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 wicked world we live in, He has already promised us, He will destroy it All with Fire.

"In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. He was in the
beginning with God.
All things were made through Him,
and without Him nothing was made
that was made.
In Him was life, and the life was
the light of men.
and the light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness did not comprehend
it."

What is the darkness? It is all those who do not know Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.
Or an easier way to put it would be... Darkness of heart and mind which is where the darkness resides i,e. (Atheism, Atheists).

Faith my friends, all it takes is a little FAITH, and He'll see you through...

Just ask poor Ol' Job, God allowed Satan to tempt him and he took everything he had, He put him to the test, Did Job lose faith? Nooo, he sure did'nt, he drew closer to God than ever before. He's in heaven now, singing praises to the King!

Jesus said--
"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out"

Jeremiah

neologizer,

RE: "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."

And just how did you decide there was a "population bottleneck" 100,000 years ago and that (whatever a population "bottleneck" is) that is consisted of 15,000 humans? Perhaps you could enlighten us a little more on the specific count. Would that be 3,173 men, 7,244 women, and 4,583 children?

Coincidentally, the Bible does mention something like that. It's called the flood which Noah weathered and survived in the Ark. If we go with the Bible, that means your 15,000 was actually 8 people, of which 4 were women. If those 4 women were related, they could all be part of the mitochondrial gene pool. If some died or didn't have surviving children, that would eliminate them!

Another quote on the issue: "Consider the set of all women living today, then the set of all their mothers, and so on. Obviously, each set will be as small as or smaller than the previous set. Eventually the set will contain only one woman, who is known as 'mitochondrial Eve'. The mtDNA of all living humans is inherited from mitochondrial Eve."

AAR

neologizer,

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

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

AAR

Jeremiah,

I hope all is going well with you and Lucas. I left a brief comment for you and Lucas several threads back, but I don't think you saw it. I think that thread was already becoming dormant at the time I posted my comments.

I have been spending more of my time reading other blogs, and commenting at a few like Tom DeLay's. I still haven't found any which are really trying to unite, coordinate, and provide direction to Republicans and Conservatives the way Democrats do. I keep hoping some will begin to get our side motivated and working together in groups and in the same general direction, but I haven't seen that yet. We can't wait until it's election time to started like the Republicans have done for the past two elections!

AAR

Hey AAR,

Everything is going pretty good now, I was ill for a while there, my thyroid gland went out on me a few weeks back, seems I'll have to take the medication for it from now on, but thankfully we found the problem and I can get back to normal. Other than that not much going on.

It's hard to believe this is April the fifteenth and we're having snow and high winds!!

As far as your comment on getting the Republicans energized, organized and prepared for the upcoming election... I think we could really use some field workers also, you know... like designating people who are willing to step out and talk to the voters in a more suitable environment, such as at peoples homes where they can sit down and explain the current situation and crisis that we are facing now in America in regards to the dangers that Democrats pose to the country, and explain to them that it is in their best interest to vote for Decency, Dignity, and Honesty into the White House to please vote the Christian Conservative into office... and I think that things would turn out a lot better when and if we put this type of scenario into play, because not all the people if not the majority of the younger voters don't have time or pay enough attention to the news to make a reasonable choice as to who they would like to see go in the White House, thus... making poor choices at the polls.

We could also use workers to go into the universities and campaign, in the ones that would accept them i,e. Christian based universities etc, etc.

So, I believe if we could hire, say at least two hundred and seventy five people, which comes out to about one party of five workers per state to go out and sit down with individuals in each state, things might turn out a little bit better for the GOPers this time 'round!

What say you?

Jeremiah

AAR said: "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!!! "

Yes. Quite right, AAR. Congrats. It's about the only thing I've seen any of the regulars here get right about evolution.

Evolution *does not say anything* about the origin of life, or the origin of the universe. It does not say anything about God.

(It does say that your great-umpteenth grandfather is also the great-umpteenth grandfather of a chimp or three, but we'll ignore that for now. (Heh. As if you'll manage to keep your grubby fingers off such a juicy subject...))

To continue...
Which is *exactly* why the original "great holes" of this thread is so much claptrap. Evolution is not about the things you say it's about, and it doesn't try to answer the questions you claim it fails to answer.

You can't fault a soccer-player for failing to make a touchdown. That's not the game that is being played! And evolution is not the game of "How life came to be". It is the game of "How forms of life change over time".

Now, could you *please* tell me you understand at least this much?

-Magnus

Morris wrote: "Now, does that make him no longer a scientist, when he asks questions and honestly accepts science has yet to answer them?"

But... Just a few posts further up we were told that if evolution cannot answer how life came to be, it wasn't any good... How are we supposed to "honestly accept [that] science has yet to answer them" if we have to have all the answers right away?

I certainly accept that science has yet to answer an amazingly great many questions. And furthermore, I also accept that with every answer we get, we find yet more questions.
However, this neither means the answers we got were worthless, nor that science doesn't work.

Now, what point were you actually trying to make here, Morris? You can certainly see, if you knew anything about evolution, that other commenters here do not even know enough to be able to question it logically, nor are they interested in learning any more. And that was the point Sal was making. (I thank Sal for the support. It helps.)

-Magnus

Jeremiah,
It would take 50,000 times that many to go into the other colleges and teach these folk what it's all about. I say that respectfully, because the youngins that just don't have a clue is voting for these people like Gore on Mars, Murtha in the Sand, Byrd on a cane, Edwards lost somewhere, Boxer knocked out,Feinstein on Jupiter, Pelosi in kings chair overseas, etc. you know what I mean.
I could go on and on, but these folks have got to in all seriousness understand the danger our country is in.
God help us.!

kblack,

There is more evidence in nature for Design than for Darwinism....given that there is zero evidence of Darwinism and vast evidence of design (ie, my typing and you reading, eg), I think we've got a slam dunk on what should actually be taught in school.

Be that as it may, go ahead and tell the kiddies that POOF life was suddenly here and that that first single celled organism had within it the potentiality of red hair on a human being billions of years later. All I'm saying - and all the Pope is saying in the quoted article - is that science cannot provide a complete answer and for that full answer we must turn to God, who's existence is proclaimed by the heavens and the earth every day you open your eyes.

truth,

Brother, I don't get into arguments with my brothers and sisters in Christ on matters theological - given that, I pray you will refrain from saying anything which would tend to denigrate the way Christ is proclaimed in churches different from your own.

neo,

Darwinism either has to tell us how inanimate matter became animate, or it has to concede there is a Designer. Its really rather simple - no fair excluding design just to hide the fact that your theory has as many holes as a swiss cheese. What are you afraid of?

Sees,

You only think that you have made intellectual advances over the past 800 years...you've made better tools, but you've actually regressed in intellectual attainment.

Article 1. Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?

Objection 1. It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is above reason: "Seek not the things that are too high for thee" (Sirach 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides philosophical science is superfluous.

Objection 2. Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science--even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore, besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further knowledge.

On the contrary, It is written (2 Timothy 3:16): "All Scripture, inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.

I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 66:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.

Reply to Objection 1. Although those things which are beyond man's knowledge may not be sought for by man through his reason, nevertheless, once they are revealed by God, they must be accepted by faith. Hence the sacred text continues, "For many things are shown to thee above the understanding of man" (Sirach 3:25). And in this, the sacred science consists.

Reply to Objection 2. Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy. St. Thomas Aquinas

And...

All the world still believes in the authorship of the "Holy Spirit" or is at least still affected by this belief: when one opens the Bible one does so for "edification."... That it also tells the story of one of the most ambitious and obtrusive of souls, of a head as superstitious as it was crafty, the story of the apostle Paul--who knows this , except a few scholars? Without this strange story, however, without the confusions and storms of such a head, such a soul, there would be no Christianity... That the ship of Christianity threw overboard a good deal of its Jewish ballast, that it went, and was able to go, among the pagans--that was due to this one man, a very tortured, very pitiful, very unpleasant man, unpleasant even to himself. - Nietzsche

13th century and 19th century writing...which is better?

Magnus,
I'm concerned that you claim to be logical yet turn around and thank Sal for his support. How exactly did he support your argument, besides making personal attacks against those with whom you argue this point? That is, he extols the virtue of dehumanizing those with whom you disagree, explaining why they're not worth your time, why they won't respond to knowledge even if offered. In his words, "You're right, you can lead a wingenut to water -- but you can't make them think." Then he sets up straw men, rather than respond to the actual arguments of others. Is that supporting your argument, in any logical sense, or is it spewing his anger?

Morris...

Where in your post do you take up anything I actually said on the *subject*? I couldn't find anything. What you choose to discuss, instead, is my thank you. The thank-you wasn't for you. The *rest* of the post was for you. You're getting badly side-tracked. Now please show me that you can, in fact, "respond to the actual arguments of others". Because my thank-you was not an actual argument, and you're wasting my time.

Please see my last post, starting "Morris", for the actual arguments.

Magnus,

RE: "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!!! Yes. Quite right, AAR."

Good. We are making progress! You acknowledge that if God created life, He would have incorporated the concept of evolution in that life in order that it might change, adapt, and "evolve" to the ever changing conditions and world around it!

RE: "It's about the only thing I've seen any of the regulars here get right about evolution."

No. It's the only thing that you have found that agrees with YOUR view!

RE: "Evolution *does not say anything* about the origin of life, or the origin of the universe. It does not say anything about God."

So... schools only teach that life evolves. They do not mention or address how that life began... upon which their entire "theory" is based and depends! Right?

The science class begins: In the BEGINNING, life EXISTED... and it EVOLVED from there!

Right?

But... if the science instructor did happen to discuss how life began, they would as least "mention" that the majority of people believe that life began when God created it. They wouldn't just teach their own hypothesis (an assumption that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument) that life spontaneously began from some lifeless water, mud, and energy.

Right?

AAR

Magnus,

RE: "(It does say that your great-umpteenth grandfather is also the great-umpteenth grandfather of a chimp or three, but we'll ignore that for now. (Heh. As if you'll manage to keep your grubby fingers off such a juicy subject...))"

Now why would we keep our fingers off an assumption that may not be true!

You are assuming that all life evolved solely through random accident, spontaneous mutation, and natural selection.

You are ignoring the fact (possibility at least) that someone or some entity may not only have created life, but also intervened in the development and "evolution" of that life along the way to change it and to add new life forms.

You are assuming that once God created life, He never again intervened. The Bible says that is not the case. It says God created life in stages and phases -- evolution if you will -- beginning with plants, then life in the sea and birds, then land animals, and finally humans in His image. Now, I'll agree that the early Bible was passed by word of mouth and the exact sequence written down may be a little off, but the thought is there. Life was created in stages or phases -- not all at once. No POOF and it was there!

Sounds like those who wrote the Bible had some basic knowledge and understanding of how life began, how new life forms were added (evolved) over time, and how humans weren't created until after the plants, fish, birds, and animals! It sounds like those who wrote the Bible had a basic knowledge of things that science has only discovered in modern times!

How do you suppose those who wrote the Bible got that knowledge? A lucky guess maybe? Perhaps some One told them very briefly what and how events happened!

AAR

Magnus,

Would you say that:

1) ALL organisms alive today were created solely by evolution through random accidents, spontaneous mutation, and natural selection.

2) There are organisms alive today which were NOT created by evolution.

AAR

Morris...
The thank you was not for you. The *rest* of the post was for you. Please address the "actual arguments" that it raised. Untill you do so, you are merely wasting my time.

-Magnus

MARK,

Don't tell me what theory of evolution must show, you don't even know what it says let alone understand it. Every post you make on a scientific topic is based purely ideology, from global warming to evolution to stem cells. The worst part is you have no grasp of the facts to even defend your postition.

AAR,

Actually its not very difficult, I'd explain it to you but I don't want to waste my time. Since you won't acknowledge the theory of evolution, I doubt you would acknowledge the state of knowledge in population genetics.

AAR wrote: "Good. We are making progress! You acknowledge that if God created life, He would have incorporated the concept of evolution in that life in order that it might change, adapt, and "evolve" to the ever changing conditions and world around it!"

No, sir. We are not making progress. This has been the standard way for scientists to deal with the question of god in evolution for a long time. Again, I repeat: Evolution does not, cannot, should not, and will not say anything about how life started, in much the same way that math does not say very much about english grammar. Now can we *please* move along a bit?

AAR Wrote further: "So... schools only teach that life evolves. They do not mention or address how that life began... upon which their entire "theory" is based and depends! Right?

The science class begins: In the BEGINNING, life EXISTED... and it EVOLVED from there! "

The *science* class very well could say this. Or it could mention how life is believed to have emerged from lifelessness. Because the *science* class might include such things as abiogenesis, particle physics, chemistry and the big bang.

*Science*, you see, is more than evolution. But you are attacking evolution. hence your arguments must be about what *evolution* says about these things. Not what "science" as a catch-all term might say.

Oh, and really... "Upon which their entire 'theory' is based and depends!" No... Evolution is based on the fact that life exists, that it's out there, and that it can be studied. While finding out how it began is interesting and will someday be discovered, the lack of knowledge of such a beginning is in no way crippling to the study or the theory of evolution.

-Magnus

Magnus,

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

Sort of sounds like a very condensed and abbreviated version of the "big bang" theory on the origins of the Universe, and the formation of matter, galaxies, and stars.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.

Sort of sounds like a very condensed and abbreviated version of the early history of earth... when it was covered with seas... when the early continents began to form.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Sort of sounds like a very condensed and abbreviated version of the continuing formation of continents and seas, and the beginning of plants on the Earth.

Allowing for the fact the much of the early Bible was handed down by word of mouth, and humans weren't alive when the universe and earth were formed, and that a day in Biblical terms did not mean a literal day...

How did those who wrote the Bible learn this information?

Just a lucky guess?

Perhaps they were told by Someone who knew!

AAR

Neo,

Chicken! Buck, buck, buck...

Come one, have some guts...tell us what Darwinism is all about...you're so smart, defend it...

Mr. Noonan,
You don't mind if those on the posts call one another the f word and other unspeakable words but you insist that I don't degenerate those that think different in religious terms as I myself.

It seems that I'm attacked the way Martin Luther only he posted his on the church doors and they hated him and excommunicated him for it.
I have said nothing against any, only to expose the false teachings of some and I can't understand why you would oppose this teaching.
I have only quoted what King James has written in English.
Show me where I have degenerated those of your belief and I will apologize, but if it's what Gods word has spoken I must never apologize.
I must stand true and proclaim to those His word.

And God saw everything that He had made according to it's kind and INDEED IT WAS GOOD!

Jeremiah

Keefer, Truthisright, and other creationists-- after reading my post, you may be tempted to call me an infidel and unbeliever doomed to hell.

Well, I went to church for more than FIFTEEN HOURS on holy week, including one service (on the night before Easter) going from 9 PM till 2 AM. How many hours did you righteous people go? Oh, I forgot, you're already saved because you're so much better than the rest of us. Well, anyway, here goes:

Evolution also fails in a third way: It fails to show how morons like you could survive without being killed off by Darwinism.

Of course, intelligent design also fails to explain the creation of morons like you. And the creation of gays. If you believe in Intelligent Design, then you logic dictates that you must believe that god created gay people. (And gays do NOT choose their orientation. 1) Who would choose to be gay? 2) NONE of them say that they chose their orientation. But how would they know?) And if you believe that, you must support gay marriage. But of course, you hypocritical illogical people don't. So let's move on.

If evolution fails in 2 ways, then so does Intelligent Design. 1) Where did God come from? 2)Why is he making humans, animals, etc. etc.? Intelligent design also provides NO SCIENTIFIC BACKING WHATSOEVER, just various writings of people. And if the Bible were meant to be taken literally, you shouldn't even get out of bed on Saturdays (that was the Sabbath before it got shifted to Sundays) and you shouldn't eat any dairy products at all (that's in there too, trust me). The reason for there being no scientific evidence in Intelligent Design is simple: all the Scientific evidence says that it is UTTERLY FALSE. First of all, the world was created 7 billion years ago, intelligent design says that it was much more recent. Second of all, a large portion of human DNA is shared by many life forms (25% of your DNA is the same as that of a banana. It's true) which points to a common ancestor. Thirdly, the fossil record completely and totally agrees with evolution (except for various gaps, which, with modern technology, are being quickly filled in) and dates back much earlier than say, the Old Testament. Fourth, you say that life is impossible if it comes from lifelessness. Two points: 1) a seed is lifeless, but generates a form of life, and 2) all life is is energy and various chemical reactions. You know that surge of anger you're getting from reading this right now, Freedom1, Truthisright, and keefer? It's nothing but a chemical reaction. And all chemical reactions require are reactants and energy. You've obviously got reactants with the Earth's some 10 to the 40th power elementary particles (I looked that up in Programming the Universe by Seth Lloyd, a friend of mine who is a highly respected physicist at MIT) and energy is abundant on this planet: Heat, light, particles, radiation from the sun. Wind. Waves. Heat from the Earth in the form of volcanoes and underwater vents. Lightning providing an electric current. And untold kajillions of particles crashing into each other.

As for material beings having immaterial thoughts... well, I'm pretty sure you'd agree that our bodies are composed of chemicals, and that thoughts are chemical reactions (Science has proved, continues to prove, and will re-prove even more, this theory by testing ACTUAL BRAINS). That doesn't explain why, but then, nobody really knows why God, an immaterial being, can have thoughts and intentions at all, much less DOING something.

Evolution also explains why we don't have superpowers. For example, I can't read minds, see in the dark, have X-ray vision, stop time, teleport, fly, have ultra strength, or even see your point of view (which is indeed a super power- very few idiots can do that). While this doesn't disprove Intelligent design, it still begs the question- Why didn't god design us better?

ThELefTYFoOL

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

Posted by Freedom1

Actually, "freedom"1, I don't think I know a single biologist who believes in evolution that says that life happened by accident, do you? Read up on what evolutionists are actually saying. And it might do you some good to look up the Scopes-Monkey trial.

ThELefTYFoOL

Oh Mark,

The chicken arguement????

Face it - not only don't you know a thing about evolution, global warming, stem cells or any of the other science you put down but now its clear to everyone how truely uninformed you are.

Next time I suggest you at least try to sound like you know what you're talking. Here's something that might help
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/lessons/index.html

Ya know neo, for one that cuts and pastes most of what he posts, I think you may want to back off while you're ahead....just a thought, but we've read many of your posts, and most come from journals and other left leaning publications.

Just a thought though.

LefT YFoOL,

RE: "I don't think I know a single biologist who believes in evolution that says that life happened by accident, do you?"

And just what do those biologists you know believe? How do they say life happened?

How many of them believe that God created life?

What about you?

AAR

lefty fool,
i came not to call anybody anything. if you're living in sin, then you're already condemned.
i don't have that authority friend. only God the father of the Lord Jesus Christ has that authority. I hope you find him as your Lord and Saviour.
And P.S. don't take things so personal,
there is no righteous, no not one, but the Father which is in heaven.

mike h,
God can do whatever He pleases when he wants and when he feels like it.
And who can question God?
He created every stone, every living things on this planet, he created every star as far as our little tiny telescopes can fathom, and he created the oceans of the deep

Can God create a stone he can't lift?

WHY DON'T YOU ASK GOD.

yOU'RE ASKING THE WRONG FELLA

Magnus,

RE: "We are not making progress. This has been the standard way for scientists to deal with the question of god in evolution for a long time."

I didn't really think so. Rule 1 says never believe a Liberal! Rule 2 says never trust a Liberal!

The standard way for scientists to deal with the question? To lie to those who ask it? You know very well that evolutionists for the most part are atheists. They do in fact believe that life occurred spontaneously from basically water, mud, and energy. One day it wasn't and the next day it was... POOF and it was there! After their "assumed hypothesis" to address a question for which they have no answer, they move right along to build their "holey" theory on that assumption.

That's the way with the entire Theory of Evolution. Anytime scientists can't answer a question or explain a fact, they just hypothesize it away with another improvable assumption and move right along to their next unanswered question!!!

You know full well what evolutionists believe and teach. They believe and teach that life began spontaneously from an inorganic soup! You talk around it and tell people that you aren't addressing the issue of how it began.

You know full well that students will ask how the life which they are being taught evolved began in the first place. You know the classes talk about that issue and do not answer it in the wishy-washy way you are doing. You know full well they are being taught your version -- an hypothesis they can't prove -- that life originated spontaneously from your primordial soup!

Since the classes are teaching your unproven hypothesis, then also tell the class that some scientists believe it happened your way but hundreds of millions of people believe life was Created. That is a true statement and doesn't allege that either is right or wrong!

Another way, give the parents those school vouchers and let them send their children to a real school where they can get a quality education.

AAR

Magnus,

I'm trying to slice this elephant up into pieces small enough and simple enough for you to handle, but you ignore the simple questions.

You still did not say which of the following is true:

1) ALL organisms alive today were created solely by evolution through random accidents, spontaneous mutation, and natural selection.

2) There are organisms alive today which were NOT created by evolution.

So, I'll answer it for you. The correct answer is 2.

AAR

Lefty fool,

Please explain something to me...

If we came from apes, or any other animal that you can think of, how did we develop speech? Apes don't speak, and they've been around just as long as we have. Heck, they've been around longer than we have the way you believe.

Speaking of which, why are apes and other animals still around if we 'evovled' and "became" much better than they, through necessity.

I think these questions merit answers, and since you are the one that is so vehemently spewing forth these 'facts' then I WANT and EXPECT answers to BOTH of my questions. You're the smart one here, so step up to the plate boy.

LefTY FoOL,

You say that gays do NOT choose their orientation.

Wrong! There is NO GAY GENE! Homosexuals and lesbians are a product of nurture and not nature! Liberalism is directly responsible for the explosive growth in homosexuals and lesbians in recent history!

One quote on the issue.

"A study ... published in the March 2005 issue of the journal Human Genetics ... actually undermines the commonly held view that homosexual orientation is determined by genetic factors."

"The study’s lead author, Brian Mustanski from the University of Illinois at Chicago, said in a news release: 'There is no one 'gay' gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression.'"

"...a thorough examination of the actual report reveals no statistically significant findings for any of these DNA regions."

About the best you can dredge up is:

"Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA research, concluded..."

"An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations [emphasis added]."

"Unfortunately, much of the research in areas such as homosexuality has been misrepresented; not only in the media, but also by the scientists themselves through a tendency to overestimate the quantitative contribution of their findings."

"Regarding the contributions of genetics to areas such as homosexuality, Dr. Collins concluded, 'Yes, we have all been dealt a particular set of cards, and the cards will eventually be revealed. But how we play the hand is up to us.'"

I'd bet that even that slightly higher figure in the case of identical twins can be traced to "nurture" and their environment and not any genetic predisposition!

AAR

Navydad

WOW I didn't realize (nor I'm sure are my peers) that the physical and life science journals were political with their research articles (let alone "liberal")....could you suggest some science and engineering journals that publish "conservative" peer reviewed research articles then.

Also could explain what makes data "liberal" or "conservative" I'm sure many a thousand of scientists would be surprised to find out such shades of data exist.

Lastly if you are a conservative and publish in one of those "liberal" journals - would you still be considered a conservative

lefty fool,

You do realise that the Scopes trial was a set up, don't you? The town wanted some publicity and the secularists wanted a morality play...all they needed was a rube who wouldn't either know how to answer evolution from scripture and tradition while at the same time being unable to notice that he was set up...William Jennings Bryan fit the bill, poor man. What was really amusing is how Scopes pled guilty in order to avoid having Darwinism face cross examination.

Neo,

Can't defend it, can you? Rather sad - you've just blindly accepted Darwinism because someone told you it was smarter than those hill-ape Christians...

Lucas,

You know better than that - it has all been fully and carefully explained with rock-solid science...you are not allowed to ask questions like that anymore because...well...errrmmmm...because you can't...what are you, some sort of flat earther?

Magnus, for someone who claims to be educated, I think you missed reading comprehension. My whole post was how your thankyou was to Sal for supporting your argument by personally slamming not the arguments posted by others but their intellect, their ability to learn. It was an attempt to make them seem worthless and inhuman, not unlike attempts during certain regimes in which entire races are portrayed as corrupt, evil. Most liberals consider themselves to be compassionate, but I can live without you and Sal's kind of compassion very well, thankyou.

You're absolutely right, I didn't challenge most of your post because I don't see a lot there. For instance:
"But... Just a few posts further up we were told that if evolution cannot answer how life came to be, it wasn't any good... How are we supposed to 'honestly accept [that] science has yet to answer them' if we have to have all the answers right away?"

What you're doing here as far as my point in this argument is setting up a straw man. That is, my bother with teaching evolution is simply that people dumb it out of usefulness. That is, the process approach in which people continue to seek answers is useless at the point people come to believe they have the final answer, the whole picture.

That is, if the question of origin is important and the answers have yet to be found, then if science truly exists to answer questions as a process rather than to teach a certain dogma on what the answers are, why isn't there a section in science textbooks on how the origin of life is still a mystery which scientists hope to solve?

If science is, as you say, about asking questions, then why don't science textbooks include more questions on topics such as origin? The trouble is, science is too often about teaching dogma, despite people at MIT decades ago realizing that all the methods and theories they learned in school becoming obsolete within their lives, and turning instead to a creative approach which incorporates their wisdom as to seeing only perspectives on the whole story.

A rigid scientific orthodoxy, the level at which it is taught to science students in most schools, is different from a rigid religious orthodoxy only in that it claims to be objective which is seductive yet entirely false. If the theory can't explain the whole mechanism, then all we have are observations which could be, for all we know, misinterpreted from a greater context. So why isn't this limitation of science typically taught as another question science has yet to answer, if they're about asking questions? That is, if science is still interested in asking questions, why not ask metaphysical questions unless the very asking of such questions takes away from the prestige and power of science?

AAR,

Just wanted to say it's good to see you back. I read your post to Jeremiah and I the other day, and I think it's good to try and find ways to try and help rally the people. You've been making great posts as usual, and it's good to see your quality posting content back around. Hope all is going well with you and yours. :-)

Mark,

I guess since those questions have all been explained so thoroughly and concisely, we still ask them and still don't have answers to them. I read about the Scopes trial too, and exactly what you stated (it was a setup) is exactly what it says about it.

I had read about Scopes briefly back in my junior year of biology at High School, but that part was never stated. The only real thing that students were to get out of the Scopes trial was 'and you now you can see how far we have came in our sense of enlightenment and teaching...' If that makes sense.

I don't look to get any answers to my questions to Lefty fool. But I'm sure he will continue to throw his 'facts' around. And the same type questions will continue to crop up, and he'll continue to try and ignore them b/c he can't answer them.

Lucas,

Glad to see you and Jeremiah are sill "tolerating" the irritating Democrats (Liberals)!

I'm spending a little more time on Tom DeLay's blog and reading several others when I get a chance. Also, I spend a little more time on the computer when the weather's bad, but when it gets a little warmer, I'll be spending more time outside mowing and whatever.

I didn't forget Jeremiah's question: "What say you?" I just figured I'd wait for a more appropriate topic rather than getting too far off topic on this one.

AAR

And AAR finally says: "A rigid scientific orthodoxy, the level at which it is taught to science students in most schools, is different from a rigid religious orthodoxy only in that it claims to be objective which is seductive yet entirely false. If the theory can't explain the whole mechanism, then all we have are observations which could be, for all we know, misinterpreted from a greater context. So why isn't this limitation of science typically taught as another question science has yet to answer, if they're about asking questions? That is, if science is still interested in asking questions, why not ask metaphysical questions unless the very asking of such questions takes away from the prestige and power of science?"

So... It's not about evolution after all? It's about science? You have a problem with science as a whole? And a problem with science being taught in schools?

Excuse me while I laugh long and hard.

...There. All done.

AAR, if you have a problem with science as a whole, I rather suggest you take that up with your former teachers, at whatever institution you were taught. Bad teachers are a pain. However, you are a grown-up, you have other ways of gathering the education you need to be able to discuss such things as evolution. I suggest you try these other ways before you continue this discussion.

Now, if you would like to stick to the *point*, which was problems with *EVOLUTION*, THE THEORY OF, then we can talk. If not, well... I win. And so does Sal.

-Magnus

PS: Science deals with the physical. Not the metaphysical. Complaining that it doesn't deal with the metaphysical is much like complaining that math doesn't deal with, well... whether God can create a stone bigger than he can lift. :) So we're back at square one. You don't even seem to know what science *isn't*, much less what the theory of evolution *is*.

PPS: There is a popular science book titled 'the science of discworld' which includes the concept of "Lies to children". That is, that a introductory science textbook *cannot*, if it is to explain things *understandably*, be one hundred percent true to the science it is describing. It will, by necessity, include several things that are only partially true, and will also not include a great many things that the student, at this point in his studies, does not need or is not equipped to know. I can only assume that the people drafting your textbooks did not believe you needed to know about the many unanswered questions within science. Especially as such a listing of unanswered questions would be obsolete a long time before any of the rest of the book. :)

Oh, and may I say how amusing and ironic I find it that people who want to say "God did it" and let it go at that are complaining that those of us who actually go out there and see if we can find any evidence of God doing it think we know the whole picture?

-Magnus

AAR wrote:

"You're absolutely right, I didn't challenge most of your post because I don't see a lot there. For instance:
"But... Just a few posts further up we were told that if evolution cannot answer how life came to be, it wasn't any good... How are we supposed to 'honestly accept [that] science has yet to answer them' if we have to have all the answers right away?"

What you're doing here as far as my point in this argument is setting up a straw man. That is, my bother with teaching evolution is simply that people dumb it out of usefulness. That is, the process approach in which people continue to seek answers is useless at the point people come to believe they have the final answer, the whole picture. "

So me complaining that you saying that science should honestly accept that there are things it cannot answer *aaand* someone else saying that if science doesn't have all the answers right away it isn't any good, is setting up a straw-man? Lad, we can't have it both ways! At least one of you is wrong! Could you please go tell the other person that he is wrong now? I'd appreciate it.

"People dumb it out of usefullness". Which people? At what level? To be quite frank with you, for most people in this world, actually understanding the details of evolution is pointless. It's not going to make any difference to them whether they get a somewhat dumbed-down version or not. And if this is truly your only trouble with evolution (which, despite these being your words, I very much doubt is true, and so I will not capitalize on them), then your trouble is not with the theory of evolution at all, but with the school-system. (However, introducing ID and Creationism is not going to make it any better, in my opinion.).

Well. Your turn. :)

-Magnus

"Magnus, for someone who claims to be educated, I think you missed reading comprehension. My whole post was how your thankyou was to Sal for supporting your argument by personally slamming not the arguments posted by others but their intellect, their ability to learn. It was an attempt to make them seem worthless and inhuman, not unlike attempts during certain regimes in which entire races are portrayed as corrupt, evil. Most liberals consider themselves to be compassionate, but I can live without you and Sal's kind of compassion very well, thankyou."

I said "Thank you for the support, Sal. It is appreciated." I did not specify the type of support.

And Sal's post did not attack other's *ability* to learn. Merely their willingness to. If you choose to remain ignorant, I will retain my right to call you ignorant, for that is what you, in that case, are.

As for your wordy way of calling me a German National Socialist of the 1940's... It was beneath you. And responding in kind is certainly beneath me.

-Magnus

Hmmm, I seem to have been crediting AAR when Morris was the person talking. Apologies for the mixup. :)

-Magnus

Magnus,

There's no point continuing the discussion if you won't even answer simple questions. Talking in sweeping generalities won't get us any further along than we are now. Let's forget that apple pie and motherhood fog. We need to get down to the finer details!

The fact is, you don't want to answer my "simple" questions, because you know full well that with each answer, I will have yet another "simple" question, and ultimately you will end up at a point where you cannot answer or, if you answer truthfully, your answers will be contradictory and expose the holes and voids in your position and the theory for what it is -- a theory!

Contrary to what you may believe, I've had more than my share of advanced math and science courses. My professors, however, did not try and force their ideology and political beliefs on others when they knew they didn't have the answers. They didn't try to pass off an assumed and unproven hypothesis as a fact! They presented and taught the facts, information, and theories as they knew it. They did not limit and stifle discussion by refusing to discuss opposing views as you Liberals do. They did not feel threatened by opposing opinions and views because they weren't using their classes to further their own political agenda!

Perhaps you can explain the steps, the process, and the when and how DNA "evolved" from functioning in a manner similar to "machine language" to that of a "higher level" structured programming language using multi-purpose subroutines and blocks of code that can be switched on and off!

You never did say if you agree that there are organisms alive today which were NOT created by evolution!

AAR

Magnus (why didn't you just pick Enzyte?) writes:
"So... It's not about evolution after all? It's about science? You have a problem with science as a whole? And a problem with science being taught in schools?"

You set up yet another straw man.

"Now, if you would like to stick to the *point*, which was problems with *EVOLUTION*, THE THEORY OF, then we can talk. If not, well... I win. And so does Sal."

You're so arrogant you think this is just about winning? Does it hurt that you have to stroke your ego with a keyboard? Actually I'd already figured out you were that arrogant. It explains why you resist the substance of the debate and snarkily attack others. Don't hurt your ego too much reading this, but before you and Sal get back to stroking each other's egos, you may consider that there is just a little common ground between science and theory. Or didn't you learn that in school?

"Science deals with the physical. Not the metaphysical. Complaining that it doesn't deal with the metaphysical is much like complaining that math doesn't deal with, well... whether God can create a stone bigger than he can lift. :) "

I would think reminding yourself of your previous arguments which I've already countered wouldn't help that ego, but suit yourself. The trouble is, you aren't opening your mind, probably because your more interested in winning the argument than in learning something useful. Think about who decides what science includes. Scientists, right? So if scientists wanted to tackle metaphysical questions, actual questions rather than preaching answers, why don't they?

The distinction between physical and metaphysical is essentially one between things science may one day answer and things science has decided it will not answer. That is, self reports of spiritual experiences can be studied scientifically to determine their quality and quantity. But why is it that very few (such as William R. Miller, Abe Maslow and William James) study such phenomena, and why is its import limited to matters of psychology when its revelations go as deep into the nature of reality as it's experienced (and there is no deeper reality) as matters of physical space? Why did science for the most part decide some questions were beyond its ability to answer?

"I can only assume that the people drafting your textbooks did not believe you needed to know about the many unanswered questions within science."

Why do you think that is? Scientifically, I make a distinction by separating something from something else. So why if they are interested in getting creative young minds to come up with novel answers do they not ask questions, why do they not make a distinction between what they know and what they don't know, because it would seem like if they want to answer questions, what they don't know is at least as important as what they do know. They want to appear as experts, beyond their actual ability. Jeremiah's quote from Job (the full version) includes several dozen things they could start with, several questions science has not answered.

"Oh, and may I say how amusing and ironic I find it that people who want to say "God did it" and let it go at that are complaining that those of us who actually go out there and see if we can find any evidence of God doing it think we know the whole picture?"

Yes, I will give you permission to voice your irony, or at least Mark did. I'd be happy to see you looking for the fingerprints of God. The trouble is, how many research grants of the tens (probably hundreds) of thousands approved in the last year include any such reference to searching for God's fingerprints? It would almost appear as they don't want to share credit, wouldn't it?

As to your next, absolutely my trouble is with the school system. The trouble is, teaching dumbed down science (one in which science appears to have answered all questions posed to it) to another generation of citizens sets them up for a faith in science as the ready repository for all knowledge, and of course it isn't.

It is the pride of scientists that maintains this illusion of answered questions, so my trouble is with scientists and their lack of full disclosure (regarding what they have not found and regarding how their methods are not objective as they come from a particular theoretical method), with the theoretical limitations inherent in scientific method (attending to any process inherently changes that process), and with the cover up by the school system regarding these limitations.

"I said 'Thank you for the support, Sal. It is appreciated.' I did not specify the type of support."

So how exactly did he support your arguments? If nothing Sal wrote supports you except by attacking those who disagree with you, how could your thanking him for his support be for anything other than the only type of support he gave you, that being attacking others? And you guys want to teach logic?

"And Sal's post did not attack other's *ability* to learn. Merely their willingness to. If you choose to remain ignorant, I will retain my right to call you ignorant, for that is what you, in that case, are."

So if I say the Irish are unwilling to learn to change their (insert ethnic stereotype here) behavior, how is that not dehumanizing them? How about you teach at a minority school, then if they don't soak up your pearls of wisdom, tell them they're unwilling to learn. See how long it takes before you answer for it. If you made your remarks along religious or ethnic lines rather than political, you'd be beneath yourself and/or Sal. Save your rationalizations for your therapist.

"As for your wordy way of calling me a German National Socialist of the 1940's... It was beneath you. And responding in kind is certainly beneath me."

Right, because it's a lot easier to avoid looking at what you're doing and where that thinking leads than to tell yourself your open minded. Newsflash: Dehumanizing others may have consequences.

Well, this *is* fun.

AAR: If you truly believe that scientists and science teachers are part of some vast conspiracy to keep people in ignorance of the truth...

I can't even continue. It's absurd. For people thirsting for power, look for the people who actually *have* and *use* power. Scientists and especially science-teachers, don't.

Your small questions are interesting, of course. But I see no point in answering questions which you might as well have answered yourself and saved us both time. Ask the question, answer it, then get to your point. Please.

So your professors did not try to "force their political agenda" on you. Well... Maybe that is because professors as a rule don't? In much the same way as I haven't? I've asked you to stick to the point, I've asked you to learn something about evolution before criticising what you seem to have no idea about, I've asked you to at *least* learn what science and evolution *is* and *isn't*...

Where is the political agenda? Is learning about evolution inherently political?

Oh, and the bit about the evolution from machine-language to a higher-level structured language? As you may or may not know, higher-level programming languages are abstractions used to increase human programmer efficiency. Since they can still be represented 100% using machine-language, there is no actual increase in what the programming-language can *express*. Since DNA does not have a programmer, such abstraction would be worthless for it, and has not happened. The evolution of the semantics of DNA as interpreted by the cell machinery is far, far more complex than your little example. And no, I can't explain it. There are literally *trillions* of evolutionary steps that have been made in nature. Even cataloging them all is a fool's task, much less explaining every single one. But as long as we don't, people like you will claim we haven't proved evolutionary theory.

My field of work is Genetic Programming. You may have heard of it. We actually *use* the concept of evolution to get results. I've seen programs that solve problems even when we, the so-called "designers", don't know how they do it.

-Magnus

And now, Morris...
"Why did science for the most part decide some questions were beyond its ability to answer?"

Um... Because if we tried we'd be accused of hubris, of trying to destroy religion, and, correctly, of taking science to places where it does not currently have the tools to make a difference?

Lad... You've gone from evolutionary theory to science as a whole. You were attacking evolutionary theory on its lack of merits. You have now stopped doing so and are attacking science for not being something that it isn't. As I have repeatedly told you, and you seem to have a problem grasping it... A hammer is not a saw. Complaining that it is not a saw *does not take away its usefulness as a hammer*. It is used as a hammer, not as a saw. (Am I going too fast for you?)

Hence, I hereby concede that evolutionary theory does not deal with metaphysical questions! Yes! You are right! It doesn't!!1!!111lol

Now how, in detail, please, does this "lack" make evolutionary theory bad at explaining how species evolve over time?

-Magnus (which happens to be my name)

"I can't even continue. It's absurd. For people thirsting for power, look for the people who actually *have* and *use* power. Scientists and especially science-teachers, don't."

I have to question your judgment here. The funding for science teachers comes in part from the Department of Education which has a thireen billion dollar budget for FY2008. Is that no power? Further, are you completely or just partially ignorant of how much money goes into government grants?

I click on the first grant I come to at the human genome grant page:
"The anticipated total direct costs for an individual award may not exceed $230,000 in year 1, $365,000 in year two and $450,000 in years 3-5."

I click on the next listed grant:
"Applicants may request up to $2 million direct costs for any year for continuing operations (e.g., personnel, standard laboratory equipment, supplies, travel, consortia, and other expenses)."

Are you getting the picture? Scientists control enormous amounts of money, of who gets what. Now maybe in your world money doesn't equal power, and if so don't let this debate take you away from putting flowers in someone's hair.

"You've gone from evolutionary theory to science as a whole. You were attacking evolutionary theory on its lack of merits. You have now stopped doing so and are attacking science for not being something that it isn't."

You must have a thinking cap somewhere, gathering dust. Find it now. I never had a problem with teaching evolution as, to use your approach, God's fingerprints. But evolution is not and never has been origin. However, and perhaps this goes back to Darwin's use of the word, it is dumbed down. It is to many, many students and future citizens, understood as a way in which the the world in general came to be as it is.

Now how did this great misunderstanding of science and misunderestimating of metaphysical forces occur? Oh, that's right, schools conveniently stopped teaching metaphysics courses. And, again conveniently, scientists had stopped thinking metaphysics had a bearing on the physical world that could be as you say studied with their tools. Where are your examples of research projects in which scientists are seeking to prove in your words "God did it"? Instead, they believe that they have replaced a useless metaphysics with a useful physical study, and their faith is now in science to answer all the questions now or in the immediate future.

As you say:
"I can only assume that the people drafting your textbooks did not believe you needed to know about the many unanswered questions within science. Especially as such a listing of unanswered questions would be obsolete a long time before any of the rest of the book."

Job was written more than two thousand years ago, and its list of unanswered questions is far from obsolete. Just a few:

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

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?

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

Are these obsolete yet?

How do you think science teachers come to understand what it is science does and doesn't do? Is it, maybe from scientists who teach them? You act as thought any connection between what's taught in classrooms and what scientists actually do is random, or a dumbing down for the good of the students. Why don't you ask who benefits? Who teaches that science is objective despite so much evidence to the contrary? Who teaches that science is absolute? Good scientists don't.

One thing to keep in mind when discussing the questions that were asked to Job during the account, is that these questions were asked by the Almighty Himself.

God could have granted Job the wisdom and knowledge to know these things, but I think God chooses to save those answers for when He calls us Home to Glory land.

This very account where Job is questioned by God, is a good learning lesson for any who do not believe, and that is...They are to submit fully to Him for their entire existence living on this earth, and that includes not only non-believers, but the faithful also.

What a MIGHTY GOD WE SERVE, The GOD OF ALL CREATION!

Jeremiah

Magnus,

RE: "Where is the political agenda? Is learning about evolution inherently political?"

What is the problem with Democrats (Liberals) allowing schools to discuss Intelligent Design, or discussing that most people believe life was created, or discussing the Biblical account of creation? What problem is there with allowing a discussion of other people's opinions, especially since, as you say, the Theory of Evolution cannot explain how life began from nothing?

The reason is because Democrats (Liberals) have a purely political agenda. Democrats want to establish a purely secular and non religious society that is more acceptable to their amoral views and lifestyle!

Democrats want to perpetuate the lie that the Constitution meant to prohibit the discussion of anything related to God in public schools, or the display or mention of God in or on public surroundings!

The founders of this nation and those who wrote and ratified the Constitution never meant or intended for God to be removed from public view -- as anyone would know who has read history before your Democrat professors revised it to suit their own views and agenda!

If we can get a few more "Constitutional Judges," all of that may change and the Constitution may be restored to the document our founders intended!!!

As far as answering my questions, it does little good for me to answer. I want YOU to answer so we can carry on a dialogue that will show the readers the ultimate holes, fallacies, inconsistencies, and contradictions in YOUR statements and views, and in the Theory of Evolution itself!

If you want me to ask and answer the questions, then how's this:

Q: Can you prove that a Creator, Intelligent Being(s), or Higher Life Form was not responsible for at least some of the changes which the Theory of Evolution attribute to random chance, natural selection, and evolution?

A: No, you can not!

Q: Are there organisms alive today which were not created through evolution and natural selection?

A: Yes there are!

Q: Are there organisms alive today which were created through Intelligent Design?

A: Yes there are!

AAR

Magnus,

The primary flaw in modern science is that it claims to only deal with the verifiable...a stupid claim espeically as regards things like evolution which are entirely non-verifiable.

A proper science education would include theology...which is, after all, the science of God. A truly unified worldview is only possible when you complement science with reasoned faith.

Modern science claims to only deal with the verifiable, and then comes up with a consensus...

"Modern science claims to only deal with the verifiable, and then comes up with a consensus..." Posted by: keefer

Bwahaha! Yeah, "science" by ballot box.

Not all Christians support the views of "Answers in Genesis"

Tyrannosaurs eating plants??? Give me a break!!!!!

Magnum Serpentine
Mainline Christian

you guys are all nuts......
there is a god, if that's what you want to call he, she, it
a huge spark of energy that started it all
after that the joke is on you
god doesn't control anything
life (which includes goofy humans) has been on it's own since then
how come you earthlings...
with your hubris and ego can think that it happened any other way?

A proper science education would include theology

This is hilarious. The fact that you aren't trying to be funny but rather are being quite sincere makes it even more hilarious. The fact that you don't even know why it's funny is pretty much the cherry on top.

Belief in god is just another neurosis. Religious people say they believe in god simply because they’re afraid to utter the words: There is no god.
We all know that if we do utter the words: “There is no god,” the boogie-man will get us. Belief has nothing to do with faith, but everything to do with fear and self-loathing. We are un-clean, lowly, sinners, etc, etc.
Some folks say “what does it hurt to believe?” “If I’m right, and god does exist, I get into heaven when I die.” If I’m wrong, oh well, what do I loose?”
That doesn’t work. God is all-knowing remember? He’s knows you are just hedging your bets and you go to hell for sure.
Speaking of god being “all-knowing”, what’s up with that?
God knew when he created the world that he would cast Satan down to hell and that Satan would torment humans? God knew that Jesus would be crucified on the cross?
God knew the shooting would take place at Virginia Tech? Bad god. Bad!

"There are two visions of America. One precedes our founding fathers and finds its roots in the harshness of our puritan past. It is very suspicious of freedom, uncomfortable with diversity, hostile to science, unfriendly to reason, contemptuous of personal autonomy. It sees America as a religious nation. It views patriotism as allegiance to God. It secretly adores coercion and conformity. Despite our constitution, despite the legacy of the Enlightenment, it appeals to millions of Americans and threatens our freedom.

The other vision finds its roots in the spirit of our founding revolution and in the leaders of this nation who embraced the age of reason. It loves freedom, encourages diversity, embraces science and affirms the dignity and rights of every individual. It sees America as a moral nation, neither completely religious nor completely secular. It defines patriotism as love of country and of the people who make it strong. It defends all citizens against unjust coercion and irrational conformity.

This second vision is our vision. It is the vision of a free society. We must be bold enough to proclaim it and strong enough to defend it against all its enemies."

-Rabbi Sherwin Wine-

Proof Mark?

Well I used facts and referenced those (obviously you didn't read the links so as usual you don't even know what you are talking about).

Mark you used biblical quotes and resorting to calling me a chicken? When you read the link I provided and actually understand what evolution is come talk to me.

BTW here are some more articles that couldn't exist if evolution was correct. I'd love your creationist explanation(when you're done reading them I'll provide more)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5735/764

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;309/5735/681a

Navydad,
You criticize me because I copy and paste facts with links to their direct source (often research journals). Do you like better Bibical scripture quotes (like Mark) or how about uninformed opinion (like Mark) or even maybe long illogical diatribes (like AAR). Now I know your not a dumb guy so what sources do you suggest to understand the physical world?

Neo

Have you noticed how I typically don't get involved in the religous posts? There's a reason, which I believe is valid...to me at least.

So here goes.
I was raised a devout Catholic back in the 50's and early 60's, you know, alter boy, 1st holy communion, confirmation etc., not in that order, and for most of my youth, religion was driven down my throat to the point that it became unpleasant. Now, don't get me wrong, I NEVER lost my faith in God, or the significance of Jesus or the Bible and all they stand for, but what I lost was a respect for those who over-preach their faith, and I'm not talking about anyone here at B4B, I'm talking about the fire and brimstone, over-physical evangelists that do it for the $ and priests and nuns that used to beat us with paddles with holes and the rulers across the knuckles etc., and when I got away from that lifestyle, I liked it. Is that descriptive enough?

But, I NEVER lost my faith, even though I could have, which today doesn't suprise me, since everytime I think about God, this incredible world he created, and the fact that his son died on the cross for ALL of us, I still get chills down my spine.

So, I enjoy reading and engaging in the debate where I feel comfortable, but religion isn't an area I choose to venture into...I'd simply rather not. Unless someone attacks my God or my faith, then you'll see my true colors.

Some may call me out on this, which is fine with me and I'll always listen, but I'll defend my stance too. I also believe my personal religion is "within me and my conscience" and it doesn't belong in an argument about who's religion is better, stronger or more God-like.

As far as your cut-paste issue. What I've found, is that I need to research and analyze first then post after. This way, I know what I'm posting and I'll be able to defend my postion better.
Similar to root cause analysis in a Tiger Team meeting, you need to know what you're talking about or forget about a career.

Believe me I'm no Mark, Matt Spook or Rico, and it takes me two-three times to figure out some of these posts, especially when it comes to guys that just type without thinking how it will be received. That includes some of yours Neo, since they get long-winded with stats and details to defend your postions, and after writing a number of biz plans and executive summaries that must be read in less than five minutes, I've learned to be as concise as possible...except for this post of course...LOL! ;) Sorry to be so long-winded.

BTW Neo, anyone that spends as much time researching their position as you do will always have my ear. But I'll always challenge you if I believe that you're out of line...it's my nature.

neologizer,

What's your point?

You provide a link to an article from which I can draw many theories, hypotheses, and conclusions.

Quoting from your linked article:

"...we have identified an adaptive transposable element insertion, which truncates a gene and apparently generates a functional protein in the process. The insertion of this transposable element confers increased resistance to an organophosphate pesticide and has spread in D. melanogaster recently...."

A few additional quotes on the issue from another sites:

"...an entire species to become resistant to a range of insecticides in just 40 years."

"...Even more remarkable is the way it happened. The bit of selfish DNA involved, called Accord, is a transposable element that jumps around the fruit fly genome copying itself. When Accord landed in Cyp6g1, a gene that makes a detoxification agent called cytochrome P450, things got interesting. Accord copied itself and jumped out again, leaving behind a 149 base-pair footprint - a section of DNA called a long terminal repeat (LTR)."

"This LTR just happens to express itself in exactly the same way as Cyp6g1. With double the gene expression, double the amount of detoxification agent was made - and the insect became resistant to the insecticide DDT, as well as a whole slew of new insecticides."

"Richard ffrench-Constant of the University of Exeter in Penryn, Cornwall, in the UK and colleagues confirmed that the resistance is due to the LTR by showing that it increases expression of Cyp6g1 in tissues where detoxification takes place. Ffrench-Constant says it is 'scary' that Accord has exactly the same mode of expression as Cyp6g1 and that it landed in exactly the right spot in the genome."

"'It's enough to make you believe in God,' ffrench-Constant says. 'Not that I do.'"

I can guess, but rather than my trying to guess, why don't you tell me what point or conclusion are you drawing?

AAR

AAR: Neologizer's point was that those articles-- and indeed the article you cite as well-- report research that could not have been done if the theory of evolution was not understood to be true by the researchers involved (assumed, of course, because the theory is by now exceptionally well-confirmed). Frankly, there are literally countless other articles he could have also cited, since nearly all of contemporary biology depends upon the theory of evolution. If you want to claim that the theory of evolution is false, or that it fails to explain some species or biological phenomena, this claim isn't lodged against some quasi-religious dogma shared among some fictional cadre of atheistic scientists conspiring to eliminate religion from modern society; rather, it flies in the face of all of the biological sciences as they exist today, since these depend on the theory of evolution as a unifying and foundational framework for research. That framework, I might add, is continually paying dividends, in terms of the discoveries it is precipitating (which does kinda suggest that its more than some quasi-religious dogma of atheistic scientists).

As far as the article you quote goes, I suppose you're encouraged by the fact that ffrench-Constant says that his findings are "enough to make you believe in God," I'm afraid you shouldn't hold your breath for ffrench-Constant or anyone else to convert in light of this discovery. The reason is that the argument, I suppose, that ffrench-Constant's comment would have to be supported by is a notoriously bad one. That is, it looks really fortuitous (for fruit flies, that is) that the transposable DNA element happpened to land in the right place for DDT-resistance to emerge. So fortuitous, I suppose, that one might think it positively couldn't have happened just by chance. But this is simply an argument from incredulity. The argument goes like this: you look at some rather fortuitous circumstances and think to yourself that you cannot believe they could have come about on their own. So, you conclude that there must have been some further factor (i.e. God) which brought about the extremely fortuitous consequence. The first thing to say is that, even if we're correct that the fortuitous circumstance is genuinely unlikely, in probabilistic systems, unlikely things do happen all the time. Sometimes, we just get lucky. The second thing to say is that it is extremely difficult to know whether we are correct in thinking that the circumstance we observe is, after all, as unlikely as we think. It's more often than not the case that the situation only looks unlikely given our lack of knowledge of the situation: if we knew a bit more about what was going on at the mollecular level, we might have been able to predict that this mutation in the fruit fly genome would occur, and we certainly would have been able to predict that once it did occur, it would be wildly successful in the population, and hence that it would become extremely common. But then, given more knowledge of the mechanisms and real probabilities involved, we would have no reason to think that the fortuitous mutation of the fruit fly was an act of God, because we would understand how it could have occurred through the normal operation of natural mechanisms. The probability that serves as the basis of the inference to God's influence is a subjective probability, not an objective one.

I'm sorry that the above was a bit technical. But I'd also like to comment very briefly on Mark's comment about science and the verifiable. First of all, it is simply false to say that evolutionary theory is unverifiable, but its difficult to make the point I'd like to in this sort of context. There is a great deal of evolutionary theory that can be tested experimentally in a laboratory, and that can be evaluated by comparing the predictions of evolutionary theory with the fossil record. The refined theory of evolution that we have today passes all of these tests. Folks can of course reply "No it doesn't" all they want, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter as they are understood and applied successfully by biologists working today. In my opinion, it's a pointless exercise to dispute science from the armchair.

Science goes by making testable predictions, and then evaluating these in experimental settings. It does so because the scientific method of predict & test has proved to be a wellspring for reliable conclusions-- conclusions that are born out the vast majority of the time (but not, of course, always: science doesn't give us certain knowledge. It gives us a reliable basis of prediction. That's no fault of science, though, since a reliable basis of prediction is about as much as finite and limited beings like us can hope for. If you want certainty or absolute and immutable completeness in your account of the natural world, by all means go looking after God. But its not the business of science to provide those things-- and for that reason (if no other), science and theology belong apart.

AAR, I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think the point is that the explanation... "The bit of selfish DNA involved, called Accord, is a transposable element that jumps around the fruit fly genome copying itself. When Accord landed in Cyp6g1, a gene that makes a detoxification agent called cytochrome P450, things got interesting. Accord copied itself and jumped out again, leaving behind a 149 base-pair footprint - a section of DNA called a long terminal repeat (LTR)." is a far more intellectually satisfying argument than is "God did it." Personally, I think both answers are right. But with regard to the mechanisms involved, I don't see where adding "God did it" helps much. In other words, that's a statement about "why". Science is about "how". On the "why", science is (and should be) mute. Why should it be mute? Because science by its very nature is not designed for that sort of question. And frankly, I don't see how it could be without affecting its utility for answering "how" types of questions.

Months back we had another, very animated discussion about this very topic. And as I recall it followed very much the same pattern as this one. But I thought it was considerably more informative. We got into the philosopy of science versus epistomology (the philosophy of being) more in that one. And I don't recall exactly what I said back then, but I tried to make that distinction, and also to point out that it seemed to me that people (some people anyway) were attempting to require that science classes be inclusive -- to include both empirical and epistemological issues as if they were one and the same. The problem is... they aren't. To my mind -- in fact, to most "minds" throughout much of history that have thought about such issues -- there are obvious and important differences, differences which make the application of the same methods of inquiry to both not only defeating to both, but damaging to both. In almost every religion, and certainly every major religion existing today, makes a distinction between "body" and "soul", between "fact" and "faith", between, in effect, the "how" and the "why". They are not the same, but I think one could argue that they are synergistic -- the resulting whole is more than the sum of the parts. [I'm trying to dumb down here, so I ask the critics of my simplistic presentation to please give me a bit of a break on the details.]

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, science has been very useful. But by its very nature, it is also depersonalizing. But science is not the be-all and end-all of knowing. And to rely on it to be such is self-defeating. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure of one thing: trying to force faith into science is as damaging as trying to force science into faith. Either attempt cheapens both, IMO. And I think the true, elemental nature of the controversy here is that one side sees attempts by the other only from their own perspective, when in fact the issue really is a shortcoming with the educational system in general. To me, this debate about evolution really boils down to the failure of our educational system to address epistomological issues -- questions concerning the quality of being, of self-worth, of personal responsibility and accountability, of connectedness, or however you want to construe it. One side reacts to that failure by trying to force faith into science. The other side reacts by resisting it without acknowledging the need to teach a deeper understanding of being.

And parents, unfortunately, are inclined to sit on the sidelines.

Wow... the religious right has sent its army of straw men to battle for Jesus...

Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species.

The theory of Evolution does not and does not try to explain the origin of life... here is a list of theories on that subject.

See, scientific theories tend to work with eachother and even reference eachother, so one theory doesn't necessarily have to explain everything associated with that subject. Evolution doesn't purport to be akin to the bible (which, its self, has a few flaws)...

Let's see, a population bottleneck is an event that results in the killing off of a large portion (if not a majority) of a certain species, and is generally thought to account for a lack of genetic diversity within a species. I lost the notes that I had these on, but I believe that "EVE" (the human population bottleneck) occurred when a very large volcano (I think Mt. Toba in Indonesia) erupted, with a few thousand times the force of Mt. St. Helens, and spewed Sulfur Dioxide in the air, which later reflected sunlight and caused a small iceage, resulting in the deaths of most of the humans alive at the time.

Faith is actually defined as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." (American Heritage Dictionary).

A majority of people believing in God's existence isn't proof... a majority of people could believe that flying planes into buildings is a worthwhile way to die, but that doesn't make it so. However, when there is a consensus of people who actually study the subject, it stops merely being a majority of people and becomes affirmation of a concept. You wouldn't brush your teeth with a brand of toothpaste because 4 of 5 people in London do, but you just might if 4 of 5 denstists do.

Jeremiah, much earlier, proved his lack of scientific knowledge when he said that magnetic polar opposites repel each other (the attract, silly; two objects of the same polarity repel eachother).

Why don't some of you critics actually study evolution before you call it crap? I at least read a good portion of the bible....

Sees,

Actually, you've just exposed the severe limitations on your education. Go and read something, anything, by GK Chesterton this weekend. You'll start to understand.

Rana,

You know, you're right - and I'm astounded: the American Heritage Dictionary really does put it that faith is something not founded logical proof or material evidence. I'd like to meet the dunce who put that in there...

Just shows how incredibly dumbed-down our society is...you begin to wonder if any of editors at American Heritage have ever cracked open a book by Augustine, Aquinas, Chesterton, Lewis, Muggeridge or, oh, thousands of other Christian writers who have defended the faith with books chock full of logic and material evidence...

Rana,

And here is the real definition of faith:

FAITH. The acceptance of the word of another, trusting that one knows what the other is saying and is honest in telling the truth. The basic motive of all faith is the authority (or right to be believed) of someone who is speaking. This authority is an adequate knowledge of what he or she is talking about, and integrity in not wanting to deceive. It is called divine faith when the one believed is God, and human faith when the persons believed are human beings. (Etym. Latin fides, belief; habit of faith; object of faith.)

mikeh,

Please tell me that you are only 18 and haven't had any education past the worthless education provided in a normal American public school system...I pray that this is the case because if it isn't then I'm going to get very depressed that such sophomoric views can be held by anyone with any pretense to higher education.

noema,

RE: "...research that could not have been done if the theory of evolution was not understood to be true by the researchers involved..."

A. That statement isn't true. Scientists don't have to know all of the facts to do research. Do scientists know how live began? Can scientists identify and list all of the individual and specific steps in the family tree of that fruit fly, beginning with lifeless matter? No they can't, but still they can do research on the fruit fly and they can manipulate the DNA building blocks that make up that fruit fly!

RE: "...you want to claim that the theory of evolution is false, or that it fails to explain some species or biological phenomena..."

A. If you have read my previous post and those on prior threads, you will see I have not said that animals, plants, and living organisms do not change, adapt, and "evolve" to their changing surroundings, conditions, and environment. Without the ability to change, adapt, and "evolve", life itself would die out.

I did say that the ability to change, adapt, and "evolve," is exactly what God or an Intelligent Designer would have incorporated into life. I said that science cannot prove that life began spontaneously from lifeless matter (I know, that's not part of the theory of evolution... even if it is!). I did say that science can not show, and likely never will be able to prove, that all life was created solely through random chance, spontaneous mutations, and natural selection. I said that science can not prove or show that God or Intelligent Beings (space aliens if you need a tangible entity) have not, periodically intervened, created life, created new organisms, and incorporated new abilities (new or changed DNA) in existing life. Science and the Theory of Evolution presumes all of these occurred spontaneously, by random accident, or through natural selection and totally discounts all other possibilities.

RE: "...I suppose you're encouraged by the fact that ffrench-Constant says that his findings are "enough to make you believe in God..."

A. No. The did not actually say ffrench-Constant believed (although he might wonder) that God created the resistance to the insecticides. I intentionally left that in as bait!

RE: "...it looks really fortuitous (for fruit flies, that is) that the transposable DNA element happened to land in the right place for DDT-resistance to emerge. So fortuitous, I suppose, that one might think it positively couldn't have happened just by chance..."

A. Now, THAT is along the lines of one of many thoughts I did have.

RE: "...you conclude that there must have been some further factor (i.e. God) which brought about the extremely fortuitous consequence. The first thing to say is that, even if we're correct that the fortuitous circumstance is genuinely unlikely, in probabilistic systems, unlikely things do happen all the time..."

A. Yes and no. I did not say that God or an Intelligent Being brought about those rather fortuitous specific circumstances in the case of the fruit fly. I believe those happened because the "system" worked just as it was designed to work. Just a few of the many questions I would ask to get started are: just what or who created that "tool" (jumping gene) and capability in the first place which allowed the fruit fly to adapt so quickly; where did it come from; what are all of the related mechanisms, mechanics, and "technology" associated with it; how do those work and interact and where did they come from; was it all solely by random chance or was it incorporated by an Intelligent Being; did that "tool" itself (jumping gene) and the capability which permitted the change to happen, all occur spontaneously and totally "formed", or did they develop gradually over time; and if it developed over time, just how did that occur; etc., etc. etc.

RE: "... second thing to say is that it is extremely difficult to know whether we are correct in thinking..."

A. Always a valid question!

RE: "...the situation only looks unlikely given our lack of knowledge of the situation: if we knew a bit more about what was going on at the molecular level, we might have been able to predict that this mutation in the fruit fly genome would occur, and we certainly would have been able to predict that once it did occur..."

A. Knowing more about how something works, does not say how that capability came to be. Learning and knowing all the details of how the "jumping gene" works will permit scientists to use it, modify organisms themselves, and may allow them to predict probable outcomes, but it does not answer the "who, when, what, where, and why" that "tool" came into being in the first place.

RE: "...no reason to think that the fortuitous mutation of the fruit fly was an act of God, because we would understand how it could have occurred..."

A. Again, I never said, nor do I personally believe this specific and particular mutation itself was an "act of God". A few of the many, many questions I have relate more to the who, when, what, where, why, and how of everything that lead up to and permitted that change to happen and function in the first place!

AAR

Ricorun,

I think I touched on some of the points you are making in my epistle back to noema. In a round about way, I think I basically said what you did, that both are correct. I am not saying that God or an Intelligent Designer created that specific mutation in the fruit fly (although He might have), but rather, who or what created the system(s), mechanism(s), mechanics, and technology that allowed it to happen?!

I agree, the last discussion was along different lines than this thread. I included a few of my comments from that one, but intentionally did not repeat most of them here... maybe the next one!

Along the lines of some of your thoughts, I think there is room for a compromise, but I don't know if that will or can happen in reality. Contrary to what Liberals believe (I exclude you in most of my Liberal rants), religion is a major factor in the lives and beliefs of a majority of Americans. Liberals want to ignore, or more appropriately, change that.

Along the lines of what you said, science would have to restrict its teaching to the "how" and the "provable" on this particular issue, and not imply (or outright teach as many in fact do) that everything that has lived, does live, and will live does so solely through random chance, spontaneous accident, and natural selection. At the same time, science would have to acknowledge the holes, "missing links", and improvable assumptions in their theory. And, somewhere or somehow, the religious issues and implications would have to at least be addressed and discussed.

Personally, I do not see where real objective scientists or science teachers would have a problem addressing or at least briefly talking about and discussing all of the related issues in their class -- nor do I see where that hurts or harms their theory. I don't think scientists are the problem -- except for those who do have a political agenda. I think the problem is the Liberals who do have a political agenda, who are so "hung up" on the issue of religion, and who are so intent in destroying it!

I think you said much the same thing in your third paragraph, but worded differently... at least I agree with most of what you said!

AAR

Rana,

Why does it or why should it bother you that so many people do believe in God and Jesus? America has it's foundation in religion, primarily Christianity. America is still viewed as a Christian nation, even though Liberals would like to change that and are working hard to do so. Christianity and the belief in God does not fit well with their liberal agenda, their goals, and their own religion -- LIBERALISM!

While the Theory of Evolution itself may not "try" to explain the origins of life, the way it is taught by most teachers and scientists, does in fact do just that -- either specifically or by alluding to it. If you think and believe otherwise, you've got your head buried. If the teaching of evolution were in fact as you say it is, it would not be the issue or problem it is!

Science is not "a consensus of people"! Science is not a "vote"!

About that volcano, quoting from the Net...

"Now this is all theory, as no living human has ever witnessed a supervolcanic eruption, but it is believed that the last supervolcano to erupt was at Toba in Sumatra, the biggest volcanic eruption the world had ever seen, 10,000 times the size of the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption, blowing a big 100 kilometers by 60 kilometers hole in the earth that is now known as Lake Toba. It blasted vast clouds of ash across the world and released a large quantity of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. The global temperature dropped by a full five degrees centigrade, sufficient to cause the summers to freeze in Europe and to create a global volcanic winter."

And... contrary to what you believe, I know quite a bit about the Theory of Evolution! I do not, however, agree with the manner in which Liberals ARE force feeding it in the schools!

AAR

AAR: I think you said much the same thing in your third paragraph, but worded differently... at least I agree with most of what you said!

That, in essence, was true of the last time around as well. Go figure, I guess.

Having re-read what I said in my last post, I feel I need to apologize to the parents out there. I said: "And parents, unfortunately, are inclined to sit on the sidelines." What I really meant to say is that some parents are inclined to sit on the sidelines. My apologies.

Rico writes:
"Months back we had another, very animated discussion about this very topic. And as I recall it followed very much the same pattern as this one. But I thought it was considerably more informative. We got into the philosopy of science versus epistomology (the philosophy of being) more in that one."

"Ask and it shall be given."

Noema writes:
"The probability that serves as the basis of the inference to God's influence is a subjective probability, not an objective one."

But science too is subjective. Let me simplify this by making it needlessly complex. Here's Einstein:

"A proposition is correct if, within a logical system, it is deduced according to the accepted logical rules. A system has truth-content according to the certainty and completeness of its co-ordination-possibility to the totality of experience. A correct proposition borrows its 'truth' from the truth-content of the system to which it belongs."

That is, the ultimate truth content of any correct scientific proposition is determined by the accepted logical rules. But what governs this truth content of the accepted logical rules. That is, if a scientific proposition is only as true as the logical rules which lead to it, then what governs what makes those rules true? It would follow according to Einstein that it is the accepted logical rules that lead to them. And the ultimate truth content of those rules is, of course, determined by the accepted logical rules which lead to them. So at some point, no matter how far back, someone made up some arbitrary rules with no verifiable truth content, and those became the accepted determiners of scientific truth.

And when the accepted logical rules change, the truth value of that change was according to the accepted logical rules that led to that change, the truth value of which cannot be determined unless there was a pre-existing set of logical rules before that change, and again at some point along the line some scientist somewhere simply came up with some rules of unknown truth value that became accepted. So every so called objective scientific truth is only true if you have faith in the divine method of some scientist from long ago.

So Mike's post from above could just as easily say:
"We all know that if we do utter the words: 'There is no objective truth value of science,' the liberal professors will get us. Belief in the scientific method has nothing to do with scientific truth value, but everything to do with fear and self-loathing. We are the products of a random accident, amoral by nature, etc, etc."

And if, as you libs say of the correlation between religion and better lives, we cannot judge religion by its fruits but must instead look at its objective truth value, if you extend that to science, then of course there's no reason to believe in science without a great leap of faith that some scientist way, way back was smart enough to come up with perfect logical rules. But since you have no evidence to determine the truth value of that without relying on the original truth value of that scientist's method, you have nothing to stand on.

If it mattered that science as Noema says, "has proved to be a wellspring for reliable conclusions," then it would also matter that belief in religion has been a source of comfort and coping, a veritable wellspring of guidance for well functioning human beings.

The degree to which epistemology and scientific inquiry are inseparable is also captured by Danish physicist Niels Bohr:
"The fact that in atomic physics, where we are concerned with regularities of unsurpassed exactness, objective description can be achieved only by including in the account of the phenomena explicit reference to the experimental conditions, emphasizes in a novel manner the inseparability of knowledge and our possibilities of inquiry. We are here concerned with a general epistemological lesson illuminating our position in many other fields of human interest."

AAR,

They are convinced we're a bunch of Know-Nothings...but, for me, one of my fondest childhood memories is of my mother, writing her Universe Model, coming over to my father with a large book on anthropology and showing dad a picture of zinjanthropus, saying:

"George, here is a picture of your ancestor."

My father glanced at the picture a long moment and said,

"Must be your side of the family."

AAR,

Well, that an my mother waking up shouting at two o'clock in the morning "what is the orbital rotation of Venus?!?!?!"...it seems that this had something vital to do with the way the universe worked...

Actually, you've just exposed the severe limitations on your education. Go and read something, anything, by GK Chesterton this weekend. You'll start to understand.

No, Noonan, I'm having some fun at the expense of your severely limited education (which, by the way, went how far, exactly? Past high school at all?). Science doesn't "need" god at all; you just want to claim that it does because science has this habit of knocking down the very sort of Biblical literalism with which you've cast your lot.

You haven't made a single salient point as to why science "must" be pointed toward god; your entire argument is "I want science to glorify god, and it doesn't do that enough, so science needs more god" Fine for bitching and moaning, but not much more than that.

Science has done just fine without getting an injection of pointless dogma; in fact, it does better without it. You have this great desire to tilt at windmills when it comes to science. Hey, if that's your thing, knock yourself out. But as is a pattern with you, you cling to a discredited position and proclaim that, no, you've got it right, and everybody else--who has actual evidence to back them up--has it wrong. Again, I'd ask you to educate yourself, but you seem to have a mortal fear of doing so. Why is that?

Rico,
You write:
"But with regard to the mechanisms involved, I don't see where adding "God did it" helps much. In other words, that's a statement about "why". Science is about "how". On the "why", science is (and should be) mute. Why should it be mute? Because science by its very nature is not designed for that sort of question. And frankly, I don't see how it could be without affecting its utility for answering "how" types of questions."

But isn't a how just a smaller why? Let me explain. You're saying that science is a description of the steps in a process, how C becomes D. And of course, once you understood a certain level of analysis to a degree (let's say how earth's gravitational field (C) affects visible objects(D)), then you can explore the bigger system astrophysics, how B (the gravitational field of other moons, planets and suns) affects C (Earth's gravitational field) as it effects D (visible objects. And at that point you discover visible objects exert gravitational forces on microscopic objects, so you're studying how B affects C, how C affect D, and how D affects E.

My point is, can we not at some point say the reason or why that the tides occur is as a result of the interaction between B and C, of the interaction between the moon and the tides. And if we can state the reason this occurs via science, then why are you so reluctant to find the greater Alpha, the reason the stars and suns and moons occur via science, the explanation for their gravitational field.

I mean, is it just all those stories from around the world about how people who get too close to God have really, really terrible things happen to them? And if so, then isn't every time we step closer to understanding ultimate intentionality a risky endeavor?

Sees,

If you've got evidence of Darwinism, please present it - the Darwinists will be delighted, because they don't have any.

When I say "limited" I don't mean "number of years"...for all I know you're like my older sister, with her two doctorates and not an ounce of economic or political sense. Still a wonderful person and superlatively brilliant, but not someone I go to for advice on politics. What I mean is "lacking in complete education". The sort of education a university used to supply, but now doesn't...save for a few private universities, usually attached to some religious body.

I didn't get to go to university - mostly out of perverseness on my own part...I graduated from the Uncle Sam's school...the US Navy. But I had even before then a body of advanced knowledge, learned at the knee (and in the library) of my mathematician father and my physicist mother. My area of expertise, however, is not in science...as children are wont to do, I turned aside from parental precept and spent most of my efforts on learning about people...

My teachers in this school are Will and Ariel Durant, William Manchester, JFC Fuller, BH Liddel-Hart, JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, William F Buckley, Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, Edward Crankshaw, GK Chesterton, James Burnham, Samuel Johnson, Desmond Morris, Stephen Crane, The Brothers Grimm, William Shakespear, Barbara Tuchman, Walter Lord, Jean-Francois Revel, Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, Winston Churchill, Hilaire Belloc, AE Houseman, Robert Leckie, David Bergamini...

I think I'm pretty well educated...certainly educated enough to know when someone doesn't have the goods...which, unfortunately, you and the rest of the Darwinists don't...and, more than that, you're also cowards...so unsure of your own views that you insist alternate views be suppressed.

Mark,

You still don't know what the theory of evolution is, claiming it suppose to predict things it actually doesn't and then you dispute dictionary definition of the word faith replacing it with your own.

If anything you are a case example of why its important for rigorous science teaching in grade school. If your "faith" (whatever your definition of it is) can't withstand the logic of science then perhaps the problem is your illogical application of your faith

STI,

RE: "Science doesn't 'need' God at all; you just want to claim that it does because science has this habit of knocking down the very sort of Biblical literalism with which you've cast your lot."

RE: "Science has done just fine without getting an injection of pointless dogma; in fact, it does better without it."

Apparently, science doesn't "need" anything. Each time their theories are proven wrong, they just make another assumption and move right ahead to create a "new" theory! If science can't explain something related to their latest theory, they just ignore it, or assume yet another unproven "hypothesis" upon which to build their theory, and proceed on their merry way, ignoring the fact that they have been totally wrong up to that point... and likely will in the future!

History is filled with false and disproved scientific theories and hypotheses. Check the latest scientific news from time to time and chances are you will find one or more disproved theories, and since "science abhors a vacuum", you will find another theory already set to take it's place!

With so many disproved theories, how are we to know when one is valid. If we accept that one could be valid, we may just find out tomorrow that it too has been proven false! Sort of like the little boy who cried wolf... eventually no one believed his cries!

AAR

If you've got evidence of Darwinism, please present it - the Darwinists will be delighted, because they don't have any.

I love that you say this, then go on some jag about how "educated" you are. You claim to have had an "advanced education" upon graduating high school, yet you cannot seem to grasp even the most basic facts about science (or history, for that matter--another subject you claim to know and yet are painfully ignorant regarding) It's like you're claiming to be a mathematician while also ardently insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. I'd take it as a nice bit of satire if you weren't actually being serious.

The body evidence supporting evolution is massive, Noonan. You, utter coward that you are, go out of your way to ignore it. It's been put in front of you so many times, it's not even funny anymore, yet you still try to pretend it doesn't exist. Ask a biologist. Ask an organic chemist. Crack open a textbook. Pick up a science journal. Stop being so petrified of learning and learn for crying out loud. If you need a totur, I'm sure you can find one. Hell, just use Google for five minutes--you'll find all kinds of evidence. It took me less than 10 seconds to find this article, for example, though I'm sure you'll merely dismiss it because you don't like it.

Your carefully maintained igornace does not mean there's no evidence for evolution, Noonan. It just means you carefully maintain ignorance about it. That's your problem.

And for the final act, you claim that science must "suppress alternate theories." If you've got one with actual scientific evidence, go ahead and present it--that's how science works (which I'd think somebody of "advanced education" would know). The hitch, of course, is that creationism has not a shred of evidence to support it. Evolution, meanwhile has been continuously supported by new evidence for well over a century.

Why is it that you are so frightened of learning? What is it about science that you find so terrifying? Why do you fear knowledge so much?

RE: "...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. ...some biologists certainly take an interest in finding out what happened before then. ...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."

Instructor: Class, this week we are going to learn about the Theory of Evolution. You will be taught how ALL life evolved from a single celled organism through random chance, spontaneous mutation, and natural selection.

Student: Who created that first organism?

Instructor: The "origin of life" is NOT part of the Theory of Evolution. That is NOT the subject of this class. The Theory of Evolution is about how life EVOLVED and NOT about how it ORIGINATED.

Instructor: Next week you will be taught about abiogenesis and the theory of how life began spontaneously from inorganic matter through natural processes!

NO... Schools and their liberal educators wouldn't think of teaching about the ORIGIN OF LIFE as part of the THEORY of EVOLUTION. They would teach that portion of their THEORY in a SEPARATE class or through "unofficial" comments made by the instructor during the class!

AAR

Intelligent Design is now an undeniable fact!

Humans have modified, changed, and "designed" life through genetic engineering and DNA manipulation.

Scientists can no longer claim that all life on earth evolved solely through random chance, spontaneous mutation, and natural selection.

The organisms created and modified by humans will mix with and become part of the "natural" DNA pool. That DNA will be incorporated in and perpetuated by the natural evolutionary process from this time forward.

Years from now, it will be difficult or impossible to determine which DNA components originated with or were modified by humans, and which originated solely through random chance, spontaneous mutation, and natural selection...

...Just as we cannot tell today which DNA may have been incorporated in the past by other Intelligent Designers or God!!!

Now, we are just trying to determine who else was involved the Intelligent Design of life -- in its creation, its development, and its "evolution"!!!

AAR

Sees,

Well, lets have a look-see:

Natural selection is an immensely powerful yet beautifully simple theory that has held up remarkably well, under intense and unrelenting scrutiny and testing, for 135 years...

Testing? What test? There is no test to show natural selection. The other great flaw is that we've yet to find a single transitional species - if Darwin were right - and as Darwin pointed out - if his theory is correct, then the fossil record should show a very large number of transitional species between, say, the land creature which allegedly became a whale and the actual whale. More than a century of looking, not even one such example.

The history of life tends to move in quick and quirky episodes, rather than by gradual improvement.

But Darwin's theory is entirely about small, incremental changes slowly making a species into something entirely different...if you say that it happens quickly, then Darwin's theory is bogus.

Webs and chains of historical events are so intricate, so imbued with random and chaotic elements, so unrepeatable in encompassing such a multitude of unique (and uniquely interacting) objects, that standard models of simple prediction and replication do not apply.

No kidding...but, fear not!, our Darwinists will still be able to cobble together a story for high school science which purports to show a straight-line developement from single celled organism to man...this way we can present the theory as fact and demand the suppression of alternate conceptions of how life developed.

The most salient feature of life has been the stability of its bacterial mode from the beginning of the fossil record until today...

Which would mean that bacteria are the best-adapted life form and thus there was no need to adapt to later conditions, and thus no possibility of natural selection turning bacteria into, well, Sees Through It.

For reasons related to the chemistry of life's origin and the physics of self- organization...

For God's sake, keep God out of it!!! It just self-organized...yeah, that's it!!! They just organized themselves together...perfect, that will answer those bone-headed Creationists!

And that is enough of that...Sees, I'm highly familiar with evolutionary theory, and it doesn't commend itself to me. Species can and do adapt, but they don't become new species.

"If we came from apes, or any other animal that you can think of, how did we develop speech? Apes don't speak, and they've been around just as long as we have. Heck, they've been around longer than we have the way you believe."

EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS. This is a common misconception made (sometimes deliberately) by creationists.

Evolution says we evolved from various homo sapiens, neanderthals, homo erecti (I think that's the plural of "homo erectus"). Check your facts next time.

And as for Scopes Monkey being set up, please provide proof.
Anyway, that's not a main point.

Truthisright, Freedom1, one of you (maybe both) I believe, said something which is very insulting, and frankly incredibly racist.

"lefty fool,
i came not to call anybody anything. if you're living in sin, then you're already condemned.
i don't have that authority friend. only God the father of the Lord Jesus Christ has that authority. I hope you find him as your Lord and Saviour.
And P.S. don't take things so personal,
there is no righteous, no not one, but the Father which is in heaven"

Wait, that was truthisright. Sorry Freedom1. My bad.

What you said about Jesus being the Lord and Savior reflects one viewpoint (that of Christians) and treats that viewpoint as the only true way. Now, there are atheists, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. etc., and I think that they would find your attempts to get others to accept Christ pretty angrifyingTM (New word I made up). I'm pretty sure they'd also find it racist. I certainly did.

But I'll be graceful, and allow you to apologize if you did not intend to be racist. And I will accept your apology.
In fact, I think I may have misinterpreted you here, so let's just forget the whole thing.

And AAR---

Yes, there is no "gay gene," but to me, choosing homosexuality is a pretty odd choice. All the gay friends I have, I know would rather be straight. They all say that they did not choose their orientation. Why would they lie?

You never actually addressed this point, you just shouted, OTHER PEOPLE SAY YOU'RE WRONG. Well, the people on my side are gays, who would know more about it than anyone else would, wouldn't they? Hmmmm. I rest my case.

Oh yeah, and here's your quote:

"A study ... published in the March 2005 issue of the journal Human Genetics ... actually undermines the commonly held view that homosexual orientation is determined by genetic factors."

"The study’s lead author, Brian Mustanski from the University of Illinois at Chicago, said in a news release: 'There is no one 'gay' gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression.'"

"...a thorough examination of the actual report reveals no statistically significant findings for any of these DNA regions."
"

I don't see anything in there that says that gays choose their orientation, do you?

But let's assume you're right, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. So what? Who decides whether that's sinful? You? Or God? It shouldn't be your business whether they sin or not. And since you want them doomed to hell anyway, don't you think allowing them marriage would be a faster way to do it? Plus, it would weed out the infidels, fast, because this time, they'd have an incentive to be gay. You'd be doing your God a favor, actually, pointing out the sinners and allowing them to be damned.

Oh, and the levels of gay-ness in previous generations has remained pretty much constant, despite various gay and anti-gay laws going into effect. Don't you think the gay rate would go up when a pro-gay law was established, and down when an anti-gay law was established.

Well, Mark, AAR, truthisright, etc. etc., congratulations for having countered around 2% of my arguments.

And congratulations on SUCCESSFULLY countering Zero.

Standing by now, waiting for more "arguments" from you "people".

ThELefTYFoOL

Intelligent Design is now an undeniable fact!

Humans have modified, changed, and "designed" life through genetic engineering and DNA manipulation.

Scientists can no longer claim that all life on earth evolved solely through random chance, spontaneous mutation, and natural selection.

posted by AAR

Wait, so humans are God now?
That still does nothing for arguing against evolution before that point.

ThELefTYFoOL

the fossil record should show a very large number of transitional species between, say, the land creature which allegedly became a whale and the actual whale.

Wrong. Look up Ambulocetus, for starters--it's exactly the "walking whale" you claim doesn't exist. Or try the Tiktaalik for a more recent example or a transitional fossil. Or the numerous hominid transitional forms, including Australopithecus and the so-called "Peking Man," among others. They are all a direct refutation of your highly false claim.

More than a century of looking, not even one such example.

Except that there are, as referenced above. Again, your carefully maintained igorance is not an excuse (including ignorance about how evolution works and what, therefore, a "transitional fossil" would be). Just because you choose to ignore the examples, among all the other evidence collected over the past century and a half, doesn't mean it isn't there. It just means you choose not to acknowledge it. Most likely because you don't want to acknowledge how wrong you are.

But Darwin's theory is entirely about small, incremental changes slowly making a species into something entirely different...if you say that it happens quickly, then Darwin's theory is bogus.

Again, this is your own ignorance as to how evolution works. It doesn't happen in a consistent straight line; nor does it happen immediately, as so many creationists like to falsely claim. It happens in fits and stats over time, seeing as how mutation is, you know, random and all. Re-read Gould's theory; you're not understanding it (though perhaps that is deliberate on your part).

demand the suppression of alternate conceptions of how life developed.

Still on the suppression conspiracy theory? How sad. I notice in all your caterwhauling about this conspiracy, you always meticulously avoid doing one thing: Presenting the scientific evidence for creationism that would render it fit for science class. Not once have you done this. All you do is complain about how you don't like evolution.

Which would mean that bacteria are the best-adapted life form and thus there was no need to adapt to later conditions

Yet again, ignorance of how evolution works. Just one quick question to rupture this little fallacy of yours: Do you think the environment on earth has remained absolutely static? The chemical makeup of the atmosphere, the soil, water, it all has stayed absolutely the same? There have been no changes that might, you know, force adaptation? Hint: read up on the oxygen catastrophe. Then try to make this argument again with a straight face.

I'm highly familiar with evolutionary theory

Clearly, you are not. That's the fundamental issue here. Your entire criticism of evolution is based upon fundamentally flawed concepts of what evolution is, and you demand that everybody cater to your misconceptions. Again, it's as if you are a mathemetician claiming that 2 + 2 = 5, and then wondering why nobody takes your alleged mathematical bona fides seriously.

Evidence has been presented to you for the umpteenth time now. Are you still going to pretend that it hasn't?

"And P.S. don't take things so personal,
there is no righteous, no not one, but the Father which is in heaven."

Posted by Truthisright

Sorry. I didn't mean to sound so angry. I was just trying to avoid being called doomed to hell and stuff. And on your "living in sin" thing, am I living in sin by disagreeing with you?

Just wondering...

ThELefTYFoOL

"Testing? What test? There is no test to show natural selection."
really? two colonies of bacteria, separated, intro a virus into both...wait...wait...wait...given time and chance....OMG, two colonies which can no longer reproduce with each other due to differential mutations in those which could survive the virus....simple set up...very, very difficult execution (dumbed down of course)...the type of waiting which would make a weaker, lazier person give up and say...Eh, must be God....Hey, sounds like Noonan.

"But Darwin's theory is entirely about small, incremental changes slowly making a species into something entirely different...if you say that it happens quickly, then Darwin's theory is bogus."
-see above

"this way we can present the theory as fact and demand the suppression of alternate conceptions of how life developed."
-such as???

"Which would mean that bacteria are the best-adapted life form and thus there was no need to adapt to later conditions, and thus no possibility of natural selection turning bacteria into, well, Sees Through It."
-sigh...see example one and carry it out for hundreds of thousands of million years...oh wait again...too long...never mind, must be God...yeah, that's EASIER

"For God's sake, keep God out of it!!!"
-Not a whole lot of people are saying that...what is being said is Keep Your Stupid Childish Fairy Tale Stories Out Of It!

"I'm highly familiar with evolutionary theory,"
Well, NO evidently you are far from familiar with it...but that doesn't keep you from criticizing that which you don't know now does it...

Evolution should be studied and debated intelligently until, if ever, another theory comes along and disproves it....You got one Noonan?

Sees,

The trouble with your Ambulocetus is that it lived only a very short while - in geologic terms - from the supposed Darwinist descendent Basilosaurus which looks precisely nothing like Ambulocetus and what you are missing is the series of transitional creatures between the two. The former had feet, the latter had flippers...give me something which is half flipper and half feet and you'll be on to something.

You've got nothing in transistional creatures - because, dear friend, you can't have them...you can't move a nostril to a blowhole because there is no way that inherent in a nostril is a blowhole...they are similar only in the fact that they both take in air, but their structure and positioning are extraordinarily different.

And of course the environment hasn't remained static...that is another debate we have here all the time...but bacteria flourish in all environments...there is no need for them to adapt...no need for them to turn into something else to survive.

Opus,

Yes - God created the universe and guides its growth towards His desired ends.

The mechanisms He uses are largely unknown, though we can infer from evidence that He wishes things to accomodate the crown of His creation, Mankind.

Species can and do adapt, but they don't become new species.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 21, 2007 03:55 PM

Mark

Two organism are from different species if they can not breed together (and are of opposite sex, of course, and that only applies to species that DO have a sex)

Have you ever seen a cub from a chihuahua and a St Bernard? (not made by artificial insemination)

The "dog" species is turning, under your own amazed eyes, into a number of different species.

you might say it is the result of human intervention, but remember : we did not use magic.
If it can happen with human-selected breeding, why would it be impossible with naturally selected breeding?

"I don't look to get any answers to my questions to Lefty fool. But I'm sure he will continue to throw his 'facts' around. And the same type questions will continue to crop up, and he'll continue to try and ignore them b/c he can't answer them."
posted by Lucas

Sorry Lucas. I didn't mean to give you extra ammo to throw at me. I work on weekdays, so it's kinda hard for me to post. I'm distracted by other things then.

But your answer to my post was answered in the posts I just posted, a few posts above this post (Guiness world record TM-- most "post"s in a sentence).

And your post that I quoted above didn't really argue anything. So I don't feel the need to answer it. So why do I? I dunno. I'll ask me.

Your earlier posts did provide some slightly valid "arguments," but since I've answered those (and by the way, with facts. Have you put any evidence in your posts other than the Bible?) why don't you run along?

Oh, and to all the Creationists:

Where is the EVIDENCE (outside of the Bible, I've read that) for your theory?

And do you think that evolution doesn't make sense, or just that it's wrong?

Well, until the next outbreak of posts, Bye.

ThELefTYFoOL

He wishes things to accomodate the crown of His creation, Mankind.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 21, 2007 05:19 PM

So why is the environnement so hostile to us that we had to bend it to our wills through... Technology? Or do you think the keyboard you are typing on grows on a tree?

"though we can infer from evidence"

such as?

and again, I never said God didn't have anything to do with this, what I said was your (or anyones) wacky religion doesn't

but please, what evidence are you speaking of?

Opus,

We are the multi-celled creature which can thrive anywhere on the surface of the globe. No place is entirely off limits to us, no place lacks resources from which humans can obtain a living. If you were given homo sapiens and told to make a world which would suit him, this world would be your end result.

Lefty,

Romans 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin: but yield yourselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

We are the multi-celled creature which can thrive anywhere on the surface of the globe. No place is entirely off limits to us, no place lacks resources from which humans can obtain a living. If you were given homo sapiens and told to make a world which would suit him, this world would be your end result.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 21, 2007 06:29 PM

Actually Mark the ant would better fit this description than man.

There are many ants living in environnements hostile to mankind. I'm thinking sand deserts and jungle forest, but I believe I remember it is true with the poles too. and they thrive there without having to adapt the environnement to their needs as we do through machines.

This is the third times I offer counter examples to what you offer as fact. Will you admit you are wrong ?

"We are the multi-celled creature which can thrive anywhere on the surface of the globe."
well, No, that's not even close to being correct, sans the multi-celled part, the list of places we can't trive is way to long to post here

but I was asking about your evidance and you ran away from the question, shall we try again?
"though we can infer from evidence..."

what's the evidence?

Maybe not thrive there Opus, but humans can venture to pretty much any place on the globe thanks to our ability to adapt and change our environment. From the highest mountains to the depths of the sea (maybe not the very bottoms yet but we're going deeper every year). From the lava fields of active volcanos to the depths of the earth itself, man overcomes and keeps trying to go further.

Oh my post has nothing to do about the topic since I don't really care one way or the other. :D

"species can adapt but they don't become different species" -- Mark Noonan

Alright Mark - I will bite - what is your theory. I thought it was creationism - but apparently you believe in adaptation? Explain

Gozer,
good job on not adding anything to the discussion, unless of course God's master plan was for man to throw on a back pack and hike to anywhere on the Earth he likes.

-cool site you’ve got though…no sarcasm, I look forward to spending more time there.

You've got nothing in transistional creatures - because, dear friend, you can't have them...

I love it. I show you something you claimed doesn't exist, and in response, you still say it doesn't exist.

You simply cannot be educated, Noonan. You are entirely too hostile to knowledge and learning to do anything but wallow in your ignorance and do your best to keep information out. Pretty sad state of existence, but such is your choice.

AAR Wrote:"History is filled with false and disproved scientific theories and hypotheses. Check the latest scientific news from time to time and chances are you will find one or more disproved theories, and since "science abhors a vacuum", you will find another theory already set to take it's place!

With so many disproved theories, how are we to know when one is valid. If we accept that one could be valid, we may just find out tomorrow that it too has been proven false! Sort of like the little boy who cried wolf... eventually no one believed his cries!"

You really have *no* clue, do you?

The way science progresses is by scientists *proving older scientists wrong*. If a new model of the world, a new theory, describes our world better than an old one, then we will (eventually, at least) use the new one.
But new models do not spring whole-cloth from the foreheads of scientists. They are usually small, even minute, modifications of earlier theories.
Newton, one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, was, from our modern point of view, dead wrong on a lot of things. But without the work he laid down, the theories he came up with, we would never have reached the point we are at today.

Progress means we *learn new things*. Old theories become obsolete because we have found theories that match the facts better, but the old theories were still useful to get us to the point where we could discover the new ones. Science does not *stop*, AAR. Science hasn't found "eternal truths", but "best guesses". However, these "best guesses" allow us to travel to the moon, to create nuclear reactors, to modify plants and animals into new forms, and to do so many other things on this strange little world of ours...

AAR... Your ignorance on these matters is *stunning*.

Our Father expressly forbids what you and Matt are doing. Read the New Testament. This makes me cry. You are hurting us.

AAR: Intelligent Design is now an undeniable fact! Humans have modified, changed, and "designed" life through genetic engineering and DNA manipulation.

That fact seems to me more damaging than helpful to the notion that "God did it". I mean come on, if anything can be known with certainty it would be how such life originated... Humans did it.

Since humans are not divine it seems to me that, given the state of the evidence, the most parsimonious explanation as to the "cause" of any documented instance of "irreducible complexity" (as postulated by Intelligent Design theory), would be humans. Apart from the requirement of documenation, however, and because of the apparent discrepancies in chronology gleaned from both the library and the fossil record, it appears that humans aren't likely to be the cause of past postulated instances of irreducible complexity. So, combining the two "facts", it would seem that the next most plausible, most parsimonious source would be intelligent space aliens -- especially since people see UFOs flying around all the time.

In other words, even if you buy into the ID argument, and even if an instance of irreducible complexity could be compellingly demonstrated, it still doesn't imply much about the connection between the mechanism and its ultimate cause. That seems to me so freakin' obvious that it's hardly worth saying.

Shifting gears for a moment, and in response to Morris: But isn't a how just a smaller why?

No. At least not in the context of how you explained it. Reductionism doesn't get you anywhere except into the realm of the very small (and perhaps by extension to the other extreme, the very large). However, and as you pointed out, doing so can be very revealing. But I think you have to keep in mind that that revelation is constrained by two things: (1) the revelation itself doesn't elucidate much of anything beyond the fact that the logical construct science currently offers and/or the facts subsumed within it has/have apparent difficulty in explaining the mechanisms involved, and (2) whatever you decide about the revelation in the first case, it in and of itself does not require coherence to any particular alternative theoretical (or religious) viewpoint -- only that the original one has limitations.

Those, combined, are important issues, because if you cannot effectively argue the first point the second becomes moot. Likewise, if you cannot effectively argue the second point the first becomes moot. Further, if you cannot argue both points in a cogent manner, your whole argument becomes moot.

Perhaps I am not explaining it well, but I suspect my difficulty is a direct expression of the "nature of the beast", as it were - which is to say that I can come up with no logical way, short of rejecting objective reality completely, or rejecting spiritual reality completely, to make objective reality and spiritual reality coincide within a single, inclusive, set of "rules". I have no real idea how or when that event might take place (although I'm inclined to believe that it might have something to do with being able to truly experience time as a dimension rather than a vector, but that's just a guess). But until then I will remain content in my belief (one which is shared by all major religions) that there is a distinction between body and soul, and that the most centered existence relies upon a "proper" appreciation of the benefits and limitations of both. In Christianity that balance is called "grace". In Buddhism it's called "karma". In Daoism/Confucionism it's the balance between Yin/Yang. After that I have to admit that my knowledge falls off, and is perhaps more gratuitous than accurate. But I'm guessing that in Greek/Roman contexts, and in Hinduism as well, it could be described as "moderation". In Islam it could be expressed as "jihad", a term which I think is seriously misunderstood. But again, I say that out of relative ignorance.

At any rate, the alternative to distinguishing between "body and soul", or "corporeal and spiritual" existence, is to assume that ONLY coporeal or ONLY spiritual existence is relevant. In either case I'm sure that one who holds that position could exist. But is that existence truly fulfilling? Further, if everyone in the society in which they are embedded holds the same view, can that society remain viable?

On this blog especially I almost feel compelled to make the following question very concrete, but I won't. All I will ask, on the one hand, is whether anyone relies on science, exclusively, to rationalize their existence -- and more importantly their moral code -- for everything they do. Is there, perhaps, something else? On the other hand, I would like to ask if anyone relies on their spiritual existence, exclusively, to perpetuate their corporeal existence?

kblack77,

The reason we adapt?

Well, just think about it for a minute.

If your house seems to be getting a bit crowded for space, say like...you buy more furniture sofas, coffee tables, etc, etc. what would you most likely do?

Build a new room? Yeah... that's it!

Or what about your lawn? (if you have one)...when it starts to grow in the spring, do you let it grow into a hayfield, or do you mow it keeping it nice and neat like the rest of the neighbors yards are? Yeah that's it, you mow it!

In winter, when it's cold outside say -10 F*, do you go outside with a T-shirt on or a heavy fur coat? YEAH! that's it, you wear a coat!

What do you do when you get hungry? Do you sit around until you starve or do you try to go get food? THAT'S IT! You go get food!!

You see God gave man the the ability to adapt!

How? ONLY THROUGH THOUGHT, AND ONLY THOUGHT!

Our body as in the physical sense, were not designed to adapt to the environment!!

If we were? We would be just like all the other creatures on earth, Cats, Dogs, Deer, and other fur bearing creatures, and we would be able to scavenge and survive without thought to the tax collector!!

Bottom line--

Adaptation by way of THINK!

Our minds change in order to be able to survive!

"And God saw all that He had made and indeed it was GOOD!"

meaning He made it PERFECT, in CREATION, and DESIGN!!

Last point--This earth and universe surrounding it, are all held together ONLY by God's infinite Grace and Power from on High, and His Love endureth Forever!

God bless!

Jeremiah

Jeremiah
Sorry, you're wrong, I spoke with God over lunch and he says a giant turtle is actually behind it all and we're just and byproduct of its desire.

hey, prove it's wrong or go with it.

"Our body as in the physical sense, were not designed to adapt to the environment!!"

Oh yeah? How about you go down to Mexico and drink a really big glass of water....then revise your statement when you're able to walk again.

Jeremiah: "And God saw all that He had made and indeed it was GOOD!" meaning He made it PERFECT, in CREATION, and DESIGN!!

Well there you go, right from the prophet Jeremiah's mouth: God in His infinite perfection, does not require tinkering with His own design. Who'd 'a guessed, huh? But that's been my point all along: any injection of ID principles beyond the origin of life detracts from the concept of God's perfection.

Thanks for making my point for me, Jeremiah.

Last point--This earth and universe surrounding it, are all held together ONLY by God's infinite Grace and Power from on High, and His Love endureth Forever!

Here here. And thank you for driving the point Home.

Exactly my point, Opus.

God gave man the ability of CHOICE!

You learn from your mistakes, right? I hope you do! *chuckles*

Unlike animals who have no choice! or capability to think of making wise decisions for themselves!

Jeremiah

Jeremiah
Uh, no, if you drink the water you have NO CHOICE!
You will become sick because you HAVE NOT ADAPTED as the locals HAVE...

ADAPTED...not CHOICE

So unless God just really hates tourists you have no point to prove and you're just making the turtle gods angry.

LefTY FoOL,

Do you have a problem with English? I did not say anything about humans being gods? You said that!

Do you want to disagree with any of the following facts?

Humans are intelligent beings.

Humans have added, changed, modified, and deleted DNA in various organisms (plants and animals).

There are organisms alive today (plants and animals) which are the direct result of human modifications to their DNA and which did not "evolve" in the manner prescribed by the Theory of Evolution.

Some of these organisms already exist in the "wild" (outside the lab) and contain DNA which was inserted, changed, and modified by humans... and there will be more of these in the future.

These organisms have DNA, traits, abilities, capabilities, functions, and other characteristics which were not inherited or incorporated in the manner prescribed by the Theory of Evolution.

These organisms can pass the human incorporated and modified DNA to their offspring and descendents, and evolve over time in the manner prescribed by the Theory of Evolution.

Some of these human modified organisms can and will cross breed and mix with their "natural" relatives in the wild and create even more and different changes to their DNA in future generations.

A thousand, ten thousand, or a million years from now, scientists could not tell which DNA is the result of "natural evolution" as prescribed by the Theory of Evolution, and which DNA was the result of intelligent [human] design.

Hypothetically... if this DNA had been inserted, changed, or modified thousands, tens of thousands, or millions of years ago, today's scientists would not likely know that it had been incorporated by intelligent [human] beings.

AAR

Ricorun

Jeremiah does that quite often. He'll make a point and then turn around and immediately discount it in his rendition of a particular bible verse.

*Chuckles*

Thank you Opus, I hope you enjoy my site. As for this conversation I really don't see a point for it. There will be those who believe the earth and everything on it was made in 7 days. There will be those who believe that an all powerful being created the world. Still there will be others who think we're the result of a giant cosmic sneeze and are watching out for the tissue. :)

In the end it doesn't really matter to me what Mark, or Freedom, or anyone else thinks. What matters is what I think because in the end it's all academic. *Shrugs*

"But that's been my point all along: any injection of ID principles beyond the origin of life detracts from the concept of God's perfection."

Ricorun,

You're wrong my friend! because without the concept of life itself, God's creation would not have been perfect!

It would have been an incomplete work, and that's why He Created man in order that you might acknowledge Him and know that He is Indeed real!

Jeremiah

ok - reading the comments here - i really really suggest that you go buy a biology book and at least understand what the theory of evolution actually is. Its fine to be critical - skeptical - or disagree but there is such an utter lack of understanding of the basic ideas of evolution displayed here its simply a joke to continue argument without a properly educated view point

Ricorun,

I'm not trying to "prove" that "God did it". I can't do that (although it is one possibility) -- just as scientists can't "prove" the Theory of Evolution is true for every and all cases. I'm just talking about "possibilities", concepts, and theories... along with a few "inconvenient facts"!

As you know, there is more than one "theory" or concept of Intelligent Design. Before any or all of those can be discussed in our schools, however, we must first figure out some way to show or convince a significant number of people that one or more of these concepts are possible and plausible. Liberals and most "true" Darwinians won't even acknowledge that!

We can talk about the possibility that "intelligent beings" could have been involved in some way with life on Earth without worrying about the who (singular or plural) at this time... just as the evolutionists don't worry about the "how" (origin ) of life when formulating and discussing the Theory of Evolution.

As you say, in the case of human intelligent design, we can say with certainty that "humans did it". That does at least show and confirm the manipulation of DNA and life is possible, and that it has in fact been done by other than by the "natural" means and process as prescribed by the Theory of Evolution.

We've cleared the first hurdle by showing that humans, at least, are capable of "intelligent design" by manipulating the building blocks of life. It remains to be determined if all of those building blocks evolved "naturally" as prescribed by the Theory of Evolution, or if, possibly, some of them could be the result of intelligent intervention at one or multiple points in the development of life on Earth.

Yes, in addition to human "intelligent design" there is the possibility that other intelligent beings (space aliens for one) could have been involved in the development of life on Earth. Not only have many people claimed to have been abducted, but many claim the "aliens" were especially interested in "reproductive processes".

There are ancient drawings, artifacts, and other indications that could also lead one to that conclusion, as in discussed in the book "The Chariots of the Gods" and in various documentaries shown on the Discovery Channel and other educational channels.

There is the Biblical account of Ezekiel's Wheel which some believe was a documented account of an extraterrestrial visit by "intelligent beings". Others, believe the Biblical version. In either case, if the account is true, then someone visited the Earth then! And if then, how many other times and for what purpose (and who).

But... we'll worry about the "who" (singular or plural) later, after we are "permitted" to discuss the concept and possibilities!

For now, I'm just looking for various ways to "skin that proverbial cat"!

AAR

Magnus,

After all of your rambling and name calling, you just confirm what I said...

History is filled with false and disproved scientific theories and hypotheses. Check the latest scientific news from time to time and chances are you will find one or more disproved theories, and since "science abhors a vacuum", you will find another theory already set to take it's place!

As you said in so many words... that's just the way it is!

Done any reading lately on the theory of gravity, dark matter, and dark energy?

AAR

I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do.
Anyone with a love for truth outside of themselves has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. They need to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."
Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around. Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate.
I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up,"
Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.
Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

LefTY FoOL,

You say evolution does not say we evolved from monkeys...

Aren't you mincing words there?

Does evolution say that monkeys and humans evolved from the same creature (common ancestor)?

Does evolutions say we evolved from a single celled organism?

A bacteria... an amoeba... an algae... perhaps?

AAR

kblack,

I adhere to the official Catholic position - who the heck knows? As none of us were there at the beginning and detailed records weren't kept, all we really can do is what my scientist father called a "swag" - Sophisticated Wild A## Guess.

I've actually got no fundamental problem with evolution - perhaps that was the mechanism God used to get from A to B; but my gripe is that the Darwinists won't even allow God to be considered in the grand scheme of things, and that tells me that there is an anti-religious bigotry at bottom here.

You see, this isn't that important an issue - but the secularists have made it into such because they are desperately afraid to admit to the existence of God. Admit God and all of a sudden you are faced with the prospect that God prefers some things to others and has specific demands to make upon us - and for the thoroughgoing secularist, this can't be tolerated, it would seem.

Why should it matter if a biology teacher opens up a discussion about the possibility of a Creator who designed things to work as they do?

mikeh,

Believing in no God means absolute despair...because work as hard as you want for a better future, and you're just wasting your time. The world doesn't have a future - it dies, for certain.

No God means no point in living because if all you've got is this 80 years and in that time to be plagued with fears, illnesses and bereavements and then become utterly extinct at the end of it, then why bother continuing to live at all?

No God means that you believe an absurdity - that the universe has always existed.

Mark,
Being the self proclaimed good catholic that you claim to be have you looked at the churchs position on evolution(hint: they accept it)

My goodness Mark,
You don't know what the theory of evolution is, You are claiming to be a good catholic yet argue against what the church accepts and you continue to mix up faith based philosphy with science.

If I were you I would stop bumping this post or at least stop commenting here.

Mark, these "arguments" always amuse me. but I've always had a problem with the christian argument......you claim basic life is too complex to have happened by accident.....isnt god a tad more complex? if so wouldnt the probability of life just happening by accident be a tad higher than the probability of god just happening by accident?

Now I have heard the argument that god has always been and always will be.......so if you fall on that argument, its possible god has always existed but impossible matter has always existed (in some form)?

Posted by AAR:
You say evolution does not say we evolved from monkeys...

Aren't you mincing words there?

Does evolution say that monkeys and humans evolved from the same creature (common ancestor)?

Evolving from a common ancestor is NOT the same thing as evolving from monkeys.

As for problems with my English, well, I don't see how you work that one out.

I was simply saying that just because humans can genetically engineer things doesn't mean that God created any or all life.

ThELefTYFoOL

Mark,

First, wow! 201 comments! Nice...

Second, where is your evidence that believing in no God leads to despair? How many depressed atheists do you actually know?

There is no need to have an afterlife to enjoy and strive in this one. The point of life for we non-believers is the journey and experience in-and-of itself; not some end goal down the road.

Living a full and meaningful life here and now is what is important. We live on in the memories of others and in the contributions we made to humanity; this you can be 100% sure of. Heaven or Hell might be out there; but I'm absolutely certain my loved ones will remember me when I'm gone and that my few published writings will survive for a while.

The world might die. We might just be a random event in the grand incomprehensible multiverse of something called existence. Thinking like this doesn’t make me sad. It makes me excited to the possibilities of discovery, even if my appetite is never sufficiently satisfied.

Again, like most things in life, the journey is what brings us the most joy, learning, and experience. The end goal may be out there, but focusing too much on the destination means people often lose sight of what is in front of them now and miss out on the wonders that are “Now”.

Atheism is not despair.

neologizer,

You are making an overly broad, misleading, and basically false statement when you say that churches accept "The Theory of Evolution."

Are you saying that ALL churches (faiths) including Christian, Jewish, and Islamic have suddenly "seen the light" shown to them by Darwinians and evolutionists, and concluded that ALL life on Earth evolved from a single celled organism that itself was created spontaneously through abiogenesis, and God was not involved in the creation and "evolution" of life? Somehow, I must have missed that news.

Perhaps you can provide the specifics on your statement and tell us which churches (faiths) accept it, which churches don't, and of those that do... just what is it that they "accept"?

As I have said before, the concept of evolution is what a creator or "intelligent designer" would incorporate into life to allow it to change, adapt, and "evolve" to the every changing conditions and environment around it. Without the ability to change and adapt to a changing environment, life itself would soon die out and cease to exist. The fact that life has the ability to change, adapt, and involve does not mean or prove that life began through abiogenesis or that God, Intelligent Beings, or whomever were not involved in the process.

As Mark basically said, the problem is Liberals won't allow or permit an open discussion on the issues. They want to teach their version of evolution (ignoring it's problems, unproven assumptions, and unknowns), suppress any discussion about other possibilities or involvement in the process, and either flatly teach (as some in fact do) or imply that the Biblical version is completely baseless, without merit, and totally wrong!

From this date forward and for the rest of time, the Theory of Evolution must recognize and incorporate at least one version of Intelligent Design. From this date forward, there is the possibility and in many cases the absolute fact, that organisms will have DNA, abilities, capabilities, and characteristics which were not incorporated as prescribed by the current Theory of Evolution. This will include more and more organisms over time, as more are changed, modified, and created through human "intelligent design" and others incorporate those changes through "natural" evolution. .....DO YOU DENY THIS TOO!

From this date forward, the concept of Intelligent Design (one version) is an UNDENIABLE FACT! If one "intelligent being" can and has changed the course of evolution, there is the possibility others may have done the same. What remains to be known and shown is the involvement of Intelligent Design in the process prior to this date and by whom (one or more)!

That's something that needs to be DISCUSSED and CONSIDERED in SCIENCE CLASS!

AAR

"Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do."

mikeh,

It may be easy not believing in God, but it's not a smart choice to make, after all that He has provided for you here on this abundant earth to enjoy and be satisfied with. God does'nt want you to sit around and be miserable for the rest of your life, but instead, to live a life to the fullest, which includes: Happiness, Joy, Peace, and Comfort.

As far as there being no means to prove a negative...I'm afraid to say that is a false statement, because man was given a choice in the beginning, he took the road of disobedience and thusly recieving the punishment for his sin, which is suffering, all men have suffered from that point in time to the present and will continue to suffer unto the end when Jesus Christ returns the second time, but...If we suffer for the cause of Christ then our reward is Great in Heaven where there is no suffering, pain, or tear to dim the eye.

Hebrews 2:10 - 18(NIV)

"In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their SALVATION PERFECT THROUGH SUFFERING. Both the one who makes men Holy and those who are made Holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. He says--

I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises.

And again,

I will put my trust in him.

And again he says,

Here am I, and the children God has given me.

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is the devil--and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted."

So you see Mike, we are to live lives pleasing to the Lord Almighty who patiently waits for your answer to His calling, and because His Love Endures Forever.

It is left up to YOU, because you were given choice remember.

Jesus said--"without Me, Ye are nothing, with Me, Ye can do all things"

GOD, IS AN AWESOME GOD, HE REIGNS!

Jeremiah

Anillo,

This life isn't even the start of things, just imagine eternity, where there is no time, Just remember, God is not held down by a stop watch, it's up to Him when, where, and how we leave this world.

Sure, it's just common sense for folks to try and make the most of this life, But...for the mean time, just think about where you will spend eternity!

Jeremiah

God is not held down by a stop watch, it's up to Him when, where, and how we leave this world.

Posted by: Jeremiah at April 22, 2007 01:51 PM

So God decided that one spring morning on a peaceful American campus he would, with the help of an insane armed man, take out over 30 individuals. Nice.

Ahh..Lucas..I believe I must have "misunderestimated" you. You not only asked me how humans could evolve from apes and develop speech, but from any animal that we did evolve from. My bad in my responses.

As I'm sure you know, you can teach an ape to speak, just non-verbally (sign language). As for vocal cords developing in humans in the way that they did...well, you could do some research. Or I could just point out that we always had vocal cords to begin with (at least, back until our recognizable ancestors survived) and they changed to accomodate intelligent speech. Although, in your case, the intelligent part didn't come through, just the speech part. Heh heh.

Anyway, back to the "problem". Animals communicate, to varying degrees. Different noises signify different things. And, because our ancestors were more intelligent than other animals, they communicated more often, and as they communicated, it became more refined as their vocal cords adapted to this new need. And speech allowed a group to work together, and stay alive better, and so you're right back at natural selection.

And, please, do not call me smart. It inflates my already-gargantuan ego. (Joke).

ThELefTYFoOL

CO,

I take it that you, like the rest of the Liberals (Democrats) don't believe in responsibility for one's own actions!

Oh, that's right, according to Liberals, it's always someone else's fault. It's never the fault of the person who committed the crime or broke the law. Liberals will always find some way to make it appear they were the real victims. They are always portrayed as the poor unfortunate person who was abused, ignored, or otherwise mistreated by society.

Why don't you Liberals (Democrats) for once try finding fault with the ones who commit the crimes and who demonstrate the bad behavior! They are NOT the VICTIMS as you would have others believe!

It's too bad this nut case wasn't somewhere that people are allowed to carry weapons to protect themselves. If that had been the case, someone would have put an end to his killing spree before so many people were killed and injured!

That's another problem with Liberalism. People stand around and wait for the government to take care of them. That's what happened onboard the planes on 9/11... that's what happened with Katrina... that's what happens all to frequently!

But... that's not the topic of this thread!

AAR

CO,

Think of it this way ... What if God allowed that horrible tragedy committed by that demon possessed man to get people to wake up and realize, that you have a choice to do good and serve Him, Or... as that man has done, choose bad, and suffer the indelible consequences of spending an eternity in hell Forever and ever? Because I can tell you right now, that man is in Hell right now, at this very moment, wishing he would not have done what he done.

Whatever the case may be, God has given everyone ample oppurtunity to stop and think about their actions and the consequences thereof, and that's why it is so very critical that we try to send a message of hope and love for those who do not know Jesus Christ as their personal Savior,(The Roman Road) for only HE can give you that peace, stregth, and comfort that passeth all understanding.

Jeremiah

"It's too bad this nut case wasn't somewhere that people are allowed to carry weapons to protect themselves. If that had been the case, someone would have put an end to his killing spree before so many people were killed and injured!"

Posted by: AAR at April 22, 2007 05:35 PM

Perfect solution, the entire school, armed and dangerous. I assume the guns they carry will be fully loaded at all times and ready for action.

"Perfect solution, the entire school, armed and dangerous. I assume the guns they carry will be fully loaded at all times and ready for action."

Posted by: Canadian Observer at April 22, 2007 06:56 PM.

CO,

So in other words by what you are saying it would have been better for the man to be able to shoot as many people as he would like and nobody should be able to defend themselves?

Why not STOP the demon and save lives?

Jeremiah

Mark.

NO - it is not a "clear anti-religious bigotry" which stops teaching of creationism or intelligent design. Its the fact that it is not science. Its not science because it doesn't pass the first most basic rule of science - which is that a theory has to make a prediction which - at least in principle - can be falsified by experiment. Otherwise there is no science to do. It just a philosophical idea.

If you want to discuss this in Sunday school - thats finebut it has no basis in science

kblack: NO - it is not a "clear anti-religious bigotry" which stops teaching of creationism or intelligent design. Its the fact that it is not science. Its not science because it doesn't pass the first most basic rule of science - which is that a theory has to make a prediction which - at least in principle - can be falsified by experiment. Otherwise there is no science to do. It just a philosophical idea.

Keep going. Talk about the principle of parsimony, of Occam's razor. Show us how you earned the "Ph" part of your "PhD". Put the pedal to the metal.

By the way, does anyone have the links to past discussions on this topic? Much of it sounds very repetitive. But I'm old, and maybe my recollections aren't as sharp as they once were. Yeah, maybe.

kblack77,

Many say man has came a long way since the beginning, but I say, he has'nt even gained a fraction of the scope of God's All Powerful Mind.

Ya see, that's the problem, man relies too heavily on SELF to figure out new ways and means of betterment for society.

There's only one solid foundation for Truth--

God's Holy Word, It has outlasted every Storm, every famine, every hardship up to this very day, and it will stand ETERNAL! For He is Alpha, and Omega the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Jeremiah

Jeremiah: There's only one solid foundation for Truth-- God's Holy Word, It has outlasted every Storm, every famine, every hardship up to this very day, and it will stand ETERNAL! For He is Alpha, and Omega the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

As a general concept, I agree. But CO is right: your interpretation of God's Holy Word lacks for consistency. That's an important point. And IMO, you need to work on that - from the Alpha all the way to the Omega. But you seem to be on your way. And my hopes and prayers go out to you.

Ricorun,

I am not in error as to that particular statement, So you must be having trouble understanding the text of the message. I'll explain...

Alpha and Omega mean...there is no time span with God, He knows when He Created the earth and He knows when it will all end, He is ETERNAL!

Meaning...EVERLASTING!!

It all ties in, one way or the other.

Anything wrong with that?

Jeremiah

LefTY FoOL,

Okay, you're not saying we evolved from a monkey...

You're saying we and the monkeys both evolved from bacteria, amoebas, germs, algae, or something similar -- figuratively speaking! That's better than saying we evolved from monkeys?

Why don't scientists and educators do a little more to correct that little misconception and misunderstanding, and make sure everyone understands that science is not saying humans evolved from monkeys -- science is saying both evolved from germs (figuratively speaking)!

That would make a great slogan in the evolution classes... we all evolved from germs!

That should turn a few heads!!!

AAR

CO,

So in other words by what you are saying it would have been better for the man to be able to shoot as many people as he would like and nobody should be able to defend themselves?

Posted by: Jeremiah at April 22, 2007 07:12 PM

Jeremiah, this deranged individual obtained his weapons legally. What I am saying is stop making it so bloody easy for lunatics to purchase firearms. Stop the insane idea that every American has the right to bare arms. I know many U.S. citizens feel they live in a very scary place and need the protection they think guns offer, but doesn't that just add to the problem; more guns, more nuts using them, more deaths and injuries. Or perhaps, Jeremiah, this also, is part of God's great plan?

"Stop the insane idea that every American has the right to bare arms."

CO,

Every American is afforded the right to purchase and bear arms, whether for protection, skeet shooting, law enforcement(a necessity), Or for recreational sport hunting... such as I will be doing tomorrow morning when I go in pursuit of the elusive spring gobbler turkey hunting here in wild and wonderful West Virginia.

"I know many U.S. citizens feel they live in a very scary place and need the protection they think guns offer"

Let me ask you this, How else would you stop a mass criminal at lare before the police could get there in time to save you, ever think about that?

"Or perhaps, Jeremiah, this also, is part of God's great plan?"

First off, CO, that is a foolish question, God is not in the gun business, God is in the business of saving man from a fallen world.

Jeremiah

One more thing, CO.

Another one of the major factors playing into the increasing crime wave in America is the Immigration factor.

Stop allowing people of a foreign descent into this country and we will be much better off.

Most Native born Americans are law abiding, responsible, peace loving individuals.

We need to reduce immigration to a level that will allow the U.S. to stabilize, or else there will be all out chaos, if there isn't already.

Jeremiah

(OT) CO,

Stop making excuses and taking up for the murderer!

How many mass killing have you seen at gun shows? At police events? In places where weapons are available?

How often do criminals deliberately attack an armed person? Given a choice, it's the weak and apparently defenseless people criminals prefer!

BAN AUTOMOBILES... New York, NY, April 19, 2007: "...a World Health Organization's (WHO) report reveals that more people are killed by road accidents than HIV/AIDS or cancer. The report says 1.2 million people die in road crashes every year and 50 million more are hurt at an estimated cost of more than $500 billion in lost income and disability."

BAN BIKINIS... ABC News, June 10, 2005: "Melanoma is the leading cause of cancer death among women ages 25-29. This year alone, about 7,800 men and women in the United States will die of skin cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. Melanoma is now second only to lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer in women ages 30-34."

BAN TANNING BOOTHS... Science Daily, April 16, 2007: (UPI) Exposure to tanning beds before age 35 increases a person's risk of getting melanoma skin cancer by 75 percent, according to the Skin Cancer Foundation. Nearly 30 million people tan indoors annually, giving the indoor tanning industry an estimated revenue of $5 billion.

BAN CANDY AND SUGAR... Medical News Today, Jun 11, 2006: During the last 20 years the total number of people with diabetes worldwide has risen from 30 million to 230 million, according to the International Diabetes Federation. China and India now have the most diabetes sufferers in the world.

BAN ABORTIONS... Almost 1.3 million abortions are performed in the U.S. each year. Since 1973. almost 50 million abortions have been performed in the U.S. And how many babies were killed in the third trimester where the infant could have survived outside the womb?

And the mass killings at Virginia Tech were committed by a South Korean...

(Stop making it so bloody easy for women to purchase bikinis!)

AAR

Dear AAR, Mark (anyone else that puts ignorance above fact,

Catholic Church's stance on evolution:

The International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."

Now Mark,
Do be a good catholic boy and accept evolution as your pope does.

Canadian,
You're not thinking clearly again,
Criminals are going to be criminals aren't they?
You take away the guns, you make more laws, (already 27,000 on the books), make agressive campagin, what will the criminal do?
They will murder, cheat or steal to do the crime.
The leaders of our Democratic party, if elected in 08 will make a very very agressive campaign in our courts to begin removing ALL guns from the hands of the American people.
Is this insane,
yes and it's not only insane its dangerous.
It once again giving the terrorists inside and outside America the opportunity to gain greater control over the people.
If you gain control then you move in a more agressive manner as hitler done.
Wake Up America.
Read: Terrorists Among Us.

It may wake some of you up or it may be too late.
George W Bush understand this enemy and we HAD BETTER.

Ricorun,

Contrary to what one might take from my comments, I am not trying to impose religion or God on anyone.

I am, however, trying to stop Democrats (Liberals), liberal educators, and the public schools from using science to undermine religion.

Liberal educators and courts mandate what can and will be taught, and Democrats block and stop efforts to provide school vouchers so parents have a choice. Liberals have a "captive" audience (literally) and they determine what will and will not be taught, and most of the parents have no other choice!

When people are told something is "science", most instantly believe it is absolutely true and correct. People don't realize that a considerable portion of science is theory. Much of that theory is based on unproved or unprovable assumptions (hypothesis). And many of those theories can and will be changed in the future.

That's what so convenient and effective about using science for political purposes -- the fact that people unthinkingly and unquestionably believe it is absolutely true and correct. If Democrats (Liberals) can tie or relate something to "science", half or more of the battle is won! That goes for the Theory of Evolution, Global Warming, or anything else!

If schools are going to teach the Theory of Evolution and not permit a discussion of related topics, then those schools should be required to clearly identify that which is theory and that which is proven fact. Schools should be required to clearly and unambigiously state in plain and easily understood English, that the Theory is not proven, it has many holes, there are many unanswered questions, most of the connections between one fossil and a subsequent one is only theory (sometimes more than one), science can not prove how life began, etc., etc., etc.

It might be different if evolution were not so closely linked to religion, but it is. Because of that, it is essential that facts and theory be clearly identified as such.

Unfortunately, this type of forum (and my typing skills) does not lend itself to the type and amount of discussion needed to really discuss and explain this topic.

I still think we may actually agree on a good portion... even if it doesn't appear that way!

AAR

neologizer,

Keep current on the news...

Thursday, Apr. 13, 2007...

BERLIN (AP) - Benedict XVI, in his first extended reflections on evolution published as pope, says that Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven and that science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity's view of creation.

...Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin's theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin's theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis."

"The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this," Benedict said. "But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

AAR

AAR,

You are incorrectly define the scientific term theory. You are using your own slang version which is not scientifically correct. SEE BELOW

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable

AAR,
When you stop confusing speculation, hypothesis and theory (they mean very different things scientifically) then I will take your opinion about a theory seriously

"Keep current on the news..."

LOL

they rejected it
then they accepted it
now they are thinking about reconsidering accepting it?

BTW
Benedict is also incorrectly using the term theory just like you. You wouldn't get medical or legal advice from a theologian why listen to scientific advice

neologizer,

Yes... EVERYONE is incorrect except you!

Dream on!!!

AAR

First off, CO, that is a foolish question, God is not in the gun business

Posted by: Jeremiah at April 22, 2007 09:44 PM

Maybe not, but didn't you tell me that God decides when, where and how we leave this earth.
So it follows that if he knew when the victims at VT would be shot he would also know that they would die from bullets fired from gun purchased in the U.S. by a very disturbed individual.

"Stop allowing people of a foreign descent into this country and we will be much better off.
We need to reduce immigration to a level that will allow the U.S. to stabilize, or else there will be all out chaos, if there isn't already."

Posted by: Jeremiah at April 22, 2007 09:54 PM

You see, Jeremiah, when you start reciting that racist crap, you lose me. You can quote all the religious scriptures you want but it becomes meaningless when you lower yourself to that level.

"Stop making excuses and taking up for the murderer!"

Posted by: AAR at April 22, 2007 10:04 PM

I don't know what you have been ingesting, AAR, but nowhere have I said anything to give the impression that I am 'making excuses and taking up for the murderer'.

"And the mass killings at Virginia Tech were committed by a South Korean..."

Your point being.....?

neologizer,

I am well aware that "theory" has more than one definition and meaning.

I don't think the average reader worries too much about the difference here though!

It is my theory (or maybe it's a fact) that much of your "theory" is theory!

Considering that, I think maybe the Pope got it right!

(Q.E.D.)

AAR

(OT) CO,

RE: "...nowhere have I said anything to give the impression that I am 'making excuses and taking up for the murderer'".

That's implicit in your actions and words!

RE: "Your point being.....?"

However you want to take it!

It was a South Korean who killed those people. He just happened to use a gun to do it rather than a truck load of fertilizer, a handful of pipe bombs, or some other equally effective means, many of which could have killed many more. Let's put the blame on the person who did the killing, not the object he used.

Should we ban South Koreans too?

AAR

"Yes... EVERYONE is incorrect except you!"

Dear AAR

In addition to me being "correct" I think your are forgetting some people here: scientist, people that use logic instead of ideology and in general pretty much most normal people.

really AAR,
why do both you and Mark seem to continually exclude the opinions of both experts and resonable people when it doesn't fit your ideology

In case anyone is interested in reading the rest of the 95 paragraphs from which neologizer (or his helpers) cherry picked his little snippet "According to the widely accepted scientific account...", it's entitled:

Human Persons Created in the Image of God, The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

The part neologizer quoted is the first two-thirds of paragraph number 63.

AAR

neologizer,

I think my formal college education in advanced science and math, number of science courses taken, class standing, number of colleges and universities attended, and number of degrees might compare favorably with yours, or perhaps even exceed it!

Additionally, I didn't lose my common sense in the process!

AAR

AAR,

Think about this now. In the global warming posts I'm cutting and pasting from original scientific journals. In this post I'm correcting your misusage of scientific terminology....and your rebuttle is to compare how many more college science courses you took?

Fact of the matter is both you and Mark continue to misdefine what it means to be a scientific theory and you continue to mix up religious philosphy with scientific logic. How can anyone honestly debate this issue with you when you don't understand the basis of the debate

neologizer,

I don't have to think about it. Whatever you believe!

You are the one boasting about being the science expert here and claiming others don't know anything about science. What you fail to comprehend and understand is that I don't choose to take that approach here!

Perhaps that's your problem. You got lost in your search for science. In case you haven't noticed yet, this is a political blog and not a scientific blog. Most of the readers aren't scientists. And, most of the readers couldn't care less about the scientific jargon and details in those "scientific journals" of yours. Maybe you and kblack77 can start your own mutual admiration society... well group anyway!

As for your cuttin' and pastin', you've been watching too many television shows where a person cuts little words out of magazines and rearranges them in to his or her own little message. But... if that's what floats your boat!

AAR

kblack,

And evolution cannot, even in theory, be falsified by experiement...ergo, in your own view, evolution isn't science.

I do wonder why you so desperately cling to your views on this matter...really, there's nothing to be afraid of in God...He really doesn't have it in for you, no matter what you've done in the past.

Neo,

I'm not as good a Catholic as I should be, but I do subscribe entirely to the aricle you cherry-picked your quote from...especially this bit in the next paragraph:

...Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.

God created it all, Neo, out of nothing, as we Catholics say...What exactly happened to make a universe in which I sit at my computer and you at yours and we argue with each other is something that neither you nor I know, and we won't know until such time as God makes it as clear as we need it to be (this, of course, I believe will happen in the life of the world to come - at which time I pray both you and I meet under a glorious light and laugh about our absurd disagreements in this world).

AAR is right that you should keep up on current events a bit better - this is especially true when you reach back into the past; modifications do happen, and views do change. Especially over the past ten years, Darwinism has had so many holes shot in it that only ignorance or rank adherence to ideology over fact can really sustain a belief in it.

Let it go, already - trust me, as a former Darwinist I can attest to the fact that doubting Darwinism will not lead you to believe that the world is flat or that we've got to start burning witches.

"And evolution cannot, even in theory, be falsified by experiement...ergo, in your own view, evolution isn't science. "

sure it can. For example, the fossil record could not reflect evolution.

Tell me, how old do you think the earth is?

"God created it all, Neo, out of nothing, as we Catholics say"

Yup. And its turtles all the way down.

Ricorun,

RE: "By the way, does anyone have the links to past discussions on this topic? Much of it sounds very repetitive."

I think these may be some of the topics and threads you want -- probably the first; that was the big one.

I know the first link is correct, but unfortunately, the B4B "black screen " still blocks me from viewing most of the archives so I can't double check the rest. The titles and dates should be correct though.

     The Death of Science (Bumped Again),   September 04, 2006...

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/007726.html

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/2006/09/the_death_of_sc.html

     Intelligent Design, December 24, 2005...

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/2005/12/intelligent_des.html

     Intelligent Design, Part II, December 28, 2005...

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/2005/12/intelligent_des_1.html

AAR

Mark,

you quote catholic church statements to refute a scientific principles?

also it does nothing to refute the current scientific theory

BTW
How about quoting the catholic church position on the Iraq conflict (speaking about cherry picking)

neologizer,

YOU are the one who STARTED QUOTING the POPE and CATHOLIC documents to SUPPORT and justify YOUR "scientific theory"! In doing so, you gave the impression you believe the Pope carries a great deal of weight and influence, and could add credibility and help bolster your "science"... or at least that's the perception, and perception is what matters!!!

Mark only provided the additional quote in response to the few lines you so carefully snipped from the entire document. There's much more there which Mark could have provided to expose your [less than] "objective" efforts!

Before you start quoting from a document, read the entire document and see if it really does support your position!

Also... if you can't stand the heat... don't turn on the oven!!!

AAR

Shortz,

The fossil record doens't reflect evolution...in other words, there aren't transitional species which Darwin said were certain to be discovered if his theory were correct.

How old is the earth? Lord (literally) only knows...certainly older than I am. What impresses me is not the age of the world, but how wonderful it all is...and what is really amusing about the Darwinists is the way they'll do mental backflip after mental backflip just to stay away from any acknowledgement that God might have had something to do with the making of the earth, even if it were 6 billion years ago.

Neo,

What AAR said...

AAR, Mark,

Theory of evolution is scientific dogma and is even accepted in religious circles. Your arguement is an extreme ideology.

AAR said
"You got lost in your search for science. In case you haven't noticed yet, this is a political blog and not a scientific blog. Most of the readers aren't scientists. And, most of the readers couldn't care less about the scientific jargon and details in those "scientific journals""

Thank you AAR for admitting that you are ignorant of science and have it play no role in your opinion especially in matters that are, well, scientific.

Mar,
Is this also your position in regards to science: Ignorance and ideology trumps logic and fact?

Also Mark,
Is this the thinking process behind all your posts?

Anillo writes:
"Second, where is your evidence that believing in no God leads to despair? How many depressed atheists do you actually know?"

Kenneth Pargament writes in the Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, and Practice:
"Over 50 years ago, Vetter and Green (1932-1933) conducted an investigation entitled "Personality and Group Factors in the Making of Atheists." Surveying 350 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, they discovered that among the younger atheists, half had lost one parent or both parents before the age of 20, far above what would be expected by the average parental mortality rates of this age group. Perhaps not surprisingly in light of this finding, a large number of their group also reported that they were unhappy in childhood and adolescence."

neologizer,

Is that the best you can do?

I would have expected much better than that and more creativity from a "brain" like yours!!!

AAR

Has anyone heard any more news or information about the findings that early seas were toxic to advanced life forms?

I know at least one research grant has been awarded to research this question, but that "theory" isn't due to be released until sometime in 2008.

Scientists Confirm Toxic Seas During Earth's Evolution

"NASA, October 6, 2005 -- NASA exobiology researchers confirmed Earth's oceans were once rich in sulfides that would prevent advanced life forms, such as fish and mammals, from thriving."

"A team of scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, working with colleagues from Australia and the United Kingdom, analyzed the fossilized remains of photosynthetic pigments preserved in 1.6 billion-year-old rocks from the McArthur Basin in Northern Australia".

"The researchers also found very low amounts of the fossilized remains of algae and oxygen-producing cyanobacteria. The relative scarcity of these organisms is due to poisoning by large amounts of sulfide."

"This work suggests Earth's oceans may have been hostile to animal and plant life until relatively recently," said Dr. Carl Pilcher, NASA's senior scientist for astrobiology. "If so, this would have profound implications for the evolution of modern life."

"...this implies the ocean had an abundant and continuous supply of hydrogen sulfide and must have been quite toxic to any oxygen-breathing organisms ... In fact, for seven-eighths of Earth's 4.5 billion-year history, there was probably little oxygen in the oceans and certainly not enough to support oxygen-breathing marine animals."

Is it possible there hasn't been enough time for all of the complex life to evolve solely through random chance and natural selection?

AAR

Scientists Question Our Understanding Of The Universe...

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and Space Daily,

March 23, 2007...

"Cosmologists from around the world will meet at Imperial College London the week of March 26 to challenge the theories behind the 'standard model' used to understand the universe. Speakers ... will cover a wide range of unanswered questions on how the universe was formed and what has happened to it after its formation."

"The 'Standard Cosmological Model' is the prevailing scientific theory used to explain how the universe began with the Big Bang, how it has evolved since ... conference will present an overview of evidence for and against this model, and will look at how to probe questions that it leaves unaddressed.

"...there are many scientists who feel that problems remain with the standard cosmological model. ... query whether we need to postulate the existence of dark energy in the universe to explain the key observations. ...will pose a puzzling question concerning why the instruments that measured the cosmic microwave background failed to detect shadows on this 'afterglow' radiation cast by nearby clusters of galaxies. This calls into question a key part of the standard model, which clearly predicted that such shadows should be formed, and be readily detectable."

"Another vital prediction not observationally verified concerns the evolution of clusters of galaxies. ...theory predicts that these systems should be rapidly evolving, the X-ray data ... shows a complete absence of evolution. Additionally... will demonstrate how the amount of atoms and molecules of daily life falls short of that predicted by the standard model by at least 30-40 percent."

"One example of the debate ... odd alignment of structures in the cosmic microwave background, Dr Contaldi will offer a possible explanation of these alignments in terms of the process of inflation - a phase of rapid space expansion during the early universe, which is also one of the key tenets of the standard model."

"...Dr Andrew Jaffe ... will speak about the work ... have been carrying out on the topology of the universe. Topology is an extension of geometry which deals with not only shape, but the structure and nature of space which may enable us to 'look in one direction and see light coming from an entirely different direction.'"

AAR

"The fossil record doens't reflect evolution...in other words, there aren't transitional species which Darwin said were certain to be discovered if his theory were correct."

Thats funny. What makes you say that? Lord only knows right?

"How old is the earth? Lord (literally) only knows...certainly older than I am. What impresses me is not the age of the world, but how wonderful it all is."

I'm not asking you to be in awe of it. I'm asking how old you think it is. If you don't know, how would you go about looking it up? What sources would you look to.

in other words, there aren't transitional species which Darwin said were certain to be discovered if his theory were correct.

Still, Noonan? Really? I pointed you to transitional fossils upthread. Are you really this stupid, or is this a reading comprehension problem?

neo,

Thing is, in my view it is entirely illogical to think that an entirely new species could develope out of an existing species. You can get things as different as a chihuahua and a Great Dane, but they are both still dogs...they can, technically, interbreed with each other. What your Darwinism supposes is that a dog can become, oh, a badger as time goes on.

It is you, neo, who have enslaved yourself to unthinking ideology. Remember, I used to be a Darwinist...until I actually started to investigate it, and it all fell apart at the first puff of logic.

Sees,

And I answered you upthread...don't you bother to read anything before making foolish and insulting comments?

It is you, neo, who have enslaved yourself to unthinking ideology. Remember, I used to be a Darwinist...until I actually started to investigate it, and it all fell apart at the first puff of logic

Darwinist evolutionary theory is not based on logic, so you are not honestly confronting it, Mark. Like any theory, it is based on inductive hypotheses that can then be confirmed or denied by testing it against data. The data is in Mark, and it does not disprove darwinist evolution. It has corrected Darwin in numerous ways, but the basic theory that Darwin came up with has not yet been disproven by the facts.

Darwinism makes a lot more logical sense than quantum mechanics, but a lot of really odd, bizarre, and apparently illogical aspects of quantum mechanics have resisted being disproven, too.

Let it go, already - trust me, as a former Darwinist I can attest to the fact that doubting Darwinism will not lead you to believe that the world is flat or that we've got to start burning witches.

And Mark, you fundamentally misunderstand science if you describe yourself as a 'former Darwinist'. Darwinism is not a cult, it is a heterogeneous stream of scientific study arising from the theories articulated by Darwin.

As a natural science, Darwinism is tested by scientific data. There are tons of that data around, both in the form of fossils and in correlative scientific fields such as chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, biology, and so on. No scientific data disproves Darwinism, so is stands (so far).

You are not just picking a fight with the 'Darwinists' when you declare (as I think you are doing) you support young earth creationism. The vast majority of natural scientists in the world are working with evidence that disproves young earth creationism.

I did not say that because humans can modify, change, and "evolve" life through "intelligent design", that proves or means that God created life; although, it doesn't mean He didn't. What it does show and prove is that not ALL life on Earth was created in accordance with the current Theory of Evolution. That in itself shows that the Theory as currently taught is not correct and needs a little revision.

It shows too, that from this date forward and through out the rest of history, the Theory of Evolution must consider and recognize that any organism may in fact be a combination of DNA derived through "natural" evolution and DNA incorporated through "Intelligent Design," albeit for now, that can only be proved for humans. And, that DNA will subsequently be further modified, changed, and "evolved" through the "natural process" of random chance, spontaneous mutations, and natural selection!

As of this date, to be technically correct and accurate, The Theory of Evolution must recognize at least one version of "Intelligent Design." (I know, you want to call that "genetic engineering" to avoid "confusing" people, especially students!)

Having established that one version of Intelligent Design is a fact -- NOT A THEORY -- we must still determine "who" else might also have contributed to evolution through Intelligent Design prior to this time. That search goes on, just as the search for new fossils continues. We're both searching for that "missing link"!

Since we are "forbidden" to consider the possibility that God might have been involved, let's talk about the possibility of other intelligent beings. Consider the vast number of galaxies, stars, and planets in the universe and the probability that some of those might contain intelligent life. Considering the age of the universe (according to scientists), that life could be billions of years older and billions of years more advanced than ours!

It's possible those [hypothetical] beings could have played a role in the Intelligent Design and evolution of life on earth. I do realize, however, that for now, science can only "theorize" about the possible existence of super intelligent life elsewhere in the universe; and therefore, it would be inappropriate to even discuss that possibility in a science class on evolution, right?

But wait, science can't prove life began spontaneously from lifeless matter through abiogenesis, and that hasn't been a problem for science, science just accepts that fact and builds their theory on it! Oh yes, I forgot; that's different because scientists can see, touch, and feel "life", so we don't have to worry about the "how".

But wait, science has determined that 90% (give or take) of the "touchable" matter in the universe is "missing" and galaxies are expanding faster than should be possible based on the "known" energy in the universe (as theorized by science).

No problem, we just hypothesize the existence of "dark matter", which it theoretically all around us and passing through us all the time, but conveniently, can't be seen, detected, or measured (yet). And to solve the problem of the expanding universe, science just hypothesizes the existence of dark energy, which also conveniently, can't be detected or measured (yet).

Well, maybe a small problem. All of that hypothesized "dark" matter and energy caused a few "problems" with the "known" theory of gravity and Einstein's and Newton's established theories, but not to worry, they're working on those. All of these new assumptions and theories may well turn out to be true. Who knows. We do know, however, either those "new" theories are wrong, or the previous theories are wrong!

What happens, though, when a space alien does in fact show up, or science finds evidence of a previous visit?

(Or, the worst of all possibilities, science is confronted in some way with some undeniable evidence of the existence of God?)

AAR

It's possible those [hypothetical] beings could have played a role in the Intelligent Design and evolution of life on earth. I do realize, however, that for now, science can only "theorize" about the possible existence of super intelligent life elsewhere in the universe; and therefore, it would be inappropriate to even discuss that possibility in a science class on evolution, right?

Hey, I am a Babylon5 fan, too, so I know where you are coming from. What you propose is an interesting hypothesis, but not something that can be tested, as far as I know. Thus it is mere speculation, and not appropriate for teaching purposes except, perhaps, as a thought experiment.

What happens, though, when a space alien does in fact show up, or science finds evidence of a previous visit?

Then you will have some evidence, maybe the basis for developing a theory. It will be honest science, though, unlike ID.

Potentially Habitable Planet Found, Apr 24 2007...

WASHINGTON (AP) - For the first time astronomers have discovered a planet outside our solar system that is potentially habitable, with Earth-like temperatures, a find researchers described Tuesday as a big step in the search for "life in the universe."

"It's a significant step on the way to finding possible life in the universe," said University of Geneva astronomer Michel Mayor, one of 11 European scientists on the team that found the planet. "It's a nice discovery. We still have a lot of questions."

Alan Boss, who works at the Carnegie Institution of Washington where a U.S. team of astronomers competed in the hunt for an Earth-like planet, called it "a major milestone in this business."

"Now we have the possibility to find many more," Bonfils said.

AAR

And I answered you upthread...don't you bother to read anything before making foolish and insulting comments?

No, you dodged upthread. I showed you transitional fossils. You still pretend they don't exist. What is it about ignorance that makes you love it so much? Why are you slavishly devoted to it? And why do you live in such abject fear of learning? Knowledge is a good thing, Noonan. If only you would try to acquire some....

The fact remains, the current Theory of Evolution is based on many, many assumptions and leaps of faith which science employs to tie everything together and fill in holes of the countless millions, billions, or even more "missing links" which would be needed to account for, explain, and proved how all of those theorized changes actually occurred.

You can hypothesize that all organisms "evolved" solely through naturally means from other organisms... you can theorize that new abilities and characteristics occurred solely through random chance and spontaneous mutation... and you can further theorize the DNA evolved "solely" through natural selection... but much -- probably most -- of it remains only theory, hypothesis, and guesses!

You can not prove most of it. You can't prove that all of those abilities and characteristics, all of the DNA, and all life was created solely through random chance, spontaneous mutation, and natural selection.

You can't prove that life began spontaneously from lifeless matter through abiogenesis, so rather than discuss how life began, you conveniently exclude that issue from your Theory of Evolution; although, in reality you still teach students that scientists believe it did begin just that way.

Where science cannot prove it's assumptions, theories, and conclusions, it should be required to clearly and unambiguously state that they are not proven facts; they are nothing more than one possible theory and conclusion; and they do not precluded other theories and possibilities. If it requires a law to force schools and instructors to do that, then a law is what we need!

Instead of teaching students to blindly accept and rely on science, we also need to teach them what science is NOT! If it requires a law to force schools and instructors to do that, then a law is what we need!

Prior to the class on the Theory of Evolution, we need to require a separate and distinct class to discuss related issues, possibilities, theories, and those many unproven assumptions and conclusions included in and upon which the current Theory of Evolution is built!

There is more than enough information to do just that if the right lawyers, scientists, and lawmakers work together on the issue! It is apparent that the only way Liberals (Democrats) are going to permit schools and teachers to allow an open discussion is if they are made to do it! After that, the students can make up their own mind.

At the same time, we definitely need school vouchers to permit parents to send their children to the better private schools where liberal educators and the courts don't impose their own liberal political agenda on the children contrary to the parent's desires.

AAR

Sees,

What you showed me was a picture of a small, doglike animal and claimed it was the ancestor of the modern whale...I showed you the alleged next in the series...which looks at lot like a whale, but nothing at all like the small, doglike creature you brought forward.

The trouble with you, Sees, is that you are entirely closed-minded...you like your mental comfort zone and you won't step out of it for anything...

Tulk,

No, Darwinism falls flat both in logic and in the fact that by Darwin's own description, his theory doesn't hold any water.

You can believe it if you like - it is a pretty story, right up there with Norse mythology...but it isn't science and it tells us only one thing: the desperate lengths people will go to run away from God.

I don't hold to a young earth theory - I can't, because there's no evidence to support it. But I also don't give a darn if its 6 billion or 6 thousand years old; that is immaterial. Supposing you could determine, down to the minute, how old earth is - what would that knowledge get you? Mated with $5 it would get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks...

More important, in my view, is to understand just how loudly everything around us is shouting out there is a Creator, and that He has a plan. From the sheer fact that life exists at all to the fact that this planet happened to be placed in the EXACT right position for the chemical make up of the planet to sustain life shows, in my view, that our Creator exists - and a mighty wonderful and powerful Creator He is...and, given this power, I see no reason why he shouldn't reveal himself to us, and instruct us on how He wants us to live.

What really gets my goat in this debate is the way the Darwinists attempt to shut down debate - as if someone believing other than Darwinism is a threat...who bloody cares? I don't care if the man next to me thinks the Moon is made of green cheese...I would care, a bit, if he was in charge of sending a man to the Moon, but in the normal day-to-day, it just doesn't matter...there is nothing to be afraid of in someone who believes different from me. And I did wonder for the longest time what you Darwinists were afraid of...but now that I've removed myself from adherence to that mythology, I understand: fear of having to confront the Creator if Darwin is wrong.

It is rather startling, the first time a creature turns towards his Creator...scary is a better word for it...but, once done, it becomes easier all the time.

Try it.

Sees,

Forget trying to piece together some ancient fossils.

Take a trip to your local aquarium shop and check out the Zebra Danios.

The Zebra Danio is among the most hardy and active of aquarium fish and is easily recognized by its distinctive horizontal stripes. The slim compressed silver-gold body sports blue-purple horizontal stripes running from gill to tail.

The GloFish Red Zebra Danio is a variation of the Zebra Danio. It is just as hardy and active as its traditional blue-purple counterpart, but this variety displays a stunning red fluorescence -- even under standard lighting. In a completely dark room, illuminated by an ultraviolet black light, the Red Zebra Danio will appear a fluorescent red and actually appear to glow in the dark.

Both the blue-purple and the red varieties will live, breed, and multiply very well in the wild, so don't release them into a local waterway. The red Zebra Danio will mix and interbreed with the blue-purple variety, as well as any of the many other variations of the Zebra Danio.

Check through the many varieties of Zebra Danios and note the many variations in colors and fins. Examine them closely.

Pick out and show me the "transitional" variety between the naturally occurring blue-purple colored Zebra Danio and the red fluorescent colored Zebra Danio (GloFish) which the Theory of Evolution says must exist.

Hint. You won't find it. It does not exist!

AAR

One problem with complaining about how "Darwinism" can't explain how life came into being is this: Darwin's work was a very early version of "Darwinism." He didn't even have any basic genetics to work with, let alone present-day microbiology. So his explanation of how traits are passed down from generation to generation had to be pretty vague--- but later discoveries have actually SUPPORTED rather than undermined his original theory.

entirely closed-minded...you like your mental comfort zone and you won't step out of it for anything...

Ahhh, finally you start to confess why you're so anti-education. It's just easier and more comfortable to stay in your little no-learning zone and proclaim yourself to be right about everything, even when you are utterly wrong. The real world's a little too scary for you, eh Noonan? I guess you really take the saying "ignorance is bliss" to heart.

Look at your denial about transitional fossils. I even showed you the exact thing you claim doesn't exist--a walking whale--and here you are trying to claim that no, that's not it. You're even trying to say it's a "small, doglike animal" when in fact, it's about 9 feet long and closer to a crocodile in appearance than a dog (particularly considering it's, you know, amphibious). Is there no limit to how much you'll try to delude yourself? And why do you insist that others share in your delusion?

I know this is a fool's errand, seeing as how you absolutely refuse to learn anything, but here's a long--and not at all complete--list of transitional fossils. There is, in fact, a whole lot of examples of what you claim doesn't exist. When will you stop lying and just admit this? Stop cowering in the face of knowledge and embrace it. Stop trying to cover yourself in the pitiful security blanket that evolution is some grand conspiracy to shut out god (a conspiracy theory that seems to cover your whole life--how sad that must be!) and join us here in the real world. It's not as scary as you think it is.

AAR says "Prior to the class on the Theory of Evolution, we need to require a separate and distinct class to discuss related issues, possibilities, theories, and those many unproven assumptions and conclusions included in and upon which the current Theory of Evolution is built!

So pookie, when the schools and churches bother to teach ALL theories of creation including the turtle that rose from the sea and created a continent . . . let alone the myriad of legends and myths such as a murdered god's head split open gave birth to more gods . . . long before a virgin gave birth announced by a comet whose son rose up after death like a flying zombie ....then you got a plan.

But if you want to pretend your myths usurp thousands of years of other myths . . no deal

Tulkinghorn,

It's one thing to show that organisms can and do evolve and change over time through natural selection.

It's quite another to claim that ALL organisms and ALL life that exists or has ever existed on Earth originated solely through natural selection, helped along by random chance and spontaneous mutation.

What is your "scientific test" that clearly shows or proves that ALL life originated through "natural" evolution alone?

What is your "scientific test" that shows no other Intelligent Beings were involved in the process?

AAR

Sees,

RE: "...I even showed you the exact thing you claim doesn't exist--a walking whale--and here you are trying to claim that no, that's not it. You're even trying to say it's a "small, doglike animal" when in fact, it's about 9 feet long and closer to a crocodile in appearance than a dog (particularly considering it's, you know, amphibious). Is there no limit to how much you'll try to delude yourself? And why do you insist that others share in your delusion?"

Okay, Sees, for talking purposed, let's assume your "walking whale" is not a small, dog-like animal, but rather a 9-foot crocodile-like amphibian. Have you checked out whales lately? Have you seen any that resemble a 9-foot crocodile-like salamander? Do you know anyone who has? NO!

Okay, in spite of that, let's say that 9-foot crocodile-like salamander transitional "missing link" existed. Assuming that the 9-foot salamander did not spontaneously appear, but rather evolved over millions of years in accordance with your Theory of Evolution, there should be many, many thousands, perhaps millions, of transitional "missing links" that preceded it. And there should be that many or more between that 9-foot salamander and today's modern whales.

How many have actually been found? If you are claiming the 9-foot salamander is the key link, my guess is that most are still "missing links" which you can't identify or prove existed. And you also can't prove whether ALL of the DNA during that "evolution" originated naturally, or if any Intelligent Beings (we won't mention God here) were involved in anyway in the process.

Have you checked out that fluorescent red colored Zebra Danio (GloFish) yet?

By the way, there's also a fluorescent greenish Zebra Danio you may want to check. Like the fluorescent red variety, you won't find a transitional fish between it and the original blue-purple variety. THERE ISN'T ANY!

Could the same be true of some of the "missing links" between single celled algae and bacteria, your 9-foot salamander, and a sperm, humpback, or great blue whale?

AAR

thesaurusmaximus,

I have presented you examples and evidence that Intelligent Beings have changed and modified life. I have given you examples of living creatures -- alive today -- that were not created solely by nature as described by the Theory of Evolution, but rather, were created through Intelligent Design. I can give you many more. That is an undeniable fact.

What we don't know yet, is just how many Intelligent Beings or "Who" might have been responsible for similar changes and modification to DNA in the past. If it is possible for one Intelligent Being, it is certainly possible for another.

Now, show me some credible evidence that it is actually (or even theoretically) possible for YOUR turtle to rise up from the sea (or a pond) and create a continent (or dry land)... along with YOUR other BELIEFS about how life on earth, and earth itself, came to be!

If you can do that, then I think we should talk about that possibility also!

If the Theory of Evolution is such a proven, undeniable, and unquestioned fact, then people will see it for what it is and ignore the discussion or possibilities of other theories and answers!

Even your Theory of Evolution can't prove how life began... it can only assume it did begin and build a theory from there!

AAR

Sees,

Did you even bother to look at your link? Its all full of gaps and missing links...in other words, it is missing the genuinely transitional creatures which Darwin said would EXIST IN ABUNDANCE once the paleontologists really got going...trouble is, 150 years after Darwin got the ball rolling, the paleontologists haven't found a single, actual transitional creature.

As I said, you can get massive variation within a species - the chihuahua and Great Dane, eg - but there is no way you'll ever get a cat from a dog; it, you won't get an entirely new species from an existing species. Just isn't possible - the necessary genetic changes are so massive that the odds against them are so long as to be just next to non-existent, even if you give it 6 billion years.

Still, I guess I shouldn't be too harsh on you - once upon a time I, too, believed in Darwinism...the whole panalopy; I was dead certain that a bit of glop in the primordial soup got bunged with lightening and that started the whole, step by step process which led up to me...then, one day, I stopped accepting and started thinking, and Darwinism fell flat on its face.

maximus,

Thing is, for those other legends there is no time or place for them...we, on the other hand, know that Jesus lived in first century Judea and was crucified on a date certain by a named Roman official. This doesn't prove the ressurection, but it does put the basics of Christianity on much firmer footing than, say, Greek mythology.

At any rate, we're not too picky - we just don't want Darwinists to have unchallenged sway; the ability, that is, to present Darwinism unchallenged.

AAR, you're still not presenting any factual arguments here. You're just trying (and failing) to pick holes in mine.

No, we did not evolve from monkeys.
Yes, if you trace us back far enough, we were single-celled organisms. But that's a LONG time ago.

And to whoever said "blame the guy (Cho Seung Hui) not the object he used", aren't you having a GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE moment?

Well, how about this slogan:

GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE.

Or, even better:

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, GAPING HOLES IN VITAL ORGANS DO.

Or, if you prefer:

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PROJECTILES PROPELLED FROM BARRELS AT HIGH VELOCITIES KILL PEOPLE.

And my favorite:

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, CHUCK NORRIS KILLS PEOPLE.

But I digress.

ThELefTYFoOL