NOVA Judgement Day-Intelligent Design on Trial HDTV XviD-MiRAGETV
Intelligent design makes people stupid, Kevin Padian of UC Berkely says. The war on evolution, is the ever encroaching backwards thought method of the intelligent design conspiracy theorists, a grandiose mega-scale conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory behind creationism is that a magical man in the sky created everything. The goal of intelligent design is to re-Christianize American society, as Eugenie C Scott Nat’l Ctr for Science Education says. This special two-part NOVA series professionally re-creates the showdown between intelligent design and evolution in a courtroom in Dover, Pennsylvania with complete transcripts from the court case.
It all started when, in 2004, the Pennsylvania school board established a policy that science teachers would have to read a statement to biology students suggesting that there is an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution called intelligent design. The Dover high school science teachers refused to comply with the policy, refused to read the statement. And parents opposed to the school board’s actions filed a lawsuit in federal court. Then followed a six week trial, and this two-part NOVA documentary tries to cover it as completely and both-sided as possible. Check the NOVA ID homepage for lots more about the show. Many thanks to cool group MiRAGETV for ripping in great quality. Go ahead, disagree or agree in the comments, just keep it under control hopefully 
. It would also help to shape your response if you download and watch the show first, and then you would be able to make a much more intelligent response.
624×352 29.97, mp3 48Hz 16BiT STEREO, 2×700MB
Samples: #1 , #2 , #3
NOVA.Judgement.Day-Intelligent.Design.on.Trial.HDTV.XviD-MiRAGETV-CD1 | Torrent
NOVA.Judgement.Day-Intelligent.Design.on.Trial.HDTV.XviD-MiRAGETV-CD2 | Torrent
Comments(319)
i got pole position on this one
1st pic is from future weapons, wrong link?
Definitely worth a download if you haven’t watched this documentary.
Though as an American I’m pretty embarrassed that this kind of debate had to happen in the first place. The Christian Right is destroying my country.
i saw the last half of this, was great. i also cant believe how people can ignore such clear evidence. all to justify their life in a godless world, or have they not heard, god is dead.
prase jeebus
go ahead, revel in the masochistic pleasure of believing in a non-existent entity and trembling in its fear.
Nature takes its own course, and it will……no prayers, no masses can change it idiots
well they are all rights and all wrongs
scientifically Darwin’s theory of evolution is in crisis,with modern molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics knowledge that support different evidences
and on the other hand whatever religion or cult you are running,you do it
by firm belief and not scientific facts,otherwise you are trying to explain the
unexplainable
I believe the attempt to teach the flawed ID theory in schools and therefore gain acceptance in the wider public domain is an attack on Christianity itself.
I see the debate as a cynical attempt to deny ones ability to reason and sow the seeds of division and hate while wearing GOD on their sleeve (instead of in their hearts)
The very core and strength of the Christian faith is the ability to see the world as it is and still believe in our lord GOD.
It’s unfortunate that some people who call themselves Christian can’t do just that.
You know we can all be in a hot debate over who is right or who is wrong OR we can all just leave people up to their own decisions about what they want to believe.
If you’re right, good for you; if you’re wrong, well that sucks.
Whatever man.
i dont get this one,there are so many debates at the same time in the same
documentary
like showing a picture of so many guns against the wall,,,wrong picture i guess
or is it about non democratic involvement in the school system
or to separate clergy from the state
or to separate the clergy from the law system if not from the state
it is my believe that in the usa,they are not dissociable,therefore they need
one another,unless there is a major structural changes in the code of law
fondation,these things will always happen
When did Christianity become more about questioning science and less about learning about empathy and compassion? Has anyone ever considered that maybe God doesnt really care if we think we evolved from monkeys or not, he gave us the freedom of thought for a reason.
Your going down a dangerous path if religion dictates whats being thought in schools.
robespierre, actually not all religions deny science over their chosen faith. The Dalai Lama for example shows a good example of being a practicing buddhist believes that if science can conclusively demonstrate certain Buddhist claims to be false, it would be acceptable to abandon those claims in favor of science. I think thats a healthy perspective on religon and perhaps we really should abandon religious values that no longer are valid due to science, democracy and human rights.
Tracker sending invalid data o.O?
anyone knows whats going on with thepiratebay tracker? getting redirected to moviex.info???
A man walks into a room holding a rock and shows some people the rock. He walks back out and comes back in with a women beside him. He tells the people in the room, “that rock has turned into this woman.” The people hiss and boo him out of the room as a moron.
He walks into another room filled with some evolutionists scholars who’se whole career is based on this theory, he does the same routine but says “that rock is now a woman after billions of years”. The evolutionists applaud him!
Why woudl a rock ever change? The fossil record shows no trans species records. And in fact it shows the opposite, that all things are as they are and ever were – and dont change or mutate. This is not science its a fanciful story, the evolutionist has already said ‘There is no God’, and will seek to prove himself correct. Science should not start with an outcome “there is no God”, but it shoudl look at the evidence alone. Anything else is lies, you are being taught by people that think they are ‘intellectual’. Do the research dont be lazy!
Wow, sure are some bright bulbs around here. Maybe some of us out here like to believe that one day we will be held accountable for our actions. I would much rather have someone who believed in a loving God running this country, expecting each American to actually work and earn a living and contribute to a civilized law abiding society, than a bunch of pillow-biting, ass-eating, butthole bandits, and freak liberals who think that the government is here to give free living to the lazy people who think they are owed something. For the freedom to say stupid things, everyone owes America and its founding fathers, who besides giving us the power of electricity, and every modern thing we have, whom all also believed in a loving God enough to leave their dictatorship, venture to a new place, and start the greatest country in the world. Back in their time, people who didn’t believe in their God were left in jolly ole England. Famous atheist and British philosopher Antony Flew stated in a phone interview just recently “A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature” and acknowledges that “My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species … [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause God is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.”
. Galileo, Descartes, Isaac Newton , Robert Boyle, William Thomson Kelvin, and to read about what Albert Einstein believed go here http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
Me personally, I think I will side with some of the greatest minds in the worlds history than with the liberals and anti-social freaks who blast their puke and idiocy from their porn laced computers, weak minded,feeble, selfish ideologies, and emotional closedmindedness that will only lead to a hopelessness that, I am thankful to the God I believe in, will never happen to me!!! Science has been helping to prove Intelligent Design for decades. In the 1800’s it was not known as Int. Des. but as ‘The argument from design’. Thoughts quotes from letters from Darwin to many people can be found here http://www.creator-creation.com/darwin.htm
as well as the controversial Lady Hope “story” here http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm.
Wow, even someone as depraved as Jeffrey Dahmer, who had always believed that there was no moral authority, that whatever you do is fine and when you die you go back to nothingness, came to a personal belief in Jesus Christ. Do you know why he was killed? Because, after his professing a belief in JC on national television, some inmates could not bear to think that someone that did the horrible things he did could believe that he could be saved and go to heaven, and what about the people he murdered? What a sad, nothing to look forward to life it must be to not have something to believe in. No, that isn’t the wind on your face, it is your imagination. Since you can’t see it, it must not be there, but you can see it sway a tree or bush. If you can believe that the wind is there by the effects of that wind, then the possibility exists that a God that you can’t see does exist because of the effects that He has. You can’t put God in a test tube and say “This is God” any more than you can put a mother’s love in a test tube and say “This is a mother’s love.” Use your brains for something else, please, other than to bash people or a God you choose not to know!!! Life – God = a whole lot of chaos and hell!!!
well the world was flat not round and the earth was in the middle
of the universe,and spain was eliminating a whole continent
in the name of god,while the king of england changed religion
in order to change wife.
god was always in the hands of the wrong people..
but modern society have their laws based on a mix of religious
belief and human values at the time the code was written
call it the amendment or the equivalent elsewhere..
so they are handtight into it,and have to follow their own
set of rules,unless major amendments are made,,
no judgement of value made here,these are facts
I believe we were intelligently designed to evolve like we did.
@17 some people should ask for a refund
I find it absolutely adorable you believe whatever you hear. As far as I know, there has never been absolute proof that any religion, which btw includes evolution, is true.
What I find amusing is that people come on here and see, “The evil creationists are destroying my country!” I think that every evolutionist that didnt agree with the ruling that required confirmation that there were other beliefs than your own are simple minded idiots…why? Well, you see it as Christians forcing their belief down your throat. However, intelligent people, who just so happen to have a mind, would see it as giving a choice. The thing that boggles my mind is that even though the teachers were “forced” to declare there are alternate beliefs, they still taught their own belief…Wait, that doesnt sound right…your mad that you need to admit there are other people that believe other things than you, yet you STILL get unilateral authority to teach what you believe and nothing else…that is…stupidity at its worst!
YES, THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE SOMETHING THAT YOU DONT! It would be better for the entire country if you selfish pricks understood that fact…
All I ever see in the news is people saying intelligent design is being evil…Ive never understood that. They didnt force you to teach their side! They just wanted you to confirm they existed!
Time for personal responses:
@3
Why would you be embarrassed that you live in a country with many different people that believe many different things? Does it upset you that there might be a disagreement? Do you even have a brain? The reason America is great is because it gives everybody a chance to think whatever they want to think. Sorry to break it to you, but this is America. Why dont you go move to China…youll be happier there…
@4
What your saying is that this gives all the evidence to prove your opinion…hmm…opinion != fact…or did I miss something?
@8
Wow, I dont think I have ever read anything quite like that before. Lemme just rephrase EXACTLY what you just said, so us dummies can understand it better…”Dont teach everything, just teach one thing. That way, it will be easier for us to decide what is right!” Just gotta say again…wow…wow……hmm…personally I think that is too easy to criticize…
@9
That is a very intelligent thing to say. Yet, somehow it doesnt fit…What am I debating about? I saw a bunch of idiots blowing something way out of reality, so I came in to correct the mistake. Am I trying to debate on whether ID or evolution is true…no. Im trying to preserve the right for you to decide. So yeah, your pretty smart, but just saying that wont help…
@10
While what you say is, IMO, quite true, I dont think that is going to help your cause…
@11
You are very mistaken. In fact, I take offense to that. Why? Well, what your saying is that these people read something and then instantaneously go on a religious crusade to force what they read on other people. You treat Christians as mindless animals who do what their told. You have no idea how much science has gone into the ID theory. As far as I can see, it is you who believes whatever your told. Im going to go out on a limb here and say you need to be a little more informed before making such claims…
Yes, I have said many mean things, and called a lot of people idiots. Im not trying to be mean, but this kind of thing just aggravates me and puts me in a bad mood. It doesnt matter how much science you put into it, your NEVER going to prove one theory over another, hence the reason Im still typing. What is the moral of this rather long explanation? Give people a chance. After all, the people who believe in ID are just as capable as you are to form a conclusion with evidence to support it…
As a great scholar once said,
“Stupid is as stupid does”.
I was taught we came from AMOEBIA not rocks..
the pic in the article is taken from Future Weapons..
tmsgabber, you lost me after the third sentence. Save the speeches for your bathroom mirror. Who preaches on the comments section of a piracy website? How many contradictions is that? You’re lame, we think your lame, Jesus thinks your lame, accept it.
what i don’t understand is this site’s staffs fears about open debate, even if it gets out of hand. note the schoolmarm comment from mr x
“just keep it under control hopefully 8)”
along with grandmotherly ’smile’
and now they censor us so we don’t write ‘bad’ words. just try writing some ordinary words…
why such a timid and lame attitude towards free speech?
@14 Science never takes the position that there is no god, it is just a byproduct of knowing more about nature.
Fans of intelligent design on the other hand take the position that there is a god (and I bet it’s not Thor, Zeus or Baal). They twist the facts and search for “evidence” that play in the favor and fit into their belief system.
Just look at the history of so called “intelligent design”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3PnKswZtPI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=924Nz5WPxcQ
@17 Who is the designer and who designed him?
What do you expect ? whe are talking about U.S. where lives the most stupid people ever found. Just look at the laws, at america for americans, look at bush duh…
There is no culture in U.S. and this americans whant to make history for the wrong reasons…
“I find it absolutely adorable you believe whatever you hear. As far as I know, there has never been absolute proof that any religion, which btw includes evolution, is true.”
The theory of evolution is not a religion, it never has been nor was it ever meant to be a instrument of faith. It’s part of something called scientific method, a way of observing and understand the natural world that we are part of.
As for moving to China, I’ll go over there whenever you decide to move to Iran and see how life is in an oppressive theocracy that looks to control freewill and independent thought.
@26 Just because Bush is stupid it doesn’t mean all Americans are stupid. Remember that in the 2000 election 52.2% of America voted for someone other than Bush.
Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks you’re and idiot.
http://www.darwinistsneverrealize.com/
interesting videos:
THE COLLAPSE OF ATHEISM
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1244
THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1245
THE DISASTERS DARWINISM BROUGHT TO HUMANITY
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_video_detail.php?api_id=1132
more videos:
http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_video_index.htm
I lol’d at this thread.
“believe” as the word said has not much to do with reality. You believe in something, thats the point. Is there a God? Its not important, the point is that you believe that it exists.
Evolution or ID? Many scientists worked on discovering the world we live in and the conclusion of thousand’s work is the evolution theory. Its not perfect, its not complete but it works. Or you can “believe” in ID.
I think the most important is not to “believe” what somebody says but making your own research, your own “religion” = your own point of view.
Of course its always easier to get a well made religion, ready to use…with Gods and rules and few space for your own ideas…
If the US americans want to believe that ID is true, let them. It will give the rest of the world a scientific advantage and something to laugh about.
What would life be like if Christ had not come and Christianity had not spread throughout the world? It would most likely be much different, of which we all can agree. Although Greece gave western civilization much art, philosophy and literature, and Rome provided law and government, it was the Christian worldview that provided the basis for modern science, efforts to alleviate poverty, universal education, and the ideals of equality and liberty enshrined in the documents of the many governments. The God of order and beauty provided for the view that nature was predictable and orderly. The Christian belief that all humanity is a creation of God gave a foundation to the self-evident truth of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Since people are made in the image of God they are valuable apart from their station of life, amount of wealth, or utility to society. People are helped, educated, and protected simply because they are made in God’s image. Loss of these Christian ideals would undoubtedly be a tragic loss to the well-being of humanity.
blah frikin blah thats all i hear..
Believe in something, thats all i ask, just believe in something… even nothing is something!… yes it is!
the next guy believes in something
couldnt tell ya what i believe, but it is something
does it matter if my something is different to your something?… nope!
but at least its something
Do ya get my point yet?
oh and my respect to your something.
General theory of evolution is not a theory – it is a fact.
Darvin theory of evolution – is different matter. He got few points wrong, but general theory is sound. Very impressive for pre-DNA era. It is not for science to prove that theory is correct but try to disprove it. So far darvin theory stands. And go ahead Christians tell us that laws of “natural” (sexual) selection is wrong. Been 16 too
If you think that world is 6000 years old when every evidence tells 600 million you need to have your head examined.
If you think that science should except creationist dogma as foundation with no facts to prove it, no bases – you are obviously have no idea what science is.
Man evolved – that is the fact.
It’s the year 2007 and the world is still at war over who has the most powerful invisible friend.
I don’t care about people’s beliefs until they try to force it on me or on my children, or making me or my children adjust to the ways of Bronze Age myths.
Now they are, by calling creationism science they try to get the popular vote, getting in to classrooms, building museums witch show man and dinosaurs side by side. The fossil records being described as results of the great flood.
The ridicules claim that the world is 6000 years old (why do we see stars tens of thousands light-years from here, anyone? ) is being supported by the president of the united states and 54% of the population. If you ask me, religion is causing way more harm than it is doing good and it’s time to grow up and stop having invisible friends.
I’m so glad I live in the most non-religious country in the world.
Come on, everyone should just give up, you can’t find or even know how we were created, if you do, well, it becomes false since the the answer is instantly changed, just because the magical man in the sky was very evil. So just give it up and figure out how to mess with it and alter the design yourself…. you are (well most of you) are intelligent….
ADULDTS shouldn’t have INVISIBLE friends.
Isn’t that the same thing as “I’m first”?… was kinda funny!
@jonnyBoy,
That’s what most of Christians do. In U.S. Christianity is something else… different. Andrew, pointed it well, above your comment.
LOL at the stone-woman analogy. *shakeshishead*
That is EXACTLY why science needs to step up and tell those guys how stupid they are. If a guy would do that in front of a group of scientists, he would most certainly get laughed at. But maybe a group of “normal” people would actually believe an eloquent talker (=preacher) that humans came from rocks.
Humans didn’t come from rocks, though living things may fossilize over a long period of time.
And no, even though we make scientific progress all the time, the question of whether or not Evolution is a fact is NEVER ever seriously doubted by any scientist.
just a little question for those on the evolution side of the debate.
why is water the only substance on earth that expands and becomes less dense when it freezes ( 0 – 4 degrees Celsius)?
water cannot evolve so the theory of evolution does not play any role here so think of a reason why water expands when it freezes. The reason it expands is so that it floats on top of the water because, as i said earlier, it becomes less dense. if it didn’t become less dense then any life in the water would die.
just thought i would make a points for the intelligent creator side of this debate.
BTW i am open to all sides of this dilemma and am not close minded
i am a dinosaur, which way to the ark guys?
@43,
So if I freeze a fish in a block of ice or a frozen solid pond, it would live?
Your little question is lame, at best.
Elements have not evolved, life evolves. If we all came from Adam as Eve, why do pygmies look different than Eskimos. Perhaps they evolved to their respective lifestyle, climate, and surroundings.
Not everyone has evolved at the same rate. It is obvious by some of the posts here.
@43
You are confusing the words reason and result.
The reason is:
When liquid water is cooled, it contracts like one would expect until a temperature of approximately 4 degrees Celsius is reached. After that, it expands slightly until it reaches the freezing point, and then when it freezes it expands by approximately 9%.
This unusual behavior has its origin in the structure of the water molecule. There is a strong tendency to form a network of hydrogen bonds, where each hydrogen atom is in a line between two oxygen atoms. This hydrogen bonding tendency gets stronger as the temperature gets lower (because there is less thermal energy to shake the hydrogen bonds out of position). The ice structure is completely hydrogen bonded, and these bonds force the crystalline structure to be very “open”.
The result:
The result is that ice floats, and yes we would not see life as we know it if it didnt, if any. Whats your point?
@ 34 wah
“it was the Christian worldview that provided the basis for modern science, efforts to alleviate poverty, universal education, and the ideals of equality and liberty enshrined in the documents of the many governments.”
What a fallacious statement: the take-over of Christianity given us over a thousand years of total obscurantism, where philosophers writings were forbidden/banished/censored by the pope while Galileo Galilei -heliocentrism- was an heretic for over 300 years -until the late 20° century and John-paul 2- lol!
Persecutions, forced conversions, witch-hunts, Inquisition, massacres, religious wars, crusades, obscurantism.
That were revolutions against the nobles and the clergy, partners in crime for oppressing the poor, that enshrined equality and liberty in the documents of many governments (cf. France); universal education? lol…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Christians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy
You can believe what you want. But there is only one way to salvation, through Jesus. If you wan’t more scientific information against the evolution or are just interested in the debate. Take a look at this movie…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6814048597272982882
@12
Thats GOD blocking your ports!
@48
I disagree, the pink unicorn is the only way to salvation!
Or was it the tooth fairy… hmmm
BTW, piracy (i.e. stealing) is not… so you’re going to hell to burn forever throughout eternity with indescribable pain… just total torture increasing with every second, butraped with a pitchfork with your head buried in a pile of glowing coal. Oh, But god loves you… remember that!
Rightous christian proselytizers on a piracy weblog. That’s what I call an evolutionary bloomer
Kevin Padian is clearly not aware of “The Pyramid of Complexity” this theory is backed by the scientific community.It explains that the world is too complex to have evolved out of thin air, and that it needs a creator.
The theory is not some Christian hoax or whatever, it’s scientific, just like the theory of evolution.
Check out this documentary:
part1
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=6aCClfmSsw0
part2
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=CZKVtt0CQWk
part3
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=H841_rIMv7k
part4
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=B-DhTEJI7Ks
part5
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=S5T2vVTRjrI
part6
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=gNoHnbz3BGg
part7
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=3zrY_8YAwdM
That’s it enjoy!
I agree with #51. If you all would just READ the comments in this thread… then you all would see how incompetent children you all are.
I for one am glad that I am a thinker (open minded- but not so open minded that my brain fell out). I am glad I separated myself from closed minded religious brainwashing and I still don’t believe in no “gassy” Ggod(s).
Oh, and that goes for masonry, free or not, also. Their craft is deception and it wouldn’t surprise me none that they started this whole mess to begin with.
Let me give you a key to something. The cross that “christianity” claims it to be symbolizing their “saviour”, IS nothing but the mark of Cain. It isn’t the skin color of African people and its descendants and whatever they say now-a-days, but the cross is a sign that survived wayyyyyyy even before Babylon’s time. Just look, it’s everywhere.
The sad thing here is that intelligent design actually has good philosophical basis and the concept of a “necessary being” is the theory opposite that of quantum mechanics. These idiots were too bloody stupid to read the proper metaphysical lit and have instead pulled some asinine attempt out of their asses to justify their little crusade into the science class.
Pathetic appeals to confirmation bias do not a documentary, or trial, make. Moore should get the chair — or a Nobel, but preferably the chair — for convincing so many stupid people otherwise.
And, for God’s sake (irony intended), what is it about anti-religionists that makes them just have to be even bigger idiots than religionists? I mean, who would have even thought that possible?!? How has it escaped so many of you that you can’t be mad at (the) God(s) if you don’t believe in (the) God(s), your clear anger gives lie to you claims to lack of belief.
Not Stupid it’s not a question of believing in God or being a Christian or not. It’s a fact that Atheism has no real hardcore scientific proof that God does not exist. It has a theory, the theory of evolution. Yes a theory just like the theory based around “The pyramid of complexity” which explains that there has to be a creator.
Do i believe that God is a man with a white beard sitting on a cloud? No of course not, i’m not stupid. Did Jesus exist and was he a great man with powers? Why not? What if we have been deprived of our powers by society and it’s structure? What if we once had such powers? We only use 5% of our brains anyway, so why close out any possibility?
To dismiss God or Atheism is both quite stupid, the truth is that we all create our own reality. That’s what i think free will means, you accept your own reality. Mine is with God, and yours is without. Respect that as you would respect somebody who has a different world view then your world view.
I always hear that Religion is the root of all evil? That’s stupid and naive to say. People are aggressive creatures, who join tribes and ideologies. People have been killing each other for as long as humans exist. So is religion to blame?
NO!
Culture is the root of all evil; It is what divides us even more then ideologies or religion.
@17 This is the only inteligent comment yet.
Little story: My Stepmom devout christian was having a discussion with my wife who is a microbiologist. My wife brought in a comment out of the “dead sea scrolls” stepmom said she didnt want to hear it “if its not in the bible its not true.” The very next week her pastor brought up the dead sea scrolls and said if you have not had a chance to review these to do so. Now stepmom is asking all kinds of questions about these.
That looks pretty mindless to me. Unable or unwilling to have a discussion unless its oked from the church!
Most christians don’t have a clue to their religion besides what their told from the church. E.G. The trinity, I bet most didnt know this was never thought untill 350AD when Constantine decreed it to be so, just to help save his empire from fighting.
Not saying the bible is all wrong (if you can read Aramaic and veiw the original transcripts) Throughout the years it’s been rewritten translated and modified by man to serve mans purpose.
Compare DNA to a computer program and intelligent design makes sense, just not a all omnipotent being saying poof let it be.
Be careful not to label people as christian or atheist there is also the agnostic view of there being more to the story then the human mind can comprehend (or at least not yet).
Get this, God is a human invention not the other way around.
Life is a mystery and so is the universe. Time is a rubberband
and we will never reach the end of universe and see the light.
All you ID lovers hug a C4-loaded fundamentalist and die happy.
@56.
“We only use 5% of our brains anyway, so why close out any possibility?”
If you used only 5% of your brains you wouldnt even be able to breath properly, you whole brain is in use whole time, tho, most of it handles your bodies motoric functions and such
and atheism is writtin in lowercase, unlike religions
“To dismiss God or Atheism is both quite stupid, the truth is that we all create our own reality. That’s what i think free will means, you accept your own reality. Mine is with God, and yours is without. Respect that as you would respect somebody who has a different world view then your world view.”
If it only was that simple, then id be ok with anyone believeing in elves/unicorns/fairies, but it isnt, atleast as long as people are blowing themselves up, torching abortion clinics, or forcing their narrow-minded view of the world on others
if anyone came up to me with real evidence of existance of the christian god, ID REALLY LIKE THAT, even if i would be proven wrong being atheist, id really like the idea of eternal life, but the thing is, there are still active religions in the world been around much longer than the abrahamic ones, in my mind, id rather rank them higher with possibility of being the *true* religion, just because theyve been around much longer
best shot is to trust science and see what comes up following decades with the advancing progress of technology
Culture may be the root Blackeyedbearhawk, but religion IS its associate. Religion with its many sects (yes, this includes the word “denomination”) divides the people. Different looks at the scriptures created different “groups”. Why is it that they can not be under 1 “entity” but still have their individual thoughts and opinions until they are convinced otherwise? I personally do not want a One World Order but I disagree with religion in its way of how to achieve peace the way they are going about it. They themselves were infiltrated with members of secret societies and are now leading the worlds flocks blind.
Food for thought. Your saviour whom you call “Jesus” suffered a massive character assassination. Jesus is a name meaning “Healing Zeus”. And the way they portray him as single and almost “homosexual” like, is just the opposite. You are told to search the truth out, so do it. I did and what I see is that we commoners (non-secret society) are in for the fight of our lives. Earth’s governments is truly run by demons with Lucifer on the throne.
First point, the rock-woman analogy is just plain stupid.
Seriously, hang your head in shame for that one.
Lying makes baby jeebus cry ya know D=<
Have you ever really read anything about evolution that wasn’t creationist propaganda? Because from what you’ve written it seems not. Nor have you read anything on debating ethics apparantly. Strawmen are bad, not least because you look like a fool when you’re caught using them.
What you have described is NOT the theory of evolution, it just bares a passing similarity to the evolutionary story if you squint and lean your head to the side…
The science, and the scientists, are clear. We evolved. Sorry if this contradicts your cherished little mythology, but that’s life.
Someone else said they would rpefer a religious person in office to one who was non-religious. Why? You would prefer someone who ultimately held themselves accountable to a being they only believed existed, but couldn;t prove, instead of one who held themselves accountable to the electorate?
That way lies madness and decent dystopian fiction.
Then there was some crappy appeal to authorities, and quote mining. Especially the einstein crap.
Guess what, he was not a creationist. He was a scientist, and soundly rejected all of your religious ideas. Many times. Over and over and over.
Then some random insults, then some claims about science proving intelligent design… care to elaborate? This would be quite the surprise to the scientific community…
Then darwin quote mining and the good old creationist claim of a death bed retraction. Always a classic that one.
Nothing new here then, just the same tired, vitriolic rhetoric.
Simple fact is you have nothing new, nor have you have for hundreds of years.
@60
Check facts a large majority of the brain shows no activity, shown by a cat scan on what would be refered to as super genius shows much elevated activity in otherwise unused portions of the brain. It’s in this organ may lie the answer since it’s the only area of the human body we still no nothing about.
As far as I am concerned this thread is over for me. I got movies and games to watch/ play/ download. I do not want to feed the incompetence here.
as soon as i saw this pre the other day i knew mrx would post it
Great, so while muslim fundamentalists are trying to blow half the world up, christian fundamentalists are trying to make the other half stupid.
There is a lot of people out there that believe in god and believe in evolution. Frankly anyone who thinks that god created the world in 6 days and then had to rest is bonkers. If the person who created the universe is god, why would he need to rest ? An all powerful being needs to rest ? There is a lot of people who take the religious books as litteral word – which makes for some rather horrid reading. In the bible it’s said that one of Adams sons went off and married someone from another tribe – hello – how is that possible if there is only adam/eve + family ? gah .
Nothing wrong with being with your sister as long as ya love each other right?
@56
Why should atheists be asked to prove that there is no god(s)? It is you who claim that there is one, the burden of proof is on your shoulders.
Everyone is born atheist, what belief you get is purely based upon where you are born, into what religious surrounding. What makes the Abraham god more probable then Thor, Baal, Zeus, Vishnu, Venus, fray etc?
If everyone is equally sure that their religion is right and you agree with that you are, say a Christian because you were born in a Christian country and not a Muslim one. Does it not become childish to still claim to the notion that you god is more probable then gods of any other religion? And why can’t the designer be Zeus?
The fact that there are and have been thousands of religions practiced through mankind’s history (witch is by all scientific ways of measuring and according all the archeology findings more than 6000 years) makes it hard to believe in any god for any sane person. (Yes people who worship invisible all powerful beings with no evidence for its existence are mentally ill in a way). In fact that is what religion is, a mental illness. If one person thinks the moon talks to him, they call it insanity, if a million thinks the same way it’s called religion.
And another thing, one cannot prove a negative.
You can’t prove that the tooth fairy does not exist, or Zeus, or that a blue naked invisible fat guy who lives under my bed does not exist.
And finally, I do not agree that ALL evil come from religion. Religion is dangerous because it is easily used as a tool to do evil, and making it seem just.
“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
~ Blaise Pascal, 1623-1662
i love the comments here. fundamentalism without killing each other…thanx to the internet.
BTW: those here that mention “The Pyramid of Complexity” should state where they stand! Agnostics i hope. Coz the pyramid just says it is too complex…exactly what the agnostics say.
Still you can and cannot believe in a god.
question:
Can an almighty god create a stone so heavy he/she cant carry it?
No matter what you answer: the god cannot be almighty.
Either that god is too lame to create such a heavy rock or the god is weak not to be able to carry the heaviest stone.
A paradox which in general proves the inexistence of an almighty god. Maybe some god (islam?christian?budhism?) is pretty good in what he/she/it does…but it cannot be almighty and therefor is no god.
@70
just a quick correction.
budhism is an athestitc religion, they dont believe in any gods.
Living in the bible-belt we have a religion museum (christian museum) 5mi away is the Gray Fossil Museum. People from the religious museum will tell your children that the world is only 6,000 yrs old. Go to the gray site and they say the world is 4.5 billion years. This alone shows the huge divide between christianity and science.
haha … My comment was editted out and all the other ones were left in. I find this quite funny. Perhaps this website is run by Muslim Extremists.
” It’s a fact that Atheism has no real hardcore scientific proof that God does not exist.”
Bravooo…
That must take humpty dumpty stupidity award… Yeah and theist have no “hardcore scientific proof” (must be in a Jenna Jameson movie or something…) that Peter Pan doesn’t exist.
The nerve of asking for proof when someone believes the most incredible nonsense out of “faith” just goes to demonstrate that rationality in not a species defining trait for humans.
Tell you what, do you have the same level of demand with the people that brainwashed you into believing in “god”? If you don’t may i ask why not?
I don’t live in the States and I´m atheist, so shoot me
Don’ t really, I was joking, you guys don’t really well do with that turn the other cheek stuff and all, religous stuff. Interesting documentary, will show to friends.
velo, actually Buddha never explicitly ruled out the existence of a God. Many branches of buddhism also have various god deities that are worshipped in various ways, there is however an universal principle in buddhism that there is no eternal creator god (like those described in Christianity, Islam and Judaism’s).
@76
Thanks for the info, i need to look it up now
Bananas prove the existence of God:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5118280612477465290&q=banana+proves+god&total=20&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6
If I was God, I would nuke the world then reformat.
But then if I was God I would have had the foresight to install a better o/s in the first place.
The thing about religion that gets me is that it’s so often hypocritical yet people don’t seem to question that. For example:
God loves me. Yet apparently he is willing to send me to live with Satan for the rest of eternity (sic) if I don’t quite live up to his standards. Oh wait, the bible says that God is going to forgive me for my sins. Or will he?
The bible also says that God is perfect and we are created in his image. If that is so, then is humanity so pharct up? And why are my teeth crooked?
My big question is: why did God even create in the first place?
It’s nice to see discussions like this, it appears rlslog has banned most of the immature children. Nice to see some thought process put into the discussions people, thanks
.
@78
That banana stuff is sooo cool. The “atheists nightmare”… LOL
Guess god forgot to make the pineapple ergonomic… I can’t believe people have such limited reasoning skills… That dumb person doesn’t even know that the banana he is holding is a man made artificial selection. The wild banana resembles little to the agricultural human grown banana.
When will you jerkoffs stop naming programs HDTV when they’re even not close to being HDTV? 624×352 resolution isn’t even SDTV, which is 720×576 for PAL and 704×480 for NTSC. For God’s sake stop naming your low resolution crap HDTV!
@27
Heheh, you made me laugh. It is, again, adorable you believe whatever your told. You are told evolution is correct and you believe it. Sure you may have some evidence to back it, but do you not realize that Christians have scientific evidence to prove that they are right, too? No, you were never told that…As for your attempt to separate evolution from religion: I know what the dictionary says about religion, but as far as Im concerned, a religion is a specific belief system. Evolution falls into that. Believe it or not, but evolution take just as much, if not more, faith than believing in ID does. I see these pictures of a fish slowly growing legs and lungs in these biology books, and I cant help but to wonder where that came from. Thats not science, that is speculation. Why would you put speculation into a school text book side-by-side with scientific fact? Because that is the only way to justify your belief system…
@36
Well, if you want to ask me not to mix insane people with Christians (which honestly isnt what I got out of your comment), maybe you shouldnt generalize Christians as being zealous, mindless pawns to some higher world order…You call these people “poor Christians” because they have the nerve to stand against an overall intelligence lacking society? That doesnt make sense to me at all. By my logic, you just called yourself an idiot since you yourself are trying to get me to acknowledge that you are right…So I guess that makes you a “poor atheist”…As for your first comment, it doesnt matter what your intention was, you made it very clear that you wanted one thing taught in schools, which, again by my logic, would generally create a bias in students alone…a bias toward your belief…
@37
Wow…another one of those “wow” comments…It is people like you that lead me to believe insanity exists. As before, Im going rephrase what you just said so that us dummies are capable of contemplating your words: “Evolution is pure fact, anybody that doesnt believe that is stupid. After all, we have so much evidence…those other people who believe in other things are dumb and do not want to accept science!” By my logic, you just called millions of people idiots because the only reason they dont believe you is because they are unwilling to accept your “mind-blowing” amount of evidence. You, sir, are a fool and an idiot. You have no idea how much science has gone into proving ID to be true, and how much evidence they have to back it.
@38
Ya know what, pal? It is your kind of narrow minded idiocy that got us into this mess in the first place. Sure, there are religious zealots that do nothing but shove their belief down your throat. However, your kind of generalization is very foolish. Dont forget, there are zealots on both sides of this debate. Do I generalize all evolutionists as people like #37? No, I dont. I have a brain. You, however, do not…
@53
You are open minded…that statement has just as much common sense as saying pigs fly…Ya, you separated from the evil religion, but who did you side with alternatively? Evolution has got to be the most closed minded belief I have ever known. You stubbornly refuse to entertain the possibility of a greater being simply because it doesnt fit into your belief system. Sounds pretty closed minded to me…
@57
So by your logic, it is left up to religion to protect people from idiocy? I try my best, but the idiots keep coming! Is religion to blame because people screw their own lives up? Are you kidding me?! Dont blame creationists because STD’s exist, or because people in Africa dont use condoms…You can try as hard as you want to try and prove your logic. Whether people believe you or not is still up to the people.
@58
You are but one of millions of people that seem to generalize all creationists with religious zealots whose primary goal in life is to convert you. Please dont do that, it is a common mistake that is easily remedied…
@60
Funny, since ID’s have been trying to get you to acknowledge the evidence they have found for years. Pretty solid evidence to me. No, Im not going to list it all. Honestly, Im really not so concerned with trying to convert you to ID. My goal is to make you acknowledge that your evolutionist theory is not as all powerful as you make it out to be.
@69
I agree, you are absoultely right. There is no possible way to prove something doesnt exist. Then again, that isnt what they are asking you to do. They arnt trying to get you to prove there is no God. What they are trying to do is make you prove that the evidence they have collected backing ID is false. At the end of the day, that is what we are all here to do. Because of mixed up logical thinking, we have come to see many different beliefs, all looking at the same evidence in a different way. No, dont try proving God doesnt exist, that is too easy for you. Simply saying He doesnt exist is proof enough for you, right? Obviously, since that is what you have done. Grow a brain and stop twisting peoples words…
@70
What your saying is proof of only one thing, your incompetence. What you are asking is whether a being with absolutely no limitations can create a limitation on itself, right? Thats like saying, the wind doesnt exist because it cant make a wall to block itself, thereby, giving limitation to an otherwise limitless power…pretty dumb sounding to me…
There are many other points I would love to address, but honestly I dont feel like typing for the next 3 hours…believe me when I say I can probably refute anything you can come up with…Ill be back later to see if I can…
If humans evolved from apes, why do we still have apes?
I believe in God, and I also believe in a fundamental evolution, not the evolution “theory”. Talk about ramming religion down everyone’s throat, why is it that “theory”, not the fact of evolution, but the “theory” of evolution is the only thing being “rammed” down our childrens throats in schools. Factual evolution is taking, say myself, out of America and moving myself and my wife to the North Pole. After centuries, my ancestors would have thicker hair, skin would be lighter, blood might be a bit thicker, which only means that my and my wife’s ancestral DNA slowly adapted to compensate for the extreme conditions that changed. Adaptation is true, factual evolution. The “theory” of evolution, on the other hand came from Charles Darwin, yes, but from a Charles Darwin that had a childish “I’m mad, so I’ll just show you” idea. He was an Orthodox Christian into his twenty’s. After his exploits, and scientific findings, mixed with his extreme emotional distaste for the “preselection and preordination” that Orthodox christians believed at the time, stupid idea I might add that God preordained me to write this instead of because I have some intelligence and a open-minded brain, that explosive mixture bred the evolution “theory”. Actually, his findings don’t prove anything decisively, thus the “theory” stamp. Some of his findings, however, prove two possibilities. When he made his first stop ashore at St Jago, part of the Galopagos Islands, Darwin found that a white band high in the volcanic rock cliffs consisted of baked coral fragments and shells. He believed that this matched Charles Lyell’s concept of land slowly rising or falling, giving Darwin a new insight into the geological history of the island which inspired him to think of writing a book on geology. This could be 1)from earthquakes causing the land mass to rise, OR 2)proof that an historical account in the Torah as well as the Old Testament, the Great Flood and Noah’s family, is fact. These are 2 different possibilities. It comes down to belief and what you want to believe this proves. There is scientific proof that there was a Great Flood sometime in History, thousands of years ago. And since the Torah is a history book of sorts, just as our learning material in school teaches us the history of our country, this would prove that historical account to be accurate. But some of you hate “organized religion” so much, that I will be called stupid and blah, blah, blah just to say that you “believe” number 1), not 2). I do think organized religion has caused alot of pain in the name of God, but only because MEN have said so. How many men lie to get what they want? If a man, or woman, can speak, it is so!!! God doesn’t ever ask any of His believers to kill in his name, or hurt anyone. This is man’s doing. Some people have psychotic or sociopathic predisposition to brutality, and when you mix that with a belief in God, and scriptures taken out of context, we get what so many people have pointed out in the crusades, or Vlad Tepes’s campaigns against Islamic extremists (a bad thing?), etc. People back then with an extreme drive for power, the only place to be able to excercise that power in the shortest amount of time was the Church. Mix that with these predispositions, and we have the dark ages. Its cause and effect. One man will get out his need by bombing an abortion clinic to fulfill his need to kill and need a reason, “God”, to help him fulfill his cause, and another, like Richard Ramirez killed to fulfill his need and used the “Devil” to ease his mind about it. Don’t lay at God’s feet what psychotic or sociopathic people do of their own accord. Hitler didn’t use God as the crutch that helped him walk him through the Third Reich and his “Final Solution”. The list is long of evil dictators who killed, in total,hundreds of millions of people not in “God’s” name, but because of a LIBERAL ideology and if you didn’t think and speak in favor of the current Political Incumbent, and didn’t speak in this “Politically Correct” fashion, you would be killed:
Stalin, Lenin, Mao Zedong, Ivan the Terrible, Ayatollah Kohmeni, Kim Jong Il, Idi Amin Dada, Sultan mehmed II, Napoleon(who did come to a personal revelation and belief in Jesus Christ AFTER he was in exile on St Helena Island), as well as Nero, Caligula and most of the nutjob Caesars that served Rome. They spewed their hate and death because of the same liberal ideas and beliefs that some of you reading hold. Yes Christians who have a personal relationship with God can also believe in a factual, scientific evolution, but are some of you that small and closed minded enough to only believe in a “theory” of evolution, and not the POSSIBILITY of the existence of our “theory” of a Divine Creator? Shall we dance?
@84
Whoever said we come from modern day apes?
All the great aped (that’s including humans) share a common ancestor. That’s quite different.
To say humans came from chimpanzees is like saying chimpanzees come from humans.
Read a book on evolution before you comment something you truly don’t have any knowledge of.
@ #86 velo
You fool…watch the beginning of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and you’ll see.
@83
For your reply @69
So far all evidence supporting ID (creationism) has been ripped to shreds by real science and the theory of evolution is still the best explanation for how life evolved.
For what reason would one believe in a god with no evidence for it existents? A God among hundreds of Gods.
A religion among hundreds of religions.
What makes your god true? You don’t really need proof do you, simply saying he exist is proof enough for you, right?
And don’t question your faith, that will get you a ticket to hell.
All I want, all it takes, is PROOF. I’m waiting…
@87
I hope your kidding ;P
Actors in monkey suites jumping around a big black cube-thing with sticks proves what now?
@47 God
Oh my bad. I forget to mention the ‘darkside’ of the whole situation. it seems my comment was only emphasizing the positive effects. People always throw up the Catholic card on this one because we all know Roman Catholicism, among others, abused Christianity once it arrived in Europe to control people’s ideology in order to gain power. But the fact doesn’t negate my point whatsoever. Yes, Christianity left a trail of devastation behind it, but only when you consider the above to be true and the fact that Jesus said He came to bring division and peace to the world. Contradictory only if you’re not reading his words in context. Jesus is speaking about the divisions that will come, even among family members, over their belief or lack of belief about Him. And what usually happens when religious conflicts arise? People start escalating it to a physical and emotional level, defying logic and reason to their violent acts. Of course, the Bible teaches that Christians are to be peaceful, loving, and forgiving. But it also teaches that we are not required to sit idly by when persecuted unrighteously. Will there are always be the “extremist fundamentalists” of any religion, group or creed? You betcha. And the effects of that will leave a trail of death. But you can’t deny that the Christian religion has had a more positive lasting effect on the modern world than if it were to be Islam or Buddhism.
@53 Not Stupid
“The cross that “christianity” claims it to be symbolizing their “saviour”, IS nothing but the mark of Cain. It isn’t the skin color of African people and its descendants and whatever they say now-a-days, but the cross is a sign that survived wayyyyyyy even before Babylon’s time. Just look, it’s everywhere.”
ah. the Christian/Pagan myth card. For hundreds of years, the Romans crucified criminals on a ‘wooden cross’ made by two perpendicular sticks. Maybe the Romans got their idea from an ancient pagan religious symbol for novelty purposes or maybe it was the ideal method to quicken an effective punishment. Either way, that’s what the Christian cross symbol is based on; if jesus was crucified on an x-shaped sticks then that would have been the Christian symbol. The fact that a ‘cross’ symbol have existed years before jessus’ death doesn’t mean they are related. it would only mean that a common universal symbol is given new meaning by an event. That is on the order of, “Many people believed things fell from the sky in ancient times, so Newton must have gotten his laws of motion from them.”
@90
I just have to say that a tool of torture is quite fitting the Christian faith. You would agree of course but in a whole different way.
But I agree though, the cross has been used before as religious or symbolic signs, they don’t however have anything to do with the Christian cross. Although one could argue, if the cross was a common symbol used, that it was easily picked up and spread by the people of that time, helping to spread the religion. But that’s just me brainstorming
@60, @69
You should read, “God? A debate between a christian and an atheist” (William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong). While it isn’t about ID, it is highly recommended. Not biased at all. The debate has very good points on both sides. I would say they are both tied. [URL="http://www.amazon.com/God-between-Christian-Atheist-Counterpoint/dp/0195166000/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195426039&sr=1-2"]here.[/URL]
@92
will check it out
@90
post 94 was directed to 91-velo
Man I’m suprised no one brought this up and I cant even find all 3 in torrents but it’s Southpark S11E10-12. 3 part series moot point is “So what if Jesus wasnt the person the bible makes him to be he’s done more to make the world a better place than any of us. And he’ll be around long after we’re gone.” Slight bit off topic but leaning this way anyway.
@83
I for one actually have a degree in Biology and it is clear you don’t squat about what you’re saying. “christians have evidence too”??? Where is it? 99% of Biology professionals support evolution, 0,5% believe we came from outer space and the other 0,5% are too damn religious to know what they are doing. Personally i’d rather go with the outer space crazy people than with “creationism”. And you have a lot of nerve talking about believing what you were told to believe… Ever seen someone be a christian without having another christian around to brainwash him?
About proving ID false in a scietific way, have you seen this documentary? Your ID heroes got completely owned in court and out of it. Every single stupid argument was destroyed and Behe even said Astrology was a science. That’s right, the main ID heroe thinks Astrology is a science! How ridiculous can you get?
And about your atitude towards poster number 70, i think you should take some lessons in logic. An Omnipotent being IS a logical impossibility by the reasons he pointed out. It is not his fault that you fail to grasp the scope of what he was saying. A being that has, by definition, no limitations cannot create/cause something that limits it and so, if your logical abilities can follow, is not unlimited. Its a logical blunder. Now, in your world of magical thinking (you should have gonne through this phase before 10 years old) this may not seem a problem, but in the real world this actually means that your omnipotent god cannot exist. If there is such a thing, it is not omnipotent.
@85
“There is scientific proof that there was a Great Flood sometime in History, thousands of years ago.”
There is no such thing and i personally challenge anyone to point this “scientific proof” out to me using the adequate geological data.
And for the love of your god, don’t use magical data from creationist websites. Use a proper scientific reference, an article that has gone through some sort of peer review and not something one of my highschool student could tear down without braking a sweat.
@99
You’re Anglican (=not a raving fanatic zealot) so you probably gonna get “you’re not a real christian…” and stuff!
And about me, i don’t mind most of the New Testament core calues (quite nice most of them, in fact). But as soon has you start talking about miracles left and right you gonna lose me
I’ve heard it all before.
Was once told by an Evangelist that because I’ve never truly suffered in my life (been to prison, addicted to drugs or otherwise lost in a living hell) and was born again through Jesus Christ I wasn’t a true Christian.
Just so you know. The real person who was sacrificed in this pagan “ritual sacrifice” was not done on a cross (as in “T”). But was sacrificed on a stake (as in “straight” up pole without ANY arms). The myth is to perpetuate the legend of Tammuz.
Who is Tammuz? Read up on it.
Oh. And I use words like “incompetence” to jar some people into mental “shock”.
I’ve heard many a creationist make claims about “scientific evidence for creation” or something similar..
I’ve yet to see them actually produce any.
Any of the creationists here care to go so far as to support their claims?
Or shall we just declare this “debate” a win for real science?
My understanding is that intelligent design (ID) isn’t a science as it can’t be tested in experiments, produces no predictions or creates any new hypothesis in contrast to the theory of natural selection (NS).
If you (Darth Arcon) have an experiment that proves the theory correct or can produce a single prediction or a new hypothesis confirming the legitimacy of ID as a science then I would be very interested to hear about it.
NS isn’t perfect but it’s clearly the best we have at the moment and will be until proven otherwise.
All this stems from the fact that humans cannot comprehend the time frame of a million years, much less a billion years!
This is getting too loud… Time for a drink after reading all the comments and the crap I’ve seen today.
How about everybody do the same? Take a break, collect yourselves, and then see what you think about this then?
I’ll see you in hell :-}
@106 Figured you were a textbook “christian”. Study some more, then you will notice that crucifixions occurred before the time periods YOU stated. Historically, Tammuz was crux’d and this was in Babylon! Oh, and the life and times of Tammuz are retold in your Jesus.
Your Jesus said for the people NOT to worship him but the Father ONLY. As far as I know, christians worship Jesus, NOT The Creator or Grand Designer. That 3n1 joke you guys call “Trinity” comes from Egyption theology. “Jesus” did not want to be portrayed as a god-type but was merely pointing out how we should live by the manual. YOUR bible says, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism and 1 Father of all. That can not be Jebus now can it? The bible may not contradict itself but the followers sure do. And take it from an X-Christian.
Guess what? I think we live in Warhammer times now and are starting to see The Horus Heresy.
So much for what you know.
@90
“But you can’t deny that the Christian religion has had a more positive lasting effect on the modern world than if it were to be Islam or Buddhism.”
Oh, I can deny it and I will. The pursuit of Christianity has resulted in far more deaths than any other religion. What were the Crusaders, a bunch of fun-loving guys on a road trip? The Inquisitions? The war in Iraq led by the Christian fundamentalist president of the US, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, injuries and untold misery? How about the hundreds and thousands of accusations of pedophilia perpetrated by some of the highest members of the church? This is the lasting contribution of christianity.
Funny how when muslim nut jobs blow something up, it’s islam that’s the violent religion, but when christian nut jobs kill people, it’s just a few people acting on their own accord. It’s simple, all religions are just crutches for the weak, stupid and intolerant folks among us.
Ah, @107. You bring an excellent point to the table. I reiterate the word excellent. Why? Because it is true. There is absolutely NO WAY to scientifically prove that ID is true. I couldnt agree with you more. On the flip side, however, stands the scientific backing of evolution. If you really think about it, and dont just think of ways to prove me wrong and prove you right, there is really no way to “scientifically” prove any world view or “beginning of time” theory to be true. Think about it, I implore you. When faced with the scientific method, which seems to help define reality with the least amount of effort, remember back to grade school science class. The main step in the scientific method is to “observe”. When faced with ID vs evolution, you cant observe the beginning of time, nor can you prove that there was an actual “beginning”. For all we know, time, and by extension the entire universe, has always existed. There is no way to prove it with science. That is where science falls short, and you need to focus on logical thought to guide you to the truth. And as far as I have “logically” thought, ID seems to be, IMO of course, the most logical choice. Obviously, others disagree with me, for they have come to a different conclusion. They try to use fossil records, carbon dating, and process of elimination to try and back their claims. But, when all is said and done, all the fossils in the world mean nothing without credibility. And who do you get credibility from? Other people? Is that a joke? How can you possibly use other people as credibility when faced with such a controversial subject? Sure, I can honestly tell you that Albert Einstein believed in “a” god. His god was the Jewish god, Jehovah. However, even when such a smart man believes in such a thing, you still cant use his claim for jack! What is Albert Einstein to me? Please, I dont mean to offend, but he is just another person with his own beliefs! Even though many people consider him to be one of the smartest men in history (I am one of those many people), they still believe other things. Im not jewish………The point Im trying to make is a simple one. Use your own brain, and draw your own conclusions from things that you ALONE can prove. Dont base it on any proof from someone else unless you can logically think it through to the same conclusion…
I can almost guarantee you (I use “almost” to cover myself for future reference) that when the people I challenged come back on here, they will give me links and books and documentaries and the like. But as I said, such things require credibility to be true. After all, I have heard a lot about most of the fossil record. I have heard unbelievable things like these Lucy bones are either one of the first human beings, or just some person somebody dug up. That some bones from the Neanderthals (Im not sure on that, it could be from one of the other pre human…things) were pig bones and teeth. I have heard credible opinions from both sides, and both sides are credible by some person with a shiny degree or whatever. Point being? Only trust yourself. Heh, I think it is rather funny that most of the people on here are challenging me to prove ID to be true when in reality my “original” goal was to have equal representation in our schools. My motives have changed since then, true, but after thinking a lot about it, and your comment 107, I guess I need to return to that original intent. Please, dont base your belief on what I, or anybody else says, base your belief on what conclusion YOU logically come to…
And for the record, just because I think everybody should use their own logic to find truth, I do personally believe in ID (not necessarily Christianity, though I do believe it is the closest ID theory). Because of this little fact, you will find bias in my writing. I suppose that is just how it works…sorry…
@110 [chuckle] Figured you were an Christian/Myth “believer”. “Study some more, then you will notice that crucifixions occurred before the time periods YOU stated. Historically, Tammuz was crux’d and this was in Babylon!”
Tammuz crucifixion may have occurred before the time in question, but presumably the stake version, while the cross version followed. But, either way, it really doesn’t matter which one Jesus died on. The issue is whether or not He shed His blood for our sins. The Greek word used in many Bibles which is translated into “cross” is the Greek word “stauros” which means, “an upright stake, esp. a pointed one, a cross.” If a stake were used, instead of a cross, then Jesus’ hands would have been placed above His head with a nail driven through His wrists. Since the wrists would most likely overlap, only one nail is needed through both wrists. However, John 20:25 says, “The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, except I shall see in his hands the print of the [b]nails[/b], and put my finger into the print of the [b]nails[/b], and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Notice the use of the word nails (plural) in reference to hands (plural). It makes far more sense to say that Jesus was crucified on a cross with outstretched hands and one nail in each hand placed above each other on a stake. That is why it says “…in his hands the print of the nails…” So it’s most logical to state that Jesus died on a cross with outstretched arms.
“Oh, and the life and times of Tammuz are retold in your Jesus.”
And Tammuz’s name is mentioned only once in the bible, Ezekiel 8:13-15. hardly any manuscripts in support for Tammuz, not that I deny his existence.
“Your Jesus said for the people NOT to worship him”
Would you mind pointing out that verse?
“but the Father ONLY. As far as I know, christians worship Jesus, NOT The Creator or Grand Designer.”
It may appear to you that way, but it seems to be that you’re right only if Jesus did not claim to be God. If that’s the case, then Christians are worshiping Jesus and not the Father. I could be wrong, but if we can establish that Jesus claimed to be God/the Father/The Creator/Grand Designer, then we can conclude that the early Christians worshiped both Jesus and God the Father as one, which would negate your entire point.
Did Jesus claim to be God? Considering he was a jew, speaking in jewish terms, he certainly made the point clear that him and the Father are one (in nature). John 10:30-33 quotes “I and the Father are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” There are about 8 bible verses i can think of that support the claim that show that Jesus is God in flesh, or at least claimed to be one with the Father, like, John 5:18 – “For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” (John, Colossians, Phillipians, Hebrew and Psalms). I could list more at your if you want.
I think we can both agree that Jesus is worshipped. In fact, He said to worship God only, yet He receives worship. What does that tell you? Under the premise that Jesus is one with the Father, if he tells his followers to worship God only and they worship Him then they are worshiping both Jesus and God the Father at the same time. It’s impossible for them to worship Jesus and not ‘The Creator’ because Jesus IS one in the same with ‘The Creator’. For example, John 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:14 – “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
“That 3n1 joke you guys call “Trinity” comes from Egyption theology.”
Please back that up.
As far as your knowledge of Christianity vs Horus/Egytian religions, these kinds of arguments were popular in so-called “history of religions” circles until several decades ago, but they were generally abandoned. Atheistic fundamentalists and some people who took older religious studies classes still haven’t caught up entirely. The thesis was basically that Christian theology took its primary components from preceding traditions rather than from events which occurred in Jesus’ life. Usually it works this way: Jesus preached an inner kingdom of hippie social justice, but Paul put Jesus in the framework of a “mystery religion” (a category of pagan cult contemporary with early xianity). It turns out that you have to read those pagan cults using the terms of Christian theology in order to make that case, but obviously if you’re using the terms of Christian theology to read pagan cults then the thesis that the terms of Christian theology are basically lifted out of the mystery religions is false.
Consider the first paragraph on the website
http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html:
“What the ancient evidence will show you is that ancient western culture had a conceptual model of reality, and ancient Christianity adopted that model. Ancient Pagans believed in various levels of divinity, with miraculous powers, coming down and going up to its home in the sky. Divine beings cared about people, listened to and answered their prayers. Gave them the power to prophesy. Even gave them a better deal in the eternal life that comes after death.”
So the facts are:
1. They believed in some sort of non-human beings.
2. They beleived that non-human beings had non-human powers.
3. They believed that non-human beings lived in places that humans don’t.
4. They believed that non-human beings interacted with humans.
5. They believed that non-human beings could provide humans with non-human knowledge and power.
Obviously these are so vague that we would only be surprised if there weren’t people all over the world who believed these kinds of things. This is basically on the order of, “Many people believed things fell from the sky in ancient times, so Newton must have gotten his laws of motion from them.” (There exist much better examples than this website, but…)
Leithart offers the interesting epigram, “The Devil has no stories.” In other words, because only God can create out of nothing, whenever we make anything it will always be derivative in nature, so any story we write will unavoidably reflect the story, God’s story. Hence we get posts like some of those above.
So, are there similarities? Sure, but not any kind of similarities that show that the fundamentals of Christian theology were derived from the mystery religions as opposed to the life of Jesus.
C.S. Lewis, who argues along similar lines; that is, that each of these myths in some way foreshadow or give a glimpse of the fullness of the Gospel. Most pre-christian pagan myths contain, at some point or another, a god-man that dies and comes back (in some form or another). Lewis argues that these are prepatory to the actual coming of the true Messiah. This is one of the ways you can understand the bit about whole of creation groaning for a saviour. Even pagan religions are looking for someone to destroy death.
They get aspects of the story right, use similar images and characters, and they set forth the problems really well; in the end, though, their solution is always skewed in a way.
Take The Oresteia for example. Aeschylus uses very biblical imagery to describe justice (blood thick in the ground, crying out for vengeance). Yet at the end of the story, the problem is solved with an appeal to Athenian judicial procedures, and Athena is able to use rhetoric to convince the Furies to calm down. What is the message of this story? On one level, yes, that murder requires payment in blood. On another, though, it’s that politics and rhetoric are what saves us from this vicious cycle of death.
it seems like the details of many of these early myths were a little more explicit than just generalizations – like they believed their god was born of a virgin birth, or specifically crucified, even called the ‘Lamb of God’… I mean those are some pretty exact details – and thats really what gets my interest. but you’re going to find two things the more you study it:
1) Christ still looks quite a bit different in other ways. He really does come looking like their gods, but completely defying the mold at the same time. He is God descending to become man, and saving His people through a selfless death and resurrection that lifts him up to Lordship over the heavens and the earth. That story is unique.
2) If we would say that just because two religions have similar images or themes, one must have come from another, then we simply can’t explain the history of religion. These connections and themes are literally global. When we are making this argument against Christianity we would really, eventually, have to argue for one common mother of all religions, but that wouldn’t really work very well with the rest of worldview in question.
“The Horus Heresy.”
I remember watching a video doco on comparisons between Jesus and Horus.
First off, sunset is not a reference to “Set.” I worry about anyone who made it past that part of the video. I’m pretty sure “horizon” doesn’t come from “Horus is risen,” but I’m confident “Sunset” is not a reference to Set. That set off huge bells.
Horus was not crucified. I think that’s the part where I became livid, not necessarily because I was religiously offended, but intellectually. It’s hard when someone is just spouting lies to me directly.
Horus was not born to a virgin in the vast majority of the myths I’ve heard. At one point, he was regarded as Isis’ husband. But one of the most established myths is that he was regarded as the son of Osiris and Isis – so he was not born of a virgin. In most stories of this well-regarded paramount of Egyptian storytelling, Osiris was dismembered, then put back together by his wife, who copulated with him, his detached phallus, or a stand-in for his phallus.
On top of that, I’m not sure “Meri” or “Mary” was ever a name attached to Isis. I’m also fairly sure Horus wasn’t born in what became our December. Other sun-gods may have been, but not Horus. A big bell also went off the video asserted Horus was born in a cave or a manger similar to Christ – he was born in a swamp.
This video was the first time I heard the assertion (without proper documentation) that Horus had twelve disciples – I doubt this claim greatly. There are tales of an inner circle coming to him for guidance and advice in warfare, etc. but not a specific number twelve, and not ones that followed him around in an earthly ministry.
I was shocked by how poor the scholarship is – besides many outright lies in it, the narrator/creator shows little to no grasp of the concept of shifting incarnations of divinity that the Egyptian religion had. I can go into further detail if anyone requires, but do yourself a favor and ignore “new age beliefs” from “Zeitgeist” – or use its blatant falsehoods to kindle an interest in Egyptian mythology.
In fact, here was a list I made myself:
HORUS (3000bc egypt)
born dec 25
born of virgin
star in east appeared at birth
adorned by 3 kings
teacher at 12
baptised at age 30
had 12 disciples
performed miracles
known by ‘the lamb of god, the light, good shepard’
crucified
dead for 3 days
resurrected
Compare the Wikipedia article on Horus with the POTM website’s claims. Notice that they don’t describe Horus as somebody who lost an eye that was then restored, or associated with the Falcon, or that his eyes represented Sun and Moon, or that semen was the weapon of choice in a major battle with Set — even though these are central features to Horus. Notice that his “virgin birth” (say, reproduction by masturbation) and “death and resurrection” (closer to reincarnation, if anything) are nothing like the “virgin birth” or “death and resurrection” of Jesus. Obviously what’s going on is that somebody is looking for little data points that can be given labels that sound like the labels we give to parts of Jesus’ life.
Even so, let’s see which looks better — that the stories about Jesus came from the Old Testament or from mystery religions.
born dec 25 — Jesus wasn’t born Dec 25
born of virgin — unique births commonly appear for special people in OT (e.g., Isaac)
star in east appeared at birth — Perhaps they’re thinking of Magi (people) from the east who followed a star? East is first prominent at the beginning of Genesis, when Adam & Eve are kicked out of the Garden.
adorned by 3 kings — There weren’t 3 kings who adorned Jesus
teacher at 12, baptised at age 30 — This is on the level of, “Started driving at age 16.”
had 12 disciples — 12 tribes of Israel
performed miracles — Moses, Elijah, etc.
known by ‘the lamb of god, the light, good shepard’ — “Light” motif starts in Gen 1. Lamb of God is Passover Lamb. Good shepherd appears in the famous Psalm 23.
crucified, resurrected — death and resurrection is the hope throughout the Prophets
And I didn’t even have to take things out of context.
There are also many ideas out there among Christian circles of why so many of these ancient myths talk about virgin births, sons who die and resurrect, etc and I highly recommend you actually read the stories. To describe these things in terms of “virgin births” and “resurrection” makes it sound like there is a strong similarity, sure, but if you were just reading the stories it would never ever occur to you to use those terms. E.g., somebody goes to the Greeks’ Land of the Dead, does some stuff down there, and then leaves — would you call this “resurrection”? Only if you were trying to make it sound like the story of Jesus. If you read the stories you’ll probably actually start laughing at these claims.
And that’s not quite much for what I know.
scientists do not try to re-write the bible. that’s why we don’t allow christians to re-write science. two different subjects that should not try to define each other. either way DEATH TO ALL CHRISTIANS!
@wah
Wow, I dont think I could ever come up with as much historical backing as you. Im not saying I disagree with you or anything, but dont forget where your posting to. This isnt a forums with a dedicated community. It is a reply section to a documentary. Most people have the attention span of a 12 year old on here (which actually includes me…). I doubt rather much that they would be willing to read such a long explanation…good for you for knowing all this, though. Its a lot more than I will ever know…
@111
You denial is interesting. lol. and you make an xlnt point. I guess the world would be better with islamic views or buddhist views. Let’s see your worldview:
world islamic view = bloody wars and conflict is going to happen anyway over religion, except christianity would be on the opposing side, we would not have liberty and free thinkers and woman would be of a lower class, blacks and jews are unequal and none of us would be allowed to speak our mind on this internet against islam or any religion without being criminizled for that. well so much for that worldview
world buddhist view = everyone is peaceful, but eventually someone’s going to fight and someone will die but hey, be peace and loving and sit idly by while other people are being killed. point is, war will happen either way, and eventually, if you’re a buddhist, you side with neither side, letting it happen instead of defending the oppressed or standing up for what’s/who’s right.
Between those two views, I’d personally choose a world w/ Christianity. Ever heard of the Elmer Gantry myth? If followers of a religion start being hypotrical doesn’t mean the truth is negated. Truth is truth and salvation is still made available by the grace of God.
“The pursuit of Christianity has resulted in far more deaths than any other religion. What were the Crusaders, a bunch of fun-loving guys on a road trip? The Inquisitions?”
And their blood was spilled for your and our freedom to live in a world that believes in alleviating poverty, universal education, and the ideals of equality and liberty. I’m not trying to give the impression the world is perfect, bloodless, and full of justice, but at least you have the right to speak your mind on this board, if not for the virtues of freedom of speech. Innocent blood was never intended as an aftermath of Christianity, but Christianity arrived to divide people over their beliefs about jesus which would result in conflict, yet, it would have been the exact thing if it was another religion in place of Chrsitianity. Either way, it sucks, get over it.
“The war in Iraq led by the Christian fundamentalist president of the US, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, injuries and untold misery?”
Do you even know why the war started in the first place? Instead of getting involved in the communities and fighting off terrorists from oppressing neighborhood, they’ve allowed problems in Iraq to fester until it was too great too ignore that they had to launch a massive invasion. War is never good so the only way to make sure another “Iraq” doesn’t happen is to prevent it. How do you prevent something like Iraq from happening? Easy. Not sit idly by and ignore them. Getting involved with people means sending in reserve troops in to help with everyday life by forming personal relationships. And why should we be involved in other countries? To reiterate, to alleviate poverty, universal education, and the ideals of equality and liberty. Values found in Christian virtues.
“How about the hundreds and thousands of accusations of pedophilia perpetrated by some of the highest members of the church?”
That’s a good one. But blame it on Catholicism, not Christianity. Where ever Christianity was, it left when the Protestants left Europe. Roman Catholicism is its own religions separate of that of what we normally call Protestant denominational ‘Christianity’, which resulted in movements like Evangelicals, Fundamentalism, and non-demoninations. and honestly, even if Christianity didn’t exist, you think these ‘would-be-priests’ in the highest elders of ‘church’ wouldn’t be able to find a way to hold themselves unaccountable for their crimes?
It seems like this is a very hot topic. Let’s see it for yourself.
http://rapidshare.com/files/69812472/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part01.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70040918/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part02.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70146948/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part03.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70274621/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part04.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70252174/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part05.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70174601/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part06.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70211704/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part07.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70245541/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part08.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70241408/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part09.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70283311/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part10.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70298742/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part11.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/70365298/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part12.rar
I agree that the problem with all observations is that we tend to bring our preconceived biases to the conclusions we make.
Few would have a problem with a glass that contains 50% water and 50% air being described as either half empty or half full.
But a majority would have a problem when someone denies the glass existence as a matter of faith.
My observation of the ID movement leads me to believe that they are trying to undermined/supplant NS science with faith based beliefs in the science curriculum.
I also believe that this result will be to the detriment of all concerned as it is a obvious attempt to justify a preconceived fallacious religious bias that the glass sitting right in front of them doesn’t exist.
GOD is in the detail.
@Death Arcon
Thanks. but you get my overall point, right?
Besides, I only split it up in 5 simple sections:
1. Crucifixion
2. Tammuz
3. Jesus’s Divinity
4. Christian/Pagan Myth
5. Jesus Myth/Horus Heresy
In regards to ID, it is a theory that ’settles for less’ for each side. It’s an attempt to reconcile two enemies. But in the end, there can be only one, for one will rise, one will fall. Like Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 says: “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”
@119
disproving 1 of the 2 options at hand would NOT prove other one correct
heck they could both be wrong and we might aswell be a simulation in a super-computer âla matrix, ran by flying spaghetti monsters and invisible pink unicorns aboard flying emerald turtle on the way to castle of clouds
now thats a theory id like to be taught in schools, since both evidence used for scientific view and the creationist can be used to back it, and best of all, you cant disprove it!
@120
@ Death Arcon
You seem to be passionate about what you’re talking about. Maybe we should get together for tea and discuss more.
@70
This is a little too late but you seem to be missing the context of that ‘phrase’. “Can an almighty god create a stone so heavy he/she cant carry it?”
The question is not measuring the ‘almightiness’ of god. If you want to see how almighty god is read the old testament. the question in mind is measuring the integrity of god. simply put, since god’s nature is perfect he cannot contradict himself/his nature. That’s on the order of, ‘can god kill himself?’ or ‘can god lust?’ god can not contradict his own nature. he is unable to deny himself. so it is not a matter of what god can or cannot do because by definition he can do anything and everything only within his own nature, which is perfection. taht being said, it is a matter of integrity and if god can keep his word/integrity then that means he is perfect in that sense. for instance, it’s like asking a leader to lead an unleadable person. since it’s in the leader’s nature to lead, he will lead those who he can only lead and by doing that he is keeping his integrity. since he can’t lead the unleadable, that doesn’t take anything away from his ability to lead or his leadership skills or his integrity as a leader for that fact. hope that helps.
I know a woman who is heavily into the catholic religion. She’s always talking about saints, and important figures in the history of the catholic church, how great it is, etc. She didn’t believe me when I told her that the catholic church had spent more than 600 years arresting, torturing and executing every man, woman and child who didn’t agree with them. She accused me of making it up. :/
@Jingle Jangle
Funny how when muslim nut jobs blow something up, it’s islam that’s the violent religion, but when christian nut jobs kill people, it’s just a few people acting on their own accord.
Nope. that’s not true at all.
“It’s simple, all religions are just crutches for the weak, stupid and intolerant folks among us.”
that’s such an untrue statement totally based on your moronic biased opinion. You’ll be surprised to find out in the real world from your small cave that there are strong, intelligent and liberal people who adhere to a religion. You sir are an idiot for calling millions of people weak, stupid and intolerant, making yourself to be “elite”, which says a lot about your creed, let alone attitude and personality.
@124 Rekrul
Ouch! did she cry? Well, that’s what happens when you integrate governmental law and religion and give too much power to radical fundamentalist zealots who grossly misinterpret the bible. You should tell her that even if church leaders have done evil things in the name of God, truth is still truth found in the Christian message, not the Catholic message.
Fighting with religious people doesn’t make any sense, its arguing science versus religious dogma.
Or reality versus imagination, as it were.
@127
try telling that to the ones who want fairytales to be taught in schools as a science
@126
“truth is still truth found in the Christian message”
Truth meaning ‘whatever you impose upon it’?
Y’all gotta realise that you can’t use the bible as a source of information let alone facts. It is well known that the current bible is nothing like the original (whatever that was) and you can confirm this by getting hold of a King James version (oldest obtainable) and comparing it.
The bible has been rewritten by religious zealots to make it work for their own purposes. So when you say stuff like “note plural NAILS” then coincidentally you could be just as wrong.
“Truth meaning ‘whatever you impose upon it’?”
I’m taking what you mean by that question is that the message is made up by mortal men by picking a card out of magic hat? Certainly not! Truth meaning what God has already divinely revealed to us through Scripture. The canon of the christian bible is considered to be inspired by God as the Word of God.
simply put, “Salvation is still by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” That’s one of the main doctrinal truths that most Christians, and any true Church, do agree on, among other essentials of course.
@131:
And why is the canon of the christian bible considered to be inspired by God as the Word of God? Because it says so.
I humbly bow before your logic
@131
If the faith of the world has already been decided by the christian god, why bother doing anything?
i mean, really, what about the concept of free will, if our actions cant even change the outcome of our divinely planned lives?
with blind religious logic i could make the assumption that “it would be OK to kill someone, because god has planned it all out, and if he doesnt want me to do it, i fail in my attempt, and since i believe in and worship god ill get to heaven anyway!”(=AKA mental illness)
dun dun dun
Just to let you know i had a really good wank while reading all the comments here.
@130
oh you shouldn’t have trodded down this road man. So you’re doubting the reliability of the bibliography test of the New Testament? My God man you don’t know how to pick your battles. BUT you are right that I could be wrong, since the copying of the original documents could have been maliciously tampered with. So let us look at how well accurate of the original manuscripts are compared to the copies we have today:
If you’re talking about the NT, I consider the bible to be as historically reliable as how well it has been tested by the same criteria by which all historical documents are tested, which are the bibliography test and the internal/external evidence tests, but for you i’m only going to cover the first test.
First, for the bibliography tests, when you compare the NT with other ancient literature as Homer’s “Iliad” or Plato’s work, it’s the best attested ancient writing in terms of the time span between events and the document, # of extant manuscripts, and the time gaps between the original dates written and the earliest copies we have. As far as the accuracy of the manuscripts goes, I believe they are supported by Syriac, Latin, Coptic (Egyptian), Armenian, Gothic, Georgian, Ethiopic and Nubian versions, as well as Greek NT lectionaries and early patristic NT quotations like Justin Martyr or Irenaeus. So there you have it. There are at least 8 different languages whose own copy of the NT substantiate its accuracy.
I’ve already said this earlier in my earlier comment, but I’m going to reiterate to you once again.
You make an xlnt point that the original writings of the Bible have been lost. But before they were lost, they were copied. These copies were incredibly accurate, very meticulous, and very precise. The people who copied them were extremely dedicated to God and their copying tasks. They took great care when copying the original manuscripts. This copying method is so exact, and so precise, that the New Testament alone is considered to be 99.5% textually pure. This means that of the 6000 Greek copies (the New Testament was written in Greek), and the additional 21,000 copies in other languages, there is only one half of 1% variation. Of this very slight number, the great majority of the variants are easily corrected by comparing them to other copies that don’t have the “typos” or by simply reading the context.
You should know that copying mistakes occur in such ways as word repetition, spelling, or a single word omission due to the copyist missing something when moving his eyes from one line to another. The variants are very minor. And this is where we get different versions.
But NOTHING affects doctrinal truth and the words and deeds of Christ are superbly reliably transmitted to us.
The science of studying ancient literature and its accuracy of transmission to is called historicity. The Bible is so exceedingly accurate in its transmission from the originals to the present copies, that if you compare it to any other ancient writing, the Bible is light years ahead in terms of number of manuscripts and accuracy.
“You can’t use the bible as a source of information let alone facts”
If the Bible were to be discredited as being unreliable, then we would have to discard the writings of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible.
The Bible was written by those who were inspired to God. When we look at the New Testament we realize that it was written by those who either knew Jesus personally, or were under the direction of those who did. They wrote what they saw. They wrote about the resurrection of Christ. They recorded His miracles and His sayings. It comes down to whether or not you believe what it says about Christ. Do you?
Of course not. Would you give the “benefit of the doubt”? Let me guess: probably not?
One of the ways to test the internal evidence of ANY historical document, therefore measuring its reliability if in fact all, is to use, what John Warwick Montgomery states, the standard of test that literary critics still follow, Aristotle’s dictum that “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.” Therefore, “one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.”
One of my favorite sayings of S.H. Horn is directed to 99% of all the Christian skeptics in this comment board:
“Think for a moment about what needs to be demonstrated concerning a ‘difficulty’ in order to transfer it into the category of a valid argument against doctrine. Certainly much more is required than the mere appearance of a contradiction. First, we must be certain that we have correctly understood the passage, the sense in which it uses words or numbers. Second, that we possess all available knowledge in this matter. Third, that no further light can possibly be thrown on it by advancing knowledge, textual research, archeology, etc…..Difficulties do not constitute objections. Unsolved problems are not of necessity errors. This is not to minimize the area of difficulty; it is to see it in perspective. Difficulties are to be grappled with and problems are to drive us to seek clear light; but until such time as we have total and final light on any issue we are in no position to affirm, ‘Here is a proven error, an unquestionable objection to an infallible Bible.’ It is common knowledge that countless ‘objections’ have been fully resolved since this century began.
It’s clear that most sincere christian critics and skeptics here on this board aren’t willing to give ‘the benefit of the doubt’ but instead spout out totally ignorant opinions that the bible/christianity is unreliable, myths, imaginations when, in fact, their presumptions really stems from their own procrastination to actually test the reliability of what they are attacking.
This is the mindset of all of you of whom I’m referring to: “The bible is unreliable/fake/myth/imaginative because of this and that but I’ve never ACTUALLY read the bible or did any type of research, let alone, give the benefit of the doubt, to see if is IN FACT unreliable/fake/myth/imaginative through careful research. I honestly believe it, in fact I’m convinced, but I’ll say it as if I have some sort of authority even though I’ve never actually been on a quest to disprove the bible but only through my ignorance.”
You all make me sick!
Hmmm…The benefit of doubt. I think it was Albert Camus who called this attitude “intellectual suicide”
People always say there no proof o evolution, I got proof. Dogs, how many different breeds of are there ? Hundreds ?. Breeding is evolution on turbo. Back in the caveman days or the Moses days, there was no German Shepards or Bulldogs or Mexican Hairless. They where domesticated wolves and jackals. Then human beings started to breed the fastest with the fastest and we got Greyhounds. We bred the biggest with the biggest and got Great Danes and so on. We are still turbo evolving animals. Have you seen that breed of cats with the short front legs ? or those goats that faint when spooked ? We took animals with a genetic defect that was rare and bred them to bring it out. A fainting goat in nature would not survive, nor would a cat that has short legs. We even did it to other humans, have you heard of a Mandingo ? Google it.
At least try to give me proof. I’m not out to get you so calm down.
A gut feeling is not proof, a 2000+ year old text is not proof more then any other holy text, like the hindu ones.
You claim you have proof, and i assume you know what that means.
If you give me hard evidence for the christian God´s existence, i will convert here and now within a heartbeat.
So here is you chance. Go on, do your part, enlighten me.
oops that was ment @105 Darth Arcon
@132
Inspiration indicates how the bible received its authority, whereas canonization tells how the bible received i ts acceptance. it is one thing for god to give the scriptures their authority, and quite another for men to recognize that authority. Canonization, then, concerns the recognition and collection of the God-inspired, authoritative books of the sacred scriptures. canonicity is determined by god. actually, a canonical book is valuable and true because god inspired it. that is, canonicity is determined of fixed conclusively by authority, and authority was given to the individual books by God through inspiration. the real question is not where a book received its divine authority, for this can only come from God alone, but how did men recognize that authority? Authority is recognized by men of God. Inspiration determines canonicity. if a book was authoritative, it was so because god breathed it and made it so. how a book received authority, then, is determined by God. How men recognize that authority is another matter altogether. Precisely speaking, canonicity is determined by god, IOW, the reason there are only 66 books in the canon is that God inspired only that many. that is, only 66 books were found to have the stamp of divine authority, because God only stamped that many, or invested that number with authority for faith and practice. a book is valuable because it is canonical. a given book is not canonical because it was found to be valuable. rather, it was found to valuable because it was determined to be canonical by God. IOW, a book is not inspired because it is inspired; it is inspiring because it is inspired.
@133
That depends if the christian in question is a Calvinist or an Armenian. Calvinists believe in unconditional election where it asserts that God’s choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God’s mercy alone. Where as Armenians believe in conditional election where all believers have full assurance of salvation with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith, therefore perseverance is also conditioned. Apostasy (turning from Christ) is only committed through a deliberate, willful rejection of Jesus and renouncement of belief.
“with blind religious logic…”
funny. you only see it that way only because of your IGNORANCE to understand how God forgives people.
“I’m going to kill someone (just for the hell of it) and then I’ll ask for forgiveness.” God’s forgiveness doesn’t work that way. He wants genuine repentance, not premeditated repentance. With that mindset, you’re playing a very dangerous mindgame with God and He knows the intent of your heart.
dun dun dun.
While God will forgive all sins, past, present and future, he will not allow people to take advantage of his forgiveness. SO by saying this in your heart, “it would be OK to kill someone, because god has planned it all out, and if he doesnt want me to do it, i fail in my attempt, and since i believe in and worship god ill get to heaven anyway!”, and applying that concept in real life, your salvation comes into question. God’s salvation and gift of forgiveness are for those who will accept it, not exploit it.
So your attempt to find a logical loophole has failed once again in your miserable pathetic life.
@136
Hmmm… “intellectual suicide”. That’s ironic coming from someone who read the OT three times and attended churches regularly, not to mention, someone who read NT as well in the spirit of asking questions. What does that tell you? He, himself, believing that “benefit of the doubt” was “intellectual suicide” still risked the chance of killing himself intellectually for a chance to fill the spiritual void inside of him?
@137
While that is certainly proof for the theory of MICRO EVOLUTION, it does not however, proof the entire theory of evolution, including macro evolution, which theorizes that monkeys turn into humans, or the mutation of one totally different species to another completely different set of mammal/reptilian/amphibian/insect/arachnid species. One of the main ways to scientifically prove that monkeys turn into humans is if we find all the ‘missing links’ fossil records, which we haven’t but would be very interesting to see if we do, OR are able to repeat the event in question to confirm/solidify the theory. But so far we’ve not found or are able to turn a monkey into a human or a monkey to naturally turn into one. So far, most of the evolution theory is pure speculation at best, while some theories can be proven, or in fact, fact.
@139
oooo you were that close to getting owned…
So, in a nutshell this means: The holy scripture is considered authoritative because it has been cannonized by god. How do we know it? Because it says so!
Once again, I humbly bow before your pristine logic.
Concerning Camus: Of course he read the bible. It’s an interesting perspective on the human condition. However reading it is not intellectual suicide, believing it is.
@velo
Trust me on this, but 9 out of 10 times, atheists who are convinced that God exists from out of a discussion/argument will leave convinced only for a short time and go back to where they were before. There’s a name for it, “something theory”.
@105 Darth Arcon
I’m not trying to impress nobody. Clearly, when the barely literate McDonalds guy believes he is at the same level as me in arguing about evolution i cannot rely on my professional credentials to impress… And i prefer it that way. You see, unlike many i hold to no value the existance of authority.
What my credentials give me, and that is why i mention them, is to be taken seriously as someone who have studied the subject for over a decade. The reason why i appear good at these type of arguments is practice. I know perfectly well what makes theists choke, like you did when #70 guy pointed out the falacy of an omnipotent being.
Your response about my logic demonstrates clearly the rational holes you face when confronted with the issue. You could have summed up your answer in “this limitless being cannot do some stuff because…”. Now tell me if, with the most regards to intelectual honesty, a limitless being has limits how is he limitless.
The long and old argument about God being perfect is based on what? I believe your not gonna say you go bowlling with the guy so i take it you are refering to what you read in the bible correct? And, if so, you uncapable of finding, in the bible, ocasions in which god made a mistake?
Due to having debated this for years and having studied the “holy book” in detail i believe i would better most bible wavers in quiz about it.
When god created Adam and then Eve and they screwed up by “eating the apple” (i LOL whenever i read this because it is like talking about bees and flowers with little children) wasn’t that a major blunder? Why does the “perfect god” creates mankind just to kill millions in a great flood afterwards? Why does god negotiate with Job? Why does he test Abraham? Did he not knew what the answer would be? Why does he let Job’s daughters do that incest thing? Why does he demand constant proof and test humans? Doesn’t he know the answers already?
For me it is clear that no such god exist and that all the tests were a moral lesson to make people conform to the religious teaching. Again, why do you say he is “perfect”, and how does that perfectness is only in the eye of the beholder?
Now for the challenge, proofs on evolution…
Let’s just start by saying that i could fill your house with books and articles explaining, supporting and using evolution to make ediucated predictions that actually work (contrary to that ID stuff). It would take me months to teach you a full course in evolution (it actually takes months IRL due to the massive volume of information to have a clear picture of why this has been tested for 200 years and is still the biological paradigm today).
So to sum it up (each of these subjects diserve several books):
- Fossils (and yes, we do have transitional fossils all over the place, the accusation that we don’t, no matter how many times repeated is false)
- Embryological data (you may want to check with your god why you had branchial arches in your development)
- Celular data (Eucaryotic cell organization clearly demonstrates common ancestry)
- Genetics (next time you go to the zoo search the chimps, because when you look at one you will be looking at a creature that has over 97% of your genes)
- Compared anatomy (funny god was so unimaginative that gave whales and us the same damn bones…)
- Population ecology (changing in genetic padrons in populations with reproductive isolation lead to speciation as described in tons of mathematical models)
- Geology and plate tectonics are compatible with evolution, not ID
- Geophysics
- Basically every field of science that studies anything remotely related to the subject.
And on and on…
Compared to this you have… What?
@106
You are using localized floods as proof? Or phenomena that took thousands of years? I’m sorry mate, but that won’t cut it. If you are gonna argue about a real flood geology you are going to do much better.
OR
You just admit that some middle eastern tribe witnessed a local event and then started some fables regarding that episode. And that was probably what happened. I had to take a whole freaking course on Stratigraphy and there was never any chance that a worldwide flood happened. Fossils on top of mountains could not get there in a flood simply because the ecological marks and core samples indicate that the ecosystems established themselves over thousands or millions of years, not in days. You guys not only want to kill modern biology, you want to take geology with it too
@105 Darth Arcon
I’m not trying to impress nobody. Clearly, when the barely literate McDonalds guy believes he is at the same level as me in arguing about evolution i cannot rely on my professional credentials to impress… And i prefer it that way. You see, unlike many i hold to no value the existance of authority.
What my credentials give me, and that is why i mention them, is to be taken seriously as someone who have studied the subject for over a decade. The reason why i appear good at these type of arguments is practice. I know perfectly well what makes theists choke, like you did when #70 guy pointed out the falacy of an omnipotent being.
Your response about my logic demonstrates clearly the rational holes you face when confronted with the issue. You could have summed up your answer in “this limitless being cannot do some stuff because…”. Now tell me if, with the most regards to intelectual honesty, a limitless being has limits how is he limitless.
The long and old argument about God being perfect is based on what? I believe your not gonna say you go bowlling with the guy so i take it you are refering to what you read in the bible correct? And, if so, you uncapable of finding, in the bible, ocasions in which god made a mistake?
Due to having debated this for years and having studied the “holy book” in detail i believe i would better most bible wavers in quiz about it.
When god created Adam and then Eve and they screwed up by “eating the apple” (i LOL whenever i read this because it is like talking about bees and flowers with little children) wasn’t that a major blunder? Why does the “perfect god” creates mankind just to kill millions in a great flood afterwards? Why does god negotiate with Job? Why does he test Abraham? Did he not knew what the answer would be? Why does he let Job’s daughters do that incest thing? Why does he demand constant proof and test humans? Doesn’t he know the answers already?
For me it is clear that no such god exist and that all the tests were a moral lesson to make people conform to the religious teaching. Again, why do you say he is “perfect”, and how does that perfectness is only in the eye of the beholder?
Now for the challenge, proofs on evolution…
Let’s just start by saying that i could fill your house with books and articles explaining, supporting and using evolution to make ediucated predictions that actually work (contrary to that ID stuff). It would take me months to teach you a full course in evolution (it actually takes months IRL due to the massive volume of information to have a clear picture of why this has been tested for 200 years and is still the biological paradigm today).
So to sum it up (each of these subjects diserve several books):
- Fossils (and yes, we do have transitional fossils all over the place, the accusation that we don’t, no matter how many times repeated is false)
- Embryological data (you may want to check with your god why you had branchial arches in your development)
- Celular data (Eucaryotic cell organization clearly demonstrates common ancestry)
- Genetics (next time you go to the zoo search the chimps, because when you look at one you will be looking at a creature that has over 97% of your genes)
- Compared anatomy (funny god was so unimaginative that gave whales and us the same damn bones…)
- Population ecology (changing in genetic padrons in populations with reproductive isolation lead to speciation as described in tons of mathematical models)
- Geology and plate tectonics are compatible with evolution, not ID
- Geophysics
- Basically every field of science that studies anything remotely related to the subject.
And on and on…
Compared to this you have… What?
@141
Why would a monkey turn into a human? Its like saying a human would turn into a monkey. (and i bet you mean apes)
Apes and humans share a common ancestor. (quite different)
With that being said evolution does not have a goal, it does not automatically make a creature smarter/stronger/less hairy
if it doesn’t benefit to its survival.
We find more “missing links” for every year that passes. Just look at the homo-species found over the last 30 years.
We will never find ALL missing links. Fossils are very rare to start of with, and add to it that 90% of all twigs on the “tree of life” have died out, i.e. leading to nowhere. To find a missing link is truly to find a needle in a haystack.
@144
Proof for me is making something a fact. If i thought the world was flat and someone proved to me that it was round.
Why the hell would i go back to believing it was flat?
If 9/10 goes back to not believing in god, the proof must have been flawed.
I’m talking about absolute proof here, evidence. Not “look, it says so here in this book so it must be true” or ” wow look at that tree, amazing isnt it, has to be magic man who done that”.
Theres no diffrence between micro and macro evolution, only creationists or scientists who have spent too much time in same space with creationists even recognize the ‘diffrence’
@143
:LOL: “how do we know it?
well, what i said wasn’t certainly in a nutshell. I was just warming you up. There’s more later…. But on top of that, YOU GOT THE TERMS ALL MIXED UP. Again, you failed to distinguish between the two terms. God determines the authority of a book by breathing His Word, speaking His Word. Allow me to repeat myself once again (sigh),
Inspiration = it is one thing for god to give the scriptures their authority,
canonization = and quite another for men to recognize that authority.
In light of that,
canonization = concerns the recognition and collection of the God-inspired, authoritative books of the sacred scriptures.
canonicity is determined by god.
Your question “how do we know if God inspired these books?” well i’ve already told how god inspired the books. what you really want to ask is:
“How do we recognize, or know, the canonicity (that God canonized the scripture)?”
Simple: the witness of the Holy Spirit.
The recognition of canonicity was not a mere mechanical matter settled by a synod or ecclesiastical council. it was a providential process directed by the Spirit of God as He witnessed to the church about the reality of the Word of God. Man of himself could not identify the Word of God, but the Holy Spirit opened the eyes of their understanding so that they could recognize God’s Word. Are you still awake?
John 10:27
“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.”
John 16:12-13
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Time to get technical. This ain’t no to say that in some mystical way the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers settled the question of canonicity. The witness of the Spirit only established the reality of the canon, not its extent or limits. THE CANON WAS ESTABLISHED BY A TWOFOLD METHOD OF FAITH AND SCIENCE. Objective principles were used, but the subjective testimony of the Holy Spirit was in operation, confirming the reality of God’s Word to His people. in the providence of God, the principles were used to determine the extent of the canon, while the Holy Spirit gave assurance as to the reality of its essential message. The tests for canonicity were not mechanical means for measuring out the amount of inspired literature, nor did the Holy Spirit say, “This book or passage is inspired, that one is not.” This would be a revelation, not an illumination. Get it? The Holy Spirit neither witnessed to the exact extent of the canon nor settled the matters of textual criticism. He did providentially guide the process which gave assent to the limits of the canon as well as give witness to the people of God as to the reality of God’s Word wherever they read or heard it.
There’s also the testimony of Christ, which is probably one of the most important ways we know it was God-inspired. Jesus taught definitely that God was the Originator of the Hebrew OT. He quoted as authoritative or authentic most of the 22 books of the Hebrew canon.
Here’s a brief breakdown for ya:
A. He considered every section, “Law and Prophets” and “Law, Prophets, and Psalms”, to be prophetic of Him.
B. He believed that inspiration extended from Genesis through Chronicles, which was equivalent to saying “Genesis to Malachi”
C. He asserted that the OT as a whole was unbreakable Scripture that would never perish, and that it must be fulfilled.
D. Jesus personally authenticated persons and events of which i’m not at liberty to list, unless you want me to you,you ignorant bastard [J/K. a test to see if you're reading lol].
E. Jesus not only defined the limits of the canon, that is the 22 books of the Hebrew OT, but He laid down the principle of canonicity, namely, the canon consists of that which is the “word of God.” i’m not at liberty to list His OT references, unless you want me to you
Basically, the principle that “canonicity is determined by inspiration” was pronounced by Jesus concerning the OT and promised for the NT.
NOTE: At first, it may appear that a circular argument is used, when it is stated that “Christ is the key to canonicity,” when all that is known about the teachings of Christ comes from that very canon, and the truth of that canon is being assumed in order to prove the underlying principle of the canon. However, such is not the case. What is presently being challenged is that:
-Canonicity is determined by authority (inspiration).
-Authority is known by Christ’s testimony.
-Christ’s testimony is known by the authenticity of the record.
since there is enough evidence to support the authenticity (and genuineness) of the NT (considering the 3 basic principles of historiography discussed earlier), and since the NT reveals that Christ taught that divine authority is imparted to the Scriptures through the process of inspiration, the authority of Christ becomes the crux of the canonicity of the bible.
“However reading it is not intellectual suicide, believing it is.”
wow. i know you didn’t read or understand the context of what i said earlier. John Warwick Montgomery states, the standard of test that literary critics still follow, Aristotle’s dictum that “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.” Therefore, “one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.” S.H. Horn’s text, in a nutshell, said, “to test the reliability of a historical document, one must read it to CRITICALLY analyze it, but not have to believe it.”
And that is exactly what Camus did, and, to my guess, NOT ONE OF YOU have EVER done: is read the bible under criticism, to see if it is indeed true to what it said. Camus basically “checked out” the bible. Did he believe in the truth of the bible? probably not. But by reading the bible with an open mind, he certainly “gave the benefit of the doubt”. IOW, even though he didn’t believe in the bible, he assumed what the bible said is correct ONLY for the sake of critical analysis (something I doubt any of you are capable of). And that’s what Montgomery and Horn were saying: Once you critically analyze something only then you can make a final decision if it is logical or not. Did Camus not ask many questions about the bible? certainly he is critically analyzing the bible. And he couldn’t critically analyze the bible without first recognizing what the bible is really saying and you can’t recognize it without “giving it the benefit of the doubt” and you can’t “give it the benefit of the doubt” without reading it.
It’s funny how you used a source that ‘opposes’ the use of a ‘tactic’ yet uses that very same ‘tactic’.
to put in short, “giving it the benefit of the doubt” means believing, not Believing. Like, “If what this says is true, then this must happen.” Once you willfully block yourself off from opening up your mind to what could be true, whether it is true or false doesn’t matter, then you’ve immediately prevented yourself from knowing if it was true or not. There’s another term for that attitude. Willful ignorance. Camus believed that the quote in question was intellectual suicide because he was afraid what was before him might be true. and if it was true it would shake the foundations of his existence. even if he found what was to be true, he would not Accept or Believe it, if you catch my drift. Why? Pride and ignorance.
If they allow ID in science class they should allow other creation stories also, hindus believe that lord brahmin split himself in two to create man and woman other creatures were made in same way.
Other gods mostly snap fingers or say something like ‘be’ to create life, internet says that there is more than 500 different stories.
I find it funny that some christians get offended by the idea that we evolved from apes, “we are no animals! we have morals etc!”.
Show me ape that has killed 6m other apes.
Some mammal species show more human-like emotions than most humans in general
so-called morals are vastly overrated, especially when with religion or politics they tend to be double-standards too
me myself, if i have to choose between creation stories i pick the one regionally closest to me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevala#The_Storyline
it has over 22 thousand verses
Thank you for this wonderful example (Inspiration – canonization) of circular reasoning. I have seen a lot of hollow sophistry, but this ranks top. How do you come up with this?
Say, as someone who believes in talking snakes and giant wooden houseboats…don’t you think you might have the wrong character to appeal to another one’s respect of the benefit of the doubt?
actually im trying to parodise a generic fundamental christian if youre referring to me
clearly not working tho
What about genetic diseases and inbreeding? it would take much more than 1 family to sustain a healthy population after the flood
and no way they could have procreated fast enough with that child and mother mortality rate they used to have back then
and there was no global flood, and if there was how the hell did the animals from other continents get there, and if america and australia were supposedly populated after noah’s time(much later after since required population to move), how come knowledge of the continents didnt survive?
and they say science cant awnser the simpliest questions ^^
Aaand what about the apocalypse, theres this very hypothetical question ive been wondering, but no christian been able to awnser properly,
if the apocalypse doesnt occur in few upcoming centuries, theres bound to be human colonies on other planets, and possible in other starsystems as well, would the people there be safe from the horrors mentioned in the … …. cant remember the english name… book of revalition or what it was?
and since the horsemen/demons/locusts are all on earth humanity could practice some orbital bomboardment on them, or, since if they appear on earth, that can mean 2 things, therye made of regular matter/energy as the rest of us, therefore following the rules of our universe
what if you killed them off with antimatter based weaponry, annhilitating their every atom, leaving absolutely nothing behind, converting them all into energy, nothing left to regenerate
or just trap them in a black hole, the space bending on itself, and the fact that time practically would stop from observers point of view if something was alive in a black hole, stuck there for rest of the lifespan of the hole
hello?
@153 WHo Cares
See I knew you weren’t gonna read the whole. I did a test you failed miserably. In fact, I added the following response at the end of the first half of my response, anticipating your response of “circular reasoning”:
NOTE: At first, it may appear that a circular argument is used, when it is stated that “Christ is the key to canonicity,” when all that is known about the teachings of Christ comes from that very canon, and the truth of that canon is being assumed in order to prove the underlying principle of the canon. However, such is not the case. What is presently being challenged is that:
-Canonicity is determined by authority (inspiration).
-Authority is known by Christ’s testimony.
-Christ’s testimony is known by the authenticity of the record.
since there is enough evidence to support the authenticity (and genuineness) of the NT (considering the 3 basic principles of historiography discussed earlier), and since the NT reveals that Christ taught that divine authority is imparted to the Scriptures through the process of inspiration, the authority of Christ becomes the crux of the canonicity of the bible.
“I have seen a lot of hollow sophistry, but this ranks top.”
That’s well thought out answer. How convenient. But seriously appreciate the kind rejection.
“How do you come up with this?”
Research. Anyone can do it. Even a lab monkey.
“Say, as someone who believes in talking snakes and giant wooden houseboats…don’t you think you might have the wrong character to appeal to another one’s respect of the benefit of the doubt?”
If you’re able to entertain the idea that God could exist, then it is to be expected to consider the plausibility of miracles.
And speaking of house boats. wow. you tripped on another land mine there.
Could Noah’s Ark hold all the animals?
God said to Noah in Genesis 6:14-16, “So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks” (NIV). According to God’s Word, Noah built the ark. Eight people entered it and all humanity died in the ensuing flood.
Could the ark really contain all the animals of the world? Let’s look at this in more detail. The ark took about 120 years to build. Noah was 480 years old when he began the work and he had the help of his wife, three sons, and his son’s wives. He probably hired local people to help in the construction.
The dimensions of the ark have a ratio of six to one. The Ark was six times longer than it was wide. This is the best ratio for modern ship building. Model stability tests have shown that the design is stable for waves up to 200 feet high and that the ark could have rotated 90 degrees and still righted itself.
The volume of the ark would be 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high. This equals 1,518,750 cubic feet and is comparable to 569 modern railroad boxcars. Therefore each boxcar, by comparison, would be 1,518,750 ÷ 569, or 2,669 cubic feet of space. The average size of an animal on the earth is smaller than a cat. But, just to keep it safe let’s consider the average size of an animal to be a sheep. The average double deck stock car holds 240 sheep. The Ark capacity would be about 569 x 240 equaling 136,560 animals of that size. However, that still is not accurate for our needs. Since most birds, reptiles, and amphibians are much smaller, let’s double the boxcar capacity for them. Therefore, the boxcars could each hold 480 different kinds of birds, reptiles, amphibians.
Noah had to take two or seven of every kind of animal on the earth. Though it is not really known exactly what is meant by a biblical kind, it is generally considered to be animals that are fertile within their own groups. Any dog can breed with any dog, therefore, dogs are one kind. It would only be necessary to bring representatives of each kind since the parents could produce offspring that would carry the genetic information for all variations within their kind.
Classification_____#of Species____#of Kinds on the Ark
Mammals . . . . . 3,700 . . . . .3,700 (a few live in water)
Birds . . . . . . 8,600 . . . . .60,200 (7 pairs [Gen. 7:3])
Reptiles. . . . . 6,300 . . . . .6,300
Amphibians. . . . 2,500 . . . . .2,500
Fishes. . . . . . 20,600. . . . .zero
Other marine life 192,605. . . . zero
Insects . . . . . .850,000 . . . (Since insects are very small, and a great many could be stored in a small area, calculation would be difficult.)
Total . . . . . . .1,072,305 . . .72,700
The total number of mammals would be 3,700 times two pair which equals 7,400 animals. 7,400 divided by 240 = 31 boxcars used.
Since Gen. 7:3 says to take seven pairs of every bird then the total for birds would be 8,600 times two pair times 7 or 120,400 animals. 120,400 ÷ 480 = 250 boxcars. The reptiles and amphibians would be 6,300 plus 2,500 or 8,800. 8,800 times two pair equals 17,600 animals. 17,600 divided by 480 = 37 boxcars.
The total number of boxcars used would be 318 with a total number of animals at 145,400. There would be 251 boxcars left over. That means that only 56% of the ark would be used for storing the animals. Obviously, then, the rest of the space would be used for food for the people and animals and sleeping quarters. In addition, considering that insects are extremely small, it is easily conceivable that they could be housed in part of the remaining space.
It should also be considered that many animals can hibernate. Additionally, predators and prey have been known to habitat peacefully together during situations of stress like fire, flood, or earthquake. In the Ark, normal animal behavior would probably have been different from normal. Specialists in animal behavior have noted that animals can sense danger and have often migrated to escape it. Perhaps God used their migratory instincts to get them to the Ark.
Though this is only a brief analysis, it should present enough evidence that the Ark account is certainly within the realm of possibility.
*cough* continents separetd by oceans *cough*
kangaroos, buffalos etc…
@159
Ships aren’t boxes, theyre more wedge shaped. That cuts down about 50% of volume.
You’ve packed the animals in like sardines, they don’t like that too much and they only pack them like that for transport, not for 40 days.
For a ship to wright it self like that, especially one of that size, the ballasts would need to take up about half the hull. Modern day ships use ultra dense DU. I doubt noah had that.
Wooden ships can’t be built that big. Biggest wooden ship ever built was 100m or about 330ft and that was using modern steel bracing.
I’m an engineer, I get paid to know these things.
Also your animal estimates are wrong. As of 2004, the figures are:
1,250,000 animals, including:
* 1,190,200 invertebrates:
o 950,000 insects,
o 70,000 mollusks,
o 40,000 crustaceans,
o 130,200 others;
* 58,808 vertebrates:
o 29,300 fish,
o 5,743 amphibians,
o 8,240 reptiles,
o 10,234 birds, (9799 extant as of 2006)
o 5,416 mammals.
@160
*cough* geology of ancient times *cough*
@162
Check this out:
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/has-noahs-ark-been-found/20060629173309990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
@162 you also need to consider petrified wood.
@162 http://www.mexicobeachcwc.com/Noahsarkphotos.html/www.imdb.com/title/tt0473700/board/nest/83672803?p=2&d=90128347#90128347
more pictures
Nono wah, I understood perfectly well: Some guys made gut decisions (about the texts) and then invented fany terms to make them appear justified. Happens every day in politics.
Say, could you be a darling and stop copy-pasting nonsense from this pathetic apolegetics website carm.org?
@162
Okay. Maybe ship science isn’t my speciality. I commend you for your expertise. Bravo.
However, it’s important to mention in this discussion the historical non-Christian evidence of Noah’s ark…..
Anyway, here are some quotes from past notable historians about the subject that were compiled by a scholar named Richard Riss. This is Part One of a long article, as for some reason this website is refusing to let me post the whole thing at once due to content standards.
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR NOAH`S ARK
Josephus (A.D. 37-c.100) stated that, in the country called Carroe, there were “in it the remains of the ark, wherein it is related that Noah escaped the deluge, and where they are still shown to such as are desirous to see them.”1 Elsewhere, Josephus wrote:
.
However, the Armenians call this place , the Place of Descent; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are showed there by the inhabitants to this day.
Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berossus the Chaldean. For when he was describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: “It is said, there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets, for the averting of mischiefs.”–Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phenician antiquities, and Manases, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicholas of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: “There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported, that many who fled at the time of the deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark, came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote.”2
.
The existence of the ark on Mt. Ararat is also mentioned by Theophilus of Antioch (c. 115-185), who stated, “and of the ark, the remains are to this day to be seen in the Arabian mountains.”3 A similar statement is made by Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315-403), who said, “Do you seriously suppose that we are unable to prove our point, when even to this day the remains of Noah’s Ark are shown in the country of the Kurds?”4
.
Chrysostom (c. 345-407), wrote, “Have you heard of the Flood–of that universal destruction? That was not just a threat, was it? Did it not really come to pass–was not this mighty work carried out? Do not the mountains of Armenia testify to it, where the Ark rested? And are not the remains of the Ark preserved there to this very day for our admonition?”5
.
Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636) wrote: “Ararat is a mountain in Armenia, where the historians testify that the Ark came to rest after the Flood. So even to this day wood remains of it are to be seen there.”6
.
A thirteenth century Armenian prince, Jehan Haithon, wrote as follows:
.
In Armenia there is a very high mountain–the highest in existence–and its name is Ararat. On that mountain Noah’s Ark landed after the Flood. No one can climb this mountain because of the great quantity of snow on it winter and summer. But at the summit a great black object is always visible, which is said to be the ark of Noah.7
Sir John Mandeville (d. 1372), an English knight, wrote an account of his travels between 1322 and 1356. In The Travels, chapter 13, he writes:
.
From that city of Artyroun men go to a mountain called Sabissocolle; and there beside is another mountain called Ararat, but the Jews call it Taneez, where Noah’s ship rested, and still is upon that mountain; and men many see it afar in clear weather. That mountain is full seven miles high; and some men say that they have seen and touched the ship, and put their fingers in the parts where the devil went out, when Noah said “Benedicte.”8
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR NOAH’S ARK, Part Two
(Continued)
Adam Olearus (1603-1671) also travelled extensively, and wrote that “the Armenians, and the Persians themselves, are of opinion, that there are still upon the said Mountain some remainders of the Ark, but that Time hath so hardened them, that they seem absolutely petrified.”9
.
The ancient traditions of India and China include accounts of a time when the ancient world was carried away by a flood and re-peopled by a few who had been preserved miraculously. According to Hindu tradition, Manu was warned by a great fish that the earth was about to be engulfed by water. He was told to build a ship and to put into it all kinds of seeds, together with the seven Rishis, or holy beings. The flood came as predicted and covered the whole earth. The ship was made fast to the horns of the fish, which drew it on safely and finally landed it on the highest summit of the Himalayas. Manu was then permitted by God to create the new race of mankind.
.
There were seven companions of Manu, and, including himself, eight were saved. Manu is called Satya, or “the righteous.” After the flood, he drank mead and became senseless and lay asleep, [exposing himself]. One of the three sons who had been born to him, Charma, found him and called on his two brothers to witness the shame of their father, and said, “What has now befallen? In what state is our sire?” The two brothers were more dutiful than Charma and hid him with clothes. When he recovered his senses, and knowing what had happened, he cursed Charma and said to him, “Thou shalt be a servant of servants.”10
.
According to Chinese tradition, Fah-he escaped from a deluge which destroyed the human race with the exception of himself, his wife, his three sons, and three daughters, and from these, the whole earth was peopled.
.
Manetho, who lived about 250 B.C., wrote the ancient history of the Egyptians, according to which there was a worldwide catastrophe in which a person called Toth was saved. Before the cataclysm, Toth inscribed on a slab of stone in sacred language the principles of all knowledge. Afterward, he translated it into common language. The Egyptians connected the Deluge tradition with their commemoration of the dead, which was done by symbolic ceremony, in which the priest placed the image of Osiris in a sacred ark and launched it into the sea and watched it disappear from sight.11
.
In the ancient town of Apamea in Phrygia, there was a pillar upon which was carved an ark, which, according to tradition, had come to rest on that very spot. A coin was also found on one side of which was represented an ark with the door wide open and a patriarchal figure receiving a returning bird into the ark. On the other side of the coin is a man and his wife leaving the ark. On the ark itself appears the name “Noe.”12
.
The Roman Flood tradition was preserved by the well-known Latin poet Ovid, in Metamorphoses, while the Greek writer Plato preserved material on the flood tradition in his unfinished dialogue, Critias. Another ancient writer, Lucian (A.D. 120- 180), renders the Greek tradition as follows in his Dialogues on the Syrian Goddess:
.
Not one of us now living is descended from the original race of men, who all perished. We, numerous as we are, are no other than a second race sprung from Deucalion. The aborigines were full of pride and insolence, unfaithful to their promises, inhospitable to strangers, deaf to supplicants. Hence they were overtaken by a greater disaster. The earth suddenly opened its sluices, heavy showers of rain fell, the rivers swelled, and the sea arose until the waters everywhere prevailed, and every mortal [perished] except Deucalion, who on account of his virtue and piety, was saved to give birth to a new race of men. He put himself with his wives and children in a great chest, and thereupon there came to him boars and horses and lions and serpents and all kind of land animals. He took them all in, and all the time they were with him Zeus ordered it so that they did no injury, but lived together in harmony.13
.
The native North American Kolushes of Alaska had an ancient tradition that the father of the Indian tribes formerly lived toward the rising sun. Having been warned in a dream that a deluge would desolate the earth, he built a raft on which he saved himself and his family, and all animals. He floated for several months on the water. The animals, who could then talk, complained against him. A new earth at length appeared, and he then alighted with all the animals, which then lost the power of speech as a punishment for their complaining.14
.
The native Mexican historian, Ixtilxochitl, wrote as follows:
.
It is found in the histories of the Toltecs that this age and the first world, as they call it, lasted 1,716 years; that men were destroyed by tremendous rains and lightning from the sky, and even all the land, without the exception of anything, and the highest mountains were covered up and submerged in water fifteen cubits (caxtolmolatlic); and here they add other fables of how men came to multiply from the few who escaped from this destruction in a `toptipetlocali,’ which nearly signifies a closed chest; and how, after men had multiplied, they erected a very high `zacvali,’ which is today a tower of great height, in order to take refuge in it should the second world (age) be destroyed. Presently their languages were confused, and, not being able to understand each other, they went to different parts of the earth. The Toltecs, consisting of seven friends, with their wives, who understood the same language, came to these parts, having first passed great land and seas, having lived in caves, and having endured great hardships in order to reach this land; they wandered 104 years through different parts of the world before they reached Hue Hue Tlapalan, which was in Ce Tecpatl, 520 years after the Flood.15
.
Flood traditions of this kind are characteristic of just about all ancient cultures. Dr. Richard Andree, a German scholar, has compiled a collection of 88 different flood traditions from various cultures around the world.16
There have been many modern sightings of Noah’s ark. In 1905, a ten-year-old Armenian boy, Georgie Hagopian, went with his uncle from Azerbajain in Old Persia to Mount Ararat and saw Noah’s ark.17 An interview with Mr. Hagopian is printed in John Warwick Montgomery’s book, The Quest for Noah’s Ark, which refers to him as George Tamisian.18
.
In 1916, during the First World War, a Russian airman, W. Roskovitsky, flying over Mt. Ararat, stated that he had observed on one of the slopes of Mt. Ararat the remains of an ancient vessel. The Czar organized an expedition, which found the remains in question and brought back a description of them which was conclusive with respect to their identification. The report was lost during the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.19
.
In the 1930s a New Zealander, Hardwicke Knight, stumbled upon the remains of Noah’s ark without realizing what it was until some time later.20 Then, in 1952, George Jefferson Greene took photographs of Noah’s ark from a helicopter. These photographs were lost ten years later, when he was murdered for his gold.21
.
There have been many recent reports of sightings of Noah’s ark, including that of Chuck Aaron of Orlando, Florida, in September of 1989. He and Bob Garbe photographed the ark during a September 15 flight. These photos are available from the Immanuel Expedition Foundation in Orlando, Florida.22
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR NOAH’S ARK, Part Three
(Continued)
REFERENCES
1. Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Je_ws, XX, ii, 2, in The Works of Flavius Josephus, 2 vols., trans. William Whiston (Philadelphia: J. Grigg, 1833), vol. II, p. 107.
.
2. Josephus, Antiquities of the Je_ws, I, iii, 5 and 6, in Whiston, vol. I, pp. 17, 18.
.
3. Ad Autolycum, book 3, chapter 19, trans. Marcus Dodds, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (1885), vol. II, p. 117.
.
4. Panarion, I,i,18, trans. John W. Montgomery, The Quest for Noah’s Ark, 2d ed. (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany Fellowship, 1974), p. 77.
.
5. John Chrysostum, sermon, “On Perfect Charity,” trans. John W. Montgomery, The Quest For Noah’s Ark, p. 78.
.
6. Isidore of Seville, Etymologies, in “Scriptorium Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis,” (1911), XIV,8,5, trans. Montgomery, p. 80.
.
7. Trans. Montgomery, pp. 82-83.
.
8. Quoted by Montgomery, pp. 93-94.
.
9. The Voyages and Travels of the Ambassadors, trans. John Davies (London, 1662), Book IV, p. 187.
.
10. Hugh Miller, The Testimony of the Rocks (Edinburgh: Thomas Constable & Co., 1857), p. 290.
.
11. John Urquhart, Modern Discoveries and the Bible (London: Marshall Brothers, 1898), p. 175.
.
12. Alfred M. Rehwinkel, The Flood (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1951), p. 144.
.
13. Quoted by Byron C. Nelson, The Deluge Story In Stone (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany Fellowship, 1968), p. 175.
.
14. Ibid., p. 183.
.
15. Quoted by Ibid., pp. 186-187.
.
16. Richard Andree, D_ie Flutensagen, ethnologisch betrachtet, as cited by Rehwinkel, pp. 129-130.
.
17. Violet Cu_mmings, Has Anybody Really Seen Noah’s Ark? (San Diego, Ca.: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982), p. 217.
.
18. Montgomery, pp. 113-118.
.
19. Ibid., pp. 119-125; Cu_mmings, pp. 61-108.
.
20. Montgomery, pp. 125-128.
.
21. Montgomery, pp. 128-131; C_ummings, pp. 143-148.
.
22. “Yanks: We Discovered Noah’s Ark,” in The Home News, Friday, September 22, 1989, p. A6.
Here is the real site with pictures of NOah’s ark.
http://www.mexicobeachcwc.com/Noahsarkphotos.html
“Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration”
Sorry science seeking an explanation for an ends is not valid. You’re starting off with a definite answer and trying to fill the gaps.
Would you trust an article on race from, say for example, “White Supremisist Weekly”?
Do you have an article from a more neutral institute?
From wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark#Locating_the_mountains_of_Ararat
“In June 2006, Bob Cornuke of the fundamentalist Christian Bible Archeology Search and Exploration Institute took a team of 14 American “business, law, and ministry leaders” to Iran to visit a site in the Alborz Mountains purported to be a possible resting place of the Ark. The team did not include any archaeologists or geologists among its members.”
So there was no one qualified? I wouldn’t trust a priest to do my plumbing. You shouldn’t trust a business/law/ministry leader to do your science.
You havent addressed my issues of ballasts, free space and size constraints on modern ship building. Even the most high tech steel hulled ship is only 450m long and that’s still sitting in a dry dock in Korea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASE_Institute#Noah.27s_Ark_Controversy
What say you?
Also petrified wood is not a legitimate construction material. It’s basically fosilized wood.
@167
Why? does it bother you?
If it does, i’ll save the hassle.
Here’s breakdown of Noah’s ark:
http://www.carm.org/questions/noahsark.htm
But what’s his name argues otherwise, expertly I might add. Hence posts for “Historical Evidence of Noah’s Ark”
@145 Costa200
“When god created Adam and then Eve and they screwed up by “eating the apple” …blah blah blah”
This is in continuation of my earlier response (post 155).
For such an intellectual person, you don’t seem to score high on the EI test if you know what i mean…[to.be.continued]
Have you ever entertained the idea that God wanted to have a deep personal intimate relationship with His own creation? And you can’t have that without ‘drama’ if you know what i mean. ‘drama’ as in all those unnecessary things you were talking about. even so, it doesn’t negate god’s nature. His understanding is beyond ours. He has a purpose for everything if you actually read it in proper context before making ignorant statements. He works in mysterious ways. If God was playing golf, He’d more than likely hit the ball to ricochet off of many objects just to get to the hole in one instead of just hitting it just straight to the hole, know what i mean?
But let’s take it from your POS.
If God is all knowing why did He create Satan who He knew would fall?
That question basically sums up your concerns.
Before I begin, I’d like to point out to you that maybe because you haven’t realized the following clarification is because trying to understand some things about God from a intellectual/logical standpoint is extremely difficult, if not, impossible. Why? God mostly operates from an emotional/relational level. If you can’t relate to him on that level then you can’t understand what God is trying to say to us in the bible. You see we have three parts in the brain: physical, emotional, and logical. Super-intellects normally operate in the logical, and most of the time they’re geeks and nerds and nice boys, that’s why they don’t get the girls because they can’t relate to them on the emotional gut level. The problem with men is that our physical part of the brain overpowers our emotional part while the emotional part overpowers our logic. Physical = involuntary reactions, sneezing, sexual drive. Emotional = our natural reaction to past life events, like trauma, bad/good experiences. Logical = rational. SO just because something doesn’t logically make sense, doesn’t mean it’s automatically moot on the emotional/physical level or, in this case, state of being is non-existent. OK so now wer’e through with human physiology 101.
At the risk of sounding flippant, why not tackle your previous question: If God is all knowing why did He create Satan who He knew would fall? For what reason or reasons should God have not created the devil even if he was going to fall? Just because God knows what will happen doesn’t mean that the person (angel) isn’t free to make choices. Satan freely chose to rebel against God. God knew this would happen. Nevertheless, let me offer some possible reasons why God would create Satan even though He knew he would fall and rebel.
1. It was necessary to have the fall so that God could then have a reason to die for our sins thereby demonstrating that God can and does provide the greatest act of love which is to lay ones life down for his friend (John 15:13).
2. The fall of Satan provides yet another method for God to be glorified in that God can use sin to prove that sin is “bad” and that God’s word about righteousness is true.
3. If God is to have creatures with free will, then the risk of rebellion is part of that freedom. Satan had that freedom and used it to rebel.
4. If God had not created Satan and instead another angel fell, then we’d be asking why God made that angel knowing he would fall.
5. God has reasons that we simply do not know about.
You know your children will act badly at times, but knowing that does not mean that you shouldn’t have kids. Part of the risk of freedom is that rebellion will be a reality.
@157
LOL. You have quite an imagination. I commend that. But your hypothetical question coupled even with a proper hypothetical answer means nothing for either side. Basically, it means nothing because it doesn’t correspond with reality at all. Any hypothetical situation can be taken to basically any extreme to accommodate the question in doubt. And even without a proper answer, the theory actually doesn’t prove or negate anything for that matter. It’s pure speculation at its best. I have close personal friends who use to ask me a whole bunch of “what if” questions. God it was annoying. I felt like they were knats buzzing around. Who cares. Stop living in never-never land. But if you’re looking for a closing answer to all that. God won’t allow your story to happen. Period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ararat#History
“and of the ark, the remains are to this day to be seen in the Arabian mountains.”
Mount Ararat was never an Arab moutain. The closest thing to Arab is Persian and they’re completely different.
Also why is Jesus always depicted as a white guy? He was born in Bethlehem which is smack bang in the Middle-East. Most likely he would have had olive skin.
Wow. you seem to know your stuff. But that doesn’t negate Noah’s Ark. You must disprove all evidence before it, including historical ones buddy.
Mr. Bob Cournoke you sire are first challenge of the week.
@179 Jesus’s sking.
Jesus is depicted as a white guy because the European Roman Catholics gave him that image. Olive skin? probably the same color any other people in those areas. ALthough, i’ve heard there were black jews in those areas at the time so i guess jesus could’ve been black. Possible but i highly doubt it.
Yo, wah @177
“God has reasons that we simply do not know about”
So the best thing would be to shut down our brain and declare a theocracy
@182
oops what i meant was his reasoning is beyond our understanding.
No the onus is on you to prove something exists, not for me to prove something doesn’t exist.
There are two ways to “prove” something. To search every corner of this universe and explore every possibility and say “I can’t find it” OR to positively prove something by showing evidence.
Obiously the former is impossible and impractical. Logical reasoning demands for you to pressent evidence to prove your claim.
That’s why the criminal law system is based on “innocent until proven guilty”.
Or for example if I claimed I had a billion dollars in a Swiss bank account. You’d say “prove it” – It’s up to me to prove it. Me saying “disprove me” doesnt make any sense.
it may appear to you that way. but look at it from my perspective.
“No the onus is on you to prove something exists, not for me to prove something doesn’t exist.”
ahh. on the contrar mi amigo. I’ve already presented evidence, it’s up to you to disprove it.
“There are two ways to “prove” something. To search every corner of this universe and explore every possibility and say “I can’t find it” OR to positively prove something by showing evidence.”
I heard this one before. In fact I use it sometimes and while the former is true, the ladder is not, as I can see you changed it, thereby making it a fallacious statement. IN regards to the ladder part, all you need is the slightest evidence that indicates the possibility of the object in question. Then it is up to you disprove that.
“Obiously the former is impossible and impractical. Logical reasoning demands for you to pressent evidence to prove your claim.”
Yes. You would be correct IF THAT STATEMENT IS TRUE. But that doesn’t belong to the equation.
“Or for example if I claimed I had a billion dollars in a Swiss bank account. You’d say “prove it” – It’s up to me to prove it. Me saying “disprove me” doesnt make any sense.”
Consider this example: Gold. Base on the two premises above, in order to prove that gold does not exist you would have to search every crevice of the earth to prove that it does not exist. However, if one shred of evidence that is found to indicate that gold might exist, then the proof must be disproved by the other side. Either case, the evidence in question is enough to substantiate a plausibility. What is the evidence in question: gold dust. One can find gold dust and know that gold exist, even though you’ve haven’t found the actual gold. OR let’s replace the object in question with water. ALl you need is rust, or whatever evidence that water leaves behind.
So, i’ve already provided evidenece, or ‘trail’, that indicates the historicity of NOah’s ark. NOw it’s time for you to disprove them. It’s simple as that.
Gold dust is equivalent to gold.
You can only prove water exist if the evidence left behind is exclusive to water.
Bits of petrified wood is not ark. It could be a number of things. Did you read the part about the one person in a group that described it as basalt? Or the part about several other creationist geologists denouncing the group? There’s a 7000 word article on why that wasn’t the ark on one of the links.
I provided several sources that showed that your evidence was dubious at best.
Not to sound condescending, bu t how old are you? I’m guessing you’re fairly young from the way you type and the mistakes in some simple words.
Anyway I’m going to bed. All I can say is ask more questions , get your information from less biased sources and read both sides of the arguments so you know what you’re debating against.
Yes wah, exactly what I mean. If his reasoning is beyond our understanding, then we cannot rely on our own reasoning in principle, because our very institution of reasoning, science, clearly contradicts the bible, in respect to our genesis and to the history of the middle east.
That’s why I said: Let’s abondon your reason and declare a theoracy. I mean…it would be the sensible thing to do
Just a bit of fun for you flood suporters.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=w6-8XhJa6Ds
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mcA7s4UO4sY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0rwwg1olQ68
@155 wah
“Or maybe it’s not that there is no evidence, Costa200, maybe it’s just that there is no evidence you are willing to accept. ”
Floods leave very clear signs in the geological evidence. The sediments and hydrologic selection along with certain depositions of strata are a dead give away that a flood has ocurred in a certain timeframe. If someone tomorrow managed to demonstrate that there is a continum of such evidence worldwide he would bust most of modern geology (which would then be old geology)and have his name ingraved in the halls of science. Apparently nobody, not for the lack of trying, could ever do this. The padron of sea rise and fall, the sediments left behind, all of it indicate a very old Earth with tectonics and an absence of a worldwide flood.
This is not saying the biblical account is totally made up. Certain local events, such as the ones you mentioned, may be the root of this myth. Let us not forget that the story must have been centuries old when it was laid on writting. Oral tradition certainly took its price on the accuracy.
Plus, there isn’t enough water in the planet to do what the biblical version tells us. Even if all the ice and water vapor suddenly became liquid there isn’t enough water to rise the sea level to do what the biblical version says. Unless one is to resort to magical thinking (in which case everything is possible) i cannot see how this would be feasible in this planet.
“To me, this means God is always in control, no matter what happens”
Being in control and then just wipe out all the world? In computer science that would be the equivalent of a techie guy saying he had the system “under control” and then went on formating the hard drive. If that is control…
“You say there is no evidence of this geologically. I say there obviously is. We both seem well-educated and smart, so I guess the answer is in how we interpret the geologic record…..”
It’s not how i interpret it. Although i’ve taken some heavy duty Geological training (i freaking hate foraminids) i’m not even an expert. The way Geologists as a community see the issue is the point here. If you go to a Geologist and ask him to look at some data regarding the possibility of a worldwide flood what are you going to show him?
Because he can bury you (literally…) in Core sample data of places that should have been flooded and never were.
Also, if there was such a flood how is it that fresh water fish survived? A tiny unbalance in salt levels kills fish like nothing else. A worldwide flood with the sea covering mountains would just wipe out every single fresh water fish that could not cope with salt. Given this, you either resot to magic to explain it or fresh water fish evolved from other fish, but in this case we don’t have enough time for that to happen (isn’t the flood supposed to have happened some 4000 years ago?)
Also, there is the slight problem that certain archeological findings should show marks of the flood. After all, the Sphynx is older than that and shows no marks. Also, how can one family populate the whole world fast enough to, after the flood, build great works, like the pyramids and other wonders. Where did all the manpower come from?
If you look at the population graph we have until the industrial revolution, human growth was very low at all times. This only changed with modern technology. How can a family suddenly populate everyware?
And why could paintings in caves survived intact? those caves must have been underwater during the flood!
Clearly, the fact point to a local event (many candidates here, just take your pick), and not a worldwide event.
Also, on the ark. A ship that big (although not big enough to hold half the animal species for 40 days, as writters seem to have forgot about plants or something since many species of plants would not have survived in the salted land after the flood) would brake itself apart. There is no way a pre industrial age guy would be able to make such a boat and have it floating around for 40 days in what would seem harsh conditions. Not even mentioning the fact that such an ark built on land would probably crash itself on the solid ground as it would not have a propulsion mechanism. Again, only by resorting to divine help can you hope to keep that baby floating. But, if you are going to use magic to get rid of every pratical impossibility then you can basicaly stop concerning yourself with all these matters because magic explanations cannot be tested and are not scientific.
And the “petrified wood”… Sorry but i just had to LOL at it. Any kid at my class could point out a very common formation of basaltic columns. Mount ararat is vulcanic, so what you see is a natural aspect of a vulcanic basaltic cone.
See here, more petrified wood all over the place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt
(using wiki cuz i’m lazy and even wiki had to have this)
See this one (i use it as an example in class):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Boyabat.jpg
I can see how a person with no geological training can mistake it with “petrified wood” but i cannot accept that people pretending to do serious scientific work just ignore something i’ve taught to 7th graders… What kind of “scientific” background do they have?
@wah
Ive got to hand it to you, you are much more passionate about this than I will ever be. I would love to show fallacy in these people, but I could tell from the very beginning it was a lost cause. I honestly was surprised I pursisted as long as I did. These people (mainly Costa and velo to my observation, mainly Costa) continue to give me the same excuses they have been trying to disprove me. It was a pleasure to read your replies. Anyways, this is a wrap for me. BTW, its Darth not Death… =)
In reply to Costa, heh…How many times would you like me to state the same thing I have been saying? Im sorry, but I just cant continue on like this. Perhaps if it was just you and me without the worry that something is going to be said while Im not here, I could show interest. Obviously, though, that is not the case. You should be proud of yourself, though. You have got to be the best insulter I have ever met…what a thing to be respected for…
And for velo, I know you wernt trying to attack me, that is why I settled down a bit in my last post. You, unlike the Costa guy, actually have an open mind and are willing to hear both sides of the argument. While you do have bias, you cant claim more bias than what I would show myself. I respect you, and for that Im going to give you one of the thoughts I have had. I have logically thought through this quite a bit, and I give it to you at face value. As I said before, your logic is what gets you to the conclusion you end up at. It doesnt matter how hard I think it through, it is you that needs to choose. Do with this what you will: ignore it, think through it yourself, believe it. It is up to you. As for me, Im not going to be coming back on to this page again. Honestly, I dont have the time to waist debating when I can already see the conclusion, right back where we started. Anyway, here it goes…
The subject of morality is a tough one to think about. It is a subject that science fears, mainly because science has virtually no hold on it. When one thinks of morality, it requires only thought; no experiments, no observation of phenomenon, no hypothesizing.
When dealing with morality, there are two sides of debate: moral objectivism and moral subjectivism (I think I made up those words…). When one enters the thought of morality, they HAVE to join one side, and it is usually the side that agrees with his/her disposition to life.
If you believe morality is objective, it means you believe in absolute truth. If you believe in absolute truth, you believe in absolute power. Finally, if you believe in absolute power, you believe in a god of some kind.
If you believe morality is subjective, it means you believe truth is relative to the situation. This means you dont believe in a god.
Yet, when you look at morality without bias (or as little as possible at least), you notice something. Lets look at a simple hypothetical situation: Lets say a boy on his 16th birthday steals a gun, shoots 200 men, rapes those men’s wives, and then is shot and killed by police. Gruesome, huh? I can guarantee you it doesnt matter what you believe in, that is a horrible crime. Why do you think that, though? If we look at, say, a monkey (for lack of a better subject) that kills 200 other monkeys and has sexual intercourse with 200 female monkeys, the situation is perfectly normal (maybe not “normal” normal, but it is a possibility). During my studies in Biology, I was told that according to natural selection, the most fit of a species is the one who has the most offspring. I can honestly say that a large number of the females in both situations above are going to be pregnant because of the situation. That monkey is one of the most fit monkeys of all time; it had a lot of offspring. However, that boy would be called a psychopath and put to death, obviously, when he refused to cooperate with authority. So, if your evolution is true, how would you explain that situation (<–rhetorical question)? At what point between the evolution of the monkey (the animal) into a human (the…human) did such a situation become wrong? The answer? It didnt, because it never happened.
Conclusion: evolution fails to explain why theft, rape, and murder are considered bad in human society. After all, according to evolution, that boy would be one of the fittest human beings to ever live. If evolution really did happen, then it is impossible to look at human life as being worth anything. It doesnt matter if a giant meteor destroys the planet, or if the human race destroys itself with atomic bombs. Who cares in evolution? Who cares what happens? What advantage does the survival of humans play in the grand scheme of things if evolution is true? The energy level of the universe stays the same while matter is neither created nor destroyed. Whether humans exist or not has no effect on that fact…
When evolutionists try to argue that their belief is true, they pretty much contradict themselves just by opening their mouth. According to evolution: There is no overall effect on the universe whether human beings believe in evolution or a fantasy. It doesnt change anything. Therefore, at the very least, why would you take the chance believing in evolution if there is even the slightest possibility that youre wrong. Because if YOU are wrong, you end up in a rather bad place while if IM wrong, I end up just like you…in the ground…dead…What advantage did you have in being right?
So, there is some brain food for you to munch on a while. Ignore it if you want, criticize it if you want, believe it if you want. It matters not to me. Cant say I didnt try…
“Conclusion: evolution fails to explain why theft, rape, and murder are considered bad in human society.”
Pfff… Hey! The theory of gravity also fails at this and the theory of germ caused diseases… Lets replace it with bible study.
It is clear, by your tone, that you cannot argue this subject and clearly you can’t even keep your head over the water in this type of intelectual debate.
“Because if YOU are wrong, you end up in a rather bad place while if IM wrong, I end up just like you…in the ground…dead…What advantage did you have in being right?”
Are you kidding? not mentioning the advantage of going for the truth instead of what might happen, the fact that you choose to live your whole life with limitations to your sex life (yes i’m into humour right now) because a supposed divinity is watching doesn’t ring a bell? Yes, we will end up mostly the same way (you with a cross on top and me without it i believe) but i will not go deprived of the fun i could have gotten out of life. Can you say the same?
Also, how do you know you are following the right god? What if purgatory is like that Mr Bean comedy show and a guys says “to the left to hell… Lawyers… thiefs… Christians… what is that? OH sorry… the jews were right…)
I don’t honestly see how you can get a point on me. I’m living the life i want as a moral person and i feel, at the moment, very well with myself both professionally and with my family. I’ve never wronged anyone intentionally and honestly i do not believe a kind god (he is that right) would ever screw me over because i did not believe he existed. On the other hand i think he would be very pissed at that christian assassin that went to church every sunday.
Is anybody actually reading any of these diatribes?
Damn, I thought this thread was dead by now. Anyway, seeing that “(G)god(s)” is a title and NOT a name, what is his name? The word “god” comes from “El” and “gods” come from “Elohim”. Now these words are not Hebrew or Aramaic but instead are Philistine (or modern day Palestine). Strange enough, these words could ALSO be used for “demon” or “demons”. So, clearly using “(G)god(s)” in-place of using his REAL name shows ignorance on those who profess to love the TRUE CREATOR (insert name here). Oh, I wont accept the “He has many names” lame azz excuse either (this saying stems from Egypt). He has 1 name like you and I have. It is known so look around. And no… we can not call Steve by David’s name either and vice versa.
Let me ask you another, since you “Christians” love to type novels that would show MORE of your paganism roots. In ancient times the title “BAAL” was used to address the beings that these people worshiped. But not only was it used to that effect but the title was also used to address men AND animals. Throughout time this word was changed to HIDE or conceal what is now going on, rampant paganism within the churches and synagogues(sic). How do you feel every time you use the word “Lord” to address YOUR Saviour? Do you know the root word for “Lord” is “BAAL”?
Christianity today, is for people who can not think for themselves or unable to search the truth to save them from lets say a…. a fiery pit? But they love to celebrate “Christmas” Jeremiah 10:1-10 (i think) and crap like that.
It seems to me that people who “profess” to love the Creator (insert name here) really mean to PISS him off!
Nobody can trust the KJV anymore.
You have no idea how much I wanted to keep my promise and stay off this page. Unfortunately, I am only human…I guess Im going to have to break my promise…
Costa, dont flatter yourself. Your responses were pathetic at best…
“Pfff… Hey! The theory of gravity also fails at this and the theory of germ caused diseases… Lets replace it with bible study.”
Hmm…wow…what kind of half thought through response is that?! So tell me something, you want me to solve your little contradicting saying, yet you are too scared to even try mine? If not by science, how would you confront what I said? Science seems to be the only thing you hold dear, yet you arnt even going to try? Bah…
“Are you kidding? not mentioning the advantage of going for the truth instead of what might happen, the fact that you choose to live your whole life with limitations to your sex life…”
Who cares if you hit the truth or not? Who cares about your happiness. Cmon, guy? Surely you must have a better response than that. I love it when people like you take things I say way out of context, ignoring entire segments I say. Your happiness means NOTHING! Your truth means NOTHING! Hmm…I can go on…Im not saying that I think they are nothing, or that you think they are nothing. On the contrary, they are the entire reason Im still typing. No, it is your belief that says they mean nothing! Oh and FYI, even though I “limit” myself as to what I do, I can say without any doubt that my life is a rather happy one. I wont lie, there are some bumps I would prefer to get rid of (to make it clear, the bumps wernt caused by my “limited” morality…), but overall I could be as happy as you seem to be with your limitless morality…
“Also, how do you know you are following the right god?”
Funny, yet again you warp my words…I never told you which god I follow. I said I believe in (get ready for it!) “A” god. I could tell you I believe in Christianity, but I really dont have much knowledge of history like my friend “wah” does, so Im not even going to try. Your right, I could be following the wrong god. That really doesnt help your case much, though…stay on subject.
“I don’t honestly see how you can get a point on me. I’m living the life i want as a moral person and i feel, at the moment, very well with myself both professionally and with my family.”
I appreciate you proving my point for me…did you even read what I said, or were you thinking too much about how cool you are? I hate repeating myself, but Im afraid it is the only way to get you to see it…According to the belief that YOU follow, that being evolution and survival of the fittest, the boy in my hypothetical situation is just as, if not more, fit as a human than you are. You apparently pride yourself on being a moral individual, yet you turn around and stab yourself in the back saying evolution is true. According to evolution, there are no moral truths! You do those things fruitlessly. It doesnt help you! Your going to die just like everybody else…including that psychopath boy…so why dont you go out and kill all your enemies, rape all the women you want, and get shot by that mean looking bouncer at the club? What is stopping you? You will accomplish the exact same thing you are by continuing on like this…
And to the lovely person trying to…oh, warp my words yet again (you people seem quite good at doing that)…ooo, your cool with your definition of a god! Lets give a round of applause! You were too busy looking at yourself in the mirror to realize the context of the word “god” in my post. Im curious, what word you would like me to use…if not “god”. I was trying to stay neutral within the boundaries of ID so that we could stay on the subject at hand instead of branching off to some tangent about how the Catholic Church had crusades hundreds of years ago…what word (or phrase) would you like me to use? Fine, from now on I will use the term “almighty being”. That work for you?
I hope I dont have to come back, but this time Im not going to promise. I dont want to have to break another one…
@193 Not Stupid
your point?
By your logic we all better change our names to its original Latin meaning to avoid from stepping over each other’s toes. ooooooo
Exodus 3:13-14 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.”
Notice how God didn’t attribute a “name” or “title” to identify him by. He did that to point out that He will not be manipulated by any calling of names. His identity surpasses our ability to control or summon God at any time. and there you’re worried about how the calling of names affecting God, including the very word “god”? seems very moot.
@194 Not Stupid
that’s why we have different versions. and don’t get me started on the whole manuscript-extant accuracy.
@wah
I highly appreciate you taking the time to do this research, and I highly respect you. I do believe Christianity is the right path, but I really cant provide solid historical proof to confirm my position to others. However, if I maintain a neutral standing within the general ID belief, I can use logic that they will actually listen to. That is why they are trying to debunk history against you and trying to confuse me with self contradictory hypothetical’s. Id say we compliment each other fairly well. (if any part of this post is offending, please dont take it that way…that wasnt my intention… <_<).
Anyway, Im not a history buff and will never pretend to be. I do have quite a bit of thinking time, so it isnt uncommon to see me sitting, starring at the wall in math class thinking about random things. I just dont have the patience to do historical research…
@147 Velo
“Why would a monkey turn into a human? Its like saying a human would turn into a monkey. (and i bet you mean apes)
Apes and humans share a common ancestor. (quite different)
With that being said evolution does not have a goal, it does not automatically make a creature smarter/stronger/less hairy
if it doesn’t benefit to its survival.
We find more “missing links” for every year that passes. Just look at the homo-species found over the last 30 years.
We will never find ALL missing links. Fossils are very rare to start of with, and add to it that 90% of all twigs on the “tree of life” have died out, i.e. leading to nowhere. To find a missing link is truly to find a needle in a haystack.”
for someone who can create the universe by scratch it shouldn’t be too hard to create a human.
@148 Velo
“Proof for me is making something a fact. If i thought the world was flat and someone proved to me that it was round.
Why the hell would i go back to believing it was flat?”
Recognizing the existence of something is one thing but placing your trust in “a personal being” is a whole different matter. You should Lucifer that question.
“If 9/10 goes back to not believing in god, the proof must have been flawed.”
it has nothing to do with proof. my point is that 1/10 times means it would take a miracle for you to trust in God, while it’s natural for you 9/10 times to not believe.
“I’m talking about absolute proof here, evidence. Not “look, it says so here in this book so it must be true” or ” wow look at that tree, amazing isnt it, has to be magic man who done that””
again, it, as in my previous statement, has nothing to do proof. all bout complete trust. your problem is you’re trying to reconcile an empiricist viewpoint to theist philosophy.
@186 BOB
“Not to sound condescending, bu t how old are you?”
i’m young enough to be a teacher.
“I’m guessing you’re fairly young from the way you type and the mistakes in some simple words.”
it’s called not being anal and in a hurry. what am i, writing an essay here?
@199 Darth Arcon
Hey, different strokes for different folks I guess. So no i don’t take offense of your post. But I have to say I enjoyed reading your responses to them. You have a talent for pointing out the contradictions between their worldview and the way they live/(debate in this case). I highly respect you too, as well as for keeping an open mind, and we certainly compliment each other.
@Costa200
“Also, how do you know you are following the right god? What if…”
The real question isn’t about what/why/how others believe. The real question is if YOU believe in any god or not. Do you believe truth is knowable, or if God would communicate to His people? If not of any of those, then what other point are you trying to make, besides thinking that “question of doubt” refutes the faith and historicity of Christianity?
What if.. what if…what if..
who cares. it’s hypothetical, means nothing because it doesn’t correspond to reality. you’re living in never-never land.
@188 velo
“Just a bit of fun for you flood suporters.”
Just a bit of fun for you atheists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ssKZavFZJE
and flood sceptics
http://christiananswers.net/creation/menu-catastrophe.html
@147 Velo
it’d be very rare and almost a miracle to find it.
Check out Dr. Don Batten’s explanation on the common ancestry of humans and apes:
“The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on just who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just highly evolved apes? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:
1. Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen “beetle” car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (’homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.
2. Photo copyrighted.If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the Creator to us? No! We would logically think that there must be many creators rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True God who made it all (Romans 1:20).
3. If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we then live? If we are to eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live, what would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food!
4. We know that DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms look similar, we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans[1], so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.
5. Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example, those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.
6. What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are “read” by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced.
Where did the “97% similarity” come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the “melting” curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate.
Interestingly, the original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data “on faith.” Sarich et al. [4] obtained the original data and used them in their discussion of which parameters should be used in homology studies [5]. Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in Sibley and Ahlquist’s generation of their data as well as their statistical analysis. Upon inspecting the data, I discovered that, even if everything else was above criticism, the 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error – averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.2%, not 97%. However, there is no true replication in the data, so no confidence can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist.
What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size [6]. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].
7. Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:
There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.
The DNA similarity data does NOT quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!”
Do you know a doctor who has refuted this explanation?
@203
id like to know about your educational backround, if you believe those guys, theyre outright lying at you
@205
prove it.
@206
You’ll find out when you to go highschool, its not my job to eduacate you about anything
@208
yea your job is to learn from me.
Therefore, heed this wise saying young grasshoppa:
it is not one’s job to educate those wiser than themselves.
Wah 18:7
its not about wisdom, its about knowledge and capability to use it to understand the world we live in
please get proper eduacation, praying for god wont help you feed your family
“praying for god wont help you feed your family”
the Israelites would beg to differ in Exodus 16:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2016%20;&version=45;
In short, the Israelites come to the wilderness of Sin. They murmur for food, God promises bread from heaven.
Say, wah. Considering you copy/pasted all these rogationes from various christian websites, none of which are academic. Things like bread folling from the sky is something that can be researched academically, but obviously is not. So that means there is only one conculsion: All the academica is spiked with atheists who produce nothing, but just wallow in their materialist filth. Don’t you think we should remove them? All those geologists who don’t believe in the flood. All those biologists and medical scientists who use evolutionary approaches fighting viruses, bacteria, parasites and cancer (and I tell you, it’s pretty much all of them).
Their work, even though sucessful is not sanctioned by the scripture. What should we do with them?
@212
“Say, wah. Considering you copy/pasted all these rogationes from various christian websites, none of which are academic.”
So you’re saying scholarly and historiographic work from people with degrees are non-academic?
“Don’t you think we should remove them?
What should we do with them?”
What do you think? You don’t need me to answer that for yourself.
Wah:
“So you’re saying scholarly and historiographic work from people with degrees are non-academic?”
Well, if the work is not published in peer reviewed journals, there is no way to tell if the research was done properly. And considering that there are no peer reviewed publications on the Arc, the creation, flood geology or the young earth, this makes a pretty clear case of what the scientific community thinks of the bible. Every university with a biology faculty houses a department for evolutionary biology, but none has one for creation studies.
Well, scientists won’t change their attitude (this has to do with their petty dependence on evidence), so what shall we do with them? I mean, this is a real problem. They are noisy and they impede our strive for a virtuous and God-fearing society.
@214 Word! ;D
@wah
To have a rigid idea of how things should be and then try to force the puzzle to fit is not science and never will be.
Religion is rigid, science is not, it changes by default if something is disproved. Religion evades the proof and tries to come up with excuses. Or just ignore it, and call parts of the bible allegorical. (when it rains god opens a window in the heavens.) I bet they actually believed he did back in the day, just like Thor made lightning with his hammer. But why don’t you… could it be because science proved it wrong?
Your God is a god who hides in the holes of our knowledge, and the holes are shrinking.
“So you’re saying scholarly and historiographic work from people with degrees are non-academic?”
When discussing thing outside of their area of expertise, yes.
As for DNA similarity, not all DNA is expressed. A lot of it is things like retroviral DNA insertions, which are not a part of genotype, and which ARE a concrete indication of common ancestry. Your quote ignores this, as well as other things like the structural similarities between human and chimp DNA. For example the large section of telomeres in the middle of one of the human chromosomes that corresponds to where two ape chromosomes fused at one point in our ancestry. Again, this is damn good indication of common ancestry as telomeres have no business being in the middle of a chromosome, their only function is to control replication at the ends of the DNA strand.
Your source looks all nice and sciencey, certainly enough so to dazzle anyone who knows little of genetics. Which is entirely the point really.
I can promise everybody that it does not matter where you get the info from, it is going to be biased in some way. You guys are trying to have wah get his backing from an “scientific” place, yet that same “scientific” place teaches evolution. At the same time, wah is trying to get you to get proof from just as valid “scientific” places, only they believe in ID. However, you believe that anybody who believes in ID must not believe in science. This is the problem with credibility. Both sides have plenty of credibility, yet each side maintains that their credibility is better. In a situation like this, credibility fails…
Therefore, why dont some of you guys trying to disprove wah take a whack at my little “conundrum” I posted a little bit back. It requires no credibility, only thought. The only person who has attempted it (at least as far as I could tell…) was Costa, who gave me some really cheap answers. Im curious what happens when credibility fails and one has to return to his/her own logic for the answers…Im also curious to see if my logic has any holes in it…I dont doubt it does, but I think Im pretty close to the truth right now…
The difference is that wah was making claims about the scientific merits of the theory of evolution, using sources that even a passing scientific knowledge can demolish, and that a simple critical reading of will find to be littered with lies, fallacies, and quote mining. Ironic, considering they usually try to claim the moral high ground at the same time.
As for your conundrum… I’ll go look for it… dunno how long I’ll be.
@ 219 Darth Arcon
point me to the right post please
“When evolutionists try to argue that their belief is true, they pretty much contradict themselves just by opening their mouth. According to evolution: There is no overall effect on the universe whether human beings believe in evolution or a fantasy. It doesnt change anything. Therefore, at the very least, why would you take the chance believing in evolution if there is even the slightest possibility that youre wrong. Because if YOU are wrong, you end up in a rather bad place while if IM wrong, I end up just like you…in the ground…dead…What advantage did you have in being right?”
Is that what you meant? This.. badly formed version of pascals wager?
LMAO
False dichotomy is the least of the fallacies in this one. It is not a simple either or choice. I cannot choose to believe in something I think is wrong simply because it might be convenient to me if I was wrong. Apart from that there is the fact that if you ARE right, and I get “punished” for an eternity for making the best conclusion out of the available data, I would never choose to worship your deity anyway, he’s a knob.
Well, I know now that “wah” is completely brainwashed and can not study beyond the “Bible” and what’s being fed to him. Latin is NOT the original language and I will not tell you what it is. And the “trinity” is heresy. As your “Jesus” said, “That all men should worship The Father alone.” I will let YOU, wah, search where that one is. Oh and by your “talk type” you must be catholic. Maybe in Jesuit school? I don’t want and won’t buy your LOAD of CRAP which are LIES and DECEIT.
Either way, anyone who continues in this “tripe” is just wasting breath and “chewing on air”.
/me officially done with this thread.
@velo
#195
@220
Hmm, yet again you are not the one that can supposedly “demolish” his findings easily. Someone had to do that for you, and for that you need the credibility of that person. You cant just say the community can easily confront such things. If you do, then that implies the existence of a credible person that did it at some point. To avoid this, you need to use your own logic, and not count on these “supposed” figures like “90% of the scientific community believes this.” Where did that number come from? And even if that number is true, what percent of that 90% were force to believe it due to peer pressure? My point of all this isnt to have you go looking for sources, it is to avoid the need for credibility entirely…do it yourself…
@222
Yeah, kinda. That ending was just something I was thinking of at the time and kinda ended up in there. Mostly Im talking about morality. The point you make is a good one, but then again it is still somewhat thin. Your still forgetting that NOTHING matters in evolution. It doesnt matter what people believe in, we could all believe that we come from a spontaneous combustion out of random rocks. Heh, we could believe that pink unicorn and happy frog story from earlier! It doesnt matter if evolution is indeed true. About the choice, who cares what you think? Thats the point. It doesnt matter if your happy or depressed because of such choices, it makes no difference (in an evolutionist’s world, that is). As for your final comment, from MY perspective (in case you dont get it, this is a hypothetical), you have seen the correct evidence and didnt believe it because you are stubborn. In my book, that would be equivalent to a big, fat FU to God’s face…yeah, if I was God, you can be sure I wouldnt want that happening…
@223
Well, we cant force you to a decision. It is you that decides, and it is quite clear what your decision is, even though your still talking like you have credible backing…Thats all fine and dandy, but dont judge people because of their belief. I think that is rather rude to try and pretend like you know him. You have no idea who he is, or even if its a dude! Thanks for your time, regardless.
And so the discusion continues. Boy this seems to have been a touchy subject. In an earlier post of mine (pg 1) “The trinity wasnt even considered untill 350AD made so by emperial decree of the pagan emperor Constantine.” As for the flood issue: Every time it rains it rains water once held on earth gone to the atmosphere by evaporation. If all H2O were released from the atmosphere at once it would only be enough to cover all land mass by 2 inches. The funny thing would be for someone to travel this in a ship 300 cubits long (whats a cubit) for 40 days without becoming beached. I would assume (unless your God gave it some hovercraft capabilities) Noah would have beached in a very short time.
By the way I’m selling a statue on Staton Island if your interested. LOL
Darth Archon, if you were god you wouldn’t be worth worshipping either.
You ascribe some of the worst human desires to him, petty jealousy for example.
Morality isn’t really gone they way you claim it is. It’s simply not an absolute. There is a difference. Nor is there a lack of meaning, simply a lack of a meaning imposed from outside. There is as much meaning from an evolutionary standpoint as there is from a gravitational one. The claim is meaningless when you consider that morality has nothing to do with science. You are conflating science with naturalism, and nihilism.
Perhaps your world view is more.. comforting, more fulfilling or whatever… I don’t really care. I care if it’s right, and that is the only standards to which I hold it. I also compare it to the similar views expressed by the hundreds of other religious groups in the world, and there is nothing that makes yours stand out from the crowd.
@227 Redem
“You ascribe some of the worst human desires to him, petty jealousy for example.”
Actually it’s the other way around. God ascribes his attributes or ‘desires’ onto humans. As Gen. 1:26-7 tells us God created us in His image. It is man’s fall (sin) that corrupted these attributes/desires within him. For example, we’re jealous out of hate (at least 99% of the time), while God is jealous out of love.
“Morality play”
Certainly relative morality exists but so can absolute morality. Do you personally believe in subjective morality?
Wah:
Well, it doesn’t matter if there are several flood geology models. None is recognized due to the lack of evidence. Damm petty scientists. I don’t need evidence to believe in the flood, I know it in my gut, and thus it’s true!
Same goes for evolution. The total lack of any evidence for creation or ID will never ever allow a paradigm change in biology – well, as I said – because of the scientists petty demand for evidence.
So, as long as the academia uses those stupid evidence based methods (which have yielded virtually every drug from antibiotics to chemotherapy), they will never feel serve GOD. Isn’t that sad? Don’t you think we should do something against that? You folks have already torched down abortion clinics, so why not go for the universities now?
My goodness we’ve reached page three. I think this is a milestone for my TV posts. I encourage more discussions.
@229 Who Cares
Well, I guess you’re not sure at all that there are no peer-reviewed journals. Why make a claim you’re not sure of? Oh, that’s right. It shows your lack of confidence.
“Well, it doesn’t matter if there are several flood geology models. None is recognized due to the lack of evidence. Damm petty scientists. I don’t need evidence to believe in the flood, I know it in my gut, and thus it’s true!”
As a scientist, no duh! As a creationist, if God created the waters then why can’t He cause a flood?
“Same goes for evolution. The total lack of any evidence for creation or ID…”
Are you absolutely sure you don’t need the lack of evidence to reject ID? Maybe what you need is the belief that intelligent design is an untestable religious theory that has no place competing with true empirically based scientific theories in the journals, or the simple lack of inferring design because the implications of their results have not been made clear to you. Is the science that is commonly excluded from the journals excluded because it is not good science or because it is simply out-of-step with the “current teachings of science?”
——————-
“…will never ever allow a paradigm change in biology – well, as I said – because of the scientists petty demand for evidence.”
That wasn’t the case with the transition from geocentricism to heliocentrism. And let me make an educated guess: you’re a biologist?
—————
“So, as long as the academia uses those stupid evidence based methods (which have yielded virtually every drug from antibiotics to chemotherapy), they will never feel serve GOD. Isn’t that sad? Don’t you think we should do something against that? You folks have already torched down abortion clinics, so why not go for the universities now?”
Oh, now you’re accusing me of burning down abortion clinics? Who do you think you’re talking to? A fundamentalist? If you’re so butt hurt about ‘anti-scientists’ who fight on the front-line then you need to leave somewhere political to murmur to extreme zealots. I’m sure they’ll straighten you up pretty good. As for me, on some grounds, admittedly science is an enemy to God but for the most part, it’s an ally, serving to affirm God’s truth, by discovering and learning about the world that God’s given to us, through the scientific method.
*****************
@230 Mr. X
How you’re doing Mr. X?
“Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal”
None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians. And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid. I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.
Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.
Newton believed in alchemy.
And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.
Take that as you will.
@232
“None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians.”
So? Are they still not scientists?
“And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid.”
Maybe I should’ve summarized my ‘thesis’ for you because it seems like you needed to be spoon-fed. My argument was that scientists who believed in ‘creationism’ contributed to science. And that’s PRECISELY what I did. They were scientists. They were creationsists. And they added value to existing knowledge/technology. End of story.
“I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.”
That’s a false dichotomy. You have hundreds, if not thousands, of theists teaching science since science was invented. It appears that you were under the impression that I was attempting to claim that ‘theism’ contributed to ‘biology or science in general’. Ironic. I believe you were the one who charged me to prove how the theistic worldview added value to the scientific worldview. Well, if you actually try reading my comment BOB, you would’ve learned that their theistic worldview was the conceptual framework of their scientific discovery, let alone reason to wake up and smell the roses.
“Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.”
Your point being? Galileo thought the Sun was in the centre of the universe. Either way, they contributed to knowledge/technology in their time, even if their contribution still affects today’s knowledge/technology in one form or another, directly or indirectly.
“Newton believed in alchemy.”
I already knew that as well. Again, what’s your point?
“And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.”
That’s a beautiful, yet futile, statement. What science really is, is that we humans and our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and everything in and around us changes as while Absolute Truth, the world around us, both of which I believe to be the direct creation of God, is unchanging.
“Take that as you will.”
You know what I take it as? I take it as one of the most futile, ignorant, sophistic or poorest attempt at refuting an argument I’ve ever read. Prior to typing this comment, I was thinking that maybe I shouldn’t dignify your answer because it is so low below me and I didn’t see any good reason to ’seek your approval’ by trying to prove to you anything. But I couldn’t resist the opportunity to show everyone how stubborn, ignorant and narcissistic you sound. BTW, judging from the way you spelt ‘centre’, awe yew Brit’esh? Not that I have anything personal against British people. They’re great and interesting people to talk with. I love their accents. It sounds much bet’eh than American in dubbed moovaez.
@232 BOB
“None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians.”
So? Are they still not scientists?
“And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid.”
Maybe I should’ve summarized my ‘thesis’ for you because it seems like you needed to be spoon-fed. My argument was that scientists who believed in ‘creationism’ contributed to science. And that’s PRECISELY what I did. They were scientists. They were creationsists. And they added value to existing knowledge/technology. End of story.
“I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.”
That’s a false dichotomy. You have hundreds, if not thousands, of theists teaching science since science was invented. It appears that you were under the impression that I was attempting to claim that ‘theism’ contributed to ‘biology or science in general’. Ironic. I believe you were the one who charged me to prove how the theistic worldview added value to the scientific worldview. Well, if you actually try reading my comment BOB, you would’ve learned that their theistic worldview was the conceptual framework of their scientific discovery, let alone reason to wake up and smell the roses.
“Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.”
Your point being? Galileo thought the Sun was in the centre of the universe. Either way, they contributed to knowledge/technology in their time, even if their contribution still affects today’s knowledge/technology in one form or another, directly or indirectly.
“Newton believed in alchemy.”
I already knew that as well. Again, what’s your point?
“And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.”
That’s a beautiful, yet futile, statement. What science really is, is that we humans and our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and everything in and around us changes as while Absolute Truth, the world around us, both of which I believe to be the direct creation of God, is unchanging.
“Take that as you will.”
You know what I take it as? I take it as one of the most futile, ignorant, sophistic or poorest attempt at refuting an argument I’ve ever read. Prior to typing this comment, I was thinking that maybe I shouldn’t dignify your answer because it is so low below me and I didn’t see any good reason to ’seek your approval’ by trying to prove to you anything. But I couldn’t resist the opportunity to show everyone how stubborn, ignorant and narcissistic you sound. BTW, judging from the way you spelt ‘centre’, awe yew Brit’esh? Not that I have anything personal against British people. They’re great and interesting people to talk with. I love their accents. It sounds much bet’eh than American in dubbed moovaez.
@232 BOB
“None of those scientists were biologists. They were physicists, chemists and mathmeticians.”
So? Are they still not scientists?
“And while they contributed greatly to their field, it had nothing to do with their belief in creationism and therefore your argument is invalid.”
Maybe I should’ve summarized my ‘thesis’ for you because it seems like you needed to be spoon-fed. My argument was that scientists who believed in ‘creationism’ contributed to science. And that’s PRECISELY what I did. They were scientists. They were creationists. And they added value to existing knowledge/technology. End of story.
“I’ll reiterate, a plumber is good with piping but I wouldn’t hire a plumber to do airconditioner ducting.”
That’s a false dichotomy. You have hundreds, if not thousands, of theists teaching science since science was invented. It appears that you were under the impression that I was attempting to claim that ‘theism’ contributed to ‘biology or science in general’. Ironic. I believe you were the one who charged me to prove how the theistic worldview added value to the scientific worldview. Well, if you actually try reading my comment BOB, you would’ve learned that their theistic worldview was the conceptual framework of their scientific discovery, let alone reason to wake up and smell the roses.
“Copernicus thought the Earth was in the centre of the universe.”
Your point being? Galileo thought the Sun was in the center of the universe. Either way, they contributed to knowledge/technology in their time, even if their contribution still affects today’s knowledge/technology in one form or another, directly or indirectly.
“Newton believed in alchemy.”
I already knew that as well. Again, what’s your point?
“And although they were wrong in certain parts, the beauty of science allows for the rejection of disproven ideas and the acceptance of proven concepts.”
That’s a beautiful, yet futile, statement. Allow me to spin your view to how science appears to me: What science really is, is that we humans and our knowledge and understanding of ourselves and everything in and around us changes while Absolute Truth, the world around us, both of which I believe to be the direct creation of God, is unchanging.
“Take that as you will.”
You know what I take it as? I take it as one of the most futile, ignorant, sophistic or poorest attempt at refuting an argument I’ve ever read. Prior to typing this comment, I was thinking that maybe I shouldn’t dignify your answer because it is soo loow below me and I didn’t see any good reason to ’seek your approval’ by trying to prove to you anything. But I couldn’t resist the opportunity to show everyone how stubborn, ignorant and narcissistic you sound. BTW, judging from the way you spelt ‘centre’, awe yew Brit’esh? Not that I have anything personal against British people. They’re great and interesting people to talk with. I love their accents. It sounds much bet’eh than American in dubbed moovaez.
uhhh… oops. would someone mind deleting the first two comments I accidentally made, including this one?
Wah:
So God gave us the scientific method only to disprove his inspired word? Come on, who would sabotage himself in this manner? Why would he create a perfectly logic universe and then obscure it with outrageous stories? He is not doing a great job in showing himself. No wonder philosophy killed him like 150 years ago. Nobody likes a liar.
You see, the pervasive thing with evolution is: It’s everywhere; in medicine, the natural sciences, humanities, even in those ‘i-am-better-than-you’ social sciences.
All of the drugs you can buy against viruses, bacteria and parasites are based on it. Otherwise we could still cure pneumonia with penicillin.
All drug testing is based on the presumption that the animals we test them on share most of our physiological traits by common evolutionary ancestry. Flu vaccine is freshly prepared every year to provide protection against the newly evolved influence strains of Asia.
So changing the paradigm away from evolution to creationism is kinda impossible, considering any form of life on this planet.
I guess that’s why science, clearly contradicting the scripture, has to be destroyed, hm?
Well, of course not, only a madman would think so.
But not you, as you are clearly not a fundamentalist.
You just believe that God can materialize water, flood the earth for over a month, make the water disappear without leaving any trace and replenish the biosphere with every animal we see today, ressurect all the drowned plants, give the pinguin, the boa and the koala directions how to reach their natural habitat (considering they start their journy at the middle east) and reinstitute mankind from a starting population population of 8.
Yeah, that’s a rational stance.
@237 Who cares
I totally agree.
Creationist believe that god created all living things in 6 days, fully evolved.
But the bible clearly states that Noah gathered 2 of every KIND of animal on the ark (like if that would be a good argument for all the animals fitting on the ark).
One type of cat, one type of bird, one type of pig, one type of goat, one type of dog, one type of bear, one type of moose, one type of monkey, one type of dinosaur etc. That means that after the flood, the animals didn’t only need to get back home on the other side of the earth. They would have had to EVOLVE into every type of cat, bird, pig, goat, dog, bear etc we have today. in 5500 years. WOW.
As for the humans, there where 8 of them on the ark, they also evolved from one geographical race to 9.
I’ve always wondered why God, who is perfect in every way, decides to kill everything and start over… a God who cant do mistakes.
A god who is all-knowing would have known what was coming, actually he must have planed it. Did he then do it only because he enjoys killing on a scale that hitler could only dream of?
A God who is such a prick does now deserve anyone’s worship.
Luckily he doesn’t exist, unfortunately people believe he does, so it doesn’t really matter.
If there ever will be a global catastrophe that wipes out all life on this planet I’m betting my cards on its because people cant agree on who’s invisible friend is the right one.
“Certainly relative morality exists but so can absolute morality. Do you personally believe in subjective morality?”
Relative, rather than subjective. And it’s less a matter of belief than recognition of morality across history.
“As a scientist, no duh! As a creationist, if God created the waters then why can’t He cause a flood?”
It’s not a matter of “could” such a being do it, but did such a being do it. The evidence says no.
Newton and Copernicus are only recognised as scientists by a simplistic view of history. They were student of the universe, certainly, but not scientists as we use the term today. They’re given the title as an honourary term in recognition of their contribution to the development of science.
@Redem (227)
You do realize that is still not a valid answer, right? What did you just tell me? “If it cant be proven with science, it doesnt exist.” Typical evolutionist perspective there. Did you know (Im not doubting that you didnt know, just making a point) that even though we (being humans) have scientifically tried countless times to examine an atom, we have never actually “scientifically proven” what an atom’s basic structure is like? Sure, we can make an educated guess based on what little facts we do know from countless experiments, but it is still only a guess. We are forced to put together raw data and human logic to come to the conclusion that the atom consists of a proton, neutron, and electron in the familiar shape we often see in physics textbooks. Im not saying science didnt play a large part in that conclusion, what I AM saying is that where science stopped, human logic filled in the gaps.
Now, this is but an example of how science cannot prove everything. So, when you turn around and say that what I stated is false simply because it cannot be scientifically proven, you are using this pre-conceived “fallback” to avoid the need to come up with a logical response. I dont want you to tell me, “Thats just the way it is.” Such a response betrays you own belief.
If morality has meaning in evolution……..ya know what? It doesnt! The day morality has meaning in evolution is the day when (for lack of a creative idea that will never happen, sorry Im not very good at thinking of pink unicorn stories…) pigs fly. When looking at morality within an evolutionary perspective, it doesnt exist! According to evolution, we are nothing but mindless animals, so why dont we act like it? And dont tell me it is because we are civilized. What advantage does civilization play in the terms of evolution? Even if human being acted in a way that was only advantageous to themselves, they would still survive and, eventually with evolution being true, would evolve into yet another mindless animal who would continue the process.
As for whether you are right or wrong, if evolution is correct, who cares what you think or whether your right or wrong? You are still, obviously, missing the point by saying such comments. IF you are right, the fact you are trying to “educate” me in your belief is pointless. It doesnt matter what you or I believe, eventually we will both end up dead in the ground (or cremated, but thats not the point…). You waist precious energy trying to disprove me, energy you could be using to pass your genetic material on so that you may be a more “fit” creature. You are betraying your existence by continuing to come back! Yet, here you are, still trying to put up the good fight. Explain that with science!
“What did you just tell me? “If it cant be proven with science, it doesnt exist.””
“If there’s no good evidence for it, there’s no good reason for accepting it.” is how I would have put it.
A typical rational response.
“Did you know (Im not doubting that you didnt know, just making a point) that even though we (being humans) have scientifically tried countless times to examine an atom, we have never actually “scientifically proven” what an atom’s basic structure is like?”
That you even use a term like “scientifically proven” display a lack of understanding of science. Nothing is proven to an absolute sense in science, to the extent that things are “proven”, the structure of an atom has been. That scientists are willing to specify the limits of their knowledge is a damn cite better than the religious community is.
The structure of an atom can be derived from the behaviours of subatomic particles, and from the behaviour of atoms. Both of which have been studied in minute detail over the years by the best particle physicists in the business.
Their conclusions, and the continual mounting evidence for their current model, amounts to a hell of a lot better than a mere “educated guess”.
An educated guess is speculation by someone who has an education on the subject in the absence of any meaningful evidence. The conclusions of the scientific community goes far beyond that.
“We are forced to put together raw data and human logic to come to the conclusion that the atom consists of a proton, neutron, and electron in the familiar shape we often see in physics textbooks.”
Again with the highschool science education. Those diagrams are massive simplifications used to help young students grasp extremely difficult concepts like the structure of atoms. As their education progresses they learn more and more and more complex models are presented to them. Like particles as quantum probability waves, for example. Or DNA as mapping proteins, rather than being a “blueprint” for an organism.
Do not confuse high school science teaching with the real thing.
And what you describe as “human logic” is the human understanding of the rules of the universe. We recognise them, we don’t invent.
You then go on to call asking for evidence as a “fallback”? Is that really how you want to come across? As afraid to actually have to provide evidence? I call your views false because you not only fail to provide ANY valid evidence to support them, but because they contradict much of the evidence that is available. They also are based on the opinions of people who really have no basis for them, priests compiling their oral traditions from bronze age Judea. They’re also internally inconsistent, with multiple accounts differing in some of the details. Mutually incompatible accounts.
Then there is the “arguments” that are raised time and again by creationists to support their cause. Ones regarding the second law of thermodynamics are a person bugbear of mine. Many of them are plain and simply either lies or are based on a total distortion of the science and evidence.
The evolutionary advantage of morality is simple, our entire survival is based on mutual co-operation. Morality is what we call the policing of that cooperation. And it needn’t be advantageous, merely needs not to be lethal for it to survive in the gene pool. This matter is the subject of hundreds of philosophical, socio biological papers. Why pretend it’s as simple as evolution should mean no morality, unless you are really just trying to abuse strawmen?
“As for whether you are right or wrong, if evolution is correct, who cares what you think or whether your right or wrong?”
I care.
And I do not subscribe to nihilism. You present a false dichotomy of either nihilism or fundamentalism. I choose neither.
My explanation for this is simple, I value being right over being content.
@ Velo and Who Cares
The Bible clearly communicates that death comes about as the result of sin. Yet your evolutionary belief absolutely requires death for it’s advancement. But if human death were not God’s judgment on sin, as ‘theistic evolutionists’ would have to maintain, what then did Christ die for? By you clinging to evolutionary dogma, both of you would have to admit that Jesus lied when He claimed to die for your sins. Consequently, the atonement is robbed of all meaning, while the Gospel is hollowed to an empty shell. In your vain attempts to deny Scripture with evolutionary theory, you only wind up shutting yourselves up from God’s Good News, as you remain dead in your sins.
IMHO, the Word of God is law, not theory. While evolution is theory, not law. As a matter of fact, I challenge you both to prove that evolution is a law because it is just a theory in the end.
“Relative as in your morals do not depend on your neighbor’s? Nonetheless, do you personally live by them?”
Relative, as in opinions on what is or is not moral/immoral changes depending on the person asked.
And do I live by what? My morals decision, or those of the people around me?
If the latter, then it depends if they agree with mine.
“If that’s the case, then you must admit that practices such as Dr. Josef Mengele’s human experiments to further the study of medicine during the Jewish Holocaust, the Hindu practice of suttee (burning widows alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands), or the ancient Chinese custom of crippling women for life by tightly binding their feet from childhood to resemble lotus-blossoms, are all morally unobjectionable.”
Nope.
There is no need for me to agree with that whatsoever. All I have said is that there is no absolute morality by which these are judged. That’s doesn’t make them any more immoral to me.
Something absolutists rarely understand,or at least rarely seem to remember.
“That is such a ‘cop-out’ statement.”
As I said, I care about being correct. And my statement was correct. Those men were not scientists. Science, as we use the term today, postdates those men by a large margin. They were natural philosophers.
Nowhere did I say that creationists have not contributed to science. I was merely undermining your attempted appeal to authority
“The Bible clearly communicates that death comes about as the result of sin.”
Only if taken literally. It can be, and is, interpreted in other ways.
“As a matter of fact, I challenge you both to prove that evolution is a law because it is just a theory in the end.”
There are few laws in biology, such terms have mostly been phased out of science, except as an historical anachronism. When it is used it is to describe an aspect of the universe, such as the laws of gravity being little more than a few formulae for calculating the effects of gravitation on bodies of mass. Of course they’re little more than broad generalisations that only work to a useful degree of accuracy in working out orbits and such. And even then they’re a bit iffy.
A theory in science is an explanation of observed phenomenon, a much broader and more expansive beast than a mere law. Theories are the goal towards which scientists work.
So, you need to clarify what you mean. Do you mean a scientific law? Or do you mean to ask us to prove that evolution occurs? Because direct and repeated observations of it in laboratories worldwide would seem good enough for that. Do you mean to ask that we prove the entire evolutionary history of the world is as we currently envision it? That’s a tall order to ask, on a par with asking us to prove the entire history of every molecule on earth, right back to baryogenesis.
As far as anything can be proven outside of mathematics, the theory of evolution has been. Long since.
“Personally, I don’t see any problem in teaching evolution as long as it is taught as a *theory*, nothing more. Students need to understand that theories change.”
last I checked the title of the chapter was “The theory of evolution”. What more clues do you think kids need?
Of course, they also need be taught what a scientific theory is
“In college, when I studied evolution, I recall a professor saying how laughably misguided the Lamarkian theory of evolution is (the idea that organisms can pass on traits they develop to their offspring, e.g. if I work out a lot, my kids will be born with bigger muscles). Then I got to graduate school and found that serious biologists no longer believe in Darwinian evolution, and that Lamark is the next big thing (but now they call it paedoevolution.) Scientific theories are fads that come and go.”
This is a lie. There is no “paedoevolution” fad (google has ONE response for that term, a creationist website), nor is “darwinian evolution” a you put it, being left behind. Probably you are referring to the view that there is a split between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Even though neither of these effects the theory of evolution itself. They’re merely versions of how the emergent complexity of evolution pans out in various circumstances.
As for the paedoevolution thing… the only response from google, was copied into this response… funny that.
http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-109206.html
Wah.
May I destill the wisedom of your annoyingly long posting:
Only what’s in the scriputre is true, not what’s in the real world.
Wah, do you know what an ‘electric monk’ is? Are you one?
“Relative, as in opinions on what is or is not moral/immoral changes depending on the person asked.
And do I live by what? My morals decision, or those of the people around me?
If the latter, then it depends if they agree with mine…”
Both. For the latter, say their morals don’t agree with yours (they do something you think is immoral) as well as your morals don’t agree with their’s (you do something they think is immoral).
“There is no need for me to agree with that whatsoever.”
Apparently, since their morals don’t agree with yours you simply don’t live by their’s because they’re immoral. To whom do you think it’s immoral for?
“All I have said is that there is no absolute morality by which these are judged. That’s doesn’t make them any more immoral to me.”
Do you think there should be one?
“Only if taken literally. It can be, and is, interpreted in other ways.”
AFAIK, and I could be very well be wrong, there is only one literal interpretation for that particular context because it contains a twofold meaning: spiritual and physical death and they both result from sin. Unless there are other interpretations, I’d like to hear them.
“Do you mean a scientific law? Or do you mean to ask us to prove that evolution occurs? Do you mean to ask that we prove the entire evolutionary history of the world is as we currently envision it?”
I mean scientific law in the sense that evolution is more of a (natural) law than a theory, that it is what is observed to happen, without an explanation offered, and that it should be akin to a belief in gravity as both have been observed. By observation, where we can say some living populations of God’s creatures evolve over time.
“This is a lie. There is no “paedoevolution” fad (google has ONE response for that term, a creationist website), nor is “darwinian evolution” a you put it, being left behind. Probably you are referring to the view that there is a split between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Even though neither of these effects the theory of evolution itself. They’re merely versions of how the emergent complexity of evolution pans out in various circumstances.
As for the paedoevolution thing… the only response from google, was copied into this response… funny that.”
I don’t remember exactly how it’s spelled, somewhere along the lines of paleoevolution or….something. I’m not at all referring to the view that the process of evolutionary theories accumulate data over time to reveal better understanding for us about the entire history of Evolution. My point is these evolutionary fads come in and out in community ‘cliques’, as if they are wishy-washy in ‘choosing’ or ‘believing’ which interpretation of the whole of evolution makes the most sense. Kind of like, a ’scientific evolutionary biology’ trend.
@Who Cares
“Only what’s in the scriputre is true, not what’s in the real world.”
Only true if you’re trying to explain away theology about God to a theist. And that’s exactly what you were trying to do. In your attempt to do just that in an area which you obviously lack in, your words became meaningless.
Here’s a phrase that sums up your entire point: “I don’t know what I’m really talking about.”
@Who Cares
And you know what is true in Scripture?
“For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification]” Rom 1:20
“No one understands [no one intelligently discerns or comprehends]; no one seeks out God” Rom 3:11
Wah
Once again, thank you for this pristine example of circular reasoning: Why is scripture true. Because it says so.
Marvellous indeed!
“Depends on the situation. There are no hard and fast rules.”
Think of any law in your local area, city, state/province or country that someone else may disagree on its morality.
“Immoral by my moral values, the only ones I live by. I think I made that clear in my post.”
So it’s wrong for you but not wrong for them?
“Irrelevant question. The question is, is there one?”
So basically what you’re saying is that you don’t impose your morals on anyone as much as they don’t on yours?
“it could be viewed as the garden of eden not being a natural phenomenon, but a spiritual one. With the expulsion from the garden being the expulsion to the physical world from the spiritual one. This coming from the phrase “made in god’s image”. Obviously god doesn’t have a physical form, so it’s not the physical we’re talking about there, but the soul.”
I agree, to a certain extent that it possesses a spiritual, non-corporeal reality to it. It could be viewed as well as a supernatural phenomenon simply because the manifestation of a physical reality is a direct result from God’s personal and intimate interaction with His corporeal creation.
“It is a natural law, but there can be no scientific law for the reasons I already explained. There are theories of gravity as well as laws, both are different things. Laws are simple descriptions, and the theory of evolution, like every other theory, will never be a law. There can be laws and theories about the same subject, but they’re not the same. There is no.. continuum of reliability between laws and theories.
Check it yourself. The various laws in science text books, Hooke’s Law, Boyle’s Law, Newton’s Laws of Motion, all are short, simple descriptions of an aspect of nature. Look at theories, they’re overarching explanations, incorporating other theories and laws in them.”
So you’re saying laws are ‘concrete’ compared to theories as ’speculative’. Are you ascribing evolutionary laws to gravitational laws in terms of both being observed in the same sense as to elevate a natural to a scientific law?
“Now, if you want us to evolve a living group of creatures over time, why is the historical record of the evolution of dogs not good enough? Or of other domesticated animals for that matter.
Or of the plants we use, which is even more dramatic. Or more recently the studies with fruit flies and mice and bacteria and such in laboratories.
We HAVE seen it in action.”
I believe changes over time within populations of organisms has been empirically observed, not to the extent of ape populations changing into human ones, but still to a quantifiable extent. So, to a certain degree, I can see why evolution (as the science of biology defines it – a significant change in the characteristics of a population of organisms over time) is more of a law than “just a theory.” But, again, I question whether or not the entirety of evolution is observed the same way as opposed to gravity, from observation to the creation of a law.
“I’m still not seeing any fads, there are areas of the research that explode at times, like when a new theory is proposed, like punctuated equilibrium.”
I digress to point out that punctuated equilibrium is a form of gradualism.
Redem, you are still avoiding the issue. Your post in response to mine (which is actually the only one I read, Im a little short on time right now…) is blowing what I said WAY WAY WAY out of proportion. You pretty much attacked EVERYTHING I said! That wasnt the point! I didnt bring the atom to the table so that we can bicker about what is right in physics! I wish you would stop doing that! What you seem incapable of noticing is that human logic is necessary to put together all the different evidences we have that the atom is what it is.
Almost your entire response was a bogus use of words which sole purpose it to distort what you are actually saying. Why are you incapable of staying on subject? Stop attacking every single word I say. Your missing the point, which is rather sad. If you cant read my…apparently “highschool” explanation, and get what I intended to say, that is rather pathetic…
Now, to maintain the subject integrity…
Ok…if you are unable to tell the difference between the concrete and the abstract, maybe it is you that belongs in highschool. “Scientific” evidence is unable to (in most situations) support abstract ideas. Morality is an abstract idea…2+2 baby! Cmon, simply saying that science can support EVERYTHING is a simple minded person’s “quick way out.”
“An educated guess is speculation by someone who has an education on the subject in the absence of any meaningful evidence.”
HAH! Yet another bloated statement to make you sound intelligent. Maybe I should have used the term “educated opinion”. While they both mean the same thing (and yes, they do both mean the same thing), the word “opinion” seems to be more clear. An “educated opinion” is when you cannot come to a solid conclusion, and therefore, need to pool what knowledge you DO have together and connect the dots using your good ole’ brain…It is VERY possible that the ending conclusion to such a thing could be false. Actually, thats all Im gunna say bout that cause this is just an unnecessary tangent…
“You then go on to call asking for evidence as a “fallback”? Is that really how you want to come across? As afraid to actually have to provide evidence? I call your views false because you not only fail to provide ANY valid evidence to support them, but because they contradict much of the evidence that is available.”
Yeah, go ahead and tell yourself that…Yet again, you seem a master at skewing other people’s words for your own ends…You made a stupid, illogical response that if it isnt science, it isnt evidence and I said you were using a useless “fallback”. Your asking for concrete evidence to support an abstract idea. Yet again, I think it is you that needs to go back to highschool…I provided a perfectly logical idea that you fail to address merely because there is no science involved. I swear, that sounds like “fallback” to me…
“The evolutionary advantage of morality is simple, our entire survival is based on mutual co-operation. Morality is what we call the policing of that cooperation. And it needn’t be advantageous, merely needs not to be lethal for it to survive in the gene pool. This matter is the subject of hundreds of philosophical, socio biological papers. Why pretend it’s as simple as evolution should mean no morality”
You are still conveniently missing the point of my ENTIRE argument. First off, at what point in the evolution of apes did it become wrong to do such things like murder? After all, morality is useless if it means your competition will get that banana unless you kill him for it…His murder over your starvation, which is right? In animals, it is perfectly acceptable to kill him to prevent yourself from starving. Not the case in humans. Second, if it isnt advantageous, why on earth would you do it?! Besides, both paths (morality vs immorality) come to the same conclusion, your survival. For the longest time, immorality ruled. Humans decided to do it differently for no apparent reason, according to you…And third, why should I pretend it is as simple as evolution having no morality? Because it is true! You fail to give me evidence to support your apparently complex claim…why should I believe anything but what the evidence tells me (taken right from you…)?!
“My explanation for this is simple, I value being right over being content.”
Swing and a miss…What advantage over me does being right serve to you? You can say your right, I guess. In the end, (and this is spoken as though from an evolutionary perspective) the only thing that matters is 1) your survival and 2) your passing on of your genetic material for future generations to enjoy. Proving whether your right or wrong serves no purpose, advantageous or otherwise. So why would it matter SO much to you. It does matter to you, obviously. Dont try and debunk that. Instead, focus on the issue at hand, please? Im not giving you a dichotomy choice, I am simply pointing out an error in your logic.
@250 Who Cares
“Once again, thank you for this pristine example of circular reasoning: Why is scripture true. Because it says so.
Marvellous indeed!”
I don’t think you seem to understand my point of view. Obviously, I’ve made an attempt to see your side but instead attack my beliefs simply because it is different from yours. I believe that science is not the ‘be-all-end-all’ of explaining everything and all things as opposed to it being one of the many ways to understand things.
From a scientific-biological POV, it is logically impossible to rationally *comprehend* things concerning spirituality, moral/absolute truth (in the sense that it doesn’t recognizes its existence), religious theology, history, dynamic human interpersonal relationships, artistic forms of literature, vocal/instrumental music, etc. Things of that nature are simply beyond its reach/grasp. For any science-biologists to attempt to apprehend such things is doomed to failure.
Likewise, Scripture does not teach you differential calculus, Internet web surfing, automotive construction, things of that nature. So for a Biblical theist to try to apprehend them from a theological perspective is simply silly.
Are there other ways to understand reality other than Scriptural and biological views? I certainly believe so. There’s mythological ways, historical ways, literary ways, economical and political ways, financial ways, etc. You get my point.
Can I understand reality from a scientific-biological and Scriptural-spiritual POV? Yes. It appears to me that you’ve either failed to open your mind to a new perspective of understanding reality as we know it to be OR, instead, insisted upon to stay within your comfort zone to believe, no, just consider, that the reality we live in cannot be apprehended from a perspective simply foreign to your way of thinking.
Consider the following biblical verses that show us that even though God revealed Himself to us through our reality (or rather the ‘one’ He put us in), we have failed to become ’spiritually aware’ due to the hardness of our hearts.
“For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.” Romans 1:19
“Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and [c]godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves]. And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.” Romans 1:21-23
@ Redem
“Now, to maintain the subject integrity…
Ok…if you are unable to tell the difference between the concrete and the abstract, maybe it is you that belongs in highschool. “Scientific” evidence is unable to (in most situations) support abstract ideas. Morality is an abstract idea…2+2 baby! Cmon, simply saying that science can support EVERYTHING is a simple minded person’s “quick way out.””
I think you may be having difficulty understanding morality outside of the scientific-evolutionary perspective. That there are ways to understand morality other than evolutionary-biology. I think you should try to see it from Darth’s POV, if you possibly can.
@ Darth Arcon
“Swing and a miss…What advantage over me does being right serve to you? You can say your right, I guess. In the end, (and this is spoken as though from an evolutionary perspective) the only thing that matters is 1) your survival and 2) your passing on of your genetic material for future generations to enjoy. Proving whether your right or wrong serves no purpose, advantageous or otherwise. So why would it matter SO much to you. It does matter to you, obviously. Dont try and debunk that. Instead, focus on the issue at hand, please? Im not giving you a dichotomy choice, I am simply pointing out an error in your logic.”
I agree!
Redem, it could be that the way you live isn’t in character to what you believe. You value your morals highly. But that value certainly comes from yourself, whom I think is more valuable than an ape. Sure apes are valuable but not as we are. I just think if you attribute yourself as evolutionary-biological creatures comparable to an ape, then your values are ultimately brought down to that of them, despite how valuable you believe yourself to be or how much you value being right over wrong.
@Who cares
I forgot to mention that in Romans 1:19; 21-23, Paul was addressing the Gentiles with a natural revelation view. The Greeks held natural philosophy that ‘generally’ rejected religious explanations for natural phenomena, favoring physical explanations instead, but it’s arguable that they may have included theological elements)
“So it’s wrong for you but not wrong for them?”
Not what I said. I said, I think it’s wrong, even if they don’t. You can’t pin it down as objectively moral or immoral when the only arbiter is your opinion.
“So basically what you’re saying is that you don’t impose your morals on anyone as much as they don’t on yours?”
No. Although it is essentially correct in that I don’t.
“So you’re saying laws are ‘concrete’ compared to theories as ’speculative’. Are you ascribing evolutionary laws to gravitational laws in terms of both being observed in the same sense as to elevate a natural to a scientific law?”
No. Laws are basic descriptions. They don’t have to be accurate or reliable, just useful.
F=GmM/(r^2)
It’s not correct, but it’s good enough to be useful.
Laws are simple things, and not really much used in science.
Theories are the explanations for how things work, which is the entire goal of science.
And I made mention of the laws fo gravity to bring attention to what a law is in science. A law of evolution would be something like this “Things evolve”
Pointless.
True, but still pointless.
“I believe changes over time within populations of organisms has been empirically observed, not to the extent of ape populations changing into human ones, but still to a quantifiable extent. So, to a certain degree, I can see why evolution (as the science of biology defines it – a significant change in the characteristics of a population of organisms over time) is more of a law than “just a theory.” But, again, I question whether or not the entirety of evolution is observed the same way as opposed to gravity, from observation to the creation of a law.”
Direct observations from apes to humans, no. We use the fossil record and genetic and anatomical and biochemical and behavioural evidences to infer that based on the knowledge that things do evolve.
And trust me, the theory of evolution is far better supported than any current theory of gravity.
Although, to be fair, there are a couple of theories of gravity and none really work all that well. Loop quantum gravity’s looking good at the moment, but who knows? We haven’t even found the graviton yet.
“I digress to point out that punctuated equilibrium is a form of gradualism.”
Not as I understand it. Or as wiki understands it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Punctuatedequilibrium.png
Essentially it argues that sudden rapid bursts of differentiation occur, and not the smooth slow process that gradualism points to.
@257 Redem
“I said,”
AFAIKS, you never said.
“I think it’s wrong, even if they don’t.”
IOW, you’re not absolutely sure it’s wrong, just relatively sure?
“You can’t pin it down as objectively moral or immoral when the only arbiter is your opinion.”
Only when the only arbiter is your opinion? So how many opinions will it take to pin it down?
“No. Although it is essentially correct in that I don’t.”
What about accountability?
“No. Laws are basic descriptions. They don’t have to be accurate or reliable, just useful.
F=GmM/(r^2)
It’s not correct, but it’s good enough to be useful.
Laws are simple things, and not really much used in science.”
I find many evolutionists, at least ‘hyper-evolutionists’, believe evolution is more of a scientific law than a theory. That, again, it should be akin to belief in gravity because both have been observed. On some level, what do you think of the idea that evolution is a scientific law – that some claim it is just what is observed to happen, without an explanation offered?
“Theories are the explanations for how things work, which is the entire goal of science.”
I would even go far as to educationally guess that your claim would be that evolution is based on luck not adaptation.
“And I made mention of the laws fo gravity to bring attention to what a law is in science. A law of evolution would be something like this “Things evolve”
Pointless.
True, but still pointless.”
In a nutshell, you believe evolution is a natural law (like gravity)??
“Essentially it argues that sudden rapid bursts of differentiation occur, and not the smooth slow process that gradualism points to.”
Wasn’t that theory simply made up just to cover up the the gradualistic evidence?
“You pretty much attacked EVERYTHING I said! That wasnt the point! I didnt bring the atom to the table so that we can bicker about what is right in physics! I wish you would stop doing that! What you seem incapable of noticing is that human logic is necessary to put together all the different evidences we have that the atom is what it is.”
The point I was making is that simplistic models taught to students are not representative of the actual science done by scientists. It’s a simplified story for kids to help them learn. Attacking a simplified model of evolution is not making your argument any better.
Yes, “human logic” is needed to piece together the evidence. But if you are going to sit here and say that the universe doesn’t really work in a way that science can study, and that we’re just deluding ourselves when we study it as if it were rational… You have a hell of a job supporting that claim. The sheer effectiveness of science is testament to the efficacy of the scientific method and “human logic”.
“Why are you incapable of staying on subject?”
It’s called a comparison
“Ok…if you are unable to tell the difference between the concrete and the abstract, maybe it is you that belongs in highschool.”
Oh I can recognise the difference, I just insist on making it plain, rather than leaving it open to interpretation. My use of language is overly precise for that reason.
““Scientific” evidence is unable to (in most situations) support abstract ideas. Morality is an abstract idea…2+2 baby! Cmon, simply saying that science can support EVERYTHING is a simple minded person’s “quick way out.””
I did not say science can support everything. Scientific evidence is empirical by it’s nature, and can only support anything that is of the “natural” world. Abstractions are not. However, evolution is of the natural world, and can be supported, which is the topic under discussion.
Besides, morality can be studied, if not in the usual “hard science” kinda way. Psychology, one of the soft sciences, deals with that. Socio-biology, I think, to be specific.
“HAH! Yet another bloated statement to make you sound intelligent.”
No, an attempt to accurately define the term. Definitions are important to any debate.
If you disagree with it present a better one, or point out te problems with the one I used.
“It is VERY possible that the ending conclusion to such a thing could be false.”
Yes. But the best conclusion made with all the avilable evidence is still the best conclusion made with all the available evidence.
Right now that would be the theory of evolution.
A theory that’s been wrung through the wronger for over a hundred years by people who cannot abide by it, it’s survived everything they’ve tried to use to disprove it. That is the true test of any theory.
“You made a stupid, illogical response that if it isnt science, it isnt evidence and I said you were using a useless “fallback”.”
Actually I said if there wasn’t evidence it wasn’t science. A very different thing. And a very proper statement to make.
“Your asking for concrete evidence to support an abstract idea. Yet again, I think it is you that needs to go back to highschool…I provided a perfectly logical idea that you fail to address merely because there is no science involved. I swear, that sounds like “fallback” to me…”
I am asking for evidence to support your claim that
a) The theory of evolution is flawed.
b) Your alternative history of life on earth is valid
c) And that your religion is historically supprotable.
This is not so much a fallback as the initial stages of studying any claim. Assessing the evidence.
“You are still conveniently missing the point of my ENTIRE argument.”
I get your point, but you seem to be so locked into a black and white world fo false dichotomies that you fail to comprehend my responses.
“First off, at what point in the evolution of apes did it become wrong to do such things like murder? After all, morality is useless if it means your competition will get that banana unless you kill him for it…His murder over your starvation, which is right? In animals, it is perfectly acceptable to kill him to prevent yourself from starving. Not the case in humans.”
Here for example. You seem to demand a point at which apes flip from lacking morality, to posessing morality. The answer is, no such point exists. Modern apes have morality as much as we do.
It is not socially acceptable for them to asteal from one another, so they don’t, unless they have to or think they can get away with it. Humans are exactly the same. We won’t kill someone unless we think we can get away with it, or feel we must.
Their interactions are simply far less sophisticated than outs.
I doubt there is any single point in history you can point to as a flipping point, because such things are not a black and white issue.
“Second, if it isnt advantageous, why on earth would you do it?!”
As a side effect of something else which is advantageous.
“For the longest time, immorality ruled.”
Only by modern standards. Your bible is proof of that. Read the old testament, of how your deity instructed the Israelites to treat their neighbours.
“Humans decided to do it differently for no apparent reason, according to you…”
I do not recall saying this. In fact, nothing like this.
“And third, why should I pretend it is as simple as evolution having no morality? Because it is true! You fail to give me evidence to support your apparently complex claim…why should I believe anything but what the evidence tells me (taken right from you…)?!”
Evolution has no more or less morality than any other force of nature. If your claim is that evolution cannot account for morality, this is false. Morality is simply self interest afterall.
If it’s something else, make it clear so we can discuss it.
“Swing and a miss…What advantage over me does being right serve to you? You can say your right, I guess. In the end, (and this is spoken as though from an evolutionary perspective) the only thing that matters is 1) your survival and 2) your passing on of your genetic material for future generations to enjoy. Proving whether your right or wrong serves no purpose, advantageous or otherwise. So why would it matter SO much to you. It does matter to you, obviously. Dont try and debunk that. Instead, focus on the issue at hand, please? Im not giving you a dichotomy choice, I am simply pointing out an error in your logic.”
Hardly an error in logic.
Simply put, being able to understand the universe around us correctly has massively increased the survival and reproductive chances of humanity. That is why the drive to be correct in such matters exists in people, because it is an advantage.
“IOW, you’re not absolutely sure it’s wrong, just relatively sure?”
Those are external terms, not internal ones. If you see what I mean.
They cannot be applied from inside the situation under discussion. At least, not without changeing their meaning.
“So how many opinions will it take to pin it down?”
It cannot be done, it’s not a matter of a vote on the subject.
“What about accountability?”
What about it?
“I find many evolutionists, at least ‘hyper-evolutionists’, believe evolution is more of a scientific law than a theory. That, again, it should be akin to belief in gravity because both have been observed. On some level, what do you think of the idea that evolution is a scientific law – that some claim it is just what is observed to happen, without an explanation offered?”
On that level it is not really all that interesting. The theory though, that’s an area for study. The results of which will be life changeing for us all.
“I would even go far as to educationally guess that your claim would be that evolution is based on luck not adaptation.”
Adaption is based on luck, to a degree. No matter how well suited an organism is to survive, it can still be removed by a stray rock falling off a cliff. But evolution is not a matter for luck in and off itself. Luck applies to the individuals involved, not the overall process.
“In a nutshell, you believe evolution is a natural law (like gravity)??”
In an archaic sense that scientific laws are meant to be the “natural laws of the unvierse”. How it works, that kinda thing. Yes, it would sorta fit. But modern terminology has moved on, and wouldn’t fit with that today.
“Wasn’t that theory simply made up just to cover up the the gradualistic evidence?”
Cover up? Errr… no?
It was based on the idea that competition could drop for a time, and allowing rapid and wide ranging changes, before biodiversity caught up with itself and the usual competition began the efficiency drives.
Things like mass extinctions, even local ones. Or a new mutation that allows one species to become a “super-predator” and hunt everything into extinction, and then starve, opening up a huge array of niches for other species to evolve into without competition from occupants already in the niche. Or a new mutation that allowed the utilisation of a previously unused energy source.
Things of that nature.
Basically, in periods of lowered competition efficiency is less important, and diversity increases rapidly. When competition increases again, that diversity is often culled back severely.
@259 Redem
“Here for example. You seem to demand a point at which apes flip from lacking morality, to posessing morality. The answer is, no such point exists. Modern apes have morality as much as we do.
It is not socially acceptable for them to asteal from one another, so they don’t, unless they have to or think they can get away with it. Humans are exactly the same. We won’t kill someone unless we think we can get away with it, or feel we must.
Their interactions are simply far less sophisticated than outs.
I doubt there is any single point in history you can point to as a flipping point, because such things are not a black and white issue.”
That’s an interesting viewpoint. However, IMO, I think what distinguishes us from primates and all other life on Earth is we are conscientiously aware of our immoral acts. We all have the primal instincts to survive and reproduce but while our immoral acts are driven by our logical/rational/thinking and emotional parts of the brain, their immoral acts are driven by the physical/involuntary/impulsive parts of their brain. Although they appear to commit immoral acts from their emotional and logical parts of the brain, their behavior is only conditioned in whatever environment they are in, even if they pass their behavioral patterns to the next generation. Basically, they don’t universally know right from wrong because they merely act on what was programmed into their brains or whatever ‘ethics’ was raised or conditioned into their behavior. Simply put, they are not consciously aware of moral ‘trends’ or ‘fads’. Rather, they act on the basis of what works best for them in a given situation, according to pre-programmed instincts or conditioned environment. Wild or domestic.
“Only by modern standards. Your bible is proof of that. Read the old testament, of how your deity instructed the Israelites to treat their neighbours.”
It may appear to you that way but it seems to me that by God’s standard, at least according to Scripture, sin ‘ruled’ ever since ‘Man’s Fall’. So it is not only by modern standards but also by God’s standard that immorality has ruled for a long time, in fact far too long. First, God punished the Israelites for their disobedience before anyone else. There was no other way for the Israelites, or mankind for that matter, to receive God’s timely message of redemption without His direct intervention into a world that was already rampant with immorality. Although the issue of God’s accountability is a whole different matter, while God doesn’t condone the immoral acts that the Israelites committed to their neighbors on behalf of His instructions to do so, God used them for a greater higher purpose; which is to show them the rewards and consequences of their obedience and disobedience to God, the consequences of their neighbors’ rebellion to Him and how He relationally deals with His own people personally, directly and intimately. Ultimately, one of the major themes of the entire OT serve as an example of how God deals with all mankind through time and space from an individual to a ‘cosmic’ level. FYI, according to the OT stories, all of the Israelite’s neighbors’ ‘harsh treatment’ by the Israelites were a direct result of either committing idolatry against God or in co-rebellion with particular disobedient Israelites themselves.
#203 if recording was aviable back then I’m sure we’d have a lot more to show about what the stupid religious did to people in the middle age and even before.
so showing off an obviously christian made movie about communists saying all atheists are communists is really low and stupid. oh wait your IQ must not be over 90 to believe that there is somebody somewhere that threw us up on heart long ago… I forgot my bad.
I’m not atheist, I just don’t believe there is somebody that “lead” our lives and all the crap that happen to mankind is because of redemption. go say to the kids in Africa that die from famine and other wild diseases that it’s because of some god they don’t even know will. They die because of human stupidity and greed. that includes you stupid religious.
I forgot warez is against your religion.. what are you doing here?
@lol
“I’m not atheist.”
Of course not, you’re just a bigot.
“I forgot warez is against your religion..
Personally, only if it’s morally stealing. Isn’t it against YOUR own conscience?
“what are you doing here?”
Politely asking a hypocritical troll to ’shoo! shoo!’
Yo, wah.
I have to apologize. After thorough internet search I finally found the christian reseach I argued before didn’t exist.
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/applied-creation-science.php
I bow my head in shame.
@268 Who Cares
LOL. That’s a good laugh. Somehow that website seems awfully familiar. I think I visited it a long time ago with the exact same news headings, only changed is the date and maybe the letter. That webpage is obviously made to be a joke and shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone, period, unless their extreme fundamentalists. Who cares.
You’ve got to find a better day-job seriously. What point you’re trying to get at besides being an ass? Next thing we’ll find breaking news: Christians are doing human experiments to biologically and surgically remove sin out of the human soul.
@Redem
“Yes, “human logic” is needed to piece together the evidence…”
I never said science was awful and we shouldnt use it just because it may end up proving myself wrong. Far from it, I love science! BUT, human logic plays a VERY large part in the results. Without logic, science ends up just displaying simple facts. For instance, (I am going back to the atom thing, dont flame me for it again…) the experiment that shot subatomic partials through a thin sheet of gold (I cant remember what that experiment is called) didnt prove that an atom is composed of mostly empty space, it just proved that you can shoot subatomic particles through a sheet of gold! Human logic is what ended up resulting in the conclusion that most of an atom is empty space. Did science not play a role in that conclusion? Absolutely not! Did human logic play a large part in it? Absolutely!
“I did not say science can support everything…”
Wait! The entire reason I said what I said was because you were saying my hypothetical situation was false simply because it lacked scientific evidence…Hmm…I kinda lost my train of thought…
“Right now that would be the theory of evolution.
A theory that’s been wrung through the wronger for over a hundred years by people who cannot abide by it, it’s survived everything they’ve tried to use to disprove it. That is the true test of any theory.”
First off, what I said was just a way to show human logic was necessary in science. Second, what you just said has a lot more meaning then what you think it does. No, there has never been enough evidence to prove evolution wrong. Look at it this way, though: There has also never been enough evidence to prove ID wrong…hmm…..analyzing the situation further, an earlier comment made was that you cannot prove a negative wrong (I think that is what I remember). IF evolution is true, there is no way to prove ID wrong. IF ID is true, there is no way to prove evolution wrong…makes you think…It is all based on perspectives, I guess. How do you convince somebody that your worldview is better? Its impossible! It doesnt matter how much evidence either of us throws out, the other person will always find something wrong with it because it does not agree with their worldview. Yet, if the entire purpose of that evidence is to change the person’s worldview…that doesnt work, does it? You modify the evidence to agree with your worldview, but the evidence is there to change your worldview…hmm…I am overanalyzing this…Im going to stop now…
“I am asking for evidence to support your claim that
a) The theory of evolution is flawed.
b) Your alternative history of life on earth is valid
c) And that your religion is historically supprotable.”
Very well.
a)The fact that youre trying to convince me evolution is true even though that doing so has no point…or…the inability for evolution to explain morality (the discussion as to whether either of these statements is true is continued below…)
b)Morality is based on absolute truth, everything is right or wrong based on some predefined…thing (I dont think the word Im looking for exists…)
c)I cant do that, mainly because history is not one of my strong points. I guess my purpose is only to get you through “a” and “b”. Getting you through “c” is better left in the hands of people more capable of doing so than I
“Here for example. You seem to demand a point at which apes flip from lacking morality, to posessing morality. The answer is, no such point exists. Modern apes have morality as much as we do.
It is not socially acceptable for them to asteal from one another, so they don’t, unless they have to or think they can get away with it. Humans are exactly the same. We won’t kill someone unless we think we can get away with it, or feel we must.
Their interactions are simply far less sophisticated than outs.”
Modern apes have a social system, not necessarily morality. Say one ape does kill another. There is no judgement from the rest of the ape’s society against its acts. It is not condemed to spend life in prison (or the “less sophisticated” “banished”) because it chose to kill. You are right in the fact that apes dont kill unless necessary. But when it IS necessary to do so, there is no hesetation. They dont “think they can get away with it.” There is no “getting away with it” because there are no consiquences to its actions. Humans, on the other hand, have, for some reason, set up a system where crime is punished.
Plus, you need to realize that morality is not “black and white”. You also need to account for little things like why a person feels a sense of guilt if they do something wrong. If a human kills another human, they feel guilty (it is possible to numb this feeling with repetition of the act, that is not the point). If an ape kills another ape, there is no guilt whatsoever. That ape continues on the way it had. That human is either caught and sentenced to life in prison, or has to live out the rest of its life knowing that it took the life of another individual. Even if taking the person’s life was necessary to its survival, the killer would still feel guilty. If evolution has morality, guilt wouldnt exist. Am I saying that because of the result of a dichonomy? No. I am saying that because guilt has no place in an evolutionist’s morality. It is a feeling that would have never developed because it serves no purpose. Evolution is adapting to changing conditions (which apparently also means the creature changed into a different species, though that isnt the conclusion Id come to). If apes dont need guilt to prevent them from killing each other, why would humans?
“Simply put, being able to understand the universe around us correctly has massively increased the survival and reproductive chances of humanity. That is why the drive to be correct in such matters exists in people, because it is an advantage.”
That is true. The drive to be correct is advantageous to the survival of the species. However, in this particular situation, that fact doesnt apply. You being right about evolution does not help you survive. While being correct overall would serve a purpose, being right in this situation does not. And even though you have the drive to be right all the time, if being right here doesnt matter, why would you continue trying to be right? You know for a fact that your correctness (I think there is a word for this, but I cant remember…) here does not help you. Therefore, your continued spending of energy in this is a waist and should, therefore, be abandoned…Best to put that energy to good use as medical research or reproduction…
“I am asking for evidence to support your claim that
c) And that your religion is historically supprotable.”
As in the historical events of the religion itself? or the historicity of the bible?
@250 Who Cares
“Once again, thank you for this pristine example of circular reasoning: Why is scripture true. Because it says so.
Marvellous indeed!”
That’s absurd! That’s like saying you can’t prove that the President Bush lives in the White House by looking into the White House. It is looking into the White House that will provide the necessary proof. The fulfilled prophecies and the consistency of its messages through various historical events of the Bible prove it to be the Word of God. They provide evidence that it is supernatural in origin.
Very interesting documentary. It paints almost disturbing picture of today’s America.
I was not aware that their educational system is that much lacking.
Anyway, or, at least, courts are still doing their job.
“the inability for evolution to explain morality”
How about the inability to just research before saying something that is simply not true? Tell me, if i explain you how morality derives from an evolutionary biological frame will you stop using this argument?
Because if i do it and you continue using it 5 minutes later i’m not even going to bother because that would just demonstrate an argument like this cannot move foward since you creationists have some sort of selective blindness and use the same arguments over and over after being proven wrong.
The information on this must be some 40 years old but still you keep on going. It’s ridiculous really.
Yes or no, will you stop using this argument if i can demonstrate how “morality” rises in an evolutionary frame?
@COsta200
so how’s the search for the ‘missing’ links is going?
@ Wah
“missing links”:
http://www.livescience.com/health/top10_missinglinks.html
Press “start here”.
What next? You are going to ask for missing links between missing links… hehehe.
Seriously now. If you creationists actually studied up on the fossils found you would know that we have the stuff between fish and amphibian, amphibian and reptil, reptil and mammals, reptil and birds… Regarding plants we have the the whole kingdom’s evolutionary development pretty much exposed too, from algae to Angiosperms…
What the hell more do you want? Seriously, that argument about missing links has been completely destroyed decades ago and you still bring it over the table? Modern science has no new questions to answer by creationists, it is you who keep making the same questions over and over again like its something new that needs to be adressed. This is the internet age. Google it up godamnit, how hard can it be?
And i see you evaded my question. If i explain to you how morality derives from an evolutionary biological frame will you stop using this argument?
Of course, us zealous creationists use the same stuff over and over. Yet, I see you evolutionists use the same stuff as well. For instance, Ive heard that pathetic conundrum about limiting the unlimited countless times before, and even though (from my perspective) I have proven it wrong just as many times as it has been thrown at me, it is still used. Why is this? It is all a matter of perspectives.
From my perspective, I look at that argument as a thin attack on what I believe, so I go ahead and show why it is lacking. You view it as absolute evidence to prove your belief true. Since that is your mindset going into the debate, any lack of insight I show you will automatically be regarded as a lunatic’s mindless rambles…It can also happen in the opposite manner, where I am the one attacking and you are the one pointing out the lacking.
Because it is true, it doesnt matter what you tell me as to why evolution lacks morality, I WILL find something wrong with it (from my perspective). And it doesnt matter what I tell you as to how to explain a limitless being creating a limit on itself, you WILL find something wrong with it.
This fact remains in any debate, when both parties believe they are right. The original intent of the debate is to “enlighten” the other side with whatever facts they find. I knew from the beginning that this was impossible, yet I persisted. Call it a “fool’s hope”, if you will.
Go ahead, try to enlighten me with your findings, Costa. But I am really starting to lose interest in this debate. A debate trying to convince some unbiased person, yet an unbias person doesnt exist. There is a conundrum in merely debating that both of us cant really explain.
Ill come back on, read whatever your response is to this. Ill probably even post a response, but I cannot see a point in continuing to debate without a possible goal in sight. I am curious to see what you have to disprove my morality claim, though. I will be coming back, at least once.
A short answer to your question, Costa: yes, if your findings disprove my morality claim AND I cannot give a logical response to debunk it, I will drop it. I highly doubt this is possible, though. I am a bias person, after all. Chances are, I will see error in your logic (at least, from my perspective)…
Can’t the narrow minded fundamental christian Americans have their own board, so the rest of the board doesn’t get annoyed?
Thank god that there are also normal people living in the US.
@costa200
First of all, I do not appreciate your overall tone of language, ok? (Romans 2:15). While I’m not any more better than you are, you should know that you just broke two of God’s commandment (Romans 1:19-21): Using God’s name in vain ( and murder (at least according to Matthew 5:20-22). (Romans 7:12-13)
Second, it was Darth Arcon, not me, who was arguing against how morality derives from an evolutionary biological frame. In fact, IMO, evolutionary biology can logically explain morality, but not able to find ‘moral truth’ due to the ‘observatory view’ of which evolutionary-biology uses.
3. The discovery of Lucy was amazing! But now nearly all experts today agree that Lucy was just a skeleton of a 3 foot tall chimpanzee, though placed as the last ancestor common to humans and chimpanzees living from 3.9 to 3 million years ago and functionally common with humans in bipedality.
4. “Nebraska man” Hesperopithecus haroldcookii). They created a whole skeleton using the hands, feet, face, legs, everything, when all they had was one tooth, which later was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
5. “Piltdown man” (Eoanthhropus dawsoni) The jaw bone turned out to be the jawbone of a modern ape.
6. “Neanderthal Man” (Homo neanderthalensis), whose famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago was that of an old man who suffered from arthritis. Hardly scientific proof.
Here’s what Harvard University Professor Stephen Jay Gould has to say about fossil records: the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as the trade secret of palientology..”
Finally, I believe in transitional species because we’ve found them for other species but we haven’t found all of them. It’s like a picture puzzle missing the most important pieces. But without them, the picture, although we know it’s there and real and merely missing the pieces, is really incomplete, it’s not really a whole picture. As we all know, the biggest problem in the theory of evolution is the big gap in the fossil record. IOW, when archaeologists dig up these bones, they find the transitional forms that help one animal transform to another animal. And if you can’t find those bones you can’t prove evolution ever happened in that sense (not that I doubt the existence of the whole of evolution.) That’s what you call the missing link. And there can’t be just one – there would have to be thousands and thousands of transitional forms. And until all pieces are actually found:
A. evolution is just pure speculation, but a very good one that makes a lot of sense, I admit.
B. such theory will never be fully solidified.
What I think we disagree at this point is that for you it’s just matter of “when” as opposed to me it’s a matter of “if” the pieces will be found.
Moreover, one thing that limits the intelligence of apes is their inability to reason, to invent, or to appreciate the sound of music. You see you don’t get orangutans forming themselves into an orchestra. You don’t get themselves forming into a court system to meet out justice for the other creatures. IMHO, this isn’t the case where they’re prehistoric man less evolved than us but it’s because he’s another species.
We’ve all seen in high school the pictures from apes to humans. But those are just pictures. And we know that humans and apes have similar hands and feet and facial expressions that we both can do physically but is that proof that humans evolved from apes? No, not at all.
Think of it like this: picture a small bi-plane and a jumbo 747 jet. They’re both very similar. After all they have co_ckpits, engine, seats, wings, etc. But does that mean the 747 evolved from the plane? Not at all. It just means they have a common designer. The designer used a similar blueprint for each one and the same with us and apes. God the Creator of the world and the universe (Romans 1:20), is our common designer. He simply used the same blueprint when creating the hands and feet and facial expressions of men and apes.
The real proof, however as you already know, are the fossil records, aka “missing link”, the actual proof. In reality, this is what you actually have: you and the monkey, apes and humans. The “supposed” transitional forms are the “missing links” for this case. But, IMHO, the transitional links probably don’t really exist, they’re just in the minds of the scientists who want to justify their theory.
And we’re all continually told that primates are our ‘relatives’ but airliners will refuse to let them on board to fly with us alongside in the cabin. Personally, I would like to fly alongside with primates (preferably a monkey or chimpanzee) because they’re so cute sitting beside you just chilling, as long as they’re in a relaxed mood, but the airliner workers tell me that they need to be transported to a cargo hold instead, even though universities teach me that we’re all related to primates. The airline bookie chuckles. Funny that.
Also, a note to the moderator and website master: I find it unconstitutional that we are censored to use the word “co_ckpit” on this board. As I had to insert the underscore between “o” and “c”.
Oh wait, nevermind, the internet is international so there’s no “constitutional rights” or “censorship” laws, is there? Seriously, I’m not sure if that kind of jurisdiction belongs on the web.
“About braking commandments i really do not care one bit as, and this may be a shock to you, the bible is just paper and doesn’t even hold judicial power anywere.”
Well if you didn’t really care then you wouldn’t have mentioned it at all now wouldja?
“That bad habit of thinking your rules apply to everyone”
It doesn’t. God’s does. (Romans 3:19-20)
“keep quoting with biblical reference annoys the hell out people”
Then they’re doing it’s job, unless you want to hear the Gospel?
“I actually know what mean by those references of self righteousness”
So do you consider yourself a good person??
“Moral truth? You cannot explain what doesn’t exist.”
The commandments aren’t moral truth. it shows it. Romans 3:23
“The simple fact humanity disagrees on almost all moral guidelines”
Humanity knows we can’t live up to God’s standards so we make up our own standards,(Romans 1:25) thinking we are good enough and that it makes us right before God. (Isaiah 64:5)
“If you look closely you will find that your post contradicts itself”
it’s just a Chimpanzee. A couple of scientists (or whatever) placed Lucy as the common ancestor. THAT in itself contradicts the science community’s opinion of Lucy. That’s like, “Oh well, I guess we all agree it’s just a monkey. HEY YOU TWO! take Lucy here and label it as our common ancestor.”
“but it is in our family tree with is like 99,9%”
I think you watched too many “planet of the apes” movies.
“Who found out it was not a real thing? Scientists or creationists?”
A man will lie to himself and others but his adversary will expose his true colors.
“Where all the missing links on that page not fully documented with full skulls and complete skeletons?”
Costa200 the tooth came from a pig.
“And again, who denounced the hoax? Scientists or creationists?”
Psst.. JSYK, *whisper* it was a prank…
““Neanderthal Man””
Arthritis is commonly found in early Neanderthal populations. So it’s only natural that the skeleton is arthritis. duoy.
“You are using one of the lowest form of argument that is to quote someone out of context and without really knowing what the quote means.”
Nope. Gould simply pointed out that in paleontology trans-forms are rare. You seem to fail to grasp my point is that mutations into transitional forms are too rare for apes to evolve into humans.
“Due to an amazing effort transitional forms have been found for every major group but that doesn’t satisfy you because, until you see every single being that ever lived in front of you, you refuse to connect the dots.”
You can’t connect something that doesn’t exist, especially when you’re looking down the barrel of a ’smoking gun’.
“Apparently your god created all the dots just to fool us into believeing in something other than the genesis account…”
Whatever reason you may think that God put it there for (and what others may speculate about, for instance: for us to thank Him for us to explore and play with His creation, or to test our faith, or purposely put it there and remove the last pieces, or maybe Satan put the bones there to deviate our focus from Christ to lies and God took the ’smoking gun’ away), He is not going to allow the ‘last missing link’ to be found, one way or another. EVER.
“Biochemically we are identical.”
So? The similarities in the DNA in both apes and humans are the same as most of the elements of dirt can be found in humans, more or less. (Genesis 2:7)
“And i tell you that it is only confusing to people that know zero about how the tests are made.”
99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% is not enough and doesn’t really prove anything. It’s still all in your head.
“It is not a matter of similar facial features.”
Correct. It’s a matter of ACTUAL PROOF.
“All of them point to us having a common descent and so this consistency clearly gives reason to use it as a tool.”
You better get outta that hole before you dig a trench too deep.
That tool is from Satan!
“the non existance of “missing links” i cannot do anything more for you… Clearly they do exist, have been found and documented and its existance is only ignored by those who choose to ignore it.”
I never argued against that, just the one for the apes and humans. Re-read first sentence of post 282.
“With what ground do you criticize Darwin”
LOL. Genesis 1:27 God never placed man higher than woman like the way of the father of evolution did, except in role play.
” when the book you keep quoting is a manual for a chauvinistic society?”
That’s a blatant lie, unless you can point to some verses to show me that God made men higher than woman like Darwin did.
“What irony that as co-founder of antibiotics he just provided a way to actually see evolution in progress as bacteria evolve to fight antibiotics.”
He was referring to the ‘missing link’ theory, not the general theory. Thus your point is moot.
“Is this your expert?”
Yep. An expert who showed how much of a joke Evolutionary Theory really is to the science community.
“I LOOOLED hard at this”
It’s suppose to be funny! I wasn’t trying to refute the entire theory of evolution just to show how shallow it is. 
That was my whole point.
“The way you contradict yourself after having “denouced” the hoax before leaves me with nothing to answer.”
lol. You mean how I used evolution’s adversarial sources to make an absurdity of the mistakes and lies surrounding evolution?
“well then a journalist AND philosopher… Pffff ROFL…”
well then, even the journalist and philosophers community think lowly of evolution. The whole point of saying…”to convince you how unscientific evolution is” is to say that it’s soooo unscientific that’s IT’S A JOKE! you get it!? ROFL
“I sure hope not because i would have to write about the whole amphibian, reptil and mammal filogenetic branches…”
So briefly explain it to me in 500 words or less as if you’re talking to me in person in the busy streets of New York.
“Evolution Theory doesn’t cover the beguining”
If evolutionists took themselves seriously, it should. Then it’ll get bashed by bible thumpers like me. J/K. LOL.
oh wait: the big bang theory/singular point theory. But that’s just another theory where the proof is all in their head. Yet another unrepeatable event that science tries to prove as fact but can only theorize. And to so show how futile evolutionists attempt to refute Christianity with the final missing link is, even if it was found, God still created humans. All you need is a re-interpretation of a couple of verses that show God created man from dirt and breathing life into him over many years from a single-cell organism to humans. Voila!
You ever wonder why facists movements always take religion, culture, ethics, race, economics, politics, and law over science?
“Many animals cooperate.”
LOL. I think you’ve been watching one too many Disney cartoons.
“You see, a science discussion is, by definition, void of any supernatural explanation.”
And that’s the reason why science is so narrow-minded. It cannot explain the unexplainable, so it simply ignores it or claims, “Anything that cannot be logically apprehend by me, is either untrue or non-existent or (as Redem puts it) irrelevant or (as you put it) mumbo jumbo.
“Can you explain why the weight of people that would want nothing more than to become wildly famous (many scientists have this dream since childhood) shifted away from creationism? When someone who could acutally prove something that endangered the theory would get a whole load of prizes and recognition, why doesn’t a single one rise up?”
People take the debate between creationism and evolutionism too seriously. Really what it is, both are like rival cousins who mock each other.
Evolutionists have their monkey and creationists have the magical man in the sky.
“Why are all the “creationist scientists” so weak that bright highschool kids could point out the mistakes they are making?”
Now you know why I don’t dabble in ID.
“explaining “modern” creationist arguments to my pupils and the brighter ones actually manage to debunk them”
PSST. arguments? hardly. They debunk them because of your inability and ignorance to put some actual meaningful thought into theist theology.
“What do you think specialists think about the evidence provided by creationists?”
LOL. and what do you think creationists think about the evidence provided by evolutionists? a total debauchery I tells ya. It’s so unscientific it’s a joke. deja vu.
“why i’m not a raving lunatic atheist that rapes, steals and murders because i can”
hmmm. have you ever stole once in your life before? what about murder, in the sense that Jesus said Matthew 5:22?
“First of all, morality is subjective and that is clear if you look at humans, for example. I guess you wouldn’t deny this would you? There are different codes of law and conduct according to the mindset of the population. Muslims cut the hands of thieves while westerners think that is barbaric and so on.
So, this seems to indicate that morality shifts according to circunstances even to this day.”
Relative morality exists and this is precisely why: Romans 1:28-31. And this is why absolute morality also exists (Romans 1:19-20) but doesn’t exist in the minds of relativists because of this: Romans 1:21-22, 25.
“But let’s look at what morality really is.”
ROFL.
“How does our brain decides what is morally correct?”
Here’s a simpler answer: Romans 2:15
God Almighty Himself gave us morality. It is He who we must look up to to provide a trans-cultural basis for moral values. Since He is the original one who bestowed upon us His attributes or morality, it is He who we must give thanks! 1 Chronicles 16:8, Psalm 119:7; 136:1, Isaiah 12:4
It’s so simple. From your eyes, you don’t see absolute morality because you’re looking at it from a scientific viewpoint. An absolute moral basis is beyond the reach and grasp of science, let alone the scientific method. Because of this, you are blind. Matthew 15:14, Psalm 81:12
“I think i covered most of the possible questions but please do speak your mind.”
I know you’re speaking to Arcon. But that was a very insightful for morality from evolutionary perspective. And also the exact reason why science (or evolution in your case) is unable to “find” absolute morality within its complex logic, rational and scientific methods. If humans want to find relative morality, then you can find it in his environment and history. That’s where science comes in to examine from the outside and sees the moral situation: thus relative morality! However, there’s no absolute morality based on scientific research, so there must be no absolute morality! Wait a minute. Just because it can’t be found doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. But it DOES! Absolute morality comes from God. Since that concept is beyond the grasp of science, man has either denied it, willfully rejected it, or ignored it simply because it comes from God, or a supernatural arbiter (as Redem puts it). Why? Romans 2:12-13, Romans 3:18, Romans 2:12-14 tells us that the Holy Spirit, testifying of God’s perfect moral standards, convicts man of his sin before Almighty God Himself. Man, aware of his condemnation to hell, subconsciously reverts back to his way of thinking for a more, beneficial/advantageous morality, relative morality, in order to make himself right before God. Yet the law brings death for even man fails by his own standard but sooner or later points to everlasting life by repentance and sorrow.
How can people look around this world and not see intelligent design behind it all..
“How can people look around this world and not see intelligent design behind it all..”
By opening our eyes and looking at how things really work, rather than mere wishful thinking?
“How can people look around this world and not see intelligent design behind it all..”
This is how people look around and not see it”
Romans 1:19, 21-23, 25
2 Corinthians 4:4
Ephesians 4:18
So people look around this world and not see ID by opening our eyes and looking at how things really work? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
“For instance, (I am going back to the atom thing, dont flame me for it again…) the experiment that shot subatomic partials through a thin sheet of gold (I cant remember what that experiment is called) didnt prove that an atom is composed of mostly empty space, it just proved that you can shoot subatomic particles through a sheet of gold! Human logic is what ended up resulting in the conclusion that most of an atom is empty space. Did science not play a role in that conclusion? Absolutely not! Did human logic play a large part in it? Absolutely!”
Science did indeed paly a aprt in that. We know that solid stuff does not simply pass through other solid stuff. We know that the solid stuff we shot at the gold did pass through it without impacting ont he gold itself, therefore we know that matter has empty space in it. And we know from repetition just how much empty space that is based on how much of the solid stuff goes through. That tells us just how small the solid part is compared to the empty space.
I would call that some pretty good science, which has been borne out by later experimentation in particle physics. If you’re implying it’s flawed thinking… then you think the role of science is simply to state “The sun rises int he east” and not try to explain why?
“Wait! The entire reason I said what I said was because you were saying my hypothetical situation was false simply because it lacked scientific evidence…Hmm…I kinda lost my train of thought…”
It can support anything that is quantifiable by emeprical evidence. Not everything falls into that catagory.
Certainly anything in the natural world.
“No, there has never been enough evidence to prove evolution wrong.”
There has never been ANY evidence to prove evolution wrong.
“There has also never been enough evidence to prove ID wrong…hmm…”
This is because it is not a scientific theory and is unfalsifiable. It is logically impossible to prove it wrong because no matter what evidence you might found “God designed it that way” trumps all.
Unless it’s possible to prove something wrong, failing to do so is not particularly impressive.
“IF evolution is true, there is no way to prove ID wrong. IF ID is true, there is no way to prove evolution wrong…”
Rabbits in devaronian rocks would be a start. Or showing that it is impossible for something to have evolved. One “irreducibly complex” organism would be nice. Every attempt so far has been met with sterling work from scientists showing how it could have evolved.
“I guess. How do you convince somebody that your worldview is better? Its impossible!”
Rhetoric, force, emotional manipulation, torture, getting to the kids so their ideas die, mockery, etc…
All things Christians have been eager to indulge in over the years. ALl in the name of, Jesus, of course.
“It doesnt matter how much evidence either of us throws out, the other person will always find something wrong with it because it does not agree with their worldview.”
nah. Science is fairly rigid like that, we can’t simply ignore countering evidence.
“a)The fact that youre trying to convince me evolution is true even though that doing so has no point…or…the inability for evolution to explain morality (the discussion as to whether either of these statements is true is continued below…)”
The fact that I, personally, am trying to convince you is a matter of psychology, not evolution. Thus far I have only delt with this on an evolutionary scale. Are you also asking about the more personal reasons for it?
“b)Morality is based on absolute truth, everything is right or wrong based on some predefined…thing (I dont think the word Im looking for exists…)”
Non Sequitur. Does not deal with point b in the slightest.
“Say one ape does kill another. There is no judgement from the rest of the ape’s society against its acts. It is not condemed to spend life in prison (or the “less sophisticated” “banished”) because it chose to kill.”
Well, nor does that always occur in human societies, especially the more “primitive” ones.
“You are right in the fact that apes dont kill unless necessary. But when it IS necessary to do so, there is no hesetation. They dont “think they can get away with it.” There is no “getting away with it” because there are no consiquences to its actions. Humans, on the other hand, have, for some reason, set up a system where crime is punished.”
Crime is sometimes punished. Only in more recent times is it a near certainty, going back only a few hundred years we get to the point where our actions are little different to that of other apes. So again, how are we different from they?
“If a human kills another human, they feel guilty (it is possible to numb this feeling with repetition of the act, that is not the point). If an ape kills another ape, there is no guilt whatsoever.”
This is not universally true, however. And I knnow of no studies that have been done on apes to tell if your assumption that they do not care is true.
“If evolution has morality, guilt wouldnt exist.”
I don’t see why. Guilt is a useful policing tool for the social contract. Why is it not possible?
“If apes dont need guilt to prevent them from killing each other, why would humans?”
We’re a lot more vicious than more apes.
That might be why we need it
More seriously, though. We have not established that guilt is anything unique to humans. Or that it requires a supernatural source if it is. Guilt is merely a social construct. It is the lower of self worth, more than anything.
“That is true. The drive to be correct is advantageous to the survival of the species. However, in this particular situation, that fact doesnt apply. You being right about evolution does not help you survive. While being correct overall would serve a purpose, being right in this situation does not. And even though you have the drive to be right all the time, if being right here doesnt matter, why would you continue trying to be right?”
Psychology. I would not be myself if I didn’t try to be correct. It’s as natural to me as breathing.
“Therefore, your continued spending of energy in this is a waist and should, therefore, be abandoned…Best to put that energy to good use as medical research or reproduction…”
If it was a major expenditure of energy I might do that, but it isn’t. I use more energy watching movies probably. Certainly takes longer. But the why doesn’t matter, it can merely be a byproduct of stubborness and a distaste for things which are incorrect, which are advantages in other situations.
“So people look around this world and not see ID by opening our eyes and looking at how things really work? That doesn’t make any sense at all.”
Makes sense to me, but I shall clarify.
I mean that we might assume that a funnily shaped rock formation was designed to look like a phallus just because it resembles one, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t simply the result of erosion by air and water.
I think you’re looking at from a ’cause and effect’ statement so that is true. but the context of tim’s statement was why people don’t see God behind it all. You say people open their eyes to the world to see how things really are. I say people open their eyes to the world away from God.
“Science is fairly rigid like that, we can’t simply ignore countering evidence.”
unless it’s beyond it’s realm of comprehension.
“how are we different from they?”
Let’s see: we reason, invent complex things, appreciate the sound of music, band together in an orchestra, create a court system to bring out justice for others. I think you’ve been watching one too many Disney cartoons.
“Or that it requires a supernatural source if it is.’
you’re right. it doesn’t. But when God gave us the ability to sense right and wrong, we felt guilt and/or shame.
“As in the historical events of the religion itself? or the historicity of the bible?”
Both.
Keeping in mind that as I said earlier, the existance of London in no way endorses the truth of the harry potter series.
“so how’s the search for the ‘missing’ links is going?”
Which one? We make more gaps every time we find a transitional fossil. ;_;
“For instance, Ive heard that pathetic conundrum about limiting the unlimited countless times before, and even though (from my perspective) I have proven it wrong just as many times as it has been thrown at me, it is still used.”
What’s this conuntrum, and your response? I’ve never heard either fo them…
Unless you mean the “Are you saying god couldn’t have made a world where life evolved”? Is that the one?
“3. The discovery of Lucy was amazing! But now nearly all experts today agree that Lucy was just a skeleton of a 3 foot tall chimpanzee, though placed as the last ancestor common to humans and chimpanzees living from 3.9 to 3 million years ago and functionally common with humans in bipedality.”
This claim is false. I know of no experts who do this, other than creationists. And Lucy is but one of many examples of Australopithecus afarensis, of which we have about 120 distinct individuals, not counting bone fragments.
“4. “Nebraska man” Hesperopithecus haroldcookii). They created a whole skeleton using the hands, feet, face, legs, everything, when all they had was one tooth, which later was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.”
At the time the scientists who recorded the tooth made clear that he was unsure if it was a hominid tooth, or the tooth of another extinct ape. For a popular magasine an artist made a drawing of what he imagined a halfman-halfape creature would look like. Later scientists showed it belonged to an extinct species related to modern pigs.
No one has ever made much of it except creationists.
“5. “Piltdown man” (Eoanthhropus dawsoni) The jaw bone turned out to be the jawbone of a modern ape.”
Fraud by some people looking for a bit of fame, exposed by scientists.
“6. “Neanderthal Man” (Homo neanderthalensis), whose famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago was that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.”
We have over 500 distinct neanderthal specimens, again not counting minor fragments and individual bones. They are not “Old men with arthritis”.
We have thousands of pre-human hominid specimens. Just a “tiny” bit more complete than you are trying to imply here.
“Here’s what Harvard University Professor Stephen Jay Gould has to say about fossil records: the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as the trade secret of palientology..””
This dude is THE most quote mined person in history, gotta be.
Here is a fuller quote.
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
“The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.”
Darwin’s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never “seen” in the rocks.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]”
He’s, again, making a case for punctuated equilibrium. Not against evolution.
To allow Gould himself to reply…
” [T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common — and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am — for I have become a major target of these practices.
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record — geologically “sudden” origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) — reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
– Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. “Evolution as Fact and Theory” in Hens Teeth and Horse’s Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.”
He is not happy with this sorta thing.
“I think you’re looking at from a ’cause and effect’ statement so that is true. but the context of tim’s statement was why people don’t see God behind it all. You say people open their eyes to the world to see how things really are. I say people open their eyes to the world away from God.”
Possibly, but to understand nature I choose to study nature. Not accept the “wisdom” of bronzeage tribal priests as indisputable.
“unless it’s beyond it’s realm of comprehension.”
Example please.
“Let’s see: we reason, invent complex things”
Again only different in complexity. Apes do both of these.
“appreciate the sound of music”
As far as I know many animals like music, and few people can really be said to “appreciate” music at a higher level than that.
“band together in an orchestra”
A unique human trait, which proves…?
“create a court system to bring out justice for others.”
Only differing by complexity. Such things happen in large societies only, and are not “human” traits, but those of civilization.
“But when God gave us the ability to sense right and wrong, we felt guilt and/or shame.”
Unless he doesn’t exist, and such things happened on their own.
Their existence proves nothing.
“Genocide is immoral by todays standards.”
By whose standards? Not if you’re talking to dictators in Iraq (Saddam Hussein)
“Or does it simply become moral because god told them to?
A case of “Do as I say, but not as I do”?”
Only if you’re talking about special exceptions, not as a ‘rule of thumb’. That’s one reason why Christians don’t live by the OT anymore.
“Based on what? If we establish that states don’t need it. Nations don’t need it. Then why the world? Why not simply go the same way as the city/nation?
And have people setting it. International law, for example.”
Good idea. The problem is that human int’l laws will never live to to God’s standard. Since the world is held accountable to God for His sin, humans are condemned by the law and our conscience bears witness of our guilt and shame and standing before Him. And unfortunately, according to “revelations” it will be a matter of time before THE ‘anti-christ’ comes to set up his throne upon earth, establishing peace through a one-world religion, one-world world economy, one-world government, one-world court system, all based on carnal standards. Sounds like a conspiracy doesn’t it?
“So?”
He was making a case for punctuated equilibrium and evolution, but not as a scientific law.
“but modern science predates Darwin.”
Even so, he’s just a naturalist and not a ’scientist’ by today’s terminology of standard, even though him and other people in the ’science community’ were considered ’scientists’ in their time. That was then, this is now.
“In the sense that they both represent a continuum of evolution, they are similar. But they are opposed in terms of how that continuum progresses.”
Thus proving my point. But if you wanna get super-technical then sure. whatever.
“I wouldn’t compare them.”
If you think that morality is a socio-biological construct, then you have to distinguish it from being a socio-cultural relativism. Otherwise, morality is the latter as well and you fail to see it from an ethnic-cultural perspective due to willful ignorance.
“Not entirely sure what you’re asking me here.”
I think that we’ve been looking at the same object from different angles. From a biological scope, it’s obvious that there is relative but no absolute. But you’re not allowing yourself to see it from my POV, an ethnic/cultural view, that relative exists as a result of complacency (not evolution, even though it does, you fail to see it happens from a different POV, you get me?). What you also fail to see from outside of the scientific observatory ‘microscope’, is that the degradation of loose, non-rigidity of the world’s moral standards has held mankind accountable to the Creator of the Universe for his ‘moral irresponsibility’.
“I don’t consider him to be a decent moral guide. Let alone likely to have existed”
of course you don’t (Romans 2:5-8). His standards are too high for you. But you’re still ‘not off the hook’. (Romans 2:11-13) So even though you don’t consider his moral guide decent compared to yours, it is not your own standard that will justify you before God but only through Jesus Christ, the one who died for your sins, holding Himself accountable to God on your behalf. (Romans 3:21-26)
“I would like to know why you think that you thinking something “should” matters.”
Me thinking something shouldn’t matter to you at all. Neither is why you think something that you say matters should matter to me. What does matter is if it’s possible that it could exist, then it’s possible that your entire view could be shattered as well. And THAT matters, unless what you believe doesn’t matter.
“I don’t consider us depraved. We’re better people now than we ahve ever been before, and getting better all the time.”
say that again when you visit the slums of Africa or the tyranny in Iraq, or to thai people who sell children to sex rings on a daily basis. It’s happening as we speak. That’s why it matters to you and I if absolute morality does exist or not, even though it doesn’t exist in the minds of most people on earth (proving my point that we all disagree on morals because we reject the notion of absolute morality). We simply don’t find it from an observatory view because we’re not searching for it or likely deny it while it’s in our face.
“No. I don’t. Assuming you mean what I think you mean, here. Are you asking if I would like there to be an objective source for morality, if people were totally immoral?”
Exactly. You don’t care if they live up to a higher moral standard. Because you feel no need for an arbiter to guide people’s moral compass, their value as humans degrade due to the way of life they lead and the quality of life. Therefore, the significance of humanity is decreased because not everyone is equally valuable, even though most of humanity is value by their own standards and quality of live, the small cracks in society blemish man’s standing for God.
“I know that. But it does mean that I have good reason to not think one exists.”
Which also means that you can’t be so sure that you could have good reason to think one exists simply because everything around tells you there’s no good reason. Yet, you still ignore the possibility.
test
I seem to be having difficulty posting here…
Sorry it took me so long to get back on here. I havent had a chance to go online for a while now. I also had trouble posting this to the site. It wouldnt let me. You may notice my response looks a little disoriented, that is because I hit on each of your points, and it was a little bit (ok, it was difficult) to connected each of them without sounding like Im jumping all over the place. I guess, if you wanna read what I have to say, youll bear with me…
You missed the point of what I was trying to say. I dont “deny” what evidence you have found, I find faults in your logic based upon my logic whose foundation is on the principles of ID. Same goes for you and evolution. Make me out to be an idiot who choses to ignore evidence all you want, honestly I think that is a cheap insult to everybody’s intelligence…
Your bias is just like mine. It isnt backed by science, bias cannot be proven right or wrong. You misinterpreted the word. The evidence is absolute truth pointing to what is ultimately true. How we interpret that evidence is determined by our predispositions. Dont make your bias look nice just because you believe you follow science the way it should! The science exists, and we both look at it. Just because you follow a belief void of a god doesnt mean your interpretations of that science are any better than mine. Yet another cheap insult.
And now your saying you never denied a god existed?! Are you seriously going to say that? You know you dont believe in God, so why would you say that? What you should have said is that many people have altered their look on theism because they were incapable of logically explaining the attacks on them from people like you. You never claimed God existed, stop using that as protection. Also, where are all these evolution/theists? Ive never met anybody that believed both were true…I admit, that doesnt mean they dont exist. But if they were as numerous as you claim they are, wouldnt you think I would have met one by now? Your talking like it is a commonly known thing! Sure, you can give me credibility, but yet again (as I have said many many times before), credibility is ALWAYS biased. The fact that I, nor anybody I have ever known, has met an evolutionist/theist should be proof enough they dont exist (or are at least few in number).
Murder is murder no matter where you live. It is true that culture warps morality based on predisposition (changing mostly small things, but having the possibility of changing large things like cutting peoples hands off, of which I thought was considered radical even in a Muslim community…dont watch the news, they have a tendency to show only the bad to you…personally, I have friends that live in such countries and they continue to have “in tact” hands…guess what…they are Christians, too!), but using that to say morality is subjective is hardly solid evidence…
You are generally right, kin do usually come before others. Im going to tell you the honest truth, though. If I walked in on my brother holding a gun to somebody’s head and I had the ability to stop him without talking through it, you can be sure nobody would have died that day…Regardless of the situation, killing somebody is usually not one of the possible choices to staying alive. For instance, my brother could need to kill that man to pay off a dept he owed him. In his mind (this is a hypothetical, where my brother’s choice had already been made, how he arrived that that choice is not the point), killing the man would relieve my brother of dept and, therefore, save his life. However, most of the time, other possible paths would be taken over killing such as talking it out or falling back on your family to aid you during difficult times. Simply saying kin ALWAYS get priority over others would be easy for an evolutionist to claim, but hard for him to explain. This fact shows that moral choices are made to protect all people, not just kin. Chances are, those other people do not carry any of your genes (personally speaking), but that doesnt mean they are expendable…Protecting those people would, generally, not help you much (in an evolutionist world, that is).
As you look at extensions to your logic about kin, you start noticing contradictions within. You observe a man 35 years of age (just a random number I guessed, could be any age) who has to care for his parents because they are no longer capable of taking care of themselves. What advantage does that play in evolution? His parents carry his genes, true, but the odds of them passing the genes on again is insignificant. How could they possibly procreate if they cant even take care of themselves?! (Eww, I kinda just grossed myself out…) It doesnt mean the man instantly abandons them just because they possess no “evolutionary strategic” advantage to him. He still loves his mother and father, but to no purpose in evolution. His energy would be best spent either surviving, procreating, or protecting his siblings, offspring, and/or his sibling’s offspring.
Another contradiction lays in child/parent abuse. Where does this come along in evolution? If evolution were true, a parent abusing his/her children would be suicide! There is always the possibility that abuse from parents could eventually lead to the child’s death without the chance for the child to continue passing on their genes of which arose directly in response to the abuse. You also fail to explain how a child who abuses his parents ends up in a juvenile home instead of continuing to receive assistance from the parent(s). If the parents receive abuse from the child, shouldnt they continue to take care of them simply because they carry the best hope for passing on their genes? After all, what is a little abuse compared to the possible halt of your genes to the overall pool?
I dont really understand how gene flux has anything to do with kin, but whatever…Mindless (or semi mindless) animals cannot comprehend their existence, let alone understand why encouraging morality would be favorable. You would assume they would slowly change into moral creatures as they grew in intelligence, but lack of a total moral system has virtually no advantage to the creature. You cannot learn parts of morality without understanding all of morality while at the same time maintaining its usefulness. And it isnt like they would experiment to see if not killing each other would be beneficial, that doesnt make any sense. If evolution is when one individual gains a favorable trait compared to the rest of the individual’s species, then you cannot explain how morality survived the test of evolution. If the entire society doesnt follow a moral trend, it has absolutely no value whatsoever! In short, if one individual in a society gained morality (a “favorable” trait), it would put him in a position of being “unfavorable” within the total society. If the passing of “favorable” traits to offspring is the basis of evolution, the initial passing of morality would be that of an “unfavorable” trait, which would result in a backwards motion, huh? Instead of evolving into a “better” creature, you actually evolve into a “worse” creature and then, over an extremely large amount of time, would eventually evolve into a creature who was better than the original…And dont forget, evolving takes a hefty amount of time to accomplish, so this creature would witness hundreds of generations of his own “kin” being at a disadvantage…hmm, doesnt sound very intelligent to me…
Your “second level” really has no basis, since you really didnt state much more than that neighbors tend to marry each other, thereby helping each other spread their genes. I doubt Im going to marry every one of my “neighbors,” thereby helping the spread of my genes…Eww, that is actually kind of disturbing…
Your third point actually does hold quite a bit of meaning, as an evolutionist. Helping your fellow species would be favorable (in evolution) compared to helping another species. However, that isnt entirely solid. Say a random person was going to kill a dog for no apparent reason. Would your only choice be that of murder? Would the only way for you to save that dog be to kill the killer? No, not really. Talking is very powerful, and is preferred even within the species. The mere fact that you tried to prevent that dog’s death without the need to hurt your fellow species in the process proves that human morality is not limited to human society in general, but can be extended to the feeling of “I need to protect more than just humans”. Protecting another species has absolutely no value to you. It’s not like that dog can be in dept to you for saving its life, it cant even comprehend that its life was in danger! So yeah, I would kill a dog if it meant a human life would be spared, but such a situation rarely ever happens, as well as the fact that such a possibility doesnt necessarily point to the person protecting its genes by killing the dog.
And now my final point: How do I justify that nature is…by nature…cruel? Actually, that is a lot easier to explain than morality is…Acording to evolution, we all came from the first microbe that claimed to be “alive”, correct? Ok, lets move up a step (Im going to state this right now, I am by no means an expert on evolution…obviously…I am making general evolutionary statements in order to prove a point, not to say that it happened the way I claim it did…because, frankly, I dont believe it happened that way…duh). The microbe gained a trait, gained a trait, blah blah blah up to a point where it can oficially claim it is not the same species anymore. Can it think? No, it cannot. It cannot think; it cannot comprehend anything. If you were to say that morality was advantageous to it, you would be a small child who was shown a picture of an amoeba that had eyeballs and a mouth…Fact is, even if morality could play a part to that little, one celled creature, there is absolutely no way it could ever learn it. The only thing that matters to that microbe is aquiring food and reproducing. Morality plays no part in it. If it met another microbe (even if it was the same species), there is no way for it to discern it between being dead or alive. The little microbe just goes on living for itself, and itself only. There is proof #1. Creatures without a brain cannot have morality. Therefore, they live in an immoral state where the only thing that matters is themselves.
Lets continue down the line. We reach the first creature with a brain (which is kinda hard to explain alone, since a brain is a rather advanced piece of hardware regardless of its size or power). This creature is the very first creature capable of forming thoughts in general. This creature is only capable of forming enough thoughts to witness the world around it. Simple thoughts like, “Is this food?” or “Can I reproduce with it” are alone in its brain. Complex thoughts cannot be formed, since its brain is the first of its kind and is, therefore, very basic and simple. It cannot even comprehend enough to tell the difference between water and a rock…how can it possibly think about cooperating with its fellow species to gain an advantage over others? All it can ever know is how to survive and reproduce (traits it gained from its ancestor, the microbe). There is proof #2. Even with a brain, at an early stage, it is impossible for a creature to comprehend morality. Therefore, the only alternative would be to live only for itself, which would be immorality.
I do have a “proof #3″. However, I have already explained it. Since I really dont feel like rephrasing it, and I see nothing wrong with what I originally said, Im just going to copy paste it: “…if one individual in a society gained morality (a “favorable” trait), it would put him in a position of being “unfavorable” within the total society. If the passing of “favorable” traits to offspring is the basis of evolution, the initial passing of morality would be that of an “unfavorable” trait, which would result in a backwards motion, huh? Instead of evolving into a “better” creature, you actually evolve into a “worse” creature and then, over an extremely large amount of time, would eventually evolve into a creature who was better than the original…And dont forget, evolving takes a hefty amount of time to accomplish, so this creature would witness hundreds of generations of his own “kin” being at a disadvantage…” Look at it as though the creature in question has evolved up to a point where it is capable of forming complex thoughts, such as morality.
So, is that enough proof? Morality needed to be “acquired” at some point, because absence of morality is, by nature…nature….Yes, these monkeys and various creatures you stated do show a type of morality, but the fact remains that morality itself is too advanced for such creatures to “learn”. The only way for such creatures to display morality would be if they already had the knowledge to do so “genetically predisposed” to them when they were born. I guess I would need to admit that they do display what can be visually observed as morality, but there is much much more to morality than simply living together and benefiting from one another in a society virtually free from “wrongdoings”. Science would have a difficult time proving that the social behaviors of those creatures was indeed morality instead of simply being a predisposition of “not killing one another”.
There you have it. I kept my end of our little arrangement. I kept an open mind (or as open a mind as a bias person is capable of showing) as I read your response to morality. However, since I did find errors in the logic, I will continue to use my “morality argument” in the future if something like this ever happens again.
As for what Im going to do now, Im sorry but I really REALLY need to drop this and move on. It is quite obvious both sides are equally entrenched in their belief, so there is no point to continuing since I can almost guarentee there will be no third party viewing this debate in the future. Im not saying you cant contradict what I said here. I am quite certain that you can come up with a response to this post using evolution’s logic. While I did enjoy debating with you at first, the debate has reached a point where continuing serves no entertainment or theistic value to me whatsoever. Therefore, I am going to call it quits. This time I really do mean it (hopefully).
wah, it was a pleasure reading your findings. Costa, it was a pleasure to see my argument from a different perspective. Redem, it seems you have left already, but it was fun going back and forth there for a while. Perhaps I shall meet you all again, but if I dont…have a nice life…
As for the multiple comments, Im not really sure why, but I couldnt post my entire argument at the same time, so this is what I resorted to. I meant nothing by it…
“Both.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#History_and_origins
http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/browse.shtml#darchaeology
“the existance of London in no way endorses the truth of the harry potter series.”
Of course not! the historicity of the bible, even though true, doesn’t prove God’s divine truth; that takes faith. The followers claim it’s truth to be truth by faith. Harry potter fans don’t have faith in the ‘truth’ of the series because they don’t claim it to be true.
“Which one?”
That was a joke. They don’t exist but only in your mind.
“What’s this conuntrum,”
I didn’t say that. So I’m not gonna answer that.
“This claim is false. I know of no experts who do this, other than creationists.”
actually it’s true. Lot’s of people mock evolution, biased or not.
“No one has ever made much of it except creationists.”
That’s my point. It’s not that science evolution is false or non-existent but that their claim that apes evolve into humans is a joke because they don’t have the actual proof to prove it, except in their minds. Keep at the search boys. Until then, if you don’t find it before your time is up on earth, won’t you stop by a church or talk with a Christian to hear God’s Good News?
“Fraud by some people looking for a bit of fame, exposed by scientists.”
You know what evolutionist scientists should do? Plant some fake evidence to prove that apes evolve into humans to get back at the creationists. “THEY MUST PAY FOR WHAT THEY’VE DONE TO US!!”
“We have over 500 distinct neanderthal specimens”
yet they are non-transitional. Come back when you find the ’smoking gun’
“He’s, again, making a case for punctuated equilibrium. Not against evolution.”
Not against evolution as a natural law but against evolution as a scientific law.
“He is not happy with this sorta thing.”
Yea that does suck. But just suck it up and take it like a man. Nothing too serious. It’s a matter of Creationists picking on the nerdy scientists.
“Possibly, but to understand nature I choose to study nature. Not accept the “wisdom” of bronzeage tribal priests as indisputable.”
Exactly your predicament. Nature speaks of God’s nature (Romans 1:20). You enjoy what God has created for you to study, yet you fail to recognize God as the one who created that for you (Romans 1:25). You should thank God for that. Read (Romans 1:21-23)
“Example please.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural
Keyword: COMPREHENSION. not apprehension. Whatever is unexplainable to science is simply ignored or at best, apprehended with a ‘rational’ explanation of the irrational.
“Again only different in complexity. Apes do both of these… A unique human trait, which proves…”
Which doesn’t prove apes evolve into humans.
Think of it like this: picture a small bi-plane and a jumbo 747 jet. They’re both very similar. After all they have co_ckpits, engine, seats, wings, etc. But does that mean the 747 evolved from the plane? Not at all. It just means they have a common designer. The designer used a similar blueprint for each one and the same with us and apes. God the Creator of the world and the universe (Romans 1:20), is our common designer. He simply used the same blueprint when creating the hands and feet and facial expressions of men and apes.
The real proof, however as you already know, are the fossil records, aka “missing link”, the actual proof. In reality, this is what you actually have: you and the monkey, apes and humans. The “supposed” transitional forms are the “missing links” to prove that apes evolve into humans. But, IMHO, the ’smoking gun’ doesn’t really exist, they’re just in your mind, wanting to justify your theory.
And we’re all continually told that primates are our ‘relatives’ but airliners will refuse to let them on board to fly with us alongside in the cabin. Personally, I would like to fly alongside with primates (preferably a monkey or chimpanzee) because they’re so cute sitting beside you just chilling, as long as they’re in a relaxed mood, but the airliner workers tell me that they need to be transported to a cargo hold instead, even though universities teach me that we’re all related to primates. The airline bookie chuckles. Funny that.
“Only differing by complexity”
Complexity complexity. That’s why we’re not related sherlock.
I think you’ve been watching one too many “Jungle Book” movies.
“Unless he doesn’t exist, and such things happened on their own.”
oh and I suppose this whole comment board just happened on its own as well.
“Their existence proves nothing.”
Read Romans 1:19, ROmans 2:15.
“Well poisoning, logical fallacy. His views were fairly enlightened by the standards of the time. On both race and gender.”
Nonetheless, that’s how the father of your science thinks of the value of man and women.
“And they have nothing to do with the validity of his work.”
Of course not. It just goes to show that you follow a leader who isn’t perfect.
“And the bible is far worse on both matters.”
Read Genesis 1:27. God made them equal.
“Appeal to authority is also a fallacy, btw.”
Then we’re both on the same boat.
“I merely require you to provide decent evidence that the bible is factual.”
If you really want to look for evidence for the bible then look here: http://www.carm.org/bible.htm
If not, then go to a anti-Christian website.
“Not too much to ask is it?”
Is this too much to ask?
Do you consider yourself a good person?
Yes Darth Arcon. I see these arguments on both sides aren’t really going anywhere. We’re all basically arguing for who’s more clever. It’s not gonna change anyone’s views even through convincing. We’re all wasting our time typing. So why are we all still here? It’s gone four pages. Wow. None of us have anything better to do. LOL. Oh well on with the debate…
Oh. Darth Arcon. Before you leave. Check these out. It’s WAY FUNNY!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywh8JNzOmcM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N1wKSVJ-LA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qsXqa2BoUU
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/12-20-06.asp
———————————————————-
And these evolutionary pictures are funny:
http://www.soulwinners.com.au/images/Charles-Darwin.jpg
http://www.soulwinners.com.au/images/evolution-joke.gif
http://www.soulwinners.com.au/images/charles-darwin.gif
http://www.soulwinners.com.au/images/Lost-sheep.jpg
———————————————————-
One of the mammals’ evolutionary advantages was that they bore their young alive. As research has conclusively shown, animals that bore their young dead generally got nowhere
http://www.besse.at/sms/flying.gif
——————————————
Scientists and God
One day a group of Darwinian scientists got together and decided that man
had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one Darwinian
to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.
The Darwinian walked up to God and said, “God, we’ve decided that we no
longer need you. We’re to the point that we can clone people and do many
miraculous things, so why don’t you just go on and get lost.”
God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the Darwinian was
done talking, God said, “Very well, how about this? Let’s say we have a
man-making contest.” To which the Darwinian happily agreed.
God added, “Now, we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old
days with Adam.”
The Darwinian said, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and grabbed himself a
handful of dirt.
God looked at him and said, “No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!!!!”
This dude is THE most quote mined person in history, gotta be.
“…one outstanding fact of the fossil record that many of you may not be aware of; that since the so-called Cambrian explosion…during which essentially all the anatomical designs of modern multicellular life made their first appearance in the fossil record, no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record.”
—Steven J. Gould
Evolutionary biologist and Professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University, Speech at SMU, Oct. 2, 1990.
About Punctual Equilibrium:
So allow me to get this straight: Punctuated Equilibrium explains the process of speciation ONLY, which is when small populations can adapt by slight variations over a very short period of time. But a lab monkey knows that these variations and adaptations have never been observed in nature or recorded in the fossil record to advance beyond just producing another specie of the parent ‘kind’, which is arguable of its definition. Punctuated Equilibrium does, however, bode well for you because it doesn’t require any fossil evidence to substantiate that evolution perpetually continues on to produce UNLIMITED CHANGE.
““Punctuated equilibrium helped to explain why many transitional forms apparently were missing from the fossil record. According to the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium, transitional forms existed for brief periods of time, and so were unlikely to become fossils.””
Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History/Department of Paleobiology
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_life3.html
But regardless of how brief each incremental change lasted, wouldn’t we expect to find JUST ONE fossil that reflects 1/10th, 1/4th, 1/2, 3/4th, or 9/10th of an actual transition in an existing feature? Examples would be:
* Fins evolving into legs
* Mouths evolving into beaks
* Legs evolving into wings
* Nostrils evolving into blowholes
* Legs evolving into flippers
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/fossil_evidence.html
“Got a source for this? I can’t find reference to anything.”
Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, Harvard University Press: Cabridge, MA, 1988, pp. 529-530.
“Did he write it after he died?”
writing forward means writing it before the book is complete or published.
Can you give an example of JUST ONE fossil that display organisms with features ‘in transition’ instead of fossils that appear to have a natural progression? Examples would be fossils that have PARTIALLY FORMED leaves, flowers, fins, feathers, beaks, legs, hands, fingers, etc., NOT just different sizes and shapes of leaves, flowers, fins, feathers, beaks, legs, hands, fingers, etc.
This only have I found: That God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes.
-Ecclesiastes 7:29
The comments these kind of articles get makes good insight to one thing.
No matter what, people read what they want. If the text says one thing they go to lengths to read into it something they can agree or disagree with. Thereby justifying their own belief.
I’ve read a bunch of the comments and come across many actual errors of facts.
Calling ID scientific makes me laugh.
Calling evolution religion also makes me laugh.
Sry i fell the need to clarify this..
“Calling ID scientific makes me laugh.”
That is ID with the assumption that it is god that did it. Wich as far as i read the comments where the standard.
@Yosemity
Evolution is hardly scientific. pFFF. More like over-rated story-telling. For instance, ‘we have access to the tips of a tree, the tree itself is a theory and people who pretended to know about the tree and to describe what went on with it, how the branches came off and the twigs came off are, I think, telling stories.’
Tell me in great significant detail how life evolved from one cell-organism to humans. Take your time.
@darth
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ntalband.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/calvinhobbes.gif
http://www.frankandernest.com/images/archive/98/980802.gif
http://www.besse.at/sms/descent.html
Discover magazine’s 1997 April Fool’s article about the discovery of Neandertal musical instruments is pretty funny.
And here’s my favorite:
Ancient Tech Support
The tech support problem dates back to long before the industrial revolution, when primitive tribesmen beat out a rhythm on drums to communicate:
This fire help. Me Groog
Me Lorto Help Fire not work
You have flint and stone?
Ugh
You hit them together?
Ugh
What happen?
Fire not work
(sigh) Make spark?
Ugh
You have tinder and kindling near spark?
Ohhhhhhhhhhh.
————————————————-
The tech support problem dates back to long before the industrial revolution, when primitive tribesmen beat out a rhythm on drums to communicate:
This fire help. Me Groog
Me Lorto. Help. Fire not work.
You have flint and stone?
Ugh
You hit them together?
Ugh
What happen?
Fire not work
(sigh) Make spark?
No spark, no fire, me confused. Fire work yesterday.
*sigh* You change rock?
I change nothing
You sure?
Me make one change. Stone hot so me soak in stream so stone not burn Lorto hand. Small change, shouldn’t keep Lorto from make fire.
*Grabs club and goes to Lorto’s cave*
*WHAM*WHAM*WHAM*WHAM*
@wah
Your post is a perfect example of what i mean. Individuals not pleased with the definitions used by others seeks to bend them to fit there own preferences.
Saying evolution is not science is a kick in the nuts for all fields of science.
If you cant get the analogy of the tree i say you are a narrowminded individual.
“a kick in the nuts”
ROFL!
“a narrowminded individual”
and how am i narrowminded? If i was I wouldn’t even consider looking at the situation from a scientific POV. AS YOU CLEARLY SEE FROM MY POSTS I HAVE. If there was a word to describe me it would be stubborn. So are you but you’re narrowminded. Type to the hand.
Yes, Im back…but, no debating this time. I want to say a few things, but I suppose Ill hold back. Anywho, thanks for the links, wah. Ive been looking for those “Evolution Myth Debunked” videos ever since I first saw them a couple years ago…
Careful what you say now, though. The moment a creationist busts out funny jokes that are clearly an after dinner candy, they will start flaming you for it…
“By whose standards? Not if you’re talking to dictators in Iraq (Saddam Hussein)”
By the standards of what most would call “Western civilisation”.
“Only if you’re talking about special exceptions, not as a ‘rule of thumb’. That’s one reason why Christians don’t live by the OT anymore.”
It’s an important principle. If what would otherwise be considered immoral suddenly becomes moral because god tells you to, or someone else can convince you that he wants you to, then we all have a problem.
“Sounds like a conspiracy doesn’t it?”
Sounds fairly… paranoid.
“He was making a case for punctuated equilibrium and evolution, but not as a scientific law.”
No one has claimed he was.
“Even so, he’s just a naturalist and not a ’scientist’ by today’s terminology of standard, even though him and other people in the ’science community’ were considered ’scientists’ in their time. That was then, this is now.”
During the voyage he might have been considered a naturalist, but his subsequent work on the theory of evolution IS science.
“If you think that morality is a socio-biological construct, then you have to distinguish it from being a socio-cultural relativism. Otherwise, morality is the latter as well and you fail to see it from an ethnic-cultural perspective due to willful ignorance.”
Apples and oranges.
The two are not related in anyway.
Comparison is meaningless.
“But you’re not allowing yourself to see it from my POV, an ethnic/cultural view, that relative exists as a result of complacency (not evolution, even though it does, you fail to see it happens from a different POV, you get me?)”
I’ve not been saying your views (in this specific instance) aren’t consistant with the evidence. Just that they’re not a conclusion based upon that evidence, and not a conclusion one might reach by studying the universe.
“What you also fail to see from outside of the scientific observatory ‘microscope’, is that the degradation of loose, non-rigidity of the world’s moral standards has held mankind accountable to the Creator of the Universe for his ‘moral irresponsibility’.”
Degredation? I see no degredation. I see a near constant improvement of the human condition.
“His standards are too high for you.”
Heh, no. Too low for me. He is a thief afterall
(Mark 11)
“So even though you don’t consider his moral guide decent compared to yours, it is not your own standard that will justify you before God but only through Jesus Christ, the one who died for your sins, holding Himself accountable to God on your behalf.”
Mine is the standard by which I judge his actions, and I find him wanting.
“What does matter is if it’s possible that it could exist, then it’s possible that your entire view could be shattered as well. And THAT matters, unless what you believe doesn’t matter.”
Many views are possible… not many are plausible.
“say that again when you visit the slums of Africa or the tyranny in Iraq, or to thai people who sell children to sex rings on a daily basis. It’s happening as we speak.”
Yes. And far less often than it used to. Those people are being found and caught in many places, and the children rescued. By no means all, but it is still happening. And in the western world especially, those sorts of crimes are extremely difficult to get away with.
“Exactly. You don’t care if they live up to a higher moral standard. Because you feel no need for an arbiter to guide people’s moral compass, their value as humans degrade due to the way of life they lead and the quality of life.”
I never said that. I said I have no desire for an outside imposition of some arbitrary “morality” as absolute.
“Which also means that you can’t be so sure that you could have good reason to think one exists simply because everything around tells you there’s no good reason. Yet, you still ignore the possibility.”
I don’t ignore it. But the fact that I have no good reason to think it means I don’t believe it. There are many thing that are possible that I don’t believe in. The same with you.
Your religion is one of many.
“I also had trouble posting this to the site. It wouldnt let me.”
Same. Sometimes. I think it miiiiight be post length?
only happens with me with huge posts.
I’m not sure, but since I started responding to individuals one at a time, rather than in one giant message.
“You may notice my response looks a little disoriented, that is because I hit on each of your points, and it was a little bit (ok, it was difficult) to connected each of them without sounding like Im jumping all over the place. I guess, if you wanna read what I have to say, youll bear with me…”
I do envy people who can respond to things without having to cut up the toher post into tiny pieces >_>’
Something I totally fail to do and makes my replies look.. terrible.
“You missed the point of what I was trying to say. I dont “deny” what evidence you have found, I find faults in your logic based upon my logic whose foundation is on the principles of ID. Same goes for you and evolution.”
Logic has been seen as universally true by every thinker in history. Theist and non-theist alike. I cannot… really see how it could be otherwise.
If you’re talking about the implimentation of logic, then fine. But logic itself? That would remove all possibility for anyone to agree on anything, ever.
“Dont make your bias look nice just because you believe you follow science the way it should! The science exists, and we both look at it. Just because you follow a belief void of a god doesnt mean your interpretations of that science are any better than mine.”
Actually it does.
You’re adding in an unscientific assumption, and starting with a conclusion. No matter how you want to cut it, your position is not scientifically supported because you are not going about things following the scientific method.
“And now your saying you never denied a god existed?!”
I never denied the possibility. Assuming this is a reply to me… which it mgiht not be… um…
*Cough*
Anyhoo moving on.
“You know you dont believe in God, so why would you say that?”
A different thing from denying the existance of one. An important distinction, I feel.
“Also, where are all these evolution/theists? Ive never met anybody that believed both were true…”
I dunno them off the top of my head. They usually are the less… vocal… religious types.
But about 40-50% of professional scientists in the US are religious.
That you’ve never met any might simply be a amtter of geography and because on a subject like this many people shy away from mentionning any views that mght be considered “moderate” for fear of abuse from both extremes.
“The fact that I, nor anybody I have ever known, has met an evolutionist/theist should be proof enough they dont exist (or are at least few in number).”
heh
How about this as proof?
Poll results of people who accept evolution far exceed the amount of the population that could be considered nonreligious.
“Murder is murder no matter where you live.”
Unless it’s execution. Or he’s on your property. Or he’s the wrong colour/religion.
Plenty of exceptions have been made throughout history.
“but having the possibility of changing large things like cutting peoples hands off, of which I thought was considered radical even in a Muslim community…dont watch the news, they have a tendency to show only the bad to you…personally, I have friends that live in such countries and they continue to have “in tact” hands…guess what…they are Christians, too!”
Those are usually religious courts. they tend to only apply their laws to muslims. And even then it’s rare. Just like few people were burned at the stake as witches in Christian history, but it did happen.
“Simply saying kin ALWAYS get priority over others would be easy for an evolutionist to claim, but hard for him to explain. This fact shows that moral choices are made to protect all people, not just kin.”
it’s fairly easy to explain, Kin are most like you genetically. So most of your genes still pass on if you put kin ahead of strangers. This applies to larger groups, like tribes, states, nations as well, though to lesser and lesser extents.
“Chances are, those other people do not carry any of your genes (personally speaking)”
Actually they do. Almost all of them in almost the same combination.
“Protecting those people would, generally, not help you much (in an evolutionist world, that is).”
Actually it would. Consider it as an example of game theory.
One stable point would be as you assert, everyone out to look after themselves and no one else. But it’s not the highest stable point.
The highest stable point is when people assume that other people won’t betray them, and don’t betray other people, and that those who DO betray people are dealt with harshly enough to act as a deterrant. You still get people acting bad, but not too many.
Essentially what we have now.
The society which reached the highest stable point would be the one who succeeded.
“As you look at extensions to your logic about kin, you start noticing contradictions within. You observe a man 35 years of age (just a random number I guessed, could be any age) who has to care for his parents because they are no longer capable of taking care of themselves. What advantage does that play in evolution?”
Elderly parents is a modern phenomenon. The life expectancy of people pre-modern age was about 35.
It’s not been a problem long enough for there to be any significant evolutionary preassure involved.
And again you mistake the issue. As long as morality exists individual results of this need not be beneficial, they’re just side effects of the overall benefits of the system.
Same with the rest fo the examples given.
“Another contradiction lays in child/parent abuse. Where does this come along in evolution? If evolution were true, a parent abusing his/her children would be suicide! There is always the possibili