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 Christ