,,,we birds did,nt come from no reptile were not a dinosoars reletive AND IM GOING TO GET VIOLENT WITH THE EVOLUTION WACKOS IM GOING TO PICK THEIR EYES OUT SQUAWK SQUAWK
,,,we birds did,nt come from no reptile were not a dinosoars reletive AND IM GOING TO GET VIOLENT WITH THE EVOLUTION WACKOS IM GOING TO PICK THEIR EYES OUT SQUAWK SQUAWK
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