Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth and human beings.

It is prideful arrogance to believe that life happened by accident.

The two major flaws in evolutionary theory are that it can't explain how life arose from lifelessness, and it can't explain how my material brain plays host to my immaterial mind (or thoughts, if you like).

I just assumed a chemical reaction of ammino acids brought life from lifelessness. As for thoughts, even a dog has thoughts and dreams. What's so special about them?

And then we always go back to the question all three year olds ask their parents. Who made God, how did He get there?

Keefer, I'll save you the trouble and call myself a three year old.

There are believers and non-believers; I'll accept that. However, as the believers far outnumber the non-believers, I have to follow the lib model and play the "consensus" card. Playing that card, the conclusion is that God created the heavens and the earth, and the proof is undeniable.

Yet another inconvenient truth. Case closed.

BTW: non-believers are morons...

True science and scientific resolutions always acknowledge creation. They may not acknowledge God but how can you acknowledge creation and not God?
True scientists and there are some, will readily see that what scientific undertakings are done, there has to and must be a higher understanding in the God. Not a god mind you. There are many gods but only one true God. He is the one science will always point to, why? Because he's the reason for the evidence we have.
I say Praise His Holy name for He alone is Good.

The only way to understand the creation is called faith.

Well stated, truthisright. I am not a good Christian, but I am a believer, and I have faith.

Non-believers are morons...

Keefer,
All non-believers are lost and need Jesus Christ.
I'm glad you are a believer.

Mark,

There are so many issues with this post I don’t know where to start.

The main problem is that you simultaneously equate evolution with non-belief when there are in-fact many believers of multiple faiths who concur with Darwin’s theory of evolution (Pope JP II for example).

But also, you are holding “scientific inquiry” to a harsher standard than your own beliefs. While it is true positivist empirics can only go back and explain (or at least theorize) so far (i.e. Where does rationality come from? What was there before the Big Bang? What is outside the universe? What does a thought weigh?), it is also true that there are the same limits to religious belief, the most obvious; “Where did God come from?” but along the same lines; “If God is benevolent, why is there pain and suffering?” and “If God is omnipotent and omniscient, how do humans have any choice in their actions?” and “Does God exist outside of existence?”

You mischaracterize those who “believe” in evolution as unquestioning with regards to the theory. Anyone who statically holds that evolutionary theory is “Holy Writ” or “unquestionable” doesn’t understand the process of scientific inquiry because SI is a dynamic process constantly being examined and tested in an effort to improve the body of knowledge from its current state.

For example; had a few individuals foregone SI in the face of discounting God’s word, we would have never adopted the heliocentric model of the solar system, would still think diseases we now know are caused by bacteria, viruses, or physiological maladies were internal manifestations of sin, and would allow a few tyrants any personal whim to be legal because they were divinely mandated.

Personally, I am admittedly ambiguous with regards to claiming knowledge that goes beyond our sentient empirics. Maybe existence came about because of an incomprehensible power residing in one entity we call God. Maybe our existence is a sheer matter of probability and a confluence of physical laws? No one can truly know. Maybe we’ll find out when we die or maybe we’ll find out when aliens land on Earth.

Either way, it is arrogant and close-minded to think we have the answers.

What I fundamentally disagree with is the assertion that non-believers are the only ones who put too much weight on the abilities of the human mind. Embracing evolution requires a humility in acknowledging that we are merely a bi-product of mathematical chance. In other words; out of all the countless galaxies and all the billions of stars and billions of potentially life-supporting hunks of rock out there, Earth and humanity’s brief occupation of it was a probable certainty.

There is nothing inherently problematic with chance or randomness; it is only mentally and existentially disturbing.

It feels better to believe that we are here for a reason and that everything (good or bad) happens for a reason, but that doesn’t make it true.

If faith is the belief of the unseen, then we all are required to have some semblance of faith, regardless of where we put it.

Also, please explain your assertion that we shouldn’t be able to hold non-congruent thoughts. What does this have to do with evolution? Are you saying that thought processes are subject to biological evolution too? Because while the contextual structures which facilitate human thought are products of evolutionary biology, it doesn’t lead to the conclusion that the content of the mind are also.

I’d just like some clarification on this point of yours.

The title of this article is somewhat of a non-sequiter. To suggest that there is a 'debate' between evolution and creationism is absolutely ridiculous. How can there be a debate between something which is supported by 100% of the physical evidence (ie, Evolution) and something which is backed up by distortions and outright lies? Biology, cosmology, astronomy, chemistry etc. all point to the universe and humanity being billions and millions of years old, respectively. Creationists have..lets see..the Earths shrinking magnetic field argument (debunked) and the shrinking sun argument (debunked) and the moon dust argument (debunked) and the Moon is moving away too fast for it to be billions of years old argument (debunked..and with just a calculator, no less!) and the Earth's spin is slowing down argument (Debunked) and my personal favorite, the 'light used to travel faster in the past which is why everything appears so much farther away now' argument. (Debunked..obviously.)

God has always been. He is the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
The loving God that He is, God created human beings to love and serve Him. He gives us freedom of choice. Do I chooseto love Him or do I do? the choice is mine.
God could have created us like the angels who do not have choice.
Praise His name for His good and His mercy endureth forever.
You don't have to believe there is a good, you can believe in the foolishness of Darwinism.
If you could ask Darwin today the same questions as when he was living, I assure you his thoughts would be diffrent, why? Think about that.

Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Was Abraham righteous by his own act, of course he was, but only through the grace that God gave to him.
I believe there is a God, does that make me righteous? Only if I am serving and being obedient to the God of Creation.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for.
If we could see those things we hope for, then where is our hope? That's a good question posted by the Apostle Paul to the church in the New Testament.

Every person believes in and has faith in something. Be it science or God.

There is a yearning in every human for this belief. When that is not fulfilled with God, then those people turn to science and that in a sense becomes their religion. Atheists I have known are more ferent evangelists than most Christians I know.

Science has not proven evolution, but it is accepted as the only means and ways to have life without God. There are some who posit that God used evolution to create life on earth as well.

If evolution, as put forth by Darwin were true, why don't we see any examples happening? I believe that there is micro-evolution, but there are no cases I have heard of that show that DNA was added to a species, it is subtractive. So where did the larger come from?

The debate will continue. Even when the end comes there will be those who deny God.

I think some people don't want to have a higher being as that implies having a responsibility to that higher being. In order to divorse yourself from it, you must have an alternative that fills the void.

There is evidence that shows that it was possible that there were dinosaurs existing on earth with man in the form of various pottery. One such piece shows a man-like form sitting on top of a Triceratops. There are Polonium halos that have been found in granite, but there are desperate explainations put forth that really denounce the person who found them, rather than the evidence.

We all look to prove our beliefs. We all look for fill the yearning in us to know where we came from. I firmly believe that God left us bread crumbs, so to speak, that lead us to Him, but we have to seek.

is, well, insufficient

Yep, as is evidenced in Job 38:

"Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind,
and said:

"Who is this that darkens my counsel by words without knowledge? brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me.

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements? Surely you know!

Or who stretched the line upon it?

To what were it foundations fastened?

Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Or who shut in the sea with doors, When it burst forth and issued from the womb; When I made the couds its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band; When I fixed my My limit for it, And set bars and doors; When I said, 'This far you may come and no farther, and here your proud waves must stop!

"Have you commanded the morning since your days began, And caused the dawn to know its place, That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, And the wicked be shaken out of it?

It takes on form like clay out of a seal, And stands out like a garment. From the wicked their light is withheld, And the upraised arm is broken.

"Have you entered the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths? Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Or have you seen the doors of the shadow of death?

Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth?

Tell Me, if you know all this.

Where is the to the dwelling of light? And darkness, where is its place, That you may take it to its territory, That you may know the paths to its home?

"Do you know it, because you were born then, Or because the number of your days is great?

"Have you entered the treasury of snow, Or have you seen the treasury of hail, Which I have reserved for the time of trouble,
For the day of battle and war?
By what way is light diffused, or the east wind scattered over the earth?

"Who has divided a channel for the overflowing water, Or a path for the thunderbolt, to cause it to rain on a land where there is no one, A wilderness in which there is no man; To satisfy the desolate waste, And cause to spring forth the growth of tender grass?
Has the rain a father?
Or who has begotten the drops of dew?
From whose womb comes the ice?
And the frost of heaven, who gives it birth?

The waters harden like stone, And the surface of the deep is frozen.

"Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loose the belt of Orion?

Can you bring out Mazzaroth in its season?

Or can you guide the Great bear with its cubs?

Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?

Can you set their dominion over the earth?

"Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, That an abundance of water may cover you?

Can you send out lightnings, that they may go, And say to you, 'Here we are!'?

Who has put wisdom in the mind? Or who has given understanding to the heart?

Who can number the clouds by wisdom?

Or who can pour out the bottles of heaven, When the dust hardens in clumps, And the clods cling together? "Can you hunt the prey for the lion, Or satisfy the appetite for the young lions, When they crouch in their dens, Or lurk in their lairs to lie in wait?

Who provides food for the raven, When its young ones cry to God, And wander about for lack of food?."

As the Lord tells us in Psalm 46:10--

"Be still and know that I am God"

Jeremiah

why is there pain and suffering?
Posted by:Anillo

Sin my friend, Sin. That was the price man paid when he disobeyed God in the Garden.

But He is Just to forgive those who ask Him!!

Jeremiah

Despite my disagreement with about 98% of what's posted on this site, I have enormous respect for Mark and the others for allowing people with opposing arguments to post their thoughts. That being said, there is a lot of reference to "the fringe left", or "the kook left", or the "radical elements of the left". I also have a strong dislike for those radical elements...the Cindy Sheehans, Code Pink etc. On the flipside, the "fringe" or "radical" or "kook" right also exists and I wonder if you would place yourselves and this site in that category?

Your questioning evolution and subsequent support for intelligent design and/or creationism (in my humble opinion) places you deeply in the fringe element of the right. It's one thing to question issues like global warming, and cherry pick articles to support certain ideologies and claims, but to deny science in favor of a single religious dogma (again, in my humble opinion) undermines the crediblity of everything else you discuss on this site.

Anillo writes:
"What I fundamentally disagree with is the assertion that non-believers are the only ones who put too much weight on the abilities of the human mind. Embracing evolution requires a humility in acknowledging that we are merely a bi-product of mathematical chance. In other words; out of all the countless galaxies and all the billions of stars and billions of potentially life-supporting hunks of rock out there, Earth and humanity’s brief occupation of it was a probable certainty.

There is nothing inherently problematic with chance or randomness; it is only mentally and existentially disturbing."

The belief that we are the product of dice rolling presumes the existence of dice to roll. Where did the dice come from? That is, a universe existing such that probability and chance govern its appearance is a presumption not only of the existence of a universe, but that in such a universe probability would be working. Of course, such a process does answer questions you claimed to be unanswerable from believers as a process approach explains that pain could exist to serve the end of a more fulfilling experience, and of course if the process of experience is what's important, choice matters as appearance, and unexplainable sensations (appearance) still exist and are not of themselves superficial.

Your faith in randomness and probability are among the rigid set of assumptions held by those who believe themselves to be scientists. I'm not sure it's arrogance so much as typically blindness to the fact that they come from a certain perspective, and that that perspective is not the way things are so much as the way they see things.

Those who are truly scientific weigh the effects of actions and consequences, and as you say those who believe things happen for a purpose (or for a process), that things happen according to some grand design, tend to be happier than those who close their minds to that possibility. In this way, those with a sense of the sacred, the unseen, the significant, however you would say it, are the true scientists. The way our minds work, they don't stay open very long, we tend to find a belief that works and stick with it, even when that belief is that our experience and learning are fluid.

The belief that we are the product of dice rolling presumes the existence of dice to roll. Where did the dice come from?

Posted by: Morris at April 14, 2007 12:10 PM

Exactly, Morris, and if we follow that line of reasoning we have to ask ourselves, if God exists, where did He come from? If your faith says, He was always there and that's that, why can you not say the dice were always there to roll and that's that?

Jeremiah,

I'm not actually "asking" why there is pain and suffering. I believe they are just the same part of life as joy and happiness.

What I am getting at is that it is inconsistent to hold that God knows and controls all; yet was somehow "surprised" by man's sin and therefore doled out a punishment. To me, it is apparent that God created us to sin, since he created us with free will or a "choice" to do so. Sinning was in the plan from the get go, and therefore pain and suffering were too.

Of course, this is going on your premise that pain and suffering are directly caused by "sin", but you open up yourself to the problem of what constitutes "sin" and what doesn't.

Are there children starving to death because football players touch a dead pig's skin on the Sabbath? I know this is a somewhat flip example, but the blanket opinion that "sinning" causes "pain" doesn't actually explain anything.

And those who ask forgiveness often continue to suffer and those who never seek forgiveness often live pleasurable lives. I know you can answer this by referring to the afterlife, but that isn't the issue here.

Morris,

Again, you hold my ideas up to a harsher light than your own. I was going to expand my post to incorporate contemporary theoretical physics which attempt to account for the likelihood of other universes, but I thought it was getting long-winded already.

I never said my "faith" rests in probability and statistics, and even if it was implied, in no way should it be seen as rigid.

I did, however, explicitly state that I am ambiguous and that it is arrogant and close-minded to think we know the answers. I don't know if you simply didn't see that part or choose to ignore it, but regardless of your impressions let me assure you; I am no more sure that we are a product of randomness than I am we are of creation.

The only faith I do embrace is in that our world can be a lot better than it is right now, and that there is unused potential in the human spirit to treat each other with respect and dignity. Personally, I draw this strength not from a religion but from a sense of empathy I have developed (and am still developing) through a variety of life experiences and from examples drawn from a variety of historic people and events, combined with the wealth of good people I have met in my life so far.

This isn’t the path everyone must take, nor is it the path everyone should take. It is just what works for me. I don’t try to make people think this way just as I don’t want people to make me believe what they do. We are each our own individual, but our actions impact those around us. Whether you are a good person out of secular or religious reasons doesn’t matter; just being a good person is what is important.

"Exactly, Morris, and if we follow that line of reasoning we have to ask ourselves, if God exists, where did He come from? If your faith says, He was always there and that's that, why can you not say the dice were always there to roll and that's that?"

Actually, as Jeremiah's post illustrates, my faith says I don't know where God came from. My faith is that there are things unknown and/or unknowable. The trouble is, people who claim to be scientific and claim to act by understanding the mechanism generally claim to act based on reason rather than a leap of faith, when in fact they are taking a leap of faith by asserting that the dice were there to roll in the first place. That's not scientific, so it's not consistent with the scientific method they'd presume. My method of knowing is not limited to what can be understood explicitly, I know my existence is essentially dancing on a cloud.

THAT'S YOUR CHOICE

Some folks minds are clouded probably from the intake from the smoke. It's very evident.

I know my existence is essentially dancing on a cloud.

Posted by Morris at April 14, 2007 12:43 PM

Wow, thank you, Morris. That was pure and beautiful poetry.

"Where does a thought come from? How much does it weigh? What is its physical makeup?"

We've actually made quite a bit of progress in anwsering these questions in the last 10 years. Answering these questions have enabled to create alot of medicines and medicinal procedures that can correct brain dysfunctions. How do we know we're right, because we have created cures and they have worked. We also have used the brain model of a neural network and have implimented it into software to make artificial intelligence that works.

Also you can weigh a thought. An EEG measures electrical potential diffrences in the brain and with a little math you can integrate over the EEG data and find the actual mass of a thought. But since an electron only weighs ~9*10^-31 grams even billions of trillions of electron would weigh practically nothing.

Wrong Morris,
Your existence is placed on this earth only by the grace of Almighty God.
If he decides to remove your heartbeat or your breath in an instance, where will you go and what will you say to the one who removed it?
Only God has that eternal right. Not us.
Don't be clouded by such thinking. (no pun

Complaining that evolutionary theory cannot explain the origin of life is much like complaining that your wrench cannot be used to cut your hair. Evolutionary theory is not a tool for explaining the origin of life.

And incidentally, it is not a tool for describing the neural activity of a human, either.

Oh, and I consider it prideful arrogance and the worst kind of hubris for humans to believe that the entire universe was created for us. Or that the creator, should there be one, cares at all for us. And not merely cares only for us, but cares only for those few of us who have been 'born again'. Sorry.

Keefer,

Are you a believer?

You believe on your terms? You know the will of God? You know and understand God's hand in wielding the sword of righteousness in Iraq? You display Gods tolerance and humility in your posts?

H.S. Spare me.

Jeremiah,

You are a clown. You think you know the will of God? You understand, display, and live the teachings of Jesus Christ? H.S. You are judge of your fellow man? Whether he may be republican, democrat, American, or Iraqi? You dare preach the parable's of Jesus, while displaying NONE of his traits. You Sir, I pray most for. For once dear Jeremiah, try to display the humility and grace of your Christ.

Mark, I am truly saddened by the ambivalent piousness you display. Truly you too must find humility and grace. No one takes your religeous rants seriously while promoting war and the pestilence associated with it.

I am no example of anything near the child of God I wish to achieve. I am neither humble or gracious. As I learn from each days lessons and attempt to correct the character defects I display, I get lost, espescially when reading the pious tripe written on this blog in particular.

I am no saint. I am American and want the best for the United States of America. I find no answers on this blog, only fear, militarism, and narrow minded fealty to a boy king.

OMNIPOTENCE. The Church affirms the biblical view of divine omnipotence (often rendered as "almighty"), that God is supreme, having power over all things. No one or no force or happening can frustrate or prevent him from accomplishing his designs.
My question is: Can God create a stone that is so heavy he can not lift it?
If the answer is yes, then there are things too heavy for him to lift. If the answer is no, there are things he can not create.

You are a clown.

You may call me anything you wish, this is the United States of America, Right? Where you can say anything that pleases you no matter who it hurts or degrades, where there is no true RIGHT or WRONG, Right? Cause that's the way it seems.

Well, here's what the Word of God says about those things--

Matthew 15:18--

"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man."

Can you correct these things? Yes you can, How? By accepting Jesus Christ into your life as Lord and Savior.

You think you know the will of God?

What is the Will of God? The Holy Bible.

You understand, display, and live the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Through God's help I can, Yes Sir!

H.S. You are judge of your fellow man?

No, not me, But the One who created me. He is the Great Judge. BUT, it is my duty to acknowledge to my fellow man when he is in sin. How can I know when my fellow man is in sin?

When the Holy Spirit comes down and reveals the Word of God on my heart the sin, that was once in my life is now clearly visible in others life.

Whether he may be republican, democrat, American, or Iraqi? You dare preach the parable's of Jesus, while displaying NONE of his traits. You Sir, I pray most for. For once dear Jeremiah, try to display the humility and grace of your Christ.

I will defend the Word of God no matter the cost, for as a christian it is my duty, to take a stand against the enemy, who is Satan, and whos army roams the land, seeking souls of fallen man.
Therefore, there is much work to be done in this land filled with sinners.

John 3:21--

"But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."

Jeremiah

Deleted - overly insulting.

You really should delete the other one then.

Anillo,

Mind is something un-evolutionary in character; Mind is something which makes you run into a burning building to rescue me when pure biology instructs you to stay put. There is no conceivable biological advantage for you to rescue me in such a circumstance - and if Darwin really had it right, the only thing we should have within us are things actually or potentially biologically useful.

It is this inexplicable mind that we have which indicates that there is something outside and above what we call the physical world. This outside Mind injects itself into us and gives us a set of values and desires which are entirely impossible from a purely evolutionary point of view. Without this outside interference, all we would be is a jumble of biological impulses having no point or purpose.

You are in fundamental error about the nature of thought and exploration - as evidenced by your assertion that SI is what led us from geocentric to heliocentric thinking in opposition to religious doctrine: actually, it was very careful research by non-Christian scientists who determined that the universe revolved around the earth. It was much later that Christian scientists, who developed a larger body of knowledge, determined that the earth revolved around the sun (the whole Gallileo issue was that he was asserting as fact that which had not been proved...once it was proved, no one had any problem with it at all).

As for why there is pain - well, it is very useful, isn't it? No pain and you'd stick your hand into a fire. The real question to ask is why is there injustice and cruelty in the world? And the answer to that is yet another blow at the purely Darwinist view of the universe.

Just as there can be no biological reason for you to risk your life to save mine, there can be no biological reason for you to be cruel or unjust to me. There might be a biological reason to kill me, but there is no biological reason to torment me or to take so much from me that I die, and thus become useless to you as a source of supply. Whence comes cruelty? Also from the outside. Someone had to first think it up and then deceive other people into doing it - evolution can't explain either self-sacrifice or selfishness...only the concept of God and the understanding that we are Fallen explains things.

And that is also the great failure of this so called Age of Enlightenment - the inability of people to actually think and go where their thought leads them. The desire for very easy answers and, also, of being let off the hook, has trumped genuine inquiry. On a fundamental level, we have made no intellectual advances since St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his "Summa Theologica" nearly 800 years ago. All we've done since then is cobweb spin to try and refute his unanswerable arguments...that and, of course, develope ever greater technology which has allowed us to think that we're more advanced than our ancestors (actually, we're just cleaner and have cooler toys...).

Anillo,
Yes, God did create man with choice!
He also set rules in place!

Genesis 2:16--

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; "but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you SHALL NOT EAT, for in the day that you eat of it YOU SHALL SURELY DIE."

Later on, as the account shows, there was clearly punishment for their disobedience...

Genesis 3:16--

"To the woman He said--

I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." "then to Adam He said, Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it':

"Cursed is the ground for you sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you And you shall eat the herb of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return."
-----------------------------------

What did God do to clean up all the mess of Adam and Eve? He sent Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for every person from beginning to end, So that man might have and escape from the pits of hell, and yes, Anillo, that includes you, Won't you thank Him, won't you accept Him, won't you praise Him, for all He's done for you?

:)
'

Jeremiah

H.S. You are judge of your fellow man?

No, not me, But the One who created me. He is the Great Judge.

Posted by: Jeremiah at April 14, 2007 03:18 PM

Jeremiah, would your God, the Great Judge, look with favor upon a progressive-minded individual, if that person accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior but continued to have liberal thoughts and perform pacifist acts, attending anti-war demonstrations, etc.?

raker,

No, he didn't go as over the top as you did.

CO,

As in all things, it would depend upon the motivation more than upon the act - if attending an anti-war demonstration is the result of you answering the call and doing what you understand is required of you as a Christian, then it is fine...if attending is just a way to let off steam and let fly with hatred of President Bush and all things conservative, then it is wicked...

Jeremiah, would your God, the Great Judge, look with favor upon a progressive-minded individual, if that person accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior but continued to have liberal thoughts and perform pacifist acts, attending anti-war demonstrations, etc.?

CO,

To answer your question, If an individual I knew were to accept Jesus Christ as personal Savior, they would most likely not have liberal thoughts and actions, and would more than likely be conservative in nature, hence Christian Conservative.

Jeremiah

"The two major flaws in evolutionary theory are that it can't explain how life arose from lifelessness, and it can't explain how my material brain plays host to my immaterial mind (or thoughts, if you like)."

Gravitation theory doens't explain these things either.

Dear Mark,

The two major flaws in your post is
1) you clearly don't know what the theory of evolution is. You ascribe attributes to it that it doesn't have

ie Theory of evolution is not impacted by and doesn't describe how life arose(that's a separate theory, origin of life)

2) You (and all the others who debate evolution) mix up a scientific idea with a religious one.

So....Evolution is a scientific idea There are no observations or experimental data that refute it and millions that support it.

It is one of the most solid theories in terms of that. There aren't really any other factually based ideas that hold up as an alternative. For that reason evolution is held above other "unproven" theories and considered a scientific principle even though still refered to as a "theory".

Creation/ID is a religioius idea. There is no scientific evidence to support it . . . zero, nada, nothing, zilch, zippo. Furthermore there is physical evidence that actually REFUTES it. Creation/ID is not a scientific theory, it is not based on fact, observation, experiment or any other tool of science.

One more thing, CO.

Do I think that God would look with compassion upon a liberal who makes and excuse to let terrorism rule our world? I think would be a better way to put it in terms of the overall picture at large here CO.

I don't think God likes what the terrorists are doing, and referring back to the earlier statement by raker13 when he said "find humility first" Why don't you ask the terrorist to find humility? They seem to have a problem with that portion, Don't you think? When they go around strapping bombs onto innocent civilians to blow themselves and other innocents up, Is that called the humility you speak of, Are we to be tolerant of such mass suicide, such CRUELTY?

No, I think we have an obligation to put a STOP to it and we have an obligation to help our Brothers and Sisters who are under such oppression and tyrrany over in the Middle East!!

If someone were to harm your friend or kin people would'nt you be willing to stand in the gap and do something to defend your friend or kin?

Or, would you just say "Nah, they can handle it" until it's too late, and your next in the crosshairs?

That's the problem we are facing you see, and it's the problem we are going to fix at all cost, because we as the SANE individuals of the United States of America took a vow to DEFEND AND PROTECT!!

Jeremiah

Thanks, CO.

"The only faith I do embrace is in that our world can be a lot better than it is right now, and that there is unused potential in the human spirit to treat each other with respect and dignity."

That sounds like a good place to start, Anillo.

"My question is: Can God create a stone that is so heavy he can not lift it?
If the answer is yes, then there are things too heavy for him to lift. If the answer is no, there are things he can not create."

Unfortunately, this is the problem of limited understanding. It's not God that cannot do these things, it is you who can't get your head around the idea that God can do these things. If you look at it the other way, a state of not being able to do something makes sense only within a context in which someone is able to do something, that is the distinction of powerfulness would not be necessary if everything that exists was in that state. So to presume a powerlessness presumes the existence of a powerfulness.

All your riddle proves is that your point of view lacks fluid ability, both in your sense of time and with your language. To suggest that your limitations somehow extend to something beyond your understanding is to be blind to the fact that something could be beyond your understanding.

Mark,

I meant my other post. Not der blessed one. He's special.

Here's an amended response:

"it is my duty to acknowledge to my fellow man when he is in sin. How can I know when my fellow man is in sin?

When the Holy Spirit comes down and reveals the Word of God on my heart the sin, that was once in my life is now clearly visible in others life."

So God has revealed himself unto you. Wow. You're special. He has revealed himself unto you and George W. Bush. Two peas in a pod. And as such, now that you're special, you have the gracious ability to judge your fellow man. And of course, you do that with the TOLERANCE and LOVE your Christ espouses.

Again, H.S. You're not special. You seem to have misinterpreted your "message". You Sir, seem to have a lot to learn.

Here's a tip Jeremiah, find humility first.

I just want to say two things, Lucifer started the religion of evolution in the garden of Eden when convinced Adam and Eve that they could become like God; and that so far to date Adolf Hitler was its greatest advocate.

Mark

First of all I would encourage you - as always - to try to understand things before you go about ranting and raving without any basis.

Secondly your arguments fall flat on their face:

1) complaining that the theory of evolution doesn't explain the origin of life or morality is like complaining that it doesn't explain my preference for vanilla ice cream over chocolate. Nobody ever claimed evolution can explain the origin of life - or consciousness.

It also exposes a fundamental mis-understanding over the purpose of science. First of all - I should say that the if you did you research that there has been no *scientific* evidence found disproving the theory of evolution. Every bit of evidence that has been uncovered supports it. The purpose of a scientific theory is a way of understanding the world around us. Scientific theories are constantly being updated and replaced with ones that can incorporate new scientific evidence that has been found. ALL of science is this way - not just evolution. So yes - almost certainly in 500 years our understanding of evolution will have - for lack of a better word -evolved.
But this doesn't mean that evolution is "wrong". Its much like how quantum mechanics gives a correct description of atomic phenomena while newtonian physics does not. It doesn't mean that newtonian physics - as it was developed to explain the things that were observable at the time - is "wrong" (I wouldn't get on a plane if it was). It simply means that it has a range of validity where it is very good way of describing most macroscopic phenomena but not atomic and smaller scale phenomena.

Will one day our understanding of evolution be different? Almost certainly. But - whatever changes occur in our understanding will not change the fact that it appears to explain the origin of species extremely well.

2) your attempt to mix science and religion.

There are many things that current science cannot answer. The origin of life, consciousness, is there purpose to life? Maybe some day it will - but I doubt it will be any time soon. But you have to understand that science doesn't try to answer these questions. It simply doesn't make any statement what so ever on them.

Further I don't think there has to be a conflict between science and religion. Unless of course you insist on a completely literal interpretation of the bible. But I would argue that if you believe every word literally happened absolutely and exactly the way it is stated - i.e the universe was created in 7 days about 5000 years ago - then I would suggest it is your interpretation of the bible that is wrong.
Can I prove this? Of course not - if you insist on ignoring all the scientific evidence that has been gathered and arguing that god simply made it appear that way for whatever reason - based on faith - there is no way I can absolutely disprove that. And I won't try - to each his own.

But your insistence in merging scientific arguments with religious ones is not fruitful. Just in the same way that science can not prove faith wrong - faith cannot prove science wrong. The fact that you really really believe it isn't something one can have a scientific debate about.

Fundamentally I guess very confused as to why you want to attack this so much...

Why not just say that you believe that despite the scientific evidence to the contrary - you believe in creation based on faith and the bible. If you want to dismiss it and say that god could make it look this way for some reason - fine. I think thats a perfectly valid position to take.

But your post is like trying to disprove a mathematical theorem based on faith.

they would most likely not have liberal thoughts and actions, and would more than likely be conservative in nature, hence Christian Conservative.

Posted by: Jeremiah at April 14, 2007 04:33 PM

A peace-loving Liberal would be, in your God's eyes, not as worthy as a war-supporting Conservative then. You feel, God, and his son, Jesus, prefer that Christians should come from the Conservative camp, do you Jeremiah?

I don't think God likes what the terrorists are doing,

Posted by: Jeremiah at April 14, 2007 05:05 P

Contrary to what you have been brainwashed into thinking, Jeremiah, neither do Liberals.

neo, raker, kblack,

But if life didn't arise from lifelessness then evolution is wrong. Period. End of story. No, you really can't have it any other way.

You see, in order for evolution to be correct it would have to be 100% correct...no skipping; it must be a straight line from inorganic materials to me typing away on this computer. If it cannot explain that - and, of course, it can't - then it is not a valid theory for how life developes over time.

Opposed to Darwinism we on our side say that God created the universe and designed it and guides it and there is zero evidence that this is incorrect. This doesn't preclude micro-evolution, but it does exclude what is clearly impossible: macro evolution which claims that whole new forms of life can arise out of earlier forms of life.

"There are believers and non-believers; I'll accept that. However, as the believers far outnumber the non-believers, I have to follow the lib model and play the "consensus" card. Playing that card, the conclusion is that God created the heavens and the earth, and the proof is undeniable."

By this logic, Jesus is most definitely not the son of God, as the people who do not believe that Jesus is the son of God far outnumber those that do.

And, if you want to talk consensus:

Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?

Should 57
Should not 38
DK/NA 5

Which of these comes closest to your opinion? 1. Congress should block all funding war in Iraq no matter what OR 2. Congress should allow funding only for a limited period of time OR 3. Congress should allow all funding for the war in Iraq without a time limit.

Block all funding 9
Allow only w/time limit 58
Should allow all funding 29
Don't know/No answer 4

Hi, Jeremiah!
:)

Mr Nylund,
You sure don't mind gambling do you friend.
You take the broad path that leads to destruction and there be many that follow therein.
You will find that your concensus will get you no where.
Who cares about the concensus of what people think?
Withdrawalthe troops? Are you kidding?

Where did you get your concensus? polls that is.
If you questioned every true blooded American the sensus would be leave the troops. Why? To protect people like you and to allow you to have freedom of speech.
If you were under Saddam Husseins yoke you would be pulling no strings friend. You know what would happen when mad men like him are in force. People suffer, people starve, they have everything taken from them and especially, especially they don't have the freedom to say foolish, most foolish things like what you're proposing in this blog.
God help you.

Good post Jeremiah
Sad things is, you don't find very many stand in the gappers when they're afraid of war, and afraid to stand for what's is truth.
to be afraid to stand for what's right.
I think you would call them cowards.
A coward is someone who speaks loud but hides when the shots are firing.

Anillo,
God originally created man and woman in the garden of Eden to nurse and care for the garden where he placed them. In Gods great omniscience, and omnipresence he wanted to walk and talk with the one whom he created. He loved the creature he had created and wanted man to serve him through love. He also wanted to give man the free will to choose right and wrong. In Gods everlasting mercy he place the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there.
But the evil one came, (satan)and tempted Eve. God did not intend for them to sin. He did give them the choice mind you.
So man fell and the sin passed upon all of us because we are of the seed of Adam. But the only one who was not of the seed of Adam was the man called Jesus. He was of the lineage of the seed of Abraham but was conceived by the Holy Spirit through the virgin Mary.
He came so that we could once again find our place with the one who loves and cares for us. Jesus Christ died on the cross of calvary so that we could once again come into the presence of Almighty God but only through his Son Jesus Christ.
If we want to continue down the broad road, we have that choice and God knows the consequences of that decision. We do know also, because he said that sin leads to death and death leads to hell which is eternal separation from God.
God is holy and he is righteous and those who want to be with him must also be like him.
This is not confusing, the word of God is so simple that even the most schooled professors can understand and the least schooled can also understand. You see God has rule bar just like the olympics. He raises that bar for none and he lowers it for none. Why? Because His son Jesus Christ is that bar and he is perfect.
I say Praise His Holy Name forever and ever.
You can know that name because in Jesus we can have peace, we can love one another, we can love our enemies and help those who hurt, and encourage those who are downtrodden. That's what Jesus done and he expects the same of those who serve and love him.
So I ask, does God love the liberals, of course he did, he loved them so much that he died on calvary for them and he is coming one day soon to bring judgment to all those who have lived and every knee shall bow and every tongue shall congess that Jesus Christ is Lord!
Praise his Holy Name!

It's amazing to me that religous folks like yourselves will, in one breath, justify the bombing and destruction of other civilizations, and in the next breath talk about the loving, peaceful,and all knowing creator...our lord and savior jebus christ.

It seems to me that any justification or logical argument you offer as proof of the reality of God, etc., is proof that you don't have faith. Faith is belief in spite of evidence. It would be much more compelling if you fools just said "I believe in God because it's easier than taking responsibility for my own life." Or, you could say, "I believe in God because I'm uncomfortable with making my own decisions." Or, you could say, "I'm not able to figure out what is right and/or wrong, so I need some fictional man in the sky to tell me what to do." No matter how you write it or think it, it's all a delusion which propogates hate, bigotry, war, and death.

Perhaps Jebus will come back soon. I have a feeling that the "Christians" will be the first to ride the elevator down.

George

ABSOLUTELY NOT Mark.

The theory of evolution does not have to explain the origins of life and consciousness to be a valid scientific theory for the origin of species. That is - given that such life forms exist - how they change over time via mutations and natural selection. This is ALL it contends to explain.

Your argument is akin to saying that quantum mechanics isn't a valid theory of the atom because it can't explain why the universe exists in the first place.. Of course your right- we don't have a complete scientific theory of everything - not even close - but we do have many theories which are proven to explain the data incredibly well and make predictions which are shown to be true... And thats why we keep working toward understanding the world better through research and thought ...

Not for a second Mark...Not for a second

George,

ROFL - you really believe that? My goodness, what a sophomoric view of the world!

Faith is the result of applied reason - I believe because I'm convinced there is no other explanation. I guess it never struck you as odd that you are mostly made of nothing...

No one is every really talked out of belief...it is invariably that a person was poorly versed in faith matters as a child and then being exposed to allegedly educated and hip people who denigrate the concept of faith...wanting to be "in", they go along until, one day, they've actually talked themselves into no believing what used to be as plain as a pikestaff to themselves. It took a lot of talking me back into faith before I believed...and then, later, realising that all along Our Lord was shoving me along back to Him.

The most closed-minded people I know are the unbelievers...because they have to continually shout their defiance, lest an ungaurded moment force them to, well, look at the night sky...or watch a flower bloom.

kblack,

Yes, it does...and, at any rate, you've got no leg to stand on: as long as Darwinism is to be taught exclusive of any design theory, then Darwinism is claiming to be not just a theory of everything, but the rock solid proof of everything.

I do know why design is fought tooth and nail - there are a lot of people out there who just don't want to admit to a Superior who will call them to account. They are a large part of the reason why we're spending vast sums trying to get everyone to live as long as possible...we, on our side, wish to live as long as we are supposed to live and place our trust in Our Lord.

Evolution has a thousand holes in it - vast things it cannot explain and a huge amount of evidence in biology and physics which flatly contradicts the theory. Its an interesting story, but it is nothing more than that.

No, Mark, kblack is definitely right. The theory of evolution is most definitely a theory that purports to explain the variations in trait-frequencies in populations through multiple reproductive generations. It makes no claim about how those populations came to be. To be sure, current evolutionary theory supports the notion of life as a more-or-less unified family tree, with lineages dividing and giving rise to new species, that has its origins in very simple unicellular life-forms. And some biologists certainly take an interest in finding out what happened before then. But strictly speaking, in so doing, they are pursuing a theory of abiogenesis, not of evolution. From the standpoint of evolution, abiogenesis is just a fact: at some point in Earth's history, there wasn't any life. Later on, life emerged. Once life emerged, it evolved according to the principles evolutionary theory enunciates. The details of the emergence really aren't important for the success of evolutionary theory itself.

The reason ID theories are contested so furiously is that (1) they're not scientific-- they offer no concrete, testable predictions-- and hence do not belong in a science curriculum and (2) they by and large rely on false claims made about evolutionary theory to motivate the theory (such as, e.g., the false claim that natural selection cannot explain irreducible complexity, which it can). Not surprisingly, making outrageous and false claims about a theory which sits at the foundations of a modern scientific discipline will actually tick off the practitioners of that discipline pretty thoroughly, which is what we see in the case of the evolution v. design "controversy."

I'd love to hear about any of these supposedly spectacular holes in evolutionary theory, or see some of the mountain of evidence from biology that contradicts the theory (which would be very odd, since, as I've said, the evolutionary paradigm effectively constitutes biology as a modern science at this point). On the other hand, I don't want to hear anything about, e.g., the second law of thermodynamics, because I can tell you that gets absolutely no traction on evolutionary theory (despite diverse rumors to the contrary). But of course if there's some other physical science that's supposed to cause problems for evolution, I'd looove to know what it is.

Once again, the "christians" on this blog wallow in their utter ignorance. (And no, most of you are not followers of Christ, but "Biblians", followers of whichever parts of the many-faceted book that is the Bible suits you best at any given moment.) And when you have, once again, shouted us down, you will congratulate yourselves on "disproving evolution".

Well, I am tired of playing. You know nothing of evolution, and you have no interest in learning. This kind of sandbox shouting of "IS NOT!" is wearying and pointless to refute.

Once again, Evolution is on the Origin of *Species*, not the "Origin of Life". There is a reason it is put that way. Untill you at least understand what the theory is *about*, any of your attacks on it should merely be laughed at.

Evolutionary theory does not, and shuld not, try to explain how life emerged from lifelessness, any more than it should try to explain the big bang. t is not a Theory of Everything. Or even a Theory of Most Things.

If you *really* want to stick it to us, go have a whack at the physicists. They *do* try to understand the beginnings of everything. But you can't do that, because you *know* you haven't a clue about what they are saying. Unlike evoluton, where our attempts to use small words make you believe you know the first thing about what we're saying.

I am a scientist. I *enjoy* debate and discussion. When the people I debate are at least debating the same page as I am. You haven't even opened the book! Many of you haven't even entered the bloody library!

It's one thing to say that AN animal or living organism can evolve and adapt over time through natural selection. It's one thing to say that ONE species of birds can evolve through natural selection to another sub-species. It's quite another to say that ALL life on Earth evolved from bacteria which SPONTANEOUSLY sprang to life on it's own; or to say that ALL organisms, plants, and animals evolved from another organism through natural selection; or that ALL abilities and complex functions which did not exist and which were not needed in one animal suddenly evolved and spontaneously appeared through natural selection ALONE -- and it ALL happened by accident and random chance!

It's one thing to say that an animal can, through natural selection, becomes larger, smaller, stronger, more intelligent, or a different color. It's quite another to say that a one celled organism which reproduces by cell division suddenly evolves into an animal with arms, legs, eyes, ears, nerves, bones, muscles, and organs -- with all of the parts, tissues, hormones, and functions required for sexual reproduction and laying eggs -- and from that to a mammal bearing live young -- and it ALL happened by accident and random chance!

What science has not explained, can not explain, and does not know, are the vast multitude of individual and specific changes that would have had to occur, by random chance, from the billions upon billions of possible combinations, in just the right sequence, for one organism to evolve into a completely different organism. One can not consider only changes in features like physical characteristics, color, and size, but must also consider the millions of changes that would be required internally and within the various cells, including genes, proteins, hormones, enzymes, tissues, organs, bones, nerves, structure, and everything else within the organism for it to "evolve" into another totally different one.

We must look at the billions of combinations from which natural selection "supposedly" chose just the right combination by random chance to create ALL organisms, plants, and animals that exist or that have ever existed. We must look at the infinitesimally remote, and essentially non-existent chance that these changes could have occurred solely by random chance alone. We must look not only at the at the extreme complexity of the many and various parts, and the mathematical improbability that random chance alone produced these, but we must also consider the equally mathematical improbable chance that all of the these individual parts came together, solely through random chance and natural selection to function, interact, support, and work together in the even more complex system which makes up each individual organism.

The fact that AN organism, plant, or animal can evolve and adapt to its changing surroundings and environment over time, through natural selection, does not prove that ALL organisms, plants, and animals were created by random chance and natural selection alone. It does NOT DISPROVE Creationism or Intelligent Design -- whether by God or space aliens (depending on one's own beliefs). In fact, the ability to evolve and adapt to changing surroundings and conditions is exactly the ability a Creator or God would also include to sustain His creations!

It's time that our public schools teach Creationism and Intelligent Design along with the "theory" of evolution. It's time we demand that schools teach all three, and if not, parents should be issued school vouchers and allowed to send their children to schools that provide an open minded approach to teaching about other concepts and theories as well as better and more effective teaching on all topics. It's time we stop Democrats (Liberals) from mandating that parents must send their children to be indoctrinated only in those schools and only on those subjects the Liberal Elitists have DETERMINED is BEST for their OWN LIBERAL AGENDA!

The fact is, science CAN NOT PROVE that some or many of those billions of changes in DNA were not in fact created, injected, modified, or otherwise caused by the intervention of God, intelligent beings, or even space aliens in the beginning and at various stages in the creation and/or "evolution" of life!

The fact is, science CAN NOT DISPROVE Creationism or Intelligent Design!

AAR

Are you a believer?

Yes, raker, I am. While I am a poor practicer of Christianity, I am a Christian, and I believe.

I also believe that you are a moron. Get mommy to define the term for you.

You believe on your terms? You know the will of God? You know and understand God's hand in wielding the sword of righteousness in Iraq? You display Gods tolerance and humility in your posts?

I just stated that I was not perfect. Also, I just stated that you, raker13, are a moron. Allow me to reiterate that point.

I am no example of anything near the child of God I wish to achieve.

No, but you're a damn fine moron--keep up the good work.

As I learn from each days lessons and attempt to correct the character defects I display, I get lost, espescially when reading the pious tripe written on this blog in particular.

H.S., raker. If you desire self-improvement, then you could start by not coming here and reading/commenting on the "pious tripe."

I am no saint. I am American and want the best for the United States of America.

I agree. You're no saint--you're a moron. You're anti-American and want us to bow at the altar of tyrants.

I find no answers on this blog, only fear, militarism, and narrow minded fealty to a boy king.

Then I suggest you find a blog that can give you the answers you so desire. There are plenty out there, and they'll still agree with your "boy-king" H.S. Shall I suggest a few?

Mark,

I understand what you are trying to say, but it still doesn’t add up.

If you want to reduce all behavior to biological determinism (something that stretches the popular notion of evolution, but I’ll run with it) then I’d reply by saying that you are wrong to think self-sacrificing altruism isn’t biologically compatible with evolution. Within the human “mind” are many complicated motivations; self-preservation being only one, albeit an important one.

But along with the desire to keep one’s physical well-being intact, there also resides (in some to greater degrees than others) the desire for honor and recognition before and after death. There is never a guarantee that one will perish in a burning building rescue; combine this with a healthy sense of wanting a legacy of bravery and voila, you have you biological useful motivation for me rescuing you from a burning building.

Along that point, cruelty and injustice are very rarely ends themselves and therefore your idea that people are “cruel and unjust” misses the point that they are usually doing so to get to some other goal, be it malicious of benevolent.

And yes, while the Greeks (and decidedly non-Christians) did posit the geocentric view of the heavens, the Church was an adamant supporter of literal biblical interpretation and explicitly threatened scholars with death when they posited scientific views that went against church cannon.

Besides, your details miss the contextual point of religion’s resistance to scientific advancements when those advancements disagree with what theological scholars say.

Truth,

While I appreciate the mythology lesson/pep talk, what is the point? I grew up in the church and am well aware of the Eden archetype. But as I’m sure you’re well-aware, an ever-decreasing minority of believers in the world admit it is more of a metaphor than a literal account.

How is it merciful to place a tree of knowledge of good and evil within reach of man, and then tell him not to touch it, and then have Satan convince him to do otherwise?

See, if you want to ascribe to that story, I’m totally fine with it. But at least be willing to admit that a God that knows everything that is ever going to happen and has complete control over all knew all along that man was going to “fall”.

In other words, nothing that happens was/is outside God’s divine plan; plain and simple.

Anillo,

The concept that the Church resisted scientific advancement is a slander - the Church led the way into scientific advancement. Who do you think provided the funds for the first universities? The Church didn't build institutions of higher education in order to not educate people, ya know? It was Jesuits, as a for instance, who first discovered the uses of quinine.

The Church's problem with Darwinism isn't the concept that things evolve, but the insistence by secularists that Darwinism is a fact...its not; and it never can or will be because, even it were correct, it can never be demonstrated in replicatible, laboratory experimentation. And, of course, Darwinism is a complete flop as a theory of who things develope...it flies in the face of basic logic to think that the simple can develope the complex...and in our modern understanding, it is silly for people who by design organize materials for the tranmission of information (ie, me organizing a series of letters and posting them on this blog in a manner comprehensible by you) to think that DNA (which is materials organized for the transmission of information) happened by random chance.

We caught the so-called enlightenment bug about 1750...when a bunch of self-absorbed French layabouts (some of whom, ironically, were educated by the Jesuits) decided that they were smarter than 17 centuries of Christian thinking...and they worked up a crude campaign of slander against the Church and all it stood for...and now, two and a half centuries later, it has become second nature for many to just assume that prior to this so-called enlightenment, all was dark and the Church was suppressing inquiry...if anything, what the Church was suppressing was stupidity...you know, like the concept that people are absolutely equal and everyone should have the same as everyone else. Thank you, enlightenment, for that bit of boneheaded thinking...

"Once again, Evolution is on the Origin of *Species*, not the "Origin of Life". There is a reason it is put that way. Untill you at least understand what the theory is *about*, any of your attacks on it should merely be laughed at."

The trouble is, most people who peddle evolution to little kids don't understand the theory. They believe that somehow evolution explains origin, just as they believe the Big Bang explains origin. And that would be okay, if they could tell me what caused the Big Bang. And if they say it was forces existing in the universe before then, or the Big Crunch, then what explains the origin of those forces? We get back to a dilemna beyond our ways of knowing, but most current scientists won't admit that, they do as you and say it wasn't what they were looking for, which is the problem if the textbook talks about origin only in the section on evolution.

As Maslow says, science is a great career for non-creative people to believe they're creative by standing on the shoulders of the thousands who came before them and taking another step in the same direction. That is to say, to presume that science is actuallly objective is like saying it's a force without a vector. And I'm not too advanced in physics, but how often does that happen? As you describe our ignorance of physics, I'm reminded of great physicists who discovered that we don't know anything except from a certain point of view, and we are arrogant to believe we see the whole picture. To me, that sounds a whole lot like what Job says, but then I'm probably a Biblian which apparently makes in your mind what I have to say not exist. Is that a magic trick, like pulling a bunny out of a hat? Or is that being intransigent?

Anillo,
It's called "Choice" and the plan is called "Love"
without which no man can see God.
You can take it and make it what you please, but it doesn't change the faith of the largest religion in the world.
And those down through the ages have found the way home through the cross, which begun way before Eden. and Oh yes, God ordained it all way before this universe was spoken into existence.
I praise His holy name! For He alone is Good.

The Church,
The church folks are ALL those who have been born again through the blood of Jesus Christ.
Nobody can vote you in and noboby vote you out. Only your disobedience to Gods holy word will do that.
Jesus said, "Upon this rock Peter, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
I'm here to tell you the church is continually pressing and pushing back the gates of hell until one day Gods people will be forever free of the temptation that satan places before them.
The Lord places each in the body as he sees fit.
Are you a part of the body?
Praise the Name of Jesus Christ, the saviour of all mankind.

Magnus,
You're right, you can lead a wingenut to water -- but you can't make them think. I don't know if you've seen this evolution thing before, or not. I thought that after the that Dover affair the I.D./creationist crowd would have been too embarassed to come out from under their Dark Ages rock for years to come -- but they have never lacked for gall. When things look really bad for the home team; these guys dive back into some comfortable "us against the godless" thread that will rally the pure of escence against the minions of Satanists like Darwin and Keith Olberman.
Unless you're willing to teach an online course in biology, evolution and basic logic -- one that would be poorly attended -- just let them rave. Don't forget the small satisfaction there is in knowing that those that they are able to indoctrinate will be in the forefront of tomorrow's fast food industry!

The problem Mark - is that "Intelligent Design"
is not a scientific theory.
1) it fails to pass the basic definition - it does not make any predictions which can be experimentally disproved - even in principle. The answer to any criticism can always be - "well thats the way the designer wanted it to look".
2) there is no scientific evidence for any design

I say again - if you decide that based on faith you believe in creationism (which intelligent design is just another form of) thats fine and I respect that. But it has 0 business being taught a a scientific theory.

So what if I were to say that my faith believed in a giant noodle monster who rules the universe by his noodly goodness. And every time that that you think there is any evidence of things behaving according to natural laws- its actually the noodle monster using his noodly appendage to make it *look* like carbon dating says the earth is much older than the bible says. And makes it look like scientific principles apply.

Would you say that - in order to be fair to all "theories" you should start teaching my theory in school?

Of course not - and its not because my theory is insane (which it is) its because its NOT science...
Believe what ever you like - I will respect it - but do not try to sell it as science

The desire for very easy answers and, also, of being let off the hook, has trumped genuine inquiry.

You just described your own stance. You don't want genuine inquiry, you want everything to point to your preferred god--that damn dirty science might contradict the Bible and show how it's wrong...can't have that! You want the easiest of answers: "Just say god did it and be done with it." It's about as intellectually lazy as one can possibly be. But when one is as firmly entrenched against learning as you are, intellectual laziness is pretty much the only option.

On a fundamental level, we have made no intellectual advances since St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his "Summa Theologica" nearly 800 years ago.

Well, perhaps people of your ilk haven't. The rest of us certainly have.

True science always points to the God of Creation
The fact is theorists don't like to admit this.
But it's FACT and facts cannot be changed.
Hows that for Push

You must understand what the church is.
The church consists only of "ALL THOSE BORN AGAIN THROUGH THE SHED BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST AND THEIR SINS ARE FORGIVEN BY HIM ALONE"
The priests don't do this. The pope can't do it.
Understand this very well. Gods word says, "Only those who come through the Cross of Calvary"
The church is Catholic. That means UNIVERSAL
Not the Catholic Church in Rome.
It consists of all those WORLDWIDE
CHRIST IS THE HEAD. PRAISE HIS HOLY NAME!

RE: "...current evolutionary theory supports the notion of life as a more-or-less unified family tree, with lineages dividing and giving rise to new species, that has its origins in very simple unicellular life-forms. And some biologists certainly take an interest in finding out what happened before then. But strictly speaking, in so doing, they are pursuing a theory of abiogenesis, not of evolution. From the standpoint of evolution, abiogenesis is just a fact: at some point in Earth's history, there wasn't any life. Later on, life emerged. Once life emerged, it evolved according to the principles evolutionary theory enunciates. The details of the emergence really aren't important for the success of evolutionary theory itself."

abiogenesis: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter; a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

hypothesis: a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument; an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action; message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; a possible but not proved explanation for something; imagined or suggested but not necessarily real or true.

The "Theory of Evolution" basically states that all life evolved from other life which existed before it.

If -- IN THE BEGINNING -- there was no life, then just what is the foundation upon which to build the Theory of Evolution" If there wasn't anything to evolve, then how could it evolve as stated in the Theory of Evolution?

Oh, I forgot. That little "inconvenient" detail isn't important. We just know something happened, but who, when, what, where, and why are not important. "Once life emerged, it evolved according to the principles evolutionary theory enunciates. The details of the emergence really aren't important for the success of evolutionary theory itself."

Just how did that first life begin? Either it occurred spontaneously through abiogenesis or Someone or Something created it! So... Which "hypothesis" or "theory" is correct?

Abiogenesis? A spontaneous and random accident of nature in a mix of mud and warm water and ignited by light and cosmic radiation? Can science prove that actually happened? What's the mathematical probability of that happening? Pretty extreme! So... If life didn't begin through abiogenesis, then how did it begin?

Through Intelligent Design or creation? Just as LIKELY as abiogenesis! But... Who created or designed it?

Other Intelligent Beings? But... Who created them?

The Bible says God? Just as LIKELY as abiogenesis!

And if God created life...

He most certainly would have incorporated the concept of evolution so that His life could adapt and evolve to live in the ever changing world around it!!!

AAR

kblack77,

The Bible says God created Adam and Eve, and that all humans are their descendents!

Based on mitochondrial DNA, the DNA inherited and passed on through the mother, science has now determined that there was in fact an "EVE" who was, in effect, the mother of all humans alive today!

How did those who wrote the Bible know or even suspect there was an "EVE"?

Who told them something that, only now, has modern science confirmed, with all of it's advanced knowledge and technology?

I'm sure an "objective scientist" would say it was just a coincidence and a lucky guess, right?

(Oh, I already know the anti-Bible, anti-God "scientists" are back-peddling on that issue as fast as they possibly can and are saying we misunderstood what that really means.)

AAR

"Unless you're willing to teach an online course in biology, evolution and basic logic -- one that would be poorly attended -- just let them rave."

Sal,
You make me laugh. My professor from intro to biology, a virologist by trade, actually wondered where everything came from, all spontaneously and all. Now, does that make him no longer a scientist, when he asks questions and honestly accepts science has yet to answer them? In my further courses in anatomy and physiology, I still wasn't taught "the answer" you seem to want others to teach, nor in my critical thinking course you refer to as well. In fact, my critical thinking course taught me not to just accept things like evolution, but to question them and continue questioning them if no "logical" answers are present. Of course, it sounds more like you want to teach a course on how Sal is right, and I think you need more preparation if all you offer is personal attacks (ad hominem is the phrase we used in logic class).

Mark, AAR
I see a severe lack of logic in your argument. You are trying to say that lacking of knowledge of origin negates understanding of current change. Its a ridiculus arguement and make you look like dolts.

ie
1)Nobody knows how/when spoken language arouse - does that negate the fact that romance languages evolved from earlier latin roots?

AAR,
Scientifically "EVE" refers to a population bottleneck that humans went through about 80-100,000 years ago. The founder population at that time about ~15,000 human's. That's what mitochodrial/genome dna shows. Not that there was ONE person

neologizer,

Funny, I thought someone would jump on that!

Consider that some scientists believe the Mitochondrial Clock speed is faster than they previously thought.

One quote: "The rate of mtDNA mutation is not well known. A study by Parsons et al. (1997) found a rate 20 times higher than that calculated from other sources. In an article reviewing mtDNA research, Strauss (1999a) reports that mtDNA mutation rates differ in some groups of animals, and can even vary dramatically in single lineages. Although there are many agreements, some divergence dates for modern animals calculated from mtDNA do not match with what is known from the fossil record."

While some have calculated that the 'mitochondrial Eve' probably lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, others disagree because it has been found that the Mitochondrial DNA can experience a much faster mutation rate. Using this faster mutation rate as a new clock speed, Eve can be calculated as living a mere 6500 or 6000 years ago!"

And... try this wishy-washy quote to try and sell their case: "... In other words, mitochondrial Eve was not a Biblical Eve. However the Biblical Eve, if she had existed, might well be mitochondrial Eve..."

Translating that "scientific language" into plain English says: scientists didn't mean for people to think that "their" mitochondrial EVE was the Bible Eve... BUT, IF the BIBLICAL EVE did in fact exist as the Bible says... then, the BIBLICAL EVE IS in fact "their" mitochondrial EVE -- i.e., ONE IN THE SAME!!!

You disagree with my logic? Of course you will disagree with the logic!

You say one organism evolved from another, but you refuse to address the issue of that first organism upon which you base your entire theory! You have no answer but that life sprang forth accidentally and spontaneously from lifeless matter... or worse still, you must at least CONSIDER OTHER possibilities.

Rather than address or consider any other possibilities other than your own, which can't be shown or proven, you choose to say it's a non-issue!!! You say that the Theory of Evolution does not say life began from nothing, but that is the only possibly you offer! I know, that's YOUR logic and YOU are sticking to it!!!

Do you believe life occurred accidentally and spontaneously from nothing?

Can you prove that?

AAR

Go back to Galileo, Kepler, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton...

...They All point to the same Supreme being...God Almighty.

From then unto the present contemporary thought was just that a thought there was no science to it, Why? Because... God is In, Under, and Above all things, He is EVERYTHING. You ask me how? Just look at the universe itself... the face of the sun represents God because he is the light and sustainer of All things... the earth... represents the life that is given as in Jesus Christ... and in between(Space) is the Holy Spirit... The TRINITY Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they are ONE.

What shall we make of Darwins big THEORY then, the former shall explain...

The BIG BANG THEORY....God spoke and BANG it happened. BOOM, END OF STORY.

The theory of evolution against Creationism are exactly the same as two opposite magnetic fields they will not attract to each other... So what shall we say then?

One thing is for sure... In God's Infinite power He will overpower, and overrule the Dark forces that so prevalently rule in this wic