backtop


Print 612 comment(s) - last by icanhascpu.. on Apr 28 at 1:38 AM


A new human evolutionary ancestor "Australopithecus sediba" has been discovered in Africa. The species name means "religious sin" in Sumerian.  (Source: Brett Eloff/Wits University)

Dr. Lee Berger from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg (front) leads a team of researchers through the countryside.  (Source: Wits University)

The skeletons were found in a collapsed cave.  (Source: Wits University)

Dr. Berger with one of the skeletons  (Source: Wits University)
The scientific evidence that man and apes descended from a common ancestor via evolution grows

When you talk to a biochemist or biologist at a university level these days about the "evolutionary debate" they're likely to laugh; after all if you are knowledgeable modern scientist, you know that the vast body of molecular, genetic, fossil, anatomical, and field biology evidence all points to the same thing -- that organisms evolved via natural selection and genetic drift over the last 3 billion years.  

More evidence may not convince skeptics, but for those interested in science an incredible discovery was made this year.  Paleontologists digging in South Africa have unearthed a pair of partial hominid skeletons that represent a new species on the human evolutionary tree.  

Scientists have named the creatures 
Australopithecus sediba.  The species lived in Africa less than 2 million years ago.  In contrast with "Lucy", the 3 million year old Australopithecus afarensis fossil found in Ethiopia in 1974, the new skeletons are taller and are less ape-like in facial structure.

Researchers estimate that the pair lived between 1.78 and 1.95 million years ago.  They walked upright, like later hominids and had long forearms and short fingers.  They also had very long legs, which the paleontologists believe were conducive for running across the African wilderness, which would be a key to escaping predators and finding food.

Dr. Lee Berger from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and Dr. Paul Dirks from Australia's James Cook University led the team that found the pair in a collapsed cave in South Africa's Malapa cave complex.  

They speculate that our unfortunate ancestors died quite young.  One skeleton, a male, appeared to be only 10 and 13 at his time of death, while a second, a female, appeared to be in her late 20s or early 30s.  It is thought that the pair was searching for water, and likely fell into the cave on accident, receiving fatal injuries.

The pair did have some ape-like features, according to Dr. Berger.  He says their brains were "remarkably small" based on the skulls discovered and states, "they could still climb trees [and] they were very competent walking ... on the ground."

The fossils have smaller teeth and advanced pelvises, though, hallmarks of human evolution.  Still Dr. Berger prefers that people don't call them a "missing link", which he feels is an outdated term.  He remarks, "I don't like the use of that term.  [It's a] Victorian-era [term that] implies some (specific) chain of evolution."

He does say the fossils will offer an incredible contribution to understanding how humans evolved into our current form.  The truly exciting part, he revealed, is that there are several other partial hominid skeletons that were discovered, but have not yet been unearthed.  In addition to the hominids, a saber-toothed cat, a brown hyena, and a wild dog were also found among the remains.

Dr. Berger and Dr. Dirks co-authored two journal papers on the discovery in the prestigious AAAS journal 
Science.  The papers can be found here and here, respectively.

Some skeptics in the U.S. and abroad continue to denounce paleontology.  For most, it's due to religious reasons, as they find the idea of evolution "sinful" due to its contradiction of literal interpretations of text found in The Torah, The Bible, and The Koran, and other religious works.  

The name itself represents a perhaps humorous double meaning in terms of scientific theory and religious beliefs.  In the local language Sotho "sediba" means "spring."  However, many note its close similarity to the word "sebida", which means "sin" in Sumerian.  In Sumerian "sebida" refers, more specifically, "a religious sin that entails the anger of the gods and a stain upon the soul."  To some, that's exactly what the new skeletons represent, and perhaps researchers thus used the name to both describe what they feel the skeletons represent (the "spring" from which man sprung) and to poke a bit of fun at these in the public who are abandoning the scientific process.



Comments     Threshold


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

Nice Discovery
By bacalao on 4/9/2010 11:17:40 AM , Rating: 3
Not all of us atheists are rude.
My comment on the matter is this: there is hard science behind evolution. As long as creationism isn't trying to be passed off and taught as science(not with tax $$) then all is well. The whole idea of a 'fall' from paradise with Adam and Eve (central to Christianity) requires a stretch of imagination to reconcile with the theory of evolution. I personally it's compatible. Why would I need to be saved? Why did god make sin, if there was no Adam and Eve? Many more questions pop up.
Theodicy (problem of evil) is a much tougher problem for monotheists than the origins of physical laws is for scientists. We may never know or explain everything, in part because science is more about probabilities than certainties, and that is ok. Why does a supernatural being have to fill that gap for you?
Anyway, I'll just keep trying to be a better person and hopefully there isn't some kind of eternal punishment just because I didn't believe.
Sorry for the long comment, be good!




RE: Nice Discovery
By crazy smart on 4/9/2010 12:03:56 PM , Rating: 1
You can have good solid science that supports creation without any shred of religeon. In fact you could just teach science. Because much of the science i was taught in school that supposedly supports macro-evolution, truly does not. why must the theory of evolution be taught as if it is fact?

what science can observe. Mutations render the organism weak and most likely unable to reproduce. and mutation do not result in complex organs that previously did not exist within the organism... (for example, a human can mutate to have an extra finger or degraded forms of the body, not to have fish scales cover their body or an extra well functioning stomach) and hybrids don't reproduce. and mutations never compliment other mutations.
these scientific observations are all smoothed over by 40 billion years. or whatever the going number is....
but the fact is. science logically dis-proves macro evolution.


RE: Nice Discovery
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 12:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
Your post demostrates a shocking lapse of understanding of the basic tenets of evolution. Why not learn a little about the subject, before you attempt to debate it?

Just for starters, mutations do not "render the organism weak and most likely unable to reproduce". Every person alive has thousands of mutations (the normal rate is something like 10E-5 per base pair). The vast majority of these have little effect.

I won't even go into your other fallacies, such as the variation on the old "but eyes can't evolve on their own!" hack argument. Suffice it to say, they're based on flawed understanding of what evolution really states -- which even 15 minutes of research should be enough to convince you.


RE: Nice Discovery
By crazy smart on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nice Discovery
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 1:13:24 PM , Rating: 3
" I am human. not a mutant. my genetic code will live on in my offspring unchanged. these are assumptions...not observed"

This is a truly shocking level of ignorance. Are you honestly not aware that molecular biologists are not only observing the mutation rate in the human genome, but precisely able to calculate its prevalence?

This isn't even open to debate. You can go today, get yours and your parents genome sequenced, and count how many base pairs you have that don't exist anywhere within either parent. This has already been done many times, and the result is a mutation rate per base pair of about 10E-6.


RE: Nice Discovery
By The0ne on 4/9/2010 6:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
As I said earlier, I follow this subject pretty closely so I really don't want to say much except read and have a good laugh. You can refer crazy to this link below for easy reading,

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

and the two links I posted earlier for more recent findings. Really is a fascinating subject :D


RE: Nice Discovery
By thatmikeguy on 4/12/2010 4:54:26 PM , Rating: 1
Absolute Scientific Proof the Evolutionary Theory is Dead.
A story about two friends from day one.

http://www.biblelife.org/creation.htm


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/13/2010 4:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't even try to be objective when the url has bible in it. Again religion interferes with science.


RE: Nice Discovery
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/13/2010 12:03:45 PM , Rating: 4
Wow.

I had to chime in here.

According to your post:
quote:
All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.


It's important to note that the site liberally mixes the word "evolution" in a biological and geological sense.

And, more importantly, any scientists who refers to granite as a "creation rock" is not worth their salt and should certainly NOT be voicing geological opinions. Granite is being formed to this very day as a product of metamorphism in amphibolite and granulite terrains. Any geologist could tell you this.

The idea that all granite was "created" at a certain time period is patently false.

The only grain of truth here is that much of the Earth's granite was produced during the cooling of the crust during the Pre-Cambrian period. However, a multitude of science indicates that this occurred billions of years ago, not 6,000 years ago as your pseudo-science link indicates.

quote:
One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one.


Again, this is ridiculous. Of COURSE polonium could make its way into granite. Polonium has a lower melting point than SiO2 and thus could easily have intruded in molten form as the rock was forming. Many impurities can be found in Granite, Sparkie.

And as to the whole polonium halo load of tripe, that was disproven TWO decades ago. It was blatant misinformation perpetuated by a profit-driven creationist who made numerous errors and had little real knowledge of Geology.

I can't do the story full justice, so simply read this link and education yourself, please:
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm

The idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old flies in the face of cold hard data collected in the fields of biology, geology, chemistry, astronomy, and more.

It's fine if you want to believe that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, or that the great alien overlord Xenu brought humans to Earth and used thermonuclear explosions to shape the terrain, but please please don't make ignorant claims that "real" science backs you up when IT DOESN'T


RE: Nice Discovery
By thatmikeguy on 4/12/2010 4:59:16 PM , Rating: 1
Q. Why faith? Why sin?
A. Would you rather have someone do anything for you because they were forced, or would you rather they do anything for you because they chose it? Would you rather do something for someone who forces you to do it, or would you rather do something for someone because you have faith? It is not how much proof we need to believe, it is how much faith we need to receive His proof. Before man, there was no choice! We are created to make one perfect choice, that may be based on many other (and others) choices, once accountable. I DARE you to try it, you WILL get your proof!


RE: Nice Discovery
By thatmikeguy on 4/12/2010 4:52:31 PM , Rating: 1
Unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific events-in detail-many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors. (The remaining 500 or so reach into the future and may be seen unfolding as days go by.) Since the probability for any one of these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance averages less than one in ten (figured very conservatively) and since the prophecies are for the most part independent of one another, the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 10 2000 (that is 1 with 2000 zeros written after it)!

http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence...


RE: Nice Discovery
By Jakeisbest on 4/12/2010 7:07:39 PM , Rating: 3
The bible has been re-written, thousands of times. Stories have been edited, added, removed. Why is that Jesus sometimes speaks in parable and sometimes speaks directly? This is due to mistranslations, that or severe schizophrenia.

Dude you should read my college history book, it successfully predicted THOSANDS of events, sometimes it got them with in the minute of their exact time.


RE: Nice Discovery
By yomamafor1 on 4/9/2010 2:26:31 PM , Rating: 3
Funny, because your reasoning already contained one assumption: you're human.

In fact, you're an animal, that came to be after millions and millions of years of evolution and mutation.

I believe your logic is similar to the Church when they persecuted Galileo and Copernicus, by assuming that the Earth is indeed the center of everything, while in fact you're just another species in the vast ecology on Earth.


RE: Nice Discovery
By crazy smart on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nice Discovery
By B3an on 4/10/2010 3:25:23 AM , Rating: 3
Please go and educate yourself. It's embarassing reading your comments, i actually feel bad for you. I know you wont listen, people like you never do, but worth a try.

Also you're name is... ironic.


RE: Nice Discovery
By messyunkempt on 4/10/2010 1:45:08 PM , Rating: 3
At least it's half right...


RE: Nice Discovery
By foolsgambit11 on 4/10/2010 6:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
You're both right on the human vs. animal question. It depends on what definition of animal you use. The scientific definition is about common characteristics, and humans fall squarely in with the animals. But common usage of the term animal does not refer to humans. This is often a problem in explaining scientific ideas to lay people - science has adopted common terms and given them specific meanings that only partially overlap the common meanings. Combine that with the fact that the meanings of common words 'evolve' over time (take the word 'corn', for instance, which meant cereal grains of all types before the new world was discovered, or 'meat', which just meant food), and you have a recipe for misunderstanding.

But that's a misunderstanding that's easily cleared up, just by explaining what a scientist means by "animal", and how it differs from common usage. It doesn't have to devolve into a metaphysical debate.

As for the question of evolution, the question of the origin of the complex organs was answered in broad strokes in Darwin's Origin of Species, and the ideas still hold true, because the reasoning was cogent.

For the evolution of the eye, for instance, he used examples from widely different species, from simple paramecia, which can sense light, to multi-celled creatures with photo-sensitive cells but no focusing method, to an enclosure with poor focusing ability, and on up the chain, showing how more and more 'evolved' species had 'eyes' that were more and more functional. He also pointed out that the human eye is far from the "perfect" organ that detractors called it. It is inherently flawed - and in ways that support evolution, which can only improve on what exists unthinkingly, without a master plan.

He used another method in demonstrating a likely evolutionary path for the lungs. He took closely allied species of fish, and showed how their swim bladders differed. The oxygen in the air in their swim bladders naturally would leech into neighboring blood vessels, and different related species had swim bladders which could take more or less advantage of this fact, based on circulatory system proximity to the bladder wall and the complexity of the wall's structure to maximize surface area for oxygen exchange.

I'm not saying that evolution explains everything. But instead of deciding that that means it is wrong, maybe crazy smart (was that his name?) should help contribute. After all, theories only get tossed out when something better comes along to explain the facts. So, to him I say, either come up with a better scientific explanation of the facts, or come up with new facts that directly contradict the theory of evolution. Because scientists have already looked into the objections just raised, and found them wanting.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Lazarus Dark on 4/10/2010 6:43:50 PM , Rating: 3
I don't usually get into the debate of evolution. Not anymore anyway, after years of debating I finally figured out that most people just pick a side and stick with it, regardless of facts.

I only want to comment on this, as this is always the way it ends when talking to an evolutionist... "Please go and educate yourself." The conversation always ends with the evolutionist arrogantly declaring that the non-evolutionist is simply, uneducated, has a lower IQ or is in self-denial. Few evolutionists are willing to concede that when two people study the same data, they can come up with two equally plausible causes. I no longer debate evolution, I now only debate the nature of truth.

Example: An alien comes to Earth. He points at a sheep and says its black. We say no, its white. But perhaps the alien sees everything like a film negative. To him it really is black. Who's right? It's about perception. Two people looking at the same fossil can have two different conclusions. A)that is species y and it evolved into species x, or b) species y was just a cousin of species x, they share some features, but that doesn't mean one turned into the other.

Now if the alien says that is a quadruped, we could agree, that is a fact, it walks on four legs. Then the evolutionist says it evolved over millions of years. And the alien says no, I brought it here, along with your ancestors. Now, I don't believe in this theory, as there is currently no solid evidence to indicate aliens put us here. But if it were true, then we would in fact be missing a huge piece of the puzzle, which led us to come up with a wild theory called evolution. Now you say well, dinosaurs died because of a meteor or whatever the current theory is. The alien says no, that was an accident, my exhaust ignited as I left the planet last time, oops, my bad. The evolutionist/physicist/geologist or whoever had made a theory based on very loose evidence, but was missing a key piece, the alien.

Again, I don't subscribe to this, I am using it as an example of making assumptions and then calling them facts. It's fine to have a theory and investigate it, but you have to leave room for the fact that you dont have all the evidence in hand. And you shouldnt indoctrinate children and joe six pack that evolution is a fact, when there is still a debate.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Exodite on 4/11/2010 11:14:52 AM , Rating: 1
You're basing your argument on a lack of understanding of the scientific principle. Scientific fact isn't the same thing as literal fact, rather it represents the most likely model we can construct based upon observation and the incidental evidence that's available at the time.

Scientific fact is designed to be questioned and changed because it's all based on a process.

Evolution represents scientific fact not only due to being based on observation and a lot of incidental evidence but because there's really no alternative hypothesis that's got any amount of supporting evidence at all.

Religious dogma or alien implantation aren't discounted as viable alternatives to evolution because the ideas are somehow offensive to modern science but rather due to the complete lack of any supportiing evidence.

It's all well and good to say that we shouldn't teach our children anything that isn't literal fact, as opposed to scientific fact, but you might want to stop and think about what that would mean for a moment.

History is at best a best-guess interpretation. Certain areas of mathematics and number theory is just that, since we currently lack the tools to prove certain relations even for a system we've created ourselves. And let's not even get started on physics.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Lazarus Dark on 4/20/2010 7:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
My "lack of understanding of the scentific principle" is exactly the same as everyone else. Because no one ever really points this out. It is taught in schools and to the public as fact, with no distinction given between "scientific" or "literal" fact. It is simply presented as "fact". There may be a distinction, but when that distinction is never really made to joe public, then the distinction is just a textbook footnote.

At least now it is presented as fact. I can remember maybe twenty years ago, they still used words like "scientists believe" or "the going theory is".

Have you been watching evolutionary theory over the years? Every ten years, it completely changes. Some like to say it is an "evolving" theory (no pun intended). But from my perspective, all I see is that every time evidence comes along that disproves the going evolutionary theory, they just quickly rejumble the puzzle pieces and come up with a new theory until that one is disproved as well. Again, some like to say that is part of the scientific method. But from my perspective, it looks like they are so desperate to cling to this idea, that given evidence that disproves it, they scramble to come up with another half-assed theory to cling to for support.


RE: Nice Discovery
By awer26 on 4/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/12/2010 4:18:01 AM , Rating: 5
Sorry, but the science is in the debate is since long lost for on the creationist side.
Those who are against it all have always (I have never seen an objection to this) problems with evolution only because of religious beliefs. They start with the God assumption and the work their way to the correct conclusions which fits their mind-juggle, leading to all sorts of pseudoscience which the world has already enough of with beliefs into things such as homeopathy and other woo woo.

"Biologists do not have to believe that there are transitional fossils; we can examine them in hundreds of museums around the world, and we make new discoveries in the rocks all the time. Scientists do not have to believe that the solar system is 4.5 billions years old; we can test the age of the Earth, Moon, and meteoritic rocks very accurately. We do not have to believe that protocells can be easily created from simple chemicals in the laboratory; we can repeat the experiments, with comparable results. We can also create artificial species of plants and animals by applying selection, and we can observe natural selection in action. That is the big difference between science and religion. Science exists because of the evidence, whereas religion exists on faith —and, in the case of religious fundamentalism and creationism, in spite of the evidence."
--Tm M. Berra, PhD, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism

vs

If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it.
-William Jennings Bryan

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat scientific materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[2] The strategy also aims to "affirm the reality of God."[3] Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

At least some on this side make some compromises like "ok, evolution is true, but only for animals". The Catholic church is at least on the right side of this...it usually takes them a lot of time to get to facts correct.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Lazarus Dark on 4/20/2010 7:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
You've only proven my point here.
You did exactly what I said, you assumed certain things about whether I or other creationist have studied the data.

An Evolutionist studies in order to prove evolution.
A Creationist studies in order to prove creation.

Few, if any, scientists come into the study objectively with no pre-conceptions.

If you want to "prove" evolution, you will. Because the pieces of the puzzle can be made to fit that way. I could "prove" creation with the exact same data, just looking at it from another perspective, turning the puzzle pieces at a different angle.

I am very, very tempted to respond directly to your other points/quotes, but I know from years of experience how pointless it is. *sigh* The evolution debate is very tired for me. I just don't have the desire to do it anymore.

I will only say this... it would take an enormous leap of faith for me to believe in evolution given all the "evidence" I have studied. I am in awe of anyone who could believe in such amazing ideas with such loosely linked and circumstantial evidence. (I'm afraid that sounds a little condescending, but it's true)


RE: Nice Discovery
By Abrahmm on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nice Discovery
By sgtwiltan on 4/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nice Discovery
By aegisofrime on 4/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nice Discovery
By davidr1952 on 4/9/2010 12:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
The theory you present above contains a stable or continuously decreasing number of distinct species for 40 billion years. You assert that all mutations weaken the organism.
Neither assertion seems obvious to me.

1) If species survive in the ever-changing world for an average of, say, a million years, and there are, (guesstimate) 60,000 species now, there would have been (6 * 10^4) * 2^(40,000,000,000/1,000,000) species at the beginning. They wouldn't fit on the planet.

2) I don't see the reason why, for instance, a human with 1% more or less salt in his sweat would necessarily be "weaker". It seems more likely that the saltier person would do better in a high salt environment, while the other would do better where salt is scarce. There are mutations at the DNA level in every generation, and some, at least might be useful in some environments.

This doesn't prove that there is a viable evolutionary path connecting each and every species. Your example of one stomach becoming two seems like a good topic for speculation. However, concluding a priori that no mutations can ever be improvements doesn't seem obvious. It's like looking at the million words in the English language and concluding that spelling errors make words weaker.

I think evolution is an interesting subject, and not at all incompatible with the ten commandments or the cleansing of sin via baptism. Let's not let stone-age versus modern scientific theory become the litmus test of religion.


RE: Nice Discovery
By crazy smart on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nice Discovery
By porkpie on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nice Discovery
By crazy smart on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nice Discovery
By porkpie on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nice Discovery
By 67STANG on 4/9/2010 1:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
They don't evolve to become more advanced. They evolve to survive in the environment in which the live. Every living thing on the Earth does that.

The easiest evidence of that are all of the different body types of the various cultures in the world, in relation to where they live.


RE: Nice Discovery
By porkpie on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nice Discovery
By 67STANG on 4/9/2010 5:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
Less? How so? Someone who is Asian is more or less advanced than your typical European? The fact that Asians have epicanthal folds around their eyes to protect their eyes from the extreme sunlight and cold temperatures of the Asian plains means that they have evolved to fit their habitat. Yet Europeans do not have epicanthal folds to protect their eyes as they are not needed in their habitat. I would hardly say one is more advanced than the other. Rather, they have simply evolved to suit their respective habitats.

Examining a much larger evolutionary period of human evolution, one can easily see that our brain size has increased greatly over many years. This certainly increases our ability to survive.

Really, all of this is not too much to comprehend. Anyone who doesn't live with their head under a rock, already knows all of this. Not really sure how I can expand...


RE: Nice Discovery
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 5:37:19 PM , Rating: 1
"Less? How so?"

You've managed to entirely miscomprehend my post. Try reading it again. I'm not even talking about human evolution. Many species have evolved over time into forms that are simpler, less complex, less intelligent, etc -- forms we would generally say are less advanced, rather than more.

Further, many species have evolved in ways which reduce their ability to survive, rather than increase it, such as Darwin's famous Peacock Principle example. Evolution doesn't promote survival per se. It promotes reproduction. Survival is very closely tied to reproduction rates, but its not a perfect correlation. Some traits can increase your chances to reproduce, but lower your survival ability.


RE: Nice Discovery
By jtemplin on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nice Discovery
By MadMan007 on 4/10/2010 1:58:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
And in doing so, they often evolve in a manner which we would call less advanced, rather than more.


Finally, an explanation for the neocons!


RE: Nice Discovery
By davidr1952 on 4/9/2010 1:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Torren on 4/9/2010 2:21:46 PM , Rating: 4
In some ways you are correct. Evolution based on mutation rates alone, probably could not account for the successful diversity we see in the world today and in the fossil record. However, evolution is not the end of the story. Its evolution BY Natural Selection. This is the key. Any meaningless mutations (drift) are ignored by selection (selection = survival with reproduction or death without reproduction) pressures, detrimental mutations are quickly weeded out, and beneficial ones are selected for. Its not random, its not a pure # generator game.

Observations are great. They are the foundation of science. But they are just a means to an ends. They give information to us for the purpose of higher thinking and formation of understanding more than individual facts. Its the same logic as is used in the judicial system. Fact 1 plus 2 plus 3 plus 30 = conclusion A about the defendant. Sometimes the judicial system, and science, gets it wrong, but usually its discovered through more science, and its the best, more accurate system we have.


RE: Nice Discovery
By crazy smart on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nice Discovery
By Torren on 4/9/2010 4:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, I too like the debate, but am often turned off by the sniping from the sidelines. Take care.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Iketh on 4/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nice Discovery
By Bladen on 4/9/2010 6:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
Here is an example of a mutation that doesn't "weaken" people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myostatin#The_double-...


RE: Nice Discovery
By jtemplin on 4/9/2010 11:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
It might be weakening to an animal in an environment where food is very scarce and the altitude is very high. Muscle takes energy and oxygen to power, and having unnecessarily large muscles would seem to be metabolically wasteful in such an environment.

67STANG was talking about this earlier. Evolution is the cross section of the organism and the environment.


RE: Nice Discovery
By freeagle on 4/10/2010 6:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
In modern science, the basic principle of finding out whether a theory is right or wrong is how good is it at predicting results. You have some input variables, observed results in nature and a theory. If that theory can transform those input variables into the observed results, it's probably right.

Now, this pose a problem with the evolution theory, since transforming the inputs to results takes a very long time and thus makes it hard for us to tell how accurate the theory is. However, the principles of the evolution theory has been used in different scenarios not involving spiecies and environment directly, but something that resembled it.

Since I'm a programmer, I can give you an example from my field. It's called genetic algorithm and is used to find and optimize ( the optimization being the most important factor, I'll explain later ) solutions to a given problem set. The solutions are the spiecies, the problem set is the environment. The problem set ( environment ) can be practically anything, but I'll work with an example of finding a way out of a maze given a starting point. The solutions are most commonly represented as strings of instructions, that perform some action in the environment and represent the genetic code of a solution ( spiecie ). The algorithm then creates a several hundreds, thousands ( or more or less ) entities from the initial, randomly generated, genetic code. It then "runs" them in the environment and observes how well they performed in finding and optimizing the solution. This is done by calculating some number through a fitness function, which represents survivability in the environment. It then reproduces the indivuals and throw in some random mutations of their genetic code. It really very closely models what the theory of evolution says, just in a different ( but very similar ) environment.

The funny thing is, that these algorithms work. By "work" I mean, that they are quite good at optimizing the solution to the given problem, which is exactly what the spiecies on earth do. They are optimizing their genetic code in other to have higher survivability ( the function in the example ). Another remarkable thing about the algorithm is, that you can change the problem set ( environment ) at any time and the once good spiecies will die out and new ones will emerge through mutations that are better at solving it. There are many more interesting things about this, but I'll point out just one more. The case of your two stomachs. These genetic codes often contain instructions, that lead whole populations of spieces into a dead end in the maze. However, it takes to randomly mutate just one instruction ( gene ) to make the spiecie turn left at some point before the dead end, which can make it get closer to exiting the maze. You may argue that the stomach is described by several genes. That is true, but these algorithms run for a few minutes, hours, maybe days, not 4 billion years and the number of entities in the nature is also much much higher. I think that is enought time for something remarkable to emerge ( like the spieces we have on the planet today, including us )


RE: Nice Discovery
By davidr1952 on 4/10/2010 3:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
I wish some of those computers we've added to our schools could be used for integrating a little study of and practice at computing.

We're still teaching kids to perform long division, and never asking them why the algorithm is valid, or even asking them to describe in words how it's done.

Here's the shortest genetic algorithm I could think of, about a page:

http://www.well.com/~davidr/gen.html


RE: Nice Discovery
By thatmikeguy on 4/12/2010 5:05:40 PM , Rating: 1
No matter what we believe, some things just can or can not be as far as we know. Science has this thing called action and reaction, so how do we get a "big bang" without that? Every engineer knows you can not get any type of boom without parts. So what are the big bang parts? Much more importantly, what was the first part(s)? However large are infinitely small the first person(s), place(s), thing(s), or idea(s) in existence was, how does that first get here and then become a second and third? In some way the first just was, or became? The second became or was created by the first? Whichever happened shows us exactly what we need to know. If the first existence alsways was, and was God, then everything makes since. Otherwise, if the first being(s) or thing(s) just came into existence somehow, and a second thing(s) was created by the first(s)?, and these new things made another thing? Well, we should see and understand what we know about TRUE science. Only the end product and ALMOST NOTHING, "through a glass, darkly" comes to mind. It is somehow OK for many people to believe that some form of magic exists, but not God? I’ve talked, emailed, posted and read for hours on representation theory, permutation theory, and other parts and versions of group theory that have lost some foothold because of new quantum theory. These theories are all expanded on other theories that came before, and almost as fast as we get a firm grasp on quantum theory there will be another theory behind it such as quantum field theory, (usually not long after holes are discovered in a former theory). Just like any other tool, we can always seek a greater tool, but still it is only a tool. How do we get a string theory, quantum theory, field theory, or any other thing or existence, without all of their needed parts already existing? If we go back far enough something(s) came from nothing, or all the required parts that form all things have always been. The problem is, it is MUCH harder to believe that ALL the required parts that form ALL things have always been in existence and/or ALL of those came from nothing, over believing that GOD WAS AND IS THE BEGINNING!. Yet people want to believe several beginnings over the One? We all have some amount of desire to understand everything, but basically can we? The world has an average human lifespan of around 66 years of age, and if we are lucky enough to make that age will we ask ourselves this simple question? Where, what, when, how, and why did everything start, and do I have any hope for a real answer? The only answer to this is: WE WILL NEVER KNOW UNLESS GOD TELLS US!.


RE: Nice Discovery
By icanhascpu on 4/28/2010 1:17:02 AM , Rating: 2
lol Have fun being ignorant. I hear its bliss. Nothing people like you say matters in the real world.

Sorry.

Maybe your god can teach you how to form paragraphs.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Jaybus on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 1:11:23 PM , Rating: 4
If you don't see that Evolution is being pushed off as scientific fact, then you are willingly ignorant. BOTH are faith based. I'm proud to call mine faith. You are not. Having faith requires a lot of strength and willingness to give your self over to something more powerful than yourself.

If you can't have respect then how about just leave us alone then? I respect you even though I think you are wrong...


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nice Discovery
By straycat74 on 4/10/2010 7:03:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
When can we expect religious people to stop inserting their dogma into science? When can we let our guard down not fearing that creation mythology will have to be taught side by side with evolution in school? When will we have a true separation of church and state? When can gay people be allowed to marry? It is religion which interferes in almost any society...

You remind me of when I was a teenager and "knew" everything.

It does amaze me how people think we are so advanced as a people to rule out God, because of all of the wonderful toys we have, most of which distract us as a society, and add absolutely nothing of importance to our lives. I am sure all of the evolutionists have studied Christianity like maybe reading John Calvin's Institutes before passing judgement. Or does it only work for me having to form an understanding of evolution? How about I raise my children without them having to be indoctrinated with the ape to man evolution?

Look up what was meant by the separation of church and state. Although you probably have, but choose to throw it out to convince the ignorant.

This nation was founded on Judeo Christian values whether you admit it or not. The founders of this country realized it, and we created a nation never seen on the planet and have reaped great rewards. Where are all of the successes of secular societies? I could mention the famous ones - Solviet Union, Nazism. No God there. Great Idea.
quote:
We need to prove it.

We are wonderful, aren't we?


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 7:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes indeed, we are fearfully and wonderfully made!


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 7:53:16 PM , Rating: 4
If I say prove it, it does not mean that I feel that it is disproven (which very hard thing to do). I cannot disprove Russell's teapot either, nor can I disprove fairies or lepricorns.

Neither do I claim to "know" everything. That is impossible.
Ape to man? Here is the fact again. COMMON ANCESTORS. Repeat. COMMON ANCESTORS. If they don't like that fact they can ignore the science like millions of people already do. Maybe dirt is better, or being from a rib..

And think of where we could be heading.. cause we are changing, through evolution.

How about not taking advice from someone, God, who had to drown his own children (the flood) and create them sick and command them to be healed (original sin)? Plus all those diseases. Thanks god! Should I stone the kids if they're disobedient? No, I need to earn their trust, it shouldn't come automatically. Sometimes kids make good points, parents are not always competent and shouldn't always be parents at all.

Separation of church and state. Government stays out of religion and is not influenced by religion (by leaving it up to individuals to find their own pursuit of happiness).
The first amendment is pretty clear on that.
Which state sponsored religion should we have? Because as you might know..there are MANY of them. Do we vote on an yearly basis? No! Keep thy religion to thyself. Or bring up your kids religious too, that's your freedom...indoctrination is available for you, I cannot stop it. But do not ask, no demand, to give equal time to your dogma in say science classes or prayer and things like that. The founding fathers set to create a system in which one escapes religious persecution and not a system which justifies it. It didn't work in Europe at the time when millions fled state-sponsored religion. Secularism also makes sure that there can be many religions, which have to compete. Try to do that in the middle-east where Islam is the basis of many laws, there's no room for other religions, often not at all.

Judeo christian values? Which ones? Like slavery (yes it was justified through religion). Keeping women down (sure, can be done, still is in many parts of the world). The hating of gays, sure thing!

So should we sell our possessions and give it all to the poor? Jesus pretty much says that. Should we ignore it, or do you think we can still squeeze ourselves through the eye of the needle? Which ones do we pick and choose?

The only things which are law from the ten commandments are don't steal and don't kill. Wow, such difficult concept. As if we couldn't figure out that without religion. And the golden rule? Confusious said that years before Christianity was even hatched as an idea.

With non-religion communism does not follow. There is only one thing which is agreed among non-believers and that is the non-belief. I don't politically share my views with communists in general nor do I share a lot with libertarians like Penn Jillette.

"Where are all of the successes of secular societies?"
Almost all modern democracies have this as a basis, this includes USA and Europe. It's way of guaranteeing personal liberties.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
(this is not always true today, far from it, but it used to be, because they feared losing their monopoly on truth)

Nazism was not secularist, as they did some of the following: Gott mitt uns (look it up), banned books on evolution and books which mocked Christianity. Hitler's mein kampf has tons of religious motivations for anti-semitism and his feeling of ridiculous God-given self-importance on doing the lords work.

And btw, if your god is so great, why does the design allow for such defective people like Stalin and Hitler to exist?
Second, since we know they existed, why didn't God stop them? Should be easy, just hit the "del" button or run them through some anti-virus. Here's a third thought.. what if God approved? Is it part of his plan like the end of days?

The questions of morality can be answered without any sort of religion and people like Stalin are mainly political problems, with the problem being, how do we keep some politicians from acquiring too much power? This is the heart of the problem, religious or not. And they setup the Stalinist regime in a way in which you have to praise and love the dear leader. This is not too different from religion. But at least with Stalin and Pol Pot and people like that you can escape the torment, if you die. Not so with God, because he can follow everyone, and will, if he is true, even after you have died.

Also, God can read people's minds, even while you're asleep. Not even Orwell could imagine such horrors in his futuristic dystopia.

"However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being.But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growingthroughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on aparticular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to bea moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who dothey think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." [Senator Barry Goldwater]


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/11/2010 5:53:59 AM , Rating: 4
"You just lost any iota of credibility with that statement. You aren't grasping at straws are you?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_slavery

"The bible teaches that you should love everyone. So you are just misinformed or willingly ignorant of this issue."

Women should keep quiet in churches, cannot be priests, the woman is unclean if she had had a boy child for 7 days.
She's responsible for the apple story, shall for always experience pain for childbirth because of her sins, thou shalt not suffer witches to live etc.. have you even read the bible? Have you even read history? Seems not.

"Again, more proof that you are an idiot"
Secularism means separation of church and state. Nazis did not have that, and they still haven't excommunicated Hitler.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

"He is a powerful and all knowing God,"
yeah, like when there's a natural disaster and people say, Jesus wept. What an useless thing to do for a deity. And he needs to rest? He's at best psychotic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5JtxrR6msg

"You choose to live in society. Welcome to it. Here in society, you have to listen to others opinions, whether you want to or not. "
You're the one trying to tell me to shut up, one can tell that you wish for there to be blasphemy law, like they have now in Ireland. Your religion is ridiculous and your god if he exists is the worst mass murderer in the world. No Stalin or Hitler can torment anyone for an eternity, but your god does.

You don't even know your own mythology, you have a thin skin and you're a crybaby whenever one exposes the silliness of your religion. Salt? More like poison.


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/11/2010 10:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
You are still on the Mythology thing huh? You have a learning disability if you think Mythology is a collection of forgotten Gods. It was wrote from the beginning as fiction.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Jakeisbest on 4/12/2010 6:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are still on the Mythology thing huh? You have a learning disability if you think Mythology is a collection of forgotten Gods. It was wrote from the beginning as fiction.


Mythology collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.

The Bible is most definitely mythology. From the Chinese, to the Aztec, to the Egyptians, every group has its own stories surrounding the creation of the world.

Science is different in that we take the facts and try and make a story which fits what we observe. Science has no problem changing its story if you can show a new set of facts.

Most religions are desperately trying to twist the facts to fit their story.


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/12/2010 6:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
Tomorrow I'll go ask an expert about what mythology is. You are no expert. I am only a novice, but I'll say for the 100th time, Mythology has ALWAYS been fiction. It's based on life lessons and nature. Just because some idiots misunderstood what it's about doesn't mean that its a graveyard for religion.

-bottom line: quit being a dumbass -


RE: Nice Discovery
By Jakeisbest on 4/12/2010 7:12:42 PM , Rating: 3
The Bible has always been fiction. The same as the Greek stories of Hercules may have been based upon a real Greek person, the stories handed down are purely fiction.

Moses may have saved his family and farm with a boat during seasonal flooding, but, do you really think he spend hundreds of years building an arc?


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/12/2010 10:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Bible has always been fiction.

Your opinion. Thought I'd point that out.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Jakeisbest on 4/12/2010 10:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, the bible shares more with common with, Greek, Native American, Chinese, Egyptian, and Aztec ledges of emergence than it does with say a history book.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/13/2010 4:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
Jakeisbest
is correct. Few things in the bible are even unique.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/13/2010 4:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
In other words, you'll ask a priest or someone else who will tell you what you want to hear.


RE: Nice Discovery
By straycat74 on 4/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/11/2010 6:12:40 AM , Rating: 2
"You aren't going anywhere tho, right?"
My body adjusts to diseases so yes it is going somewhere, it is adjusting to God's all little evil innovations like diseases. Memory cells in my body make sure that I do not get sick of the same things once again.
And I'm likely naturally immune to things like the black death because of my ancestors who survived the disease.

"Christians didn't invent slavery."
Didn't claim that. But they practiced it for centuries as well as deadly colonialism, racism, intolerance against other faiths, two world wars which could not have happened without Christians, patriarchal hatred towards women, homosexuals etc..
And Christians are still the one's today who are best at arming the entire world with weapons while at the same time preaching for democracy and peace.

"Christians will not hate the sinner, but the sin."
History shows otherwise. That sounds like an euphemism.

"No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and riches."
This goes against the

"Hitler was a Christian? You really think so?"
Yes. But since I'm not into binary thinking I'll add that this does not make all Christians responsible for his acts.
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by only a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned me to fight against them" Adolf Hitler

“My conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
- Adolf Hitler

"Your understanding of evolution far outways your knowledge of God."
Why just not answer it? Is it because there are no answer to many modern questions in the bible and that you cannot answer them? Had I been the creator I would have made damn sure to stop them somehow, even subtly would have stopped WWII (at least after I've witnessed the blood-spill of WWI). I would also have told people about hygiene in the bible, that alone would have saved millions of lives. I would also have added credibility to it by telling other (scientific) truths like later could have been verified. This would have added credibility to the bible.

And why is that I have to rely on a book that is not even written by god? If I go asks priests some questions, let's say 5 I'm likely to receive five different answers, especially if I ask more difficult questions. Why is the bible so easy to read just as you wish, why is there not a single denomination, you all have the same bible so shouldn't you come to the same conclusions? This is no way to handle important information. If I write a science study as badly as the bible I would fail in chemistry.

"Matthew 7:7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. "
Again, the bible is not enough as a source. I would need direct contact with any deity to believe in it.

And again, there are MANY, MANY different faiths, I don't see anything in particular with Christianity that would make it any more valid than other religions.

As long as they all lack evidence, and they all do, then I'll stay away from it. It's hard to imagine any deity in being so unsuccessful in spreading a one true faith.

"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men." - Carl Sagan


RE: Nice Discovery
By straycat74 on 4/11/2010 9:41:24 AM , Rating: 1
Hitler was manipulative. That's all. He used anti-semitism as a vehicle. He can say he is whatever religion he wants to be, but he did not bear the fruits of such.
quote:
Why just not answer it? Is it because there are no answer to many modern questions in the bible and that you cannot answer them?

I did not go point to point, because I do not need to. I just addressed a few. All of the answers we NEED are in the Bible. Things that we WANT to know, we are finding for ourselves.
quote:
And again, there are MANY, MANY different faiths, I don't see anything in particular with Christianity that would make it any more valid than other religions.

In reality there is only one. But is not what people want to hear, it is divisive, and just makes people defensive. We all have a built in knowledge of God, and some of us such as Sagan, put themselves on a pedestal by saying that they, in their few moments on Earth have grown enough to make such a determination such as
quote:
It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men

The other gods we invent are because of our initial knowledge of a creator. Notice how people are comfortable with seeing a order in nature, 'Mother Nature'. People are comfortable referring to such a thing, and others will claim they are spiritual, as long as they do not have to acknowledge the existence of our true God. Hubris.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/11/2010 11:45:19 AM , Rating: 3
Anti-semitism which btw has been a christian tradition after all, he continued it.

"All of the answers we NEED are in the Bible. "
Clearly not.

No, there clearly is not only one faith. Don't be so solipsistic. It's not without reasons that followers of Christ have killed followers of other religions and the other way around.

Carl Sagan was an agnostic, and his point of view about us dreaming up Gods can be backed up, because we as an inventive race have invented thousands and thousands of different deities. Including yours (Atheism is usually going one step further in the number of Gods)

Spiritual is kind of a light version of religion, or when it is more personal. It's sometimes an euphemism and sometimes said to make the point that no religion is the answer for me but I'm still spiritual, searching for something or whatever. It's not hubris it's about honesty to one's own beliefs.


RE: Nice Discovery
By straycat74 on 4/12/2010 8:20:13 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Clearly not.

What would you like to know?


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/13/2010 4:56:36 AM , Rating: 2
No need to. Because of me the bible raises more questions than it gives answers.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/13/2010 4:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
for me.. (sigh...still have a fever)


RE: Nice Discovery
By straycat74 on 4/13/2010 9:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
That's because it's hard to read. There are texts that can help you understand it better. It is not like any other "book". You can't just read it and write a book report on it. While it definitely raises questions, it does provide answers. Until I started studying the bible and asking questions, I really didn't know anything. Not that I know a lot now, But I am working on it.


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/13/2010 10:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
Christians are expected by law (in cases of public schooling) to learn evolution. Evolutionists however, never read the bible. Maybe a handful actually do, but I doubt very seriously any one of them actually reads it with any heartfelt attempt.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/14/2010 3:38:42 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt you made any efforts to read other holy books.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/14/2010 3:42:52 AM , Rating: 2
And btw, you can be an evolutionist and a believer, there are tons of them.
Second, most non-believers have been believers previously in their lives. And thirdly you cannot live without being exposed to the bible constantly...


RE: Nice Discovery
By thatmikeguy on 4/12/2010 5:01:53 PM , Rating: 1
Since these (only) thirteen prophecies (of more than 2000) cover mostly separate and independent events, the probability of chance occurrence for all thirteen is about 1 in 10138 (138 equals the sum of all the exponents of 10 in the probability estimates above). For the sake of putting the figure into perspective, this probability can be compared to the statistical chance that the second law of thermodynamics will be reversed in a given situation (for example, that a gasoline engine will refrigerate itself during its combustion cycle or that heat will flow from a cold body to a hot body)—that chance = 1 in 1080. Stating it simply, based on these thirteen prophecies alone, the Bible record may be said to be vastly more reliable than the second law of thermodynamics. Each reader should feel free to make his own reasonable estimates of probability for the chance fulfillment of the prophecies cited here. In any case, the probabilities deduced still will be absurdly remote.

www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.sh tml


RE: Nice Discovery
By icanhascpu on 4/28/2010 1:29:17 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, science isn't about faith. It's about reality, no matter what is believed. It's about the scientific method;
quote:
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.


People like you that want to pretend faith alone make you strong, are in reality weak. As weak as people that ONLY have the scientific method.

True strength in humanity comes from people that have learnt how to take them both into their philosophy to find actual truths in this existence. Science and religions are very complimentary ONLY if you are not a fool.


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/9/2010 9:01:03 PM , Rating: 4
But yours is "science" and mine is just religion.

quote:
requires a stretch of imagination

Yet you believe that rain fell on rocks for billions of years and lightning struck the soup sea and created life? ... LOL

If you don't see the irony then I don't know what to tell you bud

quote:
I'll just keep trying to be a better person and hopefully there isn't some kind of eternal punishment just because I didn't believe.


With this comment, I shall direct you to Pascals wager :D


RE: Nice Discovery
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 9:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
"Yet you believe that rain fell on rocks for billions of years and lightning struck the soup sea and created life?"

The difference here is we've seen lightning strike the "soup sea" and create organic chemicals. We've also seen organic chemicals self-assemble into protocells. And we've seen unicellular life evolve into more complex forms.

The protocell->unicell link is one we haven't experimentally verified yet. But, as Sagan says, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/9/2010 9:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we've seen lightning strike the "soup sea" and create organic chemicals. We've also seen organic chemicals self-assemble into protocells.


What we have NOT seen is living material come from non-living material. Big leap you make there. A leap of faith I would say; because it takes faith to believe that non living matter turns to living matter. We have not replicated, viewed, or even thought of good ways that this could happen.

quote:
But, as Sagan says, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


Why can't God be arranged in that same thinking for you? (I believe there is plenty of evidence) What's your logic behind that one?


RE: Nice Discovery
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 9:38:31 PM , Rating: 3
"What we have NOT seen is living material come from non-living material."

Depends on your definition of life. Protocells have limited behavior and reproductive capabilities. By some definitions of life, they're more alive than a virus is (which can't reproduce on its own).

Admittedly we can't make people out of water and dust yet. But given we've only had a few decades to work on the problem, whereas nature had a few billion years, I think the end result is quite obvious.

"Why can't God be arranged in that same thinking for you?"

Is logic really that complex for you? Evolution explains countless millions of various facts. Hypothesizing a god doesn't explain anything... it doesn't even explain the origin of life itself. Either your god is alive (in which case what first created that life) or else he isn't (in which case something inanimate produced life, which is what you claim is impossible about evolution).


RE: Nice Discovery
By FITCamaro on 4/10/2010 12:29:45 AM , Rating: 3
Actually I recently had a discussion with a coworker who is religious and has done a lot of research into evolution. Here is a summary of what he said.

Nothing in the bible has been disproven. Ever. There is not a single thing in it that has been proven false.

The theory of evolution though is just that, a theory. There is no direct evidence of the progression of human life evolving. All the drawings of different stages of man are just that, drawings. Most of them are artists renderings of what they believe. The actual "skeleton" they drew the picture off is nothing more than a skull and a few other bones. So a few bones to come up with the appearance of an entire being? Sorry no. And those skulls could have come from other species similar to man.

Finally, when asked if evolution is real, why can't we see it today, they say because it takes too long. Then when asked why haven't we found a direct linkage of the evolution of man, why the large leaps in different appearances, they say because it happens really fast. So which is it?

End his thoughts.

Even here the word skeleton is used. Well I just see a skull. Where is the picture of the rest of the bones? What did they actually find? An entire skeleton? A skull? A skull and some bones?

Now I'm not trying to convince anyone either way. But all these people who think they're so smart are using the same type of science that says global warming is real to say they've proved evolution. They have a very small amount of facts and have drawn extremely large conclusions.

Is the idea that we just appeared out of nowhere hard to believe? Of course. But then so is the idea that we came from a pond of water and somehow, through an unimaginable stroke of luck, something as complex and ordered as the human body was eventually formed.

My coworker also made the good point that scientists say that the natural order of things at the molecular level leads to chaos. So how then did everything become so ordered in order for the human body to evolve to where it is today?

Again. Draw your own conclusions. But the fact remains that creationism remains just as valid a theory today as evolution. Your faith, or lack thereof, will guide you. I am not a very religious person. And tend to try no to focus on where we came from. I think the here and now and understanding the world as it is today is more important. But as far as teaching kids in school, both sides of the coin need to be taught. And as much as liberals hate the idea, people need to be allowed to make their own choices. Especially when it comes to what they believe. This nonstop assault on the Christian and Judaic faith is pathetic.

Especially here in America, a nation formed off the basis of Christianity (whether you like it or not).


RE: Nice Discovery
By porkpie on 4/10/2010 12:49:50 AM , Rating: 1
"The theory of evolution though is just that, a theory."

So's the theory of gravity. Want to argue with that one too?

"Nothing in the bible has been disproven. Ever. "

Countless things have. Many have been pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

"So a few bones to come up with the appearance of an entire being?"

Yes. A good forensic scientist today can take a skull and draw the original face so well you'd recogize the person. You're really grasping at straws here.

"when asked if evolution is real, why can't we see it today, they say because it takes too long."

Err, we see evolution constantly. Every year new cold viruses evolve, ones that never existed before. 98% of the subspecies of dogs today didn't exist 200 years ago -- they were all created by breeders selectively forcing specific traits...natural selection at high speed.

Further, your entire premise is flawed. "Fast" in geologic time is anything less than a million years. Having a fossil preserved is a very rare event. How many of the six billion people alive today do you think are going to wind up fossils, rather than just decaying away into dust?

"so is the idea that we came from a pond of water and somehow, through an unimaginable stroke of luck, something as complex and ordered as the human body was eventually formed."

Seriously, I suggest you learn a little about how evolution really works. Try "The Blind Watchmaker" for an excellent example of why your "luck" fallacy is just that.


RE: Nice Discovery
By dark matter on 4/10/2010 7:28:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
So's the theory of gravity. Want to argue with that one too?


Saying that doesn't prove anything does it. Do you believe that statement somehow makes a valid point. Saying one theory doesn't make the belief you have in another theory any more valid. You might have well said "the sky is blue, want to argue with that one too?" for all the good its done you.

quote:
Yes. A good forensic scientist today can take a skull and draw the original face so well you'd recogize the person. You're really grasping at straws here.


No he isn't. You are. His point was that you have not found the rest of the "skeleton". Can your amazing forensic scientist perform miracles now? Seems like you are the one practicing faith yet claiming to be a scientist. Well actually, you're not a scientist really are you, as we will discover rather soon. In fact, you just like people to think you are because you know a "little" bit of knowledge in that area. In fact your are choosing the facts that fit your argument, making huge leaps of faith and expecting people to swallow it as fact and ignoring questions and points entirely because you either don't have the mental capacity to understand and address those points or you know you don't have a cats chance in hell of being able to address them because you know full well the facts but its just they don't suit your argument, which is it? Go get your "forensic scientist", by all accounts if I give him a single back molar he will be able to create the appearance of the person whose tooth that was. Oh wait, he can't, so tell us exactly how we get to see drawings of "ape men" when only fragments are available.

quote:
Err, we see evolution constantly. Every year new cold viruses evolve, ones that never existed before. 98% of the subspecies of dogs today didn't exist 200 years ago -- they were all created by breeders selectively forcing specific traits...natural selection at high speed.


The varying breeds of dogs is not "evolution", its is genetic manipulation within the defining range of that species. Basically stressing the boundaries of genetic material that makes up "dog". And by linking animal husbandry with evolution you have revealed quite tellingly that you're actually an amateur in this field, which is understandable, I imagine the number of geneticists or paleontologists who visit this site to be negligible. I certainly don't claim to be either, or an expert, but I am not the one making howling elementary errors or claims whilst implying I am an expert.

And I think you should go eat your own dog food, "Seriously, I suggest you learn a little about how evolution really works"


RE: Nice Discovery
By freeagle on 4/10/2010 7:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The varying breeds of dogs is not "evolution", its is genetic manipulation within the defining range of that species.


Well, dog breeding is not a direct genetic manipulation. We can say that the man changes the environment of the dog in a way. What I mean is, that he denies reproduction to some dogs that do not seem to posses the quality he's looking for. In effect "killing" them, since their genetic code is not evolving further in the next generation. Which is exactly what happens when organism dies in natural environment due to not being fit to survive. It's genetic branch ceases to exist. This is how the evolution should work and thus the argument with dog breeding is a valid one.


RE: Nice Discovery
By porkpie on 4/10/2010 10:25:43 AM , Rating: 2
"his point was that you have not found the rest of the "skeleton". Can your amazing forensic scientist perform miracles now? Seems like you are the one practicing faith"

I see the idiots are out in force today. They found more than the skull:

quote:
Australopithecus sediba is possibly the most important found to date and the site has produced arguably the most notable assemblage of early human ancestors ever found, including the most complete skeletons of early hominids ever discovered and the most complete remains of any hominid dating to around two million years ago...

Do they find every single bone in every find? No. Does that mean that, because you have the left femur and not the right, that the right arm might possibly not look the same, and might instead be a 25 foot long wing, or perhaps a slimy tentacle?

You people are beneath contempt. You have at least the rudiments of a brain. Try using it some time.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Reclaimer77 on 4/11/2010 1:54:49 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Do they find every single bone in every find? No. Does that mean that, because you have the left femur and not the right, that the right arm might possibly not look the same, and might instead be a 25 foot long wing, or perhaps a slimy tentacle?


Uhhh we HAVE seen claims like this before though, that's his point.

For instance "Lucy", heralded as a missing link to man. Now most scientist agree she was just a 3 foot tall chimp. A "neanderthal man" was found in the early 1900's in France, 50 years later it was determined our "cave man" was just an old man who suffered from arthritis. A tooth from an extinct pig was found, and from that an entire reconstructed early man was rendered from this one tooth. Before they even determined what the tooth came from. The "Piltdown man" that was put together from a single discovered jawbone, then the jawbone turned out to just be a bone from a modern ape. And let's not forget the Peking Man, which Chinese scientist claim is 500,000 years old, but has entirely vanished since.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Torren on 4/12/2010 3:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
No scientists worth their salt think Lucy is a chimp. Either you have been lied to, or you are lying. Those are the only 2 options here. Hate to be that blunt, but there it is.

I have personally examined cast replicas of Lucy's skull and pelvis along side modern man and chimp versions and I can tell you while all three share gross similarities, Lucy's is almost exactly between the 2 in morphology. Slightly more human looking than chimp, but not by a whole heck of a lot.


RE: Nice Discovery
By FITCamaro on 4/10/2010 7:39:07 AM , Rating: 3
You expect me to view your opinion as somehow enlightened when you can't even read that all those things I said are another's opinion?

Yes I know we see evidence of evolution in micro organisms today.

But I'll address a few things you said.

1) Never the less, gravity is still a theory. That it hasn't been disproven doesn't change that.

2) Yes you can draw a face. That does not mean you can draw an entire body. If you know what my face looks like you do not know how long my arms, legs, and torso are, how erect I walk, and how much I weigh.

3) Cross-breeding dogs is no more evolution than a black and a white person having a child.


RE: Nice Discovery
By freeagle on 4/10/2010 7:55:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
3) Cross-breeding dogs is no more evolution than a black and a white person having a child.


Yes, black and white person having a child is an evolution. Your parents having you is an evolution. The fact that you did not ( supposedly ;) ) turn out to have some remarkably different properties than the rest of the mankind does not mean it was not a process of evolution.


RE: Nice Discovery
By porkpie on 4/10/2010 10:10:32 AM , Rating: 2
"gravity is still just a theory."

You anti-science types shoot off your mouth with this, then sit back with a smug expression, believing you've said something profound. You haven't. Gravity and evolution are "just" theories yes. In science, no theory ever becomes law.

However, gravity and evolution are two of the most well-confirmed theories ever conceived. They have made so many predictions which have been confirmed by actual observation that -- and this is the important part, so read carefully -- that if they're ever 'replaced', it will be with a theory so similar that, to laymen here on earth, you'll never notice any difference.

Take for instance, Newtonian mechanics. We now know it is technically "wrong". But its still used by all of us here on earth daily. If we're walking 5mph and we throw a baseball 20mph in front of us, we expect its speed to be 25 mph -- and it is, as close as we can measure it. If we measure an 8x11 piece of paper at rest, we don't expect it to be an entirely different size when its moving in a car or an airplane.

The same thing is true for evolution. In fact, Darwin's original theory has already been "replaced" many times by variations so minor, that for all intents and purposes, its still the exact same theory. And even the theory of gravity is under attack by theories such as MOND...but if any of those alternatives are ever accepted, the same equations we've used for centuries for gravity are still going to be correct here in the solar system.


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nice Discovery
By porkpie on 4/10/2010 5:39:34 PM , Rating: 1
"I DO NOT like smug arrogant assholes like you"

And you followed this up by quoting Scripture? Now that's showing charity, kindness, and good well towards men!

Oh, what delicious irony.


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 7:38:59 PM , Rating: 1
Mocking scripture now? Good for you. Feel like a big man now? I bet you were a bully in public school.


RE: Nice Discovery
By porkpie on 4/10/2010 10:15:37 AM , Rating: 2
"Yes you can draw a face. That does not mean you can draw an entire body"

Yes it does Sparky. When you have the bones of the torso, arms, legs, pelvis -- you can draw the entire body. But thanks for playing.

"Cross-breeding dogs is not evolution"

Of course it is...and the effects are remarkably fast. Starting from animals that were almost indistinguishable from wolves just a couple hundred years ago, we've created an enormous variety of shapes, sizes, colors, temperaments, intelligence and other characteristics. If you don't think that's evolution, your own cranial capacity is sadly suspect.

Do you have any idea how much humans have ALREADY used evolution to benefit our lives? A few hundred years ago, the productivity of grains like wheat was about 1/5 what it is today. Chickens laid one tiny egg a week, rather than one large one a day. Cows, pigs, and poultry had far less
meat on their bones. We've evolved them for characteristics we want.


RE: Nice Discovery
By thurston on 4/10/2010 11:24:28 AM , Rating: 3
Porkpie you are wasting your time, you are trying to debate with people who believe in magic and you cannot debate magic because it can explain anything.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 8:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
Magic can explain everything but not evolution because that is somehow impossible ;)


RE: Nice Discovery
By Reclaimer77 on 4/11/2010 1:41:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Porkpie you are wasting your time, you are trying to debate with people who believe in magic and you cannot debate magic because it can explain anything.


He's wasting time because he's being insulting, contemptuous, mean spirited and stubborn. Take it from me, that's not a good way to get others to listen to you.

The only rational conclusion to all this is that, despite what both sides claim, nobody knows. Sorry, we don't. Evolution is the most RATIONAL explanation based on what meager understanding the human race has of these things in the short time we have been around. But the simple fact is, nobody owns a time machine.

So to me, both sides are really a religion. Both sides believe in something with all their heart that cannot be proven, verified, or observed during the time period when it was relevant to the discussion.

Believing all life on Earth started from a primordial puddle of goop takes just as much faith as believing there is a man in the sky or whatever who put the goop there in the first place.

But in the end, who cares ? Porkie and others like him just waste their time, come off like a militant jackass, and turn everyone else off entirely.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Exodite on 4/11/2010 11:54:14 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Nothing in the bible has been disproven. Ever. There is not a single thing in it that has been proven false.


And it never will, at that.

This because it's based on dogma and faith rather than observation and evidence. You cannot disprove the existence of a deity through the scientific method. Nor can you prove the existence of such an entity through the scientific method either.

Because there's nothing to observe, interact with or formulate a hypothesis from. It's all taken on faith which just isn't good enough a basis for scientific fact.

Obviously there are some things in the bible that can be supported, many of the historical renderings and persons have evidence supporting their existence and significance. The religion itself however, as well as the supernatural entity behind it, cannot claim the same.

quote:
Is the idea that we just appeared out of nowhere hard to believe? Of course. But then so is the idea that we came from a pond of water and somehow, through an unimaginable stroke of luck, something as complex and ordered as the human body was eventually formed.


It's just a theory, though one based on observation and supporting evidence. It might not be correct but at the current time it's the best, most plausible explanation. Which is all science really is.

It's not even particularly hard to understand once you grasp the concept of an, almost, infinity universe. It's simple statistics.

quote:
My coworker also made the good point that scientists say that the natural order of things at the molecular level leads to chaos.


He left out the most important bit, the laws of entropy and enthalpy only apply in a closed system. Which the earth, and the universe, isn't.

quote:
But the fact remains that creationism remains just as valid a theory today as evolution.


No, it really isn't.

The difference between creationism and evolution is the complete lack of observable fact or supporting evidence of the former. Creationism is just a front for contemporary religious beliefs, trying to wrap the judeo-christian myth of creation in a bubble of pseudo-science to give it an air of legitimacy in an increasingly secular society.

I'm not saying that creationism cannot explain the creation of the universe, world or man mind you. I'm just saying that until such a time that observations and supporting evidence can give the idea legitimacy according to scientific principles it cannot be regarded in the same light as evolution.

There's even a response to creationism and intelligent design in general that highlights the fallacies of the idea, I recommend you google pastafarianism and check it out.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Torren on 4/11/2010 1:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
Nicely put.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 6:48:58 AM , Rating: 2
Pascal's wager? He only considered the probability of Christianity being true while ignoring tons of other possible deities.

Bertrand Russell counted to about 10.000 deities, should we convert to them all? Just in case?

It is btw, hard to imagine any deity (or deities) requiring from his own creation a believe in him without actually providing the evidence. And so far he has proven to be completely lacking in competence on spreading a one true faith, as there are many different God fan clubs, and the all cannot be right but they could all be incorrect.


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 2:31:13 PM , Rating: 3
Whatever you see is not hard evidence, my guess is that what you are experiencing is things like the argument of beauty, argument from personal experiences etc. (but yeah so what, many people of different faith and even non-faith go through similar things). It's not empirical evidence.

And if there is a God then I don't think he treats his creation all too well. It could be so easy to make things better. Would you for instance invent diseases?
Or maybe they are are a bi-product of creation, but wouldn't it then be moral to make bad things like that disappear? If a politician had the same power as God, and choose not to, then how would we view him or her? Wouldn't we be outraged?

God is a bit weird, you're supposed to believe him, worship him and even love him..but..there's another but, you're also supposed to simultaneously fear him, his wrath, his ability send you to hell to suffer till the end of times.

"Go ahead and keep spreading your hate to everyone; It will catch back up to you one day, I promise. "
What hate? Where's the hate? And don't worry Randall.. the flying spaghetti monster shall judge you too. I've heard that he boils unbelievers for an eternity in spaghetti sauce. Better convert..


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 4:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sin of man brought death into the world. We have the option to sin because of something called free will.

Who invented sin? Sorry, but your right back the source once again.

quote:
This life is only a test of faith and love. If you can't admit to a higher power and a creator, then you should be ready for whatever punishment is brought. Why is it so hard to believe in a higher power and creator? I have come to accept that such a ordered universe is not a result of random events. Just look at the flagella motor; why is it so hard believe that someone created that? Look at how many things in nature have the same DESIGNS.


I can admit, but I would need evidence. Why is it so hard to believe in Allah, Zeus, Poseidon, Thor etc.. why are you a Christian?
If it is design, then it is unnecessarily complex for a deity (who needs to rest for heavens sake if you pardon the pun) and a lot of it is BAD design:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw

quote:
You have no idea what arrogance and hate I am talking about? Just drop the whole subject if you are going to be an asshole.
You're in no position to try to lecture me on net-etiquette or anything on this matter. You started with the "you'll regret it" nonsense, as if you had any of that information actually available. So I turned your argument right back at you...

And no, I will not be silent about religion. It has enjoyed enough free rides, undeservedly so.


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 4:17:32 PM , Rating: 1
You refute with Mythology? LOL getting ever more desperate.

the whole, "you'll regret it", notion was brought up because you are spreading hate; meaning you cannot have any respect for fellow man.

You don't even realize that you are a bigot.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 4:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
Mythology is where most Gods go to die, Christianity and other religions belong in the same category.

Again I ask, how can you be so sure that you are correct and while all other faiths are wrong? Is it not possible that you were thought your particular religion since childbirth and that you have never really been allowed to question it?

I'm not intolerant against faith, but I reserve my right to debate it (especially on public forum such as this) pretty much any way I wish. I don't think faith is a virtue nor do think religion deserves any sort of special protection against critical analysis, mockery, humor etc..

If I wanted to spread hate, then I'd pick up a "holy" book and call people sinners (even thou they were not part of sort of original sin), against homosexuals, women, other faiths etc..


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 4:41:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I wanted to spread hate, then I'd pick up a "holy" book and call people sinners (even thou they were not part of sort of original sin), against homosexuals, women, other faiths etc..


God said not to cast judgment. However, that does not mean we cant speak out against immoral behavior. We are instructed to be the salt of the earth (salt preserves and irritates). I am both preserving the word and irritating you about it, so I guess I'm doing my job! Christians that speak out against immoral behavior have a right just like everyone else does. If you don't want to listen then leave.

quote:
Mythology is where most Gods go to die, Christianity and other religions belong in the same category.

You are completely ignorant of the history of Mythology. You should pick up a book about classical Greek mythology. Maybe you will learn that Hesiod, Homer, and other great writers were intent on writing FICTION. I'll say again, they wrote FICTION. They knew it was fiction. The audience knew it was fiction. I guess you just opened your mouth wide enough to prove to everyone that you are an idiot.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 4:56:24 PM , Rating: 1
Just what Jesus would say, LFMAO

To me the bible is a work of fiction. Written by authors who tried to explain it all in a time of ignorance and they couldn't even agree among themselves. Also, committees have been involved to decide what should be included in the book. Popes have decided that "this is now dogma" only to remove it later. They have been wrong on so many parts that it is easy to lose count. This is no way a work of a competent deity. You don't leave the job to humans who are 1) rarely objective 2) have poor memory 3) often accept theories, even conspiracy theories instead of simply honestly saying "I don't know" 4) were largely illiterate etc..

Had they started to write it today it would've looked completely different.

Most gods that humans have ever believed in are now considered mythology, and not as true. And in the end that might happen to your god as well, just joining one of the many in the group of dead Gods because people stopped believing in them. We don't need faith.


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 5:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Had they started to write it today it would've looked completely different.


Evidently you have absolutely not a clue about ancient culture. People from over 2000 years ago were VERY smart. Just as much so as people of today. We have gained more "collective" knowledge over the years yes. But to draw from the same old tired talking point about ancient men being stupid is beyond bliss. You are an ignorant fool.

quote:
Most gods that humans have ever believed in are now considered mythology, and not as true. And in the end that might happen to your god as well, just joining one of the many in the group of dead Gods because people stopped believing in them.


How many times do I have to tell you that no-one believed that mythology was real? Even back when it was invented, mythology was fiction based on life lessons and fairy tales; aka our modern day Disney channel


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 5:30:54 PM , Rating: 1
They were ignorant. Fact. And the bible demonstrates it perfectly.

And the church used that to their own benefit for a long long time, by holding the monopoly on truth...

Keep throwing those stones lol. Do you even read your own posts? All monotheists think all gods are false except their own. Now, that's just good comedy in itself. Thanks.

Do as Bertrand Russell did, count the deities. Most of them have had followers... it is not without reason there have been religiously motivated violence for centuries.

To quote Carlin:
"Do you believe in God?" "No." Boom! Dead. "Do you believe in God?" "Yes..." "Do you believe in my God?" "No." Boom! Dead.


RE: Nice Discovery
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/10/2010 6:47:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
To me the bible is a work of fiction. Written by authors who tried to explain it all in a time of ignorance and they couldn't even agree among themselves.

And to literary scholars as well. The Old Testament is a collection of Mesopotamian folk lore. Genesis contains multiple creation stories, if you read it closely and actually note the inconsistencies, which many Christians do not. Furthermore, there are many, MANY cases in which 'God' is portrayed as having humanlike imperfections. And, both testaments were compiled many years after the deaths of all the people involved in their contained stories -- in other words, things happened, then everyone forgot, time passed, then it was published and people remembered. Folk lore by definition.


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 7:27:45 PM , Rating: 3
You see what you choose to see. That doesn't necessarily make you right.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 8:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
Oh the irony


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 4:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
Just to be a bit clearer on the sin part.

If I invent a robot, build it and sell it to people. And a large number of them start to act badly, killing, stealing, murdering, raping etc..

Does the fault lie with the robot (which in reality, like humans will not have anything which could be called a true free will) or the manufacturer?

Nobody alive today had a say in whatever Adam and Eve might or might not have done. We have zero responsibility for their actions (which btw came naturally). A logical more probably God who's almighty could instead gone back to the drawing board and perfected humans. Or gone back in time and removed that tree...

Conversation with Yahweh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QecUUnLNSiY


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 4:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I invent a robot,........


quote:
Nobody alive today had a say in whatever Adam and Eve....


You went from a robot to Adam and Eve? And you call me stupid? You must not believe in a soul...


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 5:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
Answer me..wherein lies the responsibility?

Another example. If I build a house, and it collapses, is it the fault of the house or the constructor?


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 5:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
Human souls and emotions vs inanimate objects. You apples and oranges argument doesn't require my answer. Conversation done.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 5:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
The analogies work but you don't want to respond to them because you know the answer leads you to back to god.

God could easily have prevented the theft of that apple, but created the pre-conditions in such a way that it was bound to happen considering the properties of his creation.

Or if he was mad about it maybe he should have simply forgiven? Wouldn't it be more logical?


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 10:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
God could easily have prevented the theft of that apple, but created the pre-conditions in such a way that it was bound to happen considering the properties of his creation.

Again I'll say, my God is not a puppet master. He is all knowing and all powerful; and he gives us free will.
quote:
Or if he was mad about it maybe he should have simply forgiven? Wouldn't it be more logical?

Why does there have to be an answer for everything? Men who lust after the knowledge of everything believe themselves to be Gods.


RE: Nice Discovery
By straycat74 on 4/10/2010 11:08:29 PM , Rating: 2
If you are curious, I would look into the free will thing. Do we really have free will? Are we not dead in our sins? Are we not a slave to them? It may seem a simple answer, but see what you come up with.


RE: Nice Discovery
By porkpie on 4/10/2010 5:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
...and so, upon losing the debate, the religious whacko scurries back into his dark little mousehole.


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 7:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
Glad that you see this as a win/lose situation. What a child... Going to call me a poo-poo head next?


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 7:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't you just try to use Pascal's wager as an argument? Is that not a win or lose argument?


RE: Nice Discovery
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 9:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
Not really; more like a "why don't you just have faith" argument :)


RE: Nice Discovery
By Kaleid on 4/11/2010 6:17:55 AM , Rating: 2
But with Pascal's wager it is just to be sure...
A 50/50 proposition, be in the safe side, take the bet, because you never know if you're wrong God will toast you till the end of times.


RE: Nice Discovery
By CSMR on 4/10/2010 4:54:46 AM , Rating: 2
Theodicy is only a problem for certain types of theists.
Most religions have some explanation for evil. In Christianity evil is part of the framework for salvation, a necessary condition for human good as we know it.

The free will school of course has a different explanation... namely free will, but it's weak, like the concept of free will. But you don't need this supposed explanation.


RE: Nice Discovery
By CannedTurkey on 4/12/2010 1:11:31 PM , Rating: 2
What I don't get is, why do these religious guys give god so little credit? Why would they assume he had to craft every organism himself from scratch, rather than create a system as elegant and clever as evolution to do the work for him?


RE: Nice Discovery
By nstott on 4/12/2010 2:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
That's pretty much what I and many other "religious guys" believe, and this also makes sense if God truly insists that we live by faith. He did a good job of covering His tracks. ;)


RE: Nice Discovery
By Shadowmaster625 on 4/12/2010 2:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
There isnt even any "hard science" that explains the evolution of the flagellum motor. There is even less that explains the transition from ape-like homonids to modern humans.


RE: Nice Discovery
By Torren on 4/12/2010 2:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
There isnt even any "hard science" that explains the evolution of the flagellum motor.

Not true. There is ample evidence that it has evolved from the bacterial Type III Secretion System. Its essentially a hollow harpoon type of bacterial appendage that can pierce another cell and then be used to pump proteins and other chemicals into the host, making it easier prey, or more susceptible to parasitic attack. Its made up of 25 proteins... all of which are found in the flagellum, and all playing a similar, though not exactly always identical role.

So, sorry, wrong again...


Oh man!
By bissimo on 4/9/2010 10:03:13 AM , Rating: 1
I can't wait for the creationists posing as informed people with scientifically-valid doubts about evolution to start posting! This thread is going to be awesome!




RE: Oh man!
By Iaiken on 4/9/2010 10:26:05 AM , Rating: 2
I am not yet entertained...

LET THE POSTING BEGIN!


RE: Oh man!
By kdvlder on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh man!
By noscamiam on 4/9/2010 10:32:21 AM , Rating: 1
Just be patient - you'll wake up dead someday and know whether those creationists posing as informed people were right or not. Unless, of course, nothing follows life on earth which is the best you can hope for since it appears you intend to reject the idea of a Creator. Romans 6:23


RE: Oh man!
By HotFoot on 4/9/2010 11:15:34 AM , Rating: 3
Spew your fear elsewhere. I'm a Christian yet, like millions of others, have no trouble thinking that evolution is part of God's creation. Do you also think that the entire cosmos revolves around the Earth?

I could care less about the literal interpretation of creation. It also wouldn't bother me at all to find out that Jesus walking on water was exaggerated or even if it never happened. These things don't bear any meaning to the message and teachings about how we ought to treat ourselves and the people we share creation with.


RE: Oh man!
By noscamiam on 4/9/2010 11:54:34 AM , Rating: 3
Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one - maybe you are, maybe you aren't. For being a Christian it appears you have strong "take it or leave it" attitude towards the content of the Bible. If the Bible is God's Word I doubt He cares for that position. There is nothing wrong with fear when there is something to be feared. Matthew 10:28


RE: Oh man!
By Anoxanmore on 4/9/2010 12:22:01 PM , Rating: 2
There is nothing to fear from an invisible being up in a sky that has never interacted with their supposed creations. :) <3

Love in Christ.


RE: Oh man!
By noscamiam on 4/9/2010 12:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
There has been plenty of interaction including creation itself which the "invisible being" has said makes His existence self-evident. Romans 1:20

Another interaction is contained in your parting words "Love in Christ". The "invisible being" took on flesh to provide that interaction that you don't think exists. Is that true? One thing is certain whatever you or I choose to believe won't change reality -- choose wisely.


RE: Oh man!
By Anoxanmore on 4/9/2010 2:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Bhagavad Gita 10.3
"He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds—he only, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins."


The last line was called sarcasm my good sir. I need to remember to put the tag on there for those who can't read into it. :)


RE: Oh man!
By noscamiam on 4/9/2010 5:47:28 PM , Rating: 2
The sarcasm wasn't lost on me - the line served as a nice pointer towards the interaction you believe doesn't exist.

I like one thing about the passage you reference - it at least acknowledges the existence of sin - far more than most would allow.

Here's the solution to our sin problem in Acts 1:12 --
"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

The "name" being referred to in this passage is the one from your sarcastic last line -- therein lies the hope to be "freed from all sins."


RE: Oh man!
By chagrinnin on 4/10/2010 12:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
heh heh ,...
quote:
:)<3


is that Butters? Balls on chin boy?


RE: Oh man!
By davidr1952 on 4/9/2010 12:15:43 PM , Rating: 4
So, for you, religion isn't mainly about a particular set of beliefs which require faith to believe.
That's a perfectly reasonable and moral position.


RE: Oh man!
By maverick85wd on 4/9/2010 5:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's a perfectly reasonable and moral position.


I completely agree! I just have to ask, you aren't being sarcastic are you? Just making sure! People that take religious teachings literally are such a drag...


RE: Oh man!
By davidr1952 on 4/10/2010 1:47:05 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know any clever, sarcastic way to suggest that "Faith", in the sense of believing something without evidence, isn't something to be put on like a Sunday suit.

When someone gives trust, but loses his trust, then clings to hope, until hope is torn away, and then maintains faith, without any social, rational, or emotional support, that's certainly a miracle of devotion.

However, that might also describe someone who persists in just and charitable behavior without hope of reward in Heaven or on Earth. Not just the person who rejects the confident theories of mainstream paleontology, geology, and astronomy as if they were hubris.


RE: Oh man!
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 5:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'd vote you up but I've already posted :(


RE: Oh man!
By maverick85wd on 4/9/2010 5:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
that post had a 3 earlier, I was going to uprate it but I had already posted as well :(


RE: Oh man!
By lowrise on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh man!
By bissimo on 4/9/2010 12:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you should start living your life based on what exists as opposed to relying on an imaginary father-figure to alleviate your fears about what is happening in your life.

Accepting reality is very liberating. You are the only one that can help yourself and others. No 2,000 year-old fairy tale is going to do it for you.


RE: Oh man!
By lowrise on 4/9/2010 2:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
I've been on the other side (your side), the unbelieving evolutionist but what I have encountered with a living God cannot be denied, I would be a fool leave the life of richness that I have now.


RE: Oh man!
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 2:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
What you don't seem to understand is that there is a point to life. We are here for a reason. If not, then why do we distinguish between good and evil? Why do we cry? Why do we have emotions? After all, it would just be easier to roam the earth void of emotions, wear no clothes, and reproduce just like ever other animal.

Why are we the only intelligent beings on earth? You mean to tell me after supposed billions of years only ONE species made it to intelligence?

One major difference between you and me is that I understand that not all things can be or will be explained right now. I don't have to know absolutely EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING. That's called arrogance. We know nothing. We will always know next to nothing. Want me to prove it? Try to think of what a new color looks like... Hurt your brain? That's because we are not all knowing...


RE: Oh man!
By RandallMoore on 4/12/2010 6:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
Why has an evolutionist not responded to this post yet?


RE: Oh man!
By Torren on 4/13/2010 12:13:41 AM , Rating: 2
Because its an idiotic, irrelevant, off topic point. It addresses none of the points an "evolutionist" cares about, at least as far as evolution goes, its flawed in its stance from the start about assuming scientists think they know all the answers, and its really a topic for a philosophy class.


RE: Oh man!
By RandallMoore on 4/13/2010 5:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because its an idiotic, irrelevant, off topic point. It addresses none of the points an "evolutionist" cares about

AKA "I don't have an intelligent response."
quote:
and its really a topic for a philosophy class.

So when facing a challenging set of questions, you pass the buck? LOL, nice


RE: Oh man!
By Torren on 4/13/2010 12:22:02 AM , Rating: 2
That being said. The answer to your question is that all those traits have evolved because they have improved our fitness as a species, improving both our individual and collective odds of survival and reproduction. Thats why.

We are not the only intelligent creatures on the planet. Chimps have been observed using tools in nature for hunting and gathering food. Vampire bats show altruism by regurgitating blood to unrelated bats who are close to starving that live in the same shelter as them. Dolphins are highly intelligent, both individually and as a group. Elephants as well. I could go on for a long time. You are not quite as special as you think, and the world is not as small as you believe.


RE: Oh man!
By RandallMoore on 4/13/2010 5:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are not the only intelligent creatures on the planet.

Since you are too stupid to understand what level of intelligence I am talking about, I guess I will have to explain. Which one of those listed are even close to our capacity for logic and reason? I'm talking about Sentient, self aware beings that have a developed language and society. A monkey using a stick to dig for ants is not what I'm talking about, and you know it. You are just trying to insult my intelligence.

You have not answered a single question, nor have you even come up with a semi-logical thought. Pick apart every single question and respond to it. Passing the buck to the philosophy group isn't going to cut it.


RE: Oh man!
By FITCamaro on 4/10/2010 12:33:10 AM , Rating: 2
Your arrogance is just as pathetic as someone who is afraid to embrace that evolution might be true.


Theory...
By cmdrdredd on 4/10/2010 4:41:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'll never understand how a bunch of guys can sit in a room and look at pile of bones and say "ah ha! they used to move like this and eat that and lived in herds!"

How do you get THAT from a bunch of bones? How do you know social structure and living environment if you have never physically observed it in action? There is a reason scientists go out and research wildlife in the field instead of just looking at remains.




RE: Theory...
By porkpie on 4/10/2010 5:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
"How do you get THAT from a bunch of bones? "

Why not read one of their papers sometime and find out?


RE: Theory...
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 5:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
We have been force fed all that crap during public school and even college. So we know what they derive from a couple of teeth and half a skull. Go watch national geographic about evolution. They have entire shows about the behaviors, emotions, and EVEN LANGUAGE of man/apes LOL. You are an idiot.

Ever seen the countless reconstructions of what was though to be early man, but it turned out to be the grade site of a pig or other recently dead animal? I have, and it was pathetic and the complete opposite of true science.


RE: Theory...
By porkpie on 4/10/2010 6:32:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ever seen the countless reconstructions of what was though to be early man, but it turned out to be the grade site of a pig
You read it on a blog; it must be true!


RE: Theory...
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 7:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
Scientific American is a blog? hm... didn't know that...


RE: Theory...
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 8:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
Science is certainly not without its faults, but unlike religion at least the books are re-written, corrected as new data come in.

The bible will always be the same..outdated.


RE: Theory...
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 9:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
at least the books are re-written, corrected as new data come in.


I can't pinpoint which exact ones right now, but I know for fact that 2010 school textbooks have been printed with information on evolution "evidence" that was proven to be a hoax. The data is corrected huh? Just like now all of a sudden Pluto isn't considered a planet... HAHA some of the scientist out there are getting to be like Hollywood these days.. they have to make a stir when too many people lose interest because they are tired of the same old BS.

quote:
The bible will always be the same..outdated.

The same? Yes indeed! Outdated? No way... It's right on track, you should read how it ends though before that times comes my friend.


RE: Theory...
By Kaleid on 4/11/2010 6:34:10 AM , Rating: 2
I don't have access to that school book so I really can't comment, but you'll have to excuse for not taking your word on it since you don't even seem to understand evolution.

Pluto. Definition changed. Oh wow, the horror:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2R-wolOnEc
But you should be used to that since whatever you folks pick and choose from the bible changes with the time. As the pope for instance recently said that there is now no more limbo.
And he has added seven new sins..
The moral zeitgeist moves and the Christian of today doesn't hold a lot of the same viewpoints as a Christian did say two hundred years ago.

When the religious loses the war against gay marriage it will take some time but it will no longer be battled by Christians because it will mostly be accepted since it clearly doesn't disintegrate societies (example: see Massachusetts)
but there will be other things which for them to unite and in unison hate about. Like Harry Potter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YfJZxAai9w

"people lose interest because they are tired of the same old BS." Same old yet changing? It is exactly how science should work, as new data come in we change the books. The fact that it changes is what makes it interesting, as there is so much we still don't know.

"The same? Yes indeed! Outdated? No way... It's right on track, you should read how it ends though before that times comes my friend. "
End of times? Again? How tiring, talk about a prediction which never happens. When Jesus said "brb", "some Christians in the first century believed that Jesus would return during their lifetime, because Jesus had said to his followers to be alert or be ready at all times."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_times


RE: Theory...
By RandallMoore on 4/11/2010 10:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
I've lost count of how many times you have quoted something from Wikipedia. LOL credible source you are pulling from there. You will never deter me, and I guess you are stuck in your way also.


RE: Theory...
By Kaleid on 4/12/2010 4:29:02 AM , Rating: 2
It's a quick way to refer people to information, the original sources are usually there, just click the links. Or when it comes to slavery, you can pick up the bible for sources on where it is endorsed or pick up a history book on how the religious where the ones supporting it in the first place and how often those who where against slavery did it because they were non-conformist of popularly supported ideas.

Is a Godless world such a horrific idea? What if this is all you get, no afterlife or anything? Or the idea that your parents (you're statistically likely to have the same faith as your parents, talk about free will) and society has been spending a lot of energy on telling you things as true even though they can not possibly back it up with any sort of evidence.

The problem with your arguments is that you try to bring magic into the realm of science. You come unarmed and had you written scientific papers based on your beliefs you'd likely be laughed at, you're career might have come to an quick end.

"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume


RE: Theory...
By RandallMoore on 4/12/2010 6:54:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Is a Godless world such a horrific idea?

You mean a world without any obligation to morals and values? Sure, that's a great idea!
quote:
The problem with your arguments is that you try to bring magic into the realm of science. You come unarmed and had you written scientific papers based on your beliefs you'd likely be laughed at, you're career might have come to an quick end.

That's exactly whats wrong with your type. You have faith in science, and treat it as your God. SCIENCE IS YOUR GOD and reason for living. You have nothing to live for, so you turn to being the asshole of society. You will never in your lifetime on earth admit that, but we all know its true.

You talk about science like it is unfailing truth (which its not, its the best guess opinion of SOME, not all people); and you will likely die right along with that belief.

You think you need to have an answer and evidence for every single thing.

You can't stand the thought of submitting to authority, because you don't want to be told what is right and wrong

You think you are God.


RE: Theory...
By Kaleid on 4/13/2010 5:18:01 AM , Rating: 2
With or without god there are morals and values.
We can observe moral values in animals and young kids before they are capable of being taught. A lot of it coded into the DNA, and if it weren't then we wouldn't have gotten this far in the fist place.

Again, I don't replace my non-religion with something.
Science is not God, I'm not God, you're not God, Jesus wasn't God's son, Muhammed wasn't God's last messenger etc..

I do submit to authority, but nothing which I cannot see or hear...things which kind of help with the credibility.

If I'm in a building that is on fire and a fireman says "escape through that route" I'm very likely to trust his opinion because he is trained in such things.

But you see, it is not your God that is demanding you to do this and that. OTHER people are, no god has ever spoken to you directly. If it actually happens, then you oughta listen (but it may be a sign of mental illness like the Jerusalem syndrome). I bet that since childbirth you have been indoctrinated in your faith which you know hold so strongly that even if evidence shows you otherwise you lean towards pseudoscience so that the facts fit with your fiction. Why bother with the mind-juggle? Why complicate things?

What if you had been born in the middle-east? You'd likely be a Muslim instead. Asia? Hindu or Buddhist. Or what if you were born 10.000 years ago, you wouldn't even KNOW about modern religions because they didn't even exist at the time. Would you then not develop your own rules laws and morality? Certainly after quite a bit of trial and error...after a while even morality does evolve. As it does as a whole for the so called moral zeitgeist.

You don't have access to any sort of special information that is not available for me who is a non-believer. Most non-believers used to be believers but gradually find things which are either hard to prove or doesn't fit in with reality, like the suspension of natural-laws or the improbability of living for hundreds of years to gather two of every animal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LtiyefHCe4

People in Asia get along just fine without your Jesus and your God, they never needed it.

Again I'd like to ask. Why is that all other religions are wrong and yours is not?

Please take your time watching these short clips, at least the first one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0A4_bwCaX0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGT25Oj-6rc


RE: Theory...
By Kaleid on 4/13/2010 5:20:12 AM , Rating: 2
Addendum on right or wrong...

"Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who had to drown His own?" - Bertrand Russell

And he also somehow thought that the best way to forgive the theft of an apple was to send his son on a suicide mission in the middle-east.

If these are not signs of how fictional it all is then I don't know what.


RE: Theory...
By RandallMoore on 4/13/2010 6:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With or without god there are morals and values.

Who's to decide that Hitlers morals were wrong?
quote:
We can observe moral values in animals

?.... HAHAHAHA Did you get that from PETA Daily?
quote:
We can observe moral values .... young kids

Just an FYI, humans learn how to lie as children . We are not born with morals you dimwit.
quote:
I bet that since childbirth you have been indoctrinated in your faith which you know hold so strongly that even if evidence shows you otherwise you lean towards pseudoscience so that the facts fit with your fiction.

I'm getting really tired of you assuming that you know one single thing about my life.

It's astounding how much you will go out of your way to make people believe in nothing. All hail the power of .... nothing.... Atheists have got to be the dumbest group on planet earth. If you are wrong about it, you are in deep s***; If I am wrong, then I have nothing to worry about because there is no point to life anyway. You are so superficial that you can't stand the thought of an afterlife.

You stay dead for a long time; just think about that.


RE: Theory...
By Kaleid on 4/14/2010 3:56:21 AM , Rating: 2
"Who's to decide that Hitlers morals were wrong?"
Other people, who A) do not wish to go to war B) the victims
C) because we do not tend to like being told what to do

Your problem is that the bible gives mandate to genocide, God even demands this from his followers.

"?.... HAHAHAHA Did you get that from PETA Daily?"
They work often in groups. That requires rules to follow after otherwise the group would quickly be destroyed.
Monkeys for instance can give others favors, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

"Just an FYI, humans learn how to lie as children . We are not born with morals you dimwit."
Yes we are, but what is coded into us is not enough. Pick up books about psychology and read. There are tons of studies.
More namecalling, wow, you have so many stones.

"I'm getting really tired of you assuming that you know one single thing about my life."
I bet..is not the same as I KNOW, but of course your reading comprehension is not the best...and you could fill in the details. So I ask you, is it not probable that had you been born in the middle-east that you would have been a Muslim instead and that your holy book would have been the Koran instead? Is it not probable?

Ah, here's that dumb argument from Pascal again, which you don't seem to understand either.

What if a god exists, but he/she/it/they is angered by anyone with the presumption to pray to them or worship them? The "free bet" fallacy assumes that only a single interpretation of a single religion is valid, when in reality there are countless of possible religions, and believing in the wrong one might actually increase your punishment in some hypothetical afterlife.
And it could be that even if you somehow made the bet on the right god you could still be wrong on so many things that you could still lost be sent to eternal torment - by an all loving god of course.

Also, if you need religion in your life to have meaning then you clearly are the shallow one. Religion cheapens life and you're an angry God fan-club freak.

Leave Britney alone!!! Leave God alone!!!


RE: Theory...
By RandallMoore on 4/14/2010 11:05:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your problem is that the bible gives mandate to genocide, God even demands this from his followers.

I am quite literally amazed how wrong you are about this particular statement. You must be reading the Muslim bible lol.
quote:
Yes we are, but what is coded into us is not enough. Pick up books about psychology and read. There are tons of studies.

LoL. Psychology is yet again another branch of science that is lead by people that take every study and conclusion for "absolute indisputable fact" instead of theory. Anyone who says that we know more than the most basic, and easy facts. To say we can understand (to the degree of stated fact) complex human emotion is ridiculous at best.
quote:
Also, if you need religion in your life to have meaning then you clearly are the shallow one. Religion cheapens life and you're an angry God fan-club freak.

My faith in God gives me more reason to live a good life than anything.

It's obvious that we will be in a standstill no matter what. I still think you are wrong on just about every occasion. Having said that, I do have to give you credit for putting forth so much effort. Even though we disagree, I think it's best that we just accept our differences so we don't end up looking even more like arguing children haha.

I sincerely wish you the best, and hope that we don't walk away from this mean spirited.


RE: Theory...
By Kaleid on 4/14/2010 2:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
LoL. Psychology is yet again another branch of science that is lead by people that take every study and conclusion for "absolute indisputable fact" instead of theory. Anyone who says that we know more than the most basic, and easy facts. To say we can understand (to the degree of stated fact) complex human emotion is ridiculous at best.


Where have you heard that claim that it's an indisputable fact?
Take the milgram study for instance (which has been repeated over and over again successfully, or the by-stander effect).. people who did what the authority asked them to give a variety of different reason as to why. Of course psychology takes into account on how complex humans can be. The thing is, this is the way to study humans, to more deeply understand them. Here's a good example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

quote:
My faith in God gives me more reason to live a good life than anything.

You wrote earlier that God gives you reason to act morally. Would you say that god forbidding murder is the only thing which keeps you away from killing someone?
Why the extra step of a god? Just be good for goodness sake.

I liked your tone here much better! Take care


Question
By justsomeone on 4/9/2010 10:50:31 AM , Rating: 1
Not all creationists take the Bible’s explanation of creation as totally literal. For me it accurately portrays what happened with mankind in the beginning but in an effective story-like form. Jesus often used parables in his teachings and there are plenty of other Biblical metaphors used to represent truths. So for me it’s no stumbling block at all for scientists to find or discover what they consider evolutionary links. My personal belief is that along the way God choose humans to take on his image, which is more than just a body and also includes mind and soul. This is what makes us different from other creatures or predecessors.

As an engineer (and Christian) I would like to throw out something far more troubling for science than “evolution” could ever be for religion. It’s the laws of conservation of mass and energy. We use these LAWS to solve all kinds of difficult problems in science. Everyone knows that to become a scientific law something has to become well established and pass the test of time. So here’s the question. How can anti-creation scientists use these same wonderful laws to both further their own science and yet have no good explanation how something (everything that is) came from nothing when their own laws logically say otherwise? To me, that is WAAAAY more of a stumbling block for science than any prehistoric skeleton for creationists.




RE: Question
By RudeJude on 4/9/2010 10:58:24 AM , Rating: 5
Faith is faith is faith, no matter what side of the equation you're on.


RE: Question
By justsomeone on 4/9/2010 11:27:53 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, faith balances the equation of life. You either need energy or mass on the left side of the equation in order to end up with mass on the right side. So says modern science anyway.


RE: Question
By tmradder on 4/9/2010 5:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
You're a bit vague in your explanation of a scientific law. Your brief explanation seems to better fit a scientific theory (something well established, lots of evidence, and has passed the test of time). A scientific law lacks explanation or a mechanism and it is generally a mathematical or short written statement.

You are not clear on your questions...are your referring to the Big Bang, abiogenesis, or evolution? The answer to the later is the Sun as the Earth is not a closed system. Scientists are working on the former issues...and I really do not know any scientists that claim something came from nothing. I hope engineers do not think that way.


RE: Question
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 6:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
"A scientific law lacks explanation or a mechanism "

This isn't correct at all. A scientific law is predicated on observation, rather than hypothesis (an "explanation or mechanism"). That's not the same thing at all as saying a scientific law lacks explanation.


RE: Question
By tmradder on 4/9/2010 7:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say that "isn't correct at all"...poorly worded perhaps. For example Newton's law of universal gravitation lacks an explanation or mechanism as to why particles with mass attract/are attracted to other particles with mass.


RE: Question
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 7:57:38 PM , Rating: 3
With all due respect, you're missing the point. Laws don't "lack explanation". Precisely, they don't require an explanation, because they're based on observation, rather than hypothesis. We know the law is valid because we can see it, not because we have logically concluded it should be true. And we may or may not have an explanation for a law (for almost all we do), but its not relevant to the point.

A law stands in direct contrast to a theory, which has to have an explanation (or at least a mechanism of action), but may or may not have observational evidence to support it.


RE: Question
By tmradder on 4/9/2010 8:41:53 PM , Rating: 1
No, I do not think I'm missing the point. A scientific law doesn't need and hence lacks an explanation/mechanism.


RE: Question
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 8:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
Lack of a need for an explanation is not the same thing as the lack of an explanation.

Most scientific laws have explanatory models.


RE: Question
By davidr1952 on 4/11/2010 12:24:21 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that the creation of mass and energy, is inconsistent with the measurable observation that they can neither be created nor destroyed.

Here's a solution you might find acceptable:

Matter and energy enter the objective, observable universe at the edges. The outer limit of the observable universe is expanding all the time, and, perhaps always has been. New galaxies (new to you and me and Science, that is) are those whose image has just reached us for the first time. Since the speed of light limits information transfer of any kind, they effectively join the realm of cause and effect, of Engineering and Nature, and add their weight, mass, and energy to the total, just as if they were created by magic, but without violating the law of conservation of matter and energy. The entire universe arrived in this way.

You might argue that the galaxies were "there" in some sense, all the time, and must have been created in some other way first. To that I reply that physical laws only describe the behavior of observable objects. To assume more would be arrogance.

Thus, the stumbling block is removed. LOL if you must.


Evolution
By kescolorado on 4/9/2010 10:26:53 AM , Rating: 3
Remember Darwin just figured out one of the main ways evolution occurs. It's not "his" evolution theory. His explanation was Natural Selection. That is just a piece of the puzzle. A major one, for sure, but we have a lot more evidence in the last 150 years that he did not and could not know about.




RE: Evolution
By crazy smart on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Evolution
By Abrahmm on 4/9/2010 11:55:38 AM , Rating: 4
You don't believe it because you don't understand it at all, and never look at the physical evidence and logical conclusion. The majority of your explanation of evolution was completely wrong.. Point in case, there is no such thing as a "willful mutation" in any scientists mind ever.


RE: Evolution
By crazy smart on 4/9/2010 12:09:01 PM , Rating: 1
well I admit, I do tend to mock them.... but watch enough of those documentaries. and you'll hear the implication that mutations are willful. but I agree with you, the scientists have much more lofty ways of saying it. like... natural selection.


RE: Evolution
By davidr1952 on 4/9/2010 1:29:48 PM , Rating: 4
Here's a link to the "Origin of Species".

(http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/t...

Please don't think scientists are "arrogant". They're just workers. They draw inferences from bones and rocks, not inspiration from Heaven.

A bricklayer may revere his religious leader, but, when building a cathedral, his opinion is more reliable. That's called the authority of expertise, not spiritual insubordination.


RE: Evolution
By Abrahmm on 4/9/2010 2:25:27 PM , Rating: 3
Like I said, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and have little understanding of what natural selection actually is. Mutations are random, completely random. Every person is born with slight variations in their genetics from their parents. Natural selection is whether those variations help or hurt the animal's ability to survive. If it helps, that animal reproduces and that variation is carried on. If it hurts, that animal doesn't pass on it's variation. After many years, those small variations add up to large variations. It's not difficult to understand if you aren't willfully blocking your mind.


RE: Evolution
By sinful on 4/9/2010 9:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I find it ironic that evolution requires one to faithfully believe the smart scientists who say they have massive amounts of evidence. Yet they have not been able to observe the basic mechanics of MACRO-evolution.


Surely you must be joking. MACRO evolution *is* well proven.
They've done it with flies!

It's funny how the ultra-religious are so arrogant...
"God, an all knowing & all powerful being would *NEVER* resort to Evolution! No, we should reject God's greatest gifts - the ability to think & reason -- and instead believe God uses magic and wands to create everything!"


RE: Evolution
By straycat74 on 4/10/2010 11:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Surely you must be joking. MACRO evolution *is* well proven. They've done it with flies!

I think you mean micro.


SUMERIAN SIN
By DRXANDRADCAT on 4/9/2010 10:36:20 AM , Rating: 1
QUITE OFTEN I GIVE ITEMS IN MY LIFE ANCIENT SUMERIAN NICKNAMES. I'M SO HAPPY TO SEE THAT THOSE SCIENTIFIC RASCALS ARE DOING THE SAME.

ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT




RE: SUMERIAN SIN
By DRXANDRADCAT on 4/9/2010 10:40:50 AM , Rating: 3
RASCALS!!! LET'S SEE HOW YOU FEEL WHEN WE PELT YOU WITH ANCIENT SINFUL BONES!
AND THE LATIN QUOTE WILL SIMPLY ANGER BA'AL, INFIDEL.


RE: SUMERIAN SIN
By DRXANDRADCAT on 4/9/2010 10:43:46 AM , Rating: 5
I REJECT YOUR CONCEPT OF SINFUL BONES. IT IS NOT BONES THAT SIN, BUT THE MEAT WHICH SURROUNDS THEM....


RE: SUMERIAN SIN
By DRXANDRADCAT on 4/9/2010 10:45:54 AM , Rating: 3
STOP ARGUING DOC, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE RADIATON PROBLEM IN THE GARAGE.


RE: SUMERIAN SIN
By DRXANDRADCAT on 4/9/2010 11:39:38 AM , Rating: 3
WHY SO SERIOUS?


Ape Heads
By hiscross on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Ape Heads
By Anoxanmore on 4/9/2010 2:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, you are also that hot girl that posts that doesn't like sex, right?
;)
<3


RE: Ape Heads
By hiscross on 4/9/2010 8:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
Oh sex is fine, just not with fat lazy people.


RE: Ape Heads
By Kurz on 4/9/2010 4:45:09 PM , Rating: 3
I love that arguement "What if you are wrong"?
So its better to play it safe.

Such a selfish motivation of trying to preserve your own soul. You'll go so far into believing a make up deity if it meant eternal life.

If god would not let me enter heaven because I didn't believe in him so be it. Its like fairies if you don't believe in them you cant see them. Honestly it seems like its just a mental disorder to me.

If I seemed like I was looking down on your belief I wasn't.
The problem I have is with the whole, gotta cover your bases thing.


RE: Ape Heads
By Abrahmm on 4/9/2010 5:02:44 PM , Rating: 3
If you are wrong, you pay the price of wasting your only life by devoting it to a mythical being that doesn't exist and the eternal life you were expecting never comes. So it comes down to enjoying what you have, or devoting what you have to something that may exist, or may not. The safe bet seems to be enjoy what you have.

It's also worth noting that this type of fear mongering is how religions gain a lot of followers to being with.


RE: Ape Heads
By thurston on 4/10/2010 1:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since it doesn't cost me anything to believe, I certainly don't want to have pay the price for not believing.


It does cost you something, ignorance.


RE: Ape Heads
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 8:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
Time, money, knowledge...

And you could easily believe in the wrong god.

And depending on where people were born says often a lot about what they will believe.

Middle-east: Likely a muslim
USA: Likely a christian
Asia: Hinduism or Buddhist..

plus tons of possible other alternatives.


Missing links
By todda7 on 4/9/2010 10:25:02 AM , Rating: 4
I have to agree with Dr. Berger. There are no missing links, even without a single fossil the theory of evolution would still be one of the best supported theories with massive amounts of evidence.




RE: Missing links
By phattyboombatty on 4/9/2010 12:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
You can't call any particular fossil a "missing link" because there is no way to verify that the new species is actually an ancestor of humans. For all we know, it was simply a branch that diverged from a common ancestor and died off.

I'm not sure you could say the theory of evolution is supported by "massive amounts of evidence" if there wasn't a single fossil. The fossils are extremely important.


RE: Missing links
By etherreal on 4/9/2010 2:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
And don't forget, every discovery in the evolutionary chain just creates two more holes for creationists to swoon over.


RE: Missing links
By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 6:55:37 AM , Rating: 2
A rather common argument from creationists is that if a new missing link is found then that means the number of gaps in the fossil record has now increased! :)


RE: Missing links
By porkpie on 4/10/2010 10:18:26 AM , Rating: 2
Very true. In fact, the entire concept of a 'missing link', is a misnomer. The evolutionary gaps are already nearly negligible. The term is just a media-generated concept at this point.


Outdated opinion ruins good article
By zackf on 4/9/2010 11:00:40 AM , Rating: 1
I don't know why the author has to attack religion at the onset of the article and ruin an otherwise interesting piece. As a Christ follower and science geek it makes me sad and ashamed to see two different extreme sides insist the other is wrong. When people of faith dismiss these finds it makes them seem close minded to some of their own teachings. Likewise when people of science completely dismiss God they sound like they're only wanting to see what they want - no better than the people they dismiss. If people who dismissed science completely would sit down and look at some of the amazing things humanity has done with our minds they might find additional ways to praise God. Conversely if those who have never opened a Bible might sit down and look at look at some things they may find people of faith are not as close minded as they seem at times.

In Genesis 11 it says God called life to rise up from the earth. He did not just *poof* place things here. Can I explain every contradiction in the Bible? No. Can anyone explain everything by science? No. Let's be little more open minded here people.




RE: Outdated opinion ruins good article
By Connoisseur on 4/9/2010 2:06:51 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Can I explain every contradiction in the Bible? No. Can anyone explain everything by science? No. Let's be little more open minded here people.


I believe there's a fallacy there. The only way to definitively explain every contradiction in the bible (or any religious text for that matter) is if God/omnipotent being of your choice poofed down and said "Yup this is my word." Any other explanation of the statements is simply a person's interpretation. With science, there's at least the chance of eventually being able to explain most, if not all, mysteries through hard work, observation and experimentation.

Personally, I think everyone should completely ignore the rigamarole that is . Genesis? Please. Reincarnation? HAH. 72 virgins? ::snicker:: Nothing wrong with belief in a higher power. But what the hell is wrong with just sticking to the Golden Rule? Do you really need a bunch of BS stories and myths to back that one up?? Do people really have to be threatened with punishment or baited with reward to follow such a simple rule?


By maverick85wd on 4/9/2010 5:44:33 PM , Rating: 4
I think the real problem here is that humans aren't intelligent enough to understand every phenomenon the universe can demonstrate. The good news is that we're evolving every day and, as science broadens our understanding of the universe, so does our capacity to understand it.


By hiscross on 4/9/2010 10:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
"But what the hell is wrong with just sticking to the Golden Rule?" That comes from the Holy Bible. Sorta eliminates alot of things doesn't it.


My 2 Cents
By jahwarrior on 4/9/2010 3:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
Religion is a belief there is evidence but ultimately it still takes faith. Science on the other hand is not a belief it is a way of thinking, a way of objective experiments and analyzing evidence. This way of thinking has allowed us to make so many advances in technology, and more fully understand the world we live in, etc. The Judeo/Christian Religion has given us advances in law, morals, respect for life and has really helped advance womens place in society, thanks to Jesus, who was a big promoter of women. The mix of Judeo/Christian Religion and advances in science has made our society a much better place to live. We have rule of law, accepted moral values (for the most part) and advanced technology and live far better than people have ever lived, praise the LORD.

Evolution is a scientific theory that has passed from science to a religion, it has passed from people thinking it is true, to believing it regardless of the evidence. aka We “believe” this is the missing link (its not, usually like one bone or part of a skull). People want to believe the religion of evolution so badly that they look at all the scientific evidence through an evolutionary lens. There is so much scientific evidence that proves evolution wrong, but most if not all evolutionists or evolutionary believers will not consider any evidence against the evolutionary religion. They will not scrap their theory and start over, but cling to it and promote bad science.

The promoters of the evolutionary religion attack Christianity and God believing people at every turn. They call us unscientific, idiots, losers, etc. etc. etc. just because we don’t accept their theory. What has their theory done for mankind but cause untold misery and death, millions killed in the 20th century. A scientific theory should speak for itself, if it is true than the evidence should fit and if it doesn’t then time for a new theory. Why all the saber rattling, the attacks, the hate, the lies, what gives? Evolution is the religion of destruction and death.




RE: My 2 Cents
By theprofessor1979 on 4/10/2010 10:02:55 AM , Rating: 2
Wow. Evolution has killed millions of people in the 20th century alone? What an unscientific idiot loser you are. I am fascinated to know how evolution as a scientific theory killed millions of people in the 20th century? Please enlighten us.

Have you ever heard of The Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? Two of the worst atrocities in human history that were directly committed on behalf of your god. The Middle East would be a resort vacation destination if it were not for religion and the hatred that it breeds.

When mankind can finally evolve past the point of needing their "binky" (god and religion as a whole) and work to better the species together, we will have the utopia your bible promises, and no one will have to die to get there.

Your two cents are worthless.


RE: My 2 Cents
By jahwarrior on 4/12/2010 6:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, Like I said evolutionist are full of hate, and you sir are a perfect example of that. Calling me worthless, an idiot and a loser hah. You have nothing to offer but insults and bad science. Your words speak for themselves you are a fool. More good has been done in the name of Jesus, than anyone in the history of the world, the sick are healed, the poor feed, the lonely comforted, the prisoners set free. Mother Theresa and thousands and thousands of others have improved the lives of millions of people in the name of Jesus and the world is a better place because of it. Of course people like you would cling to the crusades and the Spanish inquirers as evidence against (I don’t know what), those who took part in those terrible acts (which have nothing to do with me) were not following the Jesus or the bible. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were heavy influenced by evolution and atheism and their actions fit perfectly within the theory and they killed millions….. ..

By the way not believing in evolution does not make one unscientific on the contrary I am practicing good science, the evidence doesn’t fit the theory. Hence time to reject it. Bad science is clinging to a theory when the evidence doesn’t fit and then skewing, manipulating and down right lying about the evidence to make it fit. But evolution has become its own false religion, so evidence need not apply.


RE: My 2 Cents
By Jakeisbest on 4/12/2010 6:47:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the evidence doesn’t fit the theory. Hence time to reject it.


Please, could you point to a published article in a peer reviewed journal which shows evidence that does not fit with the theory of evolution?


RE: My 2 Cents
By Kaleid on 4/13/2010 5:22:20 AM , Rating: 2
*chirp* *chirp*


To All Rational People
By theprofessor1979 on 4/9/2010 3:22:44 PM , Rating: 4
This debate is ridiculous. You can not have a rational discussion with irrational people. And there is no such thing as rational religion. The two are completely mutually exclusive. All the evidence in the world won't convince a christian or muslim that their god does not exist and was an idea created by men to control other men. To keep the powerful in power, to subjugate women and minorities and propagate hate against those who are different. Faith is the absence of all reason and logic and their faith prohibits them from seeing the truth.

TO ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE: Don't go crazy, I am not saying you are stupid or attempting to belittle your beliefs. I am simply stating that the basis for your point of view and ours make it impossible for us to see eye to eye. Or to even have an adult discussion about it. We should stay away from one another and avoid arguing until the day we come for your bibles.




RE: To All Rational People
By jahwarrior on 4/9/2010 4:03:29 PM , Rating: 1
fool, you're going to come from our bibles, huh? and your talking about us persecuting people.


By theprofessor1979 on 4/9/2010 10:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
I would never come FROM your bibles. (idiot) I would however happily come FOR your bibles.


RE: To All Rational People
By icanhascpu on 4/28/2010 1:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
They are not mutually exclusive. Don't let cancers like creationism poison your view and make it narrow.

Religion is thankfully very flexible. Though you have dumbsh!ts trying to tell you what to believe, you really dont need to in any form. Religion is what you want to believe. Science is what is. Religion can surround science and place a grander story than has ever been told while basing things on actual fact.

You can see science as the musical sheet. If preformed perfectly like a robot, it is perfect, yet without much of a soul. Real music needs imperfections to be felt in a more meaningful way.

The sad thing is, most people are too primitive to yet meld these together. They think religion has to be a certain way or you burn in hell. It;s not. religion was created, and you make it how you want. We are as ignorant as we wish to be.


Two very old monkey type hominids found
By Kahnivorous on 4/9/2010 10:51:17 AM , Rating: 3
Always interesting to find old bones deep in the ground. Doesn't change or rewrite any history. Paleontologists will still be digging and searching for the next new thing in the ground around the world.

Critique: The article was informative right up to the point the author inexplicably tossed his two religious paragraphs at the end. There could have been some good constructive discussion had he put a little more confidence in his ability to write a simple article. Instead, it's been reduced to just another HP advertisement or, better yet, a troll piece.




RE: Two very old monkey type hominids found
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 10:54:58 AM , Rating: 1
I couldn't agree more. What should have been a story on an interesting scientific discovery that everyone can appreciate was transformed into a "macro-evolution is true religious people are stupid nyaaa nyaaa nyaaa" type of story.

It's things like this that make me want to get my tech information from other sources.

wgbutler


RE: Two very old monkey type hominids found
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/2010 11:32:27 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. And what "TECH" was used here ? Was a new method used in extracting the skeletons ? Was a new sonar machine used to find them ? Were they DNA or carbon tested with some piece of technology ??

Oh never mind, we have NONE of that here. It reads exactly like another Jason Mick "FUCK YOU CHRISTIANS" piece.

I mean, I think it's pretty cool they found a new species. But why even HAVE the completely biased evolution vs creationism slant ? Was that even necessary or informative to the reader ? Example :

Some skeptics in the U.S. and abroad continue to denounce paleontology. For most, it's due to religious reasons, as they find the idea of evolution "sinful" due to its contradiction of literal interpretations of text found in The Torah, The Bible, and The Koran, and other religious works.

What the FUCK does this have to do with these skeletons ? How does it relate to technology at all or our understanding of the world ? And it's not even accurate ! My whole family (besides me, black sheep) is Catholic and I have asked them point blank several times how they feel about Evolution. They do NOT think it's "Sinful".

This makes religious people out to be ignorant backwoods savages with raised pitchforks looking to torch you or something, give me a break.


By thurston on 4/10/2010 1:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
You call yourself a capitalist and don't even understand how capitalism works. This article is an example of capitalism at work. The reason for making the article inflammatory is to draw more traffic. More traffic=more money=capitalism


By corduroygt on 4/9/2010 2:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone wants to feel that everything's going to be ok. Everyone wants to be taken care of when they're in a hard situation, it's a human need. That's why socialism appeals to the masses and thus popular.

Religion is the same, it answers the questions of why do I exist and what will happen after I die for many people who are either too close minded to think otherwise or too scared to see that there is no proof of anything happening after you die, and absolutely no reason we exist other than being the products of the conditions of the universe, the planet and billions of cycles of evolution. While anyone's entitled to believe whatever they want, religious people are laughable cowards in my opinion, making fun of their beliefs would be like making fun of a disabled kid.




By theprofessor1979 on 4/10/2010 9:35:46 AM , Rating: 2
Awesome. Well said my friend.


By porkpie on 4/10/2010 10:31:40 AM , Rating: 2
" religious people are laughable cowards in my opinion, making fun of their beliefs would be like making fun of a disabled kid."

The difference here is that disabled kid will always be in a wheelchair ... but religious types can potentially be cured. Comparing them to a heroin addict is probably a more apt comparison. If they want to improve themselves badly enough -- they will.


By nstott on 4/13/2010 10:06:11 AM , Rating: 2
Atheists are like lobotomized zombies, except they are obsessed with pestering the religious rather than eating brains.


Feel better now?
By RandallMoore on 4/12/2010 10:12:20 AM , Rating: 2
How many of you pathetic idiots have multiple accounts at this website so that you can rate your own comments up; and down for others that you don't agree with?




RE: Feel better now?
By Kaleid on 4/13/2010 5:24:20 AM , Rating: 2
More useless and baseless ad hominems.

Just what one would expect Jesus to do.


RE: Feel better now?
By RandallMoore on 4/13/2010 6:42:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Just what one would expect Jesus to do.

You don't even care that you are a bigot do you? You and your kind always want to know why people in general don't accept, like, or even tolerate atheists is because your group is the biggest bunch of rude, arrogant, and hateful assholes.


RE: Feel better now?
By Kaleid on 4/14/2010 4:01:49 AM , Rating: 2
When you lack arguments you resort to more name calling.
But you fail, because you're like a dog without a bite.


presuppositions
By walmartshopper on 4/9/2010 2:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
The whole creation vs. evolution argument boils down to presuppositions. In other words, both sides are looking at the exact same evidence and interpreting it to fit into their existing world view. So an evolutionist can look at the similarities in bone structure between various animals and say it's evidence that they came from a common ancestor, while a creationist can look at the same thing and say it's evidence that there was a common designer who reused structures because they work well. Same with geology. One geologist can look at the grand canyon and say that it must have been formed slowly over millions of years, while a young earth geologist can look at it and say it was formed by a huge catastrophic flood. All I'm saying is that a fossil discovery like this is only evidence for evolution if you already believe evolution to be true. It's funny how scientists like to call Christians closed-minded, yet they act like their interpretation of the evidence is the only possible explanation. There are hundreds of scientists with PhDs in biology, geology, chemistry, etc, who believe there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is 6000 years old and are writing peer reviewed journal articles about it (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj). I'm not saying that proves anything, but it goes to show that young earth creation isn't just some wacky idea that we blindly believe (although many do). There are plenty of people out there giving scientific explanations on why young earth creation is a plausible interpretation of the evidence, just as there are those giving explanations on why evolution is a plausible interpretation. Neither side will ever convince the other, because they are both looking at the same stuff and coming up with two different explanations, both of which are scientifically plausible. So again, the debate really boils down to whose presuppositions are right, and I think both sides require an equal amount of faith to believe in.




RE: presuppositions
By tmradder on 4/9/2010 6:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
The answers research journal is not really a scientific peer reviewed journal...it's a creationist reviewed journal which makes it about as wacky as the idea the earth is 6000 years old .


RE: presuppositions
By theprofessor1979 on 4/10/2010 12:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
If the earth is 6000 years old, how old is the moon? Mars? The Solar System? The Galaxy? The Universe? Creationist tend not to think far enough down the line, they tend to use their faith to answer questions that they themselves never ask. Asking questions and seeking answers scientifically has been the corner stone of all great human achievement.

There is ZERO evidence of a god or an all powerful being that created everything. I am speaking as a reformed creationist and a devout atheist. I know how passionately I felt my view was correct and how I would scoff and brush off all scientific data as being flawed. But I thought about it, really thought about it for the first time and realized, wow, this explains everything. From the Big Bang to the formation of galaxies, solar systems, the first spark of life, all the way up to us today.

This debate isn't about evolution vs. creationism. It's the scientific method vs. religions. It's truth vs. ignorance. It's the human brain vs. the human heart.


I have a question
By kdvlder on 4/9/2010 11:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
Creationist! Where do you think the bones came from, how old do you think they are, and what do you think they are?




RE: I have a question
By justsomeone on 4/9/2010 2:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
I am a creationist and will answer you're questions. Please answer mine if you will. I think these bones came from a prehistoric predecessor to humans and that they could be millions of years old as they say.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18093...

The linked post explains my position a little better. Regards


Come forth...
By The0ne on 4/10/2010 11:27:06 AM , Rating: 2
Come forth Superman and Hulk and punish all these non-believers! Show them your might, your wisdom, your colorful costumes and your naked bodies. Spin the world around so that we may travel back in time and learn of our pathetic short lives! Prove to all of your awesome-ness by reincarnation time and time again.

Oh hear me great and powerful Ones, come forth and smite all!

What a prick this Jason Mick is. Honestly, go learn some journalism before writing such crap material just to draw out fanatics from their closets (on both sides that is). If you're going to side one way or another with the story, make it a fcking blog and leave the reporting to actual reporters.




RE: Come forth...
By freeagle on 4/10/2010 11:42:13 AM , Rating: 2
but DailyTech is a blog...


Interesting Questions
By visibilityunlimited2 on 4/10/2010 11:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
1. Is there a Creator?
2. What changes did The Creator make?
3. Did The Creator make evolution?
4. Are changes evidence of evolution or creation?
5. Is super-nature beyond science?
6. Are some dreams from the beyond?
7. Can belief in nature and super-nature co-exist?
8. Is there a line between pre-humans and human?




RE: Interesting Questions
By freeagle on 4/10/2010 12:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
ask those questions every person on the planet and you'll get 2^8 ( 256 ) types of answer, with distribution changing over the course of time. Religion gives you an answer set in stone, science gives you the most probable answers to them at this point of time. Then it's up to you if you want probably false ( 1/256 chance of being true ) certainty or ever present doubt.


Evolution
By johnrebell on 4/11/2010 10:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims

Share this Article by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., & Brian Thomas, M.S. *

A recent high-profile article in the journal Nature released the results of a study with implications that shocked the scientific community because they contradict long-held claims of human-chimp DNA similarity.1 A previous Acts & Facts article showed that much of the research surrounding the often touted claims of 98 percent (or higher) DNA similarity between chimps and humans has been based on flawed and biased research.2 The problem is that the similarity has been uncertain because no one has performed an unbiased and comprehensive DNA similarity study until now. And the results are not good news for the story of human evolution.

One of the main deficiencies with the original chimpanzee genome sequence published in 20053 was that it was a draft sequence and only represented a 3.6-fold random coverage of the 21 chimpanzee autosomes, and a 1.8-fold redundancy of the X and Y sex chromosomes. In a draft coverage, very small fragments of the genome are sequenced in millions of individual reactions using high-throughput robotics equipment. This produces individual sequence fragments of about 500 to 1,200 bases in length. Based on overlapping reads, these individual sequences are assembled into contiguous clusters of sequence called sequencing contigs. In the case of a chimpanzee, an organism with a genome size of about 3 billion bases, a 3.6-fold coverage means that approximately 10.8 billion bases of DNA were sequenced (3.6 x 3.0). The result is a data set consisting of thousands of random sequencing contigs, or islands of contiguous sequence that need to be oriented and placed in position on their respective chromosomes.

In the 2005 chimpanzee genome project and resulting Nature journal publication, the sequence contigs4 were not assembled and oriented based on a map of the chimpanzee genome, but rather on a map of the human genome. Given the fact that the chimpanzee genome is at least 10 percent larger5 overall than the human genome, this method of assembly was not only biased toward an evolutionary presupposition of human-chimp similarity, but was also inherently flawed.

The title of the recent journal article accurately sums up the research findings: "Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content." Before getting into the details of their results, it is important to understand that for the first time, the chimpanzee DNA sequence for a chromosome was assembled and oriented based on a Y chromosome map/framework built for chimpanzee and not human. As a result, the chimpanzee DNA sequence could then be more accurately compared to the human Y chromosome because it was standing on its own merit.

The Y chromosome is found only in males and contains many genes that specify male features, as well as genetic and regulatory information that is expressed throughout the whole body. Because of the recent outcome comparing the chimp and human Y chromosomes in a more objective assessment, it is possible that major discrepancies will be revealed among the other chromosomes that are claimed to be so similar.

From a large-scale perspective, the human and chimp Y chromosomes were constructed entirely differently. On the human Y chromosome, there were found four major categories of DNA sequence that occupy specific regions. One can think of this in terms of geography. Just as a continent like Europe is divided into countries because of different people groups, so are chromosomes with different categories of DNA sequence.

Not only were the locations of DNA categories completely different between human and chimp, but so were their proportions. One sequence class, or category containing DNA with a characteristic sequence, within the chimpanzee Y chromosome had less than 10 percent similarity with the same class in the human Y chromosome, and vice versa. Another large class shared only half the similarities of the other species, and vice versa. One differed by as much as 3.3-fold (330 percent), and a class specific to human "has no counterpart in the chimpanzee MSY [male-specific Y chromosome]."1

As far as looking at specific genes, the chimp and human Y chromosomes had a dramatic difference in gene content of 53 percent. In other words, the chimp was lacking approximately half of the genes found on a human Y chromosome. Because genes occur in families or similarity categories, the researchers also sought to determine if there was any difference in actual gene categories. They found a shocking 33 percent difference. The human Y chromosome contains a third more gene categories--entirely different classes of genes--compared to chimps.

Under evolutionary assumptions of long and gradual genetic changes, the Y chromosome structures, layouts, genes, and other sequences should be much the same in both species, given the relatively short--according to the evolutionary timeline--six-million-year time span since chimpanzees and humans supposedly diverged from a common ancestor. Instead, the differences between the Y chromosomes are marked. R. Scott Hawley, a genetics researcher at the Stowers Institute in Kansas City who wasn't involved in the research, told the Associated Press, "That result is astounding."6

Because virtually every structural aspect of the human and chimp Y chromosomes was different, it was hard to arrive at an overall similarity estimate between the two. The researchers did postulate an overall 70 percent similarity, which did not take into account size differences or structural arrangement differences. This was done by concluding that only 70 percent of the chimp sequence could be aligned with the human sequence--not taking into account differences within the alignments.

In other words, 70 percent was a conservative estimate, especially when considering that 50 percent of the human genes were missing from the chimp, and that the regions that did have some similarity were located in completely different patterns. When all aspects of non-similarity--sequence categories, genes, gene families, and gene position--are taken into account, it is safe to say that the overall similarity was lower than 70 percent. The Nature article expressed the discrepancy between this data and standard evolutionary interpretations in a rather intriguing way: "Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation."1

So, the human Y chromosome looks just as different from a chimp as the other human chromosomes do from a chicken. And to explain where all these differences between humans and chimps came from, believers in big-picture evolution are forced to invent stories of major chromosomal rearrangements and rapid generation of vast amounts of many new genes, along with accompanying regulatory DNA.

However, since each respective Y chromosome appears fully integrated and interdependently stable with its host organism, the most logical inference from the Y chromosome data is that humans and chimpanzees were each specially created as distinct creatures.




RE: Evolution
By davidr1952 on 4/12/2010 12:26:06 AM , Rating: 2
Fifty percent of human genes are missing in chimps?
Was a citation to the source article from "Nature" provided in this "Acts & Facts" article?


Sediba vs. Sebida
By myislanduniverse on 4/9/2010 10:42:06 AM , Rating: 3
According to the Google book that you linked, "sebida" does in fact connote "sinful"; however, the name of the austrolepithecine is "sediba," I believe, without the d and b transposed.

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




Heresy of Another Kind
By quadibloc on 4/9/2010 10:57:41 AM , Rating: 2
I read elsewhere that this find is controversial, because the fossil is of a young individual, which may not be as similar to the genus Homo as thought, and which may postdate some species of that genus - thus invalidating the claim of it being a transitional form between Australopithecus and Homo.

Since humans evolving from apes hasn't prevented chimpanzees from still surviving, there is no reason why a population of A. sediba couldn't have stayed around long after a few conspecifics of their ancestors evolved into something else.




By WilFinley on 4/9/2010 11:18:49 AM , Rating: 2
The term skeptic is more and more frequently applied to the international movement of rationalist and evidence-based thinkers and not the opposite (as it is used in this article). I think the appropriate term would be denier, after all, as you say, those set of beliefs are not endorsed by the scientific community and are entirely without quantifiable validity. Throw them in with the lot of holocaust deniers, 9/11 deniers, JFK conspirators, moon landing hoaxers, etc, as condemning the rich and near boundless evidence for evolution on the basis of faith does not deserve equal footing in the greater argument nor the respectable moniker of skeptic.

http://WilFinley.com




more info :)
By The0ne on 4/9/2010 11:58:21 AM , Rating: 2
Just wanna say, I do follow the stories pretty closely. Even had a amusing conversation a few weeks back about this subject. In any case, hope you guys do read up on the subject as I find it very fascinating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8583254....
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...

This was just recently as well. As always,assumptions are changed when more bones are found. Kinda like dinosaurs now dating a few billion more years back with the recent findings.




The truth of the matter is...
By AidanNaut on 4/9/2010 12:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
...nobody really gives a fuck. Who's is going to care if you post in a lame blog-site and pour out your beliefs? (Wait a minute... OH SHI-)

Anywho, I believe the only people who are "wrong" are the one's who are being spiteful and arrogant. I am an agnostic-atheist (one who does who does not believe in a god, yet does not know whether there is one or not), a teenage boy of 17 years, and I have a long life ahead of me having spent little of it so far. Yet, from my mere 17 years of life experience, I know that I am not going to get anywhere by acting like a snarky, sarcastic asshole (self-name-calling "crazies"). I've learned that it is better to look into both sides of an argument, and pick out its pros, cons, and points.

So far, I have had the unfortunate first-hand experience of a kind of people I like to call "new-births." New-births are people who are either: people recently converted to the Christian faith, or Christians who are young adults. New-births, I've found, tend to be deeply, yet misguided-ly, religious. The rapid growth of the trend of going to wednesday night youth group may have contributed to it. This kind of group is in essentials a great idea. However, human error often corrupts the legitimacy of these groups, either by teacher or student, and the group becomes more of a click, than a class. Sooner or later, these people will grow increasingly attached to their new friends, and from this, what sometimes happens is because they are in what has been deemed "the better environment," they become hostile towards other non-believers, and even other sects of Christians.

New-births left alone to develop this poor behavior construct grow to be, as previously stated, snarky and arrogant. They have grown to firmly believe that their way is the high way, and everyone else is wrong. Yet, lets not forget that this is not always the case. I have friends at my high school that are devoutly Christian, and they are also outstandingly kind and thoughtful to me. My girlfriend is also Christian, and we regularly go to church on Sunday mornings.

Whether or not the Bible is accurate in its historical detail, what the Bible has is very important for all people to read and understand. To me, I see the bible as a *Guide to Being a Civil Human Being.* I myself try and follow some of the 10 Commandments, such as "Thou shall not steal" and "Thou shall honor thy mother and father." I would even go as far as to teach my future children of the Christian faith, though the key is that I would keep ideas open.

Summary of my post: Whether you follow Christ or science, if you're a bitch while you do it, you're still wrong.




wat
By Chiisuchianu on 4/9/2010 12:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
bones = technology? uh... no. smells like agenda pushing coming from daily tech.




Read the Bible
By mjr374 on 4/9/2010 12:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
Has anyone on here actually read the Bible.

Genesis 1:24
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

If that isn't evolution I dont know what is.




By phattyboombatty on 4/9/2010 1:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
These evolution-related stories on Daily Tech never cease to amaze me with the types of comments they elicit. It's impossible to find a discussion about the actual subject matter of the article because it's buried in all the religion-related comments.

Anyway, I really wish these news releases did a much better job of identifying exactly what was found and clarifying what is evidence and what is scientific conjecture. And, if something is scientific conjecture I wish the basis for that conjencture was identified.

For example, after reading the article, I have no idea if the scientists are claiming that the newly discovered species had short fingers based on their finding fossilized finger bones that were short, or if that is just an assumption by the scientists based on something else.




Ridiculous!
By caitdyn on 4/9/2010 1:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
The responses to this blog post are ridiculous.

Christians always get offended by the thought of evolution while everyone else gets offended by the things christians say defending the bible.
If scientists want to poke fun at those who dismiss evolution, let them. Its silly giving a latin name to a new species that pokes fun at anything, but heck, who cares, I'm sure the species won't be offended.

All that aside, I think its pretty cool that they've uncovered another hominid. The more they uncover, the better. In the end of all the stupid internet debating, there's a ton of us that are curious about the past and that's why we clicked on the link.




re: wgbutler
By phibre1 on 4/9/2010 2:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
wgbutler,

You see, he/she/it created a whole bunch of creatures. some of them were "created" strong and smart enough and survived "the wrath of God"
I believe you call this God. some others have a different name for it, but you certainly should not claim the ownership!

I personally call this process evolution.

VB




Come on...
By CleverMird on 4/9/2010 4:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
Guys, just give it a break. If someone doesn't like this informative news, then DON'T READ IT! its as simple as that. I thought it was interesting, and it was not directly targeting religion for a bashing! This is the first article I have looked at on this website and it is discouraging to see so much arguing! :P

Clever Mird




best article ever
By knowom on 4/9/2010 8:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
Best article I've ever read in my life!




By Amedean on 4/9/2010 10:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
I like how every single blogger here acts like they know what is truth about our coming to being.........Please!!!!

Try some analytical reasoning. Post an argument in an inductive form, not a definite answer because absolutely NOBODY here can say for sure they know what is truth here.




By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 6:57:02 AM , Rating: 2
Evolution or Creation?
By Icehearted on 4/11/2010 2:17:53 AM , Rating: 2
So either we're the product of divine wisdom that transcends our capacity for understanding, but for some reason we just can't get our facts straight on the how's and whys...

...or we're poo flinging coincidences that just happen to exist for no apparent reason whatsoever?




evolution
By jmcelroy on 4/11/2010 5:45:24 AM , Rating: 2
omg i woke up today and I grew a second penis. evolution is awesome!




By unclesharkey on 4/11/2010 3:03:48 PM , Rating: 2
"The discoverers argue that the nearly two-million-year-old fossils could be ancestral to us--but other scientists are not so sure"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=s...




Updated info
By unclesharkey on 4/11/2010 3:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
"Discoverer of 'Lucy' raises questions about Australopithecus sediba, the new human species from South Africa"

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id...




By gralex on 4/11/2010 7:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
What a disappointment. 500+ comments of Blind Faith... on both sides.

I'm tired of Religious Leaders, Richard Dawkins and Steve Jobs (you didn't think he'd get away from this one?).
They're just a bunch of prima-donnas. And we give them far too much credit.

Maybe the planet is just a result of the Big Bang. Or maybe it was cleverly engineered to produce a race of spacefarers, capable of terra-forming the cosmos.

Either way, we just don't know...




By cactusdog on 4/11/2010 11:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
For people who say "nothing in the bible can be disproved". There is a few things in Genesis that are disproved.

We know the Earth is millions of years old, so the claim it is around 10,000 is false.

The bible also says the Earth, including animals, plants, humans were created in 7 days. That has been proven false. The earth was here for millions of years without human/animal life.

Its really a little sad that ancient myth is passed off as fact in the 21st century.




evolution agenda
By lowrise on 4/9/2010 12:08:47 PM , Rating: 1
Do a google search on "gorilla skull", you will see a striking resemblance.

But something less obvious is that evolutionists seem to have a greater agenda to rule out GOD then they actually do to prove evolution.

If we evolved from apes don't you think there would be more than just 1 "Missing link" discovery every 30 years? Shouldn't there be hundreds or thousands of them all along the way of the evolutionary timeline?

The bible (which they continually mock) already speaks of in the last days there will be "mockers and scoffers" who are "willingly ignorant" and "forever gaining knowledge but never coming to the knowledge of the truth". The natural man cannot know the things of the spirit and for those who would like to believe that "living matter" came out of "non-living" matter billions of years ago -- well, that is their choice but I always have to remind myself that they are just "willingly ignorant" and they really don't want to know the truth.




By CmentMixer on 4/9/2010 12:50:30 PM , Rating: 1
Mr. Mick,

Nice rhetoric from a junior journalist. Perhaps next time you can do more than spin a story from the AP wire into a baseless slam on Creationism? Your readers have more references to the real story here than you.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
* Hamlet, scene v




Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Response
By m1ldslide1 on 4/9/2010 11:00:59 AM , Rating: 3
So you are annoyed that a tech blog would belittle a large segment of the population, but then you belittle a large segment of the population by saying that juvenile and insulting comments are typical of atheists.

Thanks for the juvenile and insulting comments. Maybe this seems like a pointless exercise in logic, but a few more of these and you and your large segment of the population might find yourself purporting fewer such contradictions.


RE: Response
By crazy smart on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Response
By Mitch101 on 4/9/2010 11:27:20 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
(Many) atheists have no rules of conduct in their Internet communication and will often lash out in a chaotic and profane way in order to try to get their point across.

Ive seen many more of these actions coming from Christians than from Atheists. Remember when Christians used to stone people to death for not sharing the same religious beliefs? If they wont join stone em to death.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Response
By Mitch101 on 4/9/2010 12:06:07 PM , Rating: 3
Google it and check your history of Christianity. Seems you know little about the history of your religion.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 2:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
When did I claim to be a Christian? How about you Google it and give some good examples since the onus is on you to back up your claims.


RE: Response
By Mitch101 on 4/9/2010 2:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
Continue reading the thread there are several good examples below without repeating what others have already pointed out.


RE: Response
By RandallMoore on 4/10/2010 3:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously those who stoned others were not following God's laws; namely thou shalt not murder.

I saw an atheist,believer of evolution, and Hitler worshiper murder innocent children. Therefore I conclude that all atheists and evolutionists love Hitler, and also kill children. See how that can be turned around? No? O well...


RE: Response
By RandallMoore on 4/13/2010 6:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
I guess no one had coherent response to this one either...


RE: Response
By Suntan on 4/9/2010 3:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
For anyone interested in a refreshing opinion about the ‘creation’ of Christianity, might I suggest watching “From Jesus to Christ” on PBS Frontline. You can see it in its entirety on their website. It’s four hours of mostly documentary narration and interviews of historians, theologians and scholars, but still quite interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reli...

Being raised a Catholic but never really agreeing with the teachings, it is a very informative watch to give you a better sense of what it might have “really been like” in that time, instead of just “what we want people to believe happened 2,000 years ago while we busy ourselves diddling young boys...”

-Suntan


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 11:42:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Ive seen many more of these actions coming from Christians than from Atheists. Remember when Christians used to stone people to death for not sharing the same religious beliefs? If they wont join stone em to death.


I don't remember Christians stoning people to death. Perhaps you are thinking about Muslims, who still stone people in modern times, or the ancient Jews, who would stone adulterers to death? Remember that Jesus actually pardoned the woman caught in adultery from being stoned to death.

Furthermore, the early Christians, such as Stephen and James, were themselves stoned to death for their beliefs, so your charge is baseless.

Also, if you go to a place where the communication is wide open such as youtube and follow the comments you can see a real difference in the styles of communication between Christians and atheists.

wgbutler


RE: Response
By Federali on 4/9/2010 12:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't remember Christians stoning people to death


Yes, now instead of no one expecting the spanish inquisition, now people are denying it even happened? Or the Crusades? Etc. etc. etc. Wgbutler, this isn't a fight you want to start.

Back to evolution, maybe you'd be happier if I explained that Scientists aren't trying to disprove God's existence, instead are simply trying to understand the natural world around, and how it came to be.

Finding out if God exists isn't a question for science, nor one that any serious scientist is interested in answering.

So back to evolution. It's a theory based on fact, that is what bothers people when people act as evolutionary deniers. Its something we can easily replicate, can see happening all around us, and makes sense. This is not a persecution of your faith, because science contradicts one of your tenants, you immediately think that the science must be wrong. This is exactly the type of thinking that led to Christians raping and pillaging other cultures.

That any contradiction is the problem of the other, that debate and dialogue and coming to a logical conclusion about something are things that simply aren't included in the Christian faith. Seriously actually look at the evidence, I mean just the basic principle of sexual reproduction, and genetic transfer. Evolution isn't only fact, it makes very easy to understand and logical sense.


RE: Response
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 12:34:29 PM , Rating: 1
"I don't remember Christians stoning people to death"

You never read your own bible then. Try Leviticus 24:10-23 (man stoned to death for cursing God), or Numbers 15:32-36 (man stoned to death for working on the Sabbath). Even Moses himself was almost stoned to death. In later times, try Constantine-Silvanus, who formed an unorthodox religious sect and was therefore stoned to death for heresy by order of Constantine IV.


RE: Response
By Federali on 4/9/2010 12:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, its different though! They were Jews then! <sigh>


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 12:56:28 PM , Rating: 1
Wow! Your Bible examples are pretty stupid when you're pulling them from the Old Testament.

None of this matters. So-called 'Christians' behaving in an unchristlike manner are not true 'Christians.' It is not reasonable to villify the whole based on the actions of a minority. What you have to show is that the teachings of Jesus Christ endorsed such actions. Good luck with that one.

Jesus was executed by the religious leaders of His time. Shall we blame Moses for it?


RE: Response
By Federali on 4/9/2010 1:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
No he doesn't. He was replying to the contention that Christians never stoned anyone, and they did. And did and do persecute people because of their faith.

By your reasoning then atheists are completely morally blameless, because there is no atheist central teaching or atheist "messianic figure".


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 2:18:41 PM , Rating: 1
Stalin.

I blame all atheists for Stalin and his mass murders and his persecutions of religious people. Is that reasonable?


RE: Response
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 2:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
Stalin was not the leader of any atheist movement, and his actions were not officially sanctioned by any atheist organization.

The murders described above, though, were not random acts by Christians. They were specifically authorized by the highest Christian authorities at the time, and widely approved by the Christian rank and file.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 2:55:32 PM , Rating: 1
Communism is indeed a secular, atheist movement that was lead by Stalin. Stalin's murders were sanctioned by an atheist organization known as the Communist Party. Ego, all atheists are guilty, and all of atheism is discredited. (For those who don't realize it, my claims are not serious but are meant to illustrate the logical fallacy of blaming all of Christianity for the misdeeds that some have committed in its name.)

And the murders of over 100 million people by atheists were not all just random acts of atheists but were specifically authorized by the biggest atheist authority of its time by the biggest atheist movement.


RE: Response
By Anoxanmore on 4/9/2010 3:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
Karl Marx was a Christian though...


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 3:31:48 PM , Rating: 1
No. Marx was a self-hating, secular Jew and not a follower of Judaism let alone a Christian.

quote:
Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
-Karl Marx[


Go fish.


RE: Response
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 4:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
This is the most speciously sophomoric argument I've heard yet. The Communist Party was not "an atheist authority", nor were Stalin's acts done to promote atheism. This stands in sharp contrast to the countless murders done by or at the specific direction of Christian priests, saints, arch-bishops, and Popes...and more importantly, done because their interpretation of the bible convinced them that God wished those murders done.

Nice attempt to shift attention, but it won't work.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 4:51:41 PM , Rating: 1
I'm glad you agree that such arguments are speciously sophomoric, which is exactly my point when imitating your method. Their interpretation of the Bible did not convince them that God wished those murders to be done. Their evil, greed, and lust for power lead them to use whatever was necessary to justify and rationalize them in their actions. If not religion, then something else.

Look at what Marx and communism preach about caring for the people and then look at how the same is used to justify creating a pile of dead bodies because one cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs. The Communist Party was an atheist authority, and it saw religion specifically as a competing force against their authority. As such, the communists intentionally targeted religion to remove it as a competitor to their atheist movement. Elimination was a stated goal. Stalin and other communists have committed mass murder to specifically promote atheism over religion, and to say otherwise is willful ignorance of recorded history.

Evil people will do evil things. Your argument that "the Bible made them do it" is just as absurd as "Das Capital made them do it."


RE: Response
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 6:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
Congratulations, you've made a very common logical blunder. Stalin is actually a perfect example of what is wrong with religion and not atheism: faith in unjustifiable beliefs on grounds of insufficient evidence. The fact that Stalin was an atheist is irrelevant to his movement, because he and his followers committed atrocities based upon blind faith to a political ideology . Religion is analogous to this, as it to is based upon blind faith, and equally appalling things have been done in its name. Stalins acts were not committed in the name of atheism, and that is why your comparison is wrong.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 6:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
Stalin had blind faith in communism? You are a logical blunder.

So do you often worry that you are surrounded by mass murderers? I often have to fight the urge to stab myself before turning on a light. How about you? LOL! You must walk in fear. Fear of the religious. Fear of Christians. Fear of the Blind Faithers. Boo!

Not all religious people believe that one must remain in blind faith at all times with all things. Once must test their faith to progress, not remain blind in the darkness.


RE: Response
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 10:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
This is your rebuttal? Really?

You said that Stalin committed mass murder to promote atheism. That is patently false. He did it to ensure success of his political/economic ideology, to which he saw religion as a threat. Do you not see the distinction there? He didn't do it because he thought the world would be a better place if everyone were atheist, he did it because he thought the world would be a better place if everyone was communist. Blind faith in communism is what motivated him. You can't blame that on atheism (although religious people often try to just as you did).

And do you understand what an analogy is? I said blind faith religion was analogous to the above, not equal to it. Of course I don't live in fear of religious people, that would be absurd. I used to be religious myself once upon a time.

As to your last statement, faith without evidence is by definition blind faith. Paint it however you like, but that is fact.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/12/2010 11:16:37 AM , Rating: 2
Atheism is a key component of communism despite your denials. Stalin did do it both because he thought the world would be a better place if everyone were an atheist and a communist. I know you want to separate the two, but you cannot. Atheists murdered over 100 million people. You can make whatever arguments you want to against that, but the same arguments apply to Christians and the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages. My only point here is to show the logical fallacy in Porky's argument, not to malign all atheists as hateful murderers. One cannot take what the Catholic Church did during the Dark Ages and then claim that it was the result of the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament. Catholic murders were committed in much the same way that Jesus and His apostles were murdered by religious leaders of their time and despite what is taught in the New Testament.

Then, from what we know, the Theory of Evolution is accepted on blind faith. I'm a scientist who makes things in a laboratory, does experiments to characterize and understand what I made, and then still have to hypothesize about what I think about what I have made. In the journals, we debate something that we make in a laboratory today. I look at the science of evolution and wonder how many of the claims can be made and accepted with such certainty given the time scales and what exists from which to collect empirical data. That being said, I accept and believe in the general theory (on 'blind faith') even if I'm skeptical that we really know anything about the specifics.


RE: Response
By Kaleid on 4/13/2010 5:47:01 AM , Rating: 2
More than likely religion was wiped out because it provided competition to his own state. And previously the church had been in alignment with the tsars who were anything but nice to the people.. so some wanted vengeance. It could also be that Stalin took a lot of influence from his studies on becoming a priest and how to setup the state. I'm not sure, but it certainly seems that Orwell could have used God as source of influence for his Big brother state.

I see this as a problem mostly about separations of power, a political problem. How do you prevent people gaining too much executive power, religious or not?
(well for one thing secularism is a good way of preventing the creation of a theocracy).

Certainly non-believers can do wrong, but the case can also easily be made for religious people. Take slavery, colonialism (when the Belgians came to Congo they wiped out 10 million people), two world wars, racism etc...

Also, do we have a choice in electing our deity? Can he not read our minds and even punish us after our deaths? He indeed does (hell), and I would argue that this is worse than both Mao and Stalin combined.

Stalin and Mao leaves some problems to ask for those who believe.

1. Why does his design allow for such defectiveness such as Stalin and Mao?
2. Since we know they existed why didn't God stop them? We often hear that he works in mysterious ways... a couple of "accidents" and the problem would have solved itself.
3. Could it be that God actually approved?* Could it not be that it is indeed part of his divine plan?

* To use Hitchens argument here (even if you don't agree I'm sure you'll find it entertaining, it's a full debate so look for it on youtube if interested):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYaQpRZJl18
We know that the modern man is at least 100.000 years old. It took God at least 96.000-98.000 years or so before he started to intervene, and he does this in the middle-east (when China would have made more sense since they had advanced further) and all through that time humans have suffered immeasurable in all different kinds of ways. The argument for a good god is impossible to make.

This video makes perfectly the case on how God could have done so much more when Jesus supposedly came down to earth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOfjkl-3SNE


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/13/2010 11:01:11 AM , Rating: 2
My point is that evil people will use whatever means, religion-based or otherwise, to accomplish their evil designs. The religious leaders that pushed the Romans into killing Jesus are similar to Catholic leaders during the Dark Ages. Blaming Catholic atrocities on the teachings of Christ and Christianity as a whole is not much different than blaming the atrocities committed by atheists under communism on all atheists or 'atheism.' God will judge us as individuals, and nowhere is it claimed that The Judgment will be done on a group basis.

The purpose of this life is a test and a chance for personal experience and growth. Bad things and our reactions to them are a part of this, including how we help and serve those who are in pain and need. This life and our pain and suffering are rather small when compared to eternity and the peace and happiness of heaven. Furthermore, Jesus experienced all that the world has to offer in terms of what's bad on a very personal level. Being crucified was not the worst of it. While atoning for the sins of the world, he took upon Himself the pains and guilt of all sin, all disease and infirmity, and all of the evils committed upon this earth such that it caused Him, even God, to shake and bleed from His pores. Whatever horrible thing any person has experienced, He also experienced so that He will have perfect empathy and compassion. When people blame God for bad things, they forget that He sent His only begotten son to experience those things and everything else. While I'm not telling you what to believe because you have the God-given right to choose for yourself, I write this to explain some of the questions you bring up.

I know what I've wrote opens a can of worms, and you can come up with all sorts of scenarios as to why an explanation is deficient or ways God could have done things better. However, you might consider that God, if He exists, is infinitely wiser and has a deeper understanding of what's important on an eternal level than you or all of your atheist intellectuals, just like how most parents are wiser than their little children.

quote:
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
-1 Corinthians 1:20-27


RE: Response
By Kaleid on 4/14/2010 4:19:10 AM , Rating: 2
"My point is that evil people will use whatever means, religion-based or otherwise, to accomplish their evil designs. "

I partly agree. But what on earth is evil designs?

Yes, it doesn't require religion to do evil things, but there's nothing quite like thinking you are doing some God's work is there?

"The purpose of this life is a test and a chance for personal experience and growth."

A test? Like for some lab rat? Seriously there have been millions of children who have died because of various diseases etc long before they could be considered having a ready personality to be put to a test.

"nowhere is it claimed that The Judgment will be done on a group basis.."

Actually, if you happen to be born into the wrong religion then yes you are, since Jesus for instance often says things like "the only way to the lord is through me" and the one of the ten commandments demands of people not to have other Gods beside him. And the flood, which many religious people say happened, despite evidence, is a collective punishment as well.

"you might consider that God, if He exists, is infinitely wiser and has a deeper understanding of what's important on an eternal level than you or all of your atheist intellectuals, just like how most parents are wiser than their little children."

I do certainly consider the probability that God could exist, but why should I merely focus on the Christian or any other of the two Abrahamic Gods?
I simply cannot force myself into belief nor can I in any way think that he would be infinitely wiser if he did the things he is claimed to have done in the bible.

It's not wise for instance to after the apple story to place the blame on his creatures which do some things naturally. I would expect him to know his own design...

"When people blame God for bad things, they forget that He sent His only begotten son to experience those things and everything else. "

Now how is this wise? I don't see the need. He above all should know exactly what it is like to be a human...who wouldn't even have to pray to him directly to channel their thoughts to him. He can read minds and he supposedly designed us. And if the theft was so wrong, then why not just forgive?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QecUUnLNSiY

(sorry if I haven't responded to everything..)


RE: Response
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/16/2010 5:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know you want to separate the two, but you cannot.

Wrong. What you cannot do is combine the two and say atheism was to blame. That is a cause/correlation logical fallacy.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/19/2010 4:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and congratulations for making my point once again. Why are you guys so slow? For the umpteenth time, I'm mocking the argument made that Christianity and the teachings of Jesus are responsible for the evils committed by Catholics during the Dark Ages. You cannot call one a cause/correlation logical fallacy, made by your side first, without calling the other the same. I'd rest my case now, but I'm guessing that you'll just keeping on going on without recognizing that the same conclusion applies to both situations.


RE: Response
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 1:18:01 PM , Rating: 4
"Your Bible examples are pretty stupid when you're pulling them from the Old Testament."

Hello in there....Constantine-Silvanus was stoned to death six centuries after the birth of Christ.

"So-called 'Christians' behaving in an unchristlike manner are not true 'Christians.'"

Ahh, this logical fallacy rears its ugly head again. Whenever a Christian does something unsavory, it's written off as they're not being "true" Christians. Does the word "tautology" mean anything to you?

By this insane logic, no "true Christian" can ever commit a crime of any sort, as you instantly redefine them as non-Christian the moment they do so.


RE: Response
By Federali on 4/9/2010 1:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
Nice! Logic High-Five!


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 2:51:32 PM , Rating: 1
I find this tangent quite ridiculous. The original implication was that Christians are some intolerant group of rubes that go around throwing stones at people who disagree with them - DESPITE the fact that there is no teaching anywhere in the New Testament to throw stones at anyone for any reason and there is no record of any church group in the Western world practicing stoning as a disciplinary practice.

The best thing you guys could do in response is quote some old testament laws about how the ancient religious-state of Israel punished criminals and then make some reference to a sixth century guy in Armenia being stoned to death (Constantine-Silvanus). And this is relevant to modern society how exactly?

If you guys are reduced to digging through history books and talking about things that occurred 1400-3000 years ago to prove that Christians today are dangerous rabble rousers who stone people who disagree with them you must be very desperate indeed!

The REAL question here is, why are you so eager to portray Christians as dangerous people? What is the real agenda? Why the transparent hostility? What is about Christianity that you find such a threat?

wgbutler


RE: Response
By Federali on 4/9/2010 3:16:07 PM , Rating: 3
The Real agenda is I am trying to discredit you and keep you from spreading the Truth!

C'mon, read the damn conversation. You have a tenuous understanding of Christianity, make up your own rules as to who is Christian and who is not, claim that because an organization is secular means that it is atheist, have almost no understanding of evolution, instead of talking about evolution and reformatting your beliefs instead you go on some atheist rant which has nothing to do with the article, evolution, or science.

You either do not follow the news, or are completely unaware that until recently the IRA was a terrorist organization. Because anyone who does bad things is no longer a Christian, your faith is completely blameless in the atrocities committed in its name.

For the love of God, the REAL question is how weak your faith is that you must turn a blind eye to any evidence that their is any weakness or failing in your religion. Just close your eyes and hide under your blankets, or get up and reformat your faith to include what is real. Instead of hiding or scoffing at fact, incorporate it into your faith if you have to.

That is the big difference between Judaism and Christianity, Judaism is about debate and discussion, Christianity is about following the other lemmings off of the cliff. Judeo-Christian my ass.


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Response
By Federali on 4/9/2010 4:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not attacking your damn faith. The weakness is that you believe that evolution(a fact) doesn't fit into it, not to mention the age of the earth.

If it was a religion fight I would talk about how teaching not to question and to believe blindly keeps you insulated from the world around you. The fact that people blame the devil instead of taking personal responsibility for the things they do. The face that the idea of a utopia makes it so anything done to get to that state is forgivable.


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 5:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

The weakness is that you believe that evolution(a fact) doesn't fit into it, not to mention the age of the earth.


You are arguing against a straw man. My skepticism on neo-Darwinism has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. In fact, if I reverted to atheism I would STILL have serious issues with it.

And I've never made any claims whatsoever on the age of the earth. My position is that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old and the Earth 4.5 billion years old. And no this does not contradict in any way anything written in the Bible.

quote:

If it was a religion fight I would talk about how teaching not to question and to believe blindly keeps you insulated from the world around you.


If you are trying to insinuate that I am not open minded you are completely wrong. I came to Christianity FROM atheism and was raised in a secular, non-religious, non-churchgoing family as a child.

Because I am an independent thinker, I looked at the evidence objectively and came to the conclusion that there is indeed a God and that Christianity is the way He reveals Himself to humanity.

wgbutler


RE: Response
By redbone75 on 4/9/2010 4:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
Seems many Christians have a tenuous understanding of Christianity, and even those that have the highest understanding (this means you, Catholic church) aren't of strong enough conviction to keep from doing some of the most dastardly of deeds. The rub, then, is these same people point and condemn those who are not religious or are of different religious beliefs.

I am not Christian. I am not religious. I believe in science. I believe in the logical conclusions of the scientific process. However, I support Christians and any other person of religious beliefs. More specifically, I support those religious people who have made themselves better people because of their religion, if that is what helped them become a better person. Above all, I support those that simply allow other people to live, regardless of their differences. That is what is important to me. Unfortunately, it seems that I am in a minority of people who just seem to "get it" that it is by far easier to live and let live than to push your beliefs on others.


RE: Response
By Jellodyne on 4/9/2010 4:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
The Catholic church has the highest understanding of Christianity?! I think you mean to say the Catholic church has the highest understanding of the Catholic church. 90% of their rules, rituals and dogma have nothing to do with the source (the bible). Unless I missed the section of the bible on sainthood, the Pope being god's mouthpiece on Earth, having priests perform Jesus's magic tricks (euchrist), exorcisms, etc, etc, etc.

Speaking of original sources, and getting back to the stone throwing issue, the line 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone' and the story in question was an addition which first appeared in the bible during medieval times.


RE: Response
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 4:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
"And this is relevant to modern society how exactly?"

Hello, read the thread. The OP claims stoning was never performed by Christians. I merely proved otherwise.

You are correct that it was a rare practice. Christians in the Medieval period generally preferred to burn people alive, boil them in oil, or torture them until they eventually died.


RE: Response
By Kurz on 4/9/2010 4:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
Like many organizations especially those with belief in a higher power, those priests at the top can mandate anything they wish and their followers will do their bidding. They put fear into the hearts of their fellowship, by stating you will not go to heaven.

I've seen plenty of christians that are not good christians they can be quite intolerant. Aethiests may look at religion as retarded they don't usually go around preaching their ideals on believers. It could be because aethiests only make up 15% of the population.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 2:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
Hello in there... I was specifically referring to your Bible examples as was clearly stated. Constantine-Silvanus and his stoning are nowhere in the Bible, and I addressed that later. Is English your second language?

A Christian is a follower of Christ, and those who commit gross misdeeds that are contrary to the teachings of Christ are not true Christians. Nobody is perfect, so my contention is not that Christians do not exist because nobody who claims to be such has ever followed his teachings perfectly. However, a reasonable person (from a legal standpoint) can infer that someone who doesn't adhere to core principles of an espoused belief is not a true believer. I don't think you really understand what tautology means. What would you say to the guy who claims to be a pro-life abortion doctor or the guy who is raping for chastity?

It doesn't matter anyway. You need to show where Jesus taught something immoral if you want to discredit the religion. Finding proclaimers of one religion or another acting immorally is too easy. Evil people will use any means, including religion, to commit evil acts upon others. If you want to convince me, dig up some statistics to show that Christians commit murder at a higher rate than atheists.


RE: Response
By Federali on 4/9/2010 2:53:46 PM , Rating: 1
Well we all understand that thousands of deaths have happened in the name of religion, from wars to the inquisition.

Has there been anybody killed in the name of atheism? This is not something that needs to be disproved by us, the burden of proof is on you.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Response
By Camikazi on 4/9/2010 4:00:48 PM , Rating: 3
Sources and proof atheists sanctioned, called for and committed those deaths please.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 6:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
Communism is an atheist ideology. Look at the history of how many people were murdered by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Castro, 'Che,' et al. Communism targeted religion for annihilation as competition for power over the people, and many of the religious were murdered and jailed for refusing to accept atheism and deny religion. Many more were murdered to made a giant human omelet for the 'common good.'


RE: Response
By japlha on 4/13/2010 2:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
No true atheist would ever kill anyone.


RE: Response
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 4:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
"those who commit gross misdeeds that are contrary to the teachings of Christ are not true Christians."

Why is your interpretation of your bible correct, but the interpretation of countless thousands of priests, pastors, monks, deacons, theologians, patriarchs, saints, bishops, arch-bishops, cardinals, and even the Pope himself incorrect?

According to their interpretation of those texts, God did indeed condone the killing of people for heretical views.

And while Christianity is admittedly more tolerant today, there are still Christians around who believe killing for religion is acceptable (check out the Coptic Christians or the Phalangists for a couple examples).


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 7:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
Because Jesus was pretty clear about such. It was the people who murdered Him and misused religion to convict Him of heresy that engaged in that. The Catholic Church engaged in such abominations due to greed and lust for power, so their justification is irrelevant. No reasonable interpretation of the New Testament justifies such, especially when one considers the Crucifixion and the martyrdom of all of the apostles and saints.

Why is your interpretation of atheism correct, but the interpretation of countless thousands of communists, commissars, and even Stalin himself incorrect?

Some proclaimed Christians have murdered. Ergo, all proclaimed Christians are murderers.

The Catholic Church is a Christian church. Ergo, all Christian churches are Catholic.

All true communists are atheists. Ergo, all atheists are true communists.


Your entire thesis is one big logical fallacy.


RE: Response
By abel2 on 4/9/2010 3:05:57 PM , Rating: 3
I believe he was referring to your biblical references when he made the statement "Your Bible examples.." Leviticus and Numbers are Old Testament books and have nothing to do with Christianity as that is based on the death of The Christ.

And the reference to Constantine IV having Constantine-Silvanus stoned to death is a little stretch as it was more likely Symeon-Titus, the authority of the soldiers that arrested him, that was directly responsible.

But back to the topic.. Christians, and all religions for that matter, are responsible for very horrific incidents in history. Anyone that would deny that they were Christian at the time is fooling themselves. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Claiming you are Christian does not make you infallible and if anything makes it harder to resist the temptation to sin.


RE: Response
By Federali on 4/9/2010 1:28:16 PM , Rating: 5
That and by your contention their are no Christians.

I mean funny that you are missing the stoning reference, "He who is without sin cast the first stone", but your view is that the only people who are Christians are true paragons of virtue. Since no one is without sin; and anyone who does something un-Christian in your contention is no longer a follower of Christ; no one is a Christian.

Which is also funny because the entire point of Jesus is that he let's the tax-collectors, prostitutes, everyone sit at his table. So you yourself even if you were without blame until this moment are acting un-Christian.

So really I'm not sure why you are acting as a spokes-person for Christians, when you yourself cannot claim to be one.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: Response
By Federali on 4/9/2010 3:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
Once again hide underneath your blankets, instead of turning on the light.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 3:54:55 PM , Rating: 2
Ignoratio elenchi.


RE: Response
By Federali on 4/9/2010 4:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
hahahaha, did you just learn that phrase? Oh I am so proud of you, maybe that book will do you some good! Maybe in the next chapter Beck covers how to use it correctly.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 7:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
I was calling you by your full name.


RE: Response
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 7:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
" The stoning reference favors my point since Jesus Christ used that phrase to put an end to the practice."

Since you've already admitted your bible is rife with inaccuracies, translation errors, and language which shouldn't be taken literally -- how do you know this for sure? Maybe what he really said was something entirely different.

Or did JC appear to you in a vision and set you personally straight on this point?


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/12/2010 11:24:00 AM , Rating: 2
Did Stalin's ghost appear and tell you to waste your time persecuting and attacking the so-called fantasy beliefs of others?

BTW, I never said "rife." Keep your straw men to yourself.


RE: Response
By pklat on 4/9/2010 12:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
With all of your posts on this blog, I agree with you, to a point. It is true that there are people with irrational, almost idiotic behavior on all sides of the spectrum, so I view your posts as a plea for tolerance, from all sides. After all, that is (supposed to be) a Christian way, yet very few follow it (my personal view on it, no research has been done on it on my part, so no backing up on it, just personal experience). And you are correct, there is a very large room with all of the "findings" that do not fit the assumed (working) theory. It seems though that we posses something in our brains that will not allow us to be wrong, so that is sort of an answer to an egotistical jabbing at each other and our points of view.


RE: Response
By Suntan on 4/9/2010 3:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't remember Christians stoning people to death.


Honestly, Christianity has had many dark periods throughout its 2,000 year history. Please don’t claim ignorance to all of the atrocities that have been conducted in the name of Christianity.

The history of just the Iberian Peninsula alone is rife with centuries of unsavory happenings time and again (by Christians, Jews and Muslims alike) culminating in the Spanish Inquisition.

You can argue that all these acts were misguided from the “true teachings” of the religion, but don’t claim that they never happened. It is insulting to us to think we would buy it, and it is insulting to you if you truly don’t know the history of your religion.

-Suntan


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Response
By thatmikeguy on 4/9/2010 4:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
Christians are people, and people choose. All people choose once accountable. All peoples choices will affect them, and others, in some way. There are many findings of new animal remains each year. So here we have another ape. I especially like the start of this:

molecular, genetic, fossil, anatomical, and field biology evidence...

The writer needs to do some additional research. My sister-in-law works on the human genome project in the US, there are "many" genetic science beliefs (big word), with "most" pointing us in the direction of two perfect, under 10,000 year old people. She has been working on the human genome from the point it first got funded. She has just recently become a Christian, and can tell you that "Scientific findings that supports Christianity is the direct way to get funding cut." There are many evolutionary sciences, and they exist for many reasons. One reason is the BIG difference between evolution, and mutation, regarding how and why. There are so many questions, that should have good answers. Why no fossils in granite, if we can date the granite? How was granite (that we are all standing on), made in a couple of seconds? Do you know what is under that granite when cored out? Did you know some of this can be dated, in both almost useful current ways? How many "TYPES" of creatures went missing in the last 100 years? I believe we know "almost" nothing. We all have one perfect choice to make.


RE: Response
By Kurz on 4/9/2010 11:32:50 AM , Rating: 2
Well... its human to bash on someone who doesn't think like you. I see it all the time from my religious friends.

I don't bash unless to prove a point.


RE: Response
By The0ne on 4/9/2010 12:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but my Christian and Catholic friends are all going to hell for what they've done so far in their lives. Can't be more hypocritical than seeing them done right in front of you that's for sure.

Don't judge people on their religion or whatever the fck they believe in. There are good and bad ones, everywhere.

I really wish Superman and Hulk would smash y'all!


RE: Response
By LRawz on 4/9/2010 2:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, first of all, I am not running a popular tech blog, so the supposed hypocritical double standard doesn't apply.


Do what I say, don't do what I do...
Religion on it's finest.


RE: Response
By Wellsoul2 on 4/9/2010 3:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(Many) atheists have no rules of conduct in their Internet communication and will often lash out in a chaotic and profane way in order to try to get their point across. What they don't realize is that they actually affirm the worldview of the Christian when they respond in that fashion. It's pretty interesting, but I digress..


Sounds like you are trolling to me..

Anyhow what is your point? Are you saying the world was
created in 7 days? You cannot even come up with what your
belief solidly is.. Your reasoning is the chaotic one if you ask me.


RE: Response
By aguynamedmark on 4/9/2010 4:58:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If I ran a tech blog, I wouldn't go out of my way to insult Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, whatever, even though I disagree with those belief systems and would focus on reporting tech news.


But you're only posting on a tech blog, so lumping all atheists together and assigning unfair labels to them is okay. Is that the logic?

quote:
Well, first of all, I am not running a popular tech blog, so the supposed hypocritical double standard doesn't apply.


I guess that is the logic. Posting on a popular blog requires a standard of courtesy and respect. Commenting on it does not. I can't say that I agree. I think your assault on those who don't believe in your God is just as inappropriate and unnecessary as this articles passive-aggressive assault on God (why not let science by science, and let the readers figure it out for themselves?).

quote:
Secondly, if pointing out the truth about their obnoxious behavior is belittling them than I plead guilty as charged .


"Their"? "Them"? Did you just assign a behavioral trait to everybody in the world who doesn't believe in god? Did you also do that after claiming not to be a "hypocrite"? If you're trying to change minds, and not just start fights, I think you're undermining your own cause.

I was raised Catholic, and have met many who failed to impress me with their sense of ethics and morals, yet I acknowledge that every Catholic I met is a different person.

quote:
(Many) atheists have no rules of conduct in their Internet communication and will often lash out in a chaotic and profane way in order to try to get their point across.


I think you mean "(Many) Internet users...". I could just as easily say "(Many) Christians are judgmental and close minded" based on YouTube and what the media tells me, but I know better.

I don't like it any more than you do, but it's an unfortunate fact that the Internet brings out the worst in many people. You cite YouTube frequently, which is a particularly good example of how vicious people can get just for the sake of being vicious. If you spend too much time among these crowds, and don't have the conviction to overcome it, you will find yourself getting similarly vicious. Your language might be more "tame", as you put it, but casting judgment on every atheist, based on the presumably narrow selection of them who you've interacted with, is just as disrespectful.

quote:
What they don't realize is that they actually affirm the worldview of the Christian when they respond in that fashion. It's pretty interesting, but I digress..


Can you elaborate on how an atheist acting like a jerk affirms the worldview of the Christian?


RE: Response
By jtemplin on 4/9/2010 11:25:20 PM , Rating: 1
Don't confuse knowledge and belief. Science is not a belief system. Its a systematic way of gathering and interpreting observations, that are by definition measured in some way. As a scientist, if you believe in your data, theres a strong chance that you simply made it up. Data exists on its own, and need only to be read and understood.

Its interesting that in many asian religions the idea of belief is not central. In fact in many religions the process of ritual and communion is a stronger theme than belief in a diety. My point is, science is far less arbitrary than a belief system, as you can see different cultures do not value belief at all. Scientists of all cultures however, are fairly homogenous in their professional conduct (scientific method and all that).


RE: Response
By Mitch101 on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 11:32:30 AM , Rating: 2
Over 100 million people killed by communist atheists. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Castro, Che... Atheists have murdered a whole lot of people.

Yes, history is amazing.

When it comes down to it, evil people will use whatever means, including religion, to control, abuse, and kill other people.


RE: Response
By callmeroy on 4/9/2010 1:54:39 PM , Rating: 3
I too believe in God. I fail to see the offense to science or evolution. I also believe their are certain sacred beliefs people have in life that are so core to their being its as if they are part of their DNA makeup -- most often views on religion are the most common example of such beliefs. You can't get blood from a stone. You can't change people that don't want to be changed. I find no shame or embarrasment in telling anyone that I believe, and no one will persuade me otherwise -- even if it was the voice of the whole planet verse me.

That aside , I find no productive point to trying to argue deep seated beliefs (no less on the internet....on a tech oriented blog...in a forum). I will say that I find out very odd that people do run from some of the horrible things that were done as told in the bible...good or bad, humilating or not -- that's the story folks. I'm the type of person if you are going to bet your life on it (in essence that what's all religious beliefs basically are -- you are betting your eternal salvation on what you believe) its not I guess I'll ignore that part of it -- but accept the rest. Its all or its nothing.

The stoning stuff that folks get on about in this thread -- yeah the bible states that happened....but guess what everything has a context. "I shot and killed a man today"............oh I forget to mention "There was a man breaking into my house attempting to kill my family"...different when you see the context.

Btw, the "funny" thing about God....if you really do believe in the bible and what he says.....ANYONE can go to heaven....even someone who is a rapist, murdering, lousy lowdown POS his whole life.....the ticket to heaven isn't handed out because of good deeds... it all comes down to if you did God's will --- Were you baptisized? Do you earnestly repent for your sins (ie. repent is way more serious than most think to repent is more than just saying "oh I'm sorry about that"), do you accept God as your saviour, do you confess him to others? All this has to be heartfelt and deeply believed btw, but if even the most dispicable person did those things --- they would end up in the good graces of God, be forgiven and be in heaven. Otherwise, as the bible states, even the nicest person on earth who did nothing but good deeds every day of his/her life....would be turned away from God come the judgment - as God won't know him/her....at that point they will spend eternal in hell with Satan...at that point there is no forgiveness, there is no second chances, there is no "help"...at that point you will own know pain and suffering to the degree we can't fathom here on Earth...and it will never end....

That's the summarization to the core believe of believing in God....God isn't just a loving God, he himself states in the bible (more than once!) to fear him.

So the point to all this....why the hell are folks shocked at the stoning stuff that took place in the bible?

If you truly honestly believe -- you should know that the story of the bible isn't all roses and sunshine.


RE: Response
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 2:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
""I shot and killed a man today"............oh I forget to mention "There was a man breaking into my house attempting to kill my family"...different when you see the context"

Actually, the "context" in this case is those people were stoned to death for things like working on the sabbath, having sex out of wedlock, or criticizing god or his priests.

".the ticket to heaven isn't handed out because of good deeds... it all comes down to if you did God's will"

According to your bible, the lousiest most murdering, raping, thieving bastard can go to heaven...if he says he's sorry five minutes before he dies.

Meanwhile, the sweetest, gentlest little old lady will burn in hell for all eternity, because she happened to live in an area which never heard of your so-called savior. Sorry, but I find that philosophy horrific beyond belief.


RE: Response
By callmeroy on 4/9/2010 2:10:04 PM , Rating: 3
[quote]According to your bible, the lousiest most murdering, raping, thieving bastard can go to heaven...if he says he's sorry five minutes before he dies.

Meanwhile, the sweetest, gentlest little old lady will burn in hell for all eternity, because she happened to live in an area which never heard of your so-called savior. Sorry, but I find that philosophy horrific beyond belief. [/quote]

As well you should...because that's not what i said and its not what the bible says either! LOL


RE: Response
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 2:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
" that's not what i said and its not what the bible says either! LOL"

I'm perpetually surprised about how little people know about their own religions. Look into Christian Soteriology sometime. It's your belief system, after all...you really should be familiar with it.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 3:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming the Bible is true, you have to keep in mind that these people supposedly saw the power of God split the Red Sea and lead them at night by a pillar of fire. Thus, the punishments for not keeping the commandments of that God are somewhat severe, and they illustrate the law of death that must remain without a redemption.

"According to your bible, the lousiest most murdering, raping, thieving bastard can go to heaven...if he says he's sorry five minutes before he dies."

You are quite mistaken. According to one interpretation of the Bible, the lousiest most murdering, raping, thieving bastard can go to heaven...if he says he's sorry five minutes before he dies. I don't accept that interpretation. Is his sorrow and repentance sincere? I'm guessing not, but only God knows. Please quote the verse you are using for that interpretation if you want more explanation. I'm not a Catholic.

I don't believe that such a sweet old lady is doomed to hell, and my interpretation of the Bible supports this. You are right that there are many Christians who believe such, and I agree that such a philosophy is horrific (evil) beyond belief.


RE: Response
By Mitch101 on 4/9/2010 11:13:43 AM , Rating: 2
The difference is there is some degree of evidence found to support evolutionism as opposed to NO EVIDENCE NECESSARY to support a religion.

Scientology is a religion from no proof because its not necessary. Who's to say the same thing didn't occur 2,010 years ago?


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 11:35:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:

The difference is there is some degree of evidence found to support evolutionism as opposed to NO EVIDENCE NECESSARY to support a religion


Well, it really depends on what religion you are talking about and what you mean by evolutionism. I agree with you that many religions have little or no evidence to support them. I also agree that biological changes occur in species.

But I think that the Judeo-Christian religious system has quite a bit of evidence backing it up, however, and does a much better job of explaining the world around us than any other belief system, including materialism.

It explains why the Universe exists, why life exists, why humans exist, and why free will and morality exists. It is backed up by solid evidence in science, archaeology, history, and sociology.

wgbutler


RE: Response
By Mitch101 on 4/9/2010 12:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
If there is evidence there is no doubt and need for variations of religion. If there is evidence there is no need to protect religion.

The problem is no religion can explain nor contains enough evidence to support their claims. This creates questions (not heresy) and thus new variations of a religions are created to try and explain or tell you blind faith it is what it is.

The problem for religion is evolutionists continue to dig up potential proof to support their claims. Religious people tend to say their prayers are being answered but cannot prove that the chain of events would have occurred anyway. I see a lot of very good people who's prayers aren't answered. The difference is that one is producing physical evidence while the other is blind faith or random chains of events.

Technically I find nothing wrong with either group as finding a half monkey man is not proof of their not being a god and all religions incorrect. Nothing wrong in my book if we did evolve from apes. Maybe it was gods design that he created a single organism and watched us evolve into thousands of species and that was his plan.

What is really inherently wrong with being an ancestor of an ape? Because someone religious says we didn't evolve from apes? If they are wrong its egg on religions face and that's all. Its not the end of religion or belief in god and the world doesn't fall apart its just a mistake in our understanding in god and creation. Both religion and science can be wrong and their whole eco system doesn't fall apart.

If your entire religion is on the brink of disaster because of a half monkey man discovery then I think religion is just getting a part wrong. Maybe religion needs to embrace the idea we may have evolved from apes and that its all a part of gods plan that no one really understands.


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/9/2010 1:52:17 PM , Rating: 3
As both a Christian religious individual, as well as a molecular biologist, I must say that while well written, your post is fraught with half-truths and falsehoods. Evolution is perhaps one of the most tested and supported concepts in science. It has attained the level of Theory (Capital T), along such wacky ideas as the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Electro-magnatism, and the Theory of Relativity. In fact, long before Darwin both the scientific and religious community (not always as mutually exclusive as they are today) understood and accepted that evolution had occurred; it was the means by which these evolving forms were appearing that was the debate. Special Creation, the idea that every now and then species would die out and God would replace them with upgraded better models though out time was the dominant hypothesis for many years. Natural Selection eventually took its place.
But back to your specific points. The Cambrian Explosion is no longer a mystery as I understand it. This refers to a period in the geological record when a great number of new species begin to appear, seemingly at odds with the slow buildup of evolution. However, the explosion actually took place over 10s to 100s of millions of years (Pretty slow explosion), and the reason few fossils exist from before then is because hard bodies (bones, exoskeletons, shells) had not yet evolved. Soft body parts like tissue dont's make very good fossils, thus, not many fossils. It makes sense. Whats better, there is tons of evidence for this, look it up.
I honestly have to say I am not sure what you mean by the chemical evolution problem, and I have been in this business for a while. Best ideas in the field right now are that RNA was one of the early precursors of life. Its like DNA, but can code information while still having protein-like catalytic activity. People are still working on this, so al the answers are not there yet, but there is good evidence to suggest this may hold an answer.

As for the "just an ape-like fossil" notion, you are half right. It does have ape like qualities. Whats interesting is it also has several human like qualities. These include as the article mentioned, the size and shape of the teeth. I would be willing to bet it also includes other features not listed here, but in the journal articles instead. Probably the position of the neural cord hole at the base of the skull, etc.

The "evidence" against "macro-evolution" is trifling to be generous. Its sort of an argument that goes, sure you can walk from your house to your neighbor's house, thats easy, but there is NO WAY you can walk from your house across the country, its too far. Well, sorry, that is neither evidence, nor logical.

Anyway, I hope this reply isn't too juvenile or fraught with insults for your to consider its points. As I said, I too am religious, perhaps a stance inconsistent with many in my line of work (but not all). Ultimately, that stance is based on faith, not evidence, and I realize that. To pretend otherwise is hypocritical and ignorant. However, there is no test that can ever be run that could disprove GOD, or prove that God has not worked unseen through the process of evolution to give us the world we see today. There is no evidence for this, but there is none against either. Both sides should acknowledge this.
Thanks for reading.


RE: Response
By yomamafor1 on 4/9/2010 2:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
As a scientist, you should also know that in order to claim something, you need to prove it. In this case, you agree that God's existence cannot be proven. If it cannot be proven, why does it need to be disproved?


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/9/2010 2:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't need to be disproved. I am not sure I understand your point, or how your statement relates to what I wrote. Can you elaborate? As I said, I believe in God, but not through any sort of evidence, and I acknowledge this fact. I have, in essence, removed the topic of God from the scientific process in my life. I can see where you might call that willful deception to believe something for which you have no evidence, but honest it is.


RE: Response
By yomamafor1 on 4/9/2010 3:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
I was just responding to this part of your entry

However, there is no test that can ever be run that could disprove GOD, or prove that God has not worked unseen through the process of evolution to give us the world we see today. There is no evidence for this, but there is none against either. Both sides should acknowledge this.

However, like you said, the existence of God is purely based on faith , but not evidence.

Not pointing at you in particular, but as long as people recognize that fact, and not champion religion as "truth" (as a lot of people on here trying to do), I don't really see a problem.


RE: Response
By justsomeone on 4/9/2010 3:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
Nicely written. I'm an engineer and Christian who faces some of the same challenges albeit not quite at the same level as what you see in hardcore science communities.


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 3:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
Torren,

Thanks for reading my original post and responding.

quote:

As both a Christian religious individual, as well as a molecular biologist, I must say that while well written, your post is fraught with half-truths and falsehoods.


Truth by assertion and argument from authority....

quote:

But back to your specific points. The Cambrian Explosion is no longer a mystery as I understand it.


The Cambrian explosion is a big problem for the traditional theory of macro-evolution. So much so that Chinese scientists (who have studied the latest cambrian fossil site) are starting to make fun of Western academics for their blind allegiance to evolution:

------------------------------------
http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

"...In the Nature article announcing his latest findings, Jun-Yuan Chen and his colleagues reported dryly that the ancient fish “will add to the debate on the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertebrate.”

But the new fossils have become nothing less than a challenge to the theory of evolution in the hands of Chen, a professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology. Chen argues that the emergence of such a sophisticated creature at so early a date shows that modern life forms burst on the scene suddenly, rather than through any gradual process. According to Chen, the conventional forces of evolution can’t account for the speed, the breadth, and one-time nature of “the Cambrian explosion,” a geologic moment more than 500 million years ago when virtually all the major animal groups first appear in the fossil record.

Rather than Charles Darwin’s familiar notion of “survival of the fittest,” Chen believes scientists should focus on something that better explains why life evolved beyond bacteria. “Bacteria are very successful,” Chen notes. In fact, complex life is less capable of making adaptations.

If all we have to depend upon is chance and competition, Chen says, then “complex, highly evolved life, like the human, has no reason to appear. So why should these chance mutations plan such complex types of animals?” Chen proposed that an underlying principle of “harmony” will someday explain what competition cannot.

The debate over Haikouella casts Western scientists in the unlikely role of defending themselves against charges of ideological blindness from scientists in communist China. Chinese officials argue that the theory of evolution is so politically charged in the West that researchers are reluctant to admit shortcomings for fear of giving comfort to those who believe in a biblical creation.

“Evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge,” declared the Communist Party’s Guang Ming Daily last December in describing the fossils in southern China. “In the beginning, Darwinian evolution was a scientific theory …. In fact, evolution eventually changed into a religion.”

Taunts from the Communist Party wouldn’t carry much sting, however, if some Western scientists weren’t also concerned about weaknesses in so-called neo-Darwinism, the dominant view of evolution over the last 50 years.

“Neo-Darwinism is dead,” said Eric Davidson, a geneticist and textbook writer at the California Institute of Technology. He joined a recent gathering of 60 scientists from around the world near Chengjiang, where Chen had found his first fishlike impressions of Haikouella five years ago..."

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

Materialistic scientists also admit that the Cambrian explosion causes problems for neo-Darwinism:

-----------------------
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_art...

BioEssays Article Admits “Materialistic Basis of the Cambrian Explosion” is “Elusive”
A recent paper in BioEssays, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion," admits the lack of a "materialistic basis" -- that is, a plausible materialistic explanation -- of the Cambrian explosion. As the article states:

Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists.

(Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich and Mark A. McPeek, "MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion," BioEssays, Vol. 31 (7):736 - 747 (2009).)
-----------------------

quote:

I honestly have to say I am not sure what you mean by the chemical evolution problem


I'm talking about the origination of the very first life from chemicals. Even Richard Dawkins admits in his latest book that this problem hasn't been solved. Science has no plausible materialistic explanation for this problem.

quote:

As for the "just an ape-like fossil" notion, you are half right. It does have ape like qualities. Whats interesting is it also has several human like qualities.


Dolphins have several human like qualities as well. Just because two species are similar in various ways does not mean that one is descendant from the other.

quote:

Anyway, I hope this reply isn't too juvenile or fraught with insults for your to consider its points. As I said, I too am religious, perhaps a stance inconsistent with many in my line of work (but not all).


Not at all. Thanks for responding. I agree with you that the issue of evolution isn't really relevant to religion one way or the other, except in the following way - Christians do not need for evolution to be false in order for Christianity to be true, but atheists need for evolution to be true in order for atheism to be true.

So as a Christian, I can look at this issue with a truly open mind. My faith is not dramatically imperiled if (macro) evolution turns out to be true. I have serious doubts about macro-evolution, not because my religious beliefs demand for me to hold that view, but because the evidence is truly paltry and it is a fantastic scenario that requires much more suspension of disbelief that any religious fairy tale ever could dream of demanding.

wgbutler


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/9/2010 5:47:40 PM , Rating: 2
I have addressed much of this elsewhere, but another point which bothers me about the chinese researcher: His take on it not making sense that multicellular organisms evolved... by almost any calculation or consideration, one is forced to admit upon examination that the world is ruled by single celled organisms, mostly bacteria. They make up the most species, biomass, etc. However, they too have evolved and split, and changed over time. Initially, there were a few excellent reasons for multicellular organisms to emerge. 1) multicellular organisms are better able to avoid being consumed by predatory single celled organisms due to size restrictions. 2) multicellular organisms are able to start having specialized cells, increasing their competitive advantage against other organisms, and 3) This specialization allowed for the evolution of protective surfaces, allowing for organisms to live in more hostile environments, on land for example.

Simply put, the reason multicellular organisms arose was because there was an unfilled niche wherein they could survive and thrive. Granted it took around 2-3 billions years after single celled life appeared on the scene for mutlicellular organisms to come into existence, but once there, it was advantageous. I find it strange that this all seams to have eluded the mind of this chinese researcher, and alas, causes me to further doubt his credentials.


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 5:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
Torren,

Thanks for responding again.

quote:

Simply put, the reason multicellular organisms arose was because there was an unfilled niche wherein they could survive and thrive


That's great and all, but coming up with a just-so story to explain a preconceived belief doesn't really advance the cause of truth. There are all sorts of reasons why all sorts of things could happen. You have to let the evidence speak for itself instead of trying to fit it in a preconceived notion.

quote:

I find it strange that this all seams to have eluded the mind of this chinese researcher, and alas, causes me to further doubt his credentials.


Well he (Chen) wasn't the only one saying these things. The fact of the matter is that the Chinese aren't joined at the hip with neo-Darwinism like western academics are and are able to think more objectively about the evidence. And you said nothing about the Bioessays paper I linked either.

wgbutler


RE: Response
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 6:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Christians do not need for evolution to be false in order for Christianity to be true, but atheists need for evolution to be true in order for atheism to be true.
Lol, what? You have that entirely backwards. Evolution disproves utterly the Christian view of religion...but the presence or absence of evolution says nothing whatsoever about the validity of atheism.

Further, you've managed to entirely misinterpret the article you quoted. Some geneticists quibble over neo-Darwinism, true...they dispute how much importance natural selection plays in evolution. They are not, however, disputing evolution itself.


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 6:11:40 PM , Rating: 2
porkpie,

quote:

Evolution disproves utterly the Christian view of religion


In what way does evolution disprove the Christian religion? Do you realize that there are evangelical Christians such as Francis Collins (see http://biologos.org/ ) who wholeheartedly embrace macro-evolution and see nothing incompatible with their religious beliefs?

I differ with these folks belief that macro-evolution is a valid mechanism to explain the diversity of life on Earth of course, but the basic point is that their viewpoint doesn't invalidate their Christian beliefs.

quote:

.but the presence or absence of evolution says nothing whatsoever about the validity of atheism.


Well it certainly presents a huge problem for atheists as there is no other competing theory to explain the origin of life in the Universe, since they are unwilling to concede that a Divine Being could have created life.

quote:

Further, you've managed to entirely misinterpret the article you quoted.


I haven't misrepresented the article I quoted. If anything, I understated the seriousness of the charges they raised against the Darwinian viewpoint. Check out this interview with one the scientists to see what I am talking about:

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9701/chien.html

wgbutler


RE: Response
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 6:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
" If anything, I understated the seriousness of the charges they raised against the Darwinian viewpoint. Check out this interview"

Come sir, you have a brain. Why not use it? Surely you see how ludicrous these "charges" are. The basic premise is that, since there were more species in the Cambrian Period than today, that evolution is somehow fatally flawed. Come again? Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?

Of course, evolution says nothing whatsoever even approaching the statement that "diversity must increase over time". And there are many well-documented cases where diversity has decreased, as DEMANDED by evolutionary theory. Evolution also says nowhere that life must "get more complex" or "evolve to more advanced forms" over time.

These are the same, tired hack arguments used by creationalists for over a century now. You'd think people would eventually wise up.


RE: Response
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 7:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
"In what way does evolution disprove the Christian religion?"

Try reading Genesis, then say that with a straight face.


RE: Response
By Kaleid on 4/13/2010 5:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, the stories are clearly not compatible. Which is why there is so much resistance towards evolution on the religious side.


RE: Response
By aegisofrime on 4/9/2010 1:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
Basically you have just said that religion can explain the world blah blah blah blah without saying HOW it can do those things.

Elaborate on the so called "solid evidence"


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 3:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Elaborate on the so called "solid evidence"


That's too big of a question and goes beyond the scope of this thread. If you are interested in finding out more I'd suggest looking into the Kalam Cosmological argument that discusses the origin of the Universe, the fine-tuning teleological argument for the fine-tuning we see in the laws and constants of physics and chemistry that allow life to exist in our universe, and the moral argument.

wgbutler


RE: Response
By Shadowself on 4/9/2010 1:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It explains why the Universe exists, why life exists, why humans exist, and why free will and morality exists. It is backed up by solid evidence in science, archaeology, history, and sociology.


Herein is your basic error. Science does not give a damn about "why". There has never been, and very likely will never be, any "solid evidence in in science, archaeology, history, and sociology" for any answer to "Why?".

The answer to that question is pure speculation and interpretation. It is philospophy. It is religion. It is not science.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 11:49:16 AM , Rating: 3
Have you ever read the Bible and prayed to God sincerely to ask Him if He is really there? If not, you have no objectivity. My guess is that you are equally ignorant of the science of evolution.


RE: Response
By Mitch101 on 4/9/2010 1:26:20 PM , Rating: 1
Im going to commit Christian heresy here.

Yes and I have a very good strong relationship with God. Its Jesus I have issues with and Christianity prays through Jesus to god separating you from god but there is the escape clause that says they are one in the same except the physical one can die and happens to mention whenever he performed a miracle that he does it in his father gods name and yet never calls himself god but somehow is god in the flesh but is afraid to say he is god and never once called himself god. Only John says he is god.

Then I take into consideration that god said I am the one and only there is no other and to beware false profits. God hands down 10 rules (15 originally. ;) and basically says your going to pay for your sins.

The new testament comes along to say God is a fricken clueless moron and doesn't know his own people so he sent his son because well gods an idiot and cant figure out people. Son or God which is he? Why is god suddenly a moron that he needs an adviser to figure it out. New testament belittles gods understanding and places Jesus before god and tells you he is the way and the light and only following him can you get into heaven. Yea yea just forget what god told you and believe the guy who can die at the head of a spear. Didnt god warn us about false profits? Oh but hey we have cookies too. If you become a Jesus worshiper your wiped of your sins forget the 10 rules if you break them your forgiven if you act now callers are waiting. Whats not to like about Christianity? I can sin and be forgiven hell yea.

Yes I pray to GOD but not to Jesus.


RE: Response
By callmeroy on 4/9/2010 2:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
You have it all confused and wrong.

If you truly have the desire and WANT to believe maybe seek out a pastor to bring your questions to.

God and Jesus ARE one in the same (yes I was confused about that for a long time to). God, Son and Holy Spirit -- all the same...the holy trinity (some say Holy Ghost instead of Spirit).

The only way to heaven is through Jesus, that's the belief of the bible tells us. So you only believe in God but now in Jesus, you have no route to salvation.

Anyway for the record, its been a slow afternoon and this is my second post on this site both religious oriented...this is it for me...I always feel like I'm wasting my time and don't care to debate such things in a forum like this.

So that's my 2 cents and I hope you have a good weekend.

later.


RE: Response
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 2:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
"You have it all confused and wrong."

May I suggest stoning him to death?


RE: Response
By Mitch101 on 4/9/2010 2:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
LOL

Sorry callmeroy I have no interest in Jesus. No offense intended I know you feel your doing me justice to recommend him.

I tried on many occasions and was a christian for a period but have found better salvation through not being Christian. If anyone believes that is possible to be happier, healthier, and more prosperous from not being one it happened to me.


RE: Response
By nstott on 4/9/2010 4:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
LOL!

I don't believe in the Trinity either, and the word is nowhere to be found in the Bible.


RE: Response
By 67STANG on 4/9/2010 11:12:25 AM , Rating: 3
OK, I'll bite. As someone who goes to church every Sunday (my wife makes me go), I cannot trump the scientific part of my brain with blind faith. I've tried to, believe me. There's simply too much evidence that evolution is a fact of nature.

Humans, being part of nature, are not excluded from evolution. To suggest so, is not only ignorant, but irrational. That said, creationists will never believe in human evolution, as the very basis of faith is believing in something with all of your heart. Finding more and more evidence of our true ancestry is not going to change that fact.

I have found that the only thing wrong with evolutionists and creationists alike these days, is that they intend to impose their beliefs on others. I say, come to your own conclusions and leave everyone else alone. After all, you aren't going to change either side's mind when it comes to something like this.

$0.02


RE: Response
By Fatesrider on 4/9/2010 4:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
"Impose their beliefs"? No, that's what religious types do.

This WHOLE THREAD started from someone posting that they didn't believe in Evolution - or something to that effect.

This is exactly the same as saying you don't believe in the sun or the air. All three exist in reality and are not subject to change due to what people believe.

However, you are very much correct in saying, "Leave it alone". I don't mind people engaging in fantasy (I do it myself quite often), but I don't want anyone to force their fantasy on me. All I can say is good luck with that. The trouble with most religious types is that they forget their faith and their myths are two different things...


RE: Response
By throop77 on 4/9/2010 11:14:14 AM , Rating: 2
First, there are multiple confirmed cases of macroevolution. Try wikipedia, there are several referenced scientific studies which macroevolution have been observed. Second, this website reports on science & technology. This article is about science.


RE: Response
By HotFoot on 4/9/2010 11:22:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can tell that one of the purposes of this article is to push the view that macro-evolution is true and that belief in God is superstitious and antiquated.


I think those are two separate purposes, and I think only the former is correct. I don't think the subject at hand has anything to do with a belief in God, other than perhaps a strike against taking an absolute literal translation of one of the oldest stories known to man. A story that was handed down generation to generation in an oral tradition for a very long time before it was ever written.


RE: Response
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/2010 11:25:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's annoying that a mainstream tech blog is being used to promote a materialistic worldview and belittle a large segment of the population, rather than simply report on technology and science, but whatever.


Well you have to look at who wrote it lol. We are talking Jason Mick here. I mean honestly, I don't care one way or other other about this issue, but did he REALLY have to throw the paragraph in about Christians feeling evolution was "sinful" or whatever ?? What the hell did that even have to do with this discovery ? Nothing, it was just flame baiting for an argument.

I'm so tired of this argument on Daily Tech honestly. Besides, the things look like tiny monkeys. I don't get it, how do we know this is related to us ? Were there tools burried next to them ? Clothes ?? ANYTHING to indicate this was a form of early man ? And where are the others ??? I wasn't aware that two of something was sufficient gene pool to continue a species.

quote:
They speculate that our unfortunate ancestors died quite young. One skeleton, a male, appeared to be only 10 and 13 at his time of death, while a second, a female, appeared to be in her late 20s or early 30s. It is thought that the pair was searching for water, and likely fell into the cave on accident, receiving fatal injuries.


Okay ummm, kind of speculative isn't this ? Maybe they were looking for a place to screw or throw dung at animals or whatever we apparently did as monkey savages before the Monolith came down and.. oh wait, sorry, wrong theory. But why was this paragraph even IN the article in the first place ? Holy shit, they were looking for water !! That must be proof of man-like intelligence I guess ? Or using a cave to escape the elements !!! Brilliant !!

quote:
Still Dr. Berger prefers that people don't call them a "missing link", which he feels is an outdated term. He remarks, "I don't like the use of that term. [It's a] Victorian-era [term that] implies some (specific) chain of evolution."


And this, what the hell does this even mean ? I thought the point of Darwin evolution was that there IS a specific chain of evolution ? I'm honestly confused, can someone please explain to me wtf he's talking about.

quote:
I fully expect to see a wide range of juvenile and insulting comments from atheists as this type of behavior is one of the natural by products of their worldview.


I feel bad for you Christians on Daily Tech, I really do. But hey, you had the guts to stand up and declare your faith, so I can respect that.


RE: Response
By The0ne on 4/9/2010 12:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, totally uncalled for in what is "considered" a news piece instead of a blog. It's the stupid writing something and having more stupids debating over it.

As you pointed out, recognize the name (Jason Mick), and make sure to proof and do more research on what you're about to read.


RE: Response
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/2010 1:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
I mean even the title, what the hell. "sinful" Missing evolutionary Ancestor..." Was it really necessary to throw the anti-religious right cross right off the bat ?

Also later in the article the man who discovered it shied away from actually calling it an ancestor or missing link. So which is it Jason ?

How much of this is fact or just Jason Mick embellishing, speculating, or just making shit up.


RE: Response
By Iaiken on 4/9/2010 3:51:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Okay ummm, kind of speculative isn't this ? Maybe they were looking for a place to screw or throw dung at animals or whatever we apparently did as monkey savages before the Monolith came down and.. oh wait, sorry, wrong theory. But why was this paragraph even IN the article in the first place ? Holy shit, they were looking for water !! That must be proof of man-like intelligence I guess ? Or using a cave to escape the elements !!! Brilliant !!


It is not entirely speculative, but due to the young age of the subjects and the location and positions they were found in, they certainly died of either injuries, disease, or starvation. What's more is that they flat out called it speculation so you really have no business getting all butt-hurt about it.

quote:
I thought the point of Darwin evolution was that there IS a specific chain of evolution ? I'm honestly confused, can someone please explain to me wtf he's talking about.


Well then I guess you're not as up to snuff on the Theory of Evolution as you thought you were. The body of proof is sufficient to prove that were numerous chains of hominids that evolved in tandem (and in some cases, co-existed), some died out, some succeeded, they may have had common ancestors, they may have not, but regardless we know that there is no such thing as a missing link or definitive proof of human evolution as that would require a degree of knowledge that likely doesn't exist in the fossil record even should we find it all.

Think of it this way, the body of evidence for evolution is like a puzzle picture of a sailboat, we now have enough pieces that we can safely say "Yep, it's a picture of sailboat alright." Yet, we will likely never find ALL of the pieces (including causality) required for the Theory of Evolution to become the Law of Evolution. Science cannot even tell us with any certainty how or why human beings outlasted the hominid species (Neanderthal) we know co-inhabited regions populated by homo sapiens.

All we know (based on current evidence) is that the last of the Neanderthal community died out on Gibraltar 24,000 years ago. After this we have found no other evidence to support their continued existence. How it came to pass, did we simply out-compete them, did we destroy them, did we interbreed with them and selectivity weeded out most dominant Neanderthal traits?

We simply do not know, which is why we should keep looking for the answers.

But to answer your question, no, the entire point of Evolution is genetic divergence, not homogeneity.


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/9/2010 2:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, posted this below, it meant to go here:

As both a Christian religious individual, as well as a molecular biologist, I must say that while well written, your post is fraught with half-truths and falsehoods. Evolution is perhaps one of the most tested and supported concepts in science. It has attained the level of Theory (Capital T), along such wacky ideas as the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Electro-magnatism, and the Theory of Relativity. In fact, long before Darwin both the scientific and religious community (not always as mutually exclusive as they are today) understood and accepted that evolution had occurred; it was the means by which these evolving forms were appearing that was the debate. Special Creation, the idea that every now and then species would die out and God would replace them with upgraded better models though out time was the dominant hypothesis for many years. Natural Selection eventually took its place.
But back to your specific points. The Cambrian Explosion is no longer a mystery as I understand it. This refers to a period in the geological record when a great number of new species begin to appear, seemingly at odds with the slow buildup of evolution. However, the explosion actually took place over 10s to 100s of millions of years (Pretty slow explosion), and the reason few fossils exist from before then is because hard bodies (bones, exoskeletons, shells) had not yet evolved. Soft body parts like tissue dont's make very good fossils, thus, not many fossils. It makes sense. Whats better, there is tons of evidence for this, look it up.
I honestly have to say I am not sure what you mean by the chemical evolution problem, and I have been in this business for a while. Best ideas in the field right now are that RNA was one of the early precursors of life. Its like DNA, but can code information while still having protein-like catalytic activity. People are still working on this, so al the answers are not there yet, but there is good evidence to suggest this may hold an answer.

As for the "just an ape-like fossil" notion, you are half right. It does have ape like qualities. Whats interesting is it also has several human like qualities. These include as the article mentioned, the size and shape of the teeth. I would be willing to bet it also includes other features not listed here, but in the journal articles instead. Probably the position of the neural cord hole at the base of the skull, etc.

The "evidence" against "macro-evolution" is trifling to be generous. Its sort of an argument that goes, sure you can walk from your house to your neighbor's house, thats easy, but there is NO WAY you can walk from your house across the country, its too far. Well, sorry, that is neither evidence, nor logical.

Anyway, I hope this reply isn't too juvenile or fraught with insults for your to consider its points. As I said, I too am religious, perhaps a stance inconsistent with many in my line of work (but not all). Ultimately, that stance is based on faith, not evidence, and I realize that. To pretend otherwise is hypocritical and ignorant. However, there is no test that can ever be run that could disprove GOD, or prove that God has not worked unseen through the process of evolution to give us the world we see today. There is no evidence for this, but there is none against either. Both sides should acknowledge this.
Thanks for reading.


RE: Response
By Octoberblue on 4/9/2010 4:03:05 PM , Rating: 3
I like your post. I personally know Christians who, though not scientists themselves, appreciate evolutionary science and are enthusiastic evolutionists. I'm a believer in Christ as well. Somewhat ambivalent about this subject though. I've certainly heard all of the arguments against evolution.

I believe the science of evolution in general. Although I do plan to research it more when I have some time, not suspiciously, but just to learn more details. The sort of vague generalities you get from popular books and basic classes on the subject are irritatingly uninformative.

The whole matter is complicated by the fact that there are many people (probably including some scientists) eager to glam-on to evolution as a way to deny the possibility of God. Which is really not what evolutionary science is about. Then religious people see this behavior and suddenly this particular branch of science is of the devil and must be stopped.

Too bad, because neither side is acting from their nobler instincts. Ironically, the one thing both groups have in common is that they are running from something rather than simply trying to understand it. Attempting to destroy what they don't want to believe rather than just considering it without an agenda.


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/9/2010 4:59:00 PM , Rating: 3
I think this is a very insightful point you make. There are certainly those on both sides of this one displaying such behavior. I also agree many intro bio classes are rather watered down when it comes to evolution, in part on purpose to avoid the headaches of angry students and parents, though this is much more the case in high school classes rather than college.

The Teaching Company and The Great Courses on tape have some good audio biology and evolution specific classes if you can get them online or at your library. Its a good place to start as you can listen a little each day driving to work (or while working if you are able). Its one of my favorite ways of digesting more classes. Just a thought. Too many good evolution books out there to list them all. Song of the Dodo is one that is well written and an actual non-fiction story to go with it, Genome "Human history in 23 chapters" is similar, Anything by Kenneth Miller is pretty good, of course the list goes on and on.


RE: Response
By zinfamous on 4/9/2010 2:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
well, science isn't really concerned with untestable, un-falsifiable belief structure. If you want legitimate science info, then it has to come from a source that does not even address the standard religious belief structure, as it simply is not beholden to scientific testing.

Within science, which is a very large field, there is absolutely no debate about evolution. There is essentially zero conflict. The invented debate concerning evolution comes from outside the field, from skeptics that are not biologists (remember that physicists with zero background in evolutionary biology essentially have the same knowledge of evolutionary topics as does the typical layman).

Evolutionary biologists typically do not engage in these discussions, b/c doing so would lend some false notion that such a debate is warranted or valid; when such is not the case.

Again, there is no debate about Evolution through natural selection. Macro evolution is only even vaguely recognized as a term, as it's simply a part of evolution.

Debating the facts of evolution belongs in discussions concerning philosophy, metaphysics, perhaps myth. It is not a valid scientific debate.

In fact, the foundation of Biology is evolution. To be a biologist, to understand even one single fact of what we know in biology is to accept that evolution is very much real.

I'm guessing you don't have very much experience in science, or biology more specifically, but as a molecular geneticist and biologist, you can take it from me that there is absolutely no question that evolution is a fact of the natural world.

As such, I don't exactly see how the fact of evolution denies the potential for a belief in God, it just destroys the creation myth, of course.


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 3:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
Zinfamous,

Thanks for your response to my original post.

quote:

Within science, which is a very large field, there is absolutely no debate about evolution.


There's actually quite a bit of debate about it. I briefly referenced some of it in another reply I made to Torren in this same thread.

quote:

but as a molecular geneticist and biologist, you can take it from me that there is absolutely no question that evolution is a fact of the natural world.


Another person arguing from auhority. I am the biologist, so my word is final, etc. etc. And for the record, I have no problem with micro-evolution and adaptation. I am highly skeptical of macro-evolution for various (non-religious) reasons.

quote:

As such, I don't exactly see how the fact of evolution denies the potential for a belief in God, it just destroys the creation myth, of course.


I completely agree. Although I wouldn't be so quick to write off the Biblical account as a "creation myth". I think its safe to say that the young earth INTERPRETATION of Genesis 1 is invalidated by science (primarily astronomy and geology with support from biology) but overall the the view that God created the heavens and the earth and then life in various stages is supported by science.

wgbutler


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/9/2010 4:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
Hi wgbutler,

Responding here, but also to your above reply to me. That is an interesting article about the Chinese researcher, though I have not yet read the linked article, I'll have to take a look at it. However, speaking from perhaps an under-informed stance on the subject, it is always possible to find researchers, even within the field of study, that do not subscribe to the accepted knowledge of the rest of the field. This does not mean the other 99% of specialists in that field are crazy or conniving. This feeds into the response to Zinfamous. While I agree there is a certain distasteful arrogance in essentially saying, "I'm the expert here, listen and submit!" it is a bit understandable why this is the case and its even acceptable to a degree. Science is not a democracy, a point I am sure you would like to agree with given that, "just because 99% of biologist say so doesn't make it so". That being said, Biologists in general have a deeper understanding of the subject than the average non-biologist simply due to much more time being taught, reading, thinking, and in some cases, doing experimentation within the subject of evolution. This is a good grounds on which to pass some judgements.

We all like to think we are experts on something, but you wouldn't hire a painter to design and build your house. Maybe a painter can read and learn how to build a house, and still call themselves a painter, but when you talk to a builder, you do tend to listen, because they have studied and practiced and "know" more than you. That is often the case with the arrogant biologist. Unfair, maybe, but so is casting aside years of study. Sorry, I am starting to ramble.

On to Macro-evolution. Tiktaalik. Read the book "your inner fish" by Neil Shubin. Its a fast light read, but deals with the fossil Tiktaalik, a "fish" with forefins like forearms and a skeletal structure allowing for it to lift itself with them. I can't do the story or evidence laid out in it justice, but its a marvelous example of macro-evolution in midstep. It also goes into a great explanation of why and how our nervous system wound up the weird contorted way it did... it makes sense when considering how it evolved from more ancient species.

Also, the crocodile family tree and the horse family tree have wonderful examples of what you would probably call macro-evolution and many many of the intermediates between. The true beauty of evolution is it is testable. It allows us to say, OK, We have Fish, and we have land animals with qualities slightly similar to fish. The latter appear in the fossil record around, lets say, 1 Billion years ago (This # is probably off, I am just using it as an example). If evolution is right, we should be able to find an intermediary fossil between fish and land in rock of an age around 1.5-.8 billion years old. And then people go off and dig, and sometimes don't find anything. But sometimes find Tiktaalik, the "missing link", although I agree that is a bad term to use. Evolution is a testable theory. We certainly do not understand everything yet. Dates are constantly being revised as better and more data comes in, but the general principle has never been disproven or even seriously challenged with a testable alternative.

If you get a chance, google or youtube Kenneth Miller. Watch his lecture for free online, he gives some great examples and explanations behind what you would call macro-evolution. One quick example: Man has 23 distinct chromosomes. Apes have 24. If we are from apes there must be an explanation. All chromosomes have normal DNA coding for genes on the ends, and something called a centromere in the middle. Its distinct, and all chromosomes have them (at least, all mammalian do). In humans, the second largest chromosome, chromosome #2 had 2 centromeres. Its goes DNA, centromere, DNA, centromere, DNA. Its the result of 2 chromosomes being stuck together. It matches perfectly with the missing chromosome from apes. It could be co-incidence, sure, but evolution predicts something like this and lo and behold, when looked for, it was found.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Take care.


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 6:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
Torren,

Thanks for your thoughtful and articulate response. I agree that there is lots of evidence out there that species change on a micro-evolutionary scale. The evidence for macro-evolution is pretty sparse and is largely driven by a preconceived allegiance to methodological naturalism.

Thus when new evidence is discovered, the naturalist thinks of ways to fit that evidence in the naturalistic model. Sometimes this is a great thing, but other times it leads to fantastic scenarios that are contrived in order to rigidly adhere to naturalism.

Regarding the chromosomes and the apes, that's a piece of evidence that could certainly lead one to believe in macro-evolution, if one is already inclined to do so. There are other ways of looking at that evidence, such as:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.p...

There have been plenty of predictions made by neo-Darwinists that have turned out not to be true. One recent example is the prediction that junk DNA was just leftover genetic material that had no function. Intelligent Design advocates, on the other hand, predicted that "junk" DNA would have function, and were ultimately proved correct.

Neo-Darwinism has too many problems for me to take seriously. It doesn't explain where the first life came from. It doesn't explain the Cambrian explosion. The vast majority of mutations we see lead to destructive and fatal results for organisms, and experiments such as the Lenski bacteria experiments don't yield the results we would expect if the neo-Darwinian model was correct.

Thanks for your book recommendations. I'd recommend reading "Signature in the Cell" by Stephen Meyer and "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe if you are interested in looking at the evidence from the Intelligent Design perspective.

wgbutler


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/9/2010 7:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
Hi wgbutler,
(Please read the below with as much honest interest as possible... I re-read and see how this can sound.. snarky I guess is the word. That is not my intent)

I am reading that website now... more to come soon. I did want to get a little more of your thoughts though. As you previously mentioned that your religious belief can exist with or without evolution, and that the science of evolution has not offered enough evidence for you to subscribe to its accurately explaining the natural world and biological diversity as you see it, might I ask what concept you do subscribe to? What evidence does this other model have to support it over that of evolution? You have appeared to take a very, "the evidence is not good enough" approach to this issue in this thread and, taking you at your word, I am forced to the assumption that data and evidence is important to you and have led you elsewhere. While I reply to your other post, could you please enlighten me.

Much thanks.


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/9/2010 7:40:28 PM , Rating: 2
OK, that link from the rebuttal of the linked chromosome evidence... Well, there are lots of issues, and I am sure I will miss some, but here goes: There first point against it goes like this:
Most evolutionary biologists normally draw common ancestral linkages between species based on shared features. This piece of evidence is not a shared feature, thus it doesn't support the assertion that the species are linked.
I'm sorry, that argument is misdirection at its best. So because you are used to seeing evidence in the form of type A, because I now present evidence of type B to support the same stance it isnt type A, so its no good? What?

OK, on their second point: They themselves confuse their stance several times switching between agreeing that this points to chromosomal fusion and then almost immediately saying how chromosomal fusion is probably impossible. They also point out that just because a chromosome might have fused, that is not definitive proof that apes and man are related. I agree. It is not proof, and I said so in my prior post on this. However, it is excellent evidence for this notion, especially when taken along side all other data out there. In essence, this was almost a creationist/IDers dream come true: Apes have 24 chromosomes, humans have 23... they are not reconcilable! However, this turned out not to be the case. Evolution was backed up by the data after all.

Now, I agree with you that sometimes unpredicted discoveries are made and researchers have to do some handwaving (especially on the very cutting edge of scientific discovery where the data is the thinest) to explain what they find. But as more studies are done in the area less handwaving is usually needed as the picture makes much more sense. Unless its disproven... this happens ALL THE TIME... much to the chagrin of many a lab head and his graduate student.

Sometimes though, the data and Theory of evolution by natural selection allow us to make predictions... testable ones. And then the results are all the sweeter. Discovery happens in all ways.

OK, your intron junk DNA point: Yep, a lot of scientists got that one wrong. However, it was not the Intelligent Design people that discovered what introns are involved in. It was scientists. People who believe in evolution. I know because I work with some of them, such as Dr. Steven Mount. Hard core intron guy. Subscribes to evolution. Same as the rest of the intron community. And while the state of knowledge for a time was it was useless, it was the cutting edge... the flux region, and lots of work was being done. Things change with more data. Thats science, not a point of weakness in the Theory of evolution. Wonderfully, it makes a lot of sense in light of evolution. Lucky us!

OK, one more point before I go for a while: I work with the model organism yeast. Yeast has undergone genome duplication in its past. This is where all the chromosomes get doubled and end up in 1 yeast cell. (Plants do this all the time... a lot of gardeners treat their plants with chemicals or radiation to try and get this to happen, as it often produces tougher plants). Anyway, this is a short cut to fast (relatively speaking) evolution. Thats because with 2 or more sets of every gene, you can leave 1 copy alone, allowing it to perform its normal function, while mutating the hell out of the other copy, often resulting in better or completely different functions. Those that are lethal... well, they don't get propagated, so its a short trip for them to the end of the line. Those that aren't beneficial often get lost (in yeast a lot of the duplicated genes are missing, or changed into something pretty unrecognizable), and those that give an advantage are kept. We see this a lot actually. There are lots of ways to "speed up" evolution. Mutations in control genes that operate many other genes. Etc. Turns out Darwin was probably wrong about the slow steady pace of evolution. Thats ok, he didn't know about DNA or genes... we'll give him that error.

OK, congrats if you made it to here. If you have specific points you'd like me to address, ask away. Can't promise I can answer, but I'll try.


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 9:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
Torren,

I just read your thoughtful post, and I can see why you would be inclined to draw a link between the chromosomes and a human-ape relationship.

But not all scientists believe in evolution. For example, Richard Smalley, a nobel prize winner in Chemistry, didn't believe in macro-evolution and became a believer later in life:

http://www.adherents.com/people/ps/Richard_Smalley...

If you are a scientist, it's kind of dangerous to admit that you have doubts about evolution as it will greatly harm your career if that becomes public knowledge. It's kind of like being a conservative in Hollywood.

quote:

OK, congrats if you made it to here. If you have specific points you'd like me to address, ask away. Can't promise I can answer, but I'll try.


I'd be interested in your take on the Bioessays paper I mentioned earlier:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_art...

And also on what you think about Douglas Axe published work in:

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/doug...

What are your views on the the origin of the first life, btw?

It sounds like you have a cool job. Keep up the good work and tell your friend to keep those scientific discoveries coming in. The advancement of knowledge is a good thing.

wgbutler


RE: Response
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 10:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
"But not all scientists believe in evolution. For example, Richard Smalley.."

Smalley (a scientist not involved in any way with evolution, btw) was enormously critical of creationism throughout nearly his entire life.

He was diagnosed with cancer, then a few months before he died, he suddenly starts believing in God. And you believe this is proof of what exactly?


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 10:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
porkpie,

quote:

He was diagnosed with cancer, then a few months before he died, he suddenly starts believing in God. And you believe this is proof of what exactly?


Your description of Richard Smalley's conversion to Christianity is incorrect.

For anyone truly interested in learning more about Richard Smalley's conversion to Christianity, and his denunciation of neo-Darwinism, check out this link:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/historica...

wgbutler


RE: Response
By jtemplin on 4/9/2010 11:33:26 PM , Rating: 2
This is not a direct reply, but some of you may find the beliefs of the current NIH director, Francis Collins interesting. He is obviously a respected scientist, but he espouses belief in a creator who set things in motion. I profess igonorance of the details, but something like that.

As long as the belief system does not interfere with a rational and reasoned appreciation for reality and the facts we have generated over the years (science!), it shouldn't really matter IMO. And not proselytizing would be nice.


RE: Response
By porkpie on 4/10/2010 12:52:07 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry Sparky, but you're misrepresenting your link. Smalley's address to Tuskegee was in 2004. He died in the first half of 2005. He did convert to Christianity just before he died, and after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer.


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/10/2010 1:29:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Sorry Sparky, but you're misrepresenting your link. Smalley's address to Tuskegee was in 2004. He died in the first half of 2005. He did convert to Christianity just before he died, and after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer.


Wrong again! Smalley died on October 28, 2005

See: http://en.allexperts.com/e/r/ri/richard_smalley.ht...

and gave his commencement speech at Tuskeegee on Oct 3, 2004. See:

http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/story.asp?S=2382961

Additionally, he wrote a letter to Hope College in May 2005 that said:

"Recently I have gone back to church regularly with a new focus to understand as best I can what it is that makes Christianity so vital and powerful in the lives of billions of people today, even though almost 2000 years have passed since the death and resurrection of Christ. Although I suspect I will never fully understand, I now think the answer is very simple: it's true. God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since. The purpose of this universe is something that only God knows for sure, but it is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned to enable human life. We are somehow critically involved in His purpose. Our job is to sense that purpose as best we can, love one another, and help Him get that job done. "

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Smalley

Late in life, Smalley began reading books written by Hugh Ross and Fuzale Rana, who are scientists at the Christian organization Reasons to Believe. RTB argues from science why the Christian faith is correct and superior to atheism.

I agree with you that Smalley experienced a late conversion to Christianity in his life (although it wasn't "months" before he died). I strongly disagree with you that he was just trying to save his own skin in case atheism was wrong.

Having heard podcasts from Hugh Ross, who was personally working with Smalley in his conversion to Christianity, met with him personally and discussed scientific issues related to Christianity, and was the main speaker at Smalley's funeral, the conversion experience seems genuine and sincere. Smalley really believed that God created the universe and life and that neo-Darwinism was fatally flawed.

If Smalley was just trying to play it safe in case atheism was wrong, he could have converted to Christianity in a much less low profile way without renouncing Darwinism and bringing the wrath of the scientific establishment down upon him. Your statements are just a desperate attempt to avoid the fact that a brilliant nobel prize winning chemist converted to Christianity and renounced Darwinism.

It doesn't fit the template you see. All Christians have to be stupid, uneducated rubes who don't know the facts. When someone like Richard Smalley comes around it blows your template out of the water and provokes these types of reactions.

wgbutler


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/11/2010 9:28:32 AM , Rating: 2
Don't have much time to respond here, but quickly: the functional protein by random chance is a red herring. No one, and I mean no one, is proposing that this sort of an event occurred. It is astronomically improbable. Its just not the way anyone with any salt thinks the system evolved. More likely it was a series of tiny steps which were slowly pushed in the right direction. It probably didn't start with protein and amino acids at all, but with RNA. This makes sense actually when you look at a structure called the ribosome. It is the builder of proteins in the body. No ribosome, no life. Anywhere. But the ribosome is primarily composed of RNA. There are proteins in it too, but a lot of evidence supports the understanding that these proteins have been incorporated into the structure over time. THe catalytic center of the ribosome is all RNA. RNA is informational as well, like DNA. Many viruses code their genome's in RNA, not DNA. So, this article is again, misdirection and frankly a useless mathematical thought experiment. Interesting to a degree, until the author trying to equate the results to reality.

The other article, I only skimmed... but honestly, I don't have time to simply read all the articles it takes yuo 2 minutes to send but takes me 15 minutes to read and 30 minutes to respond to. Its by the Discovery Institute. I am very familiar with them and have never found very compelling or honest work coming from them. Its not pier reviewed by outside sources. Ever. I have already addressed much of the article above. Simply put, they are wrong. If you have specific points you would like addressed, take the time to vocalize them, not just sending a link, and I'll see what I can do.

Take care.

Torren


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/11/2010 3:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
Torren,

Thanks for your latest reply.

quote:

the functional protein by random chance is a red herring. No one, and I mean no one, is proposing that this sort of an event occurred. It is astronomically improbable.


Actually several people have proposed this very concept, or at least they have in the past. I remember debating atheists back in the 90s who would get all snarky with me whenever I pointed out to them the extreme unlikelihood of this happening. The whole Urey-Miller experiments were hailed as some great triumph that proteins could form by random chance (although they just succeeded in creating some amino acids in conditions that were nothing like the early Earth) and the results were used to beat design theorists over the head with for decades. If the scientific community has finally acknowledged that this is essentially impossible I am glad to hear it.

Of course, rather than admit that they were WRONG when they pushed this idea in the past, evolutionists instead accuse design theorists of being dishonest and setting up strawmen. Such is the way of debating atheists.

BTW, someone needs to tell the eggheads at talkorigins to get with the program and stop hyping proteins being formed by random chance...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob....

quote:

It probably didn't start with protein and amino acids at all, but with RNA. This makes sense actually when you look at a structure called the ribosome. It is the builder of proteins in the body. No ribosome, no life. Anywhere. But the ribosome is primarily composed of RNA. There are proteins in it too, but a lot of evidence supports the understanding that these proteins have been incorporated into the structure over time.


I'm still a little fuzzy on where you think the first protein came from, but regardless, RNA world has many problems and it just a grasping of straws to try to explain the first life in a materialistic fashion. I HIGHLY recommend reading Stephen Meyer's book, Signature in the Cell, chapter 14, to see the many weaknesses of this hypothesis.

quote:

Its by the Discovery Institute. I am very familiar with them and have never found very compelling or honest work coming from them. Its not pier reviewed by outside sources. Ever. I have already addressed much of the article above. Simply put, they are wrong.


Both of the articles I posted were peer-reviewed and neither was written by anyone working for the Discovery Institute. Actually, the Bioessays paper on the Cambrian explosion was written by scientists beholden to the idea of macro-evolution, who were being unusually honest about the problems in the fossil record.

And for the record, researchers in the Discovery Institute have published peer reviewed papers before.

wgbutler


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/11/2010 7:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks back at you for replying. I have to admit I am probably going to be slowing down on these posts as I am writing as much for the benefit of others as for you and I. I of course assume you are doing much the same, and I have noticed the pace of posts dropping fast. I have of course enjoyed this to a degree, I hope you feel the same. You may be correct that some in the past proposed the random protein, I am not all that old... however, I have not heard anyone purporting it in any of my learning. Skimming the talkorigins article it appears they leave the door open for protein syntheses de novo, but make a stronger case for the RNA enzyme as I put forth. It doesnt matter for this post.

I would like to ask you, what evidence would convince you? Can you think of any test, any piece of obtainable data, or series of doable experiments which you could imagine providing you with the level of proof for you to accept evolution by natural selection as the accurate model? I would add the clause to this, "that does not involve a supernatural power confirming it for you". Really think about this. If the answer is no... then science, and all the evidence in the world, never really stood a chance with you. If yes, then I would love to hear what.

I also have to point out that you never did offer your "better than evolution" proof for special creation. I hope you'll understand if I do not accept any part of the bible as scientific proof. I doubt I surprise you there, and I am guessing you actually agree. By itself, looking selectively, I can see how some say the fossil record supports special creation as much as it does evolution (of course, there are places where it does not, such as tiktaalik, hte lineage of horses, crocodiles, and other species as I mentioned before). But that is hardly a handful of data compared to the mountain of data from dozens of fields of science all going to support evolution.

Lastly, I acknowledge that scientist don;t understand everything yet. There are questions we don;t have answers to. Maybe we never will with some, but I am guessing we will have more answers than you think as the years go forward. Just because we can't answer something now, doesn't mean the answer is: "and then a miracle happened". Science is not out to destroy God, it can't really even touch God. I also have to point out that your classification of 2 types of people is missing a group. There are those who are atheists who have a deep sense of morality, of right and wrong. I know many myself. Please always keep that in mind. Its been fun. Thanks for always keeping it cordial.
-Torren


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/11/2010 10:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
Torren,

Thanks for responding to my last post. Here's my reply:

quote:

I would like to ask you, what evidence would convince you? Can you think of any test, any piece of obtainable data, or series of doable experiments which you could imagine providing you with the level of proof for you to accept evolution by natural selection as the accurate model


As I said before, I agree that species adapt to their environments and micro-evolution occurs within species.

I have a very hard time accepting the molecules to man macro-evolutionary model as that hypothesis demands too much suspension of disbelief and requires too many vastly improbable naturalistic miracles. I don't dispute anything we see in the hard data, I just draw very different conclusions than you do as between the two of us I am not the one previously beholden to a model of methodological naturalism.

But to answer your question, there are things that could happen that would make me think the molecules to man macro-evolutionary model might be correct.

1) If we discovered life on other planets
2) If we created an artificial life from completely non-living chemicals in a laboratory simulating natural conditions on the early Earth with no intelligent guidance.
3) If a new strain of chimpanzees emerged that had three eyes or the ability to breathe underwater, or spin webs, etc.
4) If we discovered a species of warm blooded snakes.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.

quote:

If the answer is no... then science, and all the evidence in the world, never really stood a chance with you. If yes, then I would love to hear what.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Science, particularly the study of astronomy and cosmology, is what compelled me to give up atheism and to become a theist.

I agree with all the science, I just don't agree with the philosophy of methodological naturalism. At the end of the day, you have more faith than I do since you maintain your views in spite of the evidence.

When you look at the evidence of the Big Bang, this tells us that there was a point when the Universe began to exist. When you look at the fine tuning in the laws of physics, this strongly points to the existence of an intelligent Creator who intended for life to exist in the Universe.

Naturalism CANNOT explain the origin of the first life, or the cell, or DNA, or intelligence, or free will, or morality. Naturalism demands too much belief in fantastic scenarios and astonishing miracles. Centuries from now people will look back at what is now commonly believed and will be astonished that anyone could have ever believed in this.

quote:

I also have to point out that you never did offer your "better than evolution" proof for special creation. I hope you'll understand if I do not accept any part of the bible as scientific proof. I doubt I surprise you there, and I am guessing you actually agree.


I quoted a peer-reviewed research paper where the scientists freely admitted that my take on the data was legitimate. If you want to claim that my view is nonsense the burden of proof is on you. You've just admitted that there are questions science doesn't have the answer to. If science doesn't know what caused the first life to exist, or why all the animals appeared so suddenly in the Cambrian explosion, why would it be absurd to think that God might have had something to do with it? You have to admit that its at least POSSIBLE that an intelligent agent could have had something to do with it? Even Francis Crick proposed that concept with his theory of panspermia.

quote:

There are those who are atheists who have a deep sense of morality, of right and wrong. I know many myself. Please always keep that in mind. Its been fun. Thanks for always keeping it cordial.


I know many atheists who are very nice people as well, whom I would trust to take care of my children.

I never meant to imply that atheists are out of control, nasty people who routinely hurt others, only that most atheists are the way they are because they want to have the freedom to live their lives in any fashion they choose, and decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong without having to be ultimately accountable for their behavior.

When I was an atheist I saw belief in God as something that would restrict my enjoyment of life and prevent me from having any fun or living life the way I wanted to live it. Because I had these feelings, I mightily resisted any evidence that challenged my atheism. Having crossed over to the other side, if you will, I can honestly say that I haven't given up anything that was worthwhile and my fears were completely irrational. My life has dramatically improved as a result of my conversion and I have a real hope for the future and purpose to life.

Thanks for your thoughtful emails. Remember the books I mentioned (Signature in the Cell and The Edge of Evolution). These are great resources that demonstrate that skepticism of the molecules to man macro-evolutionary model is well justified.

wgbutler


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 9:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
Torren,

quote:

might I ask what concept you do subscribe to? What evidence does this other model have to support it over that of evolution?


Thanks for your interest in my views. I believe that God created life in various stages throughout the Earth's natural history, culminating in the creation of man.

These different species that God created appeared suddenly, quite literally out of thin air, with no precursors. Some of them live on into our current day, others such as the dinosaurs went extinct. The species that didn't go extinct adapted to their various environments and differentiated themselves from other animals in the same groups (i.e. micro-evolution).

The reason I believe this is because it is what the fossil record seems to say, with various animal groups appearing suddenly in the fossil record with no previous transitional forms. The cambrian explosion is probably the best example of this.

It is also consistent with the Day-age creation interpretation of Genesis 1, with God creating different types of life at different stages in the early Earth's history. (The framework hypothesis makes no scientific claims whatsoever except to say that God created everything).

wgbutler


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/9/2010 7:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, what about the Lenski bacteria experiments bothers you? Perhaps I can address it if I knew to what you are referring as a problem?

As a pre-strike on the issue, I know a pro-ID video I watched a few years ago invoked the experiment when it made the point that:
the E. coli had a random mutation that allowed them to grow better under a certain type of condition. This condition was not normal for the bacteria. The mutant bacteria seamed to out-perform their Wild Type (WT) "peers", however, when grown under ideal conditions the mutants were less able to compete with WT. This the video said showed that evolution doesn't select for the fitter species over time, and thus falls flat.

Of course, this is a bogus argument that again uses misdirection to obfuscate the reality. In truth, mutant E. coli were fitter under condition 1, but that mutation of course might be a detriment under a different set of circumstances.. condition 2. It in fact is evidence of the effects of natural selection on species. Of course when you remove the selective agent you remove the benefits of the advantages mutation to the selective agent.

Anyway, let me know.


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 9:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Torren,

quote:

BTW, what about the Lenski bacteria experiments bothers you? Perhaps I can address it if I knew to what you are referring as a problem?


The mathematics of the experiment. More bacteria have been in this experiment than the total number of mammals that have ever existed on the face of the Earth.

And yet what do we see? Bacteria. Whatever adaptations have occurred have been minor, incremental changes that don't fundamentally change the nature of the organism. And I'm expected to believe that a rat morphs into a human?

Do you see the problem with this? If macro-evolution is true I'd think we see some pretty substantial transformation occurring other than the few relatively minor mutations that have occurred in the e coli samples. How many generations would it take for these bacteria to start forming multi-cellular organisms, for example?

Here is a link which discusses the experiment from an ID perspective:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/lenskis-4...

wgbutler


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/10/2010 12:29:28 AM , Rating: 2
Will try and reply to your last set of posts tomorrow. Its late now, and I have an all day hike tomorrow. Check back tomorrow night. Best to you all.
-Torren


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/11/2010 9:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
OK, to the points you raised: There are numerous reasons why more generations/individual cells of E. coli being produced than all the mammals that have existed has not produced more spectacular mutations than have been observed. Several are:

1) Think of life as a vehicle in this imperfect metaphor. E. coli are akin to a skateboard, while mammals are more like F16 fighter jets. Now, don't get me wrong, skateboards are versatile and would probably survive better with everyone in the world using them rather than F16s. But I digress. If these vehicles randomly mutated, you can see how there are not a lot of small modifications that can be done to the skateboard to drastically alter/improve its performance other than a few small things like better turning, or maybe brakes, or bigger wheels or something. However, random mutations in the F16 fighter jet could have effects on the weapons, fuel economy, communications systems, flying speed, maneuverability, landing, the list goes on and on. On top of that, one change on the circuit board might have far reaching effects on multiple systems, much more so than is possible for the skateboard. This is something of what you are seeing with bacteria versus mammals. E. coli have a genome which is a TINY fraction the size of that of mammals. Less DNA = less chance for changes.

2) The Lenski experiments are in a controlled environment. No REAL natural selection here. The changes they observe are due, in general, more to random genetic drift than to naturally selected evolution. Now, don't get me wrong, random mutation is the fuel to evolution, without it things don't change too much. This removed a lot of the selective advantage offered by mutations and thus those mutations were not forcibly selected for. ( I have to admit I am not fully versed in all the work the Lenski experiments have done, so perhaps they tried to impose selective forces throughout, but all the same, you just cant' replicate ALL the selective forces present in nature in the lab.

3) In nature there is solar radiation (A mutagen), there are carcinogenic chemicals (mutagens), there are hot places, cold places, places wet, dry, filled with food, lacking food, filled with predators, parasites, diseases, lacking predators, the list goes on and on. These differences (niches) and forces constantly push and pull the individuals living in them to evolve to survive best. Simply put, for the conditions (niche) the researchers were growing E. coli in, they were already VERY well evolved. They started with a highly evolved organism well suited for its environment. Doesn't mean it can't get better, and in fact their studies showed they can... but it is an uphill battle unless you drastically change the pressures.

4) Not everything works on the same timeframe, because not everything is equivalent. Its just a fact. There are more bacteria in your gut than the number of humans that have ever lived. It doesn't mean we would expect them to be building starships and cities by now, its just not the way it works, and frankly its a bit juvenile to think it is. Fact is, bacteria is very well suited to survival. Evolution and natural selection have no master plan. Simpler organisms may be better suited to life n a certain niche, thats just the way it is. However, there is a requirement that since the dawn of life (something scientists will admit we still do not fully understand) life started simpler, and has gotten more complex. We see this in the fossil record. Certain traits just don't exist before certain times. This makes sense. However, nothing says complex is better than simple. Chances are that the biology of some of the dinosaurs was more complex than our own. People don't have the most complex genome's either. There are some single-celled organisms, some algae that have 3-10 times as many genes as we do. Its wild to think about, but makes sense when you do.

More thoughts: If you go with the ID route of thinking... where does it lead you? The answer just keeps returning to, well thats just the way it is because that the way God, aliens, the flying spaghetti monster wanted it. Its a stance that shuts down or limits scientific inquiry. Plus, there is no good evidence for it. Its so broad and untestable a stance that it can not be disproven, I agree... unless you use it to make demonstrably false claims as some have done, but at this point its just a nice story with no hard data. It probably never can have hard data, but maybe I am wrong there. Simply put, I don't believe ID or creationism, or a lot of other theological explanations because I do NOT believe that God is an A@@hole. Why would God design a world that appears every way you look at it to be explainable by evolution, from the progression of life, to the shared characteristics, to the not quite working or useless parts of your body, to the location of species on the planet, both where the exist and where they do not, all as some giant joke? God is not a jerk. God is not trying to trick us, nor test us with this one. Maybe this is how God made the world... with evolution. Using natural selection. God is omnipotent, right? Maybe God could see that he would get the outcome he wanted even if he sparked a universe with randomness built into it, both at the quantum level, and at the biological one. Maybe it was the only way to really build in free will.

Think about it. Thanks for reading. I am off to go make mutant yeast now ;-)

-Torren


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/11/2010 4:07:31 PM , Rating: 2
Torren,

Thanks for your latest reply.

quote:

Think of life as a vehicle in this imperfect metaphor. E. coli are akin to a skateboard, while mammals are more like F16 fighter jets.


The skateboard-F16 analogy is an interesting one, and I figured you'd say something like this. I would counter with the following:

1) The quantity of the skateboards should somewhat equalize the quality of the F16s. Even if mammals are far more advanced than bacteria and are far better capable of evolving than bacteria are, the sheer numbers of the bacteria should equalize this to some extent.

2) The simpler nature of the bacteria should make macro-evolution EASIER for the bacteria, not harder. There is much more room to change and adapt for a bacteria than there is for a human being. Most genetic mutations, in mammals at least, are fatal and cause great harm because of all the complex biological systems that mammals have.

3) If the template is that all life sprang from bacteria in the past, then we should expect to see these types of changes occurring in the Lenski experiments.

quote:

The Lenski experiments are in a controlled environment. No REAL natural selection here....They started with a highly evolved organism well suited for its environment. Doesn't mean it can't get better, and in fact their studies showed they can... but it is an uphill battle unless you drastically change the pressures


Well maybe someone should design an environment or pick another type of organism that is better suited to testing evolution? I'd be in favor of funding that. I that that was the purpose of the Lenski experiment to begin with. Where did they go wrong?

quote:

Why would God design a world that appears every way you look at it to be explainable by evolution, from the progression of life, to the shared characteristics, to the not quite working or useless parts of your body, to the location of species on the planet, both where the exist and where they do not, all as some giant joke? God is not a jerk. God is not trying to trick us, nor test us with this one. Maybe this is how God made the world... with evolution.


Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I respect it. I look at the same evidence and come to radically different conclusions. If God did indeed use macro-evolution to create all life that would be fine with me, I just don't think the science supports it.

Basically there are two types of people in the world.

The first type thinks (or at least WANTS to think) that everything is just the result of some cosmic accident and they are not accountable to any higher power for their choices and behavior. This gives them comfort and a feeling of freedom, even though it means that life is ultimately pointless.

The second type thinks that a higher power caused all of this to happen and has some type of purpose for our existence.

These two types of people can look at the same evidence and draw radically different conclusions. I used to be the first type of person, but after studying the evidence I became the second type of person.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me in a friendly and congenial manner. I wish you well.

wgbutler


RE: Response
By William Gaatjes on 4/9/2010 5:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

Very very old bacteria that live for a very long time.


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/9/2010 6:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
very cool


RE: Response
By walmartshopper on 4/9/2010 6:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think it's safe to say that a young earth interpretation of Genesis 1 has been invalidated by science. Here's an interesting read about the history of old earth and young earth views: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n1... . In addition, there are plausible explanations from the young earth side on astronomy, geology, biology, and more: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topics...


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 6:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
walmartshopper

quote:

I don't think it's safe to say that a young earth interpretation of Genesis 1 has been invalidated by science


I'd have to respectfully disagree with you. A young earth interpretation of Genesis 1 runs into many problems with the science and just gives the non-believers an easy way to attack Christianity.

Remember that the Bible says "a 1000 years is like a day to God" and that the seventh day never ends in Genesis 1. Time is a relative concept and it is an easy mistake to make to assume that God would experience time in the same way that we human beings on Earth would experience it.

In Genesis 1, days 1-6 would have HAD to have been from God's perspective of time since humans didn't even exist yet. For that matter, the sun and the earth didn't exist yet either, so our way of reckoning time wouldn't have been possible for anyone to use.

wgbutler


RE: Response
By CireNaes on 4/9/2010 8:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
Alright, you need to familiarize yourself with Hebrew poetry and the Biblical creation account.

The creative 'days' in Gen. 1:3-31 are a forming then filling motif. The story unfolds in a 6 + 1 climactic sequence that is also a 3 + 3 + 1 sequence. It outlines the creation of particular regions and then the creation of the inhabitants of those regions through two PARALLEL stages of three days each.

The 'forming' of the regions are found in versus 3, 7, 9, and 11. The Parallel accounts of 'filling' are found in versus 14, 21, 24, 26, and 30. So it goes like this...vs. 3=14, vs. 7=21, and vss. 9 and 11=24, 26 (here the three time use of ??? is used to emphasize man as the climax of creation) and 30.

Now assigning the original Masoretic text verse numbers around the middle ages have complicated things for quite some time since a skeptic will look at the Biblical account and cry foul. In the Hebrew it is much easier to see the correlating structure expressed in the linguistic beauty of the poetic account. It is also easy to see that it does not disregard possible scientific observations for creation. However, it does not easily affirm them either.

Now for my Christian brethren in the audience...you all need to realize some very important things that are found in the Biblical creation account.

1. God is not part of the universe or vice versa. This is meant to directly contrast Ancient Near Eastern creation accounts (e.g. pantheism).

2. God speaks and then it happens. Again, this is a direct contrast to ANE creation accounts (e.g. Attum laying an egg or masturbating or one god killing another to fill the chaos).

3. God creates order and pronounces the order to be good. This is in direct contrast to ANE creation accounts (e.g. the chaos motif found in all the other accounts).

4. Man is created in God's image (both men and women possess similar and equal characteristics to the divine). This is in direct contrast to ANE creation accounts (e.g. mankind created because the gods were feeling lazy and women as sub-human).

Notice a theme here? This passage is designed to directly combat creation accounts of its time (e.g. the Akkadian Enuma Elish and the Atrahasis that the Enuma Elish is based upon) and their Monophysite claims.

So now you've got some options.

1. Myth: Only a chaos motif. Popular among liberal scholars and atheists alike. Not my cup of tea as this is clearly not a chaos motif and has far more differences than similarities to other ANE accounts of its time.

2. Theistic Evolution: God created, but the dynamics are through the evolutionary process. Basically deist, but can be more clock maker in process, which leads to a rather impersonal God, which in turn is not correlated by the rest of Scripture. Trying to match this to the cosmological mythology (any theory of creation) of today is hard when the model keeps changing. I suppose this holds some credence since it can provide an answer to the complication of current speculations and observations on the age of the universe, but I think there are better options out there.

3. Gap Theory: Found in the Schofield Reference Bible. Proposed there was a gap of time in-between verse one and two in which the fossil record fits. Essentially taking Genesis 1:2 as a re-creation and trying to account for the fossil record. Exegetically with the Hebrew, there is a syntactic impossibility that there is a gap between verses 1 and 2. Bummer huh?

4. Day Age: The days of creation are the climax of the geological record because the days of the LORD are like a 1,000 when compared to the days of man. It is a lexical possibility, but you do not define words by ordinals or cardinals, but by context. It is syntactically argued by the day only meaning 24 hours. How the Bible handles numbers is a tricky business as some numbers directly denote concepts of blessing or are used purely to designate units or elements of people groups with no correlation to their literal numerical makeup. In other words, Biblical scholars will be arguing about this one for a long time...

5. Apparent Age: Popular with the creation research society. God created the word with apparent age. Adam created as a fully grown man, but was only one year old. Full grown trees that were only one day old. I find this to be a little ridiculous myself, but to each his own.

6. Historical Literary: Understand what it is trying to say to its original readers. Concerned with the theological truth that is there. Written in Hebrew in a different culture embedded in the larger ANE culture. It was meant to address what the Canaanites’ believed and refute it. This would be the easiest and most logical interpretation and application of the text.

In other words, for all you atheists who also happen to be interested in how things came to be, give the Bible its due. It is a much more complex work than the ignorant give it credit for, which is why it is so widely studied by liberal and conservative literary scholars alike.

For all the Christians here (and I'm applying that term loosely to include those who likely profess such, but really aren't according to Scripture. No, the good outweighing the bad in your life will not teeter toter you into heaven. This is an Ancient Egyptian concept that still expresses what a good portion of professed Christians hold to). This is a Historical Literary account that was meant to protect the nation of Israel as it entered the promised land. Therefor, apply it, learn from it, enjoy it, but leave your creational presuppositions at the door (aside from what it proposes above of course, the numerical issue will always be a matter for debate) and use it as it was meant to be used. The scientific community has value and it also has a ton of bitterness in how the Christian community responded to it's initial claims. Now the tables have turned and they're giving as good or better than they got. So hold to your faith (as they do) and wait (and pray) for God to tap them on the shoulder. Then, when the time is right, speak truth into their lives. Here, in this impersonal and flame bait forum, is not the place for it.

May the Lord bless you, keep you, approve of you as His vassal, and give you peace.

On a side note, many thanks should be rendered to my professors for some of the above observations. I'm not nearly as smart as they are, but if anyone is curious about God feel free to respond to this post with your email and we can have a correspondence about it. I do enjoy the debate providing its civil, nor do I discount the idea of Empirical proofs in arguments.


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/9/2010 8:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
For all those who take the bible literally, or close to literally, how do you reconcile the fact that there are 2 different creation stories in it? (I apologize in advance, my knowledge of passage line, verse is severely limited at best... lots of sitting in church and listening to course lectures, not so much personal reading of the bible... but it is what it is). Story 1: Everything was created (plants, then animals, then man). Story 2: Earth is made, Adam is made, was lonely, so God made animals, Adam names them all (Wow, that MUST have taken some time, huh... and all the poor deep sea creatures...) Then God makes woman.

2, unreconcilable versions of creation.

Apart from that. If you believe in a literal bible, which one do you go with? The king James? Well, thats based on previous versions. In fact, the ancient Greek versions (Over 5000 different ones still exist today) are all different. ALL of them. Sometimes its small differences, but sometimes not. In addition, its been shown that certain passages have been added over time. Every Christian knows the story of the adulterous woman who is caught and brought to Jesus to be stoned. He said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." They all leave, and he lets the woman go while saying she must not cheat again. Great story. One of my favorites. Imagine my disappointment when I learned it was a passage that appeared in the 14th century. Yep. No record of it before then. Then poof.. one bible has it, and then a few more years later, and then its in the King James. I learned this from "The Great Courses: Lost Christianities, by Prof. Ehrman." A Christian scholar selected to teach this course. Find it at your library. Or look it up. Its real. And there are more examples, this is just one.

Look, I'm religious. I think the bible is a good book, and in general should be heeded... but really people, God also gave us a brain. Sometimes I think he'd like it if we used it.

OK, back to what I know better.... evolution.


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 9:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
Torren,

It is generally assumed that the creation account in Genesis 1 is a topical creation account and the creation account in Genesis 2 zooms in, if you will, and gives a little more detail on the events surrounding the creation of man.

For that matter there are many other creation accounts throughout the Bible, for example in the book of Job, that shed even more details on God's creative activity.

I'd read up on the Framework hypothesis mentioned by CireNaes for a really good interpretation of Genesis 1. Here is the link again describing the way it works:

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

wgbutler



RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 9:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
Torren,

It is generally assumed that the creation account in Genesis 1 is a topical creation account and the creation account in Genesis 2 zooms in, if you will, and gives a little more detail on the events surrounding the creation of man.

For that matter there are many other creation accounts throughout the Bible, for example in the book of Job, that shed even more details on God's creative activity.

I'd read up on the Framework hypothesis mentioned by CireNaes for a really good interpretation of Genesis 1. Here is the link again describing the way it works:

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

wgbutler



RE: Response
By CireNaes on 4/9/2010 10:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
Suggested reading for you.

Is The New Testament Reliable by Paul Barnett.

What you're describing leads one into the realm of literary criticism. The above suggestion is a fast read, it's cheap on Amazon, and it will easily answer any and all of your questions.

The passage you're referring to was added later, as was Mark 16:9-20. Most everything else you're worried about can be attributed to spelling errors and the difficulties in actually putting spaces between words (a good portion of manuscripts don't have them) which are hardly damaging to the Biblical account.

The really great thing about the reliability of the oldest manuscripts that we do translate from are encapsulated in this quote should bring some assurance to others who hold scripture in high regard because they were taught it, not because they've studied it (as if the teachings themselves were not developed by highly educated minds who have thoroughly scrutinized the text and its origins):

“It may reassure you to know that seven-eighths of the time, the different text-types agree on a reading. If obvious mistakes like skipping a line are left out, only one-sixtieth of the readings are in doubt. Only about one word in a thousand involves both a difference in meaning and serious doubt of the correct text. No major doctrine of our faith is in doubt because of textual variants.” (Westcott and Hort).

All that being said, the KJV was a good translation for its time, but following in the noble tradition of translating the Greek and Hebrew into the modern vernacular that this text embodied (plus the greater understanding of clausal analysis, tense, mood, voice, critical analysis, word studies aided by computer software, and the Dead Sea Scrolls) are really great translations. I would recommend the following for your perusal.

ESV, NKJV, NLT, TNIV, and the HCSB.

Both the ESV and the NLT have recently released outstanding study bibles that are leagues ahead of anything previously done.


RE: Response
By Torren on 4/11/2010 9:50:08 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the reply... looks like a lot of good info in there. I'll have to check it out. I made a mistake above I wanted to correct: The passage appears in the 12th century, not the 14th.

I also agree that most of the differences are spelling/line duplication/deletions. However, often when a line was deleted by mistake, the following copier scribe tied to fix the error, often altering the story. Not hugely problematic I agree... but concerning when you consider that we have no idea how many generations out the oldest copies we have are... there is no original manuscript known of... not even the dead sea scrolls. The 5400 partial greek bible texts are all copies of copies of... well, no one knows. They are all different length, different chapters included or left out. If you have even played a game of telephone with 10 people you know it changes a lot. This was more like playing 5000 games of telephone with 30 people each, then taking all the results, and trying to make 1 story. Of course there will be problems. I would just like more people to realize that this is the reality. Faith leads me to accept most of the book and hope its right... (I suppose that would be a real miracle), but logic says its probable almost fully altered from its original form.. if there was one at all.

Anyway, thanks again.

-Torren


RE: Response
By CireNaes on 4/12/2010 6:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
That book I referenced will challenge your assumptions about the text. I wouldn't have referred you to it if it did not answer your speculations. It's up to you, but you really should check it out. But even if you don't I'll leave you with this quoted tidbit from Paul D. Wegner.

"These textual differences can be broken down into four categories. The largest group involves spelling and nonsense errors. The single most common textual variant involves what is known as a movable “nu.” This is an “n” that is placed at the end of certain words when the next word begins with a vowel. The same principle is seen in English: a book, an apple. Nonsense errors occur when a scribe wrote a word that makes no sense in its context, usually because of fatigue, inattentiveness, or misunderstanding of the text in front of him. Some of these errors are quite comical, such as “we were horses among you” (Gk. hippoi, “horses,” instead of epioi, “gentle,” or nepioi, “little children”) in 1 Thessalonians 2:7 in one late manuscript.

The second-largest group of variant readings consists of minor changes, including synonyms and alterations, that do not affect translation. A common variation is the use of the definite article with proper names. Greek can say, “the Barnabas,” while English translations will drop the article. The manuscripts vary in having the article or not. Word-order differences account for many of the variants. But since Greek is a highly inflected language, word order does not affect meaning nearly as much as it does in English. These two phenomena can be illustrated in a sentence such as “Jesus loves John.” In Greek, that sentence can be expressed in at least 16 different ways without affecting the basic sense. Factoring in spelling variations and other nontranslatable differences, “Jesus loves John” could, in fact, be a translation of hundreds of different Greek constructions. In this light, the fact that there are only three variants for every word in the NT, when the potential is seemingly infinitely greater, seems almost trivial.

The third-largest category of textual variants involves meaningful changes that are not “viable.” “Viable” means that a variant has some plausibility of reflecting the wording of the original text. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 2:9, instead of “the gospel of God” (the reading of almost all the manuscripts), a late medieval copy has “the gospel of Christ.” This is meaningful but not viable. There is little chance that one late manuscript could contain the original wording when the textual tradition is uniformly on the side of another reading.

The smallest category of textual changes involves those that are both meaningful and viable. These comprise less than one percent of all textual variants. “Meaningful” means that the variant changes the meaning of the text to some degree. It may not be terribly significant, but if the variant affects one's understanding of the passage, then it is meaningful. Most of these meaningful and viable differences involve just a word or a phrase. For example, in Romans 5:1, some manuscripts read “we have peace” (Gk. echomen), while others have “let us have peace” (Gk. echomen). The difference in Greek is but a single letter, but the meaning is changed. If “we have peace” is authentic, Paul is speaking about believers' status with God; if “let us have peace” is authentic, the apostle is urging Christians to enjoy the experience of this harmony with God in their lives. As important as this textual problem is, neither variant contradicts any of the teachings of Scripture elsewhere, and both readings state something that is theologically sound.

There are two large textual variants in the entire NT, each involving 12 verses: Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11. The earliest and best manuscripts lack these verses. In addition, these passages do not fit well with the authors' style. Although much emotional baggage is attached to these two texts for many Christians, no essential truths are lost if these verses are not authentic."

To boil it down for you...your concerns need not be concerns.
OT textual criticism is making great strides and I can go into further detail on that if you're interested, but for now I need to get going.


RE: Response
By wgbutler on 4/9/2010 8:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
CireNaes,

Nice response! You have outlined the Framework Hypothesis explanation of Genesis 1. I am extremely partial towards that interpretation of Genesis. It makes alot of sense. For any who want to learn more about it here is a link:

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

Truth be told I go back and forth between the Framework Hypothesis and Day Age. I can even see how they could both be true.

I didn't mention it in my previous post because I didn't think any of the secular types around here would be interested, but you described it perfectly. Thanks for the great response, and may God bless you.

wgbutler


RE: Response
By CireNaes on 4/9/2010 11:02:44 PM , Rating: 2
Back at you.


RE: Response
By William Gaatjes on 4/9/2010 4:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
You will find your answer in epigenetics.

Humans have many similar genes as our ape cousins.
There are a few different genes. But what is very likely the big contributor is the expression of those similar genes. Once you figure out how that works, you can understand evolution and how easy it is. Hypothetically writing, why is it for those who believe in god so difficult to accept, that evolution can actually be a tool maybe even THE tool of god ? When you can read the chaos, you will come closer to your god...


/shrug
By DEVGRU on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: /shrug
By Lerianis on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: /shrug
By DEVGRU on 4/9/2010 10:29:06 AM , Rating: 4
Someone kick your dog today? Thats ok man, your good enough, smart enough, and goddamnit people like you!


RE: /shrug
By Lysimachus on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: /shrug
By DeathBooger on 4/9/2010 11:43:30 AM , Rating: 5
Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

You believe in an invisible man with a super hero zombie son, yet we're the silly ones.


RE: /shrug
By The0ne on 4/9/2010 12:00:08 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know about that guy but to me it's Superman and Hulk all the way. God and Jesus couldn't touch the two I worship!


RE: /shrug
By Finnkc on 4/9/2010 1:35:14 PM , Rating: 1
+1 I lol'd because it's true.


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 11:46:13 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Looks like an extinct species of ape to me! lol

To the untrained eye and uneducated mind, I am sure it does.


RE: /shrug
By MozeeToby on 4/9/2010 12:54:42 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, he's 100% right, it is an extint species of ape. The dividing line between homonid and apes is extremely grey, if a similar level of differences were present in another group of animals they'd all be one family. In other words, we aren't just decended from apes, we are apes. Though you could make the argument that our level of intelligence is such a game changer that it deserves to be put into it's own family I supose.


RE: /shrug
By Axiomatic on 4/9/2010 11:44:55 AM , Rating: 2
Really, thats all you got? Keep swinging though, you are bound to hit something eventually.


RE: /shrug
By Federali on 4/9/2010 11:47:38 AM , Rating: 4
And we are merely extant species of Apes.


RE: /shrug
By Duk3togo on 4/9/2010 12:59:39 PM , Rating: 3
The funny thing is how the bible is so full of contradictions and yet you don't question them. But when there is something actual you guys dismiss it. You want proof of contradictions here are 2 The name "Jesus" in Isaiah 7:14 naming the son of man "Immanuel" and again in Matthew 1:23. So what does that tell you. So don't be so blind and accept gods gift in revelations to us and for the non-religous soon we will find the missing link and get the full story.


RE: /shrug
By RudeJude on 4/9/2010 10:32:48 AM , Rating: 3
"A 180 back into a body on this planet when available?" That sounds no more crazy than Creationists claiming Jesus walked on water. What a nutjob!


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/9/2010 11:09:02 AM , Rating: 2
He/She/It was kidding. Notice the claim that all religion is BS followed by the endorsement of reincarnation.


RE: /shrug
By Kahnivorous on 4/9/2010 10:35:46 AM , Rating: 2
Great thing about DT. There's always someone trolling. Or, maybe someone is still mad that their parents made them go to church. In either attempt, the end result is the same: failure.


RE: /shrug
By Kurz on 4/9/2010 10:44:55 AM , Rating: 2
Nah when people can go around justifing this and that in the name of god it tends to make people apprehensive about religion.


RE: /shrug
By sintaxera on 4/9/2010 10:36:25 AM , Rating: 3
Your belief in re-incarnation like you describe is a religious belief. It sounds like you are more interested in rejecting Christianity as a pack of lies than following your logic to the end. You should have said this:
No God, No Devil, No Heaven or Hell after death...you are just gone. DEAD.

But maybe that's too scary of a thought?


RE: /shrug
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: /shrug
By Anoxanmore on 4/9/2010 11:39:55 AM , Rating: 4
If you are serious I'd be happy to point out one of them for you. ;)


RE: /shrug
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: /shrug
By SamFen on 4/9/2010 12:04:59 PM , Rating: 3
How about, for for example...

1 Kings 7:23-26: "And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference."

How was it possible for him to build a "completely round" structure, ten cubits in diameter, with a circumference of 30 cubits? Was Pi different back then or something?


RE: /shrug
By abel2 on 4/9/2010 12:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Id say they rounded down for simplicity. As they probably didn't use our definition of sig figs and didn't want to write 31.41592654... cubits.

If you interpret the bible word for word, you may want to read the original in Hebrew or Greek. As those languages do not translate that easily to English.


RE: /shrug
By phattyboombatty on 4/9/2010 12:37:05 PM , Rating: 1
That's the best you can come up with??? I hope that 4000 years from now some historian doesn't sift through my old writings and find where I wrote that I live 16 miles from work, and then declare me a liar because archeological evidence finds that my work is actually 16.046 miles from my work.
You need to know context before you can declare somebody a "liar." I have no idea what the standard in ancient Hebrew was for documenting measurements. Maybe everthing was rounded to the nearest integer. For instance, if the bowl was actually 9.6 cubits in diameter and 30.16 cubits in circumference, it seems reasonable to me that a culture thousands of years ago would round to the nearest integer and arrive at 10 and 30. Another possible explanation is that the circumference measured the interior circumference of the brim and the diameter was measured to the outer brim, and that any self-respecting Hebrew person back in the day would know that's how the measurements of bowls are taken.
People need to find something else to do besides take issues with the number of decimal places used in ancient measurements.


RE: /shrug
By ipay on 4/9/2010 1:08:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but that's an idiotic argument, and I'm an atheist. Do some research on good arguments:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm


RE: /shrug
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 4/9/2010 5:47:00 PM , Rating: 1
http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/pillar_solom...

Scroll down till you see the orange drawings. In this area you will have more details to answer your question.


RE: /shrug
By Anoxanmore on 4/9/2010 12:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't so much as luck as actually knowing what is true and what isn't.

Easiest example is the Cyclinder of Nabonidus, actual archaeology shows it was the wife who was the one in charge of the kingdom vs his son.

The bible states his son was the one who handed over the kingdom, when in fact he was never in charge, and the kingdom was never handed over, nor converted.

So... tremble with my awesome translation abilities! :D


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 12:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
" since no one in all history has been able to give solid prof of a lie in the Bible"

I hope you're kidding. I suggest you check out any of the hundreds of books written on the subject, everything from Asimov's Guide to the Bible, to this Ingersoll classic, written 150 years ago:

http://www.amazon.com/Some-Mistakes-Moses-Robert-I...


RE: /shrug
By Anoxanmore on 4/9/2010 12:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
Porkypie is on lunch? :)


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/9/2010 12:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of translational errors and probably many intentional changes to the biblical text. The most obvious one that comes to mind is Paul's vision, which is recorded in two different books and gets important aspects of the event mixed around in such a way that both cannot be factually correct.

So what earth-shattering lies are you referring to? Why not just list a few rather than listing books by a science fiction writer?


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 1:00:02 PM , Rating: 1
Asimov wrote over 300 books on pure science. Compared to that, his fiction is a minor part of his work (though rather better known.)

If you don't like Asimov, I suggest "Some Mistakes of Moses", by Robert G. Ingersoll, written just after the civil war. You can find the full text here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_...


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/9/2010 5:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
I was being flippant to match your tone. The funny thing about Asimov is that he has admitted his beliefs are those of an atheist but claims to be an agnostic because he knows he doesn't have any way of knowing that there isn't a God.


RE: /shrug
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/14/2010 9:30:38 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know why you got voted down, Mike, Asimov's non-fiction work is great stuff.

I think the "Relativity of Wrong" is a great one by Asimov that educators should pay more attention to. It really shows how closed mind our thinking system is in a lot of ways.

Asimov was truly a great mind.


RE: /shrug
By RandallMoore on 4/14/2010 10:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope you're kidding. I suggest you check out any of the hundreds of books written on the subject, everything from Asimov's Guide to the Bible, to this Ingersoll classic, written 150 years ago:

Every so called "error" I have ever seen is completely up to the readers interpretation. I have never come across one that didn't have at least one or more logical explanations.

Go ahead and pick one; I'll show you how interpretation can mean all the difference.


RE: /shrug
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/14/2010 10:32:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every so called "error" I have ever seen is completely up to the readers interpretation. I have never come across one that didn't have at least one or more logical explanations.


It seems you are taking a more logical approach in your willingness to consider different interpretations. The entire creation story could be interpreted to be a diety creating the laws of the universe that would one day give birth to the Earth, evolution and humans. Most scientists would agree that while there's no proof of such initial intervention, this also no proof that there was NOT such an intervention.

There's plenty of room for religion, if you are willing to not rely on a strict interpretation of a religious work that was written nearly 2,000 years ago, retranslated and tweaked several times. When you run into trouble is when you have a person that insists clear contradictions to an overwhelming body of scientific evidence, i.e. claims that the world is 6,000 years old.

I think the basic problem with humans and all religions is that if there is an all powerful deity or force like many postulate, it would be far beyond current human comprehension and thus its actions would likely be misinterpreted and misrepresented by human language.


RE: /shrug
By Donkeyshins on 4/14/2010 2:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
But that diety would be very interested in the exploits of random professional athletes and would make sure they succeeded at the sport of their choice.


RE: /shrug
By RandallMoore on 4/14/2010 2:29:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the basic problem with humans and all religions is that if there is an all powerful deity or force like many postulate, it would be far beyond current human comprehension and thus its actions would likely be misinterpreted and misrepresented by human language.

So you are saying that the "all powerful" God isn't "powerful" enough to present something to us that we can live by? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? He can create the universe, but can't properly communicate with us? lol

Actually I think one major problem today is how people preach that science is the all powerful inerrant truth to the universe. Science has provided us with literally millions of helpful resources to better live our lives and understand our world. It has never once attempted to answer our question of, "why are we here, and what's the point to life." Evolution has a stance on that actually, but you see, we are the problem. We must die, so that future generations are better adapted. The only point to evolution is death, and survival of the fittest.

I believe that the Bible is filled with more information than one person can hope to comprehend, but it's a great starting point. While reading, it's supposed to be understood that you pray for interpretation. You can read with ill intent, but your output will be ill intended also. I have studied all major religions (including evolution) and I have found that my origin of Christianity has brought me the most comfort, logic reasoning, and understanding of life. It works for me, so I like to share the good word. If you don't like it, then fine move along. What I can't stand for is people telling me that their "faith" and "dedication" in science isn't also a religion. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not calling all science religion; but there are way too many people out there that literally live for science because it is their end all be all truth of all truths.

Side note: I love how someone will say that they don't trust the writings of men (referencing the Bible) but they will pick up Scientific American and take every single word for the indisputable truth. Even a collection of science can be wrong. Majority opinion is just that; majority OPINION.


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/14/2010 5:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, the claim that the world is 6,000 years old is only one interpretation. From a biblical perspective, the world is only about 6,000 years old from the Fall of Adam until now. The Bible does not say how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, and it's quite possible that we were given a much shorter version of a very long and boring history.

Also, with creation in six days, a better translation for 'day' is 'time period' or 'era.' What does 'day' even mean during the initial parts of the creation without a rotating earth? The Bible states elsewhere that a day to God is 1,000 years to man (2 Peter 3:8). Even here '1,000 years' is understood to mean 'a very long, indefinite time' and 'achievement of divine completeness' from the concepts in Hebrew numerology (even though the New Testament was first compiled in Greek, the original authors were Jews/Hebrews).

I think the problem is that many religious people or churches canonize their interpretation of the Bible such that any scientific evidence that invalidates that interpretation is taken as a direct assault on the Word of God itself rather than what it really is, which is evidence contrary to the opinions and interpretations of men about the Bible. The other part is translation and transcription errors, and also what I believe to be intentional changes by Catholic translators to match what they had already established as their doctrine prior to completion of translation, but most other Christians will brand me a heretic for such thinking. Although, despite Porky Pie's fears, they haven't boiled me in oil yet. ;)

According to the Bible, God created Adam from the dust or mud of the earth. However, both you and I were also created out of the mud of the earth just as everything else on this planet is. I believe that God created our universe and that it started from The Big Bang. I also believe that the whole process set everything into motion to form this universe, and life eventually began on this planet in a way that, in general terms, is what we believe from science. At some point, man evolved to where the first human of ‘full’ intelligence came into being, and God took him and placed him into the Garden of Eden and named him Adam. Adam was not a mud pie, and he had a navel. Eve being created out of Adam's rib is symbolic in indicating that man and woman are meant to be coupled together, side by side.

Anyway, those are my thoughts until something else convinces me to abandon them or parts of them for something else that seems more reasonable.


RE: /shrug
By RandallMoore on 4/15/2010 11:27:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Bible does not say how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden,

With all due respect; If you go back and read Genesis again, pay really good attention to the "person begets person begets person...etc... section" It tells you in that section how long that person lived, and if you write it all down, then according to the bible, the earth is about 6,000 years old.
quote:
Also, with creation in six days, a better translation for 'day' is 'time period' or 'era.'

I only read the King James version since they were the only ones to not modify/delete scriptures. In KJ it says one (1)day, meaning sun up to sun down. Other versions (after the theory of evolution started) say a period of time. Yes, they changed the Bible because of this theory.
quote:
The Bible states elsewhere that a day to God is 1,000 years to man (2 Peter 3:8)

Go back and re-read that passage. "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." That, to me, means being heaven with Jesus will be timeless.
quote:
At some point, man evolved to where the first human of ‘full’ intelligence came into being, and God took him and placed him into the Garden of Eden and named him Adam.

I wish you would really reconsider your views on this. I don't really think you should pick and choose what you want to believe from God's word. The Bible says the earth was void, and he created everything in 6 literal days.

I hope you understand that I am not being snide in any way. These are my opinions, and I hope you can consider them.


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 11:48:32 AM , Rating: 1
If you read the Bible cover to cover and didn't find any internal contradictions (lies) then you didn't read very thoroughly.


RE: /shrug
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 4/9/2010 11:59:31 AM , Rating: 3
I did read it extremely thoroughly. However, if you are claiming you did read it extremely thoroughly and found lies and such then you read it with a closed mind and added you own ideas/thought verse what is there...


RE: /shrug
By pklat on 4/9/2010 12:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
The only problem that I am having with all of this is this; it is very difficult to keep facts straight and true about an event that happened some 10 years ago, among all of the news and media coverages, yet an account, which has been written about some thousands of years ago, by people who were not even present to witness such event, is to be held true and unquestioned. A little naive, perhaps?


RE: /shrug
By phattyboombatty on 4/9/2010 12:41:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A little naive, perhaps?

Agreed, if you remove the possibility of supernatural intervention. But, the whole point of the Bible is that God exists. If you don't believe that God exists, it is foolish to believe that the Bible is entirely accurate. If you believe that God exists, then it is plausible that God has somehow intervened to ensure that the Bible was accurate.


RE: /shrug
By yomamafor1 on 4/9/2010 2:22:57 PM , Rating: 2
You mean if you find contradictions and lies within the bible, you're reading with an open mind, since you're also contributing your own ideas and thinking critically of what is actually being said?

After all, in order for the bible to make sense, the reader MUST assume one thing: God does exist. Therefore, you'd have to be close minded in order for it to mean anything. Anyone who spent quite a while in the scientific community (read: people who uses logic rather than faith) would not be able to make that assumption in the first place.


RE: /shrug
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 4/13/2010 2:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
The Christian Bible (with it's Jewish background) no doubt has the largest impact on the modern scientific community. If you do think so then stop sending you kids to our school... Just in case you are not think, that is every Ivory league school and probably about 40 to 50 percent of the other school in the USA.

"the reader MUST assume one thing: God does exist."

One of the first things you should be taught when reading the Bible, is God expects you to question his entire existence. If you do not question the existence of God then you have not put much thought into it at all. He did this for a reason. He did make everyone believe - then Adam and Eve did their thing and now you must show faith in believing in God after God has entered your heart. It is stated in the Bible there will be those who will hear the words of God but never listen, grow and believe and others that will run from God... (Yea, not word for word but down those lines).
You have never read the Bible, easy to tell... Maybe you read a small section here and there, but never read though it. Why can I say this... because no educated person would say "In order for the bible to make sense." The Bible make perfect sense, the question is do you believe there is a God or not, not if the Bible makes sense.


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 5:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. I'm closed-minded. Sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

And that's all I have to say to that...


RE: /shrug
By pklat on 4/9/2010 11:48:58 AM , Rating: 2
I have a suggestion for you too; spell check or just re-read what you write.


RE: /shrug
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 4/9/2010 11:55:50 AM , Rating: 2
I did, several times, but when one has dyslexia it not a simple thing to see the spelling errors.

If had more time would catch them all, but I'm at work too.


RE: /shrug
By ClownPuncher on 4/9/2010 12:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
You have a learning disability, but you interpretation of the Bible is more sound than anyone elses?

My silly beliefs are not as silly as your silly beliefs (sarcasm).


RE: /shrug
By therealnickdanger on 4/9/2010 12:01:52 PM , Rating: 5
Fortunately, it's not "science VS God". It's "science VS religious conception of God". Many people aren't even aware that there is an undisclosed amount of time between the creation of the universe and the "first day" event in Genesis. They read right over it and make an assumption. Was it billions of years? Did dinosaurs and other humanoid beings dwell on the earth during those years of darkness?

I believe there is a God. I also believe that the Bible is the only written testimony of that God. I do my best to understand what the Bible says while also understanding that the spoken and written languages of our existence can only describe so much before something is lost. I have to rely upon translations and exegesis for my understanding, just like everyone else.

Anyone who claims to understand exactly what the Bible says in every instance is a liar. The same goes for science. Even some of Einstein's theories were wrong. We are all seeking facts and truth (many have agendas, of course), but the moment we assume we have all the answers... well, just prepare to be humbled.

Science will continue to unravel mysteries, open doorways, and reveal unknowns. However, science in itself will forever only create more questions seeking answers. I, for one, believe that the universe around us is the very fingerprint of the one God who fashioned it.

Mock me if you will, but as a result of arrogance or foolishness, as hard as we humans will try, we will never achieve understanding in science alone. Which is not to say we shouldn't pursue science, I'm just saying not to put our hope in it.

In closing, I, for one, welcome our new ape overlords.


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 12:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
"I also believe that the Bible is the only written testimony of that God"

Which bible are you referring to? The Muslim, Christian, Zoroastrian, or other? Most religions have a bible of some form or another.

Even if you're referring to the christian bible, what particular version do you believe is correct? There have been many hundreds of texts, many of which vary widely and even contradict each other in places.


RE: /shrug
By ClownPuncher on 4/9/2010 12:46:48 PM , Rating: 4
In my understanding, Christianity is an amalgam of the teachings of Zoroaster and the Old Testament, almost to the "T". The Abrahamic religions are just variations on Zoroastrain texts, minus the Scared Fire.


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 1:07:33 PM , Rating: 4
"Christianity is an amalgam of the teachings of Zoroaster and the Old Testament, almost to the "T"."

Yes it is. It's also fascinating to study how both the "universal, immutable truths" of both Christianity and Judaism have evolved over time, in response to social and political pressures and events.

For instance, the early Judaic faith makes no mention of hell ("sheol") or any concept of an afterlife. It was originally thought that those who were virtuous and holy received their reward here on earth...while the heathens were punished immediately and accordingly. But during the time of the Diaspora, Jewish scholars had a thorny problem. If they were the chosen people, why were they getting their ***s kicked all other God's green creation, while those wicked pagans were prospering?

So over time, religious scholars "solved" this problem by inventing the concept of an afterlife. Those who were holy and virtuous received their rewards later , after they died. And those who weren't-- their punishment.


RE: /shrug
By ClownPuncher on 4/9/2010 1:20:37 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, and in the First Council of Nicea and First Council of Ephesus, nearly the entire Christian doctrines were rewritten to reflect the changing political landscapes of the emerging sects.


RE: /shrug
By phattyboombatty on 4/9/2010 12:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which bible are you referring to?

The fact that he wrote "Bible" (with the "b" capitalized) should have tipped you off that he wasn't talking about a generic idea of the bible, but was referring to the Christian Bible.

As to which translation and version he was referring to, you have a good point.


RE: /shrug
By yomamafor1 on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: /shrug
By dramazing on 4/9/2010 1:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
So lets not get hung up on the 7 day statement... Let's give the Bible a little bit of a fudge and blow that whole 7 days 7 nights factor off of our shoulders and make up something (as Christians often do) unprovable and say 'his days and nights are much different then our own', even though it says that nowhere- lets just assume to make it true.

It doesn't change the fact that the old testament says the messiah will come from the line of King David. Which Joseph DOES come from the line of David... But it was a virgin birth. So Jesus was not created from Joseph's gametes, hence no common lineage with David.

Yet, even better, when you study the dead sea scrolls, one of the OLDEST KNOWN COPIES OF BIBLICAL books, we never see the word virgin anywhere when it comes to Jesus's birth... We see the Hebrew word "almah", which means maiden, or young woman. The Hebrew word for virgin is "bethula". Why would they mistranslates this later in the future? And why do we know this mistake yet Christians still celebrate it, even though a virgin birth means Jesus is not legitimately from King Davids line? Who knows... Maybe the same reason they follow the current Biblical Cannon, which for the uneducated arguer, is the current set of Biblical books followed by modern Christians. That's right, there are more books, they are just so crazy that in 1563 the Council of Trent and the Church of England decided which ones to actually follow. Not God, but a bunch of old men, 447 years ago. Ever wonder what happened to Jesus's crazy teenage years? Oh, they are they. And they are so crazy I can't blame the Roman Catholic church for opting to ignore them... So much for divinity!

As for lies in the Bible? How about that Jesus was born during the Census of Quirinius, a Roman census? This is referred to in the book of Luke by the way. Funny thing is that there never was a census in Bethlehem during Jesus's birth, but there was one near by a whole decade later, in 6/7CE during the reign of Roman Emperor Augusta. The other odd part/ mistake/ lie, is that the book of Matthew places this same census in 4BCE, during the rule of Herod the Great. Sucks that the Romans did such a great job dating everything and working on such a wonderful calendar, doesn't it?

In the gospel of Luke, Mary and Joe travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem for this same census, after the birth they go back to Nazareth, their home (Why they couldn't stay home and be part of the 'made-up' census in Nazareth sure beats me...) Hence, Jesus of Nazareth.

In the book of Matthew, they were already in Bethlehem... And then move to Nazareth out of fear due to fears concerning Herod's Judean successor. It is the magi who travel to Bethlehem.

All this mismatchy work to place a non-virgin birth in Bethlehem just to fill a prophecy for a really old book that says pork is a no-no...

Which one is the truth? I'll let you decided. (Hopefully neither.)


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 1:38:54 PM , Rating: 1
"Funny thing is that there never was a census in Bethlehem during Jesus's birth, "

Not only that, but the entire concept of Romans forcing people to return to their home town for a census is ludicrous in the extreme. The Romans never did any such thing, nor would they have been able to enforce it if they tried.

"We see the Hebrew word "almah", which means maiden, or young woman. The Hebrew word for virgin is "bethula". Why would they mistranslates this"

That reminds me, have you seen the relevant scene with Benecio Del Toro, from 'Snatch'?


RE: /shrug
By walmartshopper on 4/9/2010 4:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
I've yet to see an alleged contradiction or "lie" that can't be refuted... there are 737 examples here:

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/wally01.html

There are also other essays on there that address the issues you bring up about the census and the virgin birth.


RE: /shrug
By tastyratz on 4/9/2010 4:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We look for the logic and evidence.

Wouldn't that contradict the religious base around "faith"?

Science has evidence of many things such as evolution and there are many different religions... but don't forget bible koran or otherwise all of these things were written by and repeatedly mistranslated by imperfect naturally likely biased Men.

Most Religion has given a lot of good things to society during earlier times because it formed a structured rudimentary government/mass management system and common morality base. Before maturity and establishment of the government most places were controlled by the church of their choice. Saying someone will burn in a fiery pit of sulphur is a great way to get them to listen. The catholic church has a NOTORIOUS history of greed and corruption. There are many things I am sure we could never know have been changed for political influence.

You are right too we have religion to thank for much of our educational system too.

Before modern science man was certain only about uncertainty. Religion provided an explanation and filled in the gaps of the unknown as well as provided a purpose.

Modern science in many things however has advanced and will continue to advance. Previous teachings religious or not are disprove daily with hard evidence. Those who choose to ignore evidence however aren't religious, they are arrogant. The entire bible/koran/other. could be proven wrong but that doesn't change the basis of religion which is faith and specific principles. Don't choose to ignore science because of a significantly outdated book of general teachings.


RE: /shrug
By a11b11cd on 4/9/2010 11:46:33 AM , Rating: 1
You are, in essence defining the Hindu religions' belief of "saat janam", or 7 lives, where you are reincarnated back on earth.

The author probably did not read The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, where numerous scientists at the top of their fields say that evolution theory is flawed.

If you ask me, it seems like science is always claiming one thing and disproving it the next second. Scientists probably bicker more than priests. And last i saw, Science has not been able to clearly disprove religion without a doubt. Ice is water frozen over.

Evolution at best is a theory, like the big bang theory.
How is it that the Y cromosome present in apes but is missing in humans.

One fossil of a kid suffering from malnutrition is hardly the smoking gun evolutionists have been looking for. Who knows, Tom cruise may have bribed this archeologist to further scientology. Digging earth never really paid much, unless you could make a discovery.


RE: /shrug
By Axiomatic on 4/9/2010 11:54:37 AM , Rating: 1
I agree and came to this very same conclusion after reading the "near east texts" that survived from the time of Jesus. Just another of thousands of heretics of his time that struck a chord with a specific sect of people. Sure, what he did was great, but son of god, puh-lease.


RE: /shrug
By drycrust3 on 4/9/2010 12:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
I used to think along those sort of lines, but there is one important thing to remember: Jesus is "the truth". If he had been standing on a lump of ice or surfing or some such thing, and then not said so, he would have been dishonest. Also, St Peter would have known as well. But the ultimate thing is he said he was going to die on the cross and rise again, so if he was a liar and said that, whether he did or didn't we wouldn't know.
Since he always told the truth, and never retracted his previous claim, then even if he could have done those things some other way, what he did is what he did.

quote:
Simply put: no god, no devil, no heaven or hell after death...


Strange, I thought the resurrection of Jesus was a proven fact of history. Regardless, if Christians are wrong, what do they loose? And if right, what do you loose?

The problems I have with this are firstly the pictures on TV (based upon about a 2 -4 second glimpse) of the actual skeletal remains suggest a lot of bones are missing or incomplete. So guess who "adds" them? A person who believes this is "the missing link". That isn't wrong, but what is wrong is all to often in the past an "excessive amount of license" has been used which distorts the picture. Of course, Evolutionists would scoff that even if lots and lots of license were used, it wouldn't change their jokes. And what about the facts? Do they matter?
The real difficulty of excessive license, is that the distance moved between hard facts and the Evolution fiction increases, which means science is held back even more than it is now. Oh well, I'm not the scientist, why should I care? Maybe because I think science is the search for truth.

Is anyone interested in my theory that T. Rex and Velociraptor are different breeds of the same species?


RE: /shrug
By aegisofrime on 4/9/2010 1:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
Because you do not explain to a primitive civilization what the world exactly is like and how it was created.

Just think. If you were a parent, how do you teach a young child where babies came from? The classic model is a stork. By the same caveat, are you seriously going to tell a primitive civilization about the Big Bang, evolution and DNA? They will think you are hopping mad, basically.

I do not think that just because the Bible doesn't not teach about evolution disproves God. In the first place, there's no need to prove or disprove God.

A lecturer from the LSE told my class today "Good science must be refutable" You can't refute God, so leave religion to the theologians.

Let religious people believe in their religions. By mocking them for their beliefs, you are as bad as the various religious people in history who harmed people just because they didn't think the same way.


RE: /shrug
By aegisofrime on 4/9/2010 1:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
BTW I'm agnostic, just in case people are going to start making ad hominen attacks and bash me instead of my arguments.

Oh well. Us agnostics have always been bashed by both atheists and religious people, so what the hell.


RE: /shrug
By Kurz on 4/9/2010 10:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
Problem creationalists have with coming from ape like creatures is that we were supposed to be set and ready to go. There was no need for evolution since we were created and ready to go.


RE: /shrug
By todda7 on 4/9/2010 10:39:32 AM , Rating: 3
It's the creationism and the scientific method which does not fit together. Besides suppressing science, religion and creationism with it depends on irrationality and the ability to accept claims without evidence. This does not do the world any good. Other than this, I think this quote from Gran Torino expresses everything: Walt Kowalski to Father Janovich: "I think you're an overeducated 27-year-old virgin who likes to hold the hands of superstitious old ladies and promise them everlasting life."


RE: /shrug
By RudeJude on 4/9/2010 10:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
The best you can come up with is a quote from that terrible film, Gran Torino? And how do they suppress science? Was this article supressed by the religious and Creationist powers that be? I had no problem reading it. The major research universities are all secular institutions. If anything science is being suppressed, it would be by people in power at these secular institutions.


RE: /shrug
By VitalyTheUnknown on 4/9/2010 11:11:56 AM , Rating: 2
"And how do they suppress science?"

This is just one example of many.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BpmeX6lwZc&playnex...


RE: /shrug
By todda7 on 4/9/2010 11:34:49 AM , Rating: 3
For the first of all, Gran Torino is one of the best films in a long time from Hollywood, and it seems like the rest of the world agrees with me.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205489/
Even though it's not a very meaningful nor deep quote it still expresses the position the church plays for the elderly of our society.

How religion suppresses science? Are you serious? First of all, I would like to know why you became a christian. While it really doesn't matter, I bet your parents told about God, Jesus and sin as you where a child. Even if they didn't it doesn't change my point. Now why did they do that, and why did you listen? I have to tell you, if they sat down, and really thought about it, and after a while decided to raise you as a christian/whatever, you have some very bad parents. Of course, most parents just do it because everyone else does it. There is usually no question about it, it just is that way. Are you a parent RudeJude? Do you tell your children how bad liberals/whatever are? Do you tell them what to think, and which party to vote when they grow up? Of course not. At least I hope so.

Delusions are being thought to children every day. They are thought to accept claims without any evidence. Religion is most the reason. The children grow up uncritical and with a flawed a flawed logic. This suppresses science.

I could go on and on about how religion suppresses science, but I will only name one situation.

Teaching The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection in schools in America. Hopeless. I hope I do not need to explain this to you. The theory of evolution by natural selection is true, and it is not dependent on fossils. It is supported by massive amounts of evidence, probably more than the theory of plate tectonics. Any person who has seen the world map can imagine that South America and Africa once was joined. The similarities between species are not so obvious to the naked eye, therefore people usually have a harder time believing it. It is not about believing it. It is about critically viewing the evidence and to understand for yourself, not because someone tells you it's true.


RE: /shrug
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 11:51:14 AM , Rating: 3
An utter revolution in our thinking could be accomplished in a single generation if parents and teachers would merely give honest answers to the questions of every child.


RE: /shrug
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 12:42:01 PM , Rating: 3
"It is truly a terrible thing to rob a child of his/her innocence."

You're as bad as the screwball environmentalsts. You both believe mankind and his works are inherently evil.

Giving children a true, honest picture of how the world works is not "robbing them of innocence". But filling their head with superstitious nonsense is surely robbing them of reality.


RE: /shrug
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: /shrug
By Reclaimer77 on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 1:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
The sheer insanity here is yours. You say that giving an honest answer to children is "robbing them of their innocence", then when challenged, you explode in a hyperbolic, self-righteous, irrelevant, maudlin blather about giving children graphic details about rape and torture?

Are you trying to embarrass yourself?

Your false dilemma is absurd. I've never once felt the need to lie to my children to "protect their innocence". Nor did I feel the need to share graphic details of crimes with them at a young age. All of them grew up just fine -- one is in law school now, and neither he nor the others are exhibiting anything that could possibly suggest they were "ruined for
life".


RE: /shrug
By RudeJude on 4/9/2010 2:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
Being in law school constitutes that one was "raised just fine."? You must know few lawyers!


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 4:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Being in law school constitutes that one was "raised just fine."?
touche'.


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/9/2010 6:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
Now I get it. I thought you were single, homeless, and jobless, Porky, given how many posts you make and follow. So you're retarded! Er, I mean, retired! :P


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 6:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
"I thought you were single, homeless, and jobless, Porky, given how many posts you make and follow. So you're retarded!"


First insults and hatred, then next you'll be calling for me to be burnt alive at the stake. What happened to following those teaching of Jesus you've been preaching to us about?


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/12/2010 10:00:10 AM , Rating: 2
Humorless tool. I made the same joke to my own dad after he retired. Insults and hatred? Pot.Kettle.Black. You've actually been serious with yours.

What have I been preaching? I think it's time for you to go take your Aricept.


RE: /shrug
By Reclaimer77 on 4/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: /shrug
By Anoxanmore on 4/9/2010 2:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
You seem stressed...

hands reclaimer a few tabs of lithium

Feel all better in a few hours ;)


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 2:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
You are way over-complicating this. There is a difference between indoctrinating and telling the truth. When a kid asks something like "what happens when you die" or "where did the stars come from" there are several ways you could respond:

1) you could indoctrinate them with religious views
2) you could indoctrinate them with anti-relgious views (note the distinction between atheism and anti-theism)
3) you could tell them that nobody is really sure, and then go on to explain various opinions on the matter

#3 is the honest answer and is what I am advocating -- giving them ideas but not forcing them to think like you. When they're old enough to consider the importance of evidence and reasoning they'll be done asking these kinds of questions and can decide for themselves. But until they reach that point, it's important to be honest and not pretend to know things we do not. Indoctrination of any kind is reprehensible.


RE: /shrug
By Reclaimer77 on 4/10/2010 12:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is a difference between indoctrinating and telling the truth.


The term "indoctrinating" isn't typically used to describe the relationship between parents and children. Because it's the right and responsibility of the parents to raise the child how they see fit (within reason of course). Indoctrination happens when someone ELSE tries to fill their heads with viewpoints that are counter to their upbringing for the sole purpose of pushing THEIR viewpoint and not the benefit of the individual.

quote:
#3 is the honest answer and is what I am advocating


Because you don't have, or don't understand, faith. Faith in god and satan and the afterlife and all that crap isn't about what we know or can prove. I have tried all my life to understand it because my mother is extremely Catholic. And after 15+ years of fights, arguments, and discussions I have come to one conclusion : To her and those like her God and faith is as concrete and real to them as the ground we walk on and the air we breath. And it's a waste of time and energy debating it.

quote:
When they're old enough to consider the importance of evidence and reasoning they'll be done asking these kinds of questions and can decide for themselves.


They always will be, no matter what their parents tell them. Again, my mother is big time Catholic and did her best to raise me as one. I stopped going to church at 16 years old and haven't looked back. I'm 33 now. So how have I been indoctrinated or brainwashed ?? How was I stopped from deciding things for myself and choosing my own path ?

Look I get it that you guys are atheist, and that's fine. But demonizing Christian parents and claiming they don't have the right to raise their children their way isn't winning your side any points.


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/10/2010 12:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The term "indoctrinating" isn't typically used to describe the relationship between parents and children. Because it's the right and responsibility of the parents to raise the child how they see fit (within reason of course). Indoctrination happens when someone ELSE tries to fill their heads with viewpoints that are counter to their upbringing for the sole purpose of pushing THEIR viewpoint and not the benefit of the individual.

To instill a doctrine is to indoctrinate. Doesn't matter who is doing it, it's still the same thing.

quote:
Because you don't have, or don't understand, faith. Faith in god and satan and the afterlife and all that crap isn't about what we know or can prove. I have tried all my life to understand it because my mother is extremely Catholic. And after 15+ years of fights, arguments, and discussions I have come to one conclusion : To her and those like her God and faith is as concrete and real to them as the ground we walk on and the air we breath. And it's a waste of time and energy debating it.

I agree. And this is precisely what I was pointing out as the underlying problem. People need to get over themselves, stop being so damn arrogant, and admit that they have no idea.

quote:
They always will be, no matter what their parents tell them. Again, my mother is big time Catholic and did her best to raise me as one. I stopped going to church at 16 years old and haven't looked back. I'm 33 now. So how have I been indoctrinated or brainwashed ?? How was I stopped from deciding things for myself and choosing my own path?

I was raised Catholic as well, and clearly I'm not anymore. But what is true for you and me is not true for everyone.

quote:
Look I get it that you guys are atheist, and that's fine. But demonizing Christian parents and claiming they don't have the right to raise their children their way isn't winning your side any points.

I never said they don't have a right. I just said that I don't respect their position and that I view it as reprehensible. Big difference. I'm not here to win points. I'm here to tell it how it is and to reinforce the importance of evidence and reason (and to get a few lulz in the process).


RE: /shrug
By Reclaimer77 on 4/10/2010 9:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
You know, this is what annoys me about Atheists. It's not enough that YOU don't believe, but you have to project your belief of non belief on everyone else and make THEM the bad guy. Up to and including commenting on how Christian parents raise their children and claiming it's a "problem". Calling it "indoctrination", really ?

quote:
People need to get over themselves, stop being so damn arrogant, and admit that they have no idea.


Such hostility...

So because your Atheist, everyone else has to stop believing in God ? Because that's really what you are saying here. I mean wow man, really, such hostility. People don't "need" to do anything just because you have a problem with them.


RE: /shrug
By Reclaimer77 on 4/10/2010 9:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
You know, this is what annoys me about Atheists. It's not enough that YOU don't believe, but you have to project your belief of non belief on everyone else and make THEM the bad guy. Up to and including commenting on how Christian parents raise their children and claiming it's a "problem". Calling it "indoctrination", really ?

quote:
People need to get over themselves, stop being so damn arrogant, and admit that they have no idea.


Such hostility...

So because your Atheist, everyone else has to stop believing in God ? Because that's really what you are saying here. I mean wow man, really, such hostility. People don't "need" to do anything just because you have a problem with them.


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/11/2010 10:02:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You know, this is what annoys me about Atheists. It's not enough that YOU don't believe, but you have to project your belief of non belief on everyone else and make THEM the bad guy.

BS. You say that as if I'm tracking people down and harassing them. I'm talking to people who willingly came here and posted on the subject. They spoke their opinions, and I spoke mine in response. Yes I demand evidence and yes I point out logical flaws in peoples' arguments, and while that may be extremely irritating to some, is a part of the discussion in which they willingly chose to participate. Just because I am uncompromising in my opinion does not mean that I am projecting my beliefs onto others. Search over this page and look at all my posts. Every single one of them is in response to something someone else said. I didn't start any of this.

quote:
Up to and including commenting on how Christian parents raise their children and claiming it's a "problem". Calling it "indoctrination", really ?

It's indoctrination by the very definition of the word. If that's not politically correct enough to suit you, too bad.

quote:
So because your Atheist, everyone else has to stop believing in God ? Because that's really what you are saying here. I mean wow man, really, such hostility.

No, that's not what I said at all. It's as if you are intentionally misinterpreting my posts, because you've completely missed the point on each one you replied to. I have no problem with people who believe that there is a 'God'. I do have a problem with people who believe so firmly in the tenets of their religion that they reject facts and evidence.

You can believe that there is a God and still admit that you could be wrong. I can admit the same, and in fact, here, I'll do it right now. I believe that there is no 'God' as outlined by any religion to date, I believe that all religions were though up by people and were not divinely inspired, I believe that there is no such thing as a soul, I believe that the universe began from a space-time singularity, the time prior to which we may never understand, and I believe that humans evolved alongside other primates from a common ancestor. I believe these things because that is where the factual evidence leads me, however, I could be wrong. See, not so difficult.

The difference between me and the religious fanatics, is that they will not make this concession. If evidence existed that invalidated evolution, I'd change my beliefs. That evidence, however, does not exist currently.

quote:
People don't "need" to do anything just because you have a problem with them.

Not because I have a problem with them, but because it's what reasonable individuals do. Reasonable individuals do not claim to have answers which they cannot possibly posess. Reasonable individuals admit that they could be wrong.


RE: /shrug
By RandallMoore on 4/14/2010 10:18:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If evidence existed that invalidated evolution, I'd change my beliefs.

ha...haha....HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA! OMG quote of the year right there!

There will NEVER in a million years be "proof" that evolution doesn't exist because all data against evolution is stamped as invalid before anyone even gives it a thought. It's already so deeply ingrained into most minds that it will never be refuted.

There has already been TONS of relevant, honest scientific data that shows evolution is not real. You just choose not to accept it as valid because it goes against your faith based theory.


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/16/2010 6:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
And this is a flawless example why I am uncompromising in my posts, because the instant I show an ounce of humility, people like you who lack anything resembling an argument jump on it. Perhaps you're just trying to draw attention away from the fact that I am impartially weighing evidence to form my beliefs, while you require no evidence whatsoever and in fact dismiss the evidence that is presented. Laugh all you want, your position on this topic is not a respectable one.

Surely you have a reference to support your claim of evidence against evolution? Thought not.

Belief in evolution is not faith-based. Faith is not required in the presence of evidence, and the fact is that every piece of paleontological and archaeological data ever uncovered supports evolution. There is absolutely zero evidence that supports any other theory. As has been famously said before, show me a fossilized rabbit from the precambrian era. That would be contradictory evidence.


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 2:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Giving children a true, honest picture of how the world works is not "robbing them of innocence". But filling their head with superstitious nonsense is surely robbing them of reality.

Agreed 100%

+6


RE: /shrug
By todda7 on 4/9/2010 11:59:29 AM , Rating: 1
Your flawed logic fascinates me. How does reason lead to carelessness? On the contrary, I believe. Take a look at Northern Ireland, and look at what the religion does to the children. Children should be thought to think for themselves, evaluate evidence and to make up their own minds based on rational choices. A rational mind, by evolutionary reasons, would be caring, trustful and respect others not only those with the same religion and opinions as themselves.


RE: /shrug
By dmonder on 4/9/2010 12:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
On what grounds do you have to say "you have some very bad parents"? If we all just evolved, then there really is no right or wrong, so "my" parents could not be bad (and though my parents did tell me about Jesus and God, I decided on my own as an adult to accept Christ as my Savior).

What evidence do you have to support the following claims: "Delusions are being thought to children every day. They are thought to accept claims without any evidence. Religion is most the reason. The children grow up uncritical and with a flawed a flawed logic." These sound suspiciously like opinion, especially with no scientific evidence to support them. Also, again, you have no grounds to claim this is wrong (which you seem to imply through your word choice).

You also claim "[t]he theory of evolution by natural selection is true, and it is not dependent on fossils." First, this can never be proven true in the absolute sense and has changed since it was first proposed based on the evidence. Second, how does being able (or not) to see similarities between objects support the claim that they are truly related. A sand castle can be made to look much like a real castle, but is not remotely related to a real one (absurd example, I know).

Your final statement that "[i]t is about critically viewing the evidence and to understand for yourself, not because someone tells you it's true" is absolutely correct. However, if you presuppose there is no God, you will assume (incorrectly) that all you see developed solely through natural processes. If you presuppose there is a God, and you understand His word as truth, you will see the world as His creation. Same evidence, different understanding. And, by the way, there are plenty of scientists who can "understand for [themselves]" who believe fully in a created world. However, the number of people who believe something is not evidence to support the argument.


RE: /shrug
By RudeJude on 4/9/2010 1:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
Gran Torino is a terrible film with a trite plot filled with some of the worst acting. The rest of the world doesn't agree with you. We can link each other reviews all day long, but I won't waste time convincing you that your taste in movies is atrocious. It is.

You're assuming that I'm Christian because I dislike dogmatic, one-way thinking? Yes, go ahead, attack me, my parents and my beliefs, all of which you are assuming and know absolutely nothing about. Assuming I hate liberals because I disagree that religion suppresses science? Illogical. I hope you are not as one-dimensional as you sound. Your prejudices are showing, Todd.

You also assume that I do not believe "The THEORY of Natural Selection is true," which is a funny statement on your part to make, being someone who holds the THEORY as fact. I don't disagree with Natural Selection and that life has evolved over time. What I find ridiculous is those who hold, as fact with scant, if any, evidence, (or should I say hold with faith?) that life evolved from the same single-cell organism, and then attack people with faith in the metaphysical and the unproven elswhere.

I wish you would have gone further in the ways religion suppresses science, as you did not discuss it at all. Because parents instill values into their kids means their kids are incapable of thinking for themselves? If that is the case, then you must have raised yourself, or else you, too, are living within your parents' set of values and beliefs. Of course, your parents MUST have been perfect, taught you to think freely without any prejudice. Sure.

And to the guy with the Al Copone video...I'm sorry, all your evidence was overwhelmed by the completely unrelated-to-your-topic molestation details, used more to smear and hardly comparable to Capone's tax evasion. I am not defending the catholic church, nor am I apart of it, and I think cover-ups are awful, regardless of the type of organization doing it. However, this does not prove your point. Remember, a religious organization is not the same as religion.


RE: /shrug
By todda7 on 4/9/2010 3:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
While I can partly agree with you on the film, I think it was a good movie, and most film-enthusiasts do. Of course it does not really matter what other people think, but IMDB usually gives a good impression of other movie-enthusiasts opinion on the movie.

"You're assuming that I'm Christian because I dislike dogmatic, one-way thinking? Yes, go ahead, attack me, my parents and my beliefs, all of which you are assuming and know absolutely nothing about. Assuming I hate liberals because I disagree that religion suppresses science?"
I did not assume you where a christian. Even though you probably are (pure statistics) it does not matter. Atheist or theist. Agnostic or gnostic. Rational or not. That matters.

And I do not have the slightest clue of which politics you are a fond of. I am not from your part of the world and I do not know what the liberals stand for, but I took the first "political group" which popped into my head. Which one did not matter, and therefore I wrote liberal/whatever.

I also do not assume that you do not believe in the theory of natural selection. It doesn't matter what you believe, I was just making a point. And I have to comment on my statement that "The theory of evolution by natural selection is true". I realize that it sounds very pig-headed. The reason why I wrote it like that is because, it is one of the best supported, tested and challenged theories which no-one have ever had any reasonable and valid argument against, and there is probably never going to be discovered evidence which rejects or even drastically modifies the theory. You are completely right, in science we do not classify theories as true, only untrue.

It is not directly wrong to instill values in children. However, it is wrong to teach your children fairytales, and without any evidence, claim them to be true. Of course making them believe in Santa is one thing, it is another thing to make them believe that the world is 6000 years old or that evolution is wrong because you read it in a book / heard it from your parents / everyone else believes it.

It is about learning the children to make rational, conscious choices and to not accept things just because they are said to be that way, but to think critically and make rational choices.

I was not raised by perfect parents. I was raised by christian parents, and they probably did it because everyone else did it and because they themselves was raised that way. I do not believe that they deliberately tried to make me "christian", even though I was brought to church and baptized and so on. I was never, ever, told by my parents what to think, and that is the important clue here.

Religion suppresses science because:
a) Religion controls how you think. You cannot be religious if cannot except life-changing facts without evidence. It suppresses the scientific way of thinking. Using children this way is obviously, even if it is to promote your political party, your religion or whatever. Learn the kids to choose for themselves.
b) It poisons the schools. Kansas. The middle east. Even in my country some fifty years ago. Children are being thought that the world is 6000 years old, that Jesus really walked on water and on purpose keeps the children away from science and the scientific way of thinking as this clearly challenges religion.


RE: /shrug
By RandallMoore on 4/14/2010 10:29:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Religion suppresses science because: a) Religion controls how you think. You cannot be religious if cannot except life-changing facts without evidence. It suppresses the scientific way of thinking. Using children this way is obviously, even if it is to promote your political party, your religion or whatever. Learn the kids to choose for themselves. b) It poisons the schools. Kansas. The middle east. Even in my country some fifty years ago. Children are being thought that the world is 6000 years old, that Jesus really walked on water and on purpose keeps the children away from science and the scientific way of thinking as this clearly challenges religion.

I completely disagree. Good religion does not hinder good science. On the other hand, the religion of of Evolution, is the exact opposite of Christianity in every single aspect.

You have a hard time realizing that science is your religion. If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.


RE: /shrug
By justsomeone on 4/9/2010 11:12:14 AM , Rating: 2
Please kindly take a stab at my question below. I personally believe it's anti-creation scientists that have no rational evidence to back up their claims that there is no God as it totally contradicts scientific law. What's worse than "not having evidence" is contradicting your own established principles.


RE: /shrug
By Abrahmm on 4/9/2010 11:31:46 AM , Rating: 2
You cannot prove something by saying there is no evidence to disprove it. I can say that god is a flying spaghetti monster. You can't prove that he isn't a flying spaghetti monster, but that doesn't prove that I'm right. The religions around the world have been using such logical fallacies for thousands of years to keep people believing what they preach. It's simply amazing that so many people will blindly follow what they are told without looking at it with an objective eye.


RE: /shrug
By justsomeone on 4/9/2010 12:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe squat based just on what someone else teaches, just like I had to work the problems for myself in school to get the answers.

I didn't try to prove anything. However I am admittedly taking a friendly swipe at science for condemning my faith while they violate their own established laws. I'll never be able to scientifically prove God exists for anyone. I'm just pointing out that science can't disprove that He exists especially since their equations don't balance for how all this matter (the universe) arrived.


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/9/2010 12:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
Proof of God was not claimed, so there is no need to validate what was not claimed. The claim that was made was that God does not exist, so that claim should either be proven or withdrawn. The FSM may or may not exist, and nobody is challenging your beliefs. While Intelligent Design is flawed, the FSM was a very weak argument against it. ID does not claim to know the identity of the designer, so the FSM is one possibility. FSM, like Christianity, cannot be taught in schools because it claims to know the identity. Anyway, ID is bad science and bad religion, although there are many interesting and useful elements from a religious perspective.

If you haven't studied religion from those who believe in it, then you are also not objective. Learning about religion from atheists is only one part and is not objective as a singular source of information.


RE: /shrug
By Abrahmm on 4/9/2010 12:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
The Flying Spaghetti Monster story wasn't created as an argument against intelligent design, but an argument against teaching intelligent design in schools. It was created after the state of Kansas decided that alternative theories of existence like intelligent design should get equal teaching time as evolution does. He claimed he believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that as his belief was an alternative, it should get equal time in the classroom as evolution and intelligent design.

I have studied religion from those who believe it. I wasn't raised religious and never went to church until I was a bit older before I was forced to go to Sunday school and be confirmed. I was never taught religious or atheist views until this time, and that time of figuring stuff out on my own really helped me see the huge flaws in the Christianity I was being taught at a later age.


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 5:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Proof of God was not claimed, so there is no need to validate what was not claimed. The claim that was made was that God does not exist, so that claim should either be proven or withdrawn.

This is logically incorrect, actually. Before the concept of 'God' there was no such concept. Therefore the existence of 'God' was implicitly claimed upon the creation of that concept and it does need to be proven.


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/9/2010 6:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
Your point is irrelevant. IDers were trying to find a backdoor method to allow for an Intelligent Designer to be taught in science class as an alternative to 'godless' evolution. Of course the IDers believe that Designer to be God from the Bible, but the idea does not preclude the FSM, Shiva, Odin, or any other advanced entity from being the designer. Anyway...


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 11:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
And this shows that my point was irrelevant how exactly?

By proposing ID under the guise of a scientific theory, it is implied that there is a creator. Doesn't matter who/what that creator is, but the implication is there. Therefore there is a claim of existence that must be proven, exactly as I said above.


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/12/2010 10:06:36 AM , Rating: 2
Because 'God' implies the God as referred to in the Bible, unless that isn't what you meant. Anyway, we both agree that ID should not be taught as science in public schools.


RE: /shrug
By Lysimachus on 4/9/2010 5:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
Abraham,

quote:
You cannot prove something by saying there is no evidence to disprove it. I can say that god is a flying spaghetti monster. You can't prove that he isn't a flying spaghetti monster, but that doesn't prove that I'm right. The religions around the world have been using such logical fallacies for thousands of years to keep people believing what they preach. It's simply amazing that so many people will blindly follow what they are told without looking at it with an objective eye.


Yes we can disprove that God is a flying spaghetti monster. I can prove it through the prophecies. I have been spending the last 13 years investiging prophetic eschatology, and I can look straight in the eye of anyone and tell them "I KNOW God exists. Period!" That's right. Period is right, no matter what you say, think, or pretend to know. 90% and more of the prophecies have been fulfilled to an EXACT T! For example, the 70 weeks prophecy of the coming Messiah in Daniel 9:24-27 proves without a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is the right book for telling us who God is. Beginning at the going forth of Artaxerxes decree in 457 B.C., if you count 483 years to the Messiah the Prince, that comes to the year 27 A.D. What happened in 27 A.D.? Jesus Christ was anointed by the Holy Spirit at his Baptism (I could give you tons of Bible verses to establish these events, and the dates these events occurred, but I do not have the time). That leaves 1 week left (7 years left). Daniel 9:27 says that Christ would be crucified in the "middle" of that week. When was Christ crucified? In 31 A.D.! The Disiciples preached to the Jews for 3 1/2 years after 31 A.D., and after the stoning of Stephen in 34 A.D. the gospel went to the gentiles. This meets an exact fulfillment of the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27.

Also King Cyrus was named by name by Isaiah 130 some years before Cyrus came on the scene. We have a multitude of prophecies that came to exact fulfillment. For example, the Bible establishes the "day-for-year" principle in Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34. This means that in prophetic symbolism, a day stands for a year. The Bible predicted that the Little Horn power that grew out of the 4th beast (Rome) was to rule for 1260 prophetic days (aka, 1260 years). This prophecy was met to an EXACT T! Emperor Justinian's decree in 533 went into effect in 538 when the Ostrogoths abandoned the siege of Rome, and general Belasarious was able to bring victory to the Roman Church. 538 was the breaking ground for the Papal Roman Empire. During these 1260 years, the Papacy slaughtered, tortured, killed, and burned at the steak about 50 million Christians and "wore out the patients of the saints" according to Daniel 7, Revelation 13, and 17. Count 1260 years from 538 A.D. and you arrive at 1798. What happened in 1798? Revelation 13 says the beast would receive the "deadly wound". Napoleon sent his General Berthier with an army into the Vatican, captured Pope Pious VI, removed his signet ring, threw him into prison where he died the next here, and abolished the Papacy. Napoleon declared that the Papacy had come to its end.

The Bible says in Revelation 13 that this deadly wound will some day be healed, and all the world will wonder after the beast. After Lucifer seats himself on the throne of the Papacy, he will perform miracles to deceive if possible the very elect.

I know you think I'm crazy Abraham, but I can look at you straight in the eye, with conviction piercing your soul and dividing it assunder, and tell you, I know that these things are true, and they will come to pass. Prophecy has been fulfilled, and will continue to be fulfilled until the Lord comes crashing through from the clouds. All the signs of the last days are upon us, and if you don't get ready, you will come up to the timing of the plagues and realize that you needed to hewed and squared for the building.


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 6:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know you think I'm crazy Abraham, but I can look at you straight in the eye, with conviction piercing your soul and dividing it assunder, and tell you, I know that these things are true, and they will come to pass.
Please tell me you don't own a gun.


RE: /shrug
By Abrahmm on 4/9/2010 7:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
The great thing about prophecies is that they are always written vague enough where connections can be made to anything that remotely fits. The ones where people can jam something that "fits" into them stay in the book, while ones that come and go without something remotely close to fulfilling it get removed. Eventually you have a book filled with prophecies that happened, making it seem like it's a miracle.

All this conversation reminds me of the South Park Episode about John Edward.


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/9/2010 11:20:56 AM , Rating: 1
Religion has done a lot to promote science, and many of the scientific advancements of The Enlightenment were funded by religious people and institutions. Sir Isaac Newton wrote more about God and religion from a believer's perspective than he did about science.

Ignorant people engage in suppression of facts, and the scientific community has as many such people as do religious institutions (the East Anglia Climate Research Unit as one example).


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 12:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
"Religion has done a lot to promote science"

In an accidental manner, sure. Founding a monastery may help to keep the art of writing alive, and some monks may have also done scientific research, but that wasn't the original intent.

Further, religion has done more to actively and intentionally suppress science than any other institution mankind has created. Have you forgotten all the scientists, astronomers, philosophers, and others who were imprisoned, tortured, exiled, or put to death for their views?

As for the statement that Newton wrote about God, what exactly do you believe that proves? Had he not wasted so much time on primitive superstition, it seems clear he would have devoted even more time to advancing science.


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/9/2010 12:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
Your knowledge of history is lacking then. Religious institutions have intentionally promoted and funded science in very meaningful ways throughout history, especially during The Enlightenment (despite what secular communist history teachers are currently teaching in high school and college). The example of Galileo was not purely a religious dispute. Read closely into it. He inadvertently insulted the Pope, who originally commissioned his work, by using the arguments of the Pope through the viewpoint of Simplicius.

Please give me a list of all of the scientists, astronomers, philosophers, and others who were imprisoned, tortured, exiled, or put to death for their views. Then make a list of all of the scientists, astronomers, philosophers, and others who were imprisoned, tortured, exiled, or put to death for their views by communists. Then blame that on all atheists to discredit atheism. Then go read up on Aristotle and logical fallacy.

Newton's religious beliefs inspired his science. Please prove that Newton's beliefs were a superstition. Also, do you reject science that through the passage of time is now "primitive" even if it has never been disproved, or do you just reserve subjective, disparaging adjectives for religion?


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 12:57:51 PM , Rating: 3
"Please give me a list of all of the scientists, astronomers, philosophers, and others who were imprisoned, tortured, exiled, or put to death for their views"

The astronomer Giordano Bruni -- executed for heresy.
The writer John Frith -- executed for heresy.
Theologian Girolamo Savonarola -- executed for heresy.
The Poet Anne Askew -- executed for heresy.
Basil the Physician -- executed for heresy.
George Blaurock -- burned alive for founding Anabaptism.
The laywer Pomponio Algerio -- boiled alive in oil for heresy.
Jacques Gruet -- tortured for weeks, then executed for heresy.
The Priest Thomas Bagley -- burnt alive for heresy.
The "drummer boy" Hans Bohm -- executed for heresy.
Anne du Bourg -- hung for heresy.

How many more names you want? I could list a hundred more. All killed by Christian authorities for their beliefs.

I won't even go into the tens of thousands of ordinary citizens killed by the Spanish Inquisition, or events like the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. You really should read some primary historical documents some time. The stories of young Christian children -- some as young as 6 or 7 -- dragging headless corpses through the streets of Paris as they sing praises to God for the murders -- are particularly chilling.


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 1:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
Correction: that's Girodano Bruno. I must have been thinking of Carla Bruni's naked photo shoot when I typed that.


RE: /shrug
By ttowntom on 4/9/2010 2:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
Wow Ntstott you certainly set yourself up there. I really love seeing a porkypie history lesson smackdown.


RE: /shrug
By todda7 on 4/9/2010 3:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it seems like pp did my job here.

But do not forget to mention all those people who did not express or "practice" science because they where afraid of the consequences. And all those who ended up accepting the religious lies about the world, and not wondered about it all and eventually make important scientific discoveries.

If it hadn't been for religion, we could all be exploring the stars right now.


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 4:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
"If it hadn't been for religion, we could all be exploring the stars right now."

Gibbon, the greatest historian of all time in my opinion, makes a strong case that the fall of the Roman Empire -- and the subsequent 1000+ years of darkness -- were brought about in large part due to the rise of Christianity.

I think the same thing could recur in the modern world. But this time around, it won't be the Christians ... but rather a tossup between radical Islam and radical environmentalism, both of which are vehemently anti-scientific.


RE: /shrug
By todda7 on 4/10/2010 10:55:45 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but you also have to remember that slavery was also probably one of the main reasons to slow scientific progress, especially in the Roman Empire.

I wonder how the world would be if a scientific revolution would have started in the time and place of the library of Alexandria, some great feats could probably have been accomplished even at that early time. In 100 years, they would probably be where we were in the 1800s... At the same time, maybe the earths population wasn't ready for a technological revolution until the 1800s and 1900s. Maybe they would have blown themselves up right when they got the chance.


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/9/2010 4:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
No. He completely missed the point (as did you) and only completed half of the assignment. My point was that it doesn't matter because he is engaging in a massive logical fallacy. I thought I gave enough clues for him to get that rather than rattling off what we already know. I want to see him use the same fallacy to condemn atheism for the evils of communism.

quote:
Please give me a list of all of the scientists, astronomers, philosophers, and others who were imprisoned, tortured, exiled, or put to death for their views. Then make a list of all of the scientists, astronomers, philosophers, and others who were imprisoned, tortured, exiled, or put to death for their views by communists. Then blame that on all atheists to discredit atheism. Then go read up on Aristotle and logical fallacy.


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 5:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
"I want to see him use the same fallacy to condemn atheism for the evils of communism."

You're grasping at straws now. Stalin did not kill people "in the name of atheism", nor were any of his victims killed for refusing to accept atheism... or any other religious belief.

Stalin killed those who threatened his rule, plain and simple. Trying to equate that to burning someone alive for heresy is truly pathetic.


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/9/2010 5:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
No. Your ignorance is truly pathetic. Those heads of theocracies who persecuted and murdered in the name of religion did so because they perceived their victims as a threat to their power and rule. If not religion, then they would have chosen other reasons.

Stalin, in fact, did kill and jail many people for refusing to accept atheism and reject their own religious beliefs. That is a historical fact.


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 7:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those heads of theocracies who persecuted and murdered in the name of religion did so because they perceived their victims as a threat to their power and rule
It wasn't just the Popes, Priests, Bishops, and other "heads of theocracies". It was rank and file Christians who did most of the actual killings.

They had no "power to protect". So why were they murdering unbelievers, if not to fulfill the word of god?


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/12/2010 10:27:01 AM , Rating: 2
And it was rank and file atheists (communists) that did most of the actual killings of over 100 million people. They had no power to protect, so why were they murdering the religious and other enemies of the state? So what's your point? What influence did the leaders have on the rank and file in both cases? What other personal motivations might the rank and file have had?

You find the Christian scripture from the New Testament that can be interpreted as 'go out and murder for God,' and then get back to me.

To repeat myself:

You cannot quote any scripture from the New Testament that can be interpreted as 'kill the heathens.' Come up with one. That the Catholic Church was evil during the dark ages and behaved just like the religious leaders who had Jesus and His Apostles martyred only proves that evil people will misuse religion to accomplish their evil designs. I don't accept the Pope as a religious authority as I am not Catholic, and even Catholics teach that the dark ages were a time of great evil within their church and among their leaders. I know you want to paint all Christians as Catholics from the dark ages, which is why I like to paint you as a Stalinist who revels in the murders of millions in expansion of your favorite atheist form of government (not that I actually believe that but in order to make a point with an equally fallacial argument).

quote:
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
-Galatians 3:8


RE: /shrug
By Duwelon on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
RE: /shrug
By pklat on 4/9/10, Rating: 0
RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/9/2010 11:01:56 AM , Rating: 1
I'm still waiting for purely scientific data to disprove the existence of God. Hint: science can only be used to examine natural phenomena, not supernatural ones. Evidence of evolution merely disproves narrow interpretations of Genesis.


RE: /shrug
By kdvlder on 4/9/2010 11:19:46 AM , Rating: 2
And what supernatural phenomena do we have to examine?


RE: /shrug
By justsomeone on 4/9/2010 11:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
Mostly none, as science in general isn't interested. Science is not the way to find God although I do believe it easily points toward a creator. Feel free to take a stab at my question below. Regards


RE: /shrug
By Abrahmm on 4/9/2010 11:36:33 AM , Rating: 2
Right, because super natural implies that it isn't real. Should science have to prove that Harry Potter wasn't real, and that Frodo never destroyed the ring? No, because it's a fictional story.


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 11:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
That's nice. I'm still waiting for a working definition of the word 'God' and some sort of scientific proof that whatever is described by that word exists. There seem to be a lot of contradicting definitions for that word. How can one investigate the existence/nonexistence of soemthing when that thing is not even rigidly defined?

You are absolutely right on your last point though: evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origins of life.


RE: /shrug
By justsomeone on 4/9/2010 11:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
God has no interest in accommodating the scientific method to prove his existence or love for mankind. Sadly, you'll never find Him that way. It's not how He has chosen to reveal Himself. Regards


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 11:54:40 AM , Rating: 1
But what is 'God'? You still haven't defined what it is. Here's a question for you:

X is a four-sided triangle which exists outside space and time, cannot be seen or measured, and actively hates blue spheres. Does X exist?

But you can't answer that question for me, can you? That's because it is a classic example of an unthinkable proposition. 'God' falls in the same bucket of undefined irrationality as the above example.


RE: /shrug
By justsomeone on 4/9/2010 12:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, I definitely can't define God for you. I'm sorry that it's just not going to work that way.

You still can't answer for me how all this matter suddenly appeared here in the universe when it violates the scientific laws of conservation of mass and energy. Now that's irrationality at it's finest :)


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 12:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
And you can't prove where 'God', whatever that means, came from. This line of argument doesn't lead anywhere.

There are numerous proposed explanations for the origins of the universe, but they are topics of modern physics, not biology. The origin of the universe has nothing to do with this article so I'm not going to argue with you on that. See my original post to which you replied.


RE: /shrug
By abel2 on 4/9/2010 12:17:47 PM , Rating: 1
You cannot define everything. As God is omnipresent and omniscient. Therefore he knows everything that is and is everywhere that is. There is no way to define him with the tools we have at our disposal. If you cannot see that then you are truly ignorant. It would be synonomous with defining the 4th dimension. Or explaining a third dimension to people who grew up on a 2d surface. It would be beyond your comprehension. So do not act smug and educated that you can't prove God's existence or define him with mans limited knowledge and vocabulary (as it's limited by the vastness of God's infinite knowledge).

You can also look at it like hedging on a free bet. If God exists then I win, alot. If he doesn't exist, then I lose nothing. So in that perspective it would also be stupid not to believe in God.

Never stop questioning everything. As soon as you stop questioning whether or not there is a God, you are done living. I believe in God, but I never stop questioning if he exists. That would make me a hypocrite.


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 12:38:27 PM , Rating: 3
Pascal's wager is a highly flawed argument. I suggest you read up on that before trying to use it as an excuse basing you life around an unprovable proposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Analys...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#God_re...

In reality you aren't betting on whether or not 'God' exists, you're betting on whether or not a single interpretation of a single prescribed set of beliefs outlined in a single holy book from a single religion is correct. Because face it, you can't practice every religious belief out there, and only one of them can be correct. There are a nearly infinite number of choices to bet on, thus it is far more complex than just whether or not 'God' exists.


RE: /shrug
By abel2 on 4/9/2010 12:50:35 PM , Rating: 1
I didn't specify which religion I believe, because I don't believe a single one of them. I believe God exists. That there is an entity that created all that is. Everlasting life may or may not exist. I'm not worried about that at the moment because I'm not dead at the moment. I'm more concerned with understanding this reality that I currently am present in.

Maybe I shouldn't have said that I would win alot. As I do not know if I would actually win anything. But then you could argue that if there is a probability you would win nothing no matter if you were right or wrong, then there is no point in betting.

Perhaps I should've said that if I was correct I 'could possibly' win alot. I think the major flaw in Pascal's wager is that people are focused on the suspected prize for being correct. Personally I would be more satisfied if I knew the answer, not if I was going to live for 'eternity'.


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 2:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
" That there is an entity that created all that is. "

Since you seem to be into ontological arguments (even if you don't know what they are), may I ask this--- what created that entity?


RE: /shrug
By abel2 on 4/9/2010 3:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well if I knew that, I should be a rich man. But I reckon that until someone can knock a chink in the armor of the First Law (thermodynamics), that there remains many infinite questions man will never answer.


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 4:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
"I reckon that until someone can knock a chink in the armor of the First Law (thermodynamics)..."

We already have; it's called the Big Bang.


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/9/2010 6:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
Which initially was a big blow to atheists who originally believed in an eternal universe, without beginning or end, and used as proof by the religious as evidence of God. Now, most of the ignorantly religious reject it as a threat to their beliefs. Sometimes it's hard to figure out which side is more ignorant...


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 6:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
"Which initially was a big blow to atheists"

Please don't spread disinformation. The concept of a finite universe has been around since the days of Kepler, and Erasmus Darwin (Charles Darwin's grandfather) wrote a conceptual description of an oscillating universe very near modern descriptions.

The idea that the Big Bang was some sort of blow to atheistic thought is pure historical revisionism. Is your faith truly so important to you that you're willing to spread lies and deceit?


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/12/2010 10:45:58 AM , Rating: 2
LOL! The concept of a finite universe has been around since the days of Adam.

So how many atheists were running around during the days of Kepler preaching the finite universe?

I was referring to many modern atheists who originally rejected The Big Bang Theory when it started to become widely accepted within the scientific community. The tables have turned, now it is ignorant theists who reject The Big Bang.


RE: /shrug
By abel2 on 4/10/2010 11:18:55 AM , Rating: 1
And where did the Big Bang come from? Here athiests and religious folks alike find themselves at the same question. The origin of everything. Was it some supreme being we don't yet understand, or was it some supreme emanation of energy.. that we don't yet understand. (and that in some way proves one of the laws our reality is based on to be inaccurate)

Both theories seem cuckoo to me, but that doesn't stop me from believing in one and questioning both relentlessly.


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/13/2010 11:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
I believe in both and question both relentlessly. ;)


RE: /shrug
By TesterChip on 4/9/2010 2:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
You said: "You can also look at it like hedging on a free bet. If God exists then I win, alot. If he doesn't exist, then I lose nothing. So in that perspective it would also be stupid not to believe in God."

A long, long time ago, there was this man traveling through the woods. He came upon this fire. He did not know what it was and declared it a miracle and continued on with his journey. He eventually died from freezing to death. If he would've stopped and looked instead of calling it a miracle he may have lived longer still.

I know the story isn't that great. It does show that you may think you have nothing to lose, but you always have something to lose.


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/9/2010 5:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
"You said: "You can also look at it like hedging on a free bet. If God exists then I win, alot"

What if a god exists, but he/she/it/they is angered by anyone with the presumption to pray to them or worship them? The "free bet" fallacy assumes that only a single interpretation of a single religion is valid, when in reality there are countless millions of possible religions, and believing in the wrong one might actually increase your punishment in some hypothetical afterlife.


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/9/2010 6:36:05 PM , Rating: 1
Jesus loves you, Porkpie. LOL!

Your argument here is correct. From the other perspective, it would be called a false, insincere faith.

My personal belief is that it all comes out in the wash eventually.


RE: /shrug
By Kaleid on 4/13/2010 6:02:29 AM , Rating: 2
Bravo.


RE: /shrug
By Abrahmm on 4/9/2010 12:19:59 PM , Rating: 3
This is the perfect post to dissect in order to show the absolute ridiculous lengths some people will go to defend a belief they had indoctrinated into them since birth instead of looking at things logically to come to their own conclusions. The idea that they may be wrong, or believed something that is wrong for so long in their life is horrifying to the average person and the natural defense mechanism is deny they were wrong to begin with and create illogical and far reaching reasons as to why they are not wrong, using the reasons as evidence for their critics. This "evidence" is used just as much as to convince themselves that they are right.

"God has no interest in accommodating the scientific method to prove his existence or love for mankind."

Here we have him acknowledging that science has not found God, and protecting himself further by assuming it never will. He immediately makes up an excuse for why this is, which he has convinced himself as much as he is trying to convince us. "God has no interest in it". Science has not found God because God doesn't want science to find him, is his reasoning. This is a very clear defense mechanism in trying to justify why his indoctrinated beliefs will never be proven by science, and why evidence will only mount against him.

"Sadly, you'll never find Him that way."

Again, no proof, no evidence, he just "knows" this is true. How? Because he has convinced himself it is true to defend his beliefs against large amounts of evidence that contradicts it.

"It's not how He has chosen to reveal Himself."

And once again, another defense mechanism. How do you know what God has chosen to do? Has God told you? Has God told anyone in the Bible that he will not let science discover him? No, this is something you have made up in your own mind or heard from someone else that made it up to defend your beliefs against criticism, and it works so well because you rely on reasoning that cannot be disproven much the way a super natural being cannot be disproven. No one can prove what God has chosen just like they can't prove what he hasn't chosen.

Religions succeed in believing such things that cannot be scientific proven and require faith to keep real. The religious claims on physical things that can be observed and experimented, much like God creating man 4000 years ago and giant floods, are the things that will fall first and continue to fall as science advances. With each scientific advancement, God is finding less and less that he is in control of, while followers are finding more and more that they must make up defenses for.

If I didn't love computers so much, I'd love to become a psychologist that analysis human beliefs and behaviors. So much fun. And I'm not personally attacking you justsomeone, this was just a perfect example of a stereotypical response from a religious follower.


RE: /shrug
By justsomeone on 4/9/2010 1:12:32 PM , Rating: 1
Nope, you're assuming too much my friend. It's not a defense mechanism at all, but rather a personal truth based on scripture with lots of reasoning. I didn't just make up that response, and I've never been afraid of looking at any line of reason objectively. I didn't quote the scriptures, but I should now so you don't think I'm totally making this stuff up or somehow dodging scientific logic on my own.

Hebrews 11:6
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists..."

So you must believe in order to come to the God I serve. It's just terribly inconvenient for those that must see to believe.

Mark 10:15
"I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

I'm only posting these scriptures to help you understand where I'm coming from and not in any way condemning anyone for not believing the way I do. It's a choice based on a personal experience that I will by no means ever be able to scientifically defend, nor feel the need to. Unfortunately you can neither see or analyze my experiences as evidence.

Abrahmm, you obviously feel that we religious folks hide behind a veil with such responses. For me God intended it that way... for it all to seem foolish to those who think they are wise.

1 Corinthians 1:27
"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."


RE: /shrug
By Abrahmm on 4/9/2010 3:52:55 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I said you made up or someone told you those reasonings as a defense. Someone writing it in a book 2000 years ago doesn't make it any more true than if you made it up yourself, and it's origin's are still the same. It's still a defensive statement in order to nullify non-believer's claims against their belief. It's basically like saying "It's my opinion so it can't be wrong" defense. God only presents himself to those that believe, so if you are skeptical you will never see him. Same idea.

I really don't care what people believe to tell you the truth. They can believe that God inseminated a virgin whose son was killed and rose as a zombie, or they can believe that a flying pasta dish created the universe. If you keep your beliefs to yourselves, you can believe whatever you want. You can think you are right, and I can think you are dumb, it doesn't really matter. What drives me nuts is when people do ridiculous things, or disrupt the progress of society in the name of "God". Whether it's blowing yourself and innocent people up, or demanding your religious beliefs should be taught in public schools, it's ridiculous to force your belief in a mythical being on everyone else.


RE: /shrug
By nstott on 4/9/2010 11:58:36 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, science helps to explain 'how' while religion claims to explain 'who.' It's annoying to see two groups argue one side of a different argument.

There cannot be scientific proof of God given that God is not of the natural world that science is used to learn about. For me personally, I've invited God into my life and then received a collection of experiences that singularly prove little but collectively defy probability. It's something that one has to experience for themself.


RE: /shrug
By drycrust3 on 4/9/2010 12:41:33 PM , Rating: 1
"God" is a title, not a name. "God" (with a capital letter) is the title of the supreme god. That is why in one of the psalms (can't remember which) it says "The LORD is God".


RE: /shrug
By citizend13 on 4/9/2010 2:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
I just cant see how you guys can argue about these things. I see many here quoting the bible yet think about it, the bible was a collection of stories written by men. God did not hew them into a piece of rock, men wrote them down on a piece of parchment and hid them away. I just cannot bring myself to base my faith, my entire belief system on something written by men. What if someone found a copy of mein kamf hidden away- then someone decided that this Hitler guy is the Gods son and all should worship him- well its a stretch but you get my point? Believe in God, there is no logical explanation for God but such is faith- just don't try to put a face on him, don't try to explain his/her/its will because that's just bull$h#t.


RE: /shrug
By SwamiB on 4/9/2010 3:18:37 PM , Rating: 3
Mr. Butler,

With all do respect, what are your credentials? Do you own a college degree in a science discipline? Please respect the fact that individuals spend their entire life and career researching evidence for evolution just as others spend their entire life learning the bible and paying hommage to God.

Are they both proven by experimentation yielding the same reproducible results? No, they are both theories. One attempts to explain the differences in biology of the world and the other attempts to explain how we should follow and preach the scriptures. They are different, even though both theories base the beginning of time at a gap larger that we can fully prove and account for.

The bible says nothing of evolution and evolution does not explain God, so what is the problem here?????


RE: /shrug
By DarkElfa on 4/9/2010 3:48:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well said, finally a wise statement in this whole mess.


RE: /shrug
By Fatesrider on 4/9/2010 4:50:06 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, you have fallen into the bad thinking that evolution itself is a theory.

It's not. It's a proven fact.

There is no such thing as "THE theory of Evolution."

Also, you seem to believe that because something is called a theory, that it is not provable. This is also incorrect. Theories MUST BE PROVABLE, REPEATABLE, UNREFUTED and SUPPORTED BY FACT. Otherwise, they're called hypotheses - which is equivalent to speculation and myth and is where religion lies with regard to creationist ideas.

What we actually have is the fact of evolution supported by multiple theories - all of them proven to have a demonstrable, repeatable, unrefuted impact on evolution. What is NOT known is the exact mechanism of evolution - that is to say what causes it. The current ideology (yes, a hypothesis) is that it's a combination of multiple factors already known as theories that impact it. What is not known is whether all of the theories of evolution have been discovered. There may be a mechanism that up til now eludes science.

Unlike religion, science rarely announces definitive answers. It acknowledges there are gaps in human knowledge. To do otherwise is to be arrogant beyond belief, or just plain stupid.

So, to summarize: Evolution is a fact. The theories supporting it are provable, but may not be all of the reasons why evolution happens. In order to come up with a theory of evolution, it must be scientifically observable, provable, unrefutable and factual. (Intelligent Design was shot down by being soundly and repeatedly refuted by facts. It is NOT a credible theory.)

One can have faith in anything they want, but when it comes to science, it's best to stick to facts and not just speculation, myth or hypothesis.


RE: /shrug
By SwamiB on 4/9/2010 6:35:21 PM , Rating: 1
Are you sure?

Issac Newton would disagree. If it is a fact (provable, etc.), then it would be a law.

Here is the definition of theory (see below). Where does it say that it is a proven fact? You have strong convictions that evolution actually did occur, without any doubt. I agree, but I would not tell people it is a proven fact, because there are MANY aspects of evolution that are still NOT proven or explanable.

Why don't we do an experiment...we can be there to watch!!

Lets re-create the beginning of the universe (aka The Big Bang), watch the primordial subatomic particles collide through hundreds of thousands of years making larger, heavier elements on the periodic table, then creating larger planetary objects, which eventually will create Earth 9 billion years later, then the first evidence of life (a prokaryote)arrives 5.8 billion years later, then the first sign of aerobic, multi-organelled organisms (eukaryote) arrive 1 billion years later, then about 450 million years later we see a multicellular organism called a trilobite, then 200 million years after that we see more multi-cellular organisms living in water, then terrestrial animals and fauna are created turning into angiosperms (flowers) and other species of plants, then the rise and extinction of the dinosaurs, then the early monkeys, apes, and homonids, then the Neanderthals, then the homosapiens, then what....

Why don't we do this experiment and watch everything unfold before us. We can document it through billions of years. Then we can live to tell about it. We can tell our children and grandchildren and their grandchildren...and they would say what..."How do you really know?" We would say, "because I was there and we have all of the facts to prove it." We lived billions of years to show and tell you about this.

Now, do you think there still would be people who agree that it is true (or fact as you wrote it) and also disagree? Absolutely, that is why it is so heavily debated, despite if we actually do have ALL of the facts.

the·o·ry /'?i?ri, '???ri/ Show Spelled[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-ries.
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.contemplation or speculation.
7.guess or conjecture.

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

There is a plethora of information that are regarded as facts to support evolution. Again, I believe that evolution did occur. We simply DO NOT have ALL of the facts to make it a proven fact. Maybe some day, possibly billion years from now when we can travel through time, we can document every single occurences that were lost in the rift of time.


RE: /shrug
By drycrust3 on 4/10/2010 2:05:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
you have fallen into the bad thinking that evolution itself is a theory


Let us consider a few problems with this find:
1) Since fossil layers are supposed to represent how many millions of years ago an animal died in Evolutionary theory, this one should be dated less than 10,000 years.
2) With known rates of erosion, this location should surely be near the beach or washed into the sea after 2 million years, not in the middle of South Africa.

As I've said before, you cannot ever be a great scientist unless you disprove a theory you hold dear. Why? Because disproving your own theory shows your level of impartiality is greater than your own likes and dislikes.

quote:
There is no such thing as "THE theory of Evolution."


Go ahead, believe that. As I said earlier, believing it is a fact will hold you back. Got to go and walk the dog now.


RE: /shrug
By porkpie on 4/10/2010 10:28:06 AM , Rating: 2
"With known rates of erosion, this location should surely be near the beach or washed into the sea after 2 million years, not in the middle of South Africa"

Huh? It seems your grasp of geology is as weak as your knowledge of biology.


RE: /shrug
By drycrust3 on 4/11/2010 4:30:29 PM , Rating: 2
It probably is, but does that mean I'm wrong? By your book, yes, but by science, no. I read somewhere that after 36 million years there wouldn't be any continents left, they would have all eroded away. So that means either what we are seeing in Africa is what is left of so many million years of erosion, or that continent appeared in a relatively short time ago in geological terms. Saying "It has to be millions of years old because we just found a 2M year old monkey there" is not an acceptable answer because by all appearances they dated the monkey by where they wanted it to fit into some time line, although I doubt that argument would hold any water with Evolutionists. In addition what would things like cliffs and volcanoes look like after 2M years? They'd hardly exist.

Again, this is the problem with the type of science Evolution teaches: You think "It has to be millions of years old for my theory to work, therefore it is". You don't think, "What is the evidence telling me and does it fit in with my theory?". As I said earlier, you will never be a great scientist unless you disprove a theory you hold dear. Why? Because impartiality is essential to being a great scientist, and evolution teaches you jokes are better than proof.

You still haven't explained why a person walking a Savannah in Sth Africa stumbles upon a "2 million year old" human type skeleton. Surely the thing should be 40 or 50 metres under the ground (using the theory of Evolution model). Doesn't this sound like "Lucy"? The famous skeleton that was just below the surface of the ground. Doesn't it strike you as "odd" that when millions of million year old fossils are tens or even hundreds of metres below ground level, suddenly "important ones" are just below the surface, as though they were left there by some fluke event e.g. a flood? No?

It is known that raw diamonds have been carbon dated to no more than 80,000 years old, and while that is well outside the desired time range for the theory of Creation by God, it is also a real stumbling block for this skeleton. Isn't Sth Africa where they mine for diamonds? So if the raw diamonds under the ground date to 80k years, how is this monkey (or whatever it is) supposed to be 2M years old?

The normal protocol for theories is those who promote them should front up with the evidence, so front up! Don't just say "Ummmm .... I think it's ummmm .... 2M years old", prove it! Where is the carbon dating? Yes, there shouldn't be a trace, so have they done it? I doubt it. Don't say "This is 2M years old, thus I don't need to Radio Carbon date it", say "My theory is it is 2M years old, therefore if I radio carbon date it I should get a Radio Carbon date that says it is more than 100k years old". If the Radio Carbon dating comes back with a less than 100k year reading, say so. Don't put it in the "too hard basket" because you've made such a drama of it's age that you have a responsibility to admit you might be wrong.
The onus isn't upon me to disprove this monkey isn't human and isn't 2M years old, the onus is upon you to prove how it got from 40 metres below ground level to where the TV report I saw said the boy found the monkey, to prove it has the right DNA to be what they claim it is, and a whole lot of other things besides.

As I said in an earlier post, all this does is shift evolution further from reality than it already is. Jokes about Creationists are popular, but the joke is on the tellers, not us, because every time an Evolutionist tells a joke it means they don't prove they are right, and every time they do that they weaken their own theory, and every time they tell a joke the Creationist goes and finds new evidence.

So mocking me because I don't study geology is not going to stop me being right.


RE: /shrug
By Torren on 4/11/2010 6:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
It probably is, but does that mean I'm wrong? By your book, yes, but by science, no. I read somewhere that after 36 million years there wouldn't be any continents left, they would have all eroded away. So that means either what we are seeing in Africa is what is left of so many million years of erosion, or that continent appeared in a relatively short time ago in geological terms.

I am sorry, "You read it somewhere" isn't good enough. This statement in itself is SO far from any basis in reality that I just couldn't let it go. What is your source? You claim ""by science" you are right? Where is the proof? Do you dispute that geologists agree the world is around 4.5 billion years old? The fact that you think erosion is the only direction for land to go in underscores your total lack of an understanding of geology. How do mountains form? plate tectonics? I assume you believe earthquakes occur given all the recent news? Frankly, your lack of understanding and your willingness to proclaim yourself right and extrapolate further from these falsehoods diminishes any arguments you make down the line.

Simply put, you make it too easy to call you out on BS on this one.


RE: /shrug
By drycrust3 on 4/16/2010 5:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am sorry, "You read it somewhere" isn't good enough.


My thanks for your critique. I agree, it isn't good enough, but there are lots of assumptions we make based upon being told things we believe are true. Does South Africa erode? Do earthquakes make mountains? Do people really bury nuclear waste under mountains? Does the Nile change to a muddy colour at certain times of the year? Oh, those were just things people told me. Is there really a dam at Aswan? Is it really filling up with mud? Did man really descend from apes? Is an ape like skeleton found just below ground level 1 million years old? They were all things people told me.

Really your questions come down to one simple question:Is evolution exempt from the normal rigours of scientific examination? Obviously it is, but is that right? My arguments are based upon evolution not being exempt. Is that right?

One of the fundamentals of science is you compare apples with apples. You want me to prove this ape isn't what "experts" claim it is? The normal protocol in science is the onus is on them to prove it is what they say it is, but I have to prove to you South Africa should have eroded away rather than just saying it? I HAVE to PROVE to you this million year old ape can't be millions of years old because it was found sitting on top of fossil layers that elsewhere in South Africa that have been radio-carbon dated to 80K years, but they can just say "It is 1 million years old" without so much as even trying to prove it?

quote:
This statement in itself is SO far from any basis in reality that I just couldn't let it go.


I am sorry I don't have the credible scientific knowledge you expect, and I am sorry I don't have the time and finances to afford to be able to make a scientifically credible critique of this ape that would meet the standards you and other scientists expect.
The saddest fact, though, is that there are probably a million people on this planet who could do that, including yourself, and won't, not because they believe or don't believe evolution is a fact, but because they consider this ape to be exempt from the normal rigours of science.
Since it is obvious they aren't doing what they should, which is to question whether the so called "scientific claims" made are actually true (and the point of the questions I raise is to show there should be doubts about the claims), it leaves novices like me to wave the "is this good science" flag.

quote:
Frankly, your lack of understanding and your willingness to proclaim yourself right and extrapolate further from these falsehoods diminishes any arguments you make down the line.


What more can I add? Is Evolution exempt from scientific examination?


RE: /shrug
By drycrust3 on 4/25/2010 10:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you dispute that geologists agree the world is around 4.5 billion years old?


Since I am a Creationist, then obviously I dispute the world is 4.5 billion years old. I'm not going to bother going to go and find the source which said every continent on this planet would have eroded into the sea after 36 million years because even if I did you wouldn't believe me.
quote:
The fact that you think erosion is the only direction for land to go in underscores your total lack of an understanding of geology.

The whole point of my argument is that if a fossil layer is reliably dated to less than 100k years, then what is on top of that layer is normally expected to be less than 100k years old.

quote:
Frankly, your lack of understanding and your willingness to proclaim yourself right and extrapolate further from these falsehoods diminishes any arguments you make down the line. Simply put, you make it too easy to call you out on BS on this one.


Either put up the evidence to prove that yea ape found on top of a 100k year old fossil field is 1M years old or accept that it is less than 100k years old. One Charles Darwin postulated that young fossils are found on top of old fossils.
Regardless of my being easy to "call out" on this, you have provided no evidence to support the theory you claim to support. The onus is upon you to present it, and, my friend, you have been found "wanting".


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/9/2010 6:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
I said a 'working definition', as in, a definition that is useful for something. You've clarified that 'God' implies 'The Lord.' Great, now give me a working definition for 'The Lord.'


RE: /shrug
By drycrust3 on 4/10/2010 3:29:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
now give me a working definition for 'The Lord.'


There are two parts to answer that question, but as part of that explanation you need to recall the second line of "The Lord's Prayer" (that is, the prayer Jesus taught the disciples, e.g. Matthew 9:9-13) "hallowed be your name". The word 'hallowed' means 'most holy', thus it means Jesus considered the name of the Father is sacred. This is also the view of Jews and most Christians.
Now another thing you need to understand is the Bible is written so it is ready for public reading.
In the ancient times a person had to be "trained" before they could read the sacred scriptures in public, and this was primarily because they had to know that when they came to things like God's name, which was plainly written, you weren't allowed to say it, rather you had to say "the Lord" because his name was sacred. Since most readers in churches aren't trained to do this, the Bibles come "ready" with his name changed to "the Lord". To indicate that this "the Lord" actually is God's name as distinct from some other lord, most Bibles capitalise the letters e.g. "the LORD".
So, you ask, what is a working definition of "the LORD"? Please be respectful and accept that his name is sacred and it doesn't need to be stated here. If you really want to know, then use Google.
quote:
'God' implies 'The Lord.'

God is the title of the supreme god, and that person that holds that title is The LORD.


RE: /shrug
By LRonaldHubbs on 4/10/2010 12:17:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, you ask, what is a working definition of "the LORD"? Please be respectful and accept that his name is sacred and it doesn't need to be stated here. If you really want to know, then use Google.

I hope realize that to an atheist this request is quite meaningless because nothing is sacred. 'God' has been referred to under many names: Yaweh, Elohim, Elochai, Jehova, Allah, and probably others that I've missed. A name is a designator, not a descriptor. I have a name. But my name says absolutely nothing about what I am. My name is not a working definition. Neither are 'God' or 'The Lord' or any of the above-mentioned names. Not one of them gives any description of what it is that I asked you to define. You've danced around my question and still not actually defined anything.

And Google isn't going to help, because that would require that some person somewhere has actually thought up such a definition and published it to the internet. No such definition exists, nor can it exist, which is the precisely the point I have been making all along. And as if to prove my point, if there were a working definition, it would have been in your interest to simply state it here rather than sidestepping and telling me to search. Clearly you don't have a working defintion either.


Creationism vs. Evolution or Creation = Evolution?
By gsearle on 4/9/10, Rating: -1
By todda7 on 4/9/2010 11:02:10 AM , Rating: 5
Religious texts are wrong, and they have not simplified anything. Even if the creation story in Genesis was simplified for a dumber audience, it is simply wrong. You do not have to be a genius to figure that the Sun was made before the water on the earth, not vice versa. They are not simplified because scientific details was incomprehensible, they are just scientifically wrong because the people at that time (who wrote it) did not know better. If the texts were written (even partially) by (a) almighty, all-powerful, omnipotent being(s), they could easily have made relevant, easily understandable, scientificly correct claims like for example that all life on the planet descends from one (1) cell, which eventually have evolved into different species by the means of natural selection. What this means, in perspective, is that our brain is made in a way to help us survive. Ergo there is no sin.


By porkpie on 4/9/2010 4:37:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:

The statement that in the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth, I cannot accept...

It will not do to say that Moses merely intended to tell what
God did, in making the heavens and the earth out of matter then in
existence. He distinctly states that in the beginning God created
them. If this account is true, we must believe that God, existing
in infinite space surrounded by eternal nothing, naught and void,
created, produced, called into being, willed into existence this
universe of countless stars, the next thing we are told by this
inspired gentleman is that God created light, and proceeded to
divide it from the darkness.

Certainly, the person who wrote this believed that darkness
was a thing, an entity, a material that could get mixed and tangled
up with light, and that these entities, light and darkness, had to
be separated. In his imagination he probably saw God throwing
pieces and chunks of darkness on one side, and rays and beams of
light on the other. It is hard for a man who has been born but once
to understand these things. For my part, I cannot understand how
light can be separated from darkness. I had always supposed that
darkness was simply the absence of light, and that under no
circumstances could it be necessary to take the darkness away from
the light. It is certain, however, that Moses believed darkness to
be a form of matter, because I find that in another place he speaks
of a darkness that could be felt. They used to have on exhibition
at Rome a bottle of the darkness that overspread Egypt.


You cannot divide light from darkness any more than you can
divide heat from cold. Cold is an absence of heat, and darkness is
an absence of light. I suppose that we have no conception of
absolute cold. We know only degrees of heat. Twenty degrees below
zero is just twenty degrees warmer than forty degrees below zero.
Neither cold nor darkness are entities, and these words express
simply either the absolute or partial absence of heat or light. I
cannot conceive how light can be divided from darkness, but I can
conceive how a barbarian several thousand years ago, writing upon
a subject about which he knew nothing, could make a mistake.
The
creator of light could not have written in this way. If such a
being exists, he must have known the nature of that "mode of
motion" that paints the earth on every eye, and clothes in garments
sevenhued this universe of worlds. We are next informed by Moses
that "God said let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters
and let it divide the waters from the waters;" and that "God made
the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the
firmament from the waters which were above the firmament."

What did the writer mean by the word firmament? Theologians
now tell us that he meant an "expanse." This will not do. How could
an expanse divide the waters from the waters, so that waters above
the expanse would not fall into and mingle with the waters below
the expanse? The truth is that Moses regarded the firmament as a
solid affair. It was where God lived, and where water was kept. It
was for this reason that they used to pray for rain. They supposed
that some angel could with a lever raise a gate and let out the
quantity of moisture desired. It was with the water from this
firmament that the world was drowned when the windows of heaven
were opened. It was in this firmament that the sons of God lived --
the sons who "saw the daughters of men that they were fair and took
them wives of all which they chose." The issue of such marriages
were giants, and "the same became mighty men which were of old, men
of renown."

Nothing is clearer than that Moses regarded the firmament as
a vast material division that separated the waters of the world,
and upon whose floor God lived, surrounded by his sons. In no other
way could he account for rain. Where did the water come from? He
knew nothing about the laws of evaporation. He did not know that...

From "Some Mistakes of Moses", by R.H. Ingersoll.


By porkpie on 4/9/2010 4:45:36 PM , Rating: 3
"The earth was void and without form, then began to coalesce with water and solid parts about the time the sun ignited"

Oops...never read your bible, did you? Allow me to educate you.
quote:
And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.

And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

In other words, Moses claims God first created the earth, filled it with rich, flowering plant life.... then created the sun.

Rather hard to explain of course how those plants were blooming without sunlight. Even more hard to explain how we had day and night before the sun existed.

This is why I find it ironic at those who laugh at religions like Scientology, which teaches we were brought to earth by atomic bomb-wielding aliens. All in all, its neither more nor less ridiculous than the core beliefs of Christianity, the ever-regenerating virgins of Islam, or any other religion.


By nstott on 4/9/2010 5:02:21 PM , Rating: 4
1. Moses was not a scientist, and he was describing a vision from a particular frame of reference (the earth).

2. What did Moses really write and how has that been altered through either mistake or intent over the passage of time? How is the meaning affected by translation?


By porkpie on 4/9/2010 5:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
So you're now admitting your bible IS wrong, but that those mistakes are merely either "translation errors" or the inability of the original author to write accurately?

If Moses was divinely inspired to record truth ... would it not matter whether or not he was a scientist?

If translation errors have altered the meaning this much, how can you accept that ANYTHING written in it is accurate?


By nstott on 4/9/2010 6:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
Now?! When did I ever say that any current edition of the Bible is completely right? Keep those straw men coming...

Moses was recording a vision, and his viewpoint, I believe, was from the earth. Given how the earth was formed, the biblical description of what was seen can have some sense made out of it. If I tell you that I drove down the highway at 55 MPH, do you reject it as false since I didn't include the velocity and acceleration components from the rotations and revolutions of the earth, solar system, galaxy, and universe?

Moses was divinely inspired to record spiritual truth, not scientific facts. The point of the creation story is to say that God created humans and the earth (as well as give some origin to the Law of the Sabbath). The point is 'Who,' not the specifics of 'how.' Science does not lead anybody to the source of spiritual salvation, so such things are not relevant.

One should not accept the Bible at face value, and I believe that to be one of the greatest fallacies that most Christians engage in. That is why I believe that God allows the Bible to be flawed by men. What we have is a starting point from which to engage in seeking out God on a personal level and then growing in faith from personal experiences. If the Bible is true 'just because,' then why not any other book? (ie, Dianetics)

Everything you have engaged in here is akin to me dismissing all of science due to the anthropogenic global warming farce or any other thing that scientists have gotten wrong.


By porkpie on 4/9/2010 6:29:28 PM , Rating: 3
"Moses was divinely inspired to record spiritual truth, not scientific facts"

Ah, and "spiritual" truth is considerably different than the real thing, eh?

I am perpetually amazed at what people can convince themselves of, if they rationalize hard enough.

"One should not accept the Bible at face value"

Meaning you admit you have to interpret it...and everyone does that differently. And millions of people have interpreted it to mean that killing the heathens is God's will. How can you say their interpretation is wrong, and yours is right? Surely a Pope or an Arch-bishop knows the word of God better than you.

" That is why I believe that God allows the Bible to be flawed by men"

Carrying this further, if the bible has been "flawed by man", how can you trust anything in it? You've claimed already that it doesn't teach this, or it does teach that. Do you really not understand that you've just short-circuited your own argument?


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 4/9/2010 6:41:51 PM , Rating: 1
No Porkpie, you are just talking to someone that can not explain to you. My post below explains where you made your error. The Bible has no error.... Though yes, be careful of some translations. As it's easy to lose meanings in a translation. That is why you can not simple read through the bible and think you understand it. Normally you have to read several editions, unless you can read Hebrew or ancient Greek.


By porkpie on 4/9/2010 7:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Bible has no error.... Though yes, be careful of some translations.
Lol, until I read this, I actually thought all your other posts were serious. Now I realize they're all tongue-in-cheek, and you're really just spoofing the ridiculous anti-logic displayed by most Christians.

You really had me going for a while there, I have to admit.


By nstott on 4/12/2010 9:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
Science can only look at or measure the natural world. God and spirituality are supernatural, so science has no way of dealing with spiritual truth or matters.

You cannot quote any scripture from the New Testament that can be interpreted as 'kill the heathens.' Come up with one. That the Catholic Church was evil during the dark ages and behaved just like the religious leaders who had Jesus and His Apostles martyred only proves that evil people will misuse religion to accomplish their evil designs. I don't accept the Pope as a religious authority as I am not Catholic, and even Catholics teach that the dark ages were a time of great evil within their church and among their leaders. I know you want to paint all Christians as Catholics from the dark ages, which is why I like to paint you as a Stalinist who revels in the murders of millions in expansion of your favorite atheist form of government (not that I actually believe that but in order to make a point with an equally fallacial argument).

quote:
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
-Galatians 3:8


I don't trust in a book. I trust in God. The Bible teaches me to seek out God, and that is the only use I have for it.

I didn't short-circuit my argument. I short-circuited your straw man.


By nstott on 4/12/2010 9:48:35 AM , Rating: 2
Militant christians and militant atheists are just two different flavors of the same stupid.

Ignorance is your new best friend.


By Kaleid on 4/13/2010 6:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, as soon as someone mocks say Dawkins in say Southpark we atheists are quick to light embassies on fire and authors will have to hide because of our fatwas fearing their lives.

Sorry, but there is no way both sides are equal.

Most atheists are at least a tiny by of agnostic. The god hypothesizes are rejected because the evidence is missing, just like it is for Russell's teapot or the toothfairy.

Militant in these the case of atheist often simply means outspoken.


By nstott on 4/13/2010 9:44:33 AM , Rating: 1
It means haranguing religious people over something that should not matter enough to waste the time and energy.

Dick Dorkins and militant atheism are mocked on South Park (I guess your statement was based on blind faith...):
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155369
http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Go_God_Go
http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Go_God_Go_XII

Atheists burn down churches rather than embassies. Look at all of the damage to churches and piles of dead bodies made by your fellow atheists during the godless communist revolutions around the world, comrade.

‘Militant atheist’ means an asshole who pesters people just like a Jehovah's Witness pesters people who don't believe the same way. Assholes like Dick Dorkins.


By Kaleid on 4/14/2010 4:42:01 AM , Rating: 1
You're using South Park as a source? Really?

"It means haranguing religious people over something that should not matter enough to waste the time and energy."

It DOES matter..because through religious people and in turn religious laws in many countries religion effects: gay marriage, adoptions, abortions, abstinence only (sex ed), creationism in school, anti-stem cell research, views on women, religious indoctrination, general pseudo-science promotion, the divisiveness, killings because of a documentary, fatwas because of a book and death threats because of cartoons etc...in other words it poisons so much one needs to take a stance against it and at the very least stand up for secularism so that we all do not have to share those unprovable and damaging to society views. Why is this so hard to understand?

And many get tired of being told non-truth like "you cannot be moral without god", "you're going to hell for you beliefs" etc:
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/3158/2965810215...

Yes, I know atheists can be bad, I've responded to that earlier.
But the case can (again) easily be made on how badly a lot of religious people who are under the commandment not to kill have still done so millions of times throughout history and as I pointed above still make societies so much worse.

You won't find a lot of violence from the atheists today, those who live in more or less free countries. Dictators of course do whatever they want and Stalin for instance didn't want any competition when he set himself up into the role that is not too different to a deity...an unelected dictator who does what it wishes.

Dick Dorkins? What useless name calling. Read this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnist... and notice that he hasn't written the headline. Why is religion so taboo?

If you won't read it, then let me quote:
"A politician may attack an opponent scathingly across the floor of the House and earn plaudits for his robust pugnacity. But let a soberly reasoning critic of religion employ what would, in other contexts, sound merely direct or forthright, and it will be described as a shrill rant. My nearest approach to stridency was my account of God as “the most unpleasant character in all fiction”. I don’t know how well I succeeded, but my intention was closer to humorous broadside than shrill polemic. Restaurant critics are notoriously scathing, but are seldom dismissed as shrill or intolerant. A restaurant might seem a trivial target compared to God. But restaurateurs and chefs have feelings to hurt and livelihoods to lose, whereas “blasphemy is a victimless crime”. "

The books is very academic, and apart from what he writes about the god of the old testament in a sort of Monty Python:ish way you can find tons of much more poisonous quotes from the founding fathers of USA.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 4/9/2010 6:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
Porkpie, your only a few lines into the Bible and you forgot the first lines:
Genesis 1
1 First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

This is when God create the Sun, the stars and other bodies in our universe... End of subject... The Sun was not made after plants..
What you are forgetting is what science believes to be very true too. Early in Earths creation, the atmosphere on Earth was so thick you could not see the Sun and stars from the ground with the naked human eyes.
To quote a "King James" edition is a horrible source to get best translations. King James liked flowery poetry works and thus paid to have the Bible translated in such a manner. In more current translations were it was tried to do word for word; on third day God lets the lights in the sky appear (they were already there but could not be view, however after God's third day you could see them). That is to say, the atmosphere cleared up and if one was alive at that time he could see the sun, moon, stars, and everything else.

Again, once science gets something correct, it matches what the Bible has already stated for thousands of years. Difference, science explain why and how, the Bible just tells the story of what happened... No details about why or how, expect that God wanted it that way.


By porkpie on 4/9/2010 6:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
"This is when God create the Sun"

Incorrect. The language is very clear, even in texts which far predate the KJ version. Plants were made on the third day, and the sun was made on the fourth.

I'm well aware that modern translations have tried to explain away problems like this by modifying the text, but that is nothing but sheer intellectual dishonesty.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 4/9/2010 6:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct the Bible is very clear... the very first line states:

Genesis 1
1 First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

The light appear - can be viewed by someone the Earth on the third day... If you can not see and understand this then how do you follow any direction in life... Again the very first lines in the Bible 1 First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth. Only a fool would say right after this line, well no I think he made the heaven (Sun, Moon, stars) and Earth on the third day, even though I was just told in the book, in the first line, in the first words, "1 First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth"?


By porkpie on 4/10/2010 5:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
The religious right is now down-rating direct quotes from their own bible? I'd love to hear their rationalization on that one.

I'm still waiting for an answer. If you believe the sun was created on Genesis Day One, how do you explain the account of Day Four, where a "greater light to rule the day" was made.


By nstott on 4/12/2010 9:41:51 AM , Rating: 2
It's a matter of translation being influenced by the interpretation of the day. Moses was relating a vision as viewed from the earth. The sun became visible after the atmosphere cleared up enough to see the sun during the 4th period ("day" is how it was translated, but even the NT states that a day to God is a thousand years to man. This isn't literal but is a Hebrew expression for 'a very long time').


By thurston on 4/10/2010 11:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rather hard to explain of course how those plants were blooming without sunlight.


Not hard to explain at all, magic.


By FITCamaro on 4/10/2010 12:45:05 AM , Rating: 2
I said this in another post, but there isn't a single thing in the Bible that has been disproven. In fact its historical accuracy makes it one of the best sources of early human life that we have. In school history class and theology class were pretty much the same thing for two years.

quote:
scientificly correct claims like for example that all life on the planet descends from one (1) cell


It's not called the THEORY of evolution for nothing. It is not proven. Gravity is still called a theory as well. Yet you act as if evolution is 100% fact. For all you and I know, the human race was genetically constructed by advanced aliens from the DNA of other creatures on this planet and then left here.

As others have pointed out, the idea that a single cell created in a pond from non-living material evolved over time into something as complicated as our bodies is just as far fetched as a supreme being winking everything into existence. Believe what you will. Insulting another's beliefs by stating yours are fact when that is completely not the case is pure idiocy.

Until we have a time machine and can go back to see, we will never know.


By Major HooHaa on 4/9/2010 7:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to study the Bible, then go back to the original Hebrew version. I heard that some books have been taken out of the Bible by some religious editors over the years.

And that's just assuming that the Bible is right. Humans have worshiped many gods over the history of the Human race. The Christian God is just one of those gods jostling for human belief.

To quote from Terry Pratchetts Diskworld novels...
"It is said that the Gods play games with the lives of men."
"Thunder rolled... It rolled a six."


By Kaleid on 4/10/2010 6:53:19 AM , Rating: 2
No they did not have to simplify.. it's that the authors of those "holy" books didn't know nearly as much we know today.

Jesus for instance could have told people about hygiene, he must have known. Would he have done so millions of lives could potentially have been saved:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOfjkl-3SNE


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki