you had some serious committment to the conversation besides your rhetoric, and also to provide other readers of this thread with substantiation of your point of view.

I hope your smug rejoiner of "tell me when you've finished reading it" somehow satisfies your self image.

[DeepIron]

Really I have no problem with people trying to reconcile their beliefs and the scientific developments. I see it all the time with scientists who are also religious. In fact i think it's somehting that has to happen, but how this reconciliation occurs is important. ID is not it, i'm afraid, as the ID drive on schools was really an assault on science, not an attempt to reconcile.

But why does it have to be considered "religious"? Why can't people see Intelligent Design as the fulfillment of one the basic tenets of science, "The search for Truth"?

What amazes me, the more I read, study and learn is this, the scientific community and the pubic in general are more willing to accept the highly theoretical hypothesis given forth under such exotic disciplines as quantum physics and the realms of imaginary numbers, than they are to look around and say, "Ya know, looks like there's an Intelligent Design to this thing called the Universe."

Apply the Kalam Cosmological Arguments, Occams Razor and the Irreducibility of Complex Systems and see where it leads!

[joegrundman]

You seem to be an enquiring person, Deep Iron, and I hope that you find a way to reconcile this unwanted schism in modern life. And if you do, i hope you publish it.

In the meantime, please try to understand why ID fails. It fails because it tries to shoehorn a poorly developed theory into the scientific framework, where it just does not fit because of serious inadequacies of methodology and epistemology. Citing more instances won't change this. You can get away with it, maybe, if you are talking about a new and poorly understand scientific field, but evolution is one of the oldest and best understood fields, so simple and powerful that it can be summed up in less than a sentence.

Both science and christianity are enormously important aspects of western tradition and society, and any genuine and lasting reconciliation over these really quite severe differences cannot be gained by forcing either party to accept what cannot be accepted. Be it by triviliasing the meaning and methods of the other side or trying to drastically alter it's framework. All that happens in these cases is argument, with neither side moving an inch and both sides claiming victory.

I have no idea what form such a reconciliation would take, and I'm not a religious enough person to make suggestions on the matter. However it would be, it would require a profound understanding and respect for both science and religion.

[mrbeast]

A question for creationists though: Why do humans have vestigial tails?

For the same reason we have an appendix? :lol: Actually, the vestigial tail is considered be a case of spina bifida, where the embryonic structure supporting the formation of the spinal cord is not completely absorbed during fetal development. So say the physicians and biologists.

Thats not correct DeepIron. The Coccyx or tail bones in a human are an example vestigiality. Basically its a left over from our distant ancestors who had tails. Infact Human embryos have quite prominent tails for a short time and there are recorded cases in medical history of people whose tail was not absorbed back into the body and remained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality#Coccyx

http://backandneck.about.com/od/c/g/coccyx.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail#human_tails

But why are human tails and other exaples of vestigiality siginifcant? Because they are visible evidence of evolution. Why would god or an 'Intelligent designer' bother adding elements that serve no purpose?

Vestigiality can be found in other animals to. Some snakes have vestigial limbs and pelvis. Whales have vestigial hind legs.

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

For an example of natural selection just google 'Peppered Moth'.

[DeepIron]

@MrBeast: There have been 28 documented examples of vestigial tails since the late 1880's. 28 out of millions and millions. Why are there no muscles evident in these tails? One might decry, "Their vestigial! The muscles are gone!" If we can have the protruding flap of skin, why then not some muscle as well if indeed they are tails? On the other hand, why are some chldren born with webbed toes? Or polydactylism? Do we point to these and cry, "He's decended from a Duck!" or She's obviously got bat blood in her!". No we chalk these up to "birth defects" and blame the environment or a genetic aberrration of sorts.

No, like all things Darwinist or Creationist, each camp will take up its banner and champion its cause... You agree with that which makes sense to you, I'll do the same. ;)

You seem to be an enquiring person, Deep Iron, and I hope that you find a way to reconcile this unwanted schism in modern life. And if you do, i hope you publish it.

In the meantime, please try to understand why ID fails. It fails because it tries to shoehorn a poorly developed theory into the scientific framework, where it just does not fit because of serious inadequacies of methodology and epistemology. Citing more instances won't change this. You can get away with it, maybe, if you are talking about a new and poorly understand scientific field, but evolution is one of the oldest and best understood fields, so simple and powerful that it can be summed up in less than a sentence.

Both science and christianity are enormously important aspects of western tradition and society, and any genuine and lasting reconciliation over these really quite severe differences cannot be gained by forcing either party to accept what cannot be accepted. Be it by triviliasing the meaning and methods of the other side or trying to drastically alter it's framework. All that happens in these cases is argument, with neither side moving an inch and both sides claiming victory.

I have no idea what form such a reconciliation would take, and I'm not a religious enough person to make suggestions on the matter. However it would be, it would require a profound understanding and respect for both science and religion.
Well, at least you and I won't reconcile this. I simply do not agree with your summation regarding the irreconcilable differences of science and religion. Indeed, while you've said time and again, that ID is a "poorly developed theory", you've failed to provide any other framework or alternative other than Darwinism and by inference, Random Chance. Ok, that's fairly safe and mainstream thinking for our times.

I've attempted to post some examples of the scientific community's support of theories of Intelligent Design. To be frank, I've barely scratched the surface of the multitude of instances where science and religion have met and have found a common ground of sorts to satisfy both sides.

Allow me to site a few other examples as an exercise for the reader. Please note these are all scientific disciplines.
1. Ancient Literature. The Bible is the most well supported of all ancient documents with over 5000 of the original Greek manuscripts in existence today. The next runner up is Homer's Illiad, with 650. From a purely numeric basis, it's interesting that we accept the Illiad more readily for its authenticity than we do the Bible.
2. Modern Archeology. Archeologists have been uncovering ancient sites mentioned in the Bible for decades. Along with these sites, archeologists have also discovered ancient writings and objects that support scriptural writings.
3. Cosmology. Cosmologists have discovered the incredble precision to which the Universe operates. This is called "Fine Tuning". Change the attractive force of gravity, or the Cosmological Constant but by an incredibly infitestimal amount, and the Universe would not exist. Hence, life would not exist.
4. Astronomy. Astronomers have found that the Earth enjoys a very unique place in the Universe. From our placement in the Milky Way, to the size of our Moon, the type of Sun we have and the placement of other planets in our Solar System, all work in concert to support life. The mathematical probablities alone are staggering.
5. Biology. Biologists have formulated the theory of Irreductable Complexity. Cellular life is highly dependent upon the synchronized workings of a multitude of structures and cellular processes. Remove but one, and the cell dies. The probablility that atomic elements could combine to produce molecules, then amino acids, then proteins, then more complex life oriented structures is astronomically remote. Even if you could get the structures built, the odds that all the necessary structures and chemical processes needed to form even the simplist cell would work in concert together is even more unlikely.
6. Biology. DNA. There has been NO scientific theory that has fully satisfied or explained the organizational structure of DNA. Without DNA, no life. It seems most incredible, that a single strand of DNA contains the blueprints or code for all forms of life on Earth. The question is, where did the blueprint come from in the first place? Preceeding theories such as Random Chance, Natural Selection, Chemical Affinities and Self Ordering have all fallen short.
7. Psychology. The Mind. We are more than just a brain and a body.

There are many, many more examples to be found if one wishes to do the research.

Ok, that's it for me. Have a good one.:up:

[Skybird]

I've attempted to post some examples of the scientific community's support of theories of Intelligent Design. To be frank, I've barely scratched the surface of the multitude of instances where science and religion have met and have found a common ground of sorts to satisfy both sides.

Have you? I mst say that you seem to see every answer that science cannot giove on grounds of its current knoweldge - you seem to take as evidence that religion must be right. but that is mismatching categories only - it is neither logical, nor reasonable to do so.

In parting let me leave a few other examples as an exercise for the reader. Please note these are all scientific disciplines.

That latter remark - is no argment in suport of your suggestions.


1. Ancient Litrature. The Bible is the most well supported of all ancient documents with over 5000 of the Greek manuscripts in existence today. The next runner up is Homer's Illiad, with 650.
so what? Must it be taken literally for that reason? Must it be taken out of the context of past culture, past knoweldge levels and past thinking?

2. Modern Archeology. Archeologists have been uncovering ancient sites mentioned in the Bible for decades.
So what? they also have uncovcered places that got mentioned in other historic reports different from the bible. they also uncovered places that were not mentione din any known historic document.

3. Cosmology. Cosmologists have discovered the incredble precision to which the Universe operates. This is called "Fine Tuning".
So what? BTW, "fine tuning" is debated currently, and that the universe runs "precisely" needs the assumption that there is a standard to which the ammount of precison is to be judged. the only thing I would agree on is that a lot of variables are kept in a precious balance tgo enable life as we know it oin this planet. We know nothing about how many or how few other worlds comparable tomour own are there. And we know nothing about very different kinds of life out there. We only assume that in face of the monumental size of the universe as we understand it we probbaly are not the only ones out there, and we have come up with many different probability models for that. But all that does not chnage the fact that we do not know for sure. we play games.

4. Astronomy. Astronomers have found that the Earth enjoys a very unique place in the Universe. From our placement in the Milky Way, to the size of our Moon, the type of Sun we have and the placement of other planets in our Solar System, all work in concert to support life. The mathematical probablities alone are staggering.
Yes they are, but see above. In how far does this make theistic religious conclusions and the reports of the bible a must?


5. Biology. Biologists have formulated the theory of Irreductable Complexity. Cellular life is highly dependent upon the synchronized workings of a multitude of structures and cellular processes. Remove but one, and the cell dies.
Every higher level of compelxity does not wipe out the former, lower levels of compelxity, but includes them and by going beyond them: transcends them. If you remove essential ingredients of a given level of compelxity, the system degenerates to the next lower complexity level. In how far is there an argument in favour of theistic relgion, and the bible?

6. Biology. DNA. There has been NO scientific theory that has fully satisfied or explained the organizational structure of DNA. Without DNA, no life. Preceeding theories such as Random Chance, Natural Selection, Chemical Affinities and Self Ordering have all fallen short.
That says you. See several of my postings above. theories are theories, not more, not less. The degree to which they may be valid or invalid - is no margument pro bible or theistic religions.

7. Psychology. The Mind. We are more than just a brain and a body.
I'm the first one to agree. But that is no argument in favour of a theistic deity, or the way the bible sees it.

By saying that science and religion - as you seem to understand it - have met a common ground and that sciences have given support to ideas of intelligent design, you reveal that you stick to the creationistic self-description of what creation scinece and standards are. but I must tell you that these standards are rejected from the science branches of academical science business, and do not match the quality standards scienctists sually do agree upon. Since some years creationists have started to try giving themselves a cover of respectability by trying to describe themselves as being scientific, like Scientology tries to make itself respectable by claiming to be a religion. the only proböem is that creationist science and academcials cience by far cannot be compared in the standards of methods, and reasoning. It is pseudo-science, and also gives the impression of great naivety. I must say that I find your arguments unconvincing, and logically not conclusive. Many of your conclusions are early shots and by scientific and logical standard: not permissible/valid.

;)

P.S. I had this link in my arcive folder. the story I ghave told before, but the opportunity is good enough:
http://jerseyspeaks.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/buddhas-answer-to-the-science-vs-creation-debate/

The Buddha compares the question of the origin of life to the parable of the poisonous arrow.

A man is shot with a poison arrow, but before the doctor pulls it out, he asks several questions.
Who shot it? (Thus, the arguing the existence of God).
Where the arrow come from? (Where the universe and/or God came from?)
Why did that person shoot it? (Why did God create the universe), etc.
If the doctor keeps asking these questions before the arrow is pulled out, the Buddha reasoned, he will die before he gets the answers.
Buddhism is less concerned with answering questions like the origin of life, and more concerned with the goal of saving oneself and other beings from suffering by attaining Nirvana (Enlightenment).
Say what you want - that is what I would call pragmatic thinking. :lol:

[DeepIron]

Well, there's an interesting aspect of free will at work here. The choice to believe as one wishes to believe and for whatever reasons. Whether my arguments or the arguments of those much more learned than I are "persuasive" or 'logical", is not the most cogent aspect of this thread. Anyone, with a little application of grey matter can shoot holes through just about any hypothesis, theory or opinion, whether "religous" or secular.

Let me put the issue in this personal perspective, I believe in an Intelligent Creator. So far, there has been no satisfactory HUMAN explaination for the Universe and my role in it. Time and time again, it's "Science will uncover the Ultimate Truth... later." In this regard, author Douglas Adams' answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, encapulated in the number '42', might just as well apply as any other human rationale.

On the other hand, I believe many Western Christian religions also miss the mark in some way. Jesus taught no theology in his ministry. He said plain and openly what was required of Man to achieve salvation and eternal life. All in all, the Bible is pretty direct stuff. Read the Sermon on the Mount some time and compare it against the latest, greatest theory(s) that Man has concocted. I'll take the Sermon, thank you very much. Why? Because it makes sense and application to my life RIGHT NOW. I don't have to struggle with esoteric number systems or highly speculative quantum physics to use what I read today.

But that doesn't mean I can't listen and consider other opinions. Even Christ said we should "test our faith daily". The unfortunate aspect of admitting "belief" is that one is immediatly branded as "religious" and communications with that person are filtered through a "religion colored glass." This sad because it automatically presupposes that the "religious" persons mind is closed to thinking "out of the box" and is shut to anything that doesn't fit with their dogma.

Seems the same for those who champion a more secular (for lack of a better term) point of view too. ;)

All in all, through my doubts, my research and reading, for myself, the Cross and the Resurrection are far better bets than any Buddhist pragmatism, New Age mysticism or flawed human explainations. Works for me. :up:

[Skybird]

Time and time again, it's "Science will uncover the Ultimate Truth... later."
Not true with regard to scientists knowing what they are doing: sciences is about varifying or falsifying theories by a method of testing and observation.

More technically, a theory usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena", "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation", " an unproved assumption", "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another" (mirriam webster online dictionary, choosing the scientific relevant aspects only).

And the National Academy of Sciences says in it's forword to "Science and Creationism" :

"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these
words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence.
Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation,
experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested
hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific
theories we have."

they also define at the same location:



"Fact:


In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is


accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be
modified or even discarded tomorrow.


Hypothesis:


A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the


deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect,
the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.


Law:


A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.


In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science.


In the quest for understanding, science involves a great deal of careful observation that eventually produces


an elaborate written description of the natural world. Scientists communicate their findings and conclusions to
other scientists through publications, talks at conferences, hallway conversations, and many other means. Other
scientists then test those ideas and build on preexisting work. In this way, the accuracy and sophistication of
descriptions of the natural world tend to increase with time, as subsequent generations of scientists correct and
extend the work done by their predecessors.
Progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena.
Scientists never can be sure that a given explanation is complete and final. Some of the hypotheses advanced by
scientists turn out to be incorrect when tested by further observations or experiments. Yet many scientific
explanations have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed that they are held with great confidence."

Science searches progress by trial and error. It does not hope to find the penultimate truth, and it cannot. Some foolish scientists nevertheless maybe fall for that temptation, though. but they miss the above principles then.


The unfortunate aspect of admitting "belief" is that one is immediatly branded as "religious" and communications with that person are filtered through a "religion colored glass." This sad because it automatically presupposes that the "religious" persons mind is closed to thinking "out of the box" and is shut to anything that doesn't fit with their dogma.

You are illogical here. Religion is believing, science is, trial and error, observation and conclsuion. Religion is belief indeed. you have made a choice, you say you belief in an intelligent creator. But you do not want to be hold responsible for the choice you made..?. By your choice, you already have filtered out what is possible in explanation and what not: you must not know anymore, and must not explain accoprding to standards of reason or science or logic - for you have choosen to believe. Believing and reason do not go well together. In fact, they are mutually exclusive.

For myself, the Cross and the Resurrection are far better bets than any Buddhist pragmatism, New Age mysticism or flawed human explainations. Works for me.
Works for you? I fear you need to wait until you are dead to see if it works for you, or not. That way, you can almost skip your life, which may explain christians' obessive orientation towards death. Question then is, in your thinking: why have I been created, then? Just in order to die when asking too many question about poison arrows? That must be any god's queer sense of humour - which after all eventually may prove the existence of god in fact, finally (at least when you have made a decision to believe.)

P.S. You also mentioned free will. That is paradox, because when you choose to believe, you do not act by free will anymore: you submit,and you make your decisions in the basis of your dogma formed by what you believe. A free will not to act by free will anymore?

[Letum]

For every set of facts, there will always be a variety of explanations that fit.

Coming up with an explanation is easy, deciding which explanation is correct is not.

Both biology and religion offer explanations of the origin of species that fit the facts.
there are several tools that can help us decide the correct explanation.

1)
Firstly we should consider which explanation speculates the least about things
beyond the face value of the evidence and makes the fewest claims about the
existence of entities that are not in the evidence

2)
We should also candider how well the explanation coheres with other facts and
explanations that are uncontroversially believed to be true.

3)
A good explanation should allow the creation of testable hypothesis that can be
confirmed or disconfirmed. It should be possible to imagine some hypothetical, yet
somewhat credible, evidence that would disprove the explanation.

4)
Finally the explanation we chose should be comprehensive in leaving as few loose
ends as possible, generating fewer additional questions and leaving the least
unexplained.


Lets use the example of a man found hanging in a sealed room with one door locked
from the inside. The only objects in the room are the man, the rope and hook he has
hanged from and a stool on it's side just below his feet.
Based on these facts, the police come up with two explanations.

Explanation One:
The man entered the room and locked the door. He than stood
on the stool and put his head in the noose and kicked the chair away.

Explanation Two:
The man entered the room and was attacked by a daemon
who killed the man in a way that gave the body the physical appearance of a death
by hanging. The daemon then put the man in to the noose and placed the chair
under him to make it look like a suicide. Finlay the daemon locks the door and walks
away through a wall.

To decide which is the correct explanation we will use the 4 tools above.

Tool 1) Explanation One:
The explanation has no entities that are not shown in the facts.
Tool 1) Explanation Two:
The explanation posits the existence of the daemon entity, which is not shown in the facts.

Tool 2) Explanation One:
The explanation fits with our understanding of human nature and physics.
Tool 2) Explanation Two:
The explanation does not fit with understanding of how physics.

Tool 3) Explanation One:
The explanation could be disproved if the pathologist found that the man did not die
from hanging.
Tool 3) Explanation Two:
There is no hypothetical new evidence that could disprove this explanation as the
explanation can be adjusted to fit any new evidence imaginable.

Tool 4) Explanation One:
The explanation leaves the loose end of why the man killed himself.
Tool 4) Explanation Two:
The explanation leaves the loose ends of what exactly the daemon is, why it killed someone,
how it walks through walls, how it killed the man with no marks, where it came from, (etc. etc. etc.)

[DeepIron]

:lol: In response to your post above, we all know just how infallible science is now, don't we? Man looks at God, defines his relationship and expects God to capitulate and accept. Fair enough. But when God approaches Man, the opposite doesn't hold true. God is held at arms length and exposed to Man's logic and reasoning. That is how I read the forward on Science and Creationism. A process through which self-justification and "reasoning" is applied to explain away something outside of modern sciences ability to quantify and qualify.

Now one might indeed accuse me of being biased or close minded. However, I contend that the opposite is just as true for those whom only the disciplines of science, and nothing less, will suffice. They say, "If I can't see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, or hear it, it doesn't exist."



Quote:
The unfortunate aspect of admitting "belief" is that one is immediatly branded as "religious" and communications with that person are filtered through a "religion colored glass." This sad because it automatically presupposes that the "religious" persons mind is closed to thinking "out of the box" and is shut to anything that doesn't fit with their dogma.

You are illogical here. Religion is believing, science is, trial and error, observation and conclsuion. Religion is belief indeed. you have made a choice, you say you belief in an intelligent creator. But you do not want to be hold responsible for the choice you made..?. By your choice, you already have filtered out what is possible in explanation and what not: you must not know anymore, and must not explain accoprding to standards of reason or science or logic - for you have choosen to believe. Believing and reason do not go well together. In fact, they are mutually exclusive.

No, faith is believing. Why do people continually equate religion with faith? I don't "belong" to a religion. I'm not Mormon, Presbyterian, Methodist, or otherwise. I believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the teaching of God through the Bible.

And yes, I'm certainly responsible for the choice I'VE made just as you or anyone else for that matter are responsible for your own choices. And no, just because I've made a committment to follow the teaching of Jesus Christ, doesn't mean I can't entertain or be intelligibly conversant in other ways.

Works for you? I fear you need to wait until you are dead to see if it works for you, or not. Not really. By choosing to believe my life is fuller and contains fewer worries and more happiness than ever before. Of course, this is relative to me and cannot be empirically or otherwise proven. But in my frame of reference this joy exists regardless.

That way, you can almost skip your life, which may explain christians' obessive orientation towards death. That's stereotyping. Many of the other believers I know, consider "death" as just another aspect of life, a continuation. "To conquer death, all you have to do is die" to quote Tim Rice, paraphrasing Scripture.

Question then is, in your thinking: why have I been created, then? Just in order to die when asking too many question about poison arrows? No, quite the opposite. I have a very meaningful and full life. I find confort in the knowledge that God has a plan for me, and it's spelled out very plainly. See John 3:16 for reference.

That must be any god's queer sense of humour - which after all eventually may prove the existence of god in fact, finally (at least when you have made a decision to believe.) I think God has an even queerer sense of humor as found in atheists and agnostics who contend that their own little universe of "self" is impregnable, completely self-centered, self-supported and logical. :lol:

@letum, which of the explainations that you've given for the demise of the hanged man do you believe?

[DeepIron]

So let's kick this up a notch, shall we?

Summing up the Darwinism Hypothesis:
1. Nothing produces everything. (Non-deism.)
2. Non-life produces life. (Self-organization of matter, etc)
3. Randomness produces fine-tuning. (simple luck of the draw chance produced our Universe)
4. Chaos produces information. (no particular order to the Universe)
5. Unconciousness produces conciousness. (the mind just happened as a "side-effect")
6. Non-reason produces reason. (reasoning from chaos)

Ok then. All that Man has evolved to, at this point, is the product of physical processes without the direction of an Intelligent Designer. Purely undirected natural process of evolution. Right? Just a bunch of semi-organized bits of protoplasm walking about our planet with nothing better to do than eat, sleep and cr*p and with no higher purpose or meaning in life. The list above should encompass this. Examine each one and consider it if you would.

It stands to reason then, if we're products of evolution as described by Darwin, and there is no ID involved, that Man is also responsible for his own moral values too. I mean, we don't see the intrusion of Intelligent Design anywhere else so it's reasonable to assume our morals are created by the same processes. After all, intellect, as defined by Darwinism and a byproduct thereof, is a result of randomness and natural selection. One would think that morality would find it's center in the human conciouisness as it certainly didn't start with any of the "lower animals".

[mrbeast]

@MrBeast: There have been 28 documented examples of vestigial tails since the late 1880's. 28 out of millions and millions. Why are there no muscles evident in these tails? One might decry, "Their vestigial! The muscles are gone!" If we can have the protruding flap of skin, why then not some muscle as well if indeed they are tails? On the other hand, why are some chldren born with webbed toes? Or polydactylism? Do we point to these and cry, "He's decended from a Duck!" or She's obviously got bat blood in her!". No we chalk these up to "birth defects" and blame the environment or a genetic aberrration of sorts.

Actually the Coccyx does have muscles attached to it. And they are tails. Infact some of the few cases of abnormally large vestigial tails have contained muscle, blood vessels and in very rare cases cartilage and bone.

Webbed feet or extra digits are the result of genetic mutation (as are long vestigial tails). The point about vestigial tails though is that everyone has one most are simply not visible.

In short to have a large vestigial tail is a biological aberration, to have one at all is a well documented medical fact.

[Letum]

@letum, which of the explainations that you've given for the demise of the hanged man do you believe?
The one that best fits the criteria of a good explanation that I layed out at the start of
the post. Isn't that obvious?

Why do you ask?

I would be intrested if someone from each side of the debate here could use the 4 tools
for evolution/creationism in the same way that I did fro the hanging. (see the bottom of
my above post for the formatt).

[DeepIron]

The one that best fits the criteria of a good explanation that I layed out at the start of the post. Isn't that obvious?
I didn't want to assume anything and I would consider the 4 tools you list as somewhat subjective. Let's examine them:

1) Firstly we should consider which explanation speculates the least about things
beyond the face value of the evidence and makes the fewest claims about the
existence of entities that are not in the evidence

Occams Razors fit this description very nicely. "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

2) We should also consider how well the explanation coheres with other facts and
explanations that are uncontroversially believed to be true.

The issue with this is the definition of "controversy" and it's here, IMO, that a huge breakdown in the Evolution vs. Creationism argument breaks down. How will one get both camps to agree on all "factual" points? Indeed, how does one even arrive at a set of proveable facts given the degree of "unproveability" that exists in both arguments?

3)A good explanation should allow the creation of testable hypothesis that can be
confirmed or disconfirmed. It should be possible to imagine some hypothetical, yet
somewhat credible, evidence that would disprove the explanation.

How does one test for God? Or for that matter, how does one create a living cell from it's basic atomic elements. So far, both have proven to be impossible.

4)Finally the explanation we chose should be comprehensive in leaving as few loose
ends as possible, generating fewer additional questions and leaving the least
unexplained.

In a purely physical sense this may prove conclusive. Unfortunately, in dealing with quantities or qualities that cannot be 'explicitly defined' such as the "fine tuning" aspects of the Universe, the absolute existence of God, etc. the explanation cannot be totally conclusive.

Why do you ask? Because sometimes intuition can play an important role in discerning truth despite the absolute "logical" results of scientific testing.

[Fish]

I simply asked you to provide some resources .

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/refs.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

[DeepIron]

I've read at some length through the TalkOrigins archives and FAQs. There are certainly a number of relevent points made and interesting theoretical concepts as well. On the whole, the TalkOrigin site is full of wonderful citations, commentary and points of view.

Webbed feet or extra digits are the result of genetic mutation (as are long vestigial tails). The point about vestigial tails though is that everyone has one most are simply not visible.

I'll tell you what. Show conclusively that Man ascended from ape-ancestors and I'll agree. There is no conclusive evidence to support this. Sure, one can invoke homology and make comparisons, as Owen did with his appendages, but until the "missing link" is found, tying modern man to an ape ancestor, the issue is speculative. The phrase "common postulation" is used frequently when discussing other "vestigial organs" as well: the appendix, ears, wisdom teeth and eyes.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck... it must be homologous to a ???

[Skybird]

:lol: In response to your post above, we all know just how infallible science is now, don't we? Man looks at God, defines his relationship and expects God to capitulate and accept. Fair enough. But when God approaches Man, the opposite doesn't hold true. God is held at arms length and exposed to Man's logic and reasoning. ...

(...)


opposite. I have a very meaningful and full life. I find confort in the knowledge that God has a plan for me, and it's spelled out very plainly. See John 3:16 for reference.

Mind if I don't? I'm fed up with scriptures. ;) Even more so when I am expected to take it literally .

That must be any god's queer sense of humour - which after all eventually may prove the existence of god in fact, finally (at least when you have made a decision to believe.) I think God has an even queerer sense of humor as found in atheists and agnostics who contend that their own little universe of "self" is impregnable, completely self-centered, self-supported and logical. :lol:

Well, believing is not knowing, and trust is not blind belief, but grows from empirical experiences of the past. anyhow, I was just unsure were to put you: to the group of reasonable rationalists admitting that there is also a spiritual dimension in existence, or to the group of those who belief something unproven and want to raise it's prestige by labelling it a reasonable method like to be found in sciences. Now that I know about you, i see that it is pointless to continue the communication, for you prefer to just believe and make yourself unavailable for any argument by that - belief beats any argument, any logic, any empirical experience, any reason anytime - while me refuses to see such a position as an equal to reason, logic, empiry, experience - even true spirituality (which has nothing to do with mysticism and literal believing).

Take care,
Sky

[Herr_Pete]

Am all for evoloution. Im not a dan of the creation idea. To unbelievable for me but i respect other people opinion on the matter.

[Fish]

I've read at some length through the TalkOrigins archives and FAQs. There are certainly a number of relevent points made and interesting theoretical concepts as well. On the whole, the TalkOrigin site is full of wonderful citations, commentary and points of view.

Heres a site where the pro's are talking. Have fun. ;)

http://www.religious-science.com/message-board-forum/forum-14.html

[DeepIron]

Now that I know about you, i see that it is pointless to continue the communication, for you prefer to just believe and make yourself unavailable for any argument by that - belief beats any argument, any logic, any empirical experience, any reason anytime - while me refuses to see such a position as an equal to reason, logic, empiry, experience - even true spirituality (which has nothing to do with mysticism and literal believing).
So where I have I argued irrationally? I've tried to support my point of view with citations and quotes of scholars and others more learned then myself. I'm trying to see the points of view of others, but what I see are "closed case" statements, hardly debate at all.

I'm available for debate on this subject from anyone who wants to debate it. Not just throw "So what" comments at it...

Now that you know about me? Sky you don't know anything about me other than I believe in a God and a Resurrection. And because you know this, you judge me unable to reason, or be reasonable.

And no one yet has answered my questions regarding our sense of moral values...

Thanks Fish, I'm having a lot of fun here already! :lol:

[Letum]

Because sometimes intuition can play an important role in discerning truth despite the absolute "logical" results of scientific testing.

Ah ha! so you wish to abandon logic to some extent?
In the case I shall take a lesson from my signiture.

[DeepIron]

Ah ha! so you wish to abandon logic to some extent? In the case I shall take a lesson from my signiture.

Certainly! I never intended to approach the question of Evolution vs. Creationism from a coldly logical point of view. There are too many unknowns, too many unproveables for logic to be successfully applied.

So, let me address your question, with a question. How often in science, have researchers followed their intuition even in the face of logical reasoning? I know that over the years I have read stories of great scientists who, for some reason or another, listened to that little voice that said "try it this way".

My point being this, not everything in the world is "black and white". Logic has it's place in reasoning, but so does intuition. To suggest that everything in the world is qualifiable and quantifiable is folly IMHO.

Explaining deja vu, or lucid promonition for example has not found a logical explanation thus far...

[Skybird]

Now that you know about me? Sky you don't know anything about me other than I believe in a God and a Resurrection.

DeepIron, it simply is fact for me that reason and belief are mutually exclusive. It is pointless to argue with reason and argument with somebody who has choosen to believe something, or to quote the motto of the site Fish has just linked to: "It is impossible to use reason to change an opinion reached without it." you think you use reason nevertheless, but much of ewjhat you pointed at regarding sciences and it's arguments I consider to be serioulsy twisted. Belief is not reason, and so is religion as well. You can't have both. If you choose to beliegve, your reason submits, and logic capitulates. You give up your independant thinking. That is the essence in EVERY religion or cult.

I am not describing myself as a Buddhist but have sympathy for much of what is to be found there, however I know a lot of Buddhists who would strictle reject a description of buddhism being a religion. In fact it is the most drastic empirical approach on world and life that I know both in East and West, science, mythology or philosophy. It means: see yourself, check yourself, understand your existence on the basis of your own experience, examine your mind and become aware of how it functions and how it forms your image of yourself and the cosmos "around" you. believing is cheap. gaining knowledge is much harder. that is a life-long scientific project, but it is a hundred thousand times better than just believing that man is plum pudding because you read a recipe for plum pudding in your grandmothers cooking book.

Your other aspects of life and personality i am not so much interested in, since my interest in you is limited to the object of this discussion - here I found you, and here we separate again. You have defined yourself as a believer, okay, I can live with that since you do not give me the impression you wish to enforce your belief onto others and make it the dogma of public life. But I also know that you have set a line beyond which you do not will to accept reasonable argjment. Your strange distortions of some "scientific examples" you gave illustrate that. It is here where it becomes pointless for me. Also, some comments gave me the impression you do not really understand all of what I said, at least you interpreted it wrongly, in parts.

but again, you do not seem to try imposing your religion onto the world and public life and national systems, so I can very well let it go and must not feel tempted to fight with you, for what you believe in your private home is of no real interest for me and is your own business. so i say "take care, mate", and would eventually pick another partner for further discussion. but in fact I am already in overtime.

So: take care, mate! Hope your beliefs nevertheless pay off for you in any way. ;)

[DeepIron]

I respect your point of view Sky, though, personally, I don't see reason and belief as being mutually exclusive myself. Good fortune to you. :up:

[mrbeast]

Morality can be explained without reference to the Bible or Christianity.

Humans are gregarious and social animals therefore many of the things we take as being moral have survival applications, generosity, compassion etc and altruistic morals such as those could have evolved because they better ensure the survival of the group and the group ensures the survival of the individual. Our abhorrance of murder (infact some studies have shown that humans are instinctually averse to killing other humans) could have also developed as a survival tactic, those that found killing other humans easy would deplete the group and jeopordise their own survival and also the chance of passing on genes that may carry this trait. Aversion to incest may have developed due to the fact that groups which practised it might have had greater instances of congenital desease which again jeopordised their survival.

If you view morality in light of the social habits of humans then its existance does not seem at odds with evolution.

[DeepIron]

Humans are gregarious and social animals therefore many of the things we take as being moral have survival applications, generosity, compassion etc and altruistic morals such as those could have evolved because they better ensure the survival of the group and the group ensures the survival of the individual. Our abhorrance of murder (infact some studies have shown that humans are instinctually averse to killing other humans) could have also developed as a survival tactic, those that found killing other humans easy would deplete the group and jeopordise their own survival and also the chance of passing on genes that may carry this trait. Aversion to incest may have developed due to the fact that groups which practised it might have had greater instances of congenital desease which again jeopordised their survival.
Society makes the rules? Fair enough. Morality developed in sort of "hit or miss" kind of way, judging upon its effects on the group.
Then the genocide in Darfur is justifiable because that group of humans propagating it think its acceptable or it may be a survival instinct? I'm not being facetious, I'm seriously trying to understand how morality develops in a natural selection type of environment.

[mrbeast]

Humans are gregarious and social animals therefore many of the things we take as being moral have survival applications, generosity, compassion etc and altruistic morals such as those could have evolved because they better ensure the survival of the group and the group ensures the survival of the individual. Our abhorrance of murder (infact some studies have shown that humans are instinctually averse to killing other humans) could have also developed as a survival tactic, those that found killing other humans easy would deplete the group and jeopordise their own survival and also the chance of passing on genes that may carry this trait. Aversion to incest may have developed due to the fact that groups which practised it might have had greater instances of congenital desease which again jeopordised their survival.

Society makes the rules? Fair enough. Then the genocide in Darfur is justifiable because that group of humans propagating it think its acceptable or it may be a survival instinct?

I'm not describing what morality is now, I'm describing possible origins for morality. But in a sense societies have created their own moral codes, though they generally have similar tenents.

But if we are looking for justifications for genocide then look no further than the old testament:


Deuteronomy 7:1-2:
"... the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them."

Joshua 6:21:
"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."

Joshua 10:40-41:
"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."

Exodus 12:29-30:
"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead."


Numbers 31:1-18:
"...And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slew all the [adult] males. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones...And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses...And Moses was angry with the officers of the host And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Ba'laam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Moral?

[Skybird]

Morality can be explained without reference to the Bible or Christianity.

Humans are gregarious and social animals therefore many of the things we take as being moral have survival applications, generosity, compassion etc and altruistic morals such as those could have evolved because they better ensure the survival of the group and the group ensures the survival of the individual. Our abhorrance of murder (infact some studies have shown that humans are instinctually averse to killing other humans) could have also developed as a survival tactic, those that found killing other humans easy would deplete the group and jeopordise their own survival and also the chance of passing on genes that may carry this trait. Aversion to incest may have developed due to the fact that groups which practised it might have had greater instances of congenital desease which again jeopordised their survival.

If you view morality in light of the social habits of humans then its existance does not seem at odds with evolution.

I'm not sure, you seem to refer to some latest statements by reseachers that altruism in social animals they have found to have benefit for the socially acting individual as well. Since I will not disagree on that some - no: many of our behviors are formed by our wild, wild past :D , on a philosophical level you can develope sophisticated ethics without needing to refer to any religions and their scriptures - whereas a society formed on the basis of obeyond deities and folliowing morals deriving from scriptures are by far not immune to act most evil and barbaric nevertheless. In fact they often seem to operate far more brutal and inhumane than societies not engaging in theological reasoning and ethics coming from that.

In other words: the argument I repeatedly heared and read that without theistic religion you have no ethics and no moral society, is a no-brainer. and there are many contemporary societies and societies of the past that illustrate that. It is a modification of the old behavior of the church to blackmail people's obedience by threatening with eternal doom and hellfire if they are not. Salvation only after this life, so better die as fast as possible, and then take care you don't get grilled nevertheless! :lol: fact is there have been brutal and humane societies both with and withiut a relgious background in their ethics.

I would refer to the evolution of pigmonkeys. While creationists become very loud about damning Darwin, they overlook that darwin's theory since the middle of the last century is not the basic ground of evolution theories anymore - it is genetics these days, and the complete analysing of a given species' genome. From that pespective, we all are pigmonkeys indeed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCpT88Jw-f4

:lol:

[DeepIron]

So, the upshot is that without an immutable "moral center", an absolute way to know right from wrong, society, and the individuals that comprise it are free to create any morality they see fit. Be it for protection of the species, propagation of an individual, whatever satisfies Darwinist tenets. When the times change, morality is free to change with it, regardless of whether it's classic Darwinism or genome composition.

[Ishmael]

Twenty years ago I would have advised that everybody take a trip to Oulduvai Gorge and talk to the Leakeys, then read "The Origin of Conciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes and finally review Robert Ballard's expeditions in the Black Sea.

That said, after living with a family of witches and psychics for the past eighteen years, I don't have the luxury of disbelief. Having inanimate objects thrown at you by unseen forces can change your opinion as can having past-life memories while walking the land where you were killed in a previous life(Sand Creek). On the one hand, I believe in a God of Love Incarnate who created everything with a Big Bang. But I don't believe any religious dogma, especially of the literalist camp, has the answer as they,Like Joseph Campbell once said, confuse the prose of scripture with the poetry of scripture. I discount dogmas and theologies as they are man's limited attempts at the definition of God who defies definition and won't be reduced to theologies or ideologies. I believe evolution is the process in the perfectability of man. I also believe the the Buddhist idea of death and rebirth is another aspect of that process. We are put upon this earth to express love and compassion for all sentient beings. If we succeed in this to the best of our abilities, we are reborn to continue at a higher level or, if we fail, we are reborn to face the same trials until we succeed. I believe that, when we die, our soul's electrical energy is transformed into the energy strings that make up all matter in the universe until we are ready to face the cycle of rebirth and death once again.

Now, noting all that, I am charged to bear witness to the miracles I have seen in my life. Because my daughter was sick one day, I didn't go to work. Because I didn't go to work, the cable car I rode every day with the love of my life didn't stop at the intersection I always got off at and made the light. Forty seconds later, a 60-ton construction crane fell in the middle of that intersection and killed six people.

One friend of ours Blasphemed before God calling God a witch-burner in his church. She bent down to genuflect and hurt her knee. The subsequent complications, surgeries and infections led her to be parylized from the shoulders down and have both her legs amputated. Coincidence, random occurences, or God's will?

When my wife and I lived in Colorado, we were both told, out of the blue, by different psychics we ran into that we had walked the land before. Prior to this, the only movie that ever gave me nightmares was "Soldier Blue", about the Sand Creek Massacre. I mean full-blown PTSD horrors. After enduring unreasoning hostility from our neighbors in Longmont, Co., we researched the town's past as the history buffs we were. It turned out that the bulk of the Bloody Third Colorado volunteers were recruited from the area. One night we were watching the Ken Burns series "The West" that dealt with Sand Creek. We were both so overcome with emotion and uncalled for memories that I took the next day off and we drove 250 miles to visit the Massacre site. We interviewed the owner at the time, a retired circuit court judge, and walked the land. Even though nothing was marked, we knew the exact locations of the Cheyenne and Arapaho campsites. As we were climbing a low hill from the creek bed, I reached back to take her hand and we both had a vision of doing it before, only our skins were brown and we were wearing buckskins. So we were able to lay that life to rest and actually see the sins of the fathers of the Sand Creek Massacre being, quite literally, visited upon the sons and daughters as the land they killed for and stole was being bought out from under them and the sad, pathetic lives they were living.

So are these coincidences or miracles? to quote from the movie "Commandments",

"All I know is that what I don't know just may be a helluva lot bigger than I thought."

On the other hand, I don't fear death at all as I know I'll be seeing all my relatives and friends after I cross over.

[DeepIron]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Ishmael, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ;)

[Tchocky]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Ishmael, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ;)

You just earned yourself some TchockPoints :D

[Ishmael]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Ishmael, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ;)

For all I ought to have thought, but did not think,
For all I ought to have said, but did not say,
For all I ought to have done, but did not do,
Merciful Father, I pray thee for forgiveness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR1CyDMmKwQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnPSxC5iKso

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFwn-tQzGMo

[Skybird]

Twenty years ago I would have advised that everybody take a trip to Oulduvai Gorge and talk to the Leakeys, then read "The Origin of Conciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes and finally review Robert Ballard's expeditions in the Black Sea.

That said, after living with a family of witches and psychics for the past eighteen years, I don't have the luxury of disbelief. Having inanimate objects thrown at you by unseen forces can change your opinion as can having past-life memories while walking the land where you were killed in a previous life(Sand Creek). On the one hand, I believe in a God of Love Incarnate who created everything with a Big Bang. But I don't believe any religious dogma, especially of the literalist camp, has the answer as they,Like Joseph Campbell once said, confuse the prose of scripture with the poetry of scripture. I discount dogmas and theologies as they are man's limited attempts at the definition of God who defies definition and won't be reduced to theologies or ideologies. I believe evolution is the process in the perfectability of man. I also believe the the Buddhist idea of death and rebirth is another aspect of that process. We are put upon this earth to express love and compassion for all sentient beings. If we succeed in this to the best of our abilities, we are reborn to continue at a higher level or, if we fail, we are reborn to face the same trials until we succeed. I believe that, when we die, our soul's electrical energy is transformed into the energy strings that make up all matter in the universe until we are ready to face the cycle of rebirth and death once again.

Now, noting all that, I am charged to bear witness to the miracles I have seen in my life. Because my daughter was sick one day, I didn't go to work. Because I didn't go to work, the cable car I rode every day with the love of my life didn't stop at the intersection I always got off at and made the light. Forty seconds later, a 60-ton construction crane fell in the middle of that intersection and killed six people.

One friend of ours Blasphemed before God calling God a witch-burner in his church. She bent down to genuflect and hurt her knee. The subsequent complications, surgeries and infections led her to be parylized from the shoulders down and have both her legs amputated. Coincidence, random occurences, or God's will?

When my wife and I lived in Colorado, we were both told, out of the blue, by different psychics we ran into that we had walked the land before. Prior to this, the only movie that ever gave me nightmares was "Soldier Blue", about the Sand Creek Massacre. I mean full-blown PTSD horrors. After enduring unreasoning hostility from our neighbors in Longmont, Co., we researched the town's past as the history buffs we were. It turned out that the bulk of the Bloody Third Colorado volunteers were recruited from the area. One night we were watching the Ken Burns series "The West" that dealt with Sand Creek. We were both so overcome with emotion and uncalled for memories that I took the next day off and we drove 250 miles to visit the Massacre site. We interviewed the owner at the time, a retired circuit court judge, and walked the land. Even though nothing was marked, we knew the exact locations of the Cheyenne and Arapaho campsites. As we were climbing a low hill from the creek bed, I reached back to take her hand and we both had a vision of doing it before, only our skins were brown and we were wearing buckskins. So we were able to lay that life to rest and actually see the sins of the fathers of the Sand Creek Massacre being, quite literally, visited upon the sons and daughters as the land they killed for and stole was being bought out from under them and the sad, pathetic lives they were living.

So are these coincidences or miracles? to quote from the movie "Commandments",

"All I know is that what I don't know just may be a helluva lot bigger than I thought."

On the other hand, I don't fear death at all as I know I'll be seeing all my relatives and friends after I cross over.
Thanatology was one of my fields of special interest, i also had contact to dying people as well as people having had NDE, and I had two very "queer" experiences myself in my life. This man over here certainly does not consider you to be a psycho. ;) Already ten and some more years ago there was a very interesting and diverse literature on these things available. Unfortunately, we also have seen a massive hype in stupid esoteric and shallow new age literature as well. For young ones, this makes it difficult to separate the valuable items from the false, cheap and stupid ones. But people are craving for altrnatives to what the churches and established relgions have to offer - that is the experience I made myself when teaching meditation in courses for several years.

They threw - things at you ...? :D

[Ishmael]

They threw - things at you ...? :D

Yeah. My wife was spontaneously channeling her late best friend, Jillion Bucks, one day while talking to Jill's daughter about a man the daughter was involved with. Our 18-year-old Cocker Spaniel was howling to go out in the middle of it all and I guess I wasn't getting the dog out fast enough for Jill because a toy metal car went flying by my head from the top of the TV 10 feet away in a closed house while I and the dog were the only ones, physically, in the room. The funniest thing about the whole episode was Janet telling Jill that her daughter was never going to believe or listen to her. Jill's reply was,

"Yeah, I know. she never listened to me when I was alive either." OTOH, she soon after dumped the guy in question so I guess she did listen finally. Actually the two psychics I've seen that closely track my wife's processes are John Edward and James Van Pragh

[sunvalleyslim]

As An Old Sage Once Said,

"Can't We All Get Along"
Rodney King, Los Angeles 1992

What a bunch of B.S., what an *******................As long as there are two men standing with different beliefs, there will never be a concurrence...........

[Letum]

What a bunch of B.S., what an *******................As long as there are two men standing with different beliefs, there will never be a concurrence...........

Oh, I dunno about that.
The Copernican Revolution ended in agreement across the board, all be it reluctant.

Come to think of it, there are some striking similarities between this discussion and the
type of discussion Copernicus sparked off....:hmm:

[antikristuseke]

Letum, don't be so sure of that, there are still geocentrists out there.

[CCIP]

Letum, don't be so sure of that, there are still geocentrists out there.

geocentrists AND flat earth proponents :doh:

[vedrand]

Never forget to put the word evidence in big quotation marks in such a sentence :know::yep:



What evidence supports Creationism?*

[Stealth Hunter]

Letum, don't be so sure of that, there are still geocentrists out there.

geocentrists AND flat earth proponents :doh:

Makes me think of that line: "Fifteen-hundred years ago everybody KNEW the sun revolved around the Earth. Five-hundred years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was flat. And fifteen minutes ago you knew we were alone in this universe... Imagine what you'll know tomorrow..."

[DeepIron]

Letum, don't be so sure of that, there are still geocentrists out there.
geocentrists AND flat earth proponents :doh:
Makes me think of that line: "Fifteen-hundred years ago everybody KNEW the sun revolved around the Earth. Five-hundred years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was flat. And fifteen minutes ago you knew we were alone in this universe... Imagine what you'll know tomorrow..."

Men in Black. Great line. :up:

[mrbeast]

Actually man worked out that the world was round in about the 4th century BC so were flat earthers get their ideas from I've no idea, even ancient people would have thought that they were a bunch of idiots! :yep: :D :know: