Obviously birds evolved from other species and if you don't believe that, that's fine. As long as you vote for lower taxes and a stronger defence, I'll forgive you.

"In addition to cementing the dino-bird connection, the new study provides the first molecular evidence that mastodons and elephants are closely related."

No. Sorry, but that's absolutely false. Mastodons are related to homing pigeons, and elephants are related to kangaroos.

What a circus.

Steve

Speaking of genetic analysis, it is interesting, perhaps, that it turns out that dogs are closely related to, well, wolves and foxes, but that's obvious, and also bears, um, ok, yet less obvious, perhaps, the northern elephant seal, and, yes, walruses, as shown in this tinyurl.com/6fpokm image from the American Scientist magazine article Genetics and the Shape of Dogs, which is available here: tinyurl.com/5oq9gw

I particularly like the intra-breed dog chart shown in the article here: tinyurl.com/6gnoml

I read a book from the 1840's before Darwin. They where already discussing feathers on dinosaurs, connecting them with birds.

The so called new understanding of these creatures was already over a 100 years old. We can thank Uniformatism & its authors prejudice that bought into the Reptile origin. In fact its been so orthodox no one could talk about it till evolution by the Darwinian concept, is increasingly dead.

Again free expression was curtailed in the interests of conformity to the point significant discoveries where dismissed by dogmatists.

Personally I think the Epi-Genome becomes so stressed from environmental pressures what ever they are, it causes genetic change in the so called junk DNA, over one generation. This is only a theory period.

Instead of Nature red in tooth & claw, its cooperation plus adaptability that causes species to flourish. We see that in symbiotic relationships if not our own mitochondria that acts in our cells as engines. If not the social structure of our genus & others as well.

By the way, a warmer climate makes for a diverse expanding biota. Cold brings species decline.

Read to the end of the article, people:

"But doubts remain . . . ."

And always will.

Ah well. Just keep believing all life is mud animated by lightening. Every now and then one of you will swallow the red pill and bust out of Matrix.

The dinosaur-bird link and the observations from Revnant Dream are a good parallel to the dogmatism of the AGW crowd. The "science was settled" on the dinosaur-reptile link, as you'll recall...same as the "science is settled" on AGW.

When it comes to science (and most everything else) "It ain't over 'til it's over".

"Just keep believing all life is mud animated by lightening."

As opposed to mud animated by a Bearded Guy In The Sky?

I shouldn't have to mention that, from an impartial perspective, your proposition is at best no more likely than the one you've dismissed.

I also shouldn't have to mention that evolution has nothing to do with either mud or lighting, nor does it propose to explain the origins of life.

Yet I find myself mentioning both things anyway, since the sheer ignorance of your comment has left me questioning your understanding of even these very basic concepts.

And yes, doubts do remain. That is the difference between logic and fanaticism - a belief acquired through logic can always be changed with the discovery of contrary evidence, while a belief based on fanaticism can never be changed. The fact that you see doubt as a "Bad Thing" tells me all I need to know about your ability to rationally analyze the world around you.

",we birds did,nt come from no reptile were not a dinosoars reletive"

I'm glad he's not my relative, one less present for Christmas.

:)

"The dinosaur-bird link and the observations from Revnant Dream,..."

Ok I better call Richard Warman to buy me a garage if this keeps up.

"I shouldn't have to mention that, from an impartial perspective, your proposition is,..."

I bet Alex is an impartial commie, Lenin is the only real god! Big government created us!

It takes a 'greater' faith to believe we are accidents of nature when the evidence of science presents absolutes.
Instead of trying to accept a vague link between reptiles and birds, try studying the absolutes of one beat of the heart. The chemical, electrical and muscular activity of the heart is very complex and absoulute, a well designed organ iside a more complex body. Accidents bring death, not life.
And each cell in our body is a very complex organism with absolute function, and reproductive ability.
Has anyone tried to link the life of a reptile to the life in plants? That's a stretch of the imagination!
Science disproves the theory of evolution.

Guess it was time to bring up the discussion again eh, Kate?

Liberals related to the dodo.

"That is the difference between logic and fanaticism".

Indeed.

Without God as the immaterial creator of this material universe, there is no rational reason why something like immaterial logic should even exist, and, if it did exist, why it should "work", or why we should trust it. Furthermore, without God, your brain is undesigned and without purpose, composed of mere junkyard molecules and scraps of DNA -- you have absolutely no rational reason to believe or trust anything that comes out of it.

Christians, and other who believe in God, have a rational reason for believing in reason, logic, and a brain that can make sense of reality around it.

Atheists do not.

Atheists owe a lot to God.

As opposed to mud animated by a Bearded Guy In The Sky?

No Alex God isn't the bearded guy living in the sky. In fact you and I and everything that exists have our being 'IN HIM'!

We are not only in His thoughts, we are His thoughts.

I know its complicated so if you want to believe that you are a bunch of amino acids accidentally bumping together go ahead.

Having tested your theory and observed its natural out come I prefer the Divine because of the Truth and the Hope and the Life that is evident in Him.

Now hang on a minute this t. rex weighs like 10 tons and tastes like chicken !!!!! woooo hooooo

Great info.....this is great stuff....yes the slow cogs of human exploration and discovery churn on. To what end who knows....

But cool info.

We've had this discussion before, but, it's always timely (pun intended).

Richard Ball - you completely misunderstand atheism. I'm an atheist. That belief has zilch to do with rejecting reason and logic! There's no logical reason to link reason and logic with a god. Nor is there any reason to consider that 'being an atheist' means believing only in randomness.

I certainly consider that the universe is an act of reason and logic. Any consideration of the complex nature of a single plant provides such a conclusion. But there's no intentionality to such a result, there's no need of an agential agent (god).

There is, however, Reason, which enables molecules to form functional cells, to form more complex organisms that all robustly interact with each other.

I won't go into the argument here, but, I reject the basic two-step process of Darwin, which is pure mechanics: random mutant appearance of X, with judgment by Natural Selection.

I certainly agree with the concept of evolution and adaptation, but I don't think that the appearance of X is as random and uninformed as Darwin suggests, and I don't think that Natural Selection is as powerful as Darwin suggests.

Randomness DOES have a role, but a minor one that is overshadowed by the weight of current reality. It's a waste of 'Nature's Energy' for a totally random molecule to appear that doesn't have a chance to exist in that environment. The molecule that DOES appear will already be 'pre-adapted' so to speak to function in that env't.

The universe operates within Reason and Logic. Such a process might be comparable to Joe's God, though I doubt if Joe would agree. But, there's no intentionality, no agency. There's a certain amount of freedom/chance in evolution, and a LOT of informational processing of 'what might fit' in this env't, and a LOT of Reason.

Why oh why must we argue as to the existence or non-existence of God? One would think that after a couple thousand years of trying to prove or disprove the existence of God and 150 years of trying to prove or disprove evolution WITH NO ASBOLUTE PROOF ON EITHER SIDE, mankind would just give up and admit they don't know. Remember, as the saying goes, the beginning of wisdom is the ability to say "I don't know".

I don't know if God exists or not. There is no way to prove or disprove. You can look at the circumstantial evidence and make up your mind on this circumstantial and incomplete evidence...or you can say "I don't know" and just quit worrying about it.

I have been on both sides of the fence on this issue and after great study and introspection, have decided to climb back up on the fence and tolerate both sides.

Either side can think or do whatever they want...it's a "free" country...just keep your belief or disbelief in God to yourself and tolerate others.

To Christians, you are commanded to live IN the world but not be OF the world...you are commanded to witness to the world, not force God down anyone's throat...you are commanded to obey the government in power at the time and not to change the government.

To atheists, the word of the century seems to be "TOLERANCE". Look it up and practice it, please.

Sorry if I'm off-topic Kate.

"And yes, doubts do remain. That is the difference between logic and fanaticism - a belief acquired through logic can always be changed with the discovery of contrary evidence, while a belief based on fanaticism can never be changed."

Well said; the religionists' "explanation" can not and will not account for any new evidence, otherwise their house of cards would crumble the same way a medicine man's "magic potion" can be shown to be nothing more than the wishful thinking of stone-age tribesmen.

The more I learn the more I am amazed at the absolute genius of creation. How is it that each individual can have their own special DNA footprint, and yet the connection can be seen between relatives? How is it that if we evolved from monkeys we still have monkeys, or even amoebas (the first primordial slime we are supposed to have crawled out of). And how is it that over millions of years and on this vast planet that coincidentally this evolved species female just happened to be in the vicinity of evolved species male counterpart at the same time, and the process repeated millions of times. That takes a lot more faith than just believing and accepting that God created the heavens and the earth. We pride ourselves on being informed and disputing AGW based on facts, and yet the same consensus crowd tells us we evolved - case closed. Look at the other side and decide which makes more sense. A good reference is Ken Hamm who works with Answers in Genesis.

Spurwing Plover isn't the first to practice 'genetic heritage denial'. Some aboriginal groups are very afraid that this effort will eviscerate their land claims.

eeyore, I don't think the issue is as black and white as you set it up - either believe in god as agential or in no god/atheism. I think the issue pertains to the role of man, as a reasoning species, in the control of his own life and the environment.

If you accept that evolution and adaptation are real processes, and that man has the capacity of reason, then, you can accept that man can, and has the right to 'make evolution and adaptation' occur. This interference with natural processes has been ongoing since our species emerged and began to domesticate animals and plants. With regard to plants, for example, domesticated rice and wheat are far more productive than wild.

Then, if you accept that all of life is entangled and networked in a logical and 'reasonable' fashion, then you also realize that your intervention in this network has effects - not only in producing more food. But sometimes in unplanned harm to other parts of the network. So, we want to scientifically understand as much as we can about this world; that necessarily includes causality (random or ?).

ET:
"There is, however, Reason, which enables molecules to form functional cells, to form more complex organisms that all robustly interact with each other."
Each single cell in the body is complex. No amount of reasoning gives that cell life by chance ET.
If there is any interruption by chance/accident in any of those cells they die...they do not carry on to something else.

If you choose to be an atheist that is fine. You try to explain the theory of evolution as your 'reason' for not believing in the Creator.
Science and absolutes disprove the theory of evolution.

I remember reading a book, can't recall the name, where man evolved or devolved back to the water. Interesting theory.

now that they've firmly established the link, maybe someone can finally get it right when they assemble the T-rex bones. Obviously those tiny limbs aren't his arms, they're his bird feet! And those giant Legs? Nah, those are his poweful wings!

lucky for us we dont have KFR , kentucky fried rex. it would be a treat for drumsticks on top but at the bottom of the bucket the wings would be a real disappointment

So long as we're bringing logic mudslinging into the equation.... Why would your precious god allow the slaughter of his own children? If we're all inherently part of god (or whatever) how can 'he' justify killing us? How is it possible that a loving god will kill a child with diabetes while Jack Layton remains alive?

Why does Gibbon blame Christians for the fall of the Roman Empire? So often we have people on this site blaming muslims for their current dark age, somehow forgetting that dogmatic acceptance of THE WORD caused our very own dark age centuries earlier.

There is no logic in god. God is just another way for humans to explain a random universe without having to admit that they don't know.

When does TRex season open?

I call dibs on the heart...

Ah yes, Jon, those wonderful regimes that got rid of God -- life was bliss under Stalin, Hitler and Mao. Sheer bliss. Starvation, mock trials, brain-washing and extreme censorship, mass graves, and more executions in a year or two than any religious leaders caused in all the centuries of those "Dark Ages", but hey -- life was bliss without God. Oh, and it's blissful in North Korea right now, too.

As for good ol' T-rex:

“As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out, (Kuhn, T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edition, University of Chicago Press, 1996.) what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence. That’s just what appears to have happened in this case. When [Dr.] Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’” (Science 261:160, July 9, 1994) Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. That is in a way quite understandable and human, and is how science works in reality (though when creationists do that, it’s caricatured as non-scientific). So will this new evidence cause anyone to stand up and say there’s something funny about the emperor’s clothes? Not likely. Instead, it will almost certainly become an “accepted” phenomenon that even “stretchy” soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years. (Because, after all, we “know” that this specimen is “70 million years old”.) See how it works?”

Dr. Carl Weiland

ET

Before your life ends I hope you come to the same realization that Nicodemus did:

Then Jesus told Nicodemus the beautiful words , "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Jesus came to save the people of the world, not to condemn them.

Once you believe this you will then have no difficulty in believeing that God indeed created this world we live in. The choice is yours.

That's a lot of chicken!

Thanks for bringing that up Jon. Because that is the next logical flow in this discussion.
Sin
I will venture to guess that those who want to cling to the theory of evolution (including those who believe in God) cannot accept the history and prophecy of the Book of Genesis.
The theory of evolution also claims a progression of 'disorder to order' The book of Genesis claims order to disorder beginning with the Sin.
Does anyone see things getting orderly around the world?

Nightmare
re . opening day.
It's not in the regs: so it's open season.

I'll call em in, with my wounded pterodactyl call, you set up by that tree.
I get the tenderloins !

I agree, bluetech, every single cell is a complex system. So are atoms and molecules. Note that I said 'MORE complex organism', not 'complex organism'.

I also disagree with your rejection of chance in nature. I disagree that everything in nature is mechanical, i.e., planned. There are, in a complex system, several processes operating.

One is 'the program' which is a Rule-Based system. I consider that our world, by virtue of its operation as a 'Reasoning System' is amenable to Rules, which are normative patterns of interaction that constrain and inhibit randomness. These normative rules can themselves evolve.

Another of these processes is freedom or spontaneity, which is a non-rule action that may or may not last for longer than that one appearance.

The third is the individual expression of the first, the individual version of the Normative Rules. These expressions are slight variations of the Rules, bound by those Rules, but with a certain amount of variation - that, if these individuals become a stable group, they can actually become a new species on their own.

These three processes: deduction, abduction an induction, to give them one name, are as analytically old as Aristotle. And still valid.

Yes, that's why I'm against relying on pure randomness as a basis for evolution - the ratio of a randomly emerging new cell having any success is a worse ratio than winning the lottery. My use of 'chance' operates in a different area of evolution; but it's still there.

So, I reject Darwin's two-step outline of evolution, and instead opt for one where the new species is not a random emergence but a pre-selected or 'informed emergence', where the new species is already highly tuned to the local environment by virtue of information processing in the entire system. Too much to explain here.
But, sorry, there's still no god.

This conversation is pointless.

neither side will ever change their opinion in a chat forum.

I have one thought, If the Bible has no trouble with slavery and it is the word of God does that mean that slavery is ok with God?

ET...you just took this discussion one step further. God has revealed himself to us...and he gave you the free will to decide to believe or not.That does not allow you to decide that he doesn't exist.
Jesus said He was God.He is either a liar, lunatic or Lord.
I know what I believe.

SPURIWNG HASZ CHEZBURGER?

ME HASZ SPURWING OUTED

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spur-winged_Plover

Ann,

I believe you've met Mr. Strawman. I forgot that in these debates the god side somehow takes the moral high ground. It's as if the world has forgotten the children's crusade the spanish inquisition etc. If you're unable to admit that there was a dark age in Christendom because of dogmatic adherence to scripture then there's no point in having this debate... because it's obvious that too see god you must believe in god, and to evolve (and gain use of your thumbs) you must believe in evolution.

Every now and then someone like "right of centre" comes up with something they think is a very clever question that stumps Bible-believers and causes them to drop their Bible (because the question is just so clever and unanswerable!). Yawn. Here goes . . .

Christianity shook and eventually changed the Roman empire with these words from Paul (Gal. 3:2): There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Get it? Equal in God's eyes, regardless of position in society.

The other Bible texts about slaves obeying their masters are related to the realities of that time period. Many Christians nowadays think of blue-collar and factory workers in relation to those texts, which is why many Christians tend not to be pro-union or pro-communist, for that matter.

You can google "Chritians and slavery" and you'll get summaries of centuries of theological thought on this topic. With a little bit of effort you can can get centuries of theological discussion and thoughts on every Bible text you want to ask your "clever" questions about. Christians have heard them all, and probably asked those questions long before you read it in some atheist's best-seller.

"too see god "

Use your opposable thumbs properly on the keyboard, oh evolved one.

Hey, where did you get the wounded pteradactyl call? I just went through the Cabela's catalogue with no luck.

The other Bible texts about slaves obeying their masters are related to the realities of that time period. Many Christians nowadays think of blue-collar and factory workers in relation to those texts, which is why many Christians tend not to be pro-union or pro-communist, for that matter

So you are bending the rules to fit man kinds point of view in the present wouldnt an all knowing God know this already and use his words to fit all eras?

If you want to yawn and say that your belief is has more evidence than feel free to yawn away as your point of view is tiresome.

Ann,

You've still failed to refute a thing. You've only quoted some obscure sketchy doctor from Australia. If he's your best reference I'll raise you a Darwin. If you don't believe in Darwin, how about Einstein? Dawkins? Hawking? Bueller?

As mankind progresses it sheds away pieces of the Bibles faults all they have left is the "faith" argument and the mental slavery that comes with it.

Eeyore please move over a bit, that spot beside you on the fence looks very comfortable to me.

There are none so blind as thise who will not see. I will leave you with one thought ET and I hope the light comes on for you.

Divine revelation is indeed at the basis of faith, of man's "I believe." At the same time, the passages of Sacred Scripture in which this revelation is found, teach us that man is capable of knowing God by reason alone. He is capable of a certain "knowledge" about God, even though it is indirect and not immediate. Therefore, alongside the "I believe" we find a certain "I know." This "I know" concerns the existence of God and even, to a certain extent, his essence. This intellectual knowledge of God is systematically treated by a science called "natural theology," which is of a philosophical nature and springs from metaphysics, that is, the philosophy of being. It focuses on the knowledge of God as the First Cause, and also as the Last End of the universe. These questions, as well as the vast philosophical discussion connected with them, cannot be examined within the limits of a brief instruction on the truths of faith. Neither do we intend to take up here in a detailed way those "ways" that guide the human mind in the search for God (the "Quinque viae" [five ways] of St. Thomas Aquinas). For this catechesis of ours, it is sufficient to keep in mind that the sources of Christianity speak of the possibility of a rational knowledge of God. Therefore, according to the Church, all our thinking about God, based on faith, also has a "rational" and "intellective" character. Even atheism lies within the sphere of a certain reference to the concept of God. If it denies the existence of God, it must also know whose existence it is denying.

It is clear that knowledge through faith differs from purely rational knowledge. Nevertheless God would not have been able to reveal himself to the human race if it were not already naturally capable of knowing something true about God. Therefore, alongside and in addition to an "I know," which is proper to man's intellect, there is an "I believe," proper to the Christian. With faith the believer has access, even if obscurely, to the mystery of the intimate life of God who reveals himself.

Bullwinkle,

The "believe" and the "know" are the same thing. One is used by people who do not believe in the absolute and the other is.

That's also the reason why "Christians" can never validate their argument with science. They start with a hypothesis of "I know this therefore" and the observation vary from the expectation the therefore is assumed to be incorrect rather than the know.

No one knows that God exists. Some may believe it to be so, but know and believe are not the same thing, regardless of the logical acrobatics.

It's also laughable that some are putting atheism and AGW in the same category. There's a reason why we call him St. Al.

glasnost: Sure, I'll shift over a bit on the fence and I'll share my pillow, too.

Right of Centre: You're right that this discussion is pointless in a forum like this. But you are wrong about Christianity and slavery. My suspicion is that you haven't studied the Bible and therefore are informed only by incidental contact with second or third hand knowledge of the subject. In short, I suspect you don't truly know what you are talking about.

I have read and studied the Bible...I find it fascinating. And "solid", for the most part...meaning that there are few claims in the Bible that point out any significant error in knowledge of the sciences (the miraculous occurences you can just attribute to God's omnipotence...parting of the Red Sea, stopping the sun in the sky, etc...I mean, if he can create the universe, he can part the sea, eh?). As a weak example, it was a passage in the Bible that inspired the discovery of the jet stream.

I happen to believe in evolution...and Christians can/do too...though likely NOT as the explanation for the appearance of life on the planet in the first place. I think it can be demonstrated quite clearly and unambiguously that animals evolve/change...just not necessarily INTO an entirely different type of creature...though that would theoretically be just a matter of time.

For those non-believers who wish to slam Christianity...at least educate yourself first on what the Bible actually says...otherwise, you are just demonstrating your own ignorance. Please, it's embarrasing.

If, after having studied the Bible, you choose to disbelieve, at least you won't be doing so out of complete ignorance.

As for Kentucky Fried Rex...imagine the size of the bucket! We'd eliminate homelessness with just a couple of picnics per month!

Jon,

Consider the following:

Man has an intellect and a will. The intellect is oriented to knowing the cause of all the things which man experiences as effects in this world. By an ascent of truth, it is possible (and some human beings have been able) to ascend to the knowledge that God exists and is one, truth, love, Creator, and provident. This can be known through reason alone. Yet, this is not enough for anyone.

Left to this sort of knowledge of God, man is like the fox before the grapes. The fox goes away sad because he wants to taste of the delicious grapes, but he cannot. Man wants to grasp God, but his mind cannot fathom the depth of truth in God. Man, by the very fact of his being created with an intellect, is called to another sort of knowledge of God than simply the kind which philosophers have arrived at by their reason alone.

Each thing God has made manifests his truth. But he communicates his nature in a special way to man, who is invited to participate in his nature, to share fellowship with the Trinity. This fellowship is proclaimed in 2 Peter 1:4, where Peter says that God has given us great and precious gifts by which we become "partakers in divine nature."

The special love of God is shown for us in the communication of his truth. Communication is necessary for even natural relationships of love like marriage. This communication is even more necessary for the divine communion with the Holy Trinity promised to us in John 17. We are to be consecrated in the truth of God’s Word.

Waiting for the asteroid.... I don't think so, the theory is that an asteroid hit near Chicklub on the Yucatan peninsula, the resulting dust cloud cooled the earth, this brought on the extinction of the dinosaurs. what if there was no asteroid what could of happened was that the mayan discovered that t-rex tasted just like chicken and all those pyramids were really just ancient YFR (yucatan fried rex) stands ? think about it all those ancient people sitting with their s u v's idling waiting for their take-out " you-all want fries with that" ? and the smoke from all those industrial size barbecues! man was at fault again. remember you heard this here first on .....LARGE DEAD ANIMALS...(that taste like chicken)
Bubba

Hey Eyore

Science has a theory for the explanation for the parting of the Red Sea.

your lack of knowledge on this shows your ignorance and it is just emabarasing.

Perhaps you should do some research first

We can both just throws stones at each other and talk this way but does it real help conversation?

"Without God as the immaterial creator of this material universe, there is no rational reason why something like immaterial logic should even exist, and, if it did exist, why it should 'work', or why we should trust it."

Utter nonsense, of course. You don't offer any evidence to support such a preposterous opinion. Like a true dogmatist you simply state it, and expect others to accept it as The Truth.

"Furthermore, without God, your brain is undesigned and without purpose"

More foolishness. The concept of self organizing systems is one which is well understood by every educated individual. And purpose is what we make of it. Pretending that "God" is a purpose is pure intellectual cowardice. The God Theory in general seems to be based on an inability, or unwillingness, to think. It's surrender, pure and simple: "I can't figure out how this works, therefore God!".

All doubters can watch Ben Stein's movie EXPELLED this weekend - if they can find it in a movie house near them.
Would recommend it highly for believers and non-believers.

R of C, you are displaying too much ignorance of theology to even begin discussing back on the space offered by this blog. Either hold on to your bitterness or do some research of your own - I won't take up more of Kate's bandwidth.

Jon, dogmatically following Darwin's writings led Hitler to happily kill off "lesser breeds" of humanity. Stalin was ecstatic when he read Darwin and realized evolution meant there was no moral limit to what the man on top could do. Yes, believers in God have also committed atrocities -- the Bible is clear that sin causes grief, even with those who call on God's name. But ask yourselves -- when things start collapsing all around you, where are you going to run? Probably not to the atheistic regimes of this world. You'll cling to the last vestiges of Christian-based society that you can find.

As for science, Christians and atheists both look at the physical world with different worldviews underlying their assumptions. The conclusions evolutionists come up with are based on as much belief as anything Christians conclude. Again, the space here is too short for all the scientific research and conclusions Christians have come up with; if you're truly not dogmatic and willing to actually check out other viewpoints, you'll find it on the internet.

Some day we'll all be dead. Then we'll either know, or we won't be around to care. Enjoy your lives.

Blue pill -- red pill?

...life was bliss under Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

As though their only problem was...They Didn't Believe in God.

I wouldn't want to have to choose between living under a regime based on fanatical commitment to ideology -- any ideology, including secularism -- and one based on fanatical commitment to some god or another.

Very little difference between them, as far as I can see. Once belief becomes fanaticism, there's no practical difference between religion and ideology. Either way, you eventually end up being required to Believe, or else.

Thanks Ann your comments are truly "Christian"

These all just your feelings and faith I am sorry you have to put me down to feel better about them.

Yes, ROC, I saw something on the telly about the "scientific" theory explaining the parting of the Red Sea. In a similar vein, I also have a "scientific" theory as to the size of the hamster on the little wheel inside your skull.

Please! I know far more about science than you do about the Bible. As I said before, you're embarrassing yourself.

Many of Hilter's generals considered him as a catholic...or am I too stupid to be allowed in this conversation.

Please! I know far more about science than you do about the Bible. As I said before, you're embarrassing yourself

And this is a fact because......you said so?

ROC: It is an observation based on your postings. Duh.

But, out of respect for Kate's bandwidth and rules, that's the end of my flamewar with you. Have a nice day.

bullwinkle - sorry, I don't accept 'divine revelation'. And I'm quite aware of Aquinas's 'Five Arguments'. See also Averroes and Avicenna. I don't accept them as logical.

I agree with the reality of both faith and reason (see Benedict's Argument for this in his excellent Regensburg speech) but I don't accept faith in a 'revealed truth'.

bluetech - you are satisfied with your conclusion. I am satisfied with mine! They each differ strongly from the other. I remain an atheist.

By the way, the neodarwinism that many people understand as 'Darwinism' is very simple and mechanical; it's that 'two-step' to which I refer, made up of a random mutation which is judged by Natural Selection. I disagree with neodarwinism. The original Darwin was far more complex than this simple mechanical two-step.

ann- you are confusing religion with morality. You don't need religion, or a belief in god(s) to be also a believer in morality. Therefore, you confining atheism to political systems that are totalitarian is quite incorrect. I'm an atheist; I'm also highly moral, and democratic. So, I'd suggest some caution in your linking atheism to a political ideology.

Well it looks like this has turned into another immature conversation with name calling.
I enjoy this site and sometimes I like to chat but most times I just read.
There are too many members that feel that calling somebody a name helps justify their position.
Perhaps I could have learned something from some of you posters and took your point of view with consideration.
If calling one stupid or ignorant is somebodies way of discussing then perhaps I have chosen the wrong people to learn from.

"But, sorry, there's still no god."

But that's just your opinion, right ET?

And once again, the silly argument pops up that because God doesn't intervene in all the suffering in the world, proves God doesn't exist.

It's called free will. If God intervened and ended all the suffering and evil, what choice would you have?

So Eeyore

I ask a question about slavery and mention about the possible scientific explanation of the parting of the Red Sea and you know that I must know less about science than you know of the Bible.

Well with pure and complete scientific data like that how can I even compete.

ROC: For what it's worth, I agree with your last posting.

But...you DID expose your ignorance of the Bible, so I don't believe I was "name calling".

I hold no ill-will toward you.

"Many of Hilter's generals considered him as a catholic...or am I too stupid to be allowed in this conversation."

Here we go with Hitler the Christian, again. You're new. I'll give you that. But go check the archives, this topic has been exhausted. BTW, Hitler was anything but.

"Christians, and other who believe in God, have a rational reason for believing in reason, logic, and a brain that can make sense of reality around it."

Richard:

Being a god of sorts myself, I don't profess to be an atheist, however I must point out that your statement above presupposes that if God exists, he must be a rational and logical being. What is the basis for this assertion? Is it that the universe appears to be somewhat ordered? That's only our perception, which, as you point out, is only as good as the brain making it. But even if there is a God, if the mind of God is not orderly, then we cannot be assured that our minds are either. Nothing, then, that they perceive can be trusted, including the supposed order of the cosmos.

Nah...I'm just kidding. It's all part of the plan, big guy. Not to worry. I'm all over it.

Ann,

The "science" that you speak of cannot be science. I don't want to explain the scientific method here but its important to be able to change your hypothesis if your observations do not confirm them.

For example, the claim: God exists.
What is your repeatable test which conclusively shows existence? What other factors could affect your interpretation of the results?

I don't want to be crucified on the altar of science, but young earth science isn't science at all. You have a presupposed conclusion (the world is getting warmer) and you justify all tests to that assumption rather than justifying your assumption to the tests.

It's nice to know that I wasn't the first to Goodwin this thread.

Irwin Daisy

I understand your point of "free will"

it does make sense.

My thoughts are that right now as we speak some child is being thrown into a mud hut and is being beaten and tortured and other acts that are so vile that none of us would wish to read. After a few years of this treatment this child will eventually die a horrible and lonely death.

God is suppossed to love us and yet does nothing.
If God exists I refuse to worship him/her/it ,as that is a God not worthy of my praise.

If somebody can tell me why I should I would be open to hear it.

You are correct Daisy there is a valid arguement that Hitler was or wasn't a christian.

Individual atheists may do evil things but they dont do evil things in the name of atheism.

Irwin,

Re: Hitler being Christian

How convenient is it for Christians to dismiss any connection with Hitler. Just dismissing something doesn't make it so.

If Hitler believed in Darwin, he would not have accelerated the process himself as those races weaker than his, would die out anyways (see hippies). You're thinking of the concept of Social Darwinism, which is nothing more than supremacist thuggery.

Regardless of Hitler's religion... that a God oversaw the holocaust, the cultural revolution, Darfur, Armenia etc. is proof enough that he does not love us. To echo RoC - If god really loved us why does he not stop the war?

Why can't Christians just accept that they only "know" god by stretching logic and reason beyond its yield point.

More often than not I defend Christians because of the disproportionate amount of negativity directed towards it. I also avoid discussing the origins of life with Christians (especially Muslims) because a differing opinion to those people is often regarded as an insult or an hurtful comment, but since god folk have come out I will just say this: The fact that life is very complicated isn't proof that a very complex being must have designed all things. That is a valid hypothesis but it isn't proof. I understand that it makes you feel better to think you are immortal, it helps alleviate a feeling of irrelevance because everyone knows that the world doesn't stop for one instant when you are gone(my opinion). I will accept that this belief system typically leads one to a happier life individually and for the family, just the same as telling my wife she doesn't look fat in those jeans makes my life happier.

ROC: As the old saying goes "If you love something, set if free. If it returns to you, it will always be yours; if it doesn't, it never was".

It is my belief that this is akin to God's attitude toward man. He has set us free...if we return to him, he will receive us...if we don't, then c'est la vie.

Remember, we must appear as ants in an ant colony to an omnipotent God...he may wish the best for us and love us, but he's not going to control the lives of each of the ants if they choose not to obey.

Having said that, that is where I have now parted way with God...as an adult, I had accepted Christ as saviour and then circumstances made be feel that I was worse-off than before...so I felt that God had abandoned me (whom he had sworn to protect and cherish). Now, I have questioned his existence and live as an agnostic...apparently no worse the wear.

"He's just testing me", will be the rejoinder of the faithful. Harrumph, I say. He didn't "set me free", he beat me for no good reason...and I will not return.

So...what does this say about the love of God? Errr...ummmm...say, maybe you've got a point, ROC!

irwin daisy - I didn't refer to 'suffering' as a reason to reject the existence of god.

Furthermore, your defining my atheism as 'just your opinion' reduces my conclusion to the personal and quite possibly irrational and subjective.

No, my rejection of the existence of god isn't just an opinion; it's a reasoned conclusion. I use my reason, my observation, my capacity for logic, my analysis of the various pro and con arguments; what else could I or anyonen else use to either justify the existence of god or justify his non-existence?

Obviously this type of discussion can't be one that enables or encourages people to change their conclusions. Those who believe in god will continue to do so; those who don't, will continue to do so. End of debate?

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains," Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.

"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death," Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.

A Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History):

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.

It's a well documented fact that Hitler was very much informed by the occult, particularly theosophy. However, he was a cunning man and in the early days he would feign acceptance of Christianity if only to manipulate certain Germans towards his cause. Of course, later a lot of Christians rotted away in the camps.

But, then, as I said this topic has been exhausted. Look it up in the archives.

"To echo RoC - If god really loved us why does he not stop the war?" - Jon

As mentioned before, there's a little problem called free will.

ET,

This is what I said,

"But, sorry, there's still no god."

"But that's just your opinion, right ET?"

The rest of the post was not directed towards you. Sorry for the confusion.

Hi other Jon,

It's quite eerie to have you talk like that. I usually have to defend the creationist point of view because my urban contemporaries think God is evil should he exist. But on SDA usually I take to defending the opposite point of view to balance.

I like how you're representing a moderate influence.

I've been sorting out a list of things we can agree on in this tread:

1. Hitler was bad.
2. So was Mao
3. You might even call them equally bad.
4. They murdered not for god or no god but power.
5. There is no proof (scientifically) that god exists.
6. The burden of proof lies on the claimant not the defender.
7. It is easier to prove the existence of something (if it exists) than proving that something doesn't exist.
8. Using a 5th century Saint, to prove scientifically that God exists is pretty weak.

Cheers,

ROC

Take some time to read the scriptures, pay close attention to the sections speaking about those people that chose to make God into their own image, or as you would have it, one that fits your idea of what God should be.

Irwin,

You're going sideways. How does proving that the Nazi machinery was anti christian prove that evolution is false?

Christians will always reach an wall on evolution until they understand the fundamentals of science and hypothesis testing.

The significance of the finding is that it confirms at the molecular level what had been the strongest hypothesis based on other evidence. The science of evolution keeps improving--the hallmark of a mature science. I have read recent reports of computer directed evolution of various bacteria, as the computer varies selective pressures on the bacterial ecosystem to generate new species variants. It's gettig nearly impossible to do cuting edge, successful medical science research without invoking evolutionary science. The people who believe evolution and belief in their god(s) is inconsistent should rethink their paradigm.

Foolishly I posted without reading the majority of the posts. I posted under Jon @ 2:02 and I do not want to be confused with the other Jon who is posting(often). I do agree with some of his points, but not with his malice or hatred. I also disagree that what ever Hitler and his friend claimed to be makes them that. Actions speak louder than words and Hitler's actions were not typical of a Catholic. The anti-seal hunt and gopher derby crowd claim to be "Environmentalist" yet they're actions are contrary to that of those who are trying to help the environment (over population of these species hurts the environment). I am the Jon that likes Rap, and is a "bigot" to the "historically disadvantaged and discriminated against people of Ontario." From now on I will post as Play'nWitYoMomma so that Jon can take credit for his work.

Dear Other Jon / Play'nwityomomma,

Re: Malice and Hatred

Please explain...

"I also disagree that what ever Hitler and his friend claimed to be makes them that. Actions speak louder than words and Hitler's actions were not typical of a Catholic."

Heh. Ever hear of the "no-true-Scotsman" fallacy? Using your argument, a Muslim could also claim that no true Muslim would ever do what Osama did, therefore Osama isn't a Muslim. What a handy way to rid yourself of all the bad apples, huh? Simply declare that anyone who does something bad can't POSSIBLY be a true member of your religion.

It's a silly argument anyway - all this nonsense about whether Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were religious. Who gives a shit? Their policies weren't based on their religious beliefs (or a lack thereof) so the whole discussion is meaningless. I just find your hypocrisy amusing.

Jon,

"You're going sideways. How does proving that the Nazi machinery was anti christian prove that evolution is false?"

What? Where in my comments did I even bring up evolution? Please explain.

However, for the record, I don't believe in Darwinian evolution. Neither do I believe in a 6000 year old earth. It's obvious some creatures do adapt to changing environments. And I'll leave it at that.

Alex,

Apparently you don't read.

Just as well Hitler never claimed to be a duck, then, eh, Alex? Cause then he'd really have been a duck, right?

Hitler was raised as a Catholic. Left the church in adolescence. Never returned to the faith. Had the same approximately the same vague religious beliefs as Albert Einstein; you know, the guy you get all steamed up over when those damn Christers try falsely to claim him as a Christian?

As a politician he found it expedient to play up his Catholic roots, given that the Centre Party, one of the two largest parties in the Reichstag, was the official party of the Catholic Church. He was careful to attend mass regularly, from the time he first ran for a seat right up to the point where Centre votes put him in power; after which he never wasted another moment in church again.

Obviously a Christian, eh? And I'm a kangaroo.

"Apparently you don't read."

Ah, yes. It's not your room temperature IQ that's the problem - it's my inability to read. Sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

"Just as well Hitler never claimed to be a duck, then, eh, Alex? Cause then he'd really have been a duck, right?"

....

Did you take your meds this morning?

Seriously, you're claiming that someones religious belief are an identifying trait equivalent to their SPECIES??? Holy cow man! Get a grip on yourself.

"As a politician he found it expedient to play up his Catholic roots .... from the time he first ran for a seat right up to the point where Centre votes put him in power;"

So what you're saying is that the only reason Hitler made it as afar as he did is because he claimed to be Christian?

Gee, that makes your religion look REAL good....

German 1: Hey, what do you think of this guy?
German 2: Well....he wants to dominate the world and kill people based on genetic identity. Seems bad.
German 1: But he's Christian!
German 2: Oh, well, that's GREAT! I'm deffinitely voting for him then!

I know that's not the point you're trying to make, but that's an unintended consequence of your argument. If you're going to argue that Hitler played up to religion in order to get in power, then you're essentially arguing that Christians were responsible for putting Hitler in power. So you're all dumb, gullible, and support fascists. Good job :) And thanks for the revelation - it'll help my own global-domination plans go much more smoothly.

Alex:
If you are calling me a hypocrite because I do not believe in god but will say something to support those who do when they are being blasted unfairly then so be it.

Hitler may have been a Catholic it matters not, some people will claim to be something that they are not for personal gain (wolf in sheep's clothing) and some will do just as you say ( "no-true-Scotsman" ). There is no singular rule.

Have you considered that: "a Muslim could also claim that no true Muslim would ever do what Osama did, therefore Osama isn't a Muslim." actually believes this. Not everyone is always intellectually dishonest, they sometimes just disagree or may even just be wrong.

I find your haughtiness amusing.

Play'nWitYoMomma at April 25, 2008 4:37 PM

*shrug* Actually I assumed that you were one of these Christian zealots who have no problem stating that Hitler "was not a true christian", but in the same breath will tell you that Osama MUST be a real Muslim, because Islam is inherently violent/sadistic/barbaric/etc. If you're non religious, than I apologize for making that assumption.

However, I'm not entirely impressed with your fence-sitting either. There are certainly people out there who will "claim to be something that they are not for personal gain", however, there's very little reason to believe that either Hitler or Osama fall into that category as far as their religious beliefs go.

And, once again, that whole argument has nothing to do with evolution, which was the original topic of discussion. So I think that's all I will say on this subject. If anyone has some really interesting point to add, I might be drawn to respond, but otherwise let's stick to the original topic.

"There is no logic in god. God is just another way for humans to explain a random universe without having to admit that they don't know."
(proof please)

"because it's obvious that too see god you must believe in god, and to evolve (and gain use of your thumbs) you must believe in evolution."
(condescending)

If you list the priorities side by side of a Christian and an atheist they're lists will be quite different near the top. For a Christian god is #1 above all else, whereas for an Atheist "the great question" is somewhere in the middle to the bottom of life's priority list. In my opinion this is why discussions like abortion or god get so heated, on one side these are the paramount issues (the murder of innocents, going to heaven). To an Atheist, it isn't murder, and their is no heaven so these issues are quite trivial. My point is Atheists are very inconsiderate when discussing these issues because they do not understand how deeply their words cut, and sometimes(more often than not) are condescending because of a complete disrespect for that others belief. My comments may have been a little harsh and judgmental , my bad.

Hitler was vegetarian. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Play'nWitYoMomma, I accept your comments about the insensitivity of atheists. Plainly many of them are baiting, possibly as revenge of some sort, which is hardly magnanimous. (I do think, however, the "great Question" as you call it ranks somewhere much lower. I will not illustrate with a comparable issue, lest I offend.)

On the other hand, theists attacks on the science of evolution are quite disturbing to atheists. For myself (and evolutionary-oritented philosophical thinkers such as diverse as Nietzsche, Oliver wendell Holmes Jr. and even Marx), evolutionary science is a critical element of creating a robust human community for the children or or children. Theist attacks are deeply disturbing and offensive to us. In the meantime, evolutionary science keeps progressing, adding degrees of confirmation with each advance in technology and contributing to the advance of technology and science in other fields (such as medicine, in particular).

Irwin,

It's just that the conversation got sidetracked from debate on evolution to Hitler youth songs. Thanks for setting me straight.

Other Jon (playin'),

Overcoming challenges to faith strengthens that faith. People who act thin skinned over comments such as this are either politicians or people who play one on the internet. You say that my "there's no logic in god" argument is hurtful. I think it's apt, regardless of whose sensitivities I might effect. Remember this is a free speech blog de jure.

I understand the sensitivities of these papists and christians; I'm a reformed former-christian myself. But after the "Lightning in the mud" and "I guess I won't see you in heaven" earlier in the thread, (as well as the Type-o thumbs rebuttal by Ann) the gloves come off. No one has free reign to publish tripe without criticism or comment. Whether it's the pseudoscientists of AGW or pseudoscientists of Young Earth, no one gets a free ride because they believe the science is settled.

In both of those previous examples the arguers use the appeal to authority. Gore/God is the authority; therefore no one lesser may argue... That's crap and you know it.

Also, Murray,

I'm a vegetarian but I don't mind the connection to Hitler, my convictions on the issue are such that I don't turtle when it's brought up.

Jon and others: I was simply stating that I'm not you(jon). I find a lot of your comments parallel my own thoughts and I don't want to take credit for your musings,on the same note I wouldn't want you to be roasted for some BS I might say in the future. Walking on egg shells around this topic is my choice, just like before telling a racy joke I like to make sure those whom I joke with will not take it the wrong way. There is nothing wrong with the joke, it is just a choice I make before telling it.

playing - your words on believers vs non-believers in god are not based in reality.

It doesn't make sense to define someone who doesn't believe in god, as also, someone who supports abortion. Or who supports communism/socialism. Or who is without integrity, morality, feelings. You can't make these links

An atheist refers ONLY to someone who doesn't believe in god(s). Period. That has nothing to do with supporting abortion.

Actually ET, atheists remind me of a bunch of pubescent boys sitting around discussing the ecstasy of sex, something they have never experienced. Oh the emotive expressions of passion and conviction. Oh the assuredness that comes only from one’s own ignorance. It must be so, I read about it in Playboy, and Penthouse also agrees. We must hide this sure knowledge from those who have gone before for they forever remain ignorant of this great and noble urge. Causeless Causation, Imperative less Logic. As close to the real thing as boys using their gym socks for purposes other than keeping feet warm and dry. But it makes such a great story. One you can brag about forever or at least as long as none of your buddies have experienced the real thing.

...when i grow up, i wanna be a tyrannosaurus

It always amazes me how a discussion on the theory of evolution becomes so easily sidetracked into other issues that have nothing to do with scientific examination.

Maybe that's because, in the 150 years or so of the theory's existence, there has been not one shred of scientific evidence to support the postulation that one species can evolve into another one.

Looking back on the language of the oriiginal theory and knowing what we know today, it is totally laughable.

The entire concept of gemmules being converted by outside factors through process called pangenisis was proven incorrect as early as 1869.

Subsequent understanding of how DNA works totally invalidated the original theory of species' abilities to evolve into other species.

Darwin was less a scientist than our modern-day friend David Suzuki.

Darwin never earned a degree in science. At least Suzuki is an accredited biologist.

Curiously, the concepts of gemmules and pangenisis are no longer used in the English language or our taught in our schools.

How is it that the comments section for each good news advance in evolutionary science devolves into a theist versus a-theist debate. Theists have to accept that evolutionary science is a mature productive field that is as essential to modern biological science as math is to physics. Even the Vatican has come to understand that denying evolutionary science is a losing position. Whether or not you believe in supernatural powers is a separate issue--as irrelevant as whether Hitler was vegetarian.

My thoughts are that right now as we speak some child is being thrown into a mud hut and is being beaten and tortured and other acts that are so vile that none of us would wish to read. After a few years of this treatment this child will eventually die a horrible and lonely death.

God is suppossed to love us and yet does nothing.
If God exists I refuse to worship him/her/it ,as that is a God not worthy of my praise.

Ah, you want Him to stop other people's evil, but not your evil. Do you think your evil is less offensive to Him than others? It isn't.

The wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23

He died on the cross in your stead so that you, and other evil doers, might live. And you say He does nothing. Not to mention a whole army of Christians whose morality goes a long way towards keeping the world as sane as it is. If you want that child in the mud hut to have a better life, do your part and become a Christian. Every Christian makes a difference to the quotient of hope and love in the world. True agape love. Not the mushy phileo love based only on feelings Peter had for Christ. John 21. That doesn't come through in the English, but that's what the Greek says.

In his book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Charles Darwin offered this explanation as to how one species changes into another.

The process was called pangenesis. Darwin clearly stated that an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles which he named gemmules.

These particles allegedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ; gemmules would drop out of the organ; and the gemmules would travel to the reproductive organs, where they would affect the cells.

Anybody care to debate the scientific merits of those assertions?

Bear in mind what we know about DNA.

Theists have to accept that evolutionary science is a mature productive field that is as essential to modern biological science as math is to physics.

There's a difference between micro evolution based on existing information in the organism and macro evolution involving the organism mindlessly inventing new information.

And the argument that monkeys and humans are so close disregards the fact that all flesh is made out of the elements of the earth. Some are arranged a bit differently. Doesn't mean one came from the other.

ol hoss:

In any discussion of evolution, stick to scientific facts.

The premise that one species can evolve into another it so totally absurd that it cannot be defended on scientific merit.

Do not, I repeat, do not allow an atheist to topic-switch to something they know nothing about ... that is, spiritual matters.

The winning question in any debate is simply this: please direct me to any provable scientific evidence of any species evolving into another.

It's impossible, of course, despite several instances of fraudsters claiming they had discovered the missing link from which humans evolved.

That's usually the point at which attempts will be made to either switch the topic or attack you personally.

*sigh*

I see the fanatics have taken over again. Not surprising, really, but a bit disappointing. There are usually some decent conversations on this blog, but as soon at someone writes the word "evolution" in a comment all the nutjobs pop out of the woodwork.

I especially love the self-assured statements about there being no scientific evidence to support evolution. They literally made me laugh out loud :) It's like these guys are still living in the dark ages. There's been no serious disagreement within the scientific community about evolution for decades now, but, of course, a couple ranting and raving theologians on a blog are MUCH more knowledgeable about these things. What do scientists know anyway. It's all guesswork in a white coat, eh? Maybe we should go back to burning them at the stake. Teach those uppity bastards to disagree with the Bible!

If you want that child in the mud hut to have a better life, do your part and become a Christian. Every Christian makes a difference to the quotient of hope and love in the world. True agape love. Not the mushy phileo love based only on feelings Peter had for Christ. John 21.

Would these be the same Christians that said new Orleans had it coming and that 911 was due to the fact that we turned our backs on God.
That is christian love I can do without.
It is really easy to be tolarent when everybody thinks like you.
If christianity was all that was left we would find another way not to get along.

Actually, set you free, there is a lot of evidence for the emergence of new species, ie, organisms that finally breed 'true' to a unique, self-generated and self-maintained model of themselves. You can check it out in numerous issues, for example, of Science, a very prestigious scientific journal.

The new type emerges as the result of adaptive requirements to changes in the environment, ie, other organisms are also changing and a new species emerges for a better functional 'fit' with that environment.

As to how this happens, there is a lot of research going on about informational processing of environmental data in the cells of an organism, and in the various 'interpretive' processes in the DNA/RNA/protein interactions that enable this new information from the envt to be transmitted to that DNA/RNA/protein 'collective knowledge base' of the species.

Speciation seems to be of two types; the gradual adaptive steps that end up with several types that can be each considered distinct species; and the 'punctuated equilibrium' mode where massive jumps in cellular organization take place. You can see that in the various types of hominids over the thousands of years until our own species. I'd suggest that both types are required for our complex world.

joe - I'm sorry, but your insulting example of 'atheism' doesn't convince me that atheism is invalid, misguided, irrational or juvenile. Your example is, in itself, juvenile.

Alex and ET:

Sub-species variation can occur, through gene shuffling.

The odds of accidentally producing the correct DNA code in a species or changing it into another viable species are mathematically impossible.

In the E. Coli bacteria, for example, scientific papers (Murray Eden of MIT) that it would be impossible to produce mutations in five billion years.

The same scientist showed the matheematica impossiblity of protien forming by chance.

And, after extensive research on red blood cells (hemogloben), he discovered two DNA chains, which he called alpha and beta.

Eden calculated a minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. And, at least 34 of those changes require changeovers in two or three nucelotides.

He pointed out that even if a single nucleotide change occurs during mutation the result ruins the blood and kills the organism.

But, I would never let the facts stand in the way of your science-fiction based beliefs.

"In the E. Coli bacteria, for example, scientific papers (Murray Eden of MIT) that it would be impossible to produce mutations in five billion years."

Sorry, but Eden's wrong. He claims with no explanation whatsoever that a 120 point mutation would take 2,700,000 generations. Strangely enough, he's the only one who's ever come to this conclusion, and all of his peers disagree.

"But, I would never let the facts stand in the way of your science-fiction based beliefs."

lol

Listen, genius, every single one of the "points" which you just made has already been addressed by at least a couple, if not dozens, of credible scientists. If you cared at all about the truth, you'd plug your own words into google and read the results. But you don't. You've got your dogma, and anything that disagrees with it is heresy. So be it. I just hope you realize that you are a laughingstock to anyone with even a remote understanding of science. Hell, even most Christians think that you're nuts.

birds fly

ol hoss:

As you will notice, my prediction came true and it took less that two hours.

Instead of sticking to scientific fact, we see an example of Alex's debating style in the very last line of his (her, possibly a short version of Alexandra) post.

The personal attack came in the form of the description of a fellow human being he/she has known for just two hours as a ‘laughingstock' and the topic-shift (mention of Christianity, which is an entirely unrelated field of knowledge).

Nice try on the personal attack and attempt at topic-shift, Alex, but I'd prefer to keep this discussion on the merits of science.

Explain to me, if you'd care to take a stab at it, what does Darwin himself say on the Origin of Species? And, what say you on the origin of species?

Remember, science only. No personal attacks and no topic-shifting.

ET my analogy isn't as insulting as you want to believe insofar as I too was once was a proud atheist. I could carry on for hours explaining the non existence of God just as as a virgin I could carry on about the intimacy of sex. Experience changed my outlook and my understanding.

In the intervening years I have noticed that there are two very distinct groups. Those who have experienced God and those who have not. That is why I don't try to convince people through intellectual argument of the existence of God because even those who mentally acknowledge the existance of God fail to grasp the fullness of God until they experience Him. So instead of trying to convince, I spend my time leading people to an experience with God and every time someone takes that step and encounters the Living God they are changed in the innermost place of their being.

Would these be the same Christians that said new Orleans had it coming and that 911 was due to the fact that we turned our backs on God.
That is christian love I can do without.

If someone wants little to do with you, do you force yourself on them? God doesn't either. It's an automatic thing, being further from God equals less protection. It's a natural law.

Joe:

Right now, I am leafing through a copy of the Old Testament.

As I turn to the last page, it is number 967.

I also have a copy of the New Testament, with somewhat larger print. The total number of pages in that particular book is 1076.

That's a total of 2043 pages of text.

And, do you know how many pages deal with the Creation? Slightly less than a page-and-a-half. That would be the entire first chapter of Genesis.

So, 1.5 pages out of 2043 pages = what percentage?

Let's just see if we can get that trusty calculator working.

I'm getting .007.

Since I'm mathematically-challenged, correct me if I'm wrong.

Of the entire Bible, only seven ten-thousands deals with Creation.

What is there to fear from such a miniscule amount? Or would volume be a more appropriate word? Obviously, there is much more to the Word of God than Creation.

And, does it seem somewhat curious to you that in a discussion of scientific fact, something as seemingly inconsequential as one chapter in a much larger book draws such a hostile response?

I can completely understand where you're coming from, since a relationship with God is truly a personal experience.

Creation itself cannot be anything but an act of love, can it?

Surely, it cannot be a consequence of something destructive, such as a Big Bang? Creation out of destruction? Makes no sense to me.

Animals evolving from an explosion? Wow! What an imagination it would take to conceive of such a thing.

BTW. In answer to the question I posed to Alex, Darwin never did put forth any theory about the Origin of Species, which was included in the title of his first book.

The full title of the first publication of Darwin's book was truly revealing and a precursor of what was to come in the 20th century, the bloodiest in man's history:

On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Favoured Races? Now, that's an interesting pharse. RIght, Alex?

birds fly....

why can't i ?....

But what have liberals evolved from?

can't wait for Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" to come to Canada - it has already been released in the States.

Belief in evolution is just that - belief.

Yes one can see micro evolution, but there is no fossil record of macro evolution. In fact the fossil record shows the abrupt appearance of species (google Cambrian explosion), not gradual mutations, intermediate forms, amoeba becoming frogs, becoming mice, becoming humans. The scientific fact is there is no evidence of macro evolution.

Belief in evolution has replaced belief in the Creator for secular humanists for whom life is then meaningless chance (yes I just made a generalization)

"If anyone has some really interesting point to add, I might be drawn to respond, but otherwise let's stick to the original topic."

Nothing worse than an intellectual bottom feeder with a colossal dose of their own self importance.

Ex-lib,

You're making a pretty weak argument. Belief in evolution is like belief in water being wet. Belief in god is like believing in a flying spaghetti monster.

We can repeatably show that changes have occurred during the evolution of species. Just ask Lucy (the African one... if you're lost wikipedia it). We can also repeatably show that water is wet by experiment.

Please, if you can, provide some sort of experiment that shows that there is a god. Please show how you did reasonable hypothesis testing. You will be graded on conciseness and neatness.

My experiment will be the story linked.

If someone wants little to do with you, do you force yourself on them? God doesn't either. It's an automatic thing, being further from God equals less protection. It's a natural law.

So God might/will/possibly protect me if I believe?
What happened to free will?

Jon - You do realize that "Lucy" has been shown to be a 'misinterpretation of the evidence' don't you? Your citing of Lucy just lowered my expectations of you. Of course you silly flying spaghetti monster analogy is just as foolish.

Both instances show the mindset of a person who is looking for evidence to support their pre-existing viewpoint. You remind me of the flat earth people who are so sure of their belief that they refuse to go too far in any direction least they fall off the edge.

While you are keeping safe in you little firmly held opinion others are discovering whole new worlds, worlds that human language can scarce describe. That’s OK though. If you really want to remain where you are it will be your loss.

brian - you CAN fly. The difference is that your species has an analytic (rather than simply descriptive) brain capacity. So, you can figure out 'how to fly', and build yourself a plane or helicopter. You don't have to wait for your body to grow wings.

joe- your analogy was insulting; nothing to do with my 'wanting to believe' that it was. Act responsibly and accept the results of what YOU wrote and don't palm them off onto the 'receiver'. The fact that you were at one time an atheist and now are not, is not relevant. It's not a natural law of first atheism, then belief!

set you free - I also reject pure randomness as the only basis for change. I favour 'informed change'. That is, the organism is informationally in contact with the envt and picks up changes in the envt that require adaptive behaviour on the part of the organism. Gradual adaptations can lead to completely new species.

But there is another type of change; it's also informed change, but it isn't gradual but rapid self-organization. That does generate a new type of organism.

You can read about these issues in such journals as Science, BioSystems, Journal of Theoretical Biology. Take a look at Stuart Kauffman, J. Gould, Brooks and Wiley..all been around for some time.

I reject mechanical neodarwinism, which posits a two-step process of pure random mutations and natural selection. To me, that's impossible; a total waste of energy. By the time a species came up with a functional solution to the environmental problem...heck..it would be extinct.

Instead, change, both adaptive and actual species change, is 'informed change'. Not random. The system is finely receptive to information from the envt (includes other organisms)..and its self-organized 'mutations' aren't random but informed and productive.

set you free - the bigbang wasn't a destructive explosion, ie, a transformation of something that materially existed! It was a transformation of pure energy, which is not materially existent, to existential form. That is, pure energy transformed to matter, with the introduction of time.

As you know, E=MC2, or at the square of the speed of light, energy and matter are equivalent. But, since the BigBang introduced time, then..energy in our universe only exists in a material format.

So, the BigBang was actually a generative action not destructive. It generated..matter!

And by 'favored races', Darwin meant species. Not human races. The definition of human populations by genetic composition can hardly be attributed to Darwin. Kindly remember the caste system of India, developed long before Darwin. Also, just about all peoples who are tribal, have some notion of hereditary identity, even if they have no understanding of genes - and a rejection of the 'impurity' of other tribes. Don't try to pin all of that on Darwin.

Joe,

As I have written earlier on this page to other zealots: Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

Please site references when trying to change the natural history of the world. What journal did you find your "Lucy was a misrepresentation" theory in? I just did a quick google/lexisnexis search and the only tripe I could find supporting your opinion is that some B-Rate scientist (non-publishing) tried to cite Lucy as the missing link. So please provide a link, or even a journal name.

Also, its insulting that you would put down my imaginary flying spaghetti monster when you expect total reverence for the so-called god.

..Alex, "especially love the self-assured statements about there being no scientific evidence to support evolution"

Evolution is a science?

..probably has just as much scientific proof as global warming?

Tomax,

Evolutionary Science uses the scientific method to justify the hypothesis of evolution is the truest explanation that we have.

AGW on the other hand is like God. Believers just know that it exists regardless of what those on the rational side of the debate have to say about it.

Before you squeal:
Rational:
"Definition 1
Behavior guided more by conscious reasoning than by experience, and not adversely affected by emotions.

Definition 2
Thinking process that employs logical, objective, and systematic methods in reaching a conclusion or solving a problem."

So, have you experienced the love of god? Any proof through systematic methods?

"Belief in evolution is like belief in water being wet. Belief in god is like believing in a flying spaghetti monster."

Well, I suppose such a statement could be rearranged and be equally true:

'Belief in God is like belief in water being wet. Belief in evolution is like believing in the flying spaghetti monster.'

In other words what a retarded and irrational statement. And then the sanctimonious, self-righteous, non sequitor:

"We can repeatably show that changes have occurred during the evolution of species. Just ask Lucy (the African one... if you're lost wikipedia it). We can also repeatably show that water is wet by experiment."

BTW, who is "we"?

In the meantime, physists are having a hell of a time explaining and squaring the Singularity. Or as ET states, "But, since the BigBang introduced time..."

"Evolutionary Science uses the scientific method to justify the hypothesis of evolution is the truest explanation that we have."

Of a non-observable theory, not a fact.

Excuse my impudence ET but you are starting to argue like a liberal, "You hurt my feelings".

As for me, I accept full responsibility for what I said because I stand by what I said.

Don’t tell me that you haven’t been embarrassed by the antics of a first year student who thought and acted like you did when you were a first year student all full of yourself. Don’t tell me that experience hasn’t forced you to abandon a theory once held dear and are now almost ashamed to admit that you once believed it to be true.

Life is full of changes in outlook and philosophy. What causes us to change? Experience. You and I are not that far apart. For many years I held that there must be Reason (Logos) but eventually I came to realize that Reason can not exist apart from Will. In fact from Will comes Reason. This is explained in the Bible by the analogy of the Father and the Son. From the Father (Will) the Son (Reason) springs forth.

From the sureness of Being, I AM that I AM (Will expressed through Reason) comes all of creation.

But what is it that causes me to say that there is both Will and Reason while you say there is but Reason. I am convinced it is experience.

One night as I knelt in prayer I was taken in the Spirit to a ‘time before creation’. A strange circumstance where there was not something and there was not nothing. There was not wet and there was not dry. There was not light and there was not darkness. There was not up and there was not down. In this primordial chaos a Voice flashed like lightning saying “I AM”. “I AM therefore I will create”. "I Will separate the light from the dark". "I Will separate the nothing from the something". "I Will separate the wet from the dry". "Out of the non-living I Will bring life and from this life I Will bring beings that shall be in My image". "I Will imbue them with will, reason and presence and they shall be My offspring".

When my presence returned to me, several hours later, I walked out of my prayer closet a very changed man. Most of what up till now I had held near and dear I now discarded. I gave away my library of commentaries and sermon outlines. I threw away all my pastoral counselling books. My theological point of view reversed itself. The messages I delivered changed to something far deeper and something having far greater impact. Churches in which I spoke became divided between those who rushed the altar and those who wanted to punch my lights out. As the years have unwound themselves I have become ever more convinced of the validity of the experience through which I was led.

Eh...."experience"...."hallucinogenic drugs"....however you explain it, your "visions" are of no interest to me, or to any rational individual for that matter. You see, most of us have figured out that the human mind is quite adept at creating all sorts of false experiences. We even have scientific data which shows how hallucinations occur, AND we've found the part of the brain which triggers feelings of religious euphoria. I hope you don't seriously think that your subjective personal experiences are going to impress anyone.

There are plenty of people out there who claim that talking space lizards come to them in the middle of the night, or that the government is beaming thoughts into their heads with mind-control satellites, yet even the hyper-religious lunatics will laugh at those claims. The ironic thing is that, if your little story were about aliens, most people would advise you to seek psychological assistance. Unfortunately, because the focus of your delusions happens to be religion, people don't react in the same way. Religious hallucinations seem to be our only socially acceptable mental disorder.

ET: good comments for the most part, but I'm curious about this "informed change" theory. It sounds more like a mild form of wicca than a scientific theory. What data do you have to back your speculation?

Joe - Don't slither out of responsibility. You are reducing your arguments to insults. That's what I'm criticizing you about; don't try to 'blame the victim' by your reference to my 'hurt feelings'. I'm criticizing your resort to personal insults.

'Will' is a basic force (energy); that's basic Aristotle. You are quite wrong to declare that I believe only in reason. But Will without Reason is empty. Just as Reason without Will is mechanical. Read Aristotle.

Your action of 'knelt in prayer' means that you were NOT operating purely within Reason! The fact that you had a 'prayer closet' suggests that you were not acting solely by the use of Reason. Furthermore, your account is hallucinatory. Not a religious experience.

Will is energy? Wtf? ARE you a Wiccan, or a member of some such "nature-based" religion?

Alex - I suggest you read the scholastics, and in particular, Aristotle.

I'm not interested in philosophy. While it may provide some interesting ideas on occasion, it is about as useful as religion when it comes to understanding the universe around us. And your answer certainly doesn't address exactly what you meant when you stated that "Will is energy". I'm hoping that you meant it in some strange figurative way. If you were being literal ... well, then I've lost all hope of finding a rational individual on this thread.

Yes Alex I believe that even though you want to be as thick as a short plank, you are more than welcome to your opinion. What I shared has been backed up with writings that have been tested over the thousands of years they have existed. Over the span of millenia men have had simiar experiences to that which I describe. Those men and what they wrote have changed the course of the world and the face of our society for the better.

Of course others have taken the position you hold and I could say to you and those like you who would reduce mankind to animal status, "Hush all you swine, why struggle so? Do you not know that swinehood hath no remedy?"

If we are no more than the lowing beast or the buzzing gnat then life matters not. If there is no reason for living then life is nothing more than a brief respite from non existence.

ET, why do you bother engaging at this level? An interesting evolutionary discovery that was reported last month is that some 600 genetic variants have been identified among cultural groups. Specifically, many people in cultures that have cultivated cereal grains have some genes that help alleviate the negative effects of carbohydrates. It is interesting that North American Aboriginals have not had cereal grains in their history and are the group most afflicted with obesity and diabetes, two known symptoms of elevated carbohydrate consumption. Plainly, without a long history of selective pressure to tolerate starchy grains (likely sexual selection for better cereal grain tolerance), Aboriginals are particularly vulnerable. We are finding now that in both diet and medicine (drugs), cultural/genetic differences are significant. That such significant differences have evolved in the past 70,000 years emphasizes that modern medicine requires an understanding of genetic-evolutionary dynamics.

As usual this topic brings out the real thoughts and beliefs of many of constant posters on this site and certainly speaking only for myself helps to form my slant of the poster's position on other threads. Posters like irwin daisy, set you free, and ex-liberal who seem to reject or attack anyone who presents any scientific discussion or through their own personal analysis believes god(s) are myths. This atheist is somehow now a threat to Christianity or any religion. If your god gave us a brain why does it frighten you when we use it to form our own thoughts and conclusions? Gods throughout our history have always made the greatest tool to wield power. It doesn't talk back or appear (only to the select few or course) and can be made to do or say anything.

Irwin daisy while I have always read your posts on islam it is obvious to me that you are just a follower and expounder of religious dogma not reason and logic.

Any decent museum or science program shows the evolution of the whale for example from a sea dwelling creature to a land animal then back to the sea with its vestigal hind limbs still plainly there for you to see today. If god created humans he did a poor job as we have so many design flaws. We can't, beyond the baby stage, swallow and breath at the same time unlike any other mammal do to our evolving voice box.

Don't bother going to the ROM as their presentation of evolution currently being shown would insult your thought processes.

As noted by other posters each and every day thousands of reseachers and scientist add more information to the science of evolution. Obviously causing the wailing and gnashing of teeth of those who continually challenge this accumulation of knowledge using the scientific methodology.

"Over the span of millenia men have had simiar experiences to that which I describe."

Anyone who takes LSD will have similar experiences. Delusions don't become more real just because many people have them. Or do you also believe that all those UFO abductees were really kidnapped by little green men who shoved strange objects in their orifices?

"Those men and what they wrote have changed the course of the world and the face of our society for the better."

You mean men like Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Timmothy McVeigh?

Please don't pretend that having visions somehow makes a person great. Great people do great things DESPITE their handicaps, not because of them.

"Hush all you swine, why struggle so? Do you not know that swinehood hath no remedy?"

This is another thing that truly confuses me - why do religious people assume that life without religion would be meaningless? It's like the garbageman telling me that he feels sorry for me because he can't imagine a purpose in a life without garbage. I really don't get why you people are so egotistical as to assume that your belief system is the only thing which makes life worth living.

"If we are no more than the lowing beast or the buzzing gnat then life matters not."

I'd say even the "lowing beast" and the "buzzing gnat" care a great deal about their own lives, and they certainly don't need a "god" in order to continue living.

"If there is no reason for living then life is nothing more than a brief respite from non existence."

Actually, that's exactly what life is, but whats that got to do with purpose? If the only reason you can think for living is so that you can go to heaven, then you must lead a pretty pathetic life. Hell, you should probably be doing as much as possible to accelerate your moment of death! Drink! Smoke! Have unprotected sex with prostitutes! Hell, get yourself deployed to Iraq, or just take a stroll through the Bronx with a sign that says "God Hates Ni**ers". The sooner you die, the sooner you can leave this horrible existence behind, and be in heaven!

That reminds me - I find the whole spectacle of religious funerals to be rather bizarre. I mean, your whole religion embraces this idea that our lives serve only to prepare us for heaven, yet when a person dies all his friends and family spend days if not weeks in mourning. You should be CELEBRATING! Your loved one has finally been freed from the bonds of his earthly form, and been taken to the heavens to meet his Lord! What the hell are you weeping for? REJOICE!

Hypocrites.

"Your action of 'knelt in prayer' means that you were NOT operating purely within Reason! The fact that you had a 'prayer closet' suggests that you were not acting solely by the use of Reason."

And why do you say that ET? When I was an officer in the Forces I used to salute and return salutes all the time. When I met the 'old man' in the mess I addressed him as 'sir'. What was the reason for that?

When I meet the Creator of all that exists shouldn't I kneel before Him? When I interact with Him shouldn't I do it in a place where I will not be distracted? You may not see the reason behind it but I most certainly do. BTW I have always found the most profound insights do not come from men but from Him who is greater than we.

"Read Aristotle".

Do you think Aristotle the only authority? Aristotle was a man who groped his way through life just as the rest of us. He had some views that I accept and others I do not accept. When his views coincide with the Christian understanding of the universe I accept them but when he says something that contradicts Christian understanding I reject his words. Thus I reject his thought of Will as a basic force or energy. I along with any other Christian who has thought about it, hold that Will determines everything else. The universe exists because of Will, it is built through Reason and exists in Presence but without Will, Reason doesn't exist and Presence just kind of sits there.

‘Furthermore, your account is hallucinatory. Not a religious experience’.

Why should I trust your determination as to what is ‘hallucinatory’ or a 'religious experience'? I had opportunity to give a series of 24 lectures to a group of seminary professors and they, to a man, validated my experience(s). Just as to a man they came up to me during the series and said that they had gained insight by what I had just said. Since that time I have had opportunity to share with many other ministers and pastors and they too held that what I experienced is valid and falls entirely within the realm or orthodox Christian belief. You may not believe it but at its core Christianity is an experiential religion that accepts both visions and revelations so long as they do not contradict the basic beliefs or practices of Christianity.

"When his views coincide with the Christian understanding of the universe I accept them but when he says something that contradicts Christian understanding I reject his words."

That's all you really needed to say - the rest is just window dressing. For me, the ultimate judgement of truth is reason - for you, the ultimate judgement of truth is scripture.

Rest assured that if you were still in uniform, I would deffinitely salute you at work, but it certainly wouldn't be a sign of respect. It'd be nothing more than a physical motion carried out in order to fulfil a job requirement. Some officers certainly deserve a salute as a sign of respect, but many deserve only a smack upside the head.

Alex do you really think that all I want to do is go to heaven? hahahahahahah!!!! Not only are you philosphically ignorant you don't understand religion either. Funnily enough none of the "religious men" you mentioned are/were Christian! Nor did I say because men have visions they are great men. However growing up in the era I did I know that LSD was tried and found wanting when it comes to bringing people closer to reality.

The point of Christianity is to lift humanity from its sordid state and graft it into a Divinity that mere mortals can not understand. You don't want to be elevated then stay where you are. I will never try to force you to accept God or believe as I do but I reserve the right to make fun of you so long as you make fun of me.

Should you decide to have a civilized discussion I am ready and willing.

"The point of Christianity is to lift humanity from its sordid state"

Naw. The point of Christianity is to control the masses. And yes, Timothy McVeigh certainly was Christian. But there's little point in holding discussions with someone who admits that his ultimate judgement of truth is whether or not something agrees with scripture, so you'll excuse me if I bow out now. Have fun with your visions, but try not to OD. Good luck!

Alex are you saying that Aristotle is god that I can't disagree with him? If so you would be mistaken just as you are mistaken when you assert that I believe the Scripture is infallible. Scripture is fallible in the hands of fallible men. That is why I rely so heavily on Holy Spirit's revelation. I read Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 for years without understanding. Then one night the door was opened and I was given a glimpse.

And yes, Timothy McVeigh certainly was Christian.

Did Timothy McVeigh know this? According to an article in London's Guardian newspaper McVeigh said, just before he was executed, that he was an agnostic. When Lou Michel, author of American Terrorist, was interviewed by CNN he said McVeigh told him that he, McVeigh, was agnostic. Likewise everyone who knew him said that they never heard McVeigh express any Christian belief.

In fact the only people who said McVeigh was Christian were those who sought to bring disrepute upon Christianity because they were atheist or muslim.

I thought about coming up with a witty reply to the idiot IDers here, but then I realised I don't need any MORE stress in my life, so...

Talkorigins.org.

You want to know what evolution says/does not say? It's all compiled there if you can convince yourself to bother to look at it.

I'm not going to hold your hand if you don't know what evolution is/is not.

[No. This is not an effort to "avoid debate". This is an effort to (hopefully) give you resources to help you understand what it is you're arguing about.

As it stands, our ID pack is horribly ignorant on the subject of evolution. ("Nobody's ever witnessed it! Therefore it's not real!" Yeah? Nobody's directly seen gravity ITSELF in action either (we only see the effect it has on physical objects). Does that mean GRAVITY doesn't exist?)

By the way, we have observed evolution. In the past, and even today. Here's an example. Note that the lizards were dropped off in 1971. It's now 2008 (37 years later) and already we're noticing changes in the lizards (once insectivorous they're now becoming herbivorous).

What could that be? Could it be, gasp! evolution?]

You know what Dave, Alex, ET, etc. It seems to matter a lot to you that there are some people who may have a different idea than you on the origin and meaning of life.

I am basing my opinion on macro-evolution on the facts - there is no fossil evidence of one species evolving out of another. If you want to beleive this, fine, that is up to you. Read up about the Cambrian explosion. I am a molecular biologist and I have to let the facts speak for themselves.

ex-liberal, you're wrong, I could care less what you believe, its up to you to believe whatever you want. Whether its 9/11 conspiracy, aliens from space or Zeus in Olympus, your call. I just object to being told what to believe.

I am just amazed that in the face of daily accumulation of knowledge of evolution people still believe that some mystical god created life and controls our destiny. When I look at the dead world of the muslims and see the results of centuries of religious pounding I am further amazed that this is where you want to be, head down mumbling some rote to an invisible thing.

For the vast amount of people in our civiliztion religion holds little interest or impact on our lives and we will, despite religious wailings of our declining morals and we have lost our way, do fine.

I will continue to believe in the theory of evolution as is seems to stand the test of the scientific method. If it doesn't I will change my view and keep an open mind and as you do, let the facts speak for themselves.

Irwin,

Once again you got it wrong. That's it, just wrong.

Other Zealots,

What does it matter if Hitler or Mao or McVeigh were Christian or not? Are you mad?

Evolution follows the scientific methodology, which is why many scientists and rational people believe in it. Christianity is a system of belief. The Buddhist or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monster story for the origin of life has just as much scientific merit.

So where's the journal article on Lucy? Argument by diversion is pretty weak.

Amen Dave

"well, then I've lost all hope of finding a rational individual on this thread." - Alex to ET

Here goes the bottom feeding intellect again. If you check his posts you'll find he has added nothing but insult and attitude to this topic. Rather he solely promotes a masturbatory, self-important vision of himself. What an absolute moron and waste of bandwidth.

"Posters like irwin daisy, set you free, and ex-liberal who seem to reject or attack anyone who presents any scientific discussion" - Dave

Actually, Dave, check the posts and you'll see by attitude, condescension and insult, it's quite the opposite. And what scientific discussion BTW, "read this or read that"? Most don't add anything other than a ubiquitous and obnoxious "We" rather than "I" when speaking their opinion. Frankly, it strikes me that many on this thread are more intolerant and fundamentalist than anybody of any religion. But then, the opinions do represent an unobserved and unobservable belief that they've built their reality on.

And there lies the crux of the issue and the reason for the hornet's nest response to any challenge.

"Irwin daisy while I have always read your posts on islam it is obvious to me that you are just a follower and expounder of religious dogma not reason and logic." - Dave

Now isn't that about the height of the irrational, illogical, rigid and self righteous mind. In other words, 'I found your posts (possibly) factual, rational and logical on topic A, but because I don't agree with you on topic B, I reject your comments on topic A.' I thought better of many commentors on this blog.

-------

"When his (Aristotle) views coincide with the Christian understanding of the universe I accept them but when he says something that contradicts Christian understanding I reject his words." - Joe

"That's all you really needed to say - the rest is just window dressing. For me, the ultimate judgement of truth is reason - for you, the ultimate judgement of truth is scripture." - Alex

"I'm not interested in philosophy. While it may provide some interesting ideas on occasion, it is about as useful as religion when it comes to understanding the universe around us." - Alex

Let's add hypocrite to moron.

This post pretty much summarizes the whole thread:

"ex-liberal, you're wrong, I could care less what you believe, its up to you to believe whatever you want. Whether its 9/11 conspiracy, aliens from space or Zeus in Olympus, your call. I just object to being told what to believe."

Denigrate, insult, with a dollop of hypocrisy (I could care less, followed by aliens, Zeus, etc.) Followed by more insults, "I am further amazed that this is where you want to be, head down mumbling some rote to an invisible thing." Followed by a statement of faith in the unknowable, "we will, despite religious wailings of our declining morals and we have lost our way, do fine."

Followed by the topical and necessary public statement of faith, "I will continue to believe in the theory of evolution..." Such is the sacred ritual.

Jon,

Are you mad? What part of your post relates to me, other than my response to another moron linking Hitler to Christianity?

If you can't take the time to piece your post together correctly, why should anybody take you seriously in your opinion?

And there it is again, "Christianity is a system of belief. The Buddhist or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monster story for the origin of life has just as much scientific merit." Oh, and "Zealots."

Denigrate, ad hominem attacks, insults - which is, by far, the weakest form of argument.

What is it with you people? The absurd anger and attacks. Do you not trust the foundation of your own belief system enough? You come off as rather intimidated and insecure.

What a delicate flower our daisy is. So easily insulted. Will you be sicking the HRC on us now?

If not, then please stop your whining. It's unbecoming, even for a woman.

Jon:

I hope you will apply a bit of that reason you so loudly proclaim.

A man goes out one day and finds a partial fossilized skeleton. The skeleton looks kind of like a horse but it is a bit smaller and there are a few other variations.

The man thus determines that the skeleton he found is a pre-horse skeleton. Is he correct?

He could be correct or he could be dead wrong. The skeleton may be the remains of a horse, a zebra or a donkey. Or it could be the skeleton of a similar species long extinct. To use a geometric analogy, you can draw any number of lines from a single point.

"Lucy" could be an ancestor of man. "Lucy" could be an ancestor of Yeti. "Lucy" could be the remains of an extinct species that left no decendants. There is no way to prove any of the suppositions.

Here goes the bottom feeding intellect again. If you check his posts you'll find he has added nothing but insult and attitude to this topic. Rather he solely promotes a masturbatory, self-important vision of himself. What an absolute moron and waste of bandwidth-"Irwin Daisy"

What part of your post relates to me, other than my response to another moron linking Hitler to Christianity? -"Irwin Daisy"

And then she has the nerve to write this-

"What is it with you people? The absurd anger and attacks. Do you not trust the foundation of your own belief system enough? You come off as rather intimidated and insecure."
-"Irwin Daisy

Alex takes the witness stand and incriminates himself. Such is the non-intellectual folly of bottom feeders. No substance, just invective, ad hominem attacks and a masturbatory sense of self importance.

And who is "Us?" Is it the same entity as "We?" Let's add coward to hypocrite and moron. Oh, and the HRC is no fight for cowards, let alone morons. Take a powder.

Hey, I didn't start the attacks. They were well established before I posted. However, I won't back away from a fight.

So, why don't you take a powder with the other fembot (you seem to like to group together). And collectively change the tampons while you're there.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I rest my case.

On what? Your chosen debating tactics of insults, invective and juvenile behaviour? Your churlish ability to dish it out, but cowardly inability to take it? Or that your belief system is as supremacist and intolerant as the worst of them?

Irwin,

Please explain why Christianity is any more scientifically correct than my Flying Spaghetti Monster theology. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.

Joe,

I hate having to explain carbon dating so please check it out on Wikipedia. It is a repeatable reliable mechanism which scientists use to determine the age based on the halflife of Carbon 14, which is a regularly occuring isotope.

Also, I am condescending to some because they fail to see that God = Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's the same thing. A rose by any other name. Maybe you could call FSM "Allah" either way I don't care. With no evidence showing existence there is no way I can actually believe in something... it's like believing that communism works.

Well, Jon, as an athiest I gather you don't believe in God. However, your belief is not based on proof of His existence or non existence, but because that's what you choose to believe. You also choose to believe in Darwinian evolution, not because it is proven by scientific observation - which would make it an unarguable fact, case closed - but because you choose to believe in it, regardless. You can use 'scientific method' and agreement from other adherents to give comfort to your belief, while others can support their belief through personal spiritual encounter, philosophy, theology, as well as science.

Dave says that evolution is proven because anybody can see that whales were once land based and evolved back to the sea simply by looking at the bone construction of their fins. While another person might observe that whales have pretty smart and robust bone construction in their fins. It is whatever the observer would like to deduce.

Now, why does your belief system give you and others the pompous and arrogant attitude expressed in this thread? More so, why do you feel, based on your belief, that that entitles you to debase and demean others and their beliefs? Why the insults and ad hominem attacks?

"I am condescending to some because they fail to see that God = Flying Spaghetti Monster." Well, then by the same token, I might state that I'm entitled to be demeaning, dehumanizing and condescending towards those who fail to see that Darwinism = Snail brained fascist idiocy.

Both statements being juvenile and having no purpose other than to demean the other.

However, given your spaghetti monster god, I did pose a question much earlier that wasn't debated:

"In the meantime, physists are having a hell of a time explaining and squaring the Singularity. Or as ET states, "But, since the BigBang introduced time..."

Your belief system becomes as fundamental and fanatical as any other. In fact, check Alex' comments towards ET on Aristotle. He's so angry and upset, he's practically calling ET blasphemous and an apostate. Certainly declaring himself as more pure and rational than ET. Ridiculous.

Once again, where have I challenged carbon 14 dating? Why do you continue to add things to my comments that I didn't comment on?

Jon I never mentioned carbon 14 or dating of any sort. My point is simply you can draw any line you want from a single point. You choose to see a direct ancestor of modern man in the skeleton of "Lucy". However that does not mean that "Lucy" was a direct ancestor of modern man. It can be inferred that "Lucy" was any number of things based solely on the desire of the person observing the skeleton. It far more likely that "Lucy" was species of ape that became extinct. After all there have been many many species become extinct. Haven't seen too many sabre toothed tigers or wooly mammoths lately have you? Did they pass on their genes to another species? I have never heard a biologist say that mammoths evolved into elephants or sabre toothed tigers evolved into cougars, they simply became extinct. Did "Lucy" species evolve into modern man or simply become extinct? Based on available evidence the latter is more likely than the former.

Joe and Irwin,

My point once again about the flying spaghetti monster and god is that NO rational person (see defn above) can assume that they exist and are real. You may feel as if God exists but there exists no proof. Absence of proof for the other side does not equal proof for your side as well. I don't know either way, as I said before I am a former Christian whose experience both with people and the New Testament made me chose people. I am not a Darwinist, nor am I an atheist, nor do I believe in FSM enough to get into his post death candy shack. I am an agnostic. Having faith in God is the same as having faith in FSM. It's just faith.

My belief system arrogant? Once again I disagree with you. I use extreme examples because folk like you guys do not respond to the mundane. I have been a regular reader here since the day Kate was added to BT and I've seen what you've written.

Simply:

1) No rational evidence of a (or any) God.
2) Hypothesis testing is the ONLY system of verifying assumptions rationally.

All the science that keeps your car on the road, the grain growing in the fields, you power on, comes from hypothesis testing.

That is why I as a rational engineer chose to believe that evolution is real and evident and obvious. Same methodology I use to select the proper turbines for your power plants and concrete for your quality of life.

I agree with you that there are a few flaws, but I disagree that we need a fully unified theory within 150 years of the original assumption. Before Newton (Christian Ironically) one could have claimed that we stick to earth because that's what god wants rather than because Galileo's faulty yet ultimately correct thesis was universal. Of course he was tortured and banned from writing by the Vatican.

Here are the flaws:
1) Big bang and the law of the conservation of matter. It is impossible to create or destroy matter so how did the universe "start from nothing".
2) Inanimation to animation. How is it possible that "life" evolved or mutated from "no life".

I said that Lucy was a pre-human primate, as were many other primates. Just like you were likely breed from shorter parents with smaller feet... just saying. Pre-human means that she was a primate which appeared before humans (homo sapien sapien), not that she was a direct ancestor of humans. Otherwise those of us who speak science and english would have called her a direct ancestor. Please pay attention to what I write, and not what you subscribe to as a prejudice of my views.

As an exercise in logic please replace where I wrote god with Vishnu and where I wrote Flying Spaghetti Monster with God. Try rationalizing your point of view now.

Sincerely,

"Dave says that evolution is proven because anybody can see that whales were once land based and evolved back to the sea simply by looking at the bone construction of their fins. While another person might observe that whales have pretty smart and robust bone construction in their fins. It is whatever the observer would like to deduce."

Um, no, you friggin' idiot, the bone structure he's talking about is totally separate from their fins. Whales literally have vestigial legs buried in the blubber of their midriff - it has nothing to do with their tails. They're clearly evolved from an animal which had four legs AND a tail. The tail stayed and became more useful, while the fore-limbs turned into fins, and the rear limps disappeared into the belly. Dolphins have a similar feature, although less pronounced - you can only see it in the embryonic stage of their development. Meanwhile sharks, which are descended from a line of ocean-dwelling animals, lack any sort of vestigial limbs.

Seriously, do some research before spouting off. All of this stuff is common knowledge, and is easy to confirm. You'll look a lot less ignorant if you at least have a vague idea of what we're talking about.

Alex,

We should be careful in calling these guys idiots. Sometimes they're quite bright but when god gets thrown into the mix rationality and fact go out the window.

Lets just say they're like Obama and they've been listening to Rev. Wright too much.

Jon my point of view is extremely rational and in fact is far more rational than yours. That you don't want to accept a universal Will, Reason and Presence behind all exists simply shows you to be a lesser engineer than you would have us believe.

I too trained as an engineer. I haven't done any engineering for years now but when I look at the structure and function of living things I am humbled at the handiwork that went into it. As an engineer I would dearly love to design something like DNA. I would love to be able to build even the most basic virus let alone the differentiated cells that comprise living bodies such as birds, reptiles and mammals. I would love to design a stem cell that if you put it one place in a body it becomes a heart cell or move it over a few cm and it becomes a liver cell. I would love to be able to design a body that is self perpetuating, feeding itself, cleaning itself and able to move about walking, swimming or flying. I would love to design a body that repairs and even generates its own replacement as it wears out. Failing that I would love to be able to re-install 'life force' after a body dies through accident or illness.

You see Jon in your rush to deny Someone greater than you, you are clinging to the impossible and claiming it is true. As I mentioned earlier on this post I too was an atheist and fully immersed in Darwinian evolution. Once my sense of self importance was removed I began to look at Darwinian evolution and soon realized that none of it adds up. Life doesn't come from non living things. Things do not come from nothing. Without a governing Will, Reason and Presense, none of our "physical laws" work. BTW I have also had opportunity to see those afore mentioned physical laws be abrogated. But that's for another day.

In the mean time I would suggest you open your mind and shut down your ego and you might find a far deeper Truth than the nonsense you learned in school.

On what? Your chosen debating tactics of insults, invective and juvenile behaviour? Your churlish ability to dish it out, but cowardly inability to take it? Or that your belief system is as supremacist and intolerant as the worst of them?

Wow, Daisy you sure make this forum a better place I can't thank you enough. I have been reading your act on this forum for awhile now it is something to be proud of.

"We should be careful in calling these guys idiots. Sometimes they're quite bright but when god gets thrown into the mix rationality and fact go out the window."

I know. I just find it difficult to keep my frustration in check sometimes - even more so when dealing with an intelligent individual who simply refuses to think. Ignorance I can cure, but there's no real fix for wilful blindness.

Oh, while we're on the topic, I figured some of you who DON'T like getting all your "facts" from the bible might be interested in this:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php

To sum it up: in only 30 years, a small lizard species on an isolated island managed to switch from a mostly carnivorous diet to a largely herbivorous diet. And, get this: they evolved an entirely new feature in their intestines which allows them to efficiently process high-cellulose plant matter. Truly fascinating stuff! If the creationists want a modern-day example of one species evolving into another, just point them at these little guys :)

The bottom feeding motor mouth erupts again. Of course I've seen whale skeletons, "friggin' idiot." As I said, to somebody who wants to fit everything into the preconceived notion of evolution, then the articulated bone structure of the fins will appear as if the whale evolved from a land based creature. As they say, 'everything will appear as a nail, if all you've got is a hammer.' However, another person might observe that whales have a pretty smart and robust bone structure, uniquely suited to their environment and body mass.

If you'd like to believe the evolution theory as applied to the whale, then you'll also have to explain why a land based creature would evolve in order to exist in a new environment that it presumably doesn't need - the sea. And where did this evolution take place, on land or in the sea? And why would a creature evolve from the sea to the land - as Darwin would have it - only to devolve back to the sea? Or was that evolve? None of which makes any logical sense.

Jon,

As I mentioned before, if there was irrefutable proof of God, that would erase choice, wouldn't it? The same goes for evolution. However, I do appreciate that at least you admitted the obvious, that belief in evolution is indeed a choice.

The belief system itself is not arrogant. I was commenting on what I've observed by the attitudes exhibited by many adherents. This thread for example.

I neither have to rationalize God, nor defend him. I happen to believe in him through personal encounter and I have kept the courage of my conviction and knowledge, despite what others may do in his name. It's a big, interesting reality, with more depth than simply the physical/material.

Neither am I offended by Darwinism, or much else for that matter. People are entitled to believe in what they will. I only find it offensive when the dogma is so rigid that debate is closed and anybody with a different POV is attacked, mocked and rejected. That to me is beyond authoritarian, it's totalitarian and wrong.

When I consider the eye, in fact, all of which makes a human being, I consider it a greater leap of faith that somehow these things randomly evolved and are meaningless. I guess Francis Crick, the discoverer of DNA, did as well.

You might want to check Zipf's language law and junk DNA, for a recent surprise.

Right of centre,

Well, unfortunately, until now I haven't read anything from you. Do you write anything of any insight or significance that I may be missing?

...off in the distance a dog barks.

http://startitup.org/larson.jpg

"As I said, to somebody who wants to fit everything into the preconceived notion of evolution, then the articulated bone structure of the fins will appear as if the whale evolved from a land based creature."

Apparently Jon was being overly generous when he suggested that you might not an idiot. You're still taking about the tail (or the fins now?), even after I took the time to explain to you that we're discussing a totally separate body part, which is hidden within the body of the whale. I'm not sure how you expect to have a discussion about evolution when you don't even seem to be able to parse a very basic comment about anatomy.

Here, educate yourself:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html

I know, I know, it's not a bible quotation, but trust me, it'll do you good to read something else for a change. Also, check out the article about the lizards I linked to earlier. I'd love to hear your "thoughts" (I use the term with some trepidation) on the matter.

Alex: One of the most important concepts in 'science' is that you open your mind to all potential causes of observed phenomena.

For the sake of argument let us take your assertions about these lizards at face value. Let us assume that it is true that these lizards suddenly grew a multi-chambered stomach like bovines and thus are now able to eat grass instead of meat.

There are two possibilities here either random chance allowed this to happen in such a short time or else an unseen intellegence guided the digestive tract of these lizards to so modify.

Now I don't know about you but I would place more credence in the second cause than the first. A small, isolated population would likely starve to death than grow a different gut in a matter of 30 years without guidance from its Creator.

Of course not knowing the facts and with the disrepute that 'scientists' have fallen into (AGW, Rocks falling off Mars, etc.) I'm not sure how much to believe about this story. AGW has produced how much false evidence? The rock from Mars fell off Mars how exactly. Lizards growing a new gut???

AGW wants to control our society, NASA wants to go to Mars, and evolutionary biologists have for over a century and a half tried to produce evidence that supports their atheistic position.

When it comes to evidence given by agendized scientists I'm with Harry Truman who used to say "I'm from Missouri; show me".

"Alex: One of the most important concepts in 'science' is that you open your mind to all potential causes of observed phenomena."

Not really: you need to be open to unlikely explanations, sure, but "The Bearded Guy In The Sky Did It" is so unlikely as to be laughable, and is, more importantly totally untestable. An even more important aspect of science is that there has to be some way of confirming or dismissing (or at leas testing) a hypothesis - in other words, the hypothesis should be falsifiable. As you've demonstrated by your "suggestion" here, religion is not falsifiable. No matter what sort of argument I advance, you can always answer with "God Did It", and there's no way for me to disprove your claim. Ergo, your claim is useless.

"There are two possibilities here either random chance allowed this to happen in such a short time or else an unseen intellegence guided the digestive tract of these lizards to so modify."

See what I mean?

Actually, random chance didn't do it - natural selection did. But no matter what I can prove to you, you're always going to claim that God had a hand in it. Even if I could prove to you conclusively that natural selection alone is more than enough to make this kind of change (and I could, given enough time to teach you genetics and statistics) you'd just claim that even though natural selection could have been responsible for the change, God probably tweaked things here and there. That's because your beliefs aren't based on reason, and as such they can not be addressed in a logical manner. You are always going to believe what you believe because there is no rational way for anyone to disprove it.

"and with the disrepute that 'scientists' have fallen into"

That's quite possibly one of the dumbest statements in this entire thread. And that's saying a lot.

"When it comes to evidence given by agendized scientists I'm with Harry Truman who used to say 'I'm from Missouri; show me'."

I'm with ya on that one: show me "god".

Well, apparently your god, natural selection, decides to naturally select some animals over others (or is it random chance?). Nonetheless, why would Natural Selection decide to evolve an animal, out of the sea - as Darwin would have it - grow legs and adapt to the land, only to reverse the whole process and return it to the sea, for no apparent reason at all? Sounds completely illogical. Or is macro evolution like climate change, it can evolve and devolve at the same time and both are correct? Aristotle might have a problem with that.

Survival of the fittest is also a joke. Why did so many large mammals, with few if any competitors, devolve into things like the raccoon, etc?

None of you have addressed the not so small controversy physists are having in explaining the Singularity.

Though, I think we've found the missing link. The unthinking, irrational moron, Alex, who somehow confuses himself as being intellectually superior.

Alex I would love to show you God but you are blinded by your arrogance.

But it you really want to "see" God go away from the city at night and look up. Stand in awe of the infinite number of stars in the infinite number of galaxies and realize they have their being IN HIM and kept in their place by HIM.

Go to the mountains and climb the lofty crags and realize that the mountains too have their existence in HIM.

Go look at an ant colony or a bee hive. Watch the busy little creatures communicating and helping each other and realize that they are God's creation.

Go to the worst slums you can find. Live there and launch a small co-op to help the people find relief from their lot in life.

Then having done so, filled with awe, filled with wonderment, filled with love, humble yourself fall on your knees and ask for forgiveness. In that very instance you shall know that God not only exists but loves you with a deep burning love that human language is inadequate to describe.

Alternatively you could simply ask God to reveal Himself to you. Some of my dearest Christian friends began their discovery of God with a statement like this. God I know you don’t exist but just in case could you reveal Yourself to me?

Survival of the fittest is also a joke. Why did so many large mammals, with few if any competitors, devolve into things like the raccoon, etc? -Daisy

If these questions need to be asked by you then you havent picked up a book about evolution. This is a level one question.
It's like saying "I know everything about cars but why are the tires round?"
I cant believe we have wasted our time with a "home schooled" poster.
I thought I would create a post from the Daisy template, part one act superior, then give an explanation and then insult at the end.

Survival of the fittest is also a joke. Why did so many large mammals, with few if any competitors, devolve into things like the raccoon, etc? -Daisy

If these questions need to be asked by you then you havent picked up a book about evolution. This is a level one question.
It's like saying "I know everything about cars but why are the tires round?"
I cant believe we have wasted our time with a "home schooled" poster.
I thought I would create a post from the Daisy template, part one act superior, then give an explanation and then insult at the end.

Joe,

The nonsense I learned in school makes sure that hospitals have power. It has also saved far more lives than any religion.

For example:
The delivery of fresh potable water and the removal of sewage (in conjunction with other things) has already prevented the deaths of 1 billion children since I was born in 1983.

You're making an assumption that has no factual basis. This. is. the. issue. a. scientist. has. with. religion.

DNA is cool so God must have done it? Please carefully consider what Alex has been saying this whole thread.

Please note that many if not most conservative positions come from the rational. There's no "I feel therefore it is true" which is rampant in socialism. You've just chosen (or maybe have been chosen?) God as your issue of irrationality rather than socialized medicine, or public broadcasting.

Joe - "Jon my point of view is extremely rational and in fact is far more rational than yours. That you don't want to accept a universal Will, Reason and Presence behind all exists simply shows you to be a lesser engineer than you would have us believe."

Until you can show that there is a "Universal Will" I will continue to believe that there isn't or that there might be with no proof. It doesn't take a super intelligent dolphin who used to have legs to see that life on earth isn't static.

As I wrote earlier I am not an atheist. Please don't subscribe things to me, I am agnostic. I don't believe that a god exists because I have been given no reason or proof to believe so.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Personal experience time (those same types of experiences that Christians say bring them closer to god).

I lived in Thailand when I was young. I moved away from home, at the time I was Christian. I also believed that those who know of Jesus as the path to God who have chosen not take take him as their personal saviour will be judged.

At the time I was living with a Thai family who already had a religion. They gave to the poor, clothed and sheltered an idiot North American Zealot and maintained the "Christian Virtues" like compassion and patience.

I quickly began to see through the experience that "God was giving me" (or so I thought at the time) that God was an asshole. Many religions that all claim to be the one and only way. Constant civil wars, wars, bombings, terrorism were taken out in his name. I was almost blown up in Hat Yai by some muslim insurgents. They were also acting as tools of God. The God.

Then I started reading more about it. The Coucil of Nicea, the inclusion of books that were obvious forgeries and the exclusion of books because they didn't fit into the Dogma.

Then I looked at the history of the Vatican. Then of the inquisition. Then I read about the history of Rome (Gibbon). And I realised that the only constant in all of humanities major failures has been the unquestioning belief of something, be it God or Marx or The Perfect Man or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

That's why I reject your point of view. We have the opportunity to think and to question and to reject or accept. You have obviously seen something different than me, but you must understand that I have seen something different from you.

I'm just glad that we have moved away from the Puritan times where I would have been burned as a witch for saying such things.

ROC already answered Irwin, so I won't bother to reply in detail. His mistakes are so basic that he really has no place in this discussion.

Joe:
"Alex I would love to show you God but you are blinded by your arrogance."

In other words "If only you believed in God, I could show him to you!". Sorry, but your circular arguments don't hold any water here. Besides which, you want me to believe in God based purely on your say-so, yet you think I'M arrogant? Please, don't be a hypocrite.

"Stand in awe of the infinite number of stars in the infinite number of galaxies and realize they have their being IN HIM and kept in their place by HIM."

Like I said, circular argument. "There must be a god because the sky is so pretty and God made the sky". Sorry, doesn't cut it.

As an infantryman I spent many, many, MANY nights awed by the spectacle of the night sky. I saw in it the glory of the universe. It didn't say to me "Look, an invisible dude made me", it said "LOOK! Look at how much more there is to learn!".

That's the difference between me and you: you're happy to answer every question with "God did it" and leave it at that, while I yearn to understand as much about it that I possibly can. If it were up to people like you, we'd still believe that the sun rises and sets because a mighty God drives it across the heavens in his chariot. All you need to do in order to realize how silly religion is, is to look back at past religions and realize that people believed in those just as fervently as you believe in your own. Whether it's Greek Gods, Norse Gods, Aztec Gods, or the goddamn Cargo Cults, they're all equally silly. Just like Christianity, they make for an interesting read, but as a means to understanding the universe they're a dead-end. Even if we assume that there IS a God, organized religion is still an utter waste of time.

And, finally, Jon:

Thank you for sharing your story. I'm always fascinated by the journey that people take either away from or toward religion. Yours is rather unique, and I greatly enjoyed reading it. It sounds like you went through a hell of a journey to get where you are.

By the way, I was also agnostic up until just recently. I never much cared about what people believed in, and I didn't really see a way of proving or disproving the existence of God, so I figured the rational thing to do was leave the question in limbo. Then, a few months ago, I read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and it answered all the nagging little questions I still had. I'd suggest that you pick up a copy if you haven't done so already. Even if you don't find it convincing, it's at the very least an interesting study of organized religion.

irwin:

Thanks for your defence of reason and your reasonable arguments.

It is truly amazing to see how frightened a certain segment of our friends here are of one chapter of a much larger book and how much energy they expend go to discredit the entire book.

Had to step aside for Easter celebrations this weekend. We're kind wacky, us Orthodox, in our insistence that the crucifixion and resurrection happened after the Last Supper, that is the Passover Meal. It makes more sense than the Last Supper happening after the crucifixion.

And skimming through the comments, it's also interesting that a response to a simple request for scientific proof that one species can evolve into another species triggers such personal attacks.

1) A couple of days ago, I cited the research of Murray Eden of MIT. Through series of scientifically-controlled experiments (the methodology by which is the process by which scientific fact is established) demonstrated that it was impossible to break the DNA chain, since the required mutations would kill the living organism.

The response ( by Alex) at that time was that Eden's research had been refuted by dozens of scientists and the predictable topic-shift from science to name-calling and attack on religion beyond Chapter I of Genesis.

Other than the fact all Genesis does is state the obvious: we got here somehow and the fact the rest of the Bible deals with ‘now that we're here, how can we best conduct ourselves?', the content of the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it has never been proven that one species can evolve into another.

I did not get a chance to question Alex what the alleged refutations (none were given) meant?

If dozens of scientists refuted Eden's conclusion that it was impossible, the best way to back up that assertion would be to provide proof that not only was it possible, but that it actually happened.

No proof? Then the theory of evolution will remain an evolution.

I guess those who refuted Eden's conclusions are still working on it and if Eden's conclusion became accepted, plenty of research grants would be in jeopardy.

2) Saw an interesting assertion that claimed you, I and somebody else were anti-science.

Can't speak on your behalf, but I enjoy science, what legitimate proveable science has done to help humanity. There are many good things about science.

I like science and I like religion and am capable of appreciating the good in both fields of existence.

3) Also saw a curious assertion that religion is a means of control over others.

My own experience is that it's more about self-control. I have never read anything that directs me to control other human beings. A succession of priests I have know throughout my life have never taught me methods to control any other human beings.

And, I'm not afraid of an imaginary spaghetti monster, since it simply does not exist. And, if it does, it only exists in the same alternate universe in which species can evolve into other species.

My scientific hypothesis is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster evolved in the minds of some from fear. I'm sure there must be some provable scientific reason for its evolution that our friend would like to share with us.

It's beyond my understanding, since I cannot control the minds or the thoughts of others.

Actually, left of having a brain, you've done a very good job of providing nothing other than insults throughout this thread. I've simply returned the favour.

The question I posed and you cited has been asked by scientists and other intellectuals. Obviously you don't read up on your own pet subject.

BTW, have you ever read Sheldrake? Perhaps a silly question to ask a volunteer for mental imprisonment.

irwin:

When I was much younger and we asked our bishop about what were the most important foundations of our religion and what was the most important thing we needed to know about our religion, his answer was startingly simple.

“The Ten Commandments," he said.

Much later, I learned the first five dealt with each individual's relationship with God and the final five deal with individual's relationships with other human beings.

That's pretty much the issues that are dealt with every time I listen to what's being said during services in the church I have gone to since I was four years old.

Here's something our friends probably did not know.

Darwin was a very religious man all his life. For many years he was the lay leader in his parish.

He never thought his findings contradicted belief in God.

Darwin was asked: “In the chain of evolution, where was the first link?"

Darwin answered: “It was riveted to the throne of the Most High."

Even Darwin understood that science and religion are not competing visions, but deal with different fields of knowledge.

Even though is theory of species converting into other species remains unprovable, it would seem curious that a person who was a lay leader in his parish would not be religious.

Nice to hear from you, SYF.

The thing that's most disconcerting here and elsewhere is the fascist like attitudes taken by those who, as Jon stated, choose to believe in evolution. Frank Tipler, a professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, claims in his books that he is paid 40% less than others on faculty because of his belief in God. And that if he renounced his faith, things would be squared.

"Thank you for sharing your story. I'm always fascinated by the journey that people take either away from or toward religion. Yours is rather unique, and I greatly enjoyed reading it. It sounds like you went through a hell of a journey to get where you are."

This, of course, is one adherent celebrating another on their journey to the true faith. This same person attacked ET, for daring to bring the impure subject of Aristotle and philosophy into the debate. Pretty much branding her as an apostate. While positioning his pious self as being superior in the faith.

I find these people fascinating. In their denial of religion and God they set up their very own version, defending their belief as fanatically and irrationally as any Islamist. Perhaps with the head chopping of kaffirs replaced by the far less messy character assassination.

They reject Crick's rejection of evolution. They won't consider the Singularity and its meaning.

Jon, an engineer, rejected ex-Liberal's opinion out-of-hand, despite the fact that he/she is a micro-biologist and obviously has more education in the area.

I'm free to consider all options and opinions, if they make rational sense. I happen not to believe in the theory of macro evolution, not because of my faith in God, but because it is illogical, full of massive holes, has no more than a pickup truck full of evidence and is impossible to prove through observation. The attitudes of people surrounding and protecting the theory also gives one pause to think. Yet, these types prefer to voluntarily lock themselves away from discovery and consideration of a whole wide, broad and layered reality. They prefer to voluntarily remain in the mental prison of evolutionary theory. Pity.

Jon confuses what the NT actually says and Christ's example with man's unjustifiable actions. This is the basis of his rejection:

"I quickly began to see through the experience that "God was giving me" (or so I thought at the time) that God was an asshole. Many religions that all claim to be the one and only way. Constant civil wars, wars, bombings, terrorism were taken out in his name. I was almost blown up in Hat Yai by some muslim insurgents. They were also acting as tools of God. The God."

That's simply anger and confusion. Nothing more, nothing less. He also confuses Islam with Christianity, which shows he has little education in either.

As for alex, he's now solidly convinced by a recent book by Dawkins. Not personal experience. Not all the great and insightful people down through history. All that doesn't matter. All of them were deluded and most importantly far less intelligent and wise than he himself. For him, true insight starts with himself and ends with Dawkins. History is a wreck visited on by evil Christianists and needs to be jettisoned.

The epitome of pride and arrogance. An old and boring formula.

irwin:

We can add Albert Einstein to the list of religious scientists.

At least that's the impression a reader would get from his articles in Time Magazine in the 1930's.

The text is readily available, as are others on the topic by googling:

Religion and Science.

The evidence has always been there that people with scientific minds also embrace religious truths as important in understanding our universe.

SYF:

"Darwin was a very religious man all his life."

Man, I've heard religious people feed each other some pretty delusional stuff, but that one takes the cake. Hell, even "christiananswers.net" disagrees with you:

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html

As for Einstein, while there is certainly evidence that he believed in some sort of God, here is his official stance on religion:

"About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indoctrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws."

—W. Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet—In Search of the Cosmic Man (Branden Press, Brookline Village, Mass., 1983), p.132, quoted in Jammer, p.123.

Not that it matters in the slightest what either Darwin or Einstein thought of either religion or God, since those beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with their work. They were men of science who accomplished great things by using their minds - not men of the bible who stuck to outdated dogma in the face of contrary evidence.

Try again?

The nonsense I learned in school makes sure that hospitals have power.

Might I add that the 'nonsense' I am speaking of makes sure that there are hospitals to power?

Survival of the fittest eliminates the need for hospitals and thus the need for electricity.

Well Alex if my argument is circular then yours is even more so. God doesn't exist therefore God doesn't exist.

My experience was much more along the line of God doesn't exist therefore God doesn't exist. Then events began to happen for which there was no plausible explanation. I then began to ask the question, "could God exist?" Then one day I asked Him and He revealed Himself to me in a very personal way. Since then I have been walking with Him and He with me for over 30 years and every so often I am surprised by His Grace as He reveals another aspect of Himself to me.

Now I hold that I was much more 'scientific' than you because I asked the question 'what if'. The scientists of the middle ages were convinced the earth was flat. Then someone asked the question what if. What if the world was not flat. Let's prove it and the Americas were 'discovered'. Thus I say that your approach is the same as the flat earthers who refuse to entertain the question 'what if'.

You see you have a much more closed mind than do I. I mentioned that I don't believe a scientist simply because he says "it is thus". A few years ago NASA found a rock in Antarctica that they claimed had fallen off of Mars and contained traces of life. Now I hope you can follow this. Earth is spinning on its axis and revolves around the Sun. Mars travels around the Sun as well. A person finds a stationary rock that has left no trail. That person has no idea when the rock landed and if he is honest he has to admit that he has no idea which direction it came from. Then of course there is the small problem of the gravity well of Mars. How big an impact must have taken place to chip a rock off Mars and make it travel all the way to Earth? In other words you take an infinite number of possibilities (where it came from) and multiply it by an infinite number of impossibilities (rocks falling off planets) and a 'scientist' who finds the rock says that it proves there is life on Mars, in other words the scientist out and out lied to further his agenda. You want to believe him you go ahead.

I don't trust clergy simply because they wear a collar. I test to see if what they say is true and to be perfectly honest much of what they say is not true.

I don't believe a scientist simply because he is a scientist. I check and test to see if it is plausible and likely and if I can replicate what he has done.

I don't accept a philosopher ancient or modern simply because he expressed and idea and a concept. Does it fit reality and what are the consequences?

However when millions of people over thousands of years do the same experiment and report the same result I tend to put a bit of credence in what they report. If I conduct the same experiment and attain the same result it pretty much convinces me that I have stumbled upon a bit of foundational truth. Does that mean that I have a lock on truth? No! It means that as we go through life we weigh the evidence with open mind. I reject the "big bang" theory because of its implausibility. Far greater mathematicians than I can not figure out 'singularity'.

I was listening to Quirks and Quarks on CBC one day and I heard an astrophysicist exclaim that they had discovered that empty space was not empty but full of an energy that was like water about to boil. For an instant matter would appear then disappear almost in the same instant. The scientist in me said "the physicist is nuts". The Christian in me said "that makes sense". When the 'string theory first came out with the idea of there being 11 dimensions 7 of which disappeared during the big bang. My inner scientist said the mathematician has too much time on their hands. The Christian in me said, "I know where those other dimensions went".

I’ll leave you with this old joke. Science is scaling the mountain of knowledge. Year after year upward it goes. When at last it reaches the pinnacle it is in for another surprise. The theology has been sitting at the top waiting for the science to catch up.

Alex:

I'm curious as to why you continue to be in denial about the fact that science and religion are compatible.

I have no quarrel with either religion or science. They are specialized fields onto their own.

Yet, you seem to believe science somehow refutes religion, despite millenia of evidence to the contrary in which scientists understood and were inspired in their search for scientific truth by religious tenets.

Darwin's originally was encouraged to study religious matters by his father. Now, why would a father encourage his own some to study something his son was not interested in?

Darwin was, in fact, a lay leader in his church and a religious man.

If you read the Hemanns quote you will see the phrase ‘My God ...' Therefore, Einstein did not reject religion itself. He rejected a concept based on the authority of the Church, that is the worship of people in position of authority within the Church rather than its tenets. That's the way I read it

Now Alex, you touch on an important point.

You say it matters not in the slightest whether Darwin or Einstein though of religion, which has absolutely nothing to do with their works.

I agree with you.

And, that is precisely the point.

Scientific theory should be able to stand on its own merits.

So, why not stick to something that interests you (science) and not something you're wilfully ignorant about (religion).

My interest in science does not negate my interest in religion. They are two different fields of understandings of our universe which enhance each other.

The theory of evolution remains an unproven theory for many of the reasons I have articulated above.

Religion is not against the theory of evolution.

Science itself refutes the theory because of the impossibility of DNA mutations of a species evolving into another species.

It's a total non-sequiter to say that because the theory of evolution remains unproven that somehow religion stands in the way of its proof. It's science itself that has not proven the theory.

In my scientific understanding, the theory of evolution has about as much chance of being proven as alchemy.

Who or what exactly is it that you're so afraid will control you?

You have the power within yourself, through your own free will, to make your own choices.

Last I checked, nobody other human being was capable of controlling my life and I blame nobody else for my misery other than myself.

Alex:

Bob Dylan had a very appropriate lyric in one of his songs: ‘Don't criticize what you can't understand.'

It's obvious you've had extremely poor teachers who turned you off an entire field of human understanding of our universe.

It would be better to stick to what you have embraced rather than what you have rejected.

Since you have embraced science and used religion as a strawman for all that is bad, why not just keep the debate about the theory of evolution strictly on scientific merit?

Is it because it cannot be proven, so you have to blame something for this failure? Or, is it because you are a scientist whose research grants are in danger of being pulled?

Or, are you plainly unwilling to accept the scientific truth?

Joe:

You are wrong. God does not make hospitals. Civil engineers do. They do it out of the compassion that is inherent in all men, religious or not.

You joke may be funny, but like most funny jokes it has very little basis in reality. I am not searching for a final answer. I guess Galileo caught up to theology because he recanted when he was being tortured. Descartes showed me that there are no absolutes but for this one.

Irwin,

Yikes. Please seek help. The way you use ad hominem attacks makes me question if you are being truthful and ignorant, or if you writing what you write to show how painful it is to argue with someone like yourself. Also there are Christian Terrorists, like McVeigh and the list I've attached at the bottom. They are as Christian as Al Qaeda is muslim. Just because you are ignorant of something (like evolution) does not mean it does not exist.

Others,

Please back to evolution. Please provide one article published in a credible magazine that disproves that evolution exists. That is, after all, why we are here.

# Christian terrorist organizations

* Army of God
* Christian Identity
* Aryan Nations
* Christian Patriots
* Lambs of Christ
* Nagaland Rebels
* Tsar Lazar Guard
* White Eagles
* God's Army
* Ku Klux Klan
* National Liberation Front of Tripura
* Sons of Freedom
* Guardians of the Cedars
* Lebanese Forces
* The Lord's Resistance Army
* Russian National Unity

# Historical cases of Christian terrorism

* St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, 1572
* Gunpowder Plot, 1605
* Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, 1649-53
* Iron Guard and Lăncieri, 1927-1945

As a note: You can't make stuff up in online arguments or you will be bested by you betters. Please remember that Irwin. Everything you know about God is false; it's all in your head.

Jon I see that not only can you not debate you can't read either. I never said that God built hospitals. I said that Christianity is the impetus behind our modern hospital. In the mean time go and enjoy(?) your petty little helpless hopeless loveless life and when it is over enjoy your non-existence. One favour I ask of you. Please don't kill anyone else from thinking that you are somehow superior (you know survival of the fittest).

"I'm curious as to why you continue to be in denial about the fact that science and religion are compatible."

Because religion has historically worked to stamp out science. During most of Europe's history, basic medical research was forbidden due to church doctrine. And I don't think I need to remind you about Galileo. Regaurdless of history, though, science and religion are incompatible due to their very natures - science teaches a critical and sceptical approach to all data, with a high degree of evidence required to "prove" a theory. Religion, on the other hand, says "The Bible says it, therefore it's so", and condemns anyone who doesn't believe to eternal suffering. How you think those two belief systems are compatible is beyond me.

"Darwin's originally was encouraged to study religious matters by his father. Now, why would a father encourage his own some to study something his son was not interested in?"

Of course he was interested in it - he was BORN RELIGIOUS, into a society where 99% of the people were religious. That he managed to shrug off the bonds of his indoctrination is nothing short of miraculous, and is a testament to his own intellectual abilities. Try raising your children WITHOUT a religious upbringing, and then see what they think about religion.

"So, why not stick to something that interests you (science) and not something you're wilfully ignorant about (religion)."

Well, for one, because I'm quite clearly more knowledgeable about religion than you are, even though it doesn't interest me in the slightest.

Your argument is ridiculous. It's like a holocaust denier telling me "Stick to science, since you're ignorant about the REAL nature of the holocaust". Do you have any idea how arrogant you appear by voicing such a proposition? That just because I disagree with your religious beliefs, I must be ignorant of religion? Who the hell do you think you are?

"The theory of evolution remains an unproven theory for many of the reasons I have articulated above."

Except you didn't "articulate" any such reasons. All you did was assert that Darwin and Einstein were both religious, and make a vague reference to a presentation which was torn apart by every relevant expert in the field.

"Science itself refutes the theory because of the impossibility of DNA mutations of a species evolving into another species."

Well, you'll excuse me if I side with my own studies, as well as 90% of the scientific world, over your opinion and a few bible-thumping assholes who have a bit of a vested interest in the matter.

Tell ya what, when you can find me a non-religious scientist who claims that evolution as a whole is wrong, THEN maybe I'll listen to you. It shouldn't be too hard - the vast majority of the scientific world is either atheist or agnostic. I'm only asking you to find one. Until you manage that, this conversation is over.

"I'm curious as to why you continue to be in denial about the fact that science and religion are compatible."

Because religion has historically worked to stamp out science. During most of Europe's history, basic medical research was forbidden due to church doctrine. And I don't think I need to remind you about Galileo. Regaurdless of history, though, science and religion are incompatible due to their very natures - science teaches a critical and sceptical approach to all data, with a high degree of evidence required to "prove" a theory. Religion, on the other hand, says "The Bible says it, therefore it's so", and condemns anyone who doesn't believe to eternal suffering. How you think those two belief systems are compatible is beyond me.

"Darwin's originally was encouraged to study religious matters by his father. Now, why would a father encourage his own some to study something his son was not interested in?"

Of course he was interested in it - he was BORN RELIGIOUS, into a society where 99% of the people were religious. That he managed to shrug off the bonds of his indoctrination is nothing short of miraculous, and is a testament to his own intellectual abilities. Try raising your children WITHOUT a religious upbringing, and then see what they think about religion.

"So, why not stick to something that interests you (science) and not something you're wilfully ignorant about (religion)."

Well, for one, because I'm quite clearly more knowledgeable about religion than you are, even though it doesn't interest me in the slightest.

Your argument is ridiculous. It's like a holocaust denier telling me "Stick to science, since you're ignorant about the REAL nature of the holocaust". Do you have any idea how arrogant you appear by voicing such a proposition? That just because I disagree with your religious beliefs, I must be ignorant of religion? Who the hell do you think you are?

"The theory of evolution remains an unproven theory for many of the reasons I have articulated above."

Except you didn't "articulate" any such reasons. All you did was assert that Darwin and Einstein were both religious, and make a vague reference to a presentation which was torn apart by every relevant expert in the field.

"Science itself refutes the theory because of the impossibility of DNA mutations of a species evolving into another species."

Well, you'll excuse me if I side with my own studies, as well as 90% of the scientific world, over your opinion and a few bible-thumping assholes who have a bit of a vested interest in the matter.

Tell ya what, when you can find me a non-religious scientist who claims that evolution as a whole is wrong, THEN maybe I'll listen to you. It shouldn't be too hard - the vast majority of the scientific world is either atheist or agnostic. I'm only asking you to find one. Until you manage that, this conversation is over.

Dude, you missed more than a few. How about the Albigensian Crusade? Yet, add up the the worst the west can be accused of doing (the Crusades? The Inquistion? the Spanish Conquest? WW1? WW2? Throw them all in, even undeservedly so)

Versus 270 million dead kaffirs.

-Not Including Muslims

"Please back to evolution. Please provide one article published in a credible magazine that disproves that evolution exists. That is, after all, why we are here."

I can't name one. However, I can say that Time Magazine's front cover declared God Dead in the 60's, if I'm not mistaken. I'm still wondering why Nietzsche's estate didn't sue.

Please back to evolution. Please provide one article published in a credible magazine that disproves that evolution exists. That is, after all, why we are here.

Right back at you: Please provide one article published in a credible magazine that PROVES that evolution exists.

Your constant appeal to expertise is getting more than a littly wearisome.

"Versus 270 million dead kaffirs."

Yipee. So Christianity slaughtered less people than Islam. So what? It certainly wasn't for lack of trying. If, during the Crusades, your religious leaders could have wiped out the entire Muslim world, do you think that they would have hesitated for a second?

My problem isn't with Christianity - it's with religion as a whole. Choosing between the different religions is like trying to differentiate between Weed, Mushrooms, LSD, and Crack Cocaine. Sure, some are less bad than others, but none are good.

are less bad than others, but none are good.

Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

And you thought Christianity was nonsense!

Alex,

This.

Joe,

You're wrong. Hospitals exist because people care for other people, correlation does not equal causation.

Irwin,

Wow.

Joe,

Science is done by experts. Period. Anything else is junk science.

Also,

If you make an incredible statement like God exists, it's up to you to back it up in a way that others can see.

I made a long comment that somehow never got posted. The gist of it, though, is this: since the majority of the scientific community is either Atheist or Agnostic, it should be no problem for our religious friends here to find a non-religious scientist who thinks that evolution is junk. So....care to point out one?

Back to science by the elite, science by the majority eh. I guess 'science' therefore is pretty much infallable then isn't it.

BTW Jon and Alex are you so blinded by your bigotries that you can't see that what you are doing is reducing humanity back to the dark ages? Only the 'scientist' knows. Only the material published in 'science' journals it truth. We mere humans dare not question 'science'.

Science simply means "to observe". I see an event happen and I come up with an idea as to why it happens. I test that idea and I tell someone else about my observation and that person comes up with an idea about puts it to the test and as a result of many people observing and testing a concensus is arrived at.

Those concensus' are constantly being challenged and updated. Most scientists thought the earth was flat. Most scientist once thought that the stars were close to earth. Most scientists thought the sun moved around the earth.

Later scientists disagreed.

I have observed something I refer to as God. Millions of other people have likewise observed a thing called God. Some people have come to believe in God without that observation just as you have come to accept evolution without actually observing it based on the testemony of the people who have observed God. Some others have never observed God but like the idea and so create a concept of God that still others follow.

What you need to realize is that people like me, like Irwin and like a goodly number of others on this blog have had interaction with God. As such we are entitled to use that experience in a 'scientific' way to explain the origin of the universe and the beginnings of life. In fact you would be amazed at the number of recognized 'scientists' that I meet in Church on Sunday. They are in Church because they have experienced God first hand. They are not in church because some clergyman is using mind control and is offering them heaven in the afterlife. In fact heaven in the afterlife rarely comes up when I talk with them. Their minds are too occupied trying to understand that thing we call God that we have all met and interacted with. Now I know that your greatest desire is to cling to your godless delusion and as a scientist and a man of God I won't interfere. I only want to let you know that most of us on this side of the debate started out where you now sit. Why did we move to this side? Science. We observed, we tried to come up with a logical explanation and we discovered a treasure trove of information left by centuries of people who had observed the samd God.

"I am basing my opinion on macro-evolution on the facts - there is no fossil evidence of one species evolving out of another. If you want to believe this, fine, that is up to you. Read up about the Cambrian explosion. I am a molecular biologist and I have to let the facts speak for themselves." - ex-Liberal

Deal with it.

"Back to science by the elite, science by the majority eh."

Nope, just basic logic. Since you're clearly unable to understand the science, I thought I'd try a different approach. It's quite simple really - if 90% of all scientists are non-religious, yet 0% of scientists who disparage evolution are non-religious, what do you think the most likely explanation is? Also, while you're at it, account for the fact that most of the religious scientists ALSO support the theory of evolution.

"BTW Jon and Alex are you so blinded by your bigotries that you can't see that what you are doing is reducing humanity back to the dark ages? Only the 'scientist' knows."

Hardly. I'm not saying that "only the scientist knows", I'm saying that "only you few are being wilfully blind". The evidence is there for everyone to examine, and the vast majority of people agree with it. Meanwhile you want us to ignore the evidence just because your interpretation of the bible says it's wrong. Sorry, but it aint gonna happen.

"Science simply means "to observe". I see an event happen and I come up with an idea as to why it happens. I test that idea..."

Right, let me know when you've figured out how to test "God Did It!!!". And no, sitting around in prayer circles and talking about your hallucinations doesn't count as testing.

Just wanted to add something:

"I only want to let you know that most of us on this side of the debate started out where you now sit. Why did we move to this side? Science."

That's actually really funny :) It's good to see that you've got a sense of humour at least. Thanks for the laughs, and take care!

"I'm saying that "only you few are being wilfully blind"

According to the NY Times, only 40% of the US population believes in evolution. But I suppose they're all stupid and ignorant when measured against your self proclaimed intellect?

I wonder why only 40%?

"there is no fossil evidence of one species evolving out of another"

Oh, maybe that's why.

Supply absolute proof and nobody will have a choice but to believe it. Until then, you might want to tone down trumpeting your religious faith. You're sounding fanatical.

Irwin,

What's with your posting recently? I had become used to your racial slurs.

Alex,

It is a fools errand to try to explain to people who know because of belief that there are other ways of knowing.

There are no universal truths (except for this one). That's where we've reached an impasse with Irwin and Joe. If they don't know how something happened (or do not want to research to figure it out) they attribute it to god.

We on the other hand do not try to explain that which we don't know, other than by proposing POSSIBLE solutions, and testing those propositions with repeatable tests.

They do not get this. They see science like a God and unfortunately they probably always will.

Good luck, I'm done trying to explain science to zealots.

"If they don't know how something happened (or do not want to research to figure it out) they attribute it to god."

Yes, that's the basic problem. Back in the time of Christ, they would have insisted that all diseases are a manifestation of God's will. In the 14th Century, they would have insisted that there's no physical evidence for the Germ Theory of Disease. People like that have been trying to handicap science since it's inception, and they'll likely continue to be with us for a long, long time.

Thanks for your thoughts. I don't blame you for not wanting to roll around in the mud any more.

Racial slurs, now? Show me one, liar.

You are the lowest of the low. You cannot debate without making false accusations, ad hominem attacks and good old fashioned insults and slander. (Sure, you can accuse me of the same. However, I wasn't backing down from you and your pompous cohorts constant use of these tactics against others, far before I participated on this thread).

You're pathetic.

In fact you're both pathetic. Your argument is moot. Evolution is a theory. An unproven, unobserved and unobservable idea. There is no fossil evidence showing any creature evolving from another.

However, thanks to freedom of religion, you're welcome to your beliefs. And as I recall, Jon at least admitted to that obvious fact.

Go inculcate some children.