backtop


Print 175 comment(s) - last by mudgiestylie.. on Nov 30 at 7:06 PM


Kirk Cameron  (Source: Celebrity Baby Blog)

Kirk Cameron poses with students at Purdue University, holding copies of "On The Origin of Species", containing a controversial intro he helped pen.  (Source: Living Waters)

The scientific community offers up a rebuttal offering colorful evidence of evolution in a new book of photos.  (Source: Amazon.com)
On the 150th anniversary of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" there's hot debate between critics and scientists

Technology and evolutionary science often meld harmoniously in disciplines such as molecular evolutionary biology and paleontology.  New discoveries of missing link fossils have been enabled by advanced software tools and lab equipment, as has new evidence of the path of evolution in the genome provided by advanced sequencing equipment.  While the wealth of scientific evidence has the scientific community virtually convinced that Darwin's Theory of Evolution proposed in the On the Origin of Species and later refinements provide a framework to understanding how life grew and changed throughout the Earth's history, there are many in the public that remain critical of the theory.

With next Tuesday marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's momentous work, tensions are high between the scientific community and anti-evolution activists.  Some of these critics argue that the Earth is as little as 6,000 years old.  Others argue that the Earth is older, but that evolution never occurred -- that life on Earth merely appeared. 

Such theories have been given a voice by actor Kirk Cameron, who is best known for his role in the 1985 sitcom "Growing Pains".  Mr. Cameron has taken a curious tactic, touring the country handing out 100,000 free copies of Darwin's On the Origin of Species on college campuses, with one significant catch -- the book comes with a critical 50-page introduction co-written by Mr. Cameron.

Mr. Cameron recently popped up on Purdue University's campus, handing out copies with California-based Christian minister Ray Comfort.  States Mr. Cameron to People, "Atheism has been on the rise for years now, and the Bible of the atheists is The Origin of Species.  We have a situation in our country where young people are entering college with a belief in God and exiting with that faith being stripped and shredded. What we want to do is have student make an informed, educated decision before they chuck their faith."

Local pastor Jared Brothers of Stringtown Church of God in Covington, an Indiana church, helped with the distribution.  He stated, ""I don't believe in evolution. I am all about a personal relationship with God. The main thing is to get some literature into people's hands and to get God's word out. That's the goal."

The controversial introduction claims Darwin's work fathered Nazi eugenics and overall misogyny.  Describes Mr. Cameron, "You can see where [Hitler] clearly takes Darwin's ideas to some of their logical conclusions and compares certain races of people to lower evolutionary life forms.  If you take Darwin's theory and extend it to its logical end, it can be used to justify all number of very horrendous things."

Scientists on campus rallied against the handout with a handout of their own, passing out pro-Darwin fish stickers emblazoned with "I Support Science."  And a significant book summarizing the collected visual results of evolutionary biologists has also been launched in support of the theory, written by Mary Ellen Hannibal and featuring photography by Susan Middleton. 

The book titled, Evidence of Evolution, is not free -- it costs $29.95 (though it's available for just under $20 on Amazon.com).  It features collections of photographed animal specimens of closely related animals, tracing the path of evolution through the world's jungles and forests.  Many of the specimens photographed look similar, but have been shown to be different species, thanks to evolutionary subtleties inside their bodies.  The book focuses primarily on such examples of microevolution, but also offers photographic evidence of macroevolution.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Enough Of This BS!
By stimpson65 on 11/22/2009 8:57:51 PM , Rating: 4
Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact! The scientific evidence is overwhelming and ALL areas of study that touch on evolution reinforce and confirm it. The scientific theory is NOTHING like the "theory" we refer to in daily conversation.
Is our current model of evolution the same as it was when Darwin postulated it? Of course not! That's one of the great things about science: The scientific method is a process that is self-correcting by it's very nature as more and better data becomes available. Not only that but real science involving the peer review process is STILL demonstrably the best method we have for determining and describing the reality in which we exist. If it is not demonstrable and measurable, IT ISN'T SCIENCE!
Even if someone came up with a better way to discover and describe the universe around us, we'd STILL have to use science to determine whether it was actually better or not! Period!
Another thing: Evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different subjects and, while natural unguided abiogenesis has been demonstrated to be plausible in multiple experiments, evolution does not EVER attempt to make ANY claims as to the beginning of life on this planet! NONE! ZIP! ZERO!
Cameron and Comfort have been misrepresenting science for years and this is just another disingenuous attempt to force pseudo-science (fake science) into REAL science classrooms.
I don't care what your religious beliefs are. If you want to teach creationism or ID, do it in church, Sunday school, or at home but leave our pubic schools alone!
On top of all that, even if we decided that evolution was completely wrong tomorrow, you STILL could not get from "evolution is wrong" to "invisible magic sky fairy done it"! Not in a million years!
Don't you think that if there was anything other than religion that contradicted evolution, that some theologian would have won the Nobel prize by now for discovering it? USE your brain instead of letting others think for you! We humans have been inventing gods and devils for centuries! Some of you gotta let this stuff GO!
If you are so wrapped up in your religion that real evidence no longer makes any difference to you or that real science which contradicts your bronze-age holy book makes absolutely no impact on your thinking brain, then why would any other evidence of reality make any difference to you?
This earth will never be truly at peace until religion no longer has the power to make otherwise normal, thinking people shut off the reasoning portion of their brains.




RE: Enough Of This BS!
By amunrud on 11/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: Enough Of This BS!
By stimpson65 on 11/22/2009 9:59:22 PM , Rating: 4
Here is just ONE possible explanation of eye evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ybWucMx4W8

Beyond that even, gaps alone do not negate evolution. A fish net is nothing but string and gaps but try and tell a fish it doesn't work.

Also, a gap is not simply an excuse to plug that gap with invisible-magic-sky-daddy.

"The eye couldn't have evolved because I can't understand how it could have."
You are making an argument from ignorance.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By MozeeToby on 11/23/2009 1:50:02 AM , Rating: 4
Oh man, you picked the wrong Creationist talking point. The eye evolved independently in several different clades. The process is actually very straightforward and is not by any means 'irreducibly complex' (and even if it were it wouldn't prove anything). Evolution also explains all the things that are 'wrong' with the eye (Backwards and upside down, with a very large blind spot), something no other biological theory is able to do; unless of course you'd like to accuse the All Knowing Creator of poor design.

The gaps (of which the formation of the eye isn't one) are places that we don't understand yet. 'Yet' being the word to focus on there. It is possible that in some of the gaps there might be things that influence the theory evolution (sexual selection for example was added well after Darwin published Origin of the Species), but the core of the theory would take truly earth-shattering, unexpected findings for it to be wrong. At best, the theory of evolution is incomplete; and in that it is no different than the theories of gravity, genetics, quantum mechanics, or geology.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/23/2009 7:19:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
At best, the theory of evolution is incomplete; and in that it is no different than the theories of gravity, genetics, quantum mechanics, or geology.

But you see, all of theories are wrong. There are no natural laws, there is only the Lord's will. Why are people genetically similar to apes? Because the Lord wills it to be so. Why do genes even exist? Because the Lord wills it to be so. Why does gravity appear to exist? Because the Lord wills it to be so. Why does the earth appear to be older than it really is? Because the Lord wills it to be so. The Lord is great and you should not question His will.

:p /sarcasm


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By Gzus666 on 11/23/2009 8:45:31 PM , Rating: 3
Sad part is that sounds like a real creationist argument if you leave out the /sarcasm part. Truly worrisome, is it not?


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/24/2009 7:29:05 PM , Rating: 4
What's really sad is that it's about as productive/useful as a real creationist argument. It is indeed worrisome.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By Dorkyman on 11/27/2009 12:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
I for one don't understand the "conflict" between God and science. I was trained as a electrical engineer and am familiar with the fields of physics, math, geology, and such; at the same time I am comfortable around the concepts of God and religion.

To each his own, I guess, but to me the term "God" refers to the laws of science--it represents the order of the universe, the fact that 2+2=4 and the fact that all creatures adapt to their environment. To deny that the universe began 4,000 years ago or that natural selection doesn't affect a species is just absurd.

So to me, "Physics" or "Chemistry" is just God by another name. No conflict.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By Dorkyman on 11/27/2009 12:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, sorry--I meant "to claim...", not "to deny."

Memo to self: read what you wrote before hitting the button.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By grandpope on 11/25/2009 6:52:56 PM , Rating: 5
This reminds me of a Simpson's episode where Ned Flanders became principal. Bart became the school's star student by answering ALL the questions with "God did it".

The Simpsons are the mouthpiece of God!


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By digitalbeachbum on 11/22/2009 10:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
Evolution is a tested theory. It is not a fact. There are many facts which make up the theory of evolution.

People have their own paths to follow even if those paths are produce negative results, no matter how painful it is.

I agree. The Earth will never be at peace, but not because of religion, but because the ego controls all the desires of mankind. Greed, fear, hate, etc, all come from the desires of the ego, not from religion.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By stimpson65 on 11/22/2009 10:32:43 PM , Rating: 4
Gravity is a "tested theory" too but no sane individual would try to tell you that, if you let go of your pen while sitting in your office, it isn't going to fall.

In science, EVERYTHING is a "theory" but in many (most?) cases, that "theory" might as well be treated as a fact by a layman.
The statement I made in the post above is still true. Evolution can be considered a fact by the layman until a better "tested theory" comes along.

Your comment on ego is ironic since the ego is one of the emotional components needed in creating invisible friends.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By Keeir on 11/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Enough Of This BS!
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/24/2009 12:32:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Demanding blind obedience to more knowledgable conduits of truth.

Wrong. Science does not requires blind obedience, it requires that only that you interpret the evidence and draw logical conclusions. Blind obedience, as demonstrated in faith-based beliefs, is fundamentally contrary to science.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By MrPoletski on 11/26/2009 9:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
In fact it does the opposite. In science you are encouraged to disprove things.

If you come up with a theory, you test it. What you are actually doing though is exhaustively attempting to disprove your theory (and if it is far reaching, the rest of the scientific comunity will also try).

When you have tried, in every way possible, to disprove your theory and FAILED... then that is when it becomes 'proven'.

There is no evidence that disproves evolution, only some that requires us to look and think a little harder about why a certain thing is so.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By Fritzr on 11/30/2009 3:01:43 AM , Rating: 2
An example of a "failed" experiment verified that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Michaelson and Morley believed that this proposition was false and designed an experiment to prove that the speed of light is not a constant. Their "failure" to prove their idea true is hailed as a major success :P What is forgotten is they did not believe in the result they are famous for proving.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By Fracture on 11/23/2009 10:06:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People have their own paths to follow even if those paths are produce negative results, no matter how painful it is.


How about even if it kills you? Natural selection in action - thanks for proving evolution! Whether it ends that particular geneology or just makes it harder for that organism to reproduce, it then becomes an inferior combination of genes in the pool.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By clovell on 11/23/2009 11:09:46 AM , Rating: 3
While I can see how some of Darwin's ideas may have influenced the eugenics movement, it defintely was NOT their 'logical conclusion'.

Cameron is scared. Religion has been slowly losing its grip and most of the religious have no idea why. It's easier to blame another ideology, I guess.

Eh, Meh.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By Reclaimer77 on 11/23/2009 12:08:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
This earth will never be truly at peace until religion no longer has the power to make otherwise normal, thinking people shut off the reasoning portion of their brains.


Ummm.. In Kirk Camerons defense, he wrote a book dude. He's not running into buildings yelling "ALLAH ACKBAAAA" and blowing himself up into pizza toppings.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By floydian101 on 11/23/2009 10:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
Here's an interesting response to this. I love this woman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN9zpf5cT0M


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By GalapagosPete on 11/24/2009 2:23:50 AM , Rating: 4
"Woman?" I'll grant you that Kirk is a little girly, but I wouldn't call him a woman.

Were you perhaps thinking of this?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmHN3JtyUXg


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By floydian101 on 11/24/2009 8:10:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, my bad. I copied the wrong link off the page. Thanks for catching that.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By Hawkido on 11/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Enough Of This BS!
By Kaleid on 11/24/2009 5:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
And that is why North Korea calls itself:
"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea"

The meaning of the word theory is not quite the same in science as in common language for the laymen.

If Newton put forth his law of gravity today it too would be called theory of gravity. Newton's theory is btw not completed. Einstein added to it so it was improved but it is still not fully understood.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By Hawkido on 11/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: Enough Of This BS!
By eddieroolz on 11/26/2009 5:14:35 AM , Rating: 3
About time you stop rolling us evolutionists with environmentalists.

I believe in evolution and I do not believe global warming is happening.

I believe in evolution and I mourn when a specie goes extinct. I like diversity on my planet.

I believe in evolution and I do not tree-hug, nor eat only vegetables, nor do I walk naked to draw attention to whaling.

You can in fact test the theory of evolution. It's called the bone structure of fins, hands and paws and how similar they are. Or the fact that fishes living in caves do not have eyes, because guess what, it's dark there!


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By MrPoletski on 11/26/2009 9:46:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Last time I checked a cat was still a cat, a dog was still a dog.


It's retarded arguments like this that show complete ignorance of what the theory of evolution is that makes any kind of 'rational debate' with proponents of creationism very difficult.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By Kaleid on 11/27/2009 1:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
Every year there is a new flu shot for a reason.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By Fritzr on 11/30/2009 3:28:20 AM , Rating: 1
To convert a cat into a dog you transform an individual creature. In fantasy novels you use "magic" to do this. In real life it does not occur and there are no theories tested or untested about how to do it, aside from using magic or prayer. These latter two methods are known to fail 100% of the time when tested. To a scientist this means that these two methods "probably" do not work. That probably is in there only because the scientist has seen experiments that failed. This still leaves the possibility that the cleric or magician can redesign their rite/spell and produce the expected results.

A real world test of evolution turns up in the mainstream press at regular intervals. It is "Drug Resistant Bacteria/Germs". To conduct the test you start with a colony of bacteria. Apply the anti-bacterial agent of your choice in a dosage sufficient to kill most, but not quite all the bacteria in your colony. Now create a new colony using the bacteria that survived. Repeat using the same dose of anti-bacterial agent. With each repetition the percentage of bacteria killed will go down as the survivors are resistant or immune to your chosen bacteria killer. This is "Natural Selection" in action. If the bacteria die then they do not reproduce. If they do reproduce then they will take over the territory of the dead. Note that there is nothing to say what the selector is, only that the dead have no descendants. BTW This is the basis of Eugenics. Eugenics which was a popular study worldwide prior to 1945 is "Intelligent Selection" applied for the purpose of "improving" a species. Breeding for specific traits in domestic animals is one example of eugenics. After 1945 the name of this field of study was changed to "Selective Breeding". The methods remain the same to this day.

Science does not care how it is done. All science notes is does it work? If it does work and the reason is unknown then you have a "field of research". If it does work in an unexpected manner, then the theory the test was based on will be modified to match the new results. Einstein did this to the "Law of Gravity" by stating that under certain stated conditions the reality would not agree with Newton's unmodified prediction. This was later proven to be true and Einstein's modification to Newton's theory is the current "Law of Gravity". As further research finds departures from theoretical prediction, the theory known as "The Law of Gravity" will be updated.

Science is in the business of proving things false. What is left over is then assumed to possibly be the way things work and is used to test other ideas until such time as the possible truth is proved partially or totally false.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By bighairycamel on 11/25/2009 3:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another thing: Evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different subjects and, while natural unguided abiogenesis has been demonstrated to be plausible in multiple experiments, evolution does not EVER attempt to make ANY claims as to the beginning of life on this planet! NONE! ZIP! ZERO!
Why is that exactly? Why do the two get separated? If evolution stemmed from a single celled organism, why is the appearance of that single celled organism ignored in the evolutionary debate?

If someone says "I belive in God" it is always assumed they do NOT believe in evolution (not saying this is always the case, just the typical assumption). Likewise, if someone says "I believe in evolution" it is always assumed they do NOT believe in God. So therefore a supporter of evolution is always assumed to believe in abiogenesis, yet if the subject is brought up it is shrugged off as a completely different topic. I submit that the two are very related and abiogenesis is very relevant to the evolutionary debate.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By MrPoletski on 11/26/2009 10:16:23 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why is that exactly? Why do the two get separated? If evolution stemmed from a single celled organism, why is the appearance of that single celled organism ignored in the evolutionary debate?


Because they are different subjects. Evolution did not stem from a single cell organism.

Read this carefully and take the words as literally as possible.

Evolution describes how survival of the fittest (natural selection) and random genetic mutations will lead to the diversification of life from its original parents - many (perhaps millions of) generations ago.

It does NOT state that life started on earth as a single ameoba, it does not even address how life BEGAN on earth, it simply provides and explanation as to what is likely to have happened AFTER that life was created and began to procreate.

LOGICAL APPLICATION of the T.O.E. will lead one to deduce that all life on earth has a much smaller subset of common ancestors. One might even say that it is a single ancestor. If you disagree with that, don't attack the TOE, attack the people using the TOE improperly (if they are indeed doing so, which they are not).

Idiot creationists who claim to debunk evolution by many things including but not limited to:

a) 'look at these polonium rings in quartz'
b) 'you expect me to believe the universe came from nothing?, just an accident? some big bang? pah!'
c) 'it can't work because the laws of thermodynamics say it cant'

Are idiots because none of those points are anything to do with the formation or DEVELOPMENT of life. The theory behind the big bang could be completely wrong - but that wouldn't stop the TOE from being sound.

And creationists, the laws of thermodynamics apply to... THERMODYNAMICS. Shocking eh?

Oh and just for the record, just because the NET CHANGE in entropy of a CLOSED SYSTEM cannot decrease, doesn't mean that life can't form because that would 'send entropy backward' (which it doesn't).

quote:
I submit that the two are very related and abiogenesis is very relevant to the evolutionary debate.


It is not relevant to the TOE. It is, however, relevant to the ORIGIN of life on this planet much like the TOE is relevant to the DEVELOPMENT of life on this planet.

Not relevant to the TOE, but yes, you are right that this is an important subject if we are to get to the bottom of where life originated from on this planet.


RE: Enough Of This BS!
By Screwballl on 11/30/2009 3:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact!


You start out with a lie and then it gets worse... come back when you have facts and truth on your side and we may listen... until then, keep trolling.

Evolution has NOT been proven and is just as much of a theory as the possibility of man traveling faster than light.

Science has not proven Evolution it has only proven (like man made global warming) that it is possible but not a fact.

so go back and hide under your bridge troll.


losing the debate
By xonrox on 11/22/2009 8:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
If I witnessed two groups, one viciously and thoughtlessly attacking the other for disagreeing, I wouldn't hesitate to join those being attacked- the other group carries too much hatred. Not the sort of people I'd want to spend time around.

Wake up Darwinists. This is no way to spread your message. With this strategy you are destined to defeat yourselves.




RE: losing the debate
By stimpson65 on 11/22/2009 9:06:16 PM , Rating: 4
If one group was making the claim that murder was moral and just and the other group was telling them they were idiots for thinking that way, would you defend the supporters of murder?
Didn't think so.
You CAN simply be wrong you know.


RE: losing the debate
By digitalbeachbum on 11/22/2009 9:05:41 PM , Rating: 1
If I witnessed two groups, one viciously and thoughtlessly attacking the other for disagreeing, I would hesitate to join those being ignorant - the other group carries too much hatred. Not the sort of people I'd want to spend time around.

Wake up Creationists. This is no way to spread your message. With this strategy you are destined to defeat yourselves.


RE: losing the debate
By Hieyeck on 11/23/2009 9:29:55 AM , Rating: 5
10+ Crusades - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
Still going on - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
Et Cetera - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_hunt
Et Cetera - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

You must change sides a lot.

Wait ONE moment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence

WTF? Even amongst yourselves? Oh dear.


I'm not shocked
By digitalbeachbum on 11/22/2009 8:53:30 PM , Rating: 4
I am not shocked by the mis-information given by Mr. Cameron. He is being deciteful. He and his friend Mr. Ray Comfort are out to push their own belief system. They do not believe in the freedom of choice.

Some points in his open comments which are misinformation:

Pray in public – Of course you can pray in public. Doh! They are not allowed to pray in public schools during public sessions or during class because public schools are paid for with PUBLIC TAXES. If it is paid for with public taxes, then seperate church and state.

Not allowed to open a bible in school – Absolutely incorrect. I’ve know many christian students in public schools who carried bibles in their book bags. They know they can take them out and read them as they wished provided they were not doing it during class. This is no different than not being allowed to open a comic book during class.

10 Commandments not allowed on public places – (see comment above about PUBLIC TAXES). Gideon bibles can not give out bibles in schools – (see comment about PUBLIC TAXES).

61% of Professors are Athiests – Really? I’d love for Mr Cameron to post who did the polling, what “top 50 schools” were polled, what kind of poll was it, how many people were polled and over what period of time were they polled. This is a BS example of MISINFORMATION because their is no “specifics” about the poll.

Brainwashed younger generation – They have been saying this about “the younger generation” for thousands of years. Each older generation thinks that the younger generation is “getting brainwashed”. Mr. Cameron is loosely using the word BRAINWASHED, he really has no idea what real brainwashing is. If any thing I could use this term on him and Mr. Comfort for their pushing of their views on the “younger generation”.

One way to change the nation – There are a thousand ways to “change this nation” and following Mr Cameron’s belief system shouldn’t be one of them. It is a selfish and self centered belief system with no open minded point of view.

I hope that people will think with an open mind and keep FREEDOM OF CHOICE and FREEDOM OF SPEECH for ALL RELIGIONS and ALL BELIEF SYSTEMS. If you want to be a Christian (or what ever) then by all means, do so, but on your own time, with your own money and with out involving those who do not wished to be involved.




RE: I'm not shocked
By Proteusza on 11/23/2009 8:11:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
61% of Professors are Athiests


Really? I'd hoped it would be higher than that.

Another misguided American attempts to mislead let more Americans down the garden path, yawn.


RE: I'm not shocked
By Hieyeck on 11/23/2009 9:43:23 AM , Rating: 3
The other 72% are Agnostics.

The other other 92.55413543% think statistics are made up on the spot.

The OTHER other other 3.14159% just want pie.


Question?
By mhenson8 on 11/22/2009 9:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
I am not about to debate anything because my knowledge is limited in both the areas of science and religion. Correct me please, anyone, if I am wrong, but my understanding of true science is pure and simply the search for knowledge and then with enough knowledge a reasonable opinion may be formulated. My understanding of religion, specifically Christianity (since I am a Christian), is the search for spiritual truth and, at least for me, that spiritual truth gives purpose to the knowledge received in both religion and science. If I remember correctly there was a time that Christians believed the world was flat and then when it was proven otherwise, by scientific exploration, some had to change their thoughts about that and then eventually there were passages in the bible that implied the earth was round. I believe the universe was created by, and all that is in it, intelligent design and therefore an intelligent designer. The process this designer used is not specifically mentioned in the bible and understanding some of the original language, the amount of time it took for creation to be completed is not really set in stone, as some say. I realize physics has been shown to be a universal law that, as far as we can understand, cannot be altered, though I have watched some documentaries, mainly reference black holes, where it is mentioned the laws of physics does not apply. I believe science, in its purest form, is a very good thing. I believe religion, in its purest form, is just as important, if not more important, and they both should be embraced in what they can teach us about who we are as a people. Does a person who is labeled as a "creationist" have to be considered against evolution? Is evolution the creation of one species from another species? Is there a big difference between a species evolving through time compared to a species adapting through time? Thank you for not being condescending in any replies. It is easier to catch something with something that is tasteful than something that pushes it away.

mhenson8@fuse.net




RE: Question?
By tacne4ever on 11/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: Question?
By MozeeToby on 11/23/2009 2:00:47 AM , Rating: 3
So now you're trying to say what people can and can't believe about faith as well? There are many, many people who understand evolution and all it's implications who are also quite religious. If you feel that you are unable to reconcile the two, that's fine. But please don't go spreading the idea that you and only you get to decide what a 'true' Christian is, that's more disgusting than spreading misinformation and straw-man attacks on evolution (which your Bear to Whale example certainly is).


RE: Question?
By Gzus666 on 11/23/2009 9:01:49 PM , Rating: 3
It wasn't bears, it was relatives of current deer, cattle, sheep, hippos, etc. It was a wolf like creature, looks kinda like a hyena known as a Pakicetid. Too bad you are too set in your ignorance to read into how they found the link. I'm not here to teach you though, only to laugh at you and clear up any BS you and others like you spout.

Evolution is wonderfully simple and yet so complex at the same time. Truly one of the most interesting Biology subjects I have come across, makes me wish I had went into Biology instead of networking but, c'est la vis as they say.


bible thumpers are embarrassing
By inverse137 on 11/22/2009 6:52:45 PM , Rating: 5
So why do the bible thumpers always say that "On The Origin Of Species," is the "bible" of atheist?

I mean, I've read "On The Origin Of Species" and it is groundbreaking and all but it is hardly the "end" of the study of evolution. There has been over 150 years of research on this subject.

At least the brain dead religious right finally gave up on the Big Bang model. There is so much supporting evidence that they finally now say, "well of course there was a big bang, that's how god did it."

My favorite bible thumper argument is "then why is there a missing link?" To which I always ask them, "between what and what is their a missing link?" They never know.

So, I'm guessing that going on college campuses to distribute bible thumper propaganda is the closest Kirk Cameron has come to "attending" college.

This article is more relevant as a story of the tactics of bible thumpers rather than a former 80s child star's relevance as a scientific "expert."




By Spazmodian on 11/23/2009 3:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At least the brain dead religious right finally gave up on the Big Bang model. There is so much supporting evidence that they finally now say, "well of course there was a big bang, that's how god did it."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

I guess the joke is on you then, considering it was a catholic priest who postulated the singularity theory. Now that you understand you've been duped into their backwards 'bible thumping' theological views are you going to do the only logical thing and end yourself due to your own weakness? If you give me your mailing address I can send some rat poison to you so as to make it easier.


...
By SumTingWong on 11/22/2009 8:33:28 PM , Rating: 3
well this article wasn't incredibly one-sided at all...




RE: ...
By Hieyeck on 11/23/2009 9:46:59 AM , Rating: 4
well this comment wasn't incredibly descriptive at all...


All believe in something - Scientists too
By PaleHorse2185 on 11/22/2009 8:51:25 PM , Rating: 3
Somebody said here:
Religion works on beliefs - often unchanged in the face of contrary data.
I humbly suggest that if you think scientists are uninfluenced by their beliefs or at least their preconceptions, you are sadly misinformed. If not, why the vehemence against those of us under-evolved creatures who question science (it has never been wrong?) and allow the possibility of a God? Perhaps it is unfair for the scientists, but the scientific method (adopted/advanced by believers in God incidentally) can't be used to proove many things (such as an historical event because e.g. you can't re-sink the Titanic with the same folks on board, or emotions or love or one-time matters like the big bang). Because God is by defn. supernatural he cannot be denied existence by scientific method either. That leaves honest scientists to be agnostics or religious and athiest scientists are as much believers in no God as the religious.




RE: All believe in something - Scientists too
By citymsc on 11/22/09, Rating: -1
By Fracture on 11/23/2009 10:34:12 AM , Rating: 3
Seeing is believing is just a slogan, not an actual belief system. If it were true I'd have thought that aliens blew up the white house, that there were angels in the outfield, and that David Blaine can fly.

Observation and quantifiable results - evidence of proof and proof of evidence.

Your quote is totally meaningless. Einstein merely lacked the tools for observation that we are just now creating for ourselves. Up to this point its been a walk in the park - humans have discovered everything readily visible to the eye down to the atomic level - we're starting to produce our own materials and elements in colliders.


By Flunk on 11/22/2009 11:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
That's why the peer review process exists and existing theories can be challenged any time someone puts together enough evidence.

Your argument ignores the entire purpose of the scientific process. It's designed to mitigate human failings like unsubstantiated beliefs and blind faith.

Nothing's perfect of course, but it's the best thing we've come up with so far.

I'll be nice and not spend too much time pointing out you've fallen down the classic trap of arguing something you don't understand and included points that make no sense at all. But seriously, why would science be concerned with proving past events? That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.


Evolution
By tacne4ever on 11/22/2009 8:58:04 PM , Rating: 1
Students are indoctrinated in schools to believe in evolution. Look around you, as Charles Darwin eluded to in the Origins of the Species, "nature would be in a state of confusion". Well it is not. Anyone who really is not afraid of the truth, after contemplating the theory of evolution for just a day, would see that it is nothing but an adult fairy tale. There is a huge difference betw a scientific Law, eg Law of Gravity and a theory, like evolution. The effects of gravity can be tested by all men, regardless of education level any where on earth. Similar many chemical and biological theories and also be demonstrated. However, only evolution is so advance, that only the enlightened ones can perceive it. Sounds fishy to me.




RE: Evolution
By MozeeToby on 11/23/2009 1:35:41 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
However, only evolution is so advance[d], that only the enlightened ones can perceive it.
I suppose you doubt the Standard Model of particle physics equally as much as evolution then? After all, you can get a degree in physics without ever learning the Standard Model, you can't say the same for evolution and biology. In fact, you can advance the science of evolution with a bunch of test tubes and a sample of bacteria; advancing the Standard Model takes... well a bit more investment (think 4.6 billion dollars and a 20 mile in diameter particle accelerator).

Off the top of my head, other theories that require much more equipment and knowledge to understand and research: Physical Chemistry (Current research relies on the most powerful computer cluster in the world), Relativity (Atomic clocks, powerful telescopes, or a solar eclipse are needed just to verify it), Poincare's Conjecture (went unsolved for decades before the brightest mathematicians in the world solved it), and Quantum Computers (a subject so complex that only a handful of programs have been written that should theoretically work on a quantum computer).

Besides, it doesn't take a PhD to understand evolution, there are excellent books on the subject and countless websites. Richard Dawkins's new book, The Greatest Show on Earth goes through a huge body of the evidence without his usual militant atheism, I highly recommend it. I'm only a layman in biology (Software engineering is my area) but I guarantee you that if you ask my any question you have I will be able to find an answer and explain it to you with less text than is in this comment. And I'm being serious, if you have legitimate questions, throw them out and I'll do my best.


Science?? BAH
By citymsc on 11/22/2009 9:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
So Science and Faith cannot mix? That was so YESTERDAY! SCIENCE, as is traditionally touted as indisputable and concrete, has been blown out of the water for years with the ingress into Quantum Mechanics, and Consciousness.

“I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problem as I have about general relativity theory.”

– Albert Einstein

Here in this quantum world lies the sea of probablitily that has been proven to be the catalyst of BELIEF ... the power of the OBSERVER. You folks that have FAITH in SCIENCE are the same ones that NOW cannot explain this Quantum Enigma, or the basis of Entanglement, or the absolues of extra dimensional existence, or the FACT of intelligent particle morphing or Super-Positioning! You are TOTALLY at a loss to explain why physics falls apart in this new realm of study.

So please, don't lecture any one in this chat string about your grand understanding as if it were FACT indisputable and without fault.




RE: Science?? BAH
By ForestFire0 on 11/22/2009 11:51:34 PM , Rating: 3
Quantum Physics is an entirely new branch of science. It's unfair of you to use the lack of understanding (relative to general physics) of this new and complex field of science as proof science has no validity. Already we are making strides in learning about this field. Have you heard about the LHC? Demanding instant understanding of a new field is ridiculous. That's like showing a calculus student a function and then saying "OK, that should be all you need for your integration test! Start...NOW!" It's ridiculous. Understanding takes time and study. It's pretty hard to study things on the quantum level because of things like the uncertainty principle. Give science some time, it'll figure this puzzle out too.

Also, no one has "faith" in science. One definition of faith, the type of faith that religions demand, is this: Faith-n-Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. This is what religion calls for. Science demands the exact opposite of this. Science demands logical proof and material evidence. No scientific theory is lacking proof, that's a hypothesis.


His argument
By Really K on 11/22/2009 7:02:48 PM , Rating: 4
Kirk Cameron's main argument - that Darwinism and Evolution can be manipulated to support malevolent beliefs and political policies - is true, but neglects that any idea, theory or fiction can as well. Christian history is rife with terrible acts against humanity all in the name of God. I'll name just a few: witch hunting, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the expansion of European power to the rest of the globe. Also, Hitler was a Catholic - he equally used evolutionary thinking Christian thinking to justify the horrific injustices he committed. Why are you cherry picking your facts, Cameron? Is it because you desperately want to discredit evolution in any way you can?
Cameron's point does not accomplish its goal in discrediting evolution - that something can be used for evil does not mean "therefore it does not exist."

All scientific evidence, all scientific disciplines acknowledge that evolution is a natural, ongoing process. Science is united in its support of evolution as a framework for understanding biology and interpreting the relationships between living and extinct species.

On the other hand, Christianity is but one fictional account of the universe among many - with even Christian churches disagreeing on Biblical interpretation. It's high time we give up religion as an explanatory device - it's totally useless in this regard. As a moral system, or a method of experiencing spirituality, Christianity is perhaps equal to other belief systems, and should be kept in such a fashion. As a foundation for understanding the nature of life, it's akin to using in "Lord of the Rings" to explain chemistry.




Mr Kirk's fallacies
By davidirby on 11/22/2009 9:15:02 PM , Rating: 4
Mr Kirk's argument against evolution theory is essentially an “ad hominem” one (an idea or person is alleged to be wrong because some unpopular person or group follows it, in this instance Hitler), which a logical fallacy. And doubly so here, because Hitler's racial ideas profoundly distorted evolutionary theory. Anti-evolution religious Fundamentalism, like its Atheistic counterparts, is built on fallacious logic; the first error (on both sides) being that conclusions derived from physical science (e.g., biology) can be definitively drawn from it on an issue, which is essentially metaphysical; the existence or non-existence of a Creator God. Among the vast majority, who think this is not an “either/or” (God or evolution) question; is Pope Benedict XVI, who wrote extensively on the subject when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger. Essentially, the beauty and order of the Universe as a whole bespeaks a profoundly beautiful and loving Creator, so that is the best conclusion to draw is that He does exist. So, God Created the universe, including us. And as to “evolution”, that is the best explanation within science for HOW he went about Creating us. This contemplation together with the scientific theory, allows us to wonder even more at the greatness and lovingness of our Creator.




God AND Evolution are not mutually exclusive
By SDSmith on 11/22/2009 8:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
There is a pretty compelling argument that evolution is simply the mechanism of God's creation, one of several in fact. Many criticize the hap haphazardness of probability which also appears to have bothered Einstein. In dealing with probabilities of one in a billion or 100 billion or more the way to create certainty is with scale....look up in the night sky, then consider you don't see the whole of one galaxy in a universe containing billions of galaxies. We're just now struggling with the concept that there may be as many universes. Now that's certainty.

BTW, we aren't talking a God with a white beard as literally stated in the bible (*created by men) but a real God we can only hope to understand by understanding his creations.




By bigehill on 11/22/2009 10:19:39 PM , Rating: 1
I totally agree with you. I posted a comment 'God and Evolution' that you should check out. I elaborated much more.


well he would be my choice
By who cares on 11/22/2009 6:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
I care as much about what a used to be tv satr has to say as octomom.




Science versus Religion
By JDC on 11/22/2009 7:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
The argument on 'evolution is only a theory' shows a complete lack of understanding of the difference between science and belief without data. Science is always the formation of testable hypotheses - the best explanation until a better, more refined, or more exacting one can be formulated. Science is advanced by researchers who constantly question what is 'known' and thus push back the frontiers of knowledge. Religion works on beliefs - often unchanged in the face of contrary data. Sometime with overwhelming data and lots of time, religion is modified. It is now pretty well accepted that the Sun is the center of the solar system, but Galileo suffered for such science. In time, religion will evolve to accept evolution. It may, however take centuries and a better educated public.




Food for thought.....
By zamkam on 11/22/2009 8:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We have a situation in our country where young people are entering college with a belief in God and exiting with that faith being stripped and shredded


What do you expect? Educated minds prefer rational explanations.




Evolution
By kirkussent on 11/22/2009 8:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
These arguments have been going on forever and will continue forever. So I say we can at least be respectful of one another. I do not see how calling someone a name or believing that they are less intelligent can ever win an argument. If you are a scientist then use your science to reason your side of the argument not emotional name calling. If you are a christian then is not it a sin to treat someone disrespectfully ( do on to others as they would do to you).

It seems to me that both sides are losing when they fail to use the merits of their arguments and instead rely on the tone of their argument to convince the other side.




By CrowTRobot99 on 11/22/2009 8:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
The man is a has-been actor from a 2nd rate sitcom 25 years ago. He is not theologian, he is not an evolutionary scientist, he isn't a sociologist. In fact he holds no qualifications at all: he couldn't even write the intro himself. Why have we become so obsessed with fame that fame=expertise on any subject?
As for his "argument": Because Hitler abused the theory into something evil means the whole thing is wrong? Asinine. Is the Atomic theory wrong because someone used it to create a bomb? Of course not.
Asking questions like "who created the big bang?" or "who strated evolution?" only reveal your own ignorance of the subject. Neither requires a creator, especially not a divine one.




Kirk Cameron
By Johnny Cat on 11/22/2009 8:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
Is a nut. Period. Also, why does he have money in his front pocket? Must be his gift to god. The worst bookkeeper ever.




Evolution
By pizero on 11/22/2009 8:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder if someone would please make a post explaining where evolution started. If its the big bang theory then what caused the big bang? How did nothing make a big bang?


Evolution is a process involving natural selection. It occurred as soon as there was competition between organisms for sources of energy in their environment. The Big Bang theory is irrelevant, and your remarks about it indicate that you have no understanding of it, or science in general. Please take time to read some legitimate sources of scientific information and remedy this situation.

quote:
If God used evolution then he's not interested in a personal relationship with humans and he doesn't care what we do. This is actually oposite of what happened and what he inteded for us.


You don't know what happened. To state that you do is both arrogant and misleading. Try viewing the world with a mind that is a bit more open. It would do you a world of good.

quote:
One last thing to remeber is that evoluation is a theory and will always be a theory. It takes just as much faith to believe in evoluation as it does creationism.


In a word, NO! Evolution is a scientific theory; as such it is abundantly supported by evidence. Such evidence continues to accrue with each passing year. Again, your statement reveals only your willful ignorance. It takes no faith at all to accept evolution as a valid explanation of the development of life on Earth. It is not a matter of faith. Rather, it is a matter of REASON, and the willingness to be even slightly flexible in one's thinking. It is also a matter of personal intellectual honesty and integrity! Sadly, this is something sorely lacking in the community of religious pinheads who resolutely insist that their 12th century worldview is sacrosanct.




Darwin and Hitler: Ridiculous
By mullerpaulm on 11/22/2009 9:23:38 PM , Rating: 2
The religious leaders fronting this affront to Darwin reveal their true colors and ultimate stupidity by saying: "Darwin's Theory is Wrong and worse, Evil, because in my opinion as a cleric, Hitler was following some of its precepts." Okay, how about this: "Christianity is wrong and evil because in the second crusade Jerusalem was sacked and most of the Muslims there of all ages were killed without mercy." That would be a stronger argument, along with Dubya's sending the troops off to Iraq with, "God is on our side." AGAINST Christianity! By the way, when Saladin reconquered Jerusalem 80 years later, he released or ransomed almost all of the Christians. What does one read into that?




re: Evolution
By flusched on 11/22/2009 9:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
One last thing to remeber is that evoluation is a theory and will always be a theory. It takes just as much faith to believe in evoluation as it does creationism.

Faith belongs to science and belief belongs to religion. Faith grows as a result of increasing empirical evidence. Belief requires no evidence at all and believers actually relish in holding onto beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary. You need to quit using the scientific term 'faith' when referring to religious beliefs. It is theft, and if you are a Christian you should remember that 'thou shalt not steal' is a commandment.

flusched@gmail.com




Sorry...
By NonmaskableInt on 11/22/2009 9:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
I fail to see the reason why anyone spends time debating this, or for that matter suggesting that Darwin's theory is some how disruptive or destructive to a belief in God. Further, it is asinine to suggest that some of the greatest atrocities in the last century can be traced to Darwin's theories on species. It is far more appropriate to point out that humanity as a whole will use whatever justification is available to make their position seem logical, even righteous while trying to maintain or improve their overall position. If you actually do believe in God then why wouldn't you spend all of the time you possibly could learning about the amazing world you've been placed in? Or perhaps your faith is a brittle and fragile thing. I find it far easier to accept that the world evolved according to God's will over time than to suggest that evolution never took place when everything around you contradicts such a belief. I get worried when people feel the need to constrain those around them to the their own level of understanding or beliefs, be that faith in God or a lack thereof. Leave science alone and stop trying to bring science in line with religion, it didn't work well when the Earth was supposed to be the center of the universe and it works no better now.




Get a grip
By DaTeach on 11/22/2009 9:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
Do you realize that this was all about an actor who worked on a SitCom and had a best friend named Boner? Please don't give this nutbag any more power than he already has.




Can we at least try to be civil?
By ckstdefiant on 11/22/2009 9:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
Cameron's tactics are flawed regardless of intentions. In fact, I'd wager most people posting here have not read what Cameron wrote. Present a logical argument based on what he wrote, or just go home.

Now to comment on what people have posted thus far.

Some people forget what science is, and by doing so personify it and set it at odds with God. Some "Christians" espouse that God is against science. Both of these ideas are in error.

Science is merely the study of the world/universe around us by means of testing using known and unknown elements. Results provided by utilizing the scientific method are not always completely accurate. The USDA stated for years that the food pyramid is how we should eat, but in recent years readjusted the prescribed diet (1). Regardless of how you feel about the US government, the USDA has scientists on staff. Which diet is correct, presumming there is a correct answer for all of us? This is merely a drop in the bucket. Scientists can find new data to change old theories, yet many who tend to have some of the louder/prominent voices will speak as if "science" is infallible.

Religion, or faith (as the religious right refer to it these days), exists to explain where everything began and what a moral life looks like. Scientists can only postulate that a bang occurred in the beginning, but not the material's origin. If people want evidence of God, why do billions of people believe in a higher authority/diety regardless of religious system? Is that not evidence, I think people can be measured.

Religion and Science have much in common, one main point is that without people neither really matter at all. Science does not move on without people since it's a study. The sun will still shine because that's how it works, not because of science which exists to attempt to explain why the sun shines (in layman's terms). There is no morality if people do not exist, hence there is no religion.

Each has it's dark past, where a particular idea/notion/object, whether scientific or religious in nature, was misused to further a political or monetary agenda. On one hand, you have dynamite which was originally meant to be used for peaceful means, but the military had other ideas for it, obviously (2). In regards to religion, you have terrorists attacks by extremist Muslims and the Crusades, which are too broad to have one or two citations. People corrupt either system. The truth whether via methodical testing and studying via science or thru a religious system, in this case Christianity, is still truth.

In the end, science can exist to prove God's existence, or really how God designed the universe and is therefore not in opposition to religion or itself. What if God created in us a curiousity about Him that religion cannot explain, and gave us the gift of science to attempt to understand what He made? Just a thought.

1. http://www.southlansing.org/Portals/slcd/printable...
2. The History Channel, Modern Marvels, episode 038 (originally aired 21 June 1999)

PS: Name calling, really. That's mature.




God and Evolution
By bigehill on 11/22/2009 10:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
I have a theory that can explain Creationism and Evolution. Could mankind have evolved much like automobiles, computers, etc.? I believe the bible was written by man at a time when the earth was thought to be flat and there was no real scientific explaination about the origins of man. The bible was indeed written in good faith as I believe we DID NOT evolve from creatures that crewaled out of the ocean. I do believe in "God" but not as a spiritual being but as a civization that is far more advanced that we are. Look how much has been achieved in the last 150 years and what has been learned. What will be learned in the next 150 years or 1500 years? One question always facinated me and that was 'what came first, the chicken or the egg'? To me the answer is quite simple. If you had the ability to create DNA with the design of a chicken in mind where would you start? Building the chicken would be the exact opposite of what would be needed. Creating the chicken egg (and any egg of a life form for that matter) would be the starting place. If you look at cloning for example that involves taking the DNA of an existing organism, creating an embryo with that DNA, incubating it, and hatching it into the geneticly designed life form it originaly was. Now assume in 150 - 1500 years we are able to create DNA of our own, hence design our own life forms, we could establish new forms of life that we design. Sounds much like we're assuming the role of God ourselves. Now take another step futher and say we find a planet in the universe that is much like our earth and we also have the knowlege to reach this planet using a technology we have yet to discover. Would we not attempt to reproduce life on that planet much as life was produced on this planet?

Here is were I lose many people when I begin my explanation. We have has UFO sightings for many years and there has been unexplained events that could very well be attributed to UFO's. Crop circles is the most obvious to me. Where I'm heading is the idea that 'God' being an civilation much like our own but much more advanced with the knowlege to design and create DNA, create the initial life form (much like a new car design is created) and then implemented into our evironment for which it was designed.

Summed up this process could take place along the same timeline that evolution theorists say life evolved from nothing. The idea of no inteligent design behind the evolution of life is obsured. For this to be true would mean for every form of life there would be hundreds if not thousands of deformed mutations of that life form. To see the big picture you have to look at how well balanced life is on this planet and look at each species and the reproduction asspects that keep this balance. That alone would require some form of descion making that could look at how a new species would affect the rest.

I believe that 'God' will one day come to earth but in the form a UFO much like the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind'. At the end of that movie the door was left open as to who these aliens were. It's safe to assume that if they created us then they also have the ability to monitor us and from time to time (for lack of a better term) abduct us to evaluate our current condition.

As for the time factor, a thousand years of life on earth could be like a few days the 'God'. Much like the life span of different species on earth reange from very short lives to very long.

As for religion I was brought up Lutheren and even attended Lutheren school up until high school. I had the bible pounded into me as part of my daily education. When reaching high school I was introduced to the theory of evolution (much to my mothers dislike) but this opened my eyes to idea that maybe, just maybe a book written over 2000 years ago may be questioned. A true God fearing person would never question the bible so I guess I never feared God but admired Him (in my case 'them'). The ten commandments are a great basis for law but then again they are no brainers, except for the first commandment - Thou shall have no other Gods before me - that would indicate that either there are other Gods and this God is a little insecure or to simply put fear in a person to even think of the possibility of another God. Since there are so many religions believing in so many different ideas I personally don't see how a person could adopt any one of them as the simple truth therefore leaving the question if how we came to be to be answered by our own imagination. I simply take all that I know, compile it into an idea of how we came to be that can explain as much of all that has occured through since the beginning of time. Over the years I have developed a logical answer to the existance of life that excludes Darwin's theory of evolution and also excludes any spiritual for of God. Kind of a hybrid of both theory's.

I would much like feedback on my thoughts as I try to express them to others but meet with a lot of eye rolling.
Having writting it down and posting it I'm able to get out the whole explaination before getting caught up in an argument making me seem crazy.

Erik Hill
Anaheim, CA

Erik_Hill@roadrunner.com




By decibelsyndrome on 11/22/2009 10:19:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well, Id say that people who selectively throw out 150 years of evolutionary evidence at a whim, have brought the United States dominance in the fields of science to its knees.

These people are breeding children who have no lust for self-discovery in any form. They call it a "theory" because they never took the time to "read" a "book". These are the people who are doing the biggest disservice to America by breeding.

If you dont teach your child how to reason using tangible evidence, and accumulated knowledge, you give them a curse of ever lasting stupidity.

Hmm, even the superpower of the Catholic church has publicly accepted evolution and natural selection as truth. And apologized to him for thier persecution of his work.
Why would they do this?

It's because they intend to be around for awhile, and this retarded thought that god snapped us into existence at our current physical state....is retarded.

I encourage anyone who is afraid of being ostracized for calling creationism what it is, SPEAK OUT against this stupidity and HELP the U.S. break out of this apathetic path of destruction. These people want the self-fulfilling prophecy of Armageddon to HAPPEN...

Intellectually, we are already dead, if this lunacy continues to EVOLVE us into extinction.

Magic Jesus has left the building.




My God is smarter then your God
By oldengineer on 11/23/2009 12:03:26 AM , Rating: 2
I think the literal view of the Bible creates a view of God
that I think he'd be pretty annoyed with. The Bible has
important messages for a bunch of people just out of the
stone age. Maybe God figured that mutation, DNA, etc.. was
a bit much so start with a simple story. But God knows he
has smart kids and eventually they will catch on and figure
it out. Why give us the potential otherwise. So my God
treats me the way I treat my kids. When they were little
keep it simple. I have no doubt that evolution is the
correct theory (some details still to be worked out) and think God probably said to Darwin "Nice work kid."




What everyone is missing -
By MrRussellCB on 11/23/2009 1:00:24 AM , Rating: 2
No one knows by the scriptures how long Adam was in the Garden of Eden before Eve tempted him with the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. No one knows if the animal kingdom was in its form today or if it was "evolving". No one knows - hence the debate - hence the need for FAITH. Either you believe it and have it shown to you in your life, the power of prayer and the miracle of Jesus Christ, or you deny all there is proving this, the scriptures and histories of real people with eye witness accounts of miracles performed. Did Moses Live? Did Pharaoh free the Jews? Did he enslave them? Was the Bible a real history - again Faith is required. Those without Faith will struggle to understand God. If they deny what they know and what God knows they know (at the risk of sounding like rummy here) they will incur the wrath alone, without the intercession of their advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.




Darwin Cameron
By Jillishere on 11/23/2009 3:03:25 AM , Rating: 2
While I disagree with Mr. Cameron, his insertion of a flimsy diatribe, particularly one so strangely absurd, is inappropriate. It's time those backing religious support start to put a little more integrity into their writing and support. The substitution of Creation Science in a straight word replacement into older Creationism texts is one example of the lack of integrity of Seattle based Discovery Institute, a leading backer of Creationism. Other thoughts come to mind that are real, as opposed to some faux Hitler reference in the forward of Cameron's distribution. If there is a God, and he wants his followers to choose the "right" path, and if the Church is the messenger, what is the message the Pope and Bishops would have us learn when they hide and shelter child molesters? There's no outrage I see over that behavior, but a pattern of abuse and coverup. What type of "good" God would allow his church and messengers to continue such abuse of his constituents? Even more than the arguement of other faiths, lands, and the predecessors of Jesus apparently going to Hell because they were not fortunate enough to get the "word", these facts of modern day life cause me to question religion. The historical churches all have a nasty history of abuse, oppression, and outright genocidal crimes. How can that be justified?




By mattclary on 11/23/2009 9:14:30 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, I don't know if there is a god or an afterlife. I hope there is, I really WISH I could at least believe there was an afterlife.

With that said, I don't see why if you are going to believe in an omnipotent super-being you should feel he is not powerful enough to work within the laws of physics. If he created said laws of physics, don't you think he should be skillful enough to work within those laws?

If I were leading Christianity into the 21st century, I would be looking to ADAPT to our changing awareness of science. Look for God in quantum physics. Think outside the box a little. When I read about Christians saying retarded stuff about the earth being 6000 years old, it just assures me I will never be part of their flock.




Faith...
By Hieyeck on 11/23/2009 9:54:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What we want to do is have student make an informed, educated decision before they chuck their faith.
When I was in Catholic school, the teacher slapped me when I asked 'Why' during Friday Mass.

They lost me on the one-two punch of education and morals.




Dissent from Darwin
By messianic on 11/23/2009 10:52:35 AM , Rating: 2
Have any of you reached the enducational level of these people?:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-do...

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/




What is the intro?
By Bateluer on 11/23/2009 12:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
Any one have a link to the introduction he wrote? I'd be curious to read it.

The content of the book hasn't changed, though, correct? Its just the controversial introduction?




By trisct on 11/24/2009 4:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I think one can believe in both the Creation accounts and the theory of evolution. They are not mutually exclusive. The mistake is taking the Biblical accounts literally, when they were really meant to be simplified explanations of cosmic events.
The Bible talks about creation in 6 days, but taking that literally is silly. The creator is by definition an omnipotent being that exists outside the constraints of space and time, so this part of the tale should be taken as literary license and no more. If you are eternal, getting things done in a week is irrelevant. The account was crafted to "explain" why there are 7 days in a week - that didn't take a divine revelation. There is truth in the creation stories, but it isn't literal truth. Think of it as the creator initiated the process, and evolution is just the resulting effect.




Kirk Cameron?
By Jalek on 11/26/2009 5:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
Who even knew he was still alive?

Guess this works to make a buck, the true purpose behind most public religious statements.




Barclay's Ridge
By wtehooper on 11/30/2009 9:35:58 AM , Rating: 2
Evolution is a fact? Give me a break. Ever read about a little discovery made by the then Director of the Smithsonian Institute at a place called Barclay's Ridge in British Columbia Canada? He found fossils of every phylum on Plantet Earth in the same layer of rock. That means they all lived at the same time, duh. Evolution is a serial threaded model. You can't have a lizard with legs before you have a snake without them... or a snake without a worm. There are over 60,000 of these fossils on display in the museum. The guy who made this discovery was a profound evolutionist (wrote two books defending it). He buried the whole find in a sub-sub-sub basement at the Smithsonian with a note which to paraphrase said this: as a scientist I know what I have found and do not have the heart to destroy this evidence... as a man I cannot reveal it because it would destroy my career.

You don't want to believe in God, fine, that's your choice... but sixty plus thousand fossils are to evolution what landing on the coast of a Carribean Island was to the theory that the Earth was flat and if you sailed far enough... you'd fall off.




DT readers
By mudgiestylie on 11/30/2009 7:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
Is it just me or does virtually every article turn into a heated and impassioned contest of nerdy one-upsmanship? You already know that you are the smartest and most well informed person here, so why bother showing off? I'm gonna do something way more constructive, and go get drunk at the bar... and talk religion and politics.




By Phillip Townsend on 11/22/2009 7:40:38 PM , Rating: 1
Year after year scientists learn more...more what? Things they didn't know. Sometimes results back current beliefs, sometimes they don't. Some scientists have come to the conclusion the only real answer is there must be a higher power "God" to rationally explain the enormous amount of unanswered questions and the amazing odds required to account for life as we know it. Smart as you are you put your faith in what....people...well than by simple reasoning you are foolish. We will prove you right and prove you wrong and you will be left wondering what you believe. But if you're "Smart" you may still have time to concede you don't know and you're willing to accept that "Scientists" will never really know much for sure either. Try this,.. scientists are like all of us...searching for answers to life's basic questions. God doesn't say searching for explanations is inherently bad, only turning away from the underlying answer is. Give credit to the maker in all of his amazing power. You don't have the answers, scientists don't either. So who does? By leaving room for the possibilities of God you just may have an eternal existence,..where 6 figure incomes don't really matter.




Stupid Religion
By eddieroolz on 11/26/2009 4:27:18 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The controversial introduction claims Darwin's work fathered Nazi eugenics and overall misogyny


Yeah, like Christianity gave fair rights to women.

Did Christinanity also save people? Or did it just end up being a way to justify the massacre of millions? Crusades? The hundreds of wars throughout history in name of God?

I personally think that this "actor" defacing one of the most innovative books of all time with his own, probably shitty writing, is an ultimate act of disrespect towards Sir Darwin. If you want to criticize, write your own goddamned book. Don't add your own words and try to spread your propaganda at university.

I think that we will never be truly at peace until all the religious fanatics die off. We will be so much better off without religion hindering our development.




Evolutiom
By esteban49 on 11/22/09, Rating: 0
By digitalbeachbum on 11/23/2009 6:29:45 PM , Rating: 4
I was at one time a church going, praying christian,

then I went to college...

1 - I went to college and realized what an idiot I was for believing in a ghost, invisible man and miracles.

2 - I realized that getting religion out of the way allowed me to learn more about the world and the truth about life.

3 - I saw that being a christian took faith and that faith required me to be blind and closed minded.

4 - I stopped believing in the lies of religion.

I became free of the lie and learned that love, compassion and understanding of all living beings came from inside me and not from a book, not from a priest and not from some imaginary scape goat called jesus or god.

I learned to take responsibility for my mistakes and stopped blaming all my problems on imaginary icons and people. I stopped praying and realized that if I was going to be a better person I had to do it myself.


By Hydrofirex on 11/23/2009 9:04:52 PM , Rating: 4
You do realize that Paganism is still a RELIGION, right? Comparing Atheism, which denies the existince of a God, and Paganism which is its own spiritual beleif system (with a *gasp* Goddess) completely betrays the fact that you simply don't agree with ANYTHING that isn't what you beleive. You're not interested in God at all. You're probably one of those that thinks that anyone not a Christian is going to burn in hell - even if they never knew Christianity existed!

Finally, please let go of the Old Testament scare tactics - Revelations is SOOOO 20th Century Dogma. All the cool kids follow the Mayan end-time prophecies these days.


By HotFoot on 11/27/2009 5:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
When ever was a child punished by his loving father for simply not believing the father even existed - that father having been absent from the child's life up to the point of being revealed? For the faithful, the Father's presence IS that faith and hope - guiding compass - whatever you want to call it. For the rest, that's all meaningless hogwash and trying to appeal to it is vain.

I mean, I could see it hurting God's feelings, but to be punished? No, I think the unforgivable sin would be acting against the Father in full knowledge (or belief, if you preffer) of His existence and will.

Compared to what people actually choose to do with their lives, I really wonder if a stated belief is all that important. God is love, yes? So why is there so much hatred propagated in His name? Maybe religious and non-religious alike should focus more on reason and examine the real motivations lying beneath our behaviours.


By maugrimtr on 11/24/2009 10:13:50 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I saw that being a christian took faith and that faith required me to be blind and closed minded.


Just to kick a spanner in the works. I consider myself a faithful Christian. Yet mysteriously I believe in evolution as a basic fact of life, a 14+ billion year old Universe, anf right of homosexual people to marry and enjoy their lives in peace. Even weirder, I find none of these in conflict with my faith in God.

If you want this Christian's opinion, far too many of my kind are obsessed with putting God into a nicely labeled bottle and selling it as the One True Way. It cheapens faith. It cheapens God.

I respect Atheists and Agnostics for one simple reason. God gave them a sapien brain, and they used it. I used mine too. We need more brain usage because I seriously doubt the God who gave us this incredible machine begrudges us its use.

If I were to guess, I'd say God is delighted to have folk use their brain. Delighted to see people accept others with not simple tolerance, but understanding and respect. Delighted to see us all struggling to understand the Universe and piece together how it all works.

Christians who limit, deny, remain intolerant, blind themselves to evidence - they are a sorry people. They are so blind and reliant on translations of a second/third hand account of a great story they cannot see the obvious truths set before them. Faith in a God does not mean shutting out reality.

I'm happy - as a Christian - to marvel at humanities discoveries. Why aren't the rest of us?


By Kaleid on 11/24/2009 3:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
Umh, you have no problem dismissing all other possible gods do you? Do you need faith not believing Santa Claus?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0A4_bwCaX0


No God
By hubman on 11/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: No God
By Xerio on 11/22/2009 7:10:37 PM , Rating: 3
I am of the belief that we should not attack others' beliefs, only bring up arguments supporting yours. Bring an open mind to the table, and I will have a conversation with you. The minute you call anyone a moron, that same minute the conversation has stopped. It is now an argument during which neither party will be convinced of the supposed error of their ways.


RE: No God
By mr help on 11/22/2009 9:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
Kirk Cameron is "eine scheisskopf". There is no god and not a scintilla of evidence of anything BUT evolution

I feel what is in existence, he was a good thinker and writer and imaginer. He came up with a feeling the existence of this life, might be result of evolution, this question is to think why? Didn’t a wheel was not formed because of evolution. Or egg like shape stone was not formed. But life! (One single cell animal what ever you call or name ) result of evolution. Life is most complicated in all and it’s amazing. I do believe, there is a God behind this creation, to Mr. Kirk Cameron. knowledge of science and its in inventions has improved very much , even this modern scientist can play with any plant DNA for this result we have genetically modified organics , in short GMO today’s science have developed, this kinds of crops which is harmful to our organic body in other words to our health ,

Like this GMO SCIENCE is able to grow crops in any climatic condition and even they can stay long period , which can you or Darwin’s should have showed in the lab in taking a burnt soil and well boiled water and show us in the lab taking less period of time , with the help of modern science , please give us the Darwin’s way of life on earth , but prove us experiment it. In the lab as I have mentioned, [know need to say billions of year and evolution resulted life on earth]

there are many things in nature , science have know answers for that even you do not have it , you need to see every thing on earth and make your stand not on Darwin’s theory . You cannot see the world as Darwin saw. You need to see every thing on planet earth. Which you can see and even things which you don’t see,

I I will take you to same world which you have seen , same object again I will make you see which you saw but when I show you the same object, it will appear different. Then you saw last time and you will start thinking differently.

Darwin’s theory


GOD's Work
By hiscross on 11/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: GOD's Work
By Docta on 11/22/2009 6:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I don't understand why you can't have both. Just because you believe evolutionary theory doesn't mean you are an atheist. As for hitler and all that nonsense, a lot of people take ideas meant for one purpose and then bastardize it for a less than worthy cause. Besides pretty sure racism and eugenics existed before darwin. I'm sure if you go to other areas of the world where genocide is/did taking/took place they aren't gonna go ahead and say Darwin told me to do it.


RE: GOD's Work
By iamjimbles on 11/22/2009 6:59:23 PM , Rating: 5
Hitler took advice from Darwin, huh? Let's see what God told us to do...

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

So... God is responsible for slavery, human suffering, and the American Civil War, I guess? As well as on-going cases of slavery of course, such as what is happening in Sudan. And sex slavery too, I suppose.

Huh. Imagine that.

Oh but of course, that's different, right?


RE: GOD's Work
By DarwinRocks on 11/22/2009 7:04:23 PM , Rating: 5
> Looks like he is doing what GOD has told him to do. On the other hand Darwin did exactly what Satan told him to do.

Really? Says who? YOU? Based on what evidence? Oh, blind belief, of course.

> If GOD doesn't matter, then no matter what we do and think doesn't matter either,

Wrong. It matters, very much so. It matters, because what we do can contribute to improving our lives and the lives of those we love. It matters, because we can understand better our place in the universe. It matters, because we can strive to be happy and make others happy. It matters for many reasons that your obviously rigid and bigoted mind can't even begin to fathom.

> if GOD does matter, and he chose not to believe in him and what he tells us in the Bible is true

I am happy in the belief that the many horrible things in the Bible, like massacring innocent people in the name of a blood-thirsty, tyrannical, despicable deity, are not true.

> Please have a Merry Christmas and give Jesus a try. You will be happy you did.

Happy holidays to you, but please keep your Jesus to yourself.


RE: GOD's Work
By hiscross on 11/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: GOD's Work
By Xerio on 11/22/2009 7:16:03 PM , Rating: 1
I am a religious person as well, but I also believe in science. A strange duck as I maybe, I believe that religion and science coincide, not contradict.

As I mentioned in another comment string here, we need to have open minds. I would not mind having a conversation on this subject, but you are pretty much calling everyone that believes in science evil. That is not the God I believe in.


RE: GOD's Work
By FrosteyKnight on 11/22/2009 7:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
here is a question if there is a god (not saying i do or don't believe in one) say he wants to create Man well it says in the bible that it took 7 days. but what is a day to him is it one revolution of the planet if so which planet? that beaning said if a day to him is 100,000,000 yeas to us then maybe evolution is the process that he used to create man? just am idea


RE: GOD's Work
By Xerio on 11/22/2009 8:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
Very good theory. We don't know. All we know is what a man wrote thousands of years ago, and these writings have been re-written and translated so many times that it is hard to know exactly how the creation occurred (if you believe in such a thing).


RE: GOD's Work
By SumTingWong on 11/22/2009 8:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
the consistency of the bible thousands of years ago and now has been proven by the dead sea scrolls


RE: GOD's Work
By decibelsyndrome on 11/22/2009 10:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
Old Testament....and ohh yeah...you forgot NEW Testament.

And the only thing they prove is, some of the OT text existed in the hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls.

And BTW, you should read up on the Gospel of Judas. or are you too pious?


RE: GOD's Work
By hiscross on 11/23/2009 8:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
The book of Judas was not inspired by GOD, but by man. That makes all the difference.


RE: GOD's Work
By GalapagosPete on 11/24/2009 2:13:22 AM , Rating: 2
Really? Who told you? And what's your evidence?


RE: GOD's Work
By Kaleid on 11/24/2009 4:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
Monotheists believe that all other gods are false except their own. Cute.


RE: GOD's Work
By eddieroolz on 11/26/2009 4:46:40 AM , Rating: 1
I shall thank him for the infection I received on Friday and have been receiving antibiotics for - 4 hours each day of my life spent at a hospital, skipping university which ain't cheap to pay for.

I really should thank God for my fortune, eh? I am just so rejoiced that he chose me to host an infection - it's an honor!!

/s


Origins discussion
By smac761 on 11/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Origins discussion
By Gzus666 on 11/22/2009 8:07:29 PM , Rating: 3
I know, they also teach the atom, gravity and plate tectonics as fact, even though they are "theory". It is almost like a scientific theory is something completely different than inbred country bumpkin morons like yourself make it out to be. The realm of fact is reserved for Mathematics, the rest is scientific theory or below.

You have no evidence for a god, produce it or shut your simpleton mouth.


RE: Origins discussion
By smac761 on 11/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: Origins discussion
By CrowTRobot99 on 11/22/2009 8:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
Let's accept your theory that there is a God.
Accordingly, the Bible tells us he is a perfect being incapable of error.
Therefore, such a being would have been capable of setting the preconditions of the Universe so perfectly that a) the universe was created exactly as the big-bang states, and b) life evolved on one certain planet X billion years later into human beings capable of understanding His perfection, correct?
So, therefore, if there is a God, then the Big Bang and evolution must also be true, otherwise God is imperfect for creating false theories.
Quid pro quo, if the theories of the big-bang and evolution are correct, then God does not need to intervene with his creation, making his existence irrelevant. Again, if he DOES intervene, then He is imperfect.


RE: Origins discussion
By Gzus666 on 11/23/2009 8:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
Let me see: Red Herring fallacy, Bare Assertion fallacy, then the sub categories of Red Herring you hit are numerous like Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Fear (going to burn in hell, oh noes!!) and I'm sure I could do this all day, but you didn't even counter argue my point, so I accept your concession. Highbrow? I didn't realize being intelligent and presenting facts was an insult. Are you going to tell me I have nice taste in clothes and a handsome face to try to discount me next?

Just in case you missed some of the fallacious crap you spouted, you assume that Jesus existed and still exists. You have no proof of this and neither does anyone else. I love how you eloquently pointed to all this evidence, yet you are clearly unable to produce it. If it is so abundant, then why not just produce the evidence? I accept completely absurd notions all the time because they have evidence. I accept the Quark which jumps in and out of our universe and has no mass not because someone told me so, but because scientists have shown it to be so.

You are most likely teetering on mental retardation with such mindless arguments. You have nothing to say I haven't heard before, stop spouting your trite garbage and find some real arguments. You are fighting a loosing battle cause you have no evidence. Read a book or 5 and stop ignorantly trolling online trying to sway people to your cult.


RE: Origins discussion
By Kaleid on 11/24/2009 4:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, the flying spaghetti monster will boil unbelievers in spaghetti sauce.


RE: Origins discussion
By MozeeToby on 11/22/2009 8:41:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is almost like a scientific theory is something completely different than inbred country bumpkin morons like yourself make it out to be.
You're right, of course, but there's absolutely no reason to use this attitude; it makes all of us on your side sound like ass holes. There are two definitions of theory, a scientific one and a layman's one; it would be much more productive to point out the difference than it is to call someone an 'inbred country bumpkin moron'.

For the record, the layman's definition of a theory has more in common with the scientific meaning of the word 'hypothesis', that is; an educated guess as to how things work. The scientific meaning, is much more rigorous and actually comes closer to the layman's meaning when he says 'fact'; it's an explenation for observed phenomonon that explains and is supported by a massive body of evidence and is accepted as fact by those who understand it.


RE: Origins discussion
By tacne4ever on 11/22/2009 9:37:50 PM , Rating: 1
A true teacher is known by how well he/she can adapt to instruct even to "simplist" among us. Those who are quickly frustrated are only showing their lack of understanding/knowledge of what they claim to know. They cannot help themselves.


RE: Origins discussion
By Gzus666 on 11/23/2009 8:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
The reality is people who think really should have no concern over people's feelings. Feelings get in the way of reality and cloud judgment. I don't get why people never blame the idiot who doesn't try to understand someone, only the person who belittles them for it. I have found belittling the ignorant parallel to presenting a proper argument works quite a bit better than presenting thoughtful argument alone.

I would equate it to talking to a child, you don't reason with a child on why they should or shouldn't do something, you tell them to do or not to do it or hit them and move on. When they are old enough to reason properly, this is no longer needed and you can reason things with them. Simpletons are similar to dogs though, as they never move past that phase.

We eventually have to accept the fact that there are morons in the world, average IQ is about 101 in this country and that means there are plenty of people on both sides of the line. More and more each day I wonder if there is just a hand full of super smart people bringing that number up, cause I meet way too many idiots day to day. I truly see why people of massive intelligence tend to be anti-social. It isn't their fault, it is the idiots of the world that cause this. They realize they can't have a decent conversation with anyone cause they have no peers and just turn introverted.

On the other hand, I realize it isn't the idiot's fault they are stupid, but if we let things go as they should, the morons would weed themselves out. Call me cold or an ass hole, but at the end of the day this is how it is.

I don't claim to be the smartest man alive, but I also don't walk around telling experts in fields with massive intellects and impressive educations and research experience they don't know what they are talking about. I also don't have the balls to tell these same people my ignorant take on the subject if I have not even looked into it.


RE: Origins discussion
By pizero on 11/22/2009 8:53:43 PM , Rating: 5
What we're afraid of is arrogant simpletons like you who insist that every fact or personal experience must mesh with a myopic, highly-religious world view. It is you, dear sir, who are small-minded, yet you cannot see this. Moreover, given your disposition, it is a virtual certainty that you will *never* figure it out.

What is sad is that the idea of a wonderful, glorious, beautiful universe, without your small-minded, invisible, non-existent best friend is so utterly beyond your comprehension that you attribute your own affliction to others. Yeah, it's very revealing, alright.


RE: Origins discussion
By digitalbeachbum on 11/22/2009 9:54:04 PM , Rating: 4
Talk about a "monolpoly"? Christianity has had a monopoly for 2000 years, Judaism near 3400 years, Hinduism nearly 6000 years.

And all religions are taught as "a matter of fact" and not theory because they don't want to be tested and they don't want to be challenged.

The only truth being rejected is by Creationists because they don't want to end up experiencing the fear that comes from the killing the ego which is holding on so tightly to a lie.


RE: Origins discussion
By Kaleid on 11/24/2009 3:55:40 PM , Rating: 1
Because the glory of his creation is not that great:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw

In fact, it's very incompetent considering the powers a deity would have. And never forget the fact that there are many God fan clubs with beliefs which are not compatible with each other. Most people believe what their parents and/or society believe in general. This fact alone should cause religious people to reflect about their all too often certainty.

As for monopoly. Would you for instance allow alchemy to be taught in chemistry class or astrology in astronomy class?
And if we going to teach Christian creation myths in science class should we also teach about other creations myths?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
If no, then why not?


RE: Origins discussion
By eengineer on 11/24/2009 5:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
I am an engineer with a sustantial scientific background and a modest exposure to religion. These are enough reasons for anyone to ignore what I say, but perhaps I can add something to this overheated discussion.

There is too much misunderstanding by too many people in these discussions.

Let me start with science.

Science does not explain everything. In fact, in the deepest sense science does not explain anything, nor is this science's goal. The goal of science is to describe the universe in terms of ever more fundamental principles, which themselves have no explanation. Ultimately, scientific "explanations" are only in terms of other unexplainables.

The list below has titles of what I believe are some of the deepest principles that science now has. Each is only a simplified title of a vast topic about which books are written, often with complex mathematics.

Particle-wave duality
The fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics
The fundamental forces of nature
The speed of light as the ultimate speed
The masses of fundamental particles

There are probably a few others also. All of these principles are well established by numerous observations, but only by observations. But the only explanation that can be given for these principles is that this is the way we observe the universe, or that these are the principles that God created the universe with. I know no scientific way to distinguish between these two statements. While we may someday be able to "explain" (actually describe) these principles in terms of more fundamental ones, the more fundamental principles will themselves be without scientific explanations.

We note that these scientifically unexplained principles combine to cause supernova explosions which produce extra quantities of a handful of elements, including carbon, oxygen, magnesium, and iron, which are all essential for life as we know it.

I would probably add to the above list the existence of life on earth. We also know that life existed on the moon when the Apollo astronauts were there. But other than that, there is absolutely no accepted scientific evidence for life anywhere else in the universe. None. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but still there is no evidence. People who belive firmly that there is life elsewhere usually believe that the probability for life to begin spontaneously must be high enough for it to happen here, so it must also have happened on others of the millions or billions of similar planets in the universe. But we have no idea what the probability is for this to happen. It may be so low that one would not expect it to happen anywhere in the universe. We only know that there is life here because we observe it. Some day science may be able to "explain" (actually describe) why there is life on earth in terms of more fundamental (unexplained) principles. Or maybe not. Actually, I doubt it.

Evolution is difficult to comprehend. It concerns processes that are very slow compared to normal life experiences, and that occur over times that are very long compared to a human lifetime. However, the observational evidence is enormous. Even though there are some aspects of biology that cannot presently be described well by evolution, a huge amount is described quite well.

Except, evolution says nothing about how life began at first, or why. Nothing. As with all of science, it is a description, in this case of a process. It describes how life forms with a particlar trait come to dominate those without it, sometimes driving the latter to extinction. It does not state why the trait appeared to begin with.

Science will never explain, in the deepest sense, why evolution happens. All science ever does is describe how evolution happened and happens.

As an engineer, the true marvel of life is that it exists at all. If I could possibly build a machine with the complexity of life, any life, and somehow get all the parts of it working all at once, it would pretty quickly begin working poorly and then not at all. My body's ability to funciton diminishes when I am awake for 16 or 18 hours, but then I sleep and when I wake up I can usually function as well as the previous day. And I have repeated this thousands of times. From an engineering perspective this is mind-boggling.

People who value religion only weaken it by trying to deny scientific observations and descriptions. Evolution is a set of such observations and descriptions. Religion should instead concentrate on explaining the fundamental principles, for which science offers no explanation. I believe there will always be such principles.

Only religion can say that the reason for principles such as those I listed above, and for the existence of life, is because God created it this way. And science cannot deny this. Explanations, in the deep sense, are not part of science.


RE: Origins discussion
By Kaleid on 11/24/2009 5:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
"Science does not explain everything. In fact, in the deepest sense science does not explain anything, nor is this science's goal."

Well it certainly doesn't. Some questions might never be answered, but that doesn't mean that we should use the god of the gaps argument by default, which many religious people do. And they of course fill in the blank (without evidence) with the God they believe in.

And it certainly seems true at least for me that the hiding places for god is becoming smaller and smaller the more we find out. Natural explanations always triumph over non-scientific supernatural explanations.

If science cannot answer deep mysterious it is very doubtful that religion can. It's OK to say "we don't know".
Let's just keep working on those problems.

"People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe." - Hippocrates


RE: Origins discussion
By Gzus666 on 11/24/2009 10:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
I believe this is one of those times this applies:

It isn't that the answers don't exist, it is just you are asking the wrong questions.

This is general and not directed to you so you know. The why doesn't matter, it does happen and that is just something we must accept. It isn't that we don't know, it is that we can't know so there is no reason to pursue. No matter how far you get in understanding, the question "why" will always be answered with "we don't know". The why is a useless question, the how is the question to be yearned to answer.

It seems that is where the major divide comes. Religious types tend to ask why for everything. The rest seem to ask how does this happen? How produces results, why produces nut jobs in cults.


There is no argument
By MIchaelG50 on 11/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: There is no argument
By ForestFire0 on 11/22/2009 11:40:20 PM , Rating: 3
Just to play Devil's advocate:

At what point did the pre-evolution of humans (monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor, by the way. Humans did not evolve from monkeys) become fully human and receive a soul? By your reasoning, there must have been a single descendant or generation that was human enough to receive a soul, and the generation preceding it was not human enough and did not possess a soul. Sons and daughters would go on to the afterlife, but their parents would not. Keep in mind that the changes in evolution are minute and take place over millions and billions of years, so the difference between the minds and bodies of the "soulless" generation would have been practically identical to the "souled" generation.


RE: There is no argument
By niaaa on 11/23/2009 6:58:29 AM , Rating: 2
welcome to the middle age


RE: There is no argument
By digitalbeachbum on 11/23/2009 6:37:30 PM , Rating: 1
You stated an opinion, no facts, no theories, no argument, and you contradicted your opinion.

If monkeys "evolved" then that means "evolution" is true, which makes Darwin correct and religion incorrect.


RE: There is no argument
By Gzus666 on 11/23/2009 9:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
Careful, evolution does not directly disprove religion. It makes the teachings of the books in particular hazy and clearly off, but does not directly disprove the religions.


Evolution
By TruthorConsequences on 11/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Evolution
By stimpson65 on 11/22/2009 9:44:18 PM , Rating: 4
It requires no faith to be an atheist.
An atheist is simply someone who is unconvinced that any gods exist due to a lack of empirical evidence.
An atheist is someone who holds any religious claim to the very same standard of evidence as any other claim.
Lee Strobel is just another apologist with no more evidence to present than any other apologist.


RE: Evolution
By Hieyeck on 11/23/2009 9:39:17 AM , Rating: 3
Corrrection:
Atheists strictly deny the existence of god.
Agnostics are the ones who don't give a ____.

I would've been insulted that you thought I cared about religion, but I don't give a ____.


RE: Evolution
By Leper Messiah on 11/23/2009 9:49:59 AM , Rating: 1
What you're describing is an agnostic, not an atheist. To be an atheist is to make the same logical fallacy that a theist is making, just in the opposite direction. The true skeptic is agnostic.


RE: Evolution
By eskimospy on 11/23/2009 10:42:23 AM , Rating: 2
It most certainly is not. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not an equal and opposite faith in the nonexistence of god. I mean just check the root of the word: a(without) theism.


RE: Evolution
By Low Key on 11/23/2009 3:50:41 PM , Rating: 3
Actually atheism is an active disbelief of the existence of god. While it is not the opposite of religious it is also not the same as saying you are waiting for proof that religion is true.

Agnostic though translates to 'unknowable' meaning that to be agnostic is to just accept the fact that it could go either way and there is no proof of one side over the other.

That is just the meanings from the root words. The actual differences between agnostic and atheist are quite blurred.


RE: Evolution
By Reclaimer77 on 11/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Evolution
By Gzus666 on 11/23/2009 8:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong again, like so many other things you say. Acknowledging the idea exists is not acknowledging the thing exists. I accept that the idea of unicorns exists, but me saying they have no proof doesn't mean it is a paradox. You really are a dullard in everything you respond to on this site, I truly hope for the sake of the world that you assemble things for a living or some other menial task.


RE: Evolution
By Reclaimer77 on 11/23/2009 8:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
Like most phillosophical elements, there is no right or wrong here. There can never be "proof" that there is a god or vice versa.

My post was in jest perhaps, but thought provoking. I find it ironic you put my intelligence in question when you obviously don't get it.

I suppose the man who said " I think, therefore I am " was also an idiotic 'dullard' ?


RE: Evolution
By Gzus666 on 11/23/2009 10:53:58 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, there is a right and wrong here, you just refuse to acknowledge your wrong. Backtracking is obvious at this point. Make a stupid statement, get called out on it and then backtrack to try to make it all wishy washy.

The concept of a god exists, a god has not been proven, therefore by the burden of proof we can say the idea is real, the thing is not. Same goes for unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, leprechauns and so on. The concepts of those things exist, evidence for them is just as plentiful as a god. Therefore we do not assume they are real, we assume they are false till proven real.

The statement "I think therefore I am" is an idiotic statement since stones "am" as it were, yet they don't think. State of being is not dependent on the thought behind it. This is an ego driven statement that somehow implies we have control over what exists and what doesn't. philosophy is full of a lot of BS and must be weeded through to get the good things from. Scientific Method has gleefully taken the reigns and as such, philosophy is needed much less if at all. Logic is a branch of Mathematics now, so it has really fallen from grace as it were as a philosophical subject.

I find it hilarious you would compare yourself to philosophers, yet make fine gems like:

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=16909...

There is you not understanding analogies and basic engineering principles.

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=16909...

Another gem of you saying half the country has lost their job, amazing fact checking, you must work for Fox news.

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=16892...

Another thought provoking post by you. You're right, because he isn't blowing people up, he is above all criticism and debate. Apparently shutting off the thinking portion of your brain as you quoted involves blowing yourself up, not just being a moron who accepts things blindly without thought. Care to overgeneralize another race, creed, sex or other group of people?

Also, if something exists, it can be proven, at least in the scientific sense which is the highest proof that can be attained without it being Mathematics. It requires evidence, but it can be "proven". Saying a god can't be proven is just ignorant. Assuming said god is omnipotent, it could prove itself quite easily. If it exists, there would be evidence as such. Disproving a god is not required as the burden of proof is on the presenter of a claim, so good luck to all the evidence hunters as you will need it.

Once again, complete lack of understanding on a subject leads to ignorant statements babbled on and on. Burden of proof my friend, learn it, live it, love it. If you want to pretend to be philosophical, at least understand the basic concepts.


RE: Evolution
By Ard on 11/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Evolution
By callmeroy on 11/24/2009 12:34:02 PM , Rating: 3
First I must say that the whole concept of "belief" and certainly "faith" must fly right over your head doesn't it?

Belief is the passion for an idea, concept, etc. that you hold dear. Passion is the key word. If one so easily dismisses following an idea, concept or is so easily dissuaded by those speaking out against said idea/concept -- that is hardly belief. One of the things I like to think is important to just about any human being --- have some belief...belief in something.

Faith -- well faith is hard to explain with any meaning to folks who wholly reject it as drivel and nonsense. Its a feeling that you don't easily attain...not real faith anyway.

People swear up and down that Ghosts exists --- yet in many cases people don't see or hear them either. I'm pretty sure folks in ages passed before modern medicine didn't think that bacteria existed either -- after all you can't see or hear bacteria. Right now in fact, even if you go wash your hands this very moment -- look at them....can you SEE or HEAR the bacteria?

My disliking for nonbelievers doesn't come from the fact that they don't believe, not at all -- I have my right to my beliefs, I feel the same should apply to you.

Where my disliking comes from non-believers is almost always in two areas:

1) Immature slander, name calling, out right disrespect for my belief (usually w/o any provacation on my part to warrant such).....

-And / Or-

2) Laziness.

Non belief is easy, you want to believe in the fact that God doesn't exist fine -- but don't make your whole defense simply "Because he doesn't." kind of logic. Don't make every retort "Because I can't see him or hear him"....

That's what cracks me up most about the whole thing...if you reached your non-believe stage by first TRYING to believe (and not half assed trying either but earnestly) that's one thing that I at least respect more....

The huge turnoff to me - is someone who puts no effort into it at all...and just takes the easy road "nah...can't see him, can't hear him....doesn't exist"....and then they'll have the balls to flame my believe that I feel strongly about so easily....

These reasons also explain why most times I don't have the patience to waste on debates about such topics because they are rarely ever civil or mutually respected.

Finally the burden is on no one --- my belief is my belief my life goal isn't to convert you over, you don't belief -- ok...move along.


RE: Evolution
By Ard on 11/24/2009 6:15:59 PM , Rating: 1
Quite the contrary. Most religious equate and commingle the two terms. Whether you want to call your religious beliefs as beliefs or as faith is largely irrelevant. It's all semantics. The simple fact is unless you can give me some proof other than "earnestly believe in God and you'll see the wonder I see", your points have no merit. You attempt to do a nice job dancing around the issue but you still haven't provided any proof. Why do you believe what you believe? Because you want to? Because you were told to? Or simply because that's easier than thinking for yourself? I support my beliefs with evidence and proof. What are you supporting yours with?

Again, the onus is not on me to prove that God exists, though it is fairly simple to do as I've already indicated. The onus is on you to prove that he does exist since you're the one making the assertion. I don't have to believe that he doesn't exist. He doesn't until something indicates that he does.

Maybe it's simpler for you to think of it like this: I don't know you, and I have no reason to believe that you've done anything wrong in your life, but, for whatever reason, I believe you're a pedophile. I have no proof suggesting that you're a pedophile but I believe that with all my heart and I have faith in my belief. The burden is on me to PROVE that you're a pedophile since you have given me no indication that you are in fact one. You can certainly try to prove to me that you're not but you don't have to because there's NO PROOF that you are one. The same thing goes for God. You're the one saying he exists yet you have no proof. The burden is on you.


RE: Evolution
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/2009 12:44:09 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah cause we haven't heard this argument before. I'm surprised you didn't bring up the "flying spaghetti monster" theory.

I have better things to do with my life then demand someone "prove" their faith to me. Which is a laughable position to put myself in. Especially over the Internet. No offense, but you anti religious people always come off like pricks on the Internet whenever god or religion comes up. Why are you so angry ? Seriously.

quote:
If God were omnipotent and omnipresent it would be a trivial matter to prove his/her/it's existence.


Silly statement. One could always say that if God didn't WANT proof of his existence, there would be none. After all, we're talking omnipotence aren't we ?

This is tiring. When are people over the internet going to realize NOBODY wins in a religious discussion ? Personally I feel Daily Tech would be much better off steering clear of such topics.


RE: Evolution
By Ard on 11/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Evolution
By Gzus666 on 11/24/2009 9:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Go into Times Square and say that you're an atheist and you see absolutely no proof of God and you might as well be Osama Bin Laden. What's wrong with that picture?


Most of the world is quite stupid, so it makes sense. Logic confuses them, so like a redneck with gay people they hate what they fear and fear what they don't understand.

One thing I realized a while back is why completely rational people compartmentalize religion away from reason and logic. I finally realized that their "god" is merely an extension of their ego. Ever notice how it is always "their" god and how theirs is the only real one? Their god loves them and they are so special and great, blah blah blah. It is narcissism at its finest. They all strive to either start a religion to be worshiped as the bringer of said religion, the great preacher of it or the person who brings the most followers. It is a cult of their ego, plain and simple.

But this realization made me further realize it is going to be impossible to rid ourselves of religion, our egos are too strong, especially in the sociopaths and narcissistic. I'd be willing to bet psychoanalysis of a religious person versus a secular one would provide interesting results.


RE: Evolution
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/24/2009 10:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
And the ironic thing is, I often hear religious folks claim that atheists are arrogant. Is there anything more arrogant than believing that a personal god created the universe for you and cares about you, and then presuming to know the details of what that god wants, often in contrast to his supposedly infallible written word? If there is anything more arrogant than that, I sure can't think of it.


RE: Evolution
By Reclaimer77 on 11/25/2009 11:19:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Funny, I'm pretty sure my post conveyed little to no emotion. I was simply providing you a reasonable, well-thought out, and logical argument. Clearly you failed to comprehend that.


You are attempting to rationalize and make logical the concept of an all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent being. And apparently you don't comprehend how stupid that is. You are just one, completely flawed, human being ; demanding that god and everyone who believes in him provide "proof" and evidence. No pun intended, but who in the hell do you think you are ?

quote:
And that is what one would call a religious cop-out. There's no proof of God's existence because he/she/it doesn't want there to be any. Sorry, that doesn't work. I can't see or touch gravity, but I know, and can prove it's there. Can you do the same with God? Oh, that's right, he doesn't want you to, right? How then do you know he even exists if he wants to hide his very existence from you? It's the strength of your beliefs and your faith, right? Completely illogical and irrational argument, buddy.


I guess this is another "little to no emotion" statement by your right ? See what I'm talking about ? You are so ANGRY, combative, and downright militant over this issue. Why ? I'm not a Christian, but the idea that others are doesn't make me foam at the mouth and go on the attack.

This statement by you demonstrates your key failure with this issue. And if you knew anything about the Bible you would see the flaw. If we all had proof, and KNEW there was a god, then we wouldn't be allowed to make a choice. Because we would KNOW for a fact. We would be, basically, robots. You don't have FAITH in gravity, it's a fact for you. Religion is all about faith. You either believe something is greater than yourself, or you don't.

quote:
Oh, and as much as you may hate the "imaginary persons" argument, it's valid. Why should I give God anymore credence than all of the other mythical creatures created throughout history?


Umm who said you had to ? I doubt anyone ever told you that you HAD to believe. I didn't see anyone here say you HAD to give a god credence.

quote:
It's funny how religion, so-called faith, and the belief in God are the only areas completely devoid of logic, reason, and rational thought processes, and the only aspects of humanity that have not evolved out of the Dark Ages.


Yeah because since the Dark Ages we haven't had wars, attrocities, diseases, poverty, ignorance, racial genocide/holocausts, bigotry, hate, etc etc. You're right, it's only those pesky religious people that haven't evolved. The rest of the world is a varitable paradise outside of religious circles.

quote:
Go into Times Square and proclaim that Neptune rules the seas and you'll be thought of as a raging lunatic. Go into Times Square and say that you feel the Lord's presence within you and within Times Square and no one would think anything was wrong.


Oh that's bull. There are lots of people like you out there who would just LOVE to unload on a Christian. As you and many on this thread have proven. In case you haven't noticed, Religious people aren't the most popular people in the world. This statement by you is retarded and not realistic at all. And you pick New York of all places lol. Can you imagine...


RE: Evolution
By Gzus666 on 11/24/2009 10:41:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I have better things to do with my life then demand someone "prove" their faith to me.


I'm sure the assembly plant could find another warm body to fill your place on the line. No offense? You spineless worm, grow a backbone and say things you mean without prefacing it like it somehow makes it more palatable.

I'd be willing to bet if the group of people who were controlling your country of residence's decisions was Islamic you would be having a hissy fit every 5 minutes. We are generally sick and tired of Christians running a secular country. It is clearly defined in the constitution as such and the founding fathers had horrible words to say of religion and Christianity for good reason. They knew these people would end up doing this kind of crap again and they tried to stop it so we don't end up with Catholics part II.

They are stifling science at every turn, they are making decisions for the rest of us as to what is "moral" based on their silly imaginary friend and aren't even following the whole book, they just cherry pick what is popular for them at the time. If we followed it to the letter, we would be stoning people to death for everything under the sun and men would use women as slaves rather than peers. People without religion are not allowed in office in most states specifically by their local laws, shall I seriously go on?

If they butt out, I'm sure most every atheist would move on with their lives and live and let live, I know I would. If your insanity isn't affecting me, go nuts as it were. Clearly that is not what they do though, they press to take over people's lives, cause they are sociopaths with crazy cults. There are just varying levels of involvement in said cults.


RE: Evolution
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/24/2009 10:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
Amen.


RE: Evolution
By Hawkido on 11/24/2009 5:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
So mathematically what you said would be:

Belief = |((+/-) Belief)|
Belief to the Pro or Belief to the Con is still Belief.


RE: Evolution
By Gzus666 on 11/23/2009 8:50:31 PM , Rating: 3
Atheism is whatever the person defines it as. All dictionary definitions are popular usage. The root of the word from its Greek origin is without theism. A lack of, not an active stance against. Once again, popular belief trying to demonize a group.

Agnostic is a general term that means something is unknowable, not just religion. It literally refers to anything. We do not assume that anything that can be brought into concept to be true for good reason, cause it is insane. As such, we do not accept something as true until proven that way, much in the same way you are innocent till proven guilty. As such, gods are false until proven real.


RE: Evolution
By Kaleid on 11/24/2009 3:44:01 PM , Rating: 3
It's a lack of belief, not a belief. If atheism requires faith then abstinence is a form of sex and not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Here it is explained to you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXxtvAy4Rzs

"bug God". Why limit yourself to one possible god? It could be trillions.


Evolution
By tariner on 11/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Evolution
By Gzus666 on 11/22/2009 8:03:58 PM , Rating: 4
Do you suggest we accept the alternate to chemistry as alchemy? How about humoring astrology? You don't believe in science, you accept evidence and move on.

People like you are intellectually dishonest and you do it under the veil of understanding and trying to demonize the other side subtly.

One thing to remember is gravity, atoms and plate tectonics are all theories, yet they still are universally accepted. You are a fool and don't understand science. As such, you shouldn't speak of it. I will refer you to the definition of scientific theory and hope you realize the errors you have submitted as some whimsical argument. But I have a feeling you will continue with your logical fallacies as so many creationist idiots do.


RE: Evolution
By BruceLeet on 11/22/2009 10:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
*Looks at username, chuckles*

Personally I don't care about creationism vs evolution. I'm going to live and then I'm going to die, that's it. Call me an atheist call me an idiot...all I'm trying to do is live a good life and be happy.

Enjoy every sandwich.


RE: Evolution
By Gzus666 on 11/23/2009 9:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
I actually feel sorry for you. Anyone I meet who has no drive to the pursuit of knowledge terrifies me. I have no idea how you subdue curiosity into the nature of things around you. The idea of traveling space brings a tear to my eye. I giggle with joy when The Universe or something amazing on The Science Channel or Discovery comes on.

I truly get excited by breakthroughs in Science cause it is one step closer to understanding something better. That is our one and only great pursuit that bypasses all our difference just for the pure desire to know. Religion pulls people apart, science brings them together. That is one of the many great things about the pursuit of knowledge, it truly makes people overlook their differences, be it only for a short period.


RE: Evolution
By Reclaimer77 on 11/24/2009 12:14:58 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I giggle with joy when The Universe or something amazing on The Science Channel or Discovery comes on.


That explains a lot. Nothing like poorly presented shows on elementary school level sciences to get the juices flowing, eh kid ?

quote:
Religion pulls people apart, science brings them together.


Sheesh and you talk about me ? Painting pretty broad strokes aren't you. I don't even know how you would begin to back this assertion up. Because for every example of religion gone awry, we could come up with equal examples of how science has been used against man.


RE: Evolution
By Ard on 11/24/2009 11:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
You can certainly look at individuals using scientific discovery/invention for their own evil ends. Science gave us the concepts behind the atom bomb, which opened the door for decades of new research, discovery, and understanding. Yes, the bomb was used for a despicable purpose, but the act has nothing to do with the science.

Contrast that with the Crusades: nearly 200 years of slaughter instigated and sanctioned by Christianity and the Pope himself. This wasn't simply some people doing a little killing, this was a war against a people under the guise of being a holy calling. The act has everything to do with religion.

Fast forward 800 years and there are still violent conflicts supported by religion. That's what belief in God has given us: centuries of war and bloodshed with no end in sight.


RE: Evolution
By Gzus666 on 11/24/2009 10:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
He is a moron, get used to him making stupid comments, cause he is a pro at it.

Duh, because science brought a discovery, it means they did it.


RE: Evolution
By MozeeToby on 11/22/2009 8:20:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I wonder if someone would please make a post explaining where evolution started. If its the big bang theory then what caused the big bang? How did nothing make a big bang?
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang theory. Trying to conflate the two has been a tactic of the creationist movement for decades. Nor does Evolution have anything to say about the origin of life, that field of study is known as biogenesis and is much less developed than evolution; again, trying to join the too is a common, and misleading tactic.

Evolution started, as you put it, just after life began and not a moment sooner. The definition of evolution is "change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next"; no population existing? No evolution. It's safe to say that this part of evolution is a fact, you can compare different dog breeds and see how their genetic material differs to produce the different kinds of dogs we all know and love. I will, of course, acknowledge that this change was directed by humans quite conciously and therefore can't be used as direct proof of natural selection (which is, I think, the part that most Creationists have a problem with).

Neither human involvment nor creationism however, can explain how each island in a large lake can have a different species of fish in it's shallows, despite the fact that the lake has only existed for a few thousand years. It doesn't explain why marsupials are the only mammals found on Africa and New Zealand (except bats which could fly there). It can't offer any insight into why using certain animals for medical testing is more accurate than other animals or why whales have 'finger' bones underneath their fins. Creationism can't explain the results of a recent study where E. Coli. bacteria, after 30,000 generations in a test tube, were suddenly able to digest the non-nutrient portion of their growth medium (leading to a population explosion at that time). Evolution can explain all these things and more; it might be "just a theory" but it is the most accurate and powerful theory in modern biology. (By the way, stating that something is 'only a theory' or 'will always be a theory' shows a gross misunderstanding of scientific meaning of the word theory.)

Evolution is science, religion is faith. Trying to mix science and faith is very dangerous for faith; if you insist on believing in a 'God of the Gaps' (i.e. using God to explain things you don't understand) then everytime a gap is filled in by science your God, by your own definition, gets less important on the grand scheme of things. As a firm 'understander' (not believer, as, despite what you think, evolution has much more to do with understanding than belief) of evolution, I have no problem having a personal relationship with God. It doesn't hamper my religious beliefs in the slightest for me, sorry that it does for you.


RE: Evolution
By manning120 on 11/22/2009 9:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
MozeeToby on November 22, 2009 at 8:20 PM -- Thanks for an intelligent, dispassionate comment. Even though I don't find it necessary to have a "personal" relationship with God, your comment certainly establishes that when it comes to evolution, there can be a lot of common ground between those having such religious belief and others (like me) who don't.


RE: Evolution
By fruitbane on 11/22/2009 8:37:51 PM , Rating: 3
Every scientific theory is "just a theory." Gravity is just a theory. Basic physical laws of motion and inertia are just a theory. Don't let the word "theory" fool you. In the scientific community "theory" means something has relatively solid evidence in support of it. If it's pure conjecture without backing evidence it's not even a theory.

And no, a God who puts the universe in motion isn't necessarily a cold, distance God. What is time to God? What is millions of years to us could be the proverbial blink of an eye to Him. When we assume that evolution means distance and that we, as humans, lack the ability to observe and draw inferences from the world around us, we demean God by enforcing a human, flawed perspective on Him. Your comments suggest that you think you know something others don't, which strikes me as a little egotistical, especially as those you second-guess have made their livings from observing and testing the world around us. Perhaps some additional patience and time spent observing the world in which you live would help you come to terms with the idea that evolution and religion do not have to be at odds. They only are if you let them.


RE: Evolution
By MozeeToby on 11/22/2009 9:03:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Every scientific theory is "just a theory." Gravity is just a theory. Basic physical laws of motion and inertia are just a theory. Don't let the word "theory" fool you. In the scientific community "theory" means something has relatively solid evidence in support of it. If it's pure conjecture without backing evidence it's not even a theory.
It's best to be careful here, after all, even the laws of motion are actually incorrect in certain circumstances (Extremely small scale and extremely high speed). And though we don't have a replacement theory for gravity yet, it is generally excepted that even relativity is incomplete.

A savy creationist will use this as an opportunity to point out that science is constantly 'wrong' and always busy correcting past mistakes. Indeed, even evolution as presented in Origin of the Species was incomplete. Therefore, they will argue, it is likely that the current theory of evolution is also wrong.

My favorite response to this argument comes from Isaac Asimov: "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." In other words, our best thoeries might still be not quite right, but they are orders of magnitude closer to reality than the theories before them.

(The essay the above quote is from is a very interesting read for anyone who might be interested http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Relativityo...


RE: Evolution
By iFX on 11/23/2009 8:34:05 AM , Rating: 2
And yet everyone person on the planet who "knows god", including you, claims to know something others don't.


RE: Evolution
By OblivionMage on 11/22/2009 9:18:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It takes just as much faith to believe in evoluation as it does creationism.


Reasons to accept Creationism: A book and some old stories

Reasons to accept Evolution: Logic and leading scientific theory (has not been disproved, and has been proven time and time again)

Just because you don't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the holes with whatever fairy tales suit you best. You have to look at the world with a sane, logical, and rational attitude to accomplish anything scientific or technological.


RE: Evolution
By digitalbeachbum on 11/22/2009 9:40:15 PM , Rating: 4
First, think about who is making the vicious posts?

Is it a Creationist who is angry and hold hate for those who believe in Evolution? Are they trying to trick the public in to thinking that Evolutionist are angry and hateful people?

I've seen it before and on a grand scale, so it wouldn't surprise me that it is going on now.

On another note, I still can't understand how people of faith want to debate the existence of their god. It's silly and proves to me that their faith is weak.

Debating is a scientific process. It means you are open minded to hear the other side and accept the possibility that you might be wrong.

Creationists try to be both "faith" and "scientific" at the same time. It's a paradox created by their own inability to rationalize and question their own religion.

A Creationist can never do this logically because they fear loosing what little faith they have; if they open their mind they just might not get in to heaven. They are in conflict.

A Evolutionist is open to change, they are open minded. They know that theories change and it is possible to improved them. That is the art of science.

There is no faith in science (even though Creationists want people to believe so). Science has some guess work involved, but many, many guesses come up wrong through testing. When a guess comes up wrong, they go back to the drawing board and start all over again.

Creationists do not ever "test" their belief system because they have been told "what we have given you is absolute". They are blind to the possibilities.

Evolution is a theory, but a damn good one. It's been tested, re-tested and tested again and again and again. It continues to survive all the tests.

Creationism is not a theory. It's an opinion. And there are dozens, if not hundreds of opinions on Creationism. Christians fail to see that they are not the only religion in this world. So what makes Christianity right and all those other religions wrong?

...It's all a matter of opinion I guess.


RE: Evolution
By PeyDubya on 11/22/2009 9:49:03 PM , Rating: 3
With that same argument, who created God?


RE: Evolution
By digitalbeachbum on 11/22/2009 10:01:40 PM , Rating: 4
Not a valid question for a Creationist.

They will only reply what they have been told over and over again, every week, going to the same religious events, repeating over and over during mass or what ever, the same words, over and over again.

The reply will be "God has existed always, now and forever"


RE: Evolution
By Gzus666 on 11/23/2009 10:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
This one is easy, get them to say that complex things require a creator, or the silly watchmaker argument. From there, you can reinsert their logic to their god and create a paradox there by disproving their logic, or their god depending on their acceptance. As long as the person is reasonably sane, they will accept that logic must follow or they basically tear the whole basis of everything we do apart, which is just insane.


RE: Evolution
By flusched on 11/22/2009 9:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
One last thing to remeber is that evoluation is a theory and will always be a theory. It takes just as much faith to believe in evoluation as it does creationism.

Faith belongs to science. It grows with empirical evidence or reliability like the geyser, "Old Faithful." Belief belongs to religion. A person can believe anything they want to and believers relish believing something in the face of all evidence to the contrary. The call to have the "faith of a mustard seed" is a call to be scientific, not religious. Christians should quit using the scientific term "faith" when talking about their unscientific beliefs. It's a theft of science, and violates one of the 10 commandments.

flusched@gmail.com


RE: Evolution
By digitalbeachbum on 11/22/2009 10:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree.

Faith does not belong to science. I think you need to look up the various definitions of faith in a dictionary.

Belief can be applied to every thing as it has to do with the cognitive thought process of the mind. It is an opinion.


RE: Evolution
By brshoemak on 11/23/2009 8:22:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is actually oposite of what happened and what he inteded for us.


Oh really? I didn't know you had God on speed dial on your Boost Mobile phone ("Where you at, God?") so you two could converse and you could come back and tell us on an internet forum what God's intentions are/were and what actually happened.

Anyone who says they can speak authoritatively on the intentions of a deity to a degree where they can say: "This is actually oposite of what happened and what he inteded for us" needs to reevaluate where they find truth in this world and spend more time figuring out whether they should accept everything on face alone.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki