Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Evolution and the Hand of God

Fix editors Eric Pianin and Jason Manning write:

Mike Huckabee
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was one of three GOP presidential candidates who said he doesn't believe in evolution. (AFP/Getty Images)

Last night's GOP debate included some questions on hot-button issues important to social conservatives. The candidates were asked whether Congress made a mistake intervening in the Terri Schiavo case (Giuliani, Romney, and McCain each gave a version of "yes" it was a mistake) and whether they supported stem cell research (Romney hedged, McCain and Giuliani said "yes").

They were also asked for their thoughts on abortion and Roe v. Wade. Answers to the abortion questions varied, but most of the candidates leaned toward a "pro-life" position. Even Giuliani, who has supported abortion rights, said it would be "ok" if the Supreme court overturned Roe.

The responses to those questions showed a clear struggle within the party and among the candidates on how to deal with those issues in ways that do not alienate any particular bloc of voters.

But one of the strangest moments of the night came when the candidates were asked about evolution. The question was put directly to McCain, who answered with a simple "yes" before adding, "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also."

Then all of the candidates were asked to indicate which of them DO NOT believe in evolution. Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo each raised a hand. But that was it -- the debate moved on -- no follow up question and no chance for the candidates to qualify their answers or not.

In retrospect, it seems astounding that three candidates, 30 percent of the Republican presidential field, said flat out they do not believe in evolution, without any further queries or explanation on the subject.

What do you think? The comments section is open...

By washingtonpost.com Editors  |  May 4, 2007; 12:05 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Line: GOP Wants Its 'Safe' House Seats Back
Next: GOP Debate: Winners and Losers

Comments

Just when it appeared that God may have delayed his response to evolutionists, enter THE QUEST FOR RIGHT, a masterful work on creationism.

The great gulf of ambiguity that once separated Intelligent Design from legitimate scientific discourse has been abolished. It is a fact: The Quest for Right has accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between forces advocating creationism and those promoting evolution.

The Lord has heard the cries of His people and responded with a scientific resource on creationism that will stop these onslaughts against Christianity. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena that will ultimately replace the Darwinian view.
For example, the investigation dismantles the hocus pocus responsible for the various absolute radioisometric dating techniques by which rocks and other materials are supposedly dated. Absolute-"perfect, complete, definite; without a prospect of being incorrect." On these incalculable formulae-- and they are incalculable--rest the science council's claim that the earth is of great age, accreting some 4.6 billion years B.C. Upon publication of The Quest for Right, the council's choice of the superlative absolute will be assessed to be a scurrilous invective, an "abusive, offensive, even vulgar, connotation." After all, who would question an absolute? It is a matter of record that these dating systems are the tools by which evolutionists have attempted to rip apart the validity of historical documentations, specifically, that the account of creation as recorded in the Bible is mythology. The Quest for Right has changed all of that: the scientific record of creation has stood undaunted against these attacks and has proven to be an invaluable asset to the in-depth investigation.

The first three volumes of the seven volume set will be published early fall '07. The Quest for Right is all new from the get-go and is destined to make headlines that will reverberate within the halls of academia throughout the world. Coming soon to bookstores and online merchants such as Amazon.com, Barnes and Nobel.com, Walmart.com and questforright.com. Author, C. David Parsons, biblical scholar and scientist extraordinare.

Posted by: Linda Parsons | May 29, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

For those reading this, there is a lot of good science in evolution and creation, but none give definitive answers. I have a BS in mathematics, having written my honors project in discrete math. I have an M.D., and am currently doing research at the National Institutes of Health while completing a fellowship in neonatology. I have been a Christian for 25 years. So, in both realms - that of science and religion, I think I meet the qualifications to comment.
The DNA evidence that exists does suggest a common ancestor, but does not prove it. Common ancestry is not a proven fact as some would suggest. Prove and implied are two different things. I do however acknowledge with the current scientific evidence, it would take a miracle for there to be another explanation. But, then again, I have always believed that it was a miracle that created us in the first place. To the scientists and the evolutions, be intellectually honest. Is common ancestry a fact (ie, proven without doubt) or just was the facts presently imply?
Creationists, I would warn you to add humility when arguing the scientific merit of evolution. If you were a neutral observer, ie, you had no opinion about God, you would come to a lot of the same conclusions that macro-evolutionists have come to.
Also, a word of caution about the use of "intelligent design" or "unlikely to occur by random chance" when arguing for creation. The complexity of creation suggests an intelligent designer, but in no way proves an intelligent designer. Yes, the probability of the Earth being created just the way it was created to support life is very small, but so far, it has happened one out of one times. I personally do not use the intelligent design or mathematical probability arguments to argue for the fact that God created the World because I find the arguments are not consistent. As a doctor, I am amazed by the progression of understanding we are learning about the human body. In the Dark Ages, the flu was blamed on spirits and demons. No one could explain how it was happening, so they said it must be from God. Hundreds of years later we know a virus causes the flu. What will they find 100's of years from now? Whatever they find, God will still be God.
Science over its existence is doing a good job of telling us how the world might have been created. What it can never tell us is why. And, and this is just my belief, I do not think it will ever conclusively prove we evolved from the same thing as monkeys, or any other living thing.
All science aside, to you Evolutionist, the harder question: Do you believe in Jesus Christ and do you believe he died for your sins? All the science in the world can not answer that question for you. It takes faith. And from my point of view, it is the only one that matters.
I will be discussing this at the Apologetics Forum at McLean Bible Church at 12:30 this Sunday, May 27th.

Posted by: Alex H | May 21, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

By your thinking Grandpa, all theories, Hindu, Buddhaist, Native American, Mayan, etc should be taught in public schools as well. And they should. In a theology, history, culture or mythology class. An important part of understanding the world and its inhabitants is to understand their various religions. But evolution is science. In science class, only science should be taught.

Gramps, you overlooked the first part. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That means that no specific religion should be endorsed or favored by the government. Our public schools are an extension of our government, so teaching religion as scientific fact in school would in fact be a direct violation of this establishment clause. You must read the entire text, not cherrypick the part that suits you.

Evolution is the cornerstone of biology. The scientific evidence, be it the fossil record, genetics or observation point to evolution as the scientific answer to our origin. Bronze age theology has nothing to do with science any more than science has anything to with religion. To teach religion to our impressionable youth in a scientific context lowers the bar of their understanding of the scientific method and poses the risk of diluting the scientific standards of our young future researchers who we will need to be competative in the global marketplace of ideas and commerce.

Posted by: bone | May 10, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."

Listen to the wording of this... "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise of [religion]" --The way I read it, teachers and students should be allowed to teach/learn creationism in schools. It should be perfectly ok to believe creationism. Evolution and Creationism are both theories of how this universe came to be, and it's hard to impossible to prove either through science. It really comes down to what you choose to believe.

Posted by: Grandpa | May 10, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate government action. Bertrand Russell

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 10, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

Posted by: LJB | May 10, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, that last post was to Tarheel, not from him.

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 9, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Also, actually: I've taken two advanced courses in logic, one at the undergraduate level and one at the master's level; I have also taken symbolic logic (mathematical logic) at both those levels. I hold advanced degrees in engineering and work for a large research lab in New Jersey as a scientist. I hold a B.S. in Chem. Engineering, and a Masters in Electrical Engineering. I never complected my PH.D, which was also directed at engineering. I have published many peer-reviewed articles, but none on Evolution.

My favorite logician was Wittgenstein. I've read his works extensively, especially his theory of tautologies.

Tarheel, who is your favorite?

Posted by: Tarheel | May 9, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Tarheel:

Accolades from science sources for this site.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/awards/

Including Scientific American, Science magazine, the Smithsonian, etc.

Go ahead, knock yourself out telling me what idiots those guys must be. I'm happy to stand in their shadow.

So, what evidence do you have again?

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 9, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"Now try to evolve into someone who looks for evidence, not excuses why the evidence isn't there. And I'll take my two college degrees from a prominent college and look for evidence to support the things I'm researching." -- by Tarheel

Ouch! that stings. Well I've certainly been put in my place.

I stand with a mountain of evidence, complied by prominent scientists from prominent universities who have won significant agreement from their peers.

I'd love to see the research you are doing. Please tell me more. I invite you to publish your own ideas in the scientific literature.

Could you cite some of your stuff for me?
Oh please, please tell me. I can hardly wait.

Posted by: I must be in Hell | May 9, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. The family Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans, collectively known as the "great apes". The most widely accepted view among current anthropologists is that Homo sapiens originated in the African savanna around 200,000 BP (Before Present), descending from Homo erectus, had colonized Eurasia and Oceania by 40,000 BP, and finally colonized the Americas approximately 10,000 years ago.

Here is what the web site says:"Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant."

Note "uncommon" not non-existent.

And later:"The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record."

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 9, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I must be in hell, I'll write really slow so you can understand. We are not evolved from apes. Please take a high school level course in rudimentary logic before posting your unsubstantiated remarks. Your web site you posted bases all its conclusions on, as its admits, nothing. It explains its lack of evidence by saying the fossil records are so old that some evidence is logically missing. Then explain why fossils of creatures that predated man by millions of years are perfectly preserved. Even small birds, sea creatures, fishes, and rodents with delicate bones and skeletons are preserved. These were preserved for millions of years before man appeared. Yet conveniently there's no evidence of your missing links from what scientifically would be considered recent times. There's no evidence because it doesn't exist. Now try to evolve into someone who looks for evidence, not excuses why the evidence isn't there. And I'll take my two college degrees from a prominent college and look for evidence to support the things I'm researching.

Posted by: tarheel | May 9, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

If you want a clear, concise view of the science behind evolution, please read this FAQ

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

The site, as a whole, is well presented and documented.

I have also noticed that many universities now have free online short courses in Evolution available to all. I'm guessing that the are doing so in response to some of the blatantly false representations of evolution presented in blogs, chat rooms and evangelical web sites.

I invite those who hate evolution to at least walk through these resources before posting their private theory of evolution evolution on the net.

And my final word to all you "can't we just get along and believe what we want" folks out there. While you intentions might be in the right place, you ignore the rather immediate problem of well funded political action groups who are:

1) Actively trying to remove the teaching of evolution from our public school systems
2) Want editorial control over your children's textbooks
3) Spend millions in influence money upon politicians
4) Spread misrepresentations of evolution across the internet and other media to convince the public that evolution is evil

Posted by: I must be in Hell | May 9, 2007 8:28 AM | Report abuse

I can't wait for someone to ask if any of the candidates believes in a flat earth! And I thought "W" was a primitive!

Posted by: BIGO8479 | May 8, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

While on earth, I studied the science of the mind and body. I obtained a doctorate in psychiatry.

However, that wasn't enough for me.

So I experimented with various chemical compounds, LSD being the most effective in my quest. I've flown the astro-planes and have had songs written about me. And when a left this corporal body, my ashes were sent into space.

You may know me as Timothy Leary. While continuing my voyage, I've come to the conclusion that the universe is nothing but a large being. The planets and suns are atoms, making up the molecules which are the body of this larger being.

We earthlings are a cancer to our host. Or some form of nano technology gone horribly wrong.


Posted by: Timothy Leary | May 8, 2007 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Excellent post, Yaweh.

Posted by: bone | May 8, 2007 7:25 PM | Report abuse

I've been having a laugh reading the various postings.

1st: I'm an orphan, I have no idea where I came from or how I got here.

2nd: Yes, some events in the Bible have occurred however, few should be taken literally. Remember, your intellects are not fully developed today, imagine how simple I needed make things 6,000 years ago.

3rd: I live with an advanced evolved people, who, if you follow the tenets you've been given, you may evolve to as well.

4th: Yes, I'm your creator. But not in the manner in which creationism is represented in the Bible. Remember, you are a simplistic people and like children constantly asking why or how, I needed to break it down to a very simple explanation. You've not evolved enough to this day to grasp the complexity of your origin. Science will supply you with the answer, but well into the future. Making Adam out of clay seemed easier than explaining that the earth was a smoldering cauldron with life's building blocks which would adapt itself to the various environments. To those who question why some peoples are placed in areas that do not allow sustainability, I apologize. I could not foresee exactly how the Earth would settle. Though I did promote caring for others. I even sent an ambassador to address the importance of caring for each other, as men had corrupted my message. I'm saddened that to this day, men continue to corrupt the simple tenets I've laid out for you. There are no holy men or prophets, just listen to Jesus' message. It's self explanatory.

5th: Ignorance in science, ignorance in faith, ignorance in accountability will be your downfall. Science and faith should co-exist. Science does require a degree of faith that with hard work, you will find an answer. Faith alone will not sustain the vessel upon which you live. For there are people who will set their needs above the good of all. Faith is also to easily hijacked by some men to drive their own ambition, feed their egos, burnish their pride. I've told you all, beware false prophets. Falwell, Dobson, and Robinson, I've not spoken to you. I have listened to you and it's apparent you are perverting the very foundation of that to which you claim to have an understanding of. If I need something done or changed, I have the ability to do so. I don't need to allow planes to fly into buildings to express my displeasure with sins against my teachings.

6th: I don't have time to respond to every prayer or provide guidance and advice on a micro level. I've given you free will, the ability to expand your knowledge, and laid out some simple rules for living and co-existing. That is the only part I play. It's not my will for an outcome it's your actions or inactions.

7th: Peoples in other places, in other times required different answers for the question of their origin and moral code. Christianity is not the only path to salvation. It's not your place to threaten others with eternal damnation or discount their beliefs. I have no preference on religion, only in the effort to live a life of kindness towards others.

8th: Arguing is not productive. Arguing and calling those who disagree with you of a lesser stature, only causes a hardening in the position of the person you are arguing with. Debating in a constructive manner the differences various factions have can and do often lead to solutions.

My final thought to all of you is this. If you knew your method of origin, would it change the basis of living a moral life? Secular people are no more and no less moral than those of faith. Persons of faith are no more ignorant than secular people.

None of you should abandon the manner in which you have chosen your path to enlightenment. You should also listen to those on a different path, for the forks in the road will combine into a single path at one point in the future.

The apocalypse is not written in stone. You have the option to harness the science you have discovered for purposes within the tenets I've set forth. Not for devastation and destruction. Work together.

Yahweh out. May peace be with you.

Posted by: Yahweh | May 8, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

If you believe all complex, highly organized beings need a creator, then where did such a creator, with the power and intellect to spontaneously make a universe and all the life in it come from? Magic?

Is there any leap at all from micro-evolution over thousands of years to macro-evolution over billions? Aren't they both the same? To acknoledge one implies the other.

Those who say that a living organism couldn't have lived in the past without senses, locomotion, eyes, hearts, complex integrated systems etc have not really looked at life. Sponges, plants, bacteria, etc get along fine without these later adaptations. Even single-cellular organisms have primitave simple and newer, more complex forms.

Those who ask why there are not "super- cat-proof-mice" or why other monkeys or we ourselves aren't smarter fail to realize 2 things:

1. the stage of evolution we are in now is only the current step of an ongoing process. Not the end. As mice get more nimble, cats get better at catching them. Or die out. Evolution will continue long after we are gone. There is no "final form" or ending point as long as there is a place for life to live.

2. Evolution is blind. The goal of an organism is to reproduce. If it can get by and pass on its genes in as simple a form as possible, it will. Often, the more complex forms require more resources, are more susceptable to hazards, environmental change, disease, etc, and die off because they become too specialized and too dependent on very specific environmental conditions. The fossil record shows that it is the adaptable, generalist, less specialized forms that survive in the long run. That is why primative creatures often survive mass extinctions which kill off their more advanced, specialized cousins. which leads me to my next point.

What is this nonsense about "Yet the same proponents of "simultaneous extinction" of a species reject the simultaneous creation of a species?" A person can develop and live for decades only to be instantly killed by a single bullet. Species can exist for eons only to fall to an asteroid impact or ice age. Life itself can arise and flourish for billions of years only to be exterminated when our own sun dies. Saying that a long, steady, progressive process of development eliminates the possibility of a short, violent end is ludicrous. Study entropy. It is easier to destroy an ordered system than to create and maintain it. If it takes hundreds of years for a tree to grow, do you believe by your convoluted logic that it cannot be randomly felled in a flash through natural process by a random bolt of lightning? It is a tenuous, precarious existence we lead, my friend.

If you believe that the universe is 6,000 years old, then ponder this: Light travels through the vaccuum of space at a fixed, definite speed. This has been proven (see Michaelson/Morely experiment). It takes light from the nearest star years to reach us. We can see stars millions of light-years away which means that as you gaze upon the night sky, you are seeing starlight that is millions of years old. We know this because the doppler redshift of very distant stars and galaxies are a dead giveaway of their distance.

Those who deny science have not studied it, are afraid of or aren't honest enough to consider ideas that challenge their worldview.

Posted by: bone | May 8, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Tarheel - Stop with Einstein, already!

He was a mathemtician; not a philosopher.

He is not an "authority" on the subject.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Tom Pain wrote:
"Though I did challenge an earlier poster with my paradox to counter his unwillingness to see that just because some unidentified scientist couldn't tell his wife where the goo came from, that proved creationism is right, evolution is wrong."

I believe at some point several days ago, I did refer to this sort of situation. But I think I was misunderstood. I didn't write that to prove that creatonism is right and that evolution is wrong, I wrote it to prove that the theories of creationism and evolution aren't that different. Because both theories are based on something that can't be proven, which leaves you with the belief or faith that this is how it happened.

This is why I think the problem is unsolvable. Neither can be fully proven. Really both sides are making arguments based on the same thing, beliefs/faith.

Tom, I also applaud your ability to stay nuetral during this argument, because I agree with both sides but still feel myself getting emotional while argueing a point. I apologize if I seemed anything other than civil in my second response. It wasn't necessarily directed at you, I just find it amazing how anybody, on either side, can continue to try to force others into agreeing with a theory they can't prove, while spouting about how the other side can't prove anything. It seems that both "sides" are trying to do the same thing, but basing it off of different theories.

I haven't been able to read all of the posts but knowing that you are a criminal investigator allows me to understand why you aren't able to compeletly agree with either side.

Posted by: Scott | May 8, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Is evolution an unassailable fact that cannot be disproven by vigorous scientific research and new discoveries that require new explanations? No, in fact we will probably see new explanations for the origins of species like Einsteinian gravity has replaced Newtonian gravity.

Can evolution be rationally considered to be disproven by a bunch of psuedo-scientists searching to validate a centuries old explanation that is in direct conflict with more than evolution with flawed methodology? No.

Is evolution the best current logical fit for observable occurances, measurable past records and known biological processes? Yes, but it might not always be. The one thing I can assure you is that any future theory to replace evolution will bear no resemblance to the Bible or Creationist dogma.

Oh, and for those who drank the kool-aid God hates you so much he has given us multi-drug resistant TB and the potential for the bird flu to kill us all and these do not happen through changes to organisms to adapt to new surroundings so we hav no way to understand them.

Posted by: bluemeanies | May 8, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

To (Blank)

Indeed, my questions to both sides (creationists and evolutionists)of the argument is a paradox, and is meant to be so.

Nobody I've encountered or read about can supply a completely repeatable experiment to support their believes, though both sides use strands of evidence from which the draw or support their conclusions.

My comments regarding being on the scene at the time, is an attempt to focus both proponents that at this time, we don't have all of the information necessary to draw anything other than a conclusion.

My comments on a jury was first and foremost an example of the system we employ in this country to have both sides present a case to people who were not present at the time of the incident or dispute. In Voire Dire, (Questioning of the jury pool prior to picking the actual jurors) representatives of both sides attempt to weed out those with a bias against their side. My point here being that based upon the majority of posters' comments, they 'd be the ones each side would seek to exclude as it's doubtful these parties could put aside their personal beliefs until both sides concluded their case.

My second point with the jury analogy is that even if one was capable of finding 12 people completely open and unbiased, the conclusion the jury reached would not necessarily be the truth, just a censuses reached based up the evidence submitted, their likes and dislikes of various persons presented, and of course, their own life experiences.

In my view, OJ Simpson, based upon the evidence I saw while watching the trial, was guilty as all hell. And like many people, I scratch my head wondering how those 12 jurors could have reached such a wrong consensus is such a brief period of time. However, based upon my experience with the legal system, I've learned that my opinion is just that, my opinion or belief. So it appears with the various posters on this forum.

To FYI,
You wrote:
"If, however, you are trying to address not things about God, but rather the hypocricy or blind faith of believers and their stance on creationism, then let's deal with that."

I hope that I've not shown a bias either for or against either side's views.

I do not believe that people of faith should be ridiculed or have their faith be denigrated.

To the best of my recollection at this point, I've not made any statement to the contrary. If I have, it wasn't meant to be so.

On the subject of Jesus, whether or not he was real, whether or not he was the son of God, or God himself in human form, is not a particularly relevant issue to me regarding his moral and ethical teachings. I for one do not discount the many fine points Jesus is purported to have made, regardless if he really said them or not.

For me virtue is
it's own reward, and Jesus is attributed to pointing out many avenues of virtues and using language simple enough for almost anyone to understand.

Regardless of once stance on whether or not Jesus' teachings will get you into a place called heaven in the afterlife, his teachings, in regards to how to live with others and treat others, will make this life much easier not only for those you come into contact with, but for yourself. How many of us can truly live with the guilt of wronging another? I know I can't, and when I tried, I became an alcoholic. The steps, regardless of your faith, or lack of faith, give you one very important tool, ridding yourself of guilt and keeping you out of situations which could induce more guilt into your life.

So, if you feel I've denigrated faith believers in any way, that has not been my intent.

Though I did challenge an earlier poster with my paradox to counter his unwillingness to see that just because some unidentified scientist couldn't tell his wife where the goo came from, that proved creationism is right, evolution is wrong.

You will note I've also submitted a similar question to evolutionist, such as where exactly is the universe? How can they know that evolution wasn't started by God? God could very easily have populated many planets throughout the universe with DNA to watch how that DNA evolved in the different environments.

Soon enough I'll be finding out if God exists, or if this life is all we have.

Either way, I choose to live my life according to a code of morals and ethics, not for the promise of a reward, but for the simple principle that life is difficult enough without man's inhumanity to man, that I would like to believe that strangers are treating my friends and loved ones in the same manner the strangers would like to be treated if the roles were reversed.

Whether it was the "Great Spirit" of the indigenous people who first populated this country who said before judging a man, walk a mile in is moccasins, or Jesus telling us that he who is without sin can cast the first stone, the messenger isn't important to me at least, but the message is.

I do however reject the notion that only people who accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior will make it to heaven. To believe Gandhi or Buddha will burn in the eternal flames of hell because their culture had a different path to reach pure spiritual existence, and that through the Catholic Church, a family member could buy a non believer, immoral dead relative a pathway to heaven via an indulgence, is beyond my understanding of a kind and understanding supreme being.

I appreciate your unwillingness to cease attempting to change my mind. As I believe your intentions are less to convert me, than to share what you have within yourself. It's something I understand as I try to explain to people charged with crimes, that they are not beyond personal redemption. That when their time has been served they still have the ability to make their time on Earth worthwhile by doing things for people without an expectation of a reward or even an acknowledgment.

I'll try to find sometime to read the items you've directed me to, however I can't say it will be soon. I've got 40 hours of tapes to review, multiple reports to write while the information is still fresh in my mind, and a number of people to locate and interview for an upcoming trial. But I appreciate your taking the time to point them out to me.

Take care, one and all, and have a great week.

Posted by: Tom Pain | May 8, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I think it's fascinating that Brownback doesn't believe in evolution. He converted from Protestantism (where some don't believe) to Catholicism, where the official position of the Vatican is that evolution is true. It would have been nice if Matthews ( a Catholic ) could have asked Brownback about that.

Posted by: Ed | May 8, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Tarheel:

Please take a college-level course in evolutionary theory at an accredited school before posting such inaccurate representations of the theory of evolution in public. Man did not evolve from Apes, they are Homonid. There is plenty of archaeology that supports it.

Posted by: I must be in Hell | May 8, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

To get a better grasp of how Einstein and other scientists recognize and revere God's creation one needs only to read Einstein and God by Thomas Torrance at: http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm. Einstein spoke quite eloquently about the existence of the Creator.

It's so intellectually insulting when numerous posters use Einstein as an argument against God when in fact he argued eloquently about the existence of a creator. I guess they're just hoping us uniformed, unintelligent Christians won't bother to check the facts. Sorry, but Einstein agreed with us.

As for the guess or theory of evolution. Species evolve within their own species. Species do not evolve into another species. It has never been proven, ever, and can't be that man evolved from apes. It is much more scientifically sound to dismiss evolution for its lack of evidence than it is scientifically, and intellectually sound, to accept evolution without any evidence to back it up.


Posted by: tarheel | May 8, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Again with "nothing can be known so believe in what makes you happy." This is sophistry, by the way.

Science attempts to vacate the darkness of unknowing based on evidence and some logical rules of hypothesis testing and falsity proofs. The last page of scientific knowledge has not yet been written, and as any scientist will tell you, the books are revised as technology and understanding bring us a more complete understanding of the universe and ourselves. I would venture to say that almost no scientist considers science to be absolute unchanging truth. Hence the word "theory", used in its special sense by scientists for science; which is not at all to be taken in its vernacular sense that we commonly use it today.

It is significant that much of the noise on this thread pivots on the use of the word "theory". It shows something about the imprecision of language. Similar arguments have, do, and will occur regarding each word of the ancient forms of the Bible. As some scholar pointed out here, sometimes the actual Hebrew word used isn't known for sure, because the vowel markings have been lost or are otherwise ambiguous. To make matters worse, most of us read the Bible in translated form. In the case of KJV, in a highly stylized form and in a now mostly obsolete form of the English language. You know how hard it is to understand Shakespeare when it is preformed? Guess about when the KJV was published?

For some, science is a very unsettling universe of ideas that shakes their faith. For me, it had the opposite effect. Go figure.

Science isn't anti-God or anti-religion. But the activities of these anti-evolution groups, like the ICR, are undeniably pursuing the crushing of evolution in our schools through our court systems. That isn't where the validity of science should be decided. And that is what makes them so dangerous.

Posted by: I must be in Hell | May 8, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Tom Pain:

I see you have not been posting as much lately. Did you read my replies?

You put it well yourself when you wrote:

"Almost every poster believes they are right and the other side is wrong, yet none of them were there. A jury is supposed to make a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, they don't know either. / In this matter, almost every poster should be excluded as a juror as they've formed a belief before all of the evidence is in."

You wrote the truth: none of us were there. If that's the level of personal authority you're looking for from any of *us*, none of us can satisfactorily speak to your question of where God came from.

I'm not going to give up on convincing you, my friend, but you have to admit you are being stubborn and know very well that this is the kind of question you are asking. No doubt there's stubborness on both sides of this issue. My only point to you is: if you questioned my existence or origins, the only person who really matters that you deal with one day would be me myself. So you to, the nature of your question does not directly address me, but God himself and the question of his "origins".

If, however, you are trying to address not things about God, but rather the hypocricy or blind faith of believers and their stance on creationism, then let's deal with that.

Waiting for clarification...

BTW, do check out that resource I cited, scrollpublishing.com . The bulk of the resources are authored by David Bercot who has become a sort of expert on early Christianity. If you want people who were eyewitnesses, who were there, read the writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Rome - these people were personal disciples of Jesus' apostles. Bercot is also a lawyer who values the practice of going to original sources, rather then depending on secondary, tertiary ones, etc. I believe you would value his approach.

Oh, and on a more personl note, regarding your statement, "I was 'born again' by a Wesleyan Minister about 18 years ago" - accordng to Jesus' teaching, is one born again by a man, or by water and spirit? I'm not an "Evangelical" per se, but I do believe in Jesus' statement regarding re-birth. And it's not about building a new life on men or a denomination, but on Jesus himself. Why is it so hard for people, esp professing Christians, to acccept the simple words of Jesus on this? They taint his good name by dividing over personalities, human teachings, race, debatable issues, personal preference, an so on. I for one am sorry for the contributions I've made to that shameful mess and am resolved to have nothing more to do with it. I hope that you will push all that's of man aside and look fresh at Jesus himself.

Posted by: fyi | May 8, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Tom Pain - It seems to me that you're asking for the answer to a paradox.

Like Can the omnipotent God create an object so large that they could not lift (encompass) it? There is no answer.

Where did we originally come from? How can there be Eternity going backwards? What was there before Creation? Who moved the Unmoved Mover. What caused the Uncaused Cause?

There are no answers which humans are capable of comprehending - at least right now.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 12:34 PM | Report abuse

if evolution is not a theory than why is it refered to as the "evolution theory"

didn't darwin rebut is intial conclusions before his death?

Posted by: mw | May 8, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Saying that evolution is "only a theory" is like saying that "Earth is a planet" is only a theory. There are in fact those who do not believe that the Eath is a planet or the sun is a star...There are people who believe that fire is an element. Denying the facts of geology and geophysics, astronomy and astrophysics, biology and biophysics do not make them any less factual.Observed, Measured. Demonstrated. Anyone who wants to disprove Copernicus is welcome to try...

Posted by: isa | May 8, 2007 3:44 AM | Report abuse

It occurs to me that Bible literalists

(as the result of confusing
--ontic hamartia "a state deprived of th energies of Grace, God's Life" in Greek
with

--deontic hamartema "sin")

end up with the doctrine of inherited sin or guilt (not part of Eastern Christianity) DESPITE those passages in 4 Kings and 2 Chronicles that explicitly teach that sons are not to be held to account for the sins of theIR Fathers.

You see the contradiction between "literal" interpretation and what the book says.

It is the same with evolution. If your paradigm says time is kosher, then evolution is okay; if your paradigm says time is out (and "everlasting" is confused with "eternal"), then of course evolution is out.

Talk about pickin' and choosin'!!!

Posted by: Than | May 8, 2007 3:25 AM | Report abuse

Just checking in again. Sorry that Christian blew a fuse on the last reply to me and said all those nasty things about Catholics and adherents to science. But it served to show the true face of Creationism.

Thank you to those Creationists who have come right out and admitted that this argument is really about the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. It is a refreshing bit of honesty and a step in the right direction. I can respect other opinions, but not when they are presented as sophistry.

The Institute of Creation Research is not an accredited scientific institution.
It is a group funded by evangelical churches and conservative think tanks to spread as much anti-science rhetoric as it can--the better to crush evolution in our schools. It is a blatantly political operation.

Creationism is repackaged Book-of-Genesis literalness, thinly disguised as something science-like to make it more politically palatable. Is science-ish a word?

Working research scientists avoid argument with Creationists, because:
1) Creationists will never accept evolution, whatever the evidence
2) Any effort to provide evidence that contradicts Creationism will be interpreted by them as blasphemy, and by some of their ilk as the direct work of the devil
3) Creationists can be a surly lot; they don't like science on general principles--i.e., it isn't Biblical.
4) Urinating in the well of science gets young Creationists brownie points with the Big Guy
5) Faith is a long limb to climb out on. There isn't a whole lot of evidence on their side. They make up for the relative lack of evidence with bluster and arrogance.

Many, many scientists believe in God and accept evolution. Of course, to the Creationist, those people are damned to hell (like me).

I wish I could put a smiley face on Creationism, but read it here in this blog and judge for yourself.

If the Creationists manage to gain control of the public classroom, then they will use it as a pulpit for their brand of Christianity. They see separation of church and state as am evil obstacle to God. They don't give can Angel's fart about science. Calling it Creation Science is the cynical lie that gets them through the door.

Beware. We live in a statistical rarity. There are many more non-democratic countries in this world than there are democracies. In the course of history, liberal democracies are extremely rare. Tyrants, dictators, kings and theocracies are far more common. Even among the current existing democracies, religious violence is unfortunately common.

Take a look at the problem other countries have today with Islamic Fundamentalists. In some Islamic countries, you say the wrong thing about God and your are dead meat under their religious laws. The thing is, our local Christian Fundamentalists seem to be a bit envious of that kind of religious control of society.

What we have here will not last forever if we fail to protect it.

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 8, 2007 1:41 AM | Report abuse

Where is the universe? That's a hard question to answer, given that the universe IS everything. There's nothing else (at least, that we know of, or has been observed- there are plenty of weird ideas floating around regarding parallel universes). I won't deny that thinking about what happens at the boundaries of the universe makes my brain hurt. But this is another semi-trick question like "What came before the Big Bang?" (answer: nothing, that was time=0)
I'm really not sure how to explain this beyond that.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 8, 2007 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going.

However, I'm not surprised that my first question, and by extension my other two, have yet to really be answered.

To Capnboost who wrote:"I answered your question here:

Posted by: capnboost | May 4, 2007 03:51 PM

You apparently didn't read it."

You're right, I hadn't read it, I've read it now. I'm glad you believe "God always existed." however you have no evidence or proof of that. It's your believe. I have no problem with you having such a belief and I'm somewhat jealous that you can accept this concept.

However, I can state just with just as much certainty, a belief my Asian Culture teacher taught us.

Creation began with a cosmic egg. Inside the egg was a chaotic mixture of yin/yang, male/female, cold/heat etc. From the egg was born a giant by the name of Phan Ku. He separated the earth and sky. He grew in stature by ten feet a day, raising the sky above the earth by that distance. He also created the heavenly bodies, and carved out the mountains and valleys with a huge chisel and mallet. When he died, the fleas in his hair became human beings.

There are many people who believe this, and to the best of my knowledge, it cannot be disproved to those who believe it.

Another teacher exposed me to a Mayan's faith:

Tepeu and Gucamatz, feathered serpents, created the earth, mountains, trees, animals, etc. by speaking them into existence. They asked the animals to praise the deities, but they could not. So the gods made the first humans out of clay; they broke apart. Wood was tried next, but the resultant humans were inflexible and caused a great deal of trouble. Tepeu caused a great flood to destroy most of the humans; a few escaped into the jungle and survive today as monkeys. The third try was successful. Four humans, one for each of the four directions, were created; they praised the gods appropriately.

Now, I do not find either of these creationist views to be any more or less valid then Christianity.

I've always had one question about God's manner of creating Adam (out of clay) and Eve, out of Adam's rib. Why did God need a substance to create Adam from if he was able to create the universe out of nothing? Using the same logic, why did Eve have to be made of a part of Adam?

I've no answer, just posting the question.

To Scott. I really enjoyed the tone and civility of your first response to me. However I found your second response lost that tone.

In an earlier posting, I listed what I do for a living. I'm a criminal investigator. I follow up after the initial reports are taken. My statements relating to Man's innate goodness, spoke of a time long ago when I was young and optimistic about the world. I listed the various religions I'd tried from the age of 5-48 (I was "born again" by a Wesleyan Minister about 18 years ago. However, the hypocrisy of cherry picking portions of the Bible being literal such as homosexuality (no, I'm not gay, but have met many fine gay people of both sexes) and not see the utter contradictions in enforcement in the same book of Leviticus such as 20:9 "Anyone who curses
his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has
cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life." 20:10
"If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and
the adulteress shall be put to death."
These passages are part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also:

a.. permits polygamy
b.. prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,
c.. bans tattoos
d.. prohibits eating rare meat
e.. bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles
f.. prohibits cross-breeding livestock
g.. bans sowing a field with mixed seed
h.. prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood
i.. requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath

Deut 22 states that a woman is not telling the truth if she says
she was raped but no one heard her scream.

I don't hear a strong outcry from these folks citing the Bible in support of
their hatred and calls for discrimination towards gay couples asking that
adultery and cursing one's parents be punished via Biblical law. One must
surmise that is in part because these are "cafeteria" Christians. By that
I mean they walk through the lines of the Bible, picking and choosing what
they like rather than accepting the Bible as literal when there are
consequences they disagree with. All the while ignoring Christ's message
"Judge Not Least Ye Be Judged" and "Love Thy Neighbor unto Thy Self".

I've no problem with people of faith, I have no problem with the concept of God. I do have a great big problem with people who are Cafeteria Christians.

In my work, I respond to some of the most horrendous aspects of mankind's inhumanity to each other, including their young children. Sexual assault, physical assault, neglect, turning a blind eye while a step parent abuses their children. The list is never ending. Yet, I hear these same people telling me go talk to their pastor, to know what kind of people they really are.

In my line of work, I have to depend on evidence, not people's beliefs. Many people "know that so and so did it" yet when I ask them if they saw it, heard it or heard the person confess to it, the answer is usually no, but they know it. In the matter of charging someone with a serious crime, taking away their children, their liberty, their future, requires a little higher threshold then "I know it". The how you know it is important.

My question about where did God come from was originally a reply to a poster who proved evolution didn't exist because "my wife asked this scientist where the Goo came from that the lightening struck and he couldn't answer." Therefore this person knew Creationism was correct.

I challenged him to explain where God came from and I received a rash of replies that He always was . . . Some people were not that polite.

I'm the first to admit I don't have the answers. I've never been asked to investigate any situation I was involved with, so I never really know the truth. I just gather whatever evidence I can find, follow up the leads I've found, and pass it on. I find I can't be effective if I enter an investigation with a preconceived notion of what happened.

Almost every poster believes they are right and the other side is wrong, yet none of them were there. A jury is supposed to make a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, they don't know either.

In this matter, almost every poster should be excluded as a juror as they've formed a belief before all of the evidence is in.

To Ricardo Fernandez who wrote "What I think is that blowhard Matthews--who has taken over from McLaughlin as TV's loudest and most harrumphing mouth--did his job well, given his politics: to make the Republicans look, by turns, timid and calculating and out of their depth..."

I don't know what you normally listen to, but Mathews is now a Republican, ever since Reagan. His brother ran in 2006 for a Congressional Seat in Pennsylvania as a Republican, (He lost).

As for the liberal media slur, Please. MSNBC has only one liberal host, Keith Olbermann. Joe Scarborough was a Republican Congressman from Florida, Tucker was the Republican Talking Head on CNN's Crossfire.
If you had watched Hardball for the two day's leading up the debate, all you would have heard about is how great Reagan was. I had to turn it off.

To Derick who wrote:"Well this was entertaining. I enjoyed reading everyone's comment. I wish the best to all of you and I do respect ya'lls opinions. All I ask of you is just to do the same.

But what came first? The Chicken or the Egg?

I can forsee that comment going on forever!"

How right you are brother. Better minds then ours have been trying to answer our origin since man figured out how to think.

And I've still not heard a substantiative answer to my question from Creationists.

Where did God come from?

To evolutionists.

Where is the universe?


Posted by: capnboost | May 6, 2007 08:42 AM

Posted by: Tom Pain | May 8, 2007 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Reply to the person masquerading as GOD Himself and her/his assertion that ALL religions lead to selflessness. Unless you mean unselfishness (and many haven't led to that), I don't get you. The aim of many (who knows whether "most"?) religions is some kind of (non-self-aggrandizing) self-fulfilment, whether spoken of as higher life. You might look at Plotinos or Porphyry (who influenced much Renaissance and Reformation thinking) before you write statements with "all"! Another factor of a different sort was summarized in the difference between the controversy between
jussum quia justum "commanded because right" and the "justum quia jussum "right because commanded" of the Ockhamism of the Protestant Reformation. It's the latter that I don't like.
I leave it to you to see how it relates to self-fulfillment.

Posted by: Than | May 7, 2007 9:16 PM | Report abuse

"There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."

Sorry Derek - There is zero scientific evidence for The Creation. The best scientists can do is estimate the beginning of time for us. Even that is just an estimate.

Keep mixing apples and oranges.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Postscript to ye foregoin':

One reads of so-called experts on religion
leaving out worship. (Just as eth;ics can exist without religion, religion can exist without ethics . . . but not without worship. See an earlier posting about true worship's offering to the Creator the best of creation as an acknowledge of the divine ownership of all.

One "expert" on religion calls ceremonies
rituals. Doesn'the know the difference???? Argh/argh/argh!!!!

Posted by: Than | May 7, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

I do wish a couple of postings would spell
y'all correctly--not as ya'll.

Why "her" for an angel? Angels are (so the story goes) sexless. I agree that "it" would be unseemly, so why not just say "(an)angel's"?????

Concerning freedom. I think that whatever our position is, we should defend other's freedom to disagree, unless it's a fact (or unfact like "the" Bible).

Concerning education, or rather public schools, only what is acceptable to the
experts in each discipline should be paid for by the taxes of us all. (Private schools are not so constrained.) If the experts disagree, this should be noted. If a factual error--like a mistranslation of crucial verses of the Bible or the earliest fossil in Alaska--can be established, it should not be allowed in any schooling.

I haven't got time to proofread the foregoing, which was written hurriedly by an 81-year-old Orthodox Christian.

Posted by: Than | May 7, 2007 7:00 PM | Report abuse

The Greek of Gen. 1:1f says (responding to whoever asked)

At the outset [or; in the begining], God made (the) Heaven and the earth. The earth was unsightly and unfurnished (or formless); and darkness [was] on the abyss. And God's Spirit was borne (or moved) over the water.

Posted by: Than | May 7, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Derek:
The egg came first, since it was laid by a creature that was not entirely a modern chicken, while the egg (with the slightly different embryo inside) was more chicken-like. It's hard to draw an exact line when they change species, though.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 7, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Derek, you're confusing "evidence" with "testability." And frankly, that evidence is not really very good at all.
Cosmology: the universe is too big to be 6000 years old.
Thermodynamics: the Earth is not a closed system, so the prized Second Law argument is worthless.
Paleontology: oh, I'm REALLY curious to hear the arguments from paleontology. Especially given the evidence of transitional forms, rock strata, and other fossil evidence for evolution.
Biology: well, the fact you can use DNA to trace the date when species diverged, homologous structures point to common ancestry, and many other things I can't recall due to finals stress all say evolution is true would seem to suggest that biology is evolution, and evolution is biology.
Probability: read the chapter in the 4th Darwin Awards book on the probability of noodles to see this argument put to rest.
Geology: my mother the geologist would be stunned to hear she's supporting creation with her work on rocks that are millions of years old. As for the "flood strata," why is it that we don't find fossils of mammoths with those of sauropod dinosaurs? Why no australopithecines with Permian amphibians?
As for ancestry, I'm comfortable knowing my great^x grandfather was a hominid. Not a monkey. Look at the skulls they've found, and the skeletons. For that matter, look at a chimpanzee. Don't we look very similar? Doesn't that suggest anything?

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 7, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Well this was entertaining. I enjoyed reading everyone's comment. I wish the best to all of you and I do respect ya'lls opinions. All I ask of you is just to do the same.

But what came first? The Chicken or the Egg?

I can forsee that comment going on forever!

God Bless

Posted by: Derek | May 7, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Derek, would you care to explain how we can test creationism? What could we do, capture an angel and beat it until it gets God to spontaneously create something? Creationism is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur

Let's see, testable parts of Creationism? Hmmm? That's a good one. Let me see? Should we start with? "There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."

Now when you find your great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great, great grandfather to be a monkey for fact let me know.
lol with love,
derek

Posted by: Derek | May 7, 2007 6:04 PM | Report abuse

"Science has accepted evolution as the truth it is.."

Tyrannosaur - as long as you mean truth developed from facts, I'm with you. If you meant "The Truth," you went over the top.

The first use of truth is dynamic as more facts become known; the second use isn't.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"Science has everything to do with moral and ethics." - Derek

Not within the procedural processes of disciplines themselves.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Chemist:
What, in your opinion, is the basis of modern biology? Cell theory? Our understanding of that is rooted in evolution. The entire study of biology is based on evolution. How do we look at life today? Adaptation, based on evolution. Diet, with evolutionary basis. Skeletal structure? Evolution from a common ancestor. Relations between species? You guessed it.
As for fundamental principles of science, how about these:
1. falsifiability- how do we disprove God?
2. testability- how do we test creation?
3. use of the evidence available- why do creationists focus on tearing down ideas, not doing new research?
4. reproducibility- can we reproduce spontaneous creation of a species?
5. etc. etc. etc.
As for the ICR:
"The Institute for Creation Research bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God and His authoritative and unique revelation of truth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments."
Not particularly scientific, starting with the conclusion and then looking for evidence.
So I write them off as partisan hacks looking to pervert the name of science to further their dark-ages mentality.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 7, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Sorry but I have to run... ill check responses later though.

Tyran... induldge me please. Science is science and my work intermingles with the bio world. By not accepting traditional Darwinian evolution, what fundamental principles of modern research and science am I forfeiting? Just name 3.

By the way... i tried to capture an angel once but lost her to the strong grasp of cromagnon man. You can't repeat evolutionary origin of anything any easier than a Christian can make God create something - that is such a 3rd grade standoff. Let's be adults and look at the evidence already available. There is a well known outfit called the Institute for Creation Research. Before you laugh or sarcastically flip them off... be open minded and see what they have published. Then we can move passed catching angels and forming sludge in zip-lock bags.

Posted by: Chemist | May 7, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Derek, would you care to explain how we can test creationism? What could we do, capture an angel and beat it until it gets God to spontaneously create something? Creationism is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 7, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

True Debate:
There isn't any controversy about evolution to teach. There's science, and then there's politics. The only debate about the reality of evolution is political. Science has accepted evolution as the truth it is, and I firmly believe that we should be teaching actual SCIENCE in science classes- not religion masquerading as science (and failing at that, too).

Chemist:
My mistake. I assumed you were in a science that touches on evolution. Materials science is not related to biology or biological compounds, so far as I know. But all biochemistry, all biology, much of geology, and other fields all rely heavily on evolutionary theory. It's the main principle that our understanding of the fields is based on.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 7, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

To definition of theory:

I think one can take it a step further. Everyone has a world view, more technically a paradigm consisting of (neither true nor false) axioms that fence in ideas that can be deemed to be true and fence out others that cannot be regarded as true.
In the most prominent paradigm analysis of the three major forms of Christianity, the Latin Catholics share the axiomatic matter with the East and the juridical interpretative form with the Protestants.
The MATTER of Eastern Christianity's paradigm is mysteric (material mysteries are sacrament/als in the West), whereas its interpretative FORM is energetic--like the Apostle Paul's, as explained in my prior posting. Very few Protestants accept materiality and temporality (evolution) as the matter of their paradigm.
Axioms of non-Christian paradigms include various things--all the way from a MATTER that denies all spiritual reality (including uncreated energy) to a form that rejects whatever is not empirically observable . . . or whatever. These axioms work or don't; being axioms, they are neither true nor false as such. One thing atheists have trouble with is "everything has a cause." The reason is that an infinitely extending cause is unworkable if not indeed unscientific. Whatever has causeds the cosmos has to be something that we are unfamiliar with--something that (as the Greeks thought) is timeless (eternal, not just temporally everlasting) and UNCAUSED---a Being from a different kind of reality. I say "unfamiliar with" although the Mystery (Sacrament) of the Incarnation (and she who agreed to it) are essential and basic to all other Mysteries and salvation, the holy tradition treats salvation as bodily Resurrection and the Divinization of 2 Pet. 1:4 mentioned before. Since the first humans, the Cross is the only perfect act of worship--i.e. offering a perfect part of creation to the Creator to acknowledge the divine ownership of all that is--and, being necessary on at least two grounds for humans' bodily resurrection, is, like the Incarnation, indirectly soterial. Got it???

Posted by: Thanasy | May 7, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Derek - That's Philosphy and Ethics, not science. Evolution is science.

They can complement each other, but they don't mix.

Posted by: | May 7, 2007 04:19 PM

Science has everything to do with moral and ethics. Hitler was a great example of this. I know this example is used over and over, but it is one everyone is familiar with. You govern the textbooks you govern the people. And no I'm not implying that Christian Beliefs should be the only beliefs. As mentioned before, we have the free will to chose what we want to believe.

Tyrannosaur- Yes i agree evolution is a testable theory, but so is Creationism. Testable, but doesn't state it as proven fact.

Neither one of us can state for a fact how we came to be unless we were there to observe it as it happened. We can only have faith as to how it happened. We only know what we can observe today and today is not the same as it was either 6000 years ago or a million years ago.

Austin Avery- as for the electrician bit, of course 99 out of a 100 are going to have the same opinion about how to fix an electrical problem. but look at it this way, a typical trial in court can have evidence that can go one way or another to prove one's innocence depending on how the jury's perception of the evidence. there's many cases where the guilty look innocent and the innocent look guilty. it all depends on how the evidence is presented. if you ever seen the movie Hoodwinked, that's a good example of that. I only brought Hoodwinked up was because I just got done watching it the other day.

Posted by: Derek | May 7, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Only evolution in the classroom, insist Darwin's defenders.

No evolution in the classroom, cry creationists.

READ : http://www.darwinanddesign.com/teaching.php

Posted by: True Debate | May 7, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Than

What is the translation of Genesis 1:1?

Posted by: Norm | May 7, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

James Collins said it best. Wake up ya'll.


Oh and look him up, he's real. Who you ask?
"Jesus, that's my final answer!"

The only answer.

Posted by: down for jc | May 7, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

It's sad that we can't even agree on the definitions of theory, evolution, or christianity. If we can't even agree on the definitions, how can we hold a rational discussion? I'm all for verbally slugging it out with the best of them, but damn, we can't even agree on the English.

Posted by: tourist | May 7, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

As a matter of fact, all but one Bible (actually only a New Testament) in English cannot properly be called "the" Bible. They all follow the axims of a non-Greek (hat is non-energy; see below on Paul's 26 uses of energy terms)) paradigm and end up mistranslating crucial verses. (Note that the Greek Old Testament was canonical for the Apostles and is older than existing Hebrew Bibles other than the Dead Sea Scroll fragments.
Gen. 1:26 says in the original that humanity "was created according to the icon (image, likeness) of God and according Assimilation." The last is an energy term like English words ending in -ization or -ification. The silly tautology of "image and likeness" in Latin and other Western languages is palpably pointless. Phlp. 2:13 is mistranslated. Western Christians do not distinguish God's (or anyone's) essence from one's nature (one's energies. This creates a problem for 2 Pet. 1:4 which speaks of (salvation as) becoming partakers of the divine Nature. Since the divine Essence is not participable, Latin Catholics and Protestants have to "interpret" these verses metaphorically: Protestants speak of a covenantal unity. This juridical approach jibes with their "forensic" (juridical) view of justification and salvation.
In short, the Latin/English-language "Bibles" cited by most Western Christians are NOT "the" Bible!!!! Argh!!!!

Posted by: Thanasy | May 7, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Tyran(t)... what underpinnings would you be referring to? Remember, I'm a brain dead nonvolutionist. As a scientist I could only deny what I rule out through experiment. Can you list 5 of these "basic" underpinnings I am suppossedly denying?

Not that I am much to worry about, but I've been in materials research for over 15 years, I hold multiple patents, I have many products in the field (likely you use them), and do fairly well for a living. Yet not once has Darwin's name come up - other than the break room.

Posted by: Chemist | May 7, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Chemist: How much research can you do, if you deny the basic underpinnings of life science? Not much.
And let's just toss some water, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and sulfur dioxide into a jar, set it on simmer, and come back in a billion years or so. That work?

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 7, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

What if your minister was Thomas Edison?

Posted by: Think about it | May 7, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I work in a chem lab. I found out last week that I am apparently brain dead because I don't submit to the principles of evolution in regard to the origin of man and our universe. I like to be open minded so I was wondering if someone could give me the correct chemical mix that I can drop into a bell jar (at the lowest vacuum I can create) set to the best temperature in order to make something appear. I don't need anything fancy like a Zebra or pine tree, just an amoeba will do. Oh crap, I forgot it takes like a bazillion years right? Oh well. If anyone can come up with an experiment to bring something from nothing... let me know!

Posted by: Chemist | May 7, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Suppose you had an electrical problem with your home and you asked 100 electricians how to fix it. Ninety-nine gave you one answer, but the last one gave you a completely different answer. There must be several ways to decide which advice to follow to fix your electricity, but going to ask your minister (priest, rabbi, etc.) can't be one of them.

I read that in the appx. 150 years since Darwin introduced his theory there have been over 200,000 peer-reviewed, scientific articles supporting the theory (wish I could give the cite, anyone have it?). Those lending support to the argument that the theory is wrong: None.

To deny the proof of evolution, one has to have the ability of Garrison Keillor's Lake Woebegone citizens: "To look reality square in the eye and deny it."

Posted by: Austin Avery | May 7, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Theory Definer:
That's not the scientific definition of a theory, that's the general vernacular definition. Definition 1 is the closest, but still not perfect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science
"...a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory."
And yes, evolution is testable. Please don't keep thrashing that dead straw man. My patience for repeating myself is limited.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 7, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"So how do we explain our ability in reasoning our morals if everything came from random opportunities? Who's to say murder is wrong? Lying is wrong? or there really is no thing such as adultery since we are just animals anyways?"

Derek - That's Philosphy and Ethics, not science. Evolution is science.

They can complement each other, but they don't mix.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
the·o·ry -1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

Posted by: Definition of Theory | May 7, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

meuphys: my intentions were not to insult anyone! Everyone is free to believe what they want to. I just don't like it when someone bashes another one's beliefs especially when it's based on ignorance and just a product of conforminism. "Christians" tend to do the same thing, I'm not going to deny that. As a Christian I am supposed to show love to another, no matter what. Scroll through the Blog and you will notice a difference in some of the responses some "Christians" make. Some are just as vile as the typical atheists blogs are. But you will also notice the ones who are merely trying to explain our beliefs in a fair and open response with kindness. Jesus told us to love one another as he had loved us, so if a "Christian" comes off as slandering or slamming someone elses idea, they are just as guilty as a typical atheist. notice i used the word typical and not just atheist. there are some athiests who have good arguments and i wonder the same things too sometimes, but i try to learn more and research everything and pray about till i gain some understanding about it. i look around in both Christian sources and secular sources till i find an answer that makes sense. the reason i do that is so that i can understand how people either believe or understand a certain reasoning of any kind of question we may have about our existence. i didn't grow up in church my whole life and neither did i ever take it seriously when i was exposed to church. Hypocrites, fools, and ignorant people is what i called them. now i am at a point where i still believe their are hyprocrites, fools, and ignorant people in church, but they are the ones who go just to go and not for the true reason why we go to church. all i'm trying to say is try to understand why we believe the way we do and not just by what society dictates us to believe. seek it out for yourself. There is one catch though if you try to read the Bible and understand our reasoning, to understand scripture, you have to be after God's own heart. That is what makes the real differnce in reading it and intepreting it. No matter how much i try to convince you that my opinion is non-bias as possible for every opinion is bias, you probably won't believe me until you experience it for yourself. if you feel insulted and want to insult back go ahead, i don't mind turning the other cheek to get insulted again. i won't fight back, but i will try my best to appeal to you with as much love as i can, cause that is what i am commanded to do. and please keep in mind that not every person who claims to be Christian is Christian and I do not deem every atheist as someone who is ignorant, just someone who doesn't understand the world the same way i do. the science side can be argued all night and day and neither side will be convinced of the others belief. it is when you throw morals into the scene is when the real argument begins. that is why i made the comment about how i rather have someone who believes in creation than evolution running the country. there are nice and good moral based agnotics in the world, i won't deny that, but just think about it for a second. Based on Evolution we came here out of chance, everything happened by mere chances with no purpose. So how do we explain our ability in reasoning our morals if everything came from random opportunities? Who's to say murder is wrong? Lying is wrong? or there really is no thing such as adultery since we are just animals anyways? That is what drove me to the beliefs I hold now. Please, if anything consider that. Everything else is just an endless argument for the both of us. You might view my belief as ignorance, but i'm sorrowful for those i see as blind and deaf. and the image of God isn't a physical one, but of an emotional one. that last comment was for those who take the Bible with a strict literal meaning.

With Love and God Bless

Posted by: Derek | May 7, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Speaking as the child of a geologist who has grown up with earth scientists, I can assure you that there are very, very few geologists or other earth scientists who are creationists. My mother studies rocks that are hundreds of times older than creationists think the world is. You've been sorely misinformed.
"One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."
That's cited, before you complain about Wiki.
People are looking at our planet from too anthropocentric a point of view. It's not that the planet fits us; rather, we fit the planet. We would not be here, or would be in a very different form, were the planet different. People like to think that we're special. We're not. We'll go extinct eventually too. We're just another species. And of course, in the vast cosmos, there will be other life forms, in the same situation. Does anyone really believe that in our entire universe, there's nothing else living? Now THAT is even more improbable than some of you seem to think (misguidedly) evolution is.
But before I am accused of not valuing life, I will beg to differ. I respect life because what we have now is all we get. Everything deserves a chance to use their time to its fullest.
I must admit that I do get a kick out of hearing evolution described as "unscientific" by a creationist. The definition of irony.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 7, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

meuphys: my intentions were not to insult anyone! Everyone is free to believe what they want to. I just don't like it when someone bashes another one's beliefs especially when it's based on ignorance and just a product of conforminism. "Christians" tend to do the same thing, I'm not going to deny that. As a Christian I am supposed to show love to another, no matter what. Scroll through the Blog and you will notice a difference in some of the responses some "Christians" make. Some are just as vile as the typical atheists blogs are. But you will also notice the ones who are merely trying to explain our beliefs in a fair and open response with kindness. Jesus told us to love one another as he had loved us, so if a "Christian" comes off as slandering or slamming someone elses idea, they are just as guilty as a typical atheist. notice i used the word typical and not just atheist. there are some athiests who have good arguments and i wonder the same things too sometimes, but i try to learn more and research everything and pray about till i gain some understanding about it. i look around in both Christian sources and secular sources till i find an answer that makes sense. the reason i do that is so that i can understand how people either believe or understand a certain reasoning of any kind of question we may have about our existence. i didn't grow up in church my whole life and neither did i ever take it seriously when i was exposed to church. Hypocrites, fools, and ignorant people is what i called them. now i am at a point where i still believe their are hyprocrites, fools, and ignorant people in church, but they are the ones who go just to go and not for the true reason why we go to church. all i'm trying to say is try to understand why we believe the way we do and not just by what society dictates us to believe. seek it out for yourself. There is one catch though if you try to read the Bible and understand our reasoning, to understand scripture, you have to be after God's own heart. That is what makes the real differnce in reading it and intepreting it. No matter how much i try to convince you that my opinion is non-bias as possible for every opinion is bias, you probably won't believe me until you experience it for yourself. if you feel insulted and want to insult back go ahead, i don't mind turning the other cheek to get insulted again. i won't fight back, but i will try my best to appeal to you with as much love as i can, cause that is what i am commanded to do. and please keep in mind that not every person who claims to be Christian is Christian and I do not deem every atheist as someone who is ignorant, just someone who doesn't understand the world the same way i do. the science side can be argued all night and day and neither side will be convinced of the others belief. it is when you throw morals into the scene is when the real argument begins. that is why i made the comment about how i rather have someone who believes in creation than evolution running the country. there are nice and good moral based agnotics in the world, i won't deny that, but just think about it for a second. Based on Evolution we came here out of chance, everything happened by mere chances with no purpose. So how do we explain our ability to reasoning in justifying our morals if everything came from random opportunities? Who's to say murder is wrong? Lying is wrong? or there really is no thing such as adultery since we are just animals anyways? That is what drove me to the beliefs I hold. Please, if anything consider that. Everything else is just an endless argument for the both of us. You might view my belief as ignorance, but i'm sorrowful for those i see as blind and deaf. and the image of God isn't a physical one, but of an emotional one. that last comment was for those who take the Bible with a strict leteral meaning.

With Love and God Bless

Posted by: Derek | May 7, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

just thought this blurb from Wikipedia on the concept of "scientific consensus" might be some slight help in clarifying the concepts of scientific certainty, etc:

Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making

In public policy debates, the assertion that there exists a consensus of scientists in a particular field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for a course of action. Similarly arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by sides who stand to gain from a more ambiguous policy.

For example, there appears to be a strong scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science claiming that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[2] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes claimed that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[3]. MIT professor Richard Lindzen claimed, in turn, that there is considerable doubt within the scientific community as to whether human activity is affecting the global climate in any noticeable way.[4] In this instance, "scientific consensus" is being used by both parties as a justification for a certain policy position, and debating whether there is such a consensus becomes a fight for the validity of one policy position over the other.

Similarly many creationist organizations have argued that there is considerable debate over the theory of evolution, and used this to justify claims that evolution not be considered the only possibility for education in scientific curriculum. Opponents of these creationists, such as the late biologist Stephen Jay Gould, have claimed that the creationists misunderstand the nature of the debate, which is not about whether evolution occurred, but how it occurred.[5] Again, in this instance "scientific consensus" is seen, if it exists, as mandating a certain form of policy, and disputing whether it exists is the way of combating this mandate.

The inherent uncertainty in science, where theories are never proven but can only be disproven (see falsification), poses a problem for politicians, policymakers, lawyers, and business professionals. Where scientific or philosophical questions can often languish in uncertainty for decades within their disciplinary settings, policymakers are faced with the problems of making sound decisions based on the currently available data, even if it is likely not a final form of the "truth". In this respect, going along with the "scientific consensus" of the day can prove dangerous in some situations: nothing looks worse on a record than making drastic decisions based on theories which later turned out to be false, such as the compulsory sterilization of thousands of mentally ill patients in the US during the 1930s under the false notion that it would end mental illness. Certain domains, such as the approval of certain technologies for public consumption, can have vast and far-reaching political, economic, and human effects should things run awry of the predictions of scientists.

Additionally, because of the inherently uncertain aspect of scientific knowledge, it is easy for political opponents to emphasize the constructed nature of facts employed, making the argument that the claim of "science" is just a way of justifying whatever opinion one wants to go with. As such, the domain of science and policy has been an area of constant controversy since at least the beginning of the twentieth century, but especially so in the period after World War II.

Posted by: Jon | May 7, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

What I think is that Chris Matthews is a terrible debate moderator and has regressed to his original calling, in Congress, as a partisan hack.
What I think is that MSNBC only proves the stereotype of the liberal bias of the media when it sets up a debate where zingers and gotcha questions are posited to willing victims who jump to the bark of a Matthews or dignify the walk-on cameos of the other forgettable questioner, all in an apparent effort to keep the stage direction telegenic and fluid, like a game show.
What I think is that Giuliani, for all his smoothness and savvy, had better develop a better reply on Roe v Wade than that it would be "OK" if it's overturned--or if it's not.
What I think is that the 'non-Darwinians' should have known they were being framed to look like religious fanatics or goofballs, and not have agreed to be first-graders raising their hands to a setup question, but insisted on articulating a position--closer to what I believe each of them actually holds--that an eschatological view of human life and the creation of the universe is not necessarily at odds with evolution (though it may seem to be at odds with one aspect of Darwinism, which is randomness). In other words, it is possible to know how the parts of a clock work, but without the proper perspective to see the clock-face, we don't know what time it is...
What I think is that blowhard Matthews--who has taken over from McLaughlin as TV's loudest and most harrumphing mouth--did his job well, given his politics: to make the Republicans look, by turns, timid and calculating and out of their depth...

Posted by: Ricardo Fernandez | May 7, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

First to tourist -

There is more to it. Yes the number of years could be off by some when a number such as 6,000-8,000 years is thrown about. That is not the question. The places where there is no room to wiggle is in what the Bible does tell us. If we accept it as false and say that some is not true then we can question the rest of it. Then we can question the need for a savior, the depravity of ALL mankind and the fact that our savior died for us and redeemed all who will accept his death and put their faith and trust in Him.

To jmb who posted the following:

"Mike missed it. Every religion is true - but only to its adherents. "

-- This is clearly not true. THere are many contradictions and assumptions in each religion. Only one can be true. If you want to be relativistic and believe in the "whatever you believe is true as long as you really mean it" mentality then your premise can be thought to be true but it isn't.

"The cosmos has never listened to the many sincere but sad believers who have predicted the end of the world for centuries."
- No true Christian has ever predicted the end of the world with a specific date. In fact the Bible admonishes a believer to do such things "It is not for you to know the hour..." The world will end as we know it and there will be a no world with a new Kingdom with the King of Kings in charge. I don't know when that is coming and the "cosmos will listen"...

"Nature is known through science. The clincher: the oil company engineers who drill hundreds of meters a day do not accept creationism. They have to believe in real geology - "
- Actually I have heard some oil scientists talk about the layers they drill through and how the very presense of fossil fuels in places indicates proof of a global flood. In fact many hydrologists would agree. Geologists as well.

"there is far too much at stake for them to believe in junk science. Bush and his family would have gone broke if they accepted a literal version of Genesis."
- How?

"Any Hebrew scholar will tell you you cannot take Genesis literally: Genesis in the original Hebrew has no punctuation or capital letters. The Hebrew tradition does not accept literalism but rather seeks many interpretations of the same passage, showing the richness and resonance of the Old Testament."
- Show me the data supporting this. I have not heard this and I have heard many Hebrew scholars subscribe to a literal translation of Genesis.

" Science is real, it works and we are all better off for it."
- Totally agree with you. I am actually studying particle physics and find it intriguing. I enjoy science and find that it is real myself. There are those "scientists" who lie and those who come up with falsities but such is life. I love science and hold fast to it.

" Saying you "don't believe in" evolution is like saying you don't believe in air. It's an established fact. Period."

No it's not. Not even at all the same thing. So many evolution scientists have even stated they don't like the theory but because they can't believe in a God (for various reasons) they can't believe in the Christian account of creation so they hold to evolution.

There are many respected and intelligent scientists who disagree with evolution. Some hold to creationist viewpoints and many sadly don't but they know evolution is not a panacea.

Sadly most of the folks who make such unscientific statements as your closing statement don't even know the nuances of evolution. They don't even know that major founding principles of evolution are no longer accepted (yet so many remain in college/high school/middle school/elementary school text books). They don't know that there are many well respected hydrologists,molecular biologists, geneticists, etc. who say that evolution as the general idea of the theory couldn't have been true.

They don't know that the famous and still referenced experiment "proving" life could have been created in a primordial cesspool of the right chemicals, the right atmosphere and electricty has been debunked (even by the original publisher). First of all, life was not produced just an amino acid. Secondly the atmospheric conditions used in the experiment were not what all scientists (evolution minded and not alike) agree upon as the atmospheric conditions at the beginning.

They don't know that there is NOT ONE single fossil showing a transitory species (that is one species in the middle of evolving or losing pieces/changing). Don't believe me write to any liberal secular state/country run museum of natural history and ask them if they have any. You will probably receive a response saying no and in fact none have been discovered anywhere.

As for your referenc to the cosmos. Think of one of the many "accidents" that just happened to happen for life to exist if you believe in the theories that state amazing chance is what led to life existing...

If our earth were tilted just a few degrees in a different axis (as most planets are) Earth would not have supported life.

If our Sun were not just the right size and type star Earth would not sustain life.

If our moon were much closer or farther (a fraction of a distance that it is, a small fraction don't have the numbers near me at this moment) life would not exist.

If Jupiter were not in our solar system exactly where it were this planet would be bombarded by asteroids/meteors. Instead the gravitational pull of Jupiter helps draw the most dangerous collisions to it, sparing our planet from certain destruction.

This is just a portion of a list of some of the random things that would just have to happen for life to exist.

Nevermind the incredibly complexity of just one cell. The absolute efficiency of a cell. The perfect harmony of it's structures, it's interactions with other structures, the formation of intricate systems. Heck look at DNA. It took man how long to figure out just the alphabet and general code structure of it? So we are also saying that a cell randomly had to come together, that one strand of DNA that is more efficient than any information storage system man has ever created randomly can exist and instruct proteins how to behave, where to go and what sort of structures to create.

I will stop myself from going on but I challenge you to look at both sides. I grew up looking at the evolution side, accepting it, rejecting those "nutjob" Christians. Then I began to look at evidence for myself - both sides. I am now a born again believer and I am saved through the Grace of the Very ONE who created this universe and loved me so much that He died for me in spite of my sinful nature.

Posted by: Mike W | May 7, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Recently there was a conferrence for judges trying to keep up with the science and testimony that is being presented in courtroom's across the country. These judges know they are not up to speed and need a crash course on what is really happening in the world of DNA, genetics, pharmacy breakthroughs, etc. To say that the President of the United States be any less informed is pathetic.
Who would vote for any man who panders to a base that for whatever reason wants to dumb down America? I'd say there is a bigger reason that surly can not be trusted. Just look at Jerry Faldwell and his vast lobbing efforts to contiune muck raking and war mongering, hoping against hope that this chaos in the Mid East will eventually give rise in the rebuilding of the "Temple" in Isreal. In his eyes, this hastens the end of the world and the Second Coming. I AM NOT KIDDING! THEY TAKE HIS MONEY! It seems there is always a personal reason for meddling in the lives others. In his case personal glory and perhaps a seat at the right hand of God?
The people who tell you evolution does not exsist do not believe that themselves. They need an emotional base. They can not afford a rational thoughful electorite because they themsleves have nothing to offer. They run on idea's that have long ago been hashed out. They have no intention of following through with the promises made to get your vote. (See present administration and the promises made to the religious right.) "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."
Please do not loose site of the real issue's facing this nation while being sucked into issue's that by there very nature divide us. These are well thought out diversions. Instead of being "A Uniter" these people are taking plays straight out of the "Divider's" notebook.
"Average pople talk about thing, small people talk about each other, but intelligent people talk about idea's." We need intelligent people.

Posted by: Nancy | May 7, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

As for the sin of hybris, note how it is spelled . . . unless you spell the same Greek letter as "u" in "dunamic, hubrid, huponosis,hudraulic, husterectomy," etc.
The Greek is hybris, other case forms add endings to hybrid-. Hybris is really hybrids, which changed to hybrits, which changed to hybriss, and finally hybris.

Posted by: Thanasy | May 7, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I think I'll refer to you as "!" now, (blank). You seem very emphatic.

Posted by: D.W. | May 7, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

D. W. - Agreed!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

I should have added that Aristotle's concept of energy was as modish in Paul's time as certain fashionable philosophical and theological ideas in the 20th century.
The absence of this in Western Christianity, where Paul's 26 uses of energy words (not to speak of related terms) are mistranslated as "work," accounts for the static, anti-
developmental outlook of Western Christianity.

Posted by: Thanasy | May 7, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Sorry (blank), I must have been making an assumption...

There's a lot of that going on in these posts....

Posted by: D.W. | May 7, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

D.W. - No I'm not!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Note the contrast:
Conservative Eastern Orthodox Christians follow St. Vasil the Great and his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa in accepting time--evolution in creation, revelation, and salvation--as well as matter--Mysteries (Sacraments)--in religion.
The radical anti-traditionalists opposed to the foregoing are opposed to materiality and temporality (tadition) in time; objections to evolution are simply parasitic on that, not basic.

Posted by: Thanasy | May 7, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Well, (blank), I'm sure you're proud of your insight.

Posted by: D.W. | May 7, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Just an observation on "Christian" who had so many posts above over the wekend, and their "I know it's so, because The Bible tells me so!" explanation for everything.

And other comments, such as:

"Who cares what the pope writes or declares. Who is he? That's why you nonbelieving people have a bad wrap on Christianity because of the pope and people like him. I live out my faith. I truly believe. I'm logging off and all I can say to you both is that I have a deep, deep peace in my heart that all your rationale and science and arguments can't comprehend. When you sit alone in bed tonight and ponder why it is you have such a big, dark , hole in the middle of you.. I'll think of you both and pray God gives you the faith you need to believe Him. I can't imagine the faithless, dark world you live in. I pity you."

That's kind of "Wow, such hubris!"

In case Christian doesn't know, hubris is also the Sin of Pride.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Tancredo's position is nothing but pandering to yahoos. He is a Catholic, and official Catholic doctrine has no problem with evolution. For Tancredo to take a position in direct contradiction of his church's position is nothing but kowtowing to the ignoramus vote.

Posted by: Godslayer | May 7, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

For us living outside of the USA, we look with amazement at the debate about evolution in the USA. In the rest of the civilized world, this is a no-brainer. To deny evolution is the same as denying that the earth is round and revolving around the sun.
And it would be so simple to reconcile Genesis with evolution, as the last contributer so correctly pointed out.

Posted by: Reinhard Schumann | May 7, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Mike missed it. Every religion is true - but only to its adherents. The cosmos has never listened to the many sincere but sad believers who have predicted the end of the world for centuries. Nature is known through science. The clincher: the oil company engineers who drill hundreds of meters a day do not accept creationism. They have to believe in real geology - there is far too much at stake for them to believe in junk science. Bush and his family would have gone broke if they accepted a literal version of Genesis. Any Hebrew scholar will tell you you cannot take Genesis literally: Genesis in the original Hebrew has no punctuation or capital letters. The Hebrew tradition does not accept literalism but rather seeks many interpretations of the same passage, showing the richness and resonance of the Old Testament. Science is real, it works and we are all better off for it. Saying you "don't believe in" evolution is like saying you don't believe in air. It's an established fact. Period.

Posted by: jmb1694 | May 7, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

To get a better grasp of how Einstein and other scientists recognize and revere God's creation one needs only to read Einstein and God by Thomas Torrance at: http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm. One poster above talked about Einstein's theory of evolution. That was Darwin, not Einstein. And a theory is just that, an educated guess, not fact.

It's so ntellectually insulting when numerous posters use Einstein as an argument against God when in fact he argued eloquently about the existence of a creator. I guess they're just hoping us uniformed, unintelligent Christians won't bother to check the facts. Sorry, but Einstein agreed with us.

The atheists, agnostics, and others need to go to: http://www.icr.org/. This is the web site for the Institute of Creation Research. The scientists on board here are distinguished with PHDs from major universities and institutes known for expertise in science. If they want to see a list of scientists who believe in creation is can be accessed at: http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_creationsci/. Blarg stating that you can't believe in science and have rational thought if you believe in creation is ludicrious on its face. Most of us believe many species evolved within their own kind and even developed specialized skills and physical features. We just don't believe in one species becoming another.

Posted by: tarheel | May 7, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"Intelligent" Design??? You're kidding, right??

Did you SEE those nitwits up there???

Posted by: Allegra | May 7, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I didn't read most of these comments but did read enough to want to post. As far as the people stating evolution to be a fact on here, they dont understand the difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution, does happen, one species being able to change characteristics such as height size etc. Like a Poodle and a great dane. You can get that by specail breeding to get the result you want. The problem is, it stops there, what you end up with is still a dog. Macro evolution on the other hand, a species turning into a totaly new specis has never been documente in the history of the world. It hasnt happened, it isn;t happening and it never will happen. I feel sorry for the people who hold on to a faulty theroy which has never been proven. In fact we don;t have 1 fossil in the rcord that can be siad without argument that one species evolved into another. If evolution were true, the fossil record would be screaming from the ground. It doesnt, not even once. Wake up People. The Heavens declare his Glory.

Posted by: Dan | May 7, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Good comment tourist!

The position of God-fearing people will NEVER align with people outside of that category as long as the discussion is fundementally rooted in their belief. The argument of evolution as FACT or THEORY is not the issue, but rather "where did we all come from?" is the main question at hand here - origin. Those who believe in God can easily and dogmatically accept that God created them and all things. Those who do not believe in God can NEVER admit they were created. This is the backbone of this debate.

Two Thoughts Then:
1) What was the real intent of the moderator to ask a "conservative", Republican panel a question that ultimately boils down to whether or not God exists and did He create us? I believe the intent was to smear anyone who raised their hand. The men who raised their hands are some of the most honest men in politics! They must have known the scrutiny they would face. I applaude their integrity!

2) The intent of this question was not to smear these men away from liberals or democrats. Majority of the people crucifying them with words in this blog would not vote for a Republican, much less a Creationist! MSNBC and the liberal media wanted to take a shot at the Republicans to cause division. That is what happened.

I find it interesting that only one of the two theories of creation vs evolution deals with the end of life. I am very happy to know that when my time here on earth is complete, I know where and with Whom my soul will rest.

Posted by: Norm | May 7, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Evolutionists please BUILD us a living cell.

If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they need do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, because today they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about the contents of the so-called 'simple' cell.

After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago, 'according to the evolutionists,' and having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely the evolutionists scientists of today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.

If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

Posted by: James Collins | May 7, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I'm getting really fed up with the media's misrepresentation of the stem cell issue. I don't know whether it is bias, laziness, ignorance, or the desire to conserve typeface (a la AP's Style Guide), but STOP CONFLATING "opposition to FEDERAL FUNDING of EMBRYONIC stem cell research" with "opposition to stem cell research." They're not the same thing; in fact, they're barely even close to the same thing. Stop stop stop stop stop.

(My apologies if this has already been mentioned, but there are way too many comments to be certain).

Posted by: Pepin | May 7, 2007 11:06 AM | Report abuse

I see the thread continues and both sides still polarized. Is there not a way to find common ground? Other than both sides calling the other ignorant? Does evolution really preclude the possibility of faith in a supreme being that can manifest itself on earth? Does evolution preclude the possibility of any spiritual belief?

And, does christianity preclude the possibility that man, and the planet, adapts and changes in response to its environment? Does christianity preclude the thought that the measurement of time is not necessarily defined for all time by man, and therefore, their 6000 years could be a little off? I mean, if one believes in a supreme being, just perhaps that dude can circumvent our understanding of time.

I could go on with the questions, but the nut of the matter seems to be that we have to disprove in its ENTIRETY, all that others believe. And, given that the answers to both sides on this thread, ends in "we really can't know", just perhaps, there is room for doubt on both sides.

Posted by: tourist | May 7, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

One more thought.

Darwin helped the Germans go from a nation of the finest Christian thinkers and theologians to a nation that perpetrated the holocause in just a couple generations. They used his writings to let go of their belief in an absolute moral being, an absolute code. His books title helped explain what Hitler was doing.. Removing "inferior" races or "species" that couldn't survive easily on their own. He was helping his race (the health able-bodied of his race that is..) survive. Darwin and the atheism the theory of evolution helped let Hitler do his deeds. Stalin, Mao, etc. all can credit this atheism, this cold theory that we somehow magically evolved from a series of accidents to their "resumes". A lot of folks accuse Christians of racism when in fact it is a true Christian belief system that we are ALL created the same, we are ALL sinners in the same manner, we have ALL come short of the glory of God and we ALL are in desparate need of a Savior. It is the God of the Christian faith that says this God came to give us that savior and He came to forgive us our sins if we will trust in HIm. No basis on race there..

What was the full title of Darwin's great masterpiece???

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

Posted by: Mike W | May 7, 2007 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Actually -

Some of the arguments here are a bit foolish..

Spoken as someone who swallowed everything they read in text books that mostly contain inaccuracies. Rememebering experiments performed at school-age with fruit flies that do not prove macro-evolution (from one species to another) but just prove micro-evolution (adaptations within a species which does not disagree with creationism).. In fact many of evolutions strongest scientists have gone back and said that their original theories hold no water and need to be rethought.

Then some of the comments liken belief in the Bible as the inspired Word of God to belief in a flat earth. Scientists believed the world was flat for many thousands of years while any Christian or Jew who had a Bible could read that the earth was round. The Bible told us that the stars were innumerable while science took thousands of years to catch up. The Bible told us that species only reproduce after their own kind thousands of years before science (lookup Gregor Mendel - the father of genetics) finally agreed with that. (in fact before his experiments it was accepted scientific truth that spontaneous generation was possible.. this fact was cornerstone to Darwin's thinking and his theory.. Mendel published too late. Had he published earlier Darwin may have rethought his theories..).. There are some comments talking about faith healing/shamanism/etc. The Bible actually recorded medical knowledge that wasn't even published or thought of until thousdands of years later. The Mosaic laws for cleanliness, eating, etc. did more to preserve life than most of the "scientific" medical breakthroughs of the days when the Old Testament was written.

Argue all you want. Accuse a Christian who believes literally in the Bible as a guide for life, a historical truth-filled book, a book of scientific truths and a book that shows us how we are so loved by our created as a narrow minded moron all you want. I am a Christian and I embrace true science. I believe in every word of the Bible literally and I believe that the very God who created this universe, loved me before it was formed, and died on a cross to save me.

Posted by: Mike | May 7, 2007 10:00 AM | Report abuse

As far as I am concerned, any public figure who says they do not believe in evolution should be condemned to having all their medical needs handled by faith healers.

Posted by: voter | May 7, 2007 9:14 AM | Report abuse

I am disappointed in the lack of scientific knowledge and understanding displayed by those who posted their comments here. Scientific law requires a process to be at least observable and reproducible before it can become scientific law. Evolution does not pass either of these requirements and is only a theory in the scientific world because of it. It seems that people would rather believe something that cannot even be proven so long as the science community makes such a statement. Have we gone back to the Dark Ages with all our "scientific" knowledge? Have we gone mad with our getting of wisdom?

Posted by: Larry | May 7, 2007 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Rudy supports public funding of abortions. Yikes!

osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/04/unbelievable-giuliani-still-wants-to.html

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | May 7, 2007 8:41 AM | Report abuse

May i insist that instead of asking if someone believes in evolution, we ask if they accept it. Perhaps someone could tell me if this would not be appropriate, but seeing as though it is a fact, i feel that it is not something one believes in. If you say you believe in something, it implies that there is an element of uncertainty. No one believes in gravity. You either accept it or you don't.

zubs11@hotmail.com

Posted by: Michael | May 7, 2007 5:34 AM | Report abuse

God created the universe.

Man wrote the Bible.

Take your pick.

Jack Fletcher

Posted by: Jack Fletcher | May 7, 2007 12:35 AM | Report abuse

Of course Tancredo does not believe in evolution... He is still a Neanderthal.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2007 11:23 PM | Report abuse

That is the exact point I have been trying to make. Thank you Tyrannosaur for understanding.

Posted by: Scott | May 6, 2007 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Scott: I agree, in some senses. I just wish that some religious people could move beyond Iron Age speculation into modern day science. Evolution by no means nullifies the Bible. People should stop treating it as if it does.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 6, 2007 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Tyrannosaur wrote:
"how many times must we explain that in science, nothing can be absolutely proven? A THEORY is the best you can get in science: something backed up by repeated observations and tests, which is exactly what has been done with evolution. You don't think that over 150 years, scientists have just sat back and accepted what they've been told? Science is based on curiosity."
After reading this, I could have replace science with religion and gotten the same meaning but for another argument. Except instead of scientists their are monks studying the ancient scripts. Unfortunately the only things religion is based on is ancient scripts and faith. Maybe not so unfortunate but it makes it almost impossible to explain how one feels about God unless they are open to having faith and trusting that the scripts are based on fact. Honestly religion has changed it's opinions on issues just as much as science.

Posted by: Scott | May 6, 2007 8:35 PM | Report abuse

To Tom Payne:

Historical text may have been the wrong word to use, because I don't read the Bible and take everything in it literally. The difference between historical text and the Bible is you read historical text to literally find out what happened in the past, but reading the Bible should be taken as a collection of stories or parables and read as a frame work for living your life. I totally agree with you about the comparision to the game telephone, because the stories in the Bible where not written down right away, they where passed down by word of mouth through the generations.
I believe God made man in his own image, as the Bible says. But what does God look like? He may be a monkey, he may be an amoeba. Nobody knows. I believe He created everything in seven stages/days. But how long is a day for God? Probably not the same as ours. The reason, I believe, the Bible says seven days is because there were seven days in the Hebrew week. Almost every Christian holiday is based off of Pagan holidays, because it made it easier for them to convert and come closer to God.
As far as science being based on mathematical equations. Who "discovered" these equations? The same kind of people that originally thought the world was flat and the the sun revolved around the Earth. Don't you find it strange that numbers so odd as 3.14(pi) and 2.78(natural log) show up in so many equations? I do. I don't mean to bash science or math, becaue I am actually going into the math field so I believe that math is the bases of everything. The question is, why is math the basis of everything? I don't know, I have faith in God and He had/has a plan and math and science are ways to help people understand the world He created.
Somebody else asked, why didn't God create us "perfect" so we don't do anything wrong? God gave humans the gift of free choice, he has the faith in us to be able to make the right choices. Where did God come from? I don't know. Has he always been? Maybe, but that is part of faith and that is not a question I need answered to be able to live a happy, fullfilled life.
So those are my ramblings for now. I still don't understand why people can't be happy in their own beliefs and stop trying to force other people. And yes I know Christians in the past have forced others to change to their religion. Luckily I'm not that kind of Christian. I believe in be and let be, as long as another person is not being harmed by their decisions.

Posted by: Scott | May 6, 2007 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Capnboost: the scientists merely provided the stimuli (changing the diet of one population, or removing a part of the population from interaction with the others). They didn't do any modifications to the flies. The flies themselves did it.
Derek: how many times must we explain that in science, nothing can be absolutely proven? A THEORY is the best you can get in science: something backed up by repeated observations and tests, which is exactly what has been done with evolution. You don't think that over 150 years, scientists have just sat back and accepted what they've been told? Science is based on curiosity. People have tested evolution an insane amount, and always come up with the same answer: it's real. There is debate about the mechanisms and details, but no scientific debate about whether it's true, because that has already been show.
Also, it's REALLY aggravating to hear that since I am an atheist who believes in evolution, I must not respect life. I think I may respect it MORE, because what we have now is all we get. I don't get to party on in Heaven, so I have to do the best I can now, and help others because the same is true for them. Evolution doesn't mean I don't value people. It means I value this planet, and what it has given us. I value other humans, and other species, too, since they have as much right to life as us. I don't value ignorant statements such as yours, though. They tend to insult me.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 6, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

eric guel, i appreciate the cordial response. i suspect that we may not be able to agree on this topic, but in response to your question:

when i asked "how would you explain as literal truth the many stories, forms of which exist in several area religions and folklore?" i was referring to the incidence of (in no particular order) flood, virgin birth, parting the waters, resurrection (!) and many other stories in several area mythologies. i am not a sociologist, and have not been in school for a long long time, so i don't remember and thus can't give you the particulars on this... i believe the sumerian and hittite cultures are two which share some of these stories.

to me though, the more important aspect of this is what seems to me to be an urgent need to keep separate the spheres of knowledge which can be proven and faith.

i do not downplay the importance of faith and a spiritual life, but i think it can take many different and equally valid forms for different people, and to insist as many have that there is only one correct path and that those who are not on it are doomed is both silly and a recipe for the conflict, hatred and violence religion claims to abhor.

freedom OF religion must include the freedom FROM religion; i.e. religion must be a choice, rather than something required of everyone. what value does a belief system have if not freely chosen by the believer? and as stated above, if the religion seems to focus primarily on how bad by comparison other faiths are, what is positive, forward-looking, "love thy neighbor" etc. about it?

once again, i appreciate the courteous response, and hope that you don't take my disagreement with you personally. i am not a believer, but i try to be a nice guy.

Posted by: meuphys | May 6, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I will never vote for someone who does not believe in evolution. It's common sense - and religion should not cloud it.

Posted by: David | May 6, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't it seem kinda funny that everyone who believes in evolution claims that those that believe in creation are closed minded individuals and are ignorant to knowledge, while those who believe in creation continually try to seek out the truth and offer their opinion as suggestion and doesn't slam the other ideology? I'm tired of hearing the "so-called" evolution theory being called fact. If it is a fact, then why is it still labeled as theory? Aren't we supposed to be an educated and fair society? As Creationists, we believe we were designed with a purpose and were given laws to follow because of our inability to be perfect since Adam and Eve first sinned. Evolutionists believe we were merely an accident by an extremely low probability of chance from NOTHING. That we came from nothing and we are nothing. That our flesh and bones and soul are no worth, because we came to existence by mere chance. Hearing a typical believer in evolution argue is like hearing a broken record. Using theories and presenting them as truths when there really isn't any empirical evidence, only speculation. Remember that the scientists of world believed the world was flat at one time. One's beliefs does have everything to do with who is running the country. If someone believes we were made with a purpose, they will be more likely to value life and morals. One who believes we came by mere chance and from apes, considers that we are only animals and is more and likely not to value life and fail to understand just morals. So next time someone wants to argue that Christians are ignorant of science better think it over and do their own research instead of going off someone who is just angry at the world and can't accept responsibilities for their own actions or have certain desires. I was in their shoes once, until I realized I was the one who was ignorant.

Posted by: Derek | May 6, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. "
-Albert Einstein

"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality. "
-Albert Einstein

"God doesn't play dice."
-Albert Einstein

"God may be subtle, but He isn't plain mean. "
-Albert Einstein

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."
-Albert Einstein

Posted by: T | May 6, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Creationists and evolutionists have exactly the same evidence, the rocks, the fossils, biology, and observations at their disposal. Yet, we come to wildly different conclusions about how we got here. It's how you interpret the things that are observable that determines where you stand. That interpretation is influenced by what you believe. Most evolutionists have a belief system which dictates that God doesn't exist. Creationists, after looking at the same evidence, believe what God says about Himself, in His word, the Bible. None of us were here when things began, and we can't reproduce the whole thing in a lab, which, by the way, is a basic tenet of science, reproducibility.

This means that it's pretty foolish to stand up and talk about the FACT of evolution or the FACT of creation. We are both ascribing to a particular belief system.

I choose to believe God created all of it as described in the Bible. If you choose to believe God doesn't exist and it all happened by accident, it's up to you. When we are all dead, we will know the truth, who's right and who's wrong. At that point I want to be on God's side, just in case. I don't want to be shaking a clenched fist in God's face like many of you are doing right now. You might want to rethink that strategy.

Posted by: Rog | May 6, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse


@ Posted by: Tom Paine | May 4, 2007 04:00 PM

I answered your question here:

Posted by: capnboost | May 4, 2007 03:51 PM

You apparently didn't read it.

Posted by: capnboost | May 6, 2007 8:42 AM | Report abuse

@ Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 04:07 PM

If this is the fruit fly experiment like i think it is-

It doesn't prove or even suggest that speciation occurs due to external stimulus. The flies did not suddenly birth eggs of a different species.

They were modified by scientists- Not the environment.

Posted by: capnboost | May 6, 2007 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Science is not just another opinion -- it is the evolution by natural selection of opinions (in fact, most fields of knowledge are).

Science is the set of opinions that survive the process of hypothesis (mutation) and experimental verification (natural selection). It's what is left over after you give every serious challenger a fair opportunity to discredit it. That makes it the exact opposite of divine revelation. And not surprisingly, this is the reason why science has delivered on modern civilization, and dogmatic religions have not.

Intelligent Design cannot be accepted as a Scientific Theory because it has not made multiple predictions of unexpected fact which were then confirmed by multiple independent experiments. Real scientific theories don't just explain what we see -- they correctly predict things we have not yet seen. Relativity had a lot less doubters after Einstein's predictions were verified by other scientists.

Until Intelligent Design tells us where to look, and we do find new discoveries there, it will not be worthy to lick Evolution's feet, let alone be taught in Science class.

Evolution as a process of natural selection is not in dispute, period. It proves its worth on a daily basis as a conceptual tool for understanding how stateful things change over time as they interact with their environment. It is useful as a process concept in almost any field, not just biology, and not even just in the sciences.

Evolution as a theory of Human Origin disproves the Young Earth of scripture, not the existence of God. Evolution is perfectly compatible with deism (which has a better claim to our founding religion than Christianity does).

Social Darwinism was the Nazis' justification for practicing real Eugenics on real people. The Nazis were heavily into racial purity and practiced Eugenics on criminals (because good people would never do that), "degenerates" (perverts, or maybe just the sexually liberated), dissidents (you're with us or against us!), the feeble-minded, homosexuals, the idle (slackers), the insane, people of other religions, and the weak. They also targeted Gypsies and (of course) Jews. If you were lucky you got forcibly sterilized, otherwise you got a free train ride to Nazi day camp.

The fundamental dilemma of Social Darwinism is that "survival of the fittest" seems to suggest that society is improved more by accelerating the process through deliberate removal of the less fit. But less fit by whose standards? And is society as a whole really better served by reducing diversity, ignoring opportunities to learn more about ourselves, and ignoring talented contributors who are not "fit enough"? Perfect example: Stephen Hawking.

Suppose the Terry Schiavo case had been an instance of insurance coverage being cut off. Would the GOP still have championed it? The obvious "Culture of Life" dodge would be that Murder by Spreadsheet is only God's will being allowed to run its course. But wait, there's a human decision to save people involved. Is choosing not to save someone with medical treatment the same as killing them?

The "Culture of Life" as practiced by the GOP is a deceptive tactic to (a) perpetuate the dangers of non-procreative sex, and (b) force poorer families to bear the burden of raising cannon fodder for the Military-Industrial Complex while also keeping parents too busy to cause trouble as politically active citizens. A true Culture of Life would disapprove of Capital Punishment and War.

Posted by: toddpw | May 6, 2007 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Tom Pain:

Sorry, I had to give you my best shot at a response (I still stand by it) while it was fresh but now have read the entire string. You have been dominating this blog, man!

Just two interesting things I want to share: I once worked at a French restaurant. The bar-tender (really just handled the alcohol from the kitchen), read the bible *constantly*, no lie. His motive is what amazed me: he was looking for contradictions to disprove it! My point is his heart: he was a Bible-fault-finder. I'll never forget that.

I too have read the entire Bible and can testify (see, you're on the job) that without a vital (in the sense of alive) faith that leads you to put it into practice, it's useless knowing it.

Oh, and an idea for you in getting your question answered. Why don't give him the benefit of the doubt now, hold it until you see him, and then ask him then? Serious! :`}

Posted by: fyi | May 6, 2007 5:11 AM | Report abuse

To Tom Paine:

(long response, making up for lost time)

Hey, making (real) peace should be everyone's business.

Thanks for your response. No hard feelings here. The tragedies of history and today are bound to make many people atheists and agnostics. Ironically, I come from the opposite direction: I was atheist/agnostic and came to be a Christian at the age of 22. (I'm 40 now.) So I can relate some on both sides and respect anyone's genuine search for the truth. To my discredit, I was not one of those people, but I see it more like the truth was searching for me, and stumbled on it more than anything. It's become of primary importance to me today.

So your search is to "no avail"... but is it done yet? Job is said to be an example of perseverance. He suffered loss, personal pain, and wrestled with injustice both around him and in his own life, and ultimately the question of God in the face of all if it, and came out with a greater confidence in and experience of God's goodness than before. You might know this well already.

Anyway, good to hear about your move to agnostic. Beyond that, as far as having to "prove" anything about God, that's humanly impossible! (Do we agree?) Isn't the burden actually on us to prove ourselves, meaning our faith in God if we believe in him? If I say I believe in God, I need to prove it by my life - then you can "see" my belief. If God is a father (which I believe he is), then wouldn't it be odd for his children to have to academically "prove" his existence and love for them? If they believe in him and his love, the burden of proof is rather on them to prove themselves to be his children by acting accordingly. Like father like son. :`}

Here I should mention that is arrogant for a Bible-believer to judge those who don't believe. A famous Christian once wrote, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?" Then he went on to claim the right and responsibility to hold those who professed it to be held by it's standards.

Your two questions:

1) Where did God come from?

Answer: We can't fully understand the answer to that. That's not a cop-out. OK, I could have said, he's always existed, which is true. But for a long-time seeker, that's old news, right? I really mean it. Outside space and time - now do we have any framework to understand *that*? I'm normally an idealist, but we've got to also face reality. My friend, really, some things we have to accept. Speaking for myself, the reason I argued against God's existence in my former life was not due to a lack of evidence, but due to the hardness of my heart. Nature shouts that there's an all-powerful God, but I couldn't see or hear it because I had "lost my senses" so to speak. That's why I tried to satisfy my physical senses with sin, because I was so dull inside.

2) Why isn't there enough food and water distributed equally throughout the world if there was intelligent design? Why didn't God give [certain people] the ability to sustain themselves?

Answer: Let me preface by remembering, you referered to the "the innate goodness of man upon which my earlier faith was based" and "Free will, OK, some cases". I can't sit here and let this one go. There is so much misrepresentation about Jesus, his words, the Bible. Original sin, once saved always saved, pray Jesus into your heart... these things are so plasticized and marketed as if they are the real deal, and I've only names a few major doctrinal errors of today. Hey, I don't claim 100% accurate beliefs doctrinally myself, but these are big and glaring in light of the scriptures and early church history. (An amazingly useful resource on church history, btw, is http://www.scrollpublishing.com ).

(cont.) But basically, our faith in God can't be based on the "innate goodness of man", which would be another misrepresentation. That's like judging a man by his son or a student by his teacher. Hey, there are just some bad kids and some bad students. While people are certainly not born (of man) having already sinned, neither are they innocent for that long, no exception but Jesus (not born of man). The bottom line is, while God doesn't make junk, people can and do become junk, by the immense momentum of our history to hurt one another and add to that our own bad choices.

Jesus himself often exposed hypocritical and empty religious teaching in his day. There's nothing new. James put it, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." That's the real answer: rescuing the needy and distressed who have no help while not getting caught up in and dragged down by this world's temporary pleasures. If we are successfully doing that, we will know and trust that God is working to alleviate the very things you are concerned about. But if our religion is about man-made rules and super-biblical traditions, forget it. Those things kill our ability to be instrumental in doing lasting good. I don't know you or what you do, maybe all the good above. If so, I trust God will in time reconnect you and him. If not, let me encourage you to "test yourself" and see if you're in the faith, to be part of he solution to injustice and suffering as James advises us today.

Posted by: fyi | May 6, 2007 4:48 AM | Report abuse

meuphys,

"well, for example, the "number of the beast," which hollywood and heavy metal have so much fun with, is numerology which translates to "nero caesar" - the contemporary ruler of the roman empire. of course, this is silly, and i have heard modern funamentialists explain it as meaning "bill clinton" and "united nations,""

Yes, I think it's silly too. I'veheard the numerology argument before and I think it's just as silly to assume it's talking about Nero as it is Bill Clinton. Well, maybe not as silly since Nero was a very bad man back in the day when parts of the NT were written. I think Revelation had specific application to the Christians of the time, but also far-reaching application to Christians throughout the centuries. I don't adhere to Christian Pop Eschatology, by the way.

"tell that to those who make a living interpreting the supposedly prescriptive and descriptive prose of the bible. many findamentalists would disagree with that"

I am not a fundamentalist. I am, though, a conservative Christian. I have no problem knowing that some of the Bible is metaphorical.

"key phrase: 'i believe.' a great many do not"

And I respect that. I don't think religion should be forced on the subjects of any government.

About the Dead Sea Scrolls, you said, "i will finish by asking, why not? don't both describe the movement and development of the early christian church?"

No, they don't. The DSS deal with the Hebrew Bible, not the NT.

"how would you explain as literal truth the many stories, forms of which exist in several area religions and folklore?"

I'm not sure I understand your question here. How would I describe them as literal truth? Please elaborate. Thanks.

Posted by: Eric Guel | May 6, 2007 12:43 AM | Report abuse

I am not saying that Creationists are dumb. I am saying that they do not adhere to scientific method. The same is true for Intelligent Design fans. Now, that wouldn't bother me, except when they attack good science and the scientific method solely based on a dogma. It is a dogma that they will not--CAN NOT--ever change, no matter what evidence is presented to them. That attitude is the very antithesis of science. It is faith, not science.

Worse yet, they seek to pollute the waters, denigrating all science, by twisting the meaning of the words "scientific theory" to mean just some daydream.

Atomic Theory brought to fruition atomic power, atomic bombs, etc.

Electric Field Theory brought about Radio, TV, RADAR, and much, much more.

Really, it isn't that these people are idiots; it's that they are ideologues who find Evolution threatening to their preconceived notions of what the world is.
And that is why they feel evolution must be wrong.

That is not to say that evolutionary theory isn't changing. Real scientists can and do challenge some of its conclusions. But because they do question it, that is NOT evidence that Creationism is true. Creationism has to come up with its own proof, must survive on its own scientific merits, of which there are practically none to speak of.

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 5, 2007 10:50 PM | Report abuse

eric guel - i said
'much of the new testament, especially revelations, is directly aimed at the occupying forces of the roman empire..'

you replied - 'This is ambiguous. What do you mean by "aimed at"?'

well, for example, the "number of the beast," which hollywood and heavy metal have so much fun with, is numerology which translates to "nero caesar" - the contemporary ruler of the roman empire. of course, this is silly, and i have heard modern funamentialists explain it as meaning "bill clinton" and "united nations," among other things. put those two in a category, along with nero, and it seems to me that the 'number' is a convenient tag to hang on the non-christian o' the day.

i said:
"there is a substantial amount of disagreement between the gospels, and even more with the so-called 'dead sea scrolls' and other pieces that were edited out."

you replied:
"The gospels are not meant to be scientific documents with 100 percent accuracy in all of its detail."

tell that to those who make a living interpreting the supposedly prescriptive and descriptive prose of the bible. many findamentalists would disagree with that statement. are you agreeing that the language of the bible might be - gasp - symbolic rather than requiring literal interpretation?

you further said:
"Yes, they were written by humans. Humans, I believe, inspired by God to share a message, namely, the gospel of God's grace."

key phrase: 'i believe.' a great many do not, and thus the application of these principles to laws governing these people represents an imposition of your own ideas on folks who already have their own.

you finished by saying:
"And the Dead Sea Scrolls don't have a thing to do with the New Testament."

i will finish by asking, why not? don't both describe the movement and development of the early christian church? the difference being that the dead sea scrolls were buried - both literally and figuratively - by the victorious group, backers of the christian 'canon' as it exists.

the winners write history. also, how would you explain as literal truth the many stories, forms of which exist in several area religions and folklore? (some predating the new testament.)

the bible is a largely fictitious antiquarian self-help book, albeit one compiled with the best intentions.

Posted by: meuphys | May 5, 2007 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Scott wrote:

"I believe it all comes down to the hand of God. And I bet every scientist has a theory or believes that they know the how or why. So, I ask you is religion and science so different? Religion is based on historical text. Science is based on scientific theories."

Scott, please don't take what I'm saying as an attack on either you or your faith. But I feel I need to share my opinion and see if you may agree.

A large majority of science is based on mathematical equations, especially those that relate time. As anyone who has struggled with math beyond the algebraic level (I include myself) will tell you math is a pure science with only one correct answer. (At least that is what the teachers kept telling me while giving me a low grade.)

"Historical text" (and not just the Bible) cannot be accepted as pure. Man's biases, different perspective's, and memory of an event or a speech, vary greatly.

It's an oft repeated phrase, to the victor go the spoils, and inclusive of this is the victor also controls the history of the event.

There are many inconsistencies between the various Apostles when they report their recollection of the same event.

We all perceive things differently.

A simple experiment is the old camping game, Telephone. One person starts of with a written short phrase which is then whispered into the ear of the person next to them, and that person tells the person next to them, who tells the person next to them . . . the last person than repeats what they heard. The first person reads aloud the phrase as it started. In every case I know of, there are variables in the phrase spoken by the last in line. And this is done not sometime later, but immediately.

This is the problem with historical text, it starts out corrupted and each time it's told, it is altered a little here, a little there, and over 6000 years, you can imagine this is one long game of telephone.

I'll bet if you ask the majority of people who identify themselves as Christians, when Christ was born, they'll respond December 25th. This has become a reality for many.

In his second chapter, Luke tells what happened the day Mary came to the
Temple for purification 40 days after the birth of Jesus. All one has to know is what
day this was. And Luke plainly names the day. In fact, he includes three statements
identifying the day. So what day was this?

Yom Kippur. The Day of Atonement. The 10th day of the seventh month of the
Hebrew calendar.

In Luke's time, Yom Kippur was called three things: The day of the "Fast," the day
of the "Purification,"and the day of "Redemption." Luke uses all three to identify the
day Jesus was brought to the Temple. And he even quotes the Torah rule that mandates
the 40-day period for the mother to wait after the child's birth [Lk 2:22-38].
This puts Jesus's birth around September 11th in 3 BC.

This is ignored by the other gospels and to this day, Christians celebrate Jesus' birth on December 25th.

The holiday of Christmas has always been more Pagan than Christian, with it's associations of Nordic divination, Celtic fertility rites, and Roman Mithraism. That is why both Martin Luther and John Calvin abhorred it, why the Puritans refused to acknowledge it, much less celebrate it (to them, no day of the year could be more holy than the Sabbath), and why it was even made ILLEGAL in Boston! The holiday was already too closely associated with the birth of older Pagan gods and heroes. And many of them (like Oedipus, Theseus, Hercules, Perseus, Jason, Dionysus, Apollo, Mithra, Horus and even Arthur) possessed a narrative of birth, death, and resurrection that was uncomfortably close to that of Jesus. And to make matters worse, many of them pre-dated the Christian Savior.

Now, I'm certain you could find text which debunks the above paragraph.

This is why basing facts on historical text does not necessarily mean you have been given accurate information.



Posted by: Tom Pain | May 5, 2007 9:05 PM | Report abuse

"This ignorance is deplorable."

Yes, it's absolutely deplorable. I hope you don't think that it's indicative of all believers, because it's not.

Posted by: Eric Guel | May 5, 2007 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Eric Guel:

Go to Orlando and visit some of the churches around me. And you'll see why Christians get a bad rap.

I do not think a Christian should wear hot pants that say "Juicy" on them. Or is that just me.

I once asked a neighbor, born again, of what he thought of dinosaurs. He said that dinosaurs were on the Arc. I asked him how big the arc was and he said it was big enough to hold many animals. He said the Earth was exactly 6000 years old, carbon dating was a falacy, and that the liberals are ruining this country, and bombing aborton clinics was not wrong. He believes that aborton doctors should be hung in the public square, that the Iraq war is a necessity because Muslims believe in false gods, and that the Buddhists are all going to hell. Along with the Jews. I askeded him about Jesus being a jew and he said Jesus was different because he was a the son of God.

This ignorance is deplorable.

Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 5, 2007 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Manage the Program:

Shooting Bibles at crowds are only effective if they are the King James Version. I think the Book of Mormon or the Kxxxx would be better, heavier, and carry more meaning.

Do you mean to say there is an outside?

I do need to relax. But unfortunately the nearby megachurch just let out and there is traffic galore. I have never seen so many god fearing people give each other the finger. I'll relax when the lot is empty.

As far as walking outside, I was almost hit yesterday by an angry fellow in a minivan. He had several stickers on the back of his van indicating his religious preference, one saying "Beam me up, Jesus." You see, I happen to walk slowly at times and I had the light at the crosswalk. I guess he was in a hurry because he almost hit my leg as zoomed by me and screamed "F'ing idiot." I don't think Jesus was in his heart.

I did not flip him off. I turned around and saw the stickers and wondered what part of the lesson in the Bible did he not understand? Would Jesus drive like this?

I wish I could say it is an isolated incident. Of course driving fast and foolishly is not a sign of anything, but one would think that doing what Jesus would do is simple. Is Jesus patient? He had to be if he worked with the sick and poor.

That is the problem with any religious book, you forget about it quickly once you leave the grounds. You need weekly lessons to remember. Get out your highlighters!

Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 5, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Meuphys,

You're right about a few things. But I'd like you to elaborate a bit on a few things as well, if you don't mind.

"much of the new testament, especially revelations, is directly aimed at the occupying forces of the roman empire.."

This is ambiguous. What do you mean by "aimed at"? Oh, and it's "Revelation," not "Revelations." It's not plural. ;-)

"there is a substantial amount of disagreement between the gospels, and even more with the so-called 'dead sea scrolls' and other pieces that were edited out."

The gospels are not meant to be scientific documents with 100 percent accuracy in all of its detail. Yes, they were written by humans. Humans, I believe, inspired by God to share a message, namely, the gospel of God's grace.

And the Dead Sea Scrolls don't have a thing to do with the New Testament.

Posted by: Eric Guel | May 5, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

1. the bible is fiction, or maybe better classified as 'propaganda.' much of the new testament, especially revelations, is directly aimed at the occupying forces of the roman empire... not surprising, considering a large portion of early "christians" were political partisans.
2. the bible was written neither by god nor by jesus, nor even (as far as we can tell) specifically "by" such people as matthew, mark, luke, + john. these names were credited so as to give the stories more authenticity. sure, they COULD have been the authors, but the only people who know for sure have been dead for thousands of years.
3. there is a substantial amount of disagreement between the gospels, and even more with the so-called 'dead sea scrolls' and other pieces that were edited out. who made these decisions, and what makes that person / those people qualified?

it's a book, folks, written by human beings in a specific political and social context, intended to serve concrete and temporal goals. get over it.

Posted by: meuphys | May 5, 2007 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Who do you suppose wrote the book of Genesis? The story of Genesis was told way before the time of Jesus and who came up with that idea? The intellectuals of the time.

Why is it that the "intellectuals" feel the need to force their ideas and then change them later?

Posted by: Scott | May 5, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Sorry I didn't sign my post at 5:36.

I also have another question. How does the brain work? Your brain is made up of approximately 100-billion nerve cells called neurons. Ok, so how do neurons work? The gather and transmit electrochemical signals. Ok, so how does that happen? And, I bet science has an answer for that too. But I can guarantee that at the end of a conversation like this a scientist will never tell you they don't know. I believe it all comes down to the hand of God. And I bet every scientist has a theory or believes that they know the how or why. So, I ask you is religion and science so different? Religion is based on historical text. Science is based on scientific theories. You say proof, I say it depends on what you believe. Any scientist can figure out how to "prove" their theory true, just like any religous person can "prove" their theories. So, I ask again are they that different? The difference scientists of the world are out numbered by religous "freaks" as some call them and I believe they are threatened by that and feel the need to prove them wrong. Maybe because religous people have found a purpose for their lives (usually to help other people) and most scientists are still trying to prove that their lives have purpose, to help other people.

Posted by: Scott | May 5, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

The following comments, while absolutely within the right to be said, are a mere sampling of the hyperbole and lack of understanding of the theistic position:

"I would be angry at those who sold you the Bible or whatever book you chose as the truth. Because they are lying to you. I am not."

"Fundamentalism, in all forms, is ruining this country."

"Three things that should scare you about Creationists: 1) They are anti-intellectuals ... 2) They cannot distinguish between the process of science and the Book of Genesis. They seek to make science a religion. They will purge science of the wrong thinking slaves of Satan. 3) They don't care about the consequences of their desire to dominate education, science, politics and the media."

While those characterizations may be true of some fundamentalists, they are not true of the majority of intelligent believers.

Let's stop with the straw men already.

Posted by: Eric Guel | May 5, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Why is it so hard for people to believe that both creationism and evolution exist? Why do a majority of Americans have to force people to choose between one or the other? I'm going to compare apples to oranges now and ask; do you prefer Pepsi or Coke? Guess what you can enjoy both. Do you like Chevy or Ford? Again you can enjoy both. Except Americans don't seem to understand this. Republican or Democrat? Again doesn't matter because who ever you vote for will follow their own agenda and totally disregard the people's opinion. Clinton did it and obviously Bush is doing it now.

So, I ask why must everyone argue and fight about issues that they can't change? Why do believers and non-believers (of God or evolution) feel the need to convert the other? It's pointless. No matter what you believe you will find out if you're right when you die. Are you ready to take that risk?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I believe in God. I believe he created everything that we see, whether directly or indirectly.

Am I an idiot? No.

Do I have faith? Yes.

The reality is, you can believe whatever you want. I do, however, wish that some of you guys could read back through the comments on here and try to get a grasp of how much hate many of you have in your hearts. It's pretty ridiculous.

Science can never prove that there is no God.

Religion can never scientifically prove that there is a God.

Why can't we drop the hyperbole and come to a mutual understanding?

Posted by: Eric Guel | May 5, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Edgar --- did you happen to catch where I said for " kicks and giggles "? I was wondering if you thought it might be better if they shot Bibles at the crowd instead of rubber bullets.

Anyway, you need to relax. You might also not want to jump to conclusions about who it is that is addressing you. Just a helpful hint.

Maybe a break from the computer, and a walk out in the great outdoors might be the ticket.

Posted by: Manage the Program | May 5, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Manage the Program:

Crowd control. Think about it. Even if I explain it you will not understand it. For you understanding it and hearing it would mean that your entire belief system up to this point would be questioned and the life you have lead and fostered is based on fiction, i.e., your holy book of choice.

The key to your salvation will depend on you believing and knowing that knowledge which will negate what you have believed in before. This is how it works. Until you let go of your opinion, then you will start to live on your own terms. Until them, you are controlled by the knowledge that if you are not a good person per whatever book you choose, you are going to hell.

As for LA, the police are doing their job, they are protecting the rich from the troublemakers, generally the poor. I commend them on how well they did it and how fast it happened. This is what the military is supposed to do, keep the inbalance balanced.

Lawsuits? Probably. But a mere price to pay for effective squelching of democracy.

If I had to control the crowd in LA, I would of done it the same way. They were controlled. The rich get the services they pay for.

You have the Bible and that is what your life is probably structured around. Unfortunately or fortunately, your knowledgebase is someone else's which makes you easy to manage and manipulate into believing whatever a preacher designates is the correct interpretation of whatever passage that day. He/she can manipulate the words in a book you believe in to be the exact word of god and therefore you are easy to understand and manage. Effectively, I might add.

If you are angry, I understand. I would be angry at those who sold you the Bible or whatever book you chose as the truth. Because they are lying to you. I am not.

Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 5, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I find it funny that so many people are willing to assume that anyone that disagrees with Evolution is ignorant. Many people who have rejected evolution are independant thinkers who are very informed about the scientific debate and simply find the evidence for evolution unconvincing. I personally find the scientiffic arguments made by Intelligent Design advocates like Dr. Michael Behe very compelling. So, instead of assuming that Creationists are ignorant fools I would suggest that you all check out the facts.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Edgar Stevenson - "The Bible is an effective means of crowd control ..."

Edgar, you should establish a business that consults police departments on handling crowds. I'm sure the Los Angeles police department would have appreciated your skills on May 1st.

Just for kicks and giggles, maybe you could clue us in on exactly how this works.

Posted by: Manage the Program | May 5, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I think I've been misunderstood.

I do not doubt that science exists, I'm aware that science has been quashed by the Church for many centuries because findings like the universe does not revolve around the Earth undermined doctrine, and medicine was long withheld because it interfered with the will of God.

I do believe that evolution exists.

However, I can neither prove or disprove that a Supreme Being got the ball of evolution started.

Yes, I believe in dinosaurs, Pro-magnum man, Cro-magnum man, and the various entities in between.

However I cannot discount that DNA was not placed on this planet and allowed to evolve to the various stages the Earth has undergone.

Do I believe the world was created in 6 days literally? No. I've seen evidence to the contrary. And have not seen any evidence, only "faith" that the Bible is God's words.

I'm not adverse to accepting that God and science can exist side by side, I can't disprove the existence of God.

For years I confused religion (which I find to be perverse in many cases) with the concept of a creator.

Do I believe he answers the prayers of football players that their team wins over another team that also prays? No.

Do I believe he is like the Genie in the bottle, or Santa Clause and brings people what they want? Hardly.

I'm not even sure that if he ever existed he is still around today.

For all I know Jesus was a time traveler whose abilities man will acquire through evolution. But the path we were on at that point in time would have alter that times reality.

So don't confuse an acknowledgment that the origin of the universe is not yet provable as a rejection of science.

Posted by: Tom Pain | May 5, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Evolution is simply the change over time. It's a fact.

Posted by: reason | May 5, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

tourist:

Good points.

If Jesus was here now he would say that it is through your service to others that matters most. Service to others does not mean seeing them go hungry, or homeless, or without medical care. Service to others does not mean bombing another country for financial gain and just because you don't like what they believe in. Jesus is a myth. A great myth that one day we will look back upon and ask, how in the world did we believe in these lies?

I must be in hell:

You are right. Fundamentalism, in all forms, is ruining this country. Ironic, is it not? That those who say they are being like Jesus or Allxx are at the same time destroying themselves and their fellow man. On the whole.

Not one funny thing about it.

Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 5, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

As long as folks believe in a god that is external to themselves, a supernatural being that exerts control over the affairs of man and the planet, then we do not have to look within for answers. We do not have to look to ourselves for the outcome of our species. With that said, an intelligent person can believe in the tenets of christianity as a way to live. There is no harm to be found in 'loving your brother as you would love yourself'. It's just very bothersome when some folks insist that only their interpretation is the way to get to heaven (whatever that is). It shows an arrogance that continues to haunt mankind, and allows for great damage to those who do not proscribe.

What I believe should not be so much at issue, whereas, what I do and have done should be of great importance. Judge me by my actions, not my words. As we have seen, words are only that - something to be spun.

Posted by: tourist | May 5, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

pcon-T:

You remind me that this blog is about who will will the culture of America. You believe lefties and liberals have taken over when in fact your party has taken over and is screwing you over.

What is wonderful about the conservative party is that on one hand they have convinced the poor that it is to their advantage to vote Republican while at the same time the Republicans and conservatives are shipping most of their jobs to India and China.

Genius, poor genius. And all under the guise of Jesus, your only leader and advocate and the only son of Joseph Smith.

Simply the work of many years. I am impressed. It is like giving someone a house and then knocking it down with them in it.

The key to middle class wealth extraction is to convince the middle class to vote for the party most likely to take their money. Convince them that by joining a certain church they will be equal to the big guy. Make the little guy think he is equal to the big guy and you have a patsy.

Why would anyone vote for any party whose main purpose is to make you unemployed? Why? Because Jesus says so.

Orlando is the place of Mikey and the place of huckster preachers looking for your money. And many quickly follow which luckily keeps them off the road on Sundays. But when they pull out of the parking lots, with their fish symbols on their bumpers, they almost run you down in the name of god. Jesus told me to.

I do not think many who follow any religion have evolved at all. In fact, I would argue that it is evolution going backwards.

I shudder to think that if we were created in god's image, then god must of been stoned when he created christians. And every other religious follower. Fortunately, there is no god and the Bible is farce. This is the grace of god.

Imagine needing a book to tell you how to behave. Wonderful.

Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 5, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

What increased the yield per acre of food ten fold or more over that of the middle-ages.

Science.

What cured us so that we can live into our seventies and eighties.

Science.

What gives us a life that we can spend our free time in church or playing ball with our children instead of slaving in some field.

Science.

Take it away and you really do have hell.

Make no mistake about it ... what you believe really does matter.

Some of this candidates should not be allowed to hold office.

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 5, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Great, we are back to "believe anything you want because nobody can prove anything." Really! What a load of manure.

Science is not a "belief". It is a process for establishing the relative value of hypotheses based on rules of empirical evidence and tests for falsity. It uses mathematics as its language. It demands "proof" and is the hardest on its own adherents. You can't just dream up some stuff and call it science. You need to prove it.

Scientists realize their own imperfection. The do not seek dogma. Science changes what it knows, or thinks it knows, based on evidence uncovered by new technologies. Science is in a state of constant refinement.

To put it on the same footing as a guy who reads the first chapter of Genesis and writes a sermon about it is just bunk, pure and simple. Priests are dogmatists; they are not taught scientific method.

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 5, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Guell:

Unfortunately, there is more evidence for the Big Bang--like background radiation--than there is for God having lit the match on the cracker that caused it. I say unfortunately because when science cannot find evidence of God or Gods or Fairies or Angels or Devils or Sprites or whatever Magic Hand floats your boat, they are accused of being anti-religious.

I'll be the first to tell you that evidence does not equal truth .... but what does no evidence equal?

You have to base a scientific theory of the universe on something, and that something might as well be evidence. What else is there?

Science has not explained everything. Scientists will be the first to tell you that. But the bare spots don't negate the forest of evidence they have collected for thousands of years.

Some Christians still believe that illness is a result of spirit possession, or proof that God is punishing you for your sins.

Meanwhile, science gave us rock solid germ theory as an explanation for these phenomena, and genetic theories for other disease causes.

But ignorance can be intractable when it is given the force of God's Word by some irresponsible preacher type with an axe to grind.

Take a look at these TV preachers.

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 5, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Eric Guel writes:

"Creationists cannot answer the question: Where did God come from? The reason is simple, we don't know.

Evolutionists cannot answer the question: Where did the first cause (be it matter or energy) come from? They simply don't know.

So, it all boils down to not knowing."

Thank you Eric. Based upon almost 2 days of this thread, you've supplied the only logical answer. Neither side "knows", both sides "Believe".

Spend lest time arguing about the start of something, and more time working on the problems that exist. Hunger, lack of clean water, poverty, disease, violence, man's inhumanity to man, slavery which goes on still to this day, forced labor, genocide, raping by paramilitary groups, greed, the list is endless.

These are the areas we should expect people running for office to supply us answers for.

I could give a rat's ass if someone eradicated these problems believed in evolution, creation, or we were populated by aliens.


Posted by: Tom Pain | May 5, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Apes and monkeys are "evolved". They represent different branches of the primate tree. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of that part of the theory.

If you want some proof of evolution, take a look at comparative gene profiles for the various species. You can definitively trace lineage using these genetic maps.

Again, the more Creationism is foisted upon us, the more misunderstanding we will have. And the more confused people like James Boulder we will have. Thank you, Creationists, for urinating in our well again. Do yourself a favor and pay attention in class next time.

Creationists aren't concerned with accuracy. God forbid they read a book about the subject that isn't just plucked from the head of some zealot. Their concern about "proof" is just talk. Any "proof" that contradicts Genesis will immediately be discounted, no matter how compelling. The only proof they need is the Bible--and perhaps what some raving crypto-fascist with a collar on has to say.


Posted by: I must be in hell | May 5, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I don't see a problem with what these three said. Huckabee has explained his position and he is right they are both theories.

I believe things evolve but I don't believe the humans evolved from apes and monkeys. One reason is that there are still apes and monkeys. If the apes andd monkeys evolved into humans how come they didn't all evolve?

Posted by: James Boulder | May 5, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Creationists cannot answer the question: Where did God come from? The reason is simple, we don't know.

Evolutionists cannot answer the question: Where did the first cause (be it matter or energy) come from? They simply don't know.

So, it all boils down to not knowing.

Posted by: Eric Guel | May 5, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Fundamentalism is ruining this world. To me, the Islamic and Christian Fundamentalists are just two sides of the same coin. They have a very over-simplistic us-vs-them attitude that is not leading the world into conflagration.

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 5, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Religious creationists can hold any belief they want as long as they don't try to force it onto government. Because doing so would make our country no different than the backward regimes of Iran and Iraq.

So, if the GOP is looking for an Ayatollah as our president, then definitely it's Tancredo, Huckabee or Brownback. Heck, why not draft Rev. Jerry "Hinky Dinky is Gay" Falwell.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | May 5, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Over 20 hours now and still not one creationist has been able to explain

"Where God Came From."

The closes thing to an answer remains "God just is, and always was."

I'll continue to await an adequate response for as "servant" and "Christian" let us all know yesterday, that Brilliant Scholars have been studying the scriptures for thousands of years.

I have grave doubts I'm the first to ask this question.

But, hypothetically, let's say I accept their unexplained answer of God having always been.

I'll try two easier questions.

Where did God get the material from which he used to make not only the earth, but the entire universe?

And a final one:

Where exactly did he put the universe?

Let's see if the creationists can supply evidence, testable or theory's which can be recreated, to any answers given to any of the three questions.

And no, creationists, I'm not attacking your faith, and I'm not saying I'm an evolutionist.

I'm an agnostic with no position on creationism and evolution. I neither believe or disbelieve in God as I cannot prove either his existence or his lack of existence.

I'll check back in a few hours.

Posted by: Tom Pain | May 5, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Three things that should scare you about Creationists:

1) They are anti-intellectuals, in exactly the same way that the Maoists, Stalinists and Fascists were; not so very long ago. What they really want is a "bonfire of the vanities" to expunge the devil from society and perfect the world for the second coming.

2) They cannot distinguish between the process of science and the Book of Genesis. They seek to make science a religion. They will purge science of the wrong thinking slaves of Satan.

3) They don't care about the consequences of their desire to dominate education, science, politics and the media. Things might get messy in the process, but when God is on your side, all sins are forgiven, right? All that matters is that you are in line for the Rapture--and if you are, you're going to miss all the messy Final Days stuff anyway, right? You'll be sipping cool drinks poolside with Jesus by then. No worries.

There are actually more than three reasons, but I can't sit here all day. A close reading of this thread will absolutely prove these points correct. Their own replies give them away.

Scratch the surface of these self-styled Christians and you've got some very angry people who will never compromise on anything that they perceive to be in the Bible. Worse, they will never stop until everyone is forced to believe it. To them, the Bible is a political weapon to create a closed society.

It is a a triumph of the will to believe so fully in a single idea that nothing else matters to you.

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 5, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Given the lack of definition in the question and the answers, the answers do not tell us much about the actual beliefs of the candidates. What is more disturbing is what the discussion on this blog tells us about the general public.

Stereotyping seems to replace real understanding.

Few distinguish between micro and macro evolution. Fewer still distinguish between old earth intelligent design advocates and young earth creationists. Few distinguish between the quite different views of evolution currently being proposed by scientists; there aren't many pure Darwinists left; evolutionary thought itself is evolving.

Within the field of science, there are many options regarding origins of human life. Within interpretation of the Bible, there are many options regarding chronology of origins, even among those who believe that every word is divinely inspired.

Maybe a little humility, openness to mystery and wonder, and willingness to study a bit before stereotyping would elevate this discussion into something useful.

Posted by: JohnJT | May 5, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

I just don't understand where evolutionists get their "proof" that everything evolved from some non-living thing. They tell us that birds evolved from dinosaurs and dinosaurs evolved from fish and people evolved from monkeys, but the only "proof" they have of this is that they share some characteristics. However, a cat and a dog share characteristics, and you don't hear them saying that a dog evolved from a cat. The other problem is that if evolution took millions of years, then there should be some transitional species in the fossil record, some animals between a fish and a T-Rex, for example. However, no such transitional species have ever been found. Just ask any natural history museum guide. They will say, "We expect to find those." Funny that of the millions of fossils, those haven't been found yet.

Here's a website that gives the facts of evolution: http://evolution-facts.org/

Posted by: Gage | May 5, 2007 9:00 AM | Report abuse

30 percent of the GOP candidates do not believe in evolution. This percentage is excatly the same as Bush's approval rate. The inescapable conclusion is that those 30 percent are ignorant cretins.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2007 8:57 AM | Report abuse

i could never vote for a candidate who says he or she doesn't believe in evolution. people who refuse to deal with reality should not be given jobs of major importance. and christians who cannot reconcile evolution and the book of genesis are just being stubborn to the point of foolishness. these stubborn folks clearly are entered into a much more sensational contest than simply figuring out human origins. it's not about the truth anymore. they simply cannot afford to lose the point. and this contest, no one should pretend it's a battle to "honor god" or "stay true to one's faith" like i hear people say all the time with very serious voices. because god created man through evolution and did a fine job and should be honored for it, and plenty of people of deep and beautiful christain faith have no problem with human evolution and should be held up as an example to the others. no, the stubborn christains have entered a contest with other humans. they just cannot stand the thought of any modern perspective of scientific school of thought prevailing in the historic battle of ideas, unless they say it is ok. it's not about truth, it's about winning and having control. a very un-godly approach to life.

Posted by: sam | May 5, 2007 7:55 AM | Report abuse

I thought McCain's choice of the Grand Cayon, that majestic example of erosion, was an apt example of God's "handiwork." Perhaps, though, "Every time I see an owl swoop down and snatch a kitten, I see the hand of God" would have been even better. Any god who uses random mutation and mass extinction as his building blocks ain't wearing a white robe.

Posted by: Wesley Moore | May 5, 2007 7:20 AM | Report abuse

A sad day for America.30 % of the candidates don`t believe in evolution.

Posted by: philos2006 | May 5, 2007 6:21 AM | Report abuse

Okay, who made God? Who is his mama?
A comedian put it into perspective recently.
"God is the imaginary friend of some grown-ups."
Therapists you have a lot of work to do!
A bit like the weapons of mass destruction.
What really scares me is how the bully still wins; is that why the candidates are so unrepresentative of humankind? Not one female in that republican mob. That is scary. When 50% of the representatives are female (not females who act like men) only then will we be moving in the right direction. In the meantime the Bullies of the world rule. And look at the mess we're in!

Posted by: Al | May 5, 2007 5:34 AM | Report abuse

Here are some questions I would have loved to ask both the dems and republicans:

Who has examined the smallest peice of every quark in the universe, in every Galaxy and has determined that there is no God?

If you were to walk up to 12 stones lined up on the side walk in a straight line, would you think someone put them there or it occurred naturally?

You can imagine God to be any way you want, and plenty of people do, but what do you think God meant when He said "you shall not make a graven image of me?"

Should we say who is more human or who has more rights based on dependency of others, iq, size, or where they live?

If someone acts irresponsibly, should an innocent life be extinguished?

If a crime is committed and there are two victems, shouldone of them be put to death?


Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2007 3:57 AM | Report abuse

I think it's absurd that these questions are on top of the debate moderator's list.

Questions of religion and those intangible aspects of the universe are answered subjectively and personally. It's ridiculous for it to be important for the candidate to make such a personal topic very objective, implying that their opinions on Earth's origins is more of an asset than their ability to be a world leader.

Also, science isn't to be believed in. As another commenter said, it's the "how." It's the answer to the human mind curious about what is tangible and what is pertinent to their every day existence. The dominance of dangerous, "army of God" zealot religion is more threatening to science than science is threatening to religion. Using any religious doctrine as a weakly dictatorial answer for the "how" and "why" of humanity, and focusing more on the intangible afterlife than the tangible life negates the progress of the species that would likely be favored by any all-creating, all-seeing, and universal creator or power behind the "spark" everybody attempts to find the source for.

I at least give credit to science for attempting to investigate the answer to "why," rather than subjectively interpret it from scripture and doctrine, and tell everyone what the right answer is, insisting that there's no need to investigate. Unfortunately both parties fail to note the definition of "subjective."

Too bad I'm attempting to make a comment on subjectivity the "most right" answer.

Regardless, I think negating the progress of humanity, and turning the other cheek to imminent world issues for the sake of a dinner table discussion is probably a poor decision.

Posted by: No | May 5, 2007 3:47 AM | Report abuse

Not too long ago everyone would of raised their hands showing disbelief in a theory that today is accepted by the brainwashed majority as "truth". It always amazes me that the "unscientific" crowd are the first to accept as fact even what many "scientists" today question. Good science I think is not 100% believing in a theory that can never be proven.

Posted by: JimT | May 5, 2007 3:28 AM | Report abuse

See Broder`s column for more nuanced explanations from all three.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2007 2:42 AM | Report abuse

Listen, all you liberals and other lefties...we are NOT the anti-science party. If Chris Matthews cared to actually let us learn how the candidates think and feel, and wasn't on a mission to paint conservatives as out of touch on social issue after social issue, he would have asked follow-up questions to explore why Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee said they don't believe in evolution.

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of conservatives are intelligent enough to see the preponderance of evidence of evolution. Most of us just happen to see that faith justifies science and science justifies faith. Is that such a big deal?

Posted by: pcon-T | May 5, 2007 2:41 AM | Report abuse

Someone wanted to know why Christians are bashed and why it's okay to attack them for their belief.

In the modern era, Religious Conservatives are the ones who have fanned the flames of this so called "bashing". As a self described agnostic, one who neither can confirm nor deny the existence of God, I'm always taken aback when I am lumped into a category deemed by Christian demagogues as lacking morals, and being a so called "liberal" in the dirty way they have chosen to redefine the word.

For many of us who "bash" Christians, it's not so much the existence of God, or the belief in Jesus, but the turn that many offshoots of so called Christian religions have taken. Much like the battle going on in Iraq today, the various factions of Christians have chosen different paths in interpreting the Bible.

I, like Tom Pain, have read the Bible from cover to cover on more than one occasion, having dabbled in many different Christian faiths in an effort to find God, one thing became increasingly clear to me, why does God need interpreters?

Listening to the likes Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwel, and James Dobson preaching morality and tolerance, is akin to listening to Osama Bin Laden preach the tenets of the Holy Quran.

Going to far you say? Lets reflect back on Pat Robertson's comments on a number of issues. This great moralist has called for us to engage in the killing a democratically elected head of another nation. Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela.

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said of Chavez in a broadcast of "The 700 Club." "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Of course, the hypocrite is trying to say his was misquoted about Hugo Chavez. "that 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping"

This from a man who has also suggested that a meteor could strike Florida because of unofficial "Gay Days" at Disney World and that feminism caused women to kill their children, practice witchcraft and become lesbians.

Killing our own is also on his radar: "Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up," he said in criticism of the State Department during a "700 Club" interview in October 2003.

The greatest threat to America's future in the Robertson world are not the terrorists, but Judges who have seen fit to overturn such things as Racial Segregation, uphold Voters Rights, and Equal Access to publicly financed education.

"If they look over the course of 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," he said in May of 2005 in response to a question during an ABC interview about whether activist judges were more of a threat to the United States than terrorists.

You see, he is mad at these judges because man has found some way to "keep GOD out of our schools". As if GOD can't be anywhere HE chooses to be. After all he is omnipotent and used "intelligent design" to create us.

This paragon of virtue spends every day "moralizing" on his TV show. Many may not recall that Pat Robertson ran for President 1988. He lost. However since than he has gone on to drive the occupants of the White House to be cast in his mold, to be a proxy president if you will. The next time you hear someone having the audacity to attack others on "values and morals" think back on the remarks made by this twisted man so filled with righteous indignation (i.e. hatred for those whose views may be different) all the while invoking and using the name of "GOD" as his justification.

You see, it's not Christ or God we are bashing, it's the Pat Robertsons, and pastors Mega Church leaders who decry moral shortcomings which it is later found out they engage in, such as homosexual acts. They chose to interpret the Bible literally when it suits their advantage to whipping up a frenzy for their on personal crusades, yet ignore others which would keep any modern person from joining. Leviticus rails against homosexuality in their interpretation, yet they will not enforce the other edicts of Leviticus,20:9 "Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has
cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life." 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and
the adulteress shall be put to death."

If 20:10 were followed, we would lose three of the four top Republican presidential candidates. So many of us "bash" Christians, not for believing in Christ, but for being Cafeteria Christians of Convenience and hypocrites.

I expect that if their religious intolerance was dropped, most of the "bashing" would cease. How many atheist or agnostics do you see bashing other religions? Probably none, because they are not pushing their beliefs on us or calling us morally bankrupt on TV daily. I care not what you do with your lives, as long as you are not hurting another or forcing someone else to engage in acts they would chose not to if allowed free will. So why are you so hell-bent to force your beliefs on me?

At least, this is my opinion and view of the subject. I won't damn anyone who has a different slant on this subject.

Like Tom Pain, I know I don't have all the answers, and I've yet to meet anyone who really does despite "knowing" God exists, he created the universe, and Jesus had to die for our sins to satisfy his father's vengeful way of treating his creations.

Posted by: Olberbend | May 5, 2007 2:26 AM | Report abuse

Science and religion both try to answer why and how, but when they reach their most basic forms of justification, science makes appeals to empirical evidence while religion (at least for Creationists) falls back on the Bible. I would like to see Creationists address creationism theories from other religions; it does feel like they're just pushing for Christian fundamentalist values.

Posted by: mojo | May 5, 2007 2:09 AM | Report abuse

Sure we all came frrom a rock, it takes a real genius to come up with that.

Posted by: AL Wills | May 5, 2007 1:55 AM | Report abuse

It's been almost 10 hours since I reversed the Creationist attack on Evolutionist "where did the material come from for the Big Bang". I've asked where did God come from and by extension, where does he reside?

The best answer I've received is He's always been, always will be.

This answer can also apply to the material for the Big Bang!

So to those of you on either side of the argument, you're both accepting your views on the same premise. A belief in something. Neither can prove their point both point to tenuous strands of information, none of which can be proved or disproved at this point in time.

One creationist did share with me their belief that one day science may advance enough to answer the question.

I hope it does.

My point, this is such silly issue to debate, nobody has the answers and creationist shouldn't lob bombs at evolutionists because they can't answer the same question they pose to others.
And evolutionists, you may be surprised to learn that God did create the universe, though not as described by the Bible.

So why don't we all just get along, and focus our questions to those who wish to rule the important questions. How will you address poverty, end hunger not only in other countries but right here in American? How will you improve the lives of the poorest and weakest among us? What is you stance on providing health care to all or at least make it affordable?
Will our vets receive proper equipment during their service and will they receive proper care when they come home?
How do you plan on ending the trade imbalance? Wiping out the deficit? Will you represent all of the people? Or only those in your party? For isn't it the job of the president to be the president of the USA, not only half of it?

While you may have your own views of morality, of religion, will you understand that faith is personal, and we aren't voting for a religious leader of the nation? Rather we are looking for a leader of the realm of man? Can you promise us that you will not interpret the Constitution and Bill of Rights and instead take them at face value?

Will you promise to make appointments based on competency, not friendship or loyalty? Can you promise us that the good of the people will override the temptation to pay back your financial backers?

And finally, will you promise us that if you do not keep the promises you made while running, you will not seek reelection?

These are the questions which we should be asking and demanding anyone from any party swear to. This isn't a high school popularity contest. This is electing a person to occupy the most powerful seat in the world at this time.

Posted by: Tom Pain | May 5, 2007 1:40 AM | Report abuse

Well done, eye-of-horus. I would say "myth, Myth, MYTH" rather than "lie, Lie, LIE," but that's just a mild aesthetic difference.

Posted by: Jon | May 5, 2007 1:38 AM | Report abuse

God gave you malaria. Science cured it.

God gave you polio. Science cured it.

God gave you most children dying before adulthood and many women dying in childbirth. Science made both rare.

God gave you 99% of mankind starving so 1% could live like kings. Science lets most eat (while that 1% still live like kings).

God gave you darkness and exhaustion at night, science gave you a light bulb and a computer and the time and energy with which to rant about the greatness and goodness of God and the stupidity and evil of science.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 5, 2007 1:32 AM | Report abuse

all of the anti-intellectual BS posted here in defense of the genesis myth only confirms for me that i am correct in my secular humanist path. congratulations, folks, you have lost another soul for your Great Bearded Old White Man in the Sky Who Speaks English. belief in organized religion - and the willingness to substitute myth and superstition which is 2000 years old for the faculty of logic - looks more and more like the human race's tragic flaw.

i will go further and say that the human race which gave us the buddha, michelangelo, beethoven, aristotle, einstein, picasso, sartre, charlie parker and the list goes on may have already 'jumped the shark,' maybe around the time of the scopes trial but certainly no later than november 2000.

Posted by: meuphys | May 5, 2007 1:27 AM | Report abuse

I am neither, by the way.

Posted by: T | May 5, 2007 12:12 AM | Report abuse

I wish I had time to read all of the responses - many were quite amusing. That said, I am a former Republican who is alarmed at the way that the party has drifted away from "true" conservative ideals like fiscal discipline and "less" government. I am also alarmed at the degree to which religion has invaded our political life. The founders of our country, which has traditionally been Christian dominated, wanted to SEPARATE church and state. I fear fanatics of all stripes including liberal, conservative, Christian, muslim...
Why are a politician's religious beliefs so important? As a Christian (and one who doesn't feel it necessary to impose my beliefs on anyone), I don't believe President Bush's religious beliefs have led to the stunning incompetence and frankly disastrous results that we have witnessed. Religion is NOT relevant. Period. Competence Is. I could no logner remain in the GOP b/c its "values" no longer appeal to me. I don't want the government invading any part of my life- I don't want them teaching my children anything that even suggests a non-scientific approach to biology, chemistry, etc. I don't want to know what Presidents believe...I want to know what they are going to do. I don't want the Congress & President to run up bills that are going to leave me (I am in my 30s) and my children hamstrung. It is an outrage that we are talking about religion when we should be talking about why we have leaders in Congress who aren't qualified to be there (e.g., a former majority leader who dropped out of college and still was deemed qualified to pass bills with macroeconomic impact) or why the President hasn't decided to truly "honor" our troops by getting them the hell out of Iraq. It's time we have a substantive conversation that isn't dominated by personal concerns like religion.

Posted by: Former GOPer | May 4, 2007 11:53 PM | Report abuse

B20,

Yes, yes, yes. In a way, we need these guys to follow blindly because if everyone started to think and wake up, that would be terrible. You and I will balance them out. We are outnumbered. But I believe that Truth and Ethics will win out. And justice will triumph. No more wars. All people on Earth will eat. The end of poverty. The elderly in the US will be treated with respect.

Hey, if Jesus was here what would he do? Vote for Mitt of course, the more wives the better.

I understand that the Mormom church is reviewing all blogs to verify that information posted about them is correct. All I can say is that Joseph Smith was a saint and having six wives is the way to salvation. How can they argue with that?

Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 4, 2007 11:39 PM | Report abuse

edgar:

"would you like to buy some oceanfront property in Arizona? Say, yes. Please say yes."

Assure him that he can trust you. If he asks why, remind him that you have told him that you are trustworthy, that's why. This logic is generally enough for these primitive simpletons. The Bible is the Word of God because it says that it is. Would it lie about whether or not it's going to lie to them?

They're like small children, except they never grow up. Sadly, by dint of our egalitarian Constitution, they are still allowed to vote. Note the party they vote for, of course.

Posted by: B2O | May 4, 2007 11:25 PM | Report abuse

> This is what God did.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you believe this because it is something you were told time and again when you were young and impressionable? And that if you had grown in the Swori tribe of the deep Amazon jungle (making up a mythical example), you would swear by a completely different cosmological story? Do you at least recognize that this might be the case? Or that it would be the case for the Swori people, perhaps (if you can't go so far as to look objectively at your own situation)?

Thankfully, there are those among us who were not brainwashed with either the Swori or the Christian mythology. The survival of your species just may depend on us (the non-brainwashed Americans), rather than some merciful and magnanimous actions by your middle-eastern white-robed version of the Swori's Rubber Tree god.

Posted by: B2O | May 4, 2007 11:17 PM | Report abuse

May,
You crack me up. Your facts are as valid as anyone elses. The difference is that you hold on tightly to your beliefs, and many of your kind will fight to the death to defend their faith. Give it up. The Bible is hoswash along with every other religious text. Bibles and such make good anchors. I think the Book of Mormon should be mandatory in all schools. Why not? They have just as much right as the Catholics. Would you not agree?

What would Joseph Smith Do? WWJSD?

There, sounds better.

The issue for all Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus is that they grew up on one system and there is not way they can think outside of it. They are in a way trapped in it. Of course a born again Christian will tell me the day of judgment is coming, they know nothing else.

And here is where I commend Religious education, it has done its wonderful job of brain washing and mind control. We must learn from these pastors and fakes, I mean, prophets.

I still don't understand how a person can say they are Christian and defend the Iraqi war. How? Why? The key thing to remember is to stay away from these folks, there is not use arguing with them. They enjoy being the fool. Too good at it.

The Bible and other books are simply made up and have no validity over anything else. Created by man for man. God is a figment of your imagination. Once you believe otherwise, then, well...would you like to buy some oceanfront property in Arizona? Say, yes. Please say yes.

Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 4, 2007 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Scientists today diferentiate between "macro" and "micro" evolution.

Macro-evolution involves the physical representations resulting from changes in species DNA. Micro-evolution is defined by changes in DNA.

Micro-evolution ("a change in allele frequency over time") is proven mathmatically. It is mathmatically imposible for it not to occur.

Macro-evolution must be accpeted is one accepts that diferences in DNA result in observable diferences between individuals.

Awsome web documentary: http://www.becominghuman.org/

Posted by: Joe | May 4, 2007 10:42 PM | Report abuse

if there were proof of evolution or proof the world is Godless this debate would not exist.

Posted by: brian | May 4, 2007 10:41 PM | Report abuse

To "inquiring mind":

I don't claim to have all the answers, only the most important one: Jesus.

I'm not the best person to answer these questions, but I don't think many of you are headed to Church in the next couple of weeks, so here is my belief on this:

God created humans, and said that we must do as he says. If we don't that is a "sin". Even the smallest thing. And the punishment for sin is death. God (in the old testament time, before Jesus was born) would kill humans for sinning.

Now let's break to another story:
A court judge delivers judgment on traffic violation cases. Whatever he says, must be paid by the offender. One day, his own son is brought to his court. Even though he is his son, he has committed an infraction. So the judge orders him to pay a huge fine. And the fine must be paid. After ruling, the judge comes down from his high platform, takes off his black robe, becomes an ordinary person, takes out his wallet and pays the fine in place of his son.

This is what God did. He came down as Jesus and paid the price for the sins of his children (us). The price was a terrifying death on the cross. He did this for me, and, yes, for you.

Please believe that I want to help you and others who don't believe (yet). This is much more important than being a Democrat or Republican.

Posted by: T | May 4, 2007 10:19 PM | Report abuse

While Jihadists are pathetic, Christian conservatives are plain frightening. Religion, my friends, is the problem. The light of life at the end of this faith-based nightmare is that we will evolve past it.

Posted by: dustsoon | May 4, 2007 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Evolution is a "theory" in the same way that "Special Relativity" is a theory. "Theory" marks its centrality and pre-eminence, not only in science but within human thought as a whole. No religion, now or ever, will command such cross-cultural agreement.

Darwin never referred to his view as "evolution" but as "descent with modification". The idea that new species might emerge from a common ancestor was no novelty. Nor was the idea that an entire species could become extinct. Nor was the idea that time was what we call "deep time" or "geological time" -- vast stretches of millions of years in which life was present but human life was not.

What was new? The mechanism of descent with modification which Darwin called "natural selection" to compare Nature's action with that of a dog breeder or pigeon fancier.

What makes natural selection so uncomfortable? In operation, it has no goal and achieves no purpose. It is a random trial-and-error process dependent upon differential reproductive success -- among many animals, sex.

Darwin knew exactly what he had done and what deep ingratitude he would receive. Life in its multitudinous forms requires no life force, no élan vital, no teleological principle, no design, no purpose, no God.

Darwin solved the materialists' puzzle: how can order arise from randomness.

If evolution through natural selection is true, then Genesis is false. Period. Biblical literalism is a lie, Lie, LIE. Period.

Any politician who "disbelieves" in evolution via natural selection is an ignoramus, or that person is a typical politicking hypocrite. Period.

eye-of-horus
copyright asserted 2007

Posted by: eye-of-horus | May 4, 2007 9:48 PM | Report abuse

i've been reading all this while at work and been unable to post due to our rules.

:: my demographic for reference ::

i'm 22 and completely disillusioned with all things associated with our government. i have never voted and will never vote. i believe that obviously there is a higher power, but I was not created with the capacity to reach an understanding of what that is, and so I don't bother trying. in my 22 years I have learned that life can be a relatively easy experience. being good is not a hard concept. respecting peoples views and values is not, and should not, be a concept that is hard to understand. i have not read the bible front to back and i don't feel that anyone should be required to in order to reach this same point of existence.

:: my words on the matter ::

foregoing all that has been previously said i feel that there are people out there that enjoy and encourage the conflict among us fellow brothers and sisters. this is saddening. it is easier to control us if we are separated and do not get along. these tactics have been used since the dawn of time, and it is surprisings that we have not evolved to a point in which they no longer work.

evolution is fine to believe in and so is creationism. each of us are searching for answers that we may never find. and in our search for these answers we lose sight of the path we are all walking on together.

what troubles me is after reading most of all of the posts in a period of four hours I feel that if "hypothetically" we were able to prove that BOTH evolution and creationism were FACTS and RIGHT the bickering would not end. instead, like little children, we would be locked in a battle of who is MORE RIGHT than the other.

i don't understand how it can be so hard for the majority of us to learn the basics of common courtesy for our fellow man. our existence in the pantheon of the universe is rather insignificant. our time is limited and yet we seem to be excited to spend it quarreling.

i hope that in time we can move beyond quoting books in order to make oneself feel they are justified in spreading discomfort. non of us know where we are going when we die but the one thing that keeps me going through my days is my belief that it will be better than the reality we have all created for ourselves.

i can't remember the exact quote but i remember reading one time that someone said our existence is like a clock. someone built it, someone wound it, someone started it, and now it is our duty to keep on time.

until we as a collective humanity realize that our ability to question our reality is what makes us unique and that any ideas that an individual creates to try and make this existence easier to understand is fair, just, balanced, and acceptable, the world will be a bitter and angry place to exist in.

there are no rights but unfortunately there seem to be plenty of wrongs. raising yourself above others because more people believe in your ideas does no good. my disillusionment comes from accepting the fact that non of what makes me sad in this world will more than likely never change.

i don't mean to start a fire within an inferno, but i felt that after reading everything i wouldn't be doing myself any good by not sharing how i feel.

Posted by: dis-illusioned | May 4, 2007 9:42 PM | Report abuse

All the people who say evolution hasn't been proven seem conveniently to ignore one interesting fact:

In a minimal-intervention lab setting, researchers have managed to *randomly* produce primitive forms of cyanobacteria over the last few decades (it's been an ongoing experiment) simply by letting a replication of the hypothetical "primordial ooze" stew at approximately a given temperature.

The ingredients of the synthetic ooze are all naturally occurring substances on this planet, mind you.

Posted by: Will from KS | May 4, 2007 9:35 PM | Report abuse

have we forgotten that our government is supposed to serve the people? -all- of the people, not just the people who subscribe to their beliefs. the greatest thing about this country is that we have so many different people living and working together. this is why separation of church and state is so fundamentally important. the bottom line is, it doesn't matter what or who you believe in, the most important quality any candidate can have is that they are going to make decisions for the American people as a whole. if we begin forcing our beliefs on one another we might as well become a dictatorship.

Posted by: 808ag | May 4, 2007 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Those who appeal to the lowest common denominator in their quest to be president will not get my vote.

I understood the fact of evolution by the time I was in the third grade. As others have said here, anyone who really questions or doesn't even understand evolution is not intellectually fit to be the leader of the free world.

OTOH, any thing would be better than the worst president in our nations history -which is what we have now.

Posted by: JamesLee | May 4, 2007 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Julie,
But what about Matthew 28:18-20?
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Posted by: Gage | May 4, 2007 8:59 PM | Report abuse

SUGGESTION I KEEP MEANING TO GIVE CHRIS CILLIZZA FOR A QUESTION TO ASK OF THE GOP CANDIDATES:

"700,000 lost lives ago, just before he ordered a premeditated, unprovoked invasion that now has America in such a no-win bind and several billion in the red, George W. Bush mentioned that he had asked God if it was the right thing to do. Apparently God said yes. Was God wrong?"

Posted by: B2O | May 4, 2007 8:58 PM | Report abuse

This thread is pointless. The whole point of faith is that you either believe it, or not. Nobody's mind or heart is going to be changed by a post on a message board.

But for those who profes themselves to be good Christians, please don't try to force your views on me or others, either by writing posts, or, worse, by trying to enact your religious beliefs into the law of the nation backed by the police forces of the state. I like that excerpt from Matthew that somebody posted above:

Matthew 6:5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men....But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

Posted by: Julie -- Virginia Beach | May 4, 2007 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Watching these guys was like watching an audition for some late night televangelical program. Were they serious? Their kissing up to the Conservative Right was deja vu all over again.

Posted by: Madeleine | May 4, 2007 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Brendan:

"There are other historical documents that even verify some of the miracles that some people would claim exagerrations (ie. the sky turning dark at Christ's crucifixion) there are actual 3 (secular historical documents) that attest to that miracle."

This is just Exhibit #45,637 why I find you people to be the saddest albatross that ever bogged a country down as it tried to slog into its more modern future.

There probably was a Jesus of Nazareth, and aside from all the glorification that writers with all kinds of agenda indulged in when describing his life decades and centuries later, I have no trouble believing he was crucified (again, for political reasons - note that people had political motives back then, you might remember that). The Romans did that, that's pretty well established. Why not him too, sure.

So he was up there on the cross. Some clouds rolled in. The sky got dark. People who followed him, who NEEDED him to be a diety for all their particular earthly reasons - just as you need to believe things today for all of yours - painted the sky darker and darker with each retelling. Within a year - let alone 2,000 of them - that sky could have been as dark as a full eclipse. Which, incidentally, it could easily have been. Are you another one of the primitive islanders who believe that predictable celestial events is the Volcano God expressing his Anger with you?

Do you not see why the modern peoples who occupy the coastal areas of your continent fear for the world's future when your candidates stumble into power?

Posted by: B2O | May 4, 2007 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Well, I have to take off. For those of you following along at home, the verse "Christian" didn't want to admit existed was 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

Happy debating all.

Posted by: Oden | May 4, 2007 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Matthew 7:1

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Tom Paine,
This is a very long thread, and I might have missed some of your postings and don't have time to read everyone else's, but I think I found the one you speak of: "If God created the universe, who created God?"
No one. God always was and is and will be. If one believes in God and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, John 1:1 says so. God does not conform to the laws of thermodynamics or physics--he created these rules but transcends these rules. When something happens outside of these rules, that is called a Miracle of God. It's hard for those who don't believe in God to comprehend Him who was always there. That's what makes Him God. He was not created. He just is and was and will be. I don't know if that answered your question, but from a believer's standpoint, that's my answer.

Posted by: Gage | May 4, 2007 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Faith: not wanting to know what is true."
(Friedrich Nietzsche / 1844-1900)

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true."
(Mark Twain / 1835-1910 / Following the Equator / 1897)

Posted by: Richard Bentley | May 4, 2007 8:42 PM | Report abuse

It is sad so see how many will die again in the lake of Fire...It's not too late

Posted by: Fred | May 4, 2007 8:41 PM | Report abuse

To "T":

Congrats on finding your own relationship with God. Everyone is entitled to believe what they choose.

My question is not about your beliefs, but about your reasoning. You say the Big Bang makes no sense because there was nothing before it. So what happened to the millions of people who lived and died before Jesus was born, and before the Bible was compiled and accepted by the Church in the 4th century BC? Did they all automatically go to hell because there was no Jesus to accept and worship, no matter how they lived their lives?

Hell must be full of Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Spartans, Trojans, Carthaginians, early-dynasty Chinese people, Mongols, pre-Columbian Native-Americans, Vikings, Huns, Celtics, Druids, Anglo-saxons, etc.

Posted by: inquiring mind | May 4, 2007 8:39 PM | Report abuse

"Humans thought Earth flat, for many years.
Now we think it's round, thanks to Columbus, who saw for himself."

A dearly-held myth. Actually even in Columbus' time, most educated people realized the earth was round. It was the uneducated, easily-scared people - the creationists and global-warming deniers of their time - that still thought it was flat. If the GOP had been around back then, that would be their base.

Posted by: B2O | May 4, 2007 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Oh, man, I love that "Christian" logged off rather then open her bible.

I was just about to give her a hint to. It's one of the Thessalonians. Two guesses which. (I just kill on open mic night.)

Posted by: Oden | May 4, 2007 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Christian said:

"We're still talking about it. Millions still believe it. Is that not a miracle?"

Millions (actually 1.2 billion) believe the Koran is the Word of God. Does that make it so? And if you can cite some statistic that says more millions have had the Bible than the Koran crammed down their throats in their impressionable captive childhoods, and therefore IT is the word of God, then I have to ask...

If Islamic fanatics one day kill off enough Christians (as you all crave to remind each other they are aiming to do, in your devotional rituals to your neocon masters) that they become the majority, will that THEN make the Koran suddenly true and the Bible false?

And, if you two groups of fanatics one day manage to kill each other completely off (and hopefully the sane modernists can stay out of your way and give humankind some sort of sane future), will that finally make "The Origin Of Species" God's word?

Is truth subject to popular vote or seniority status? You seem to think so. Just one of the many forms of fallacious thinking you fundamentalists seem prone to.

Posted by: B2O | May 4, 2007 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Well, at least a little activity here on the evolution question. I, too, was absolutely flabbergasted that three hands went up. These people are running for President! And I was even more flabbergasted that Matthews moved right on, as if such a belief (that the Bible is true and evolution is false!) were par for the course. This country's pendulum is at about 90 degrees!!

Posted by: Diane Young | May 4, 2007 8:29 PM | Report abuse

-Tom Pain

I'm not one to sell the compitition to people, but trust me when I say the big G is all about your search. And man, the G I knew would not be for the kind of hate and innacuracy she was spewing at you.

I hope you find what you're looking for. Keep knocking, and the door should open. 'least, that's what I heard anyway...

And hey, you can always "hang" around with me. *LOL* Little tree joke there... lighten the mood.

Posted by: Oden | May 4, 2007 8:26 PM | Report abuse

I was raised a Hindu but am now a believer in Jesus. I denied Him for many years, just like you people are doing right now. So I can understand your thinking right now. I'm an engineer with a Masters in Computer Science. I thought about and studied books on evolution for a while. I argued with pastors, and with friends who were Christian. I read the Bible. In the end, I found that Jesus is the only answer.

OK, evolution? If you keep going back in time, we become smaller and less complex animals, to cells, to inanimate matter, all the way to a big bang? What was there before the "big bang"? Nothing? What does that even mean? And if there was nothing, how can something be created from nothing? If we came from nothing, why? Why are we here?

God created us so we could worship Him. I know that's hard for some of you to accept, but: Consider an ant outside on your lawn. Its world is very small to us, but is very big to it. It does not know much beyond that lawn, that it is actually in a suburb, of a city, which is in a state, of the United States, on Planet Earth! That ant cannot begin to fathom that you are in your house, typing away at a keyboard, blogging on a "website"! It could never understand the concept. Well, guess what, we are the ants (perhaps a billion times smaller) of this Universe! We can not hope to understand God, only acknowledge and worship Him!

The next time you are faced with some real adversity in your personal life, please make a real effort at reaching out to Jesus. I know it's difficult to do so without that happening, but I hope you will make a sincere attempt at it.

Posted by: T | May 4, 2007 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Funny how those who profess to be the most devout, are also the most judgmental toward others who disagree with them.

Matthew 6:5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men....But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 8:23 PM | Report abuse

"[E]volution does not give us enough to test the very formation of life (self replicating DNA codes) from inert matter"

All of the RNA nucleoside bases have been synthesized with reactants, and under conditions, whose pre-biotic existence has not been challenged. Even the problem of cytosine deamination highlighted by Robert Shapiro at NYU has been recently answered by Orgel.

The formation of the nucleosides themselves, coupling the bases to ribose, is still problematic, but it looks like the availability of building-block materials is believable. I'm not ready to turn to the folktales of primitive people just yet.

Posted by: rat-terrier | May 4, 2007 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Tom Pain / I must be in hell:

I like it so much when you that don't believe in God or His Word take it out of context to "put us Christians in our place". You don't have any clue as to what your saying when you quote that scripture. I've read all your postings and you have not valid point in anything you say. YOu've got a dysfunctional view. I've never told anyone on this posting that I hate them. You go from arguing a point with someone to "you hate me"???? In hell pointed out something about the Pope? Who cares what the pope writes or declares. Who is he? That's why you nonbelieving people have a bad wrap on Christianity because of the pope and people like him. I live out my faith. I truly believe. I'm logging off and all I can say to you both is that I have a deep, deep peace in my heart that all your rationale and science and arguments can't comprehend. When you sit alone in bed tonight and ponder why it is you have such a big, dark , hole in the middle of you.. I'll think of you both and pray God gives you the faith you need to believe Him. I can't imagine the faithless, dark world you live in. I pity you.

Posted by: christian | May 4, 2007 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Oh Christian,

I see that you wrote yet another personal attack before my last response.

I'm going to simplify this for you. I'm not evil, I'm not insensitive to either your belief, the belief of Jews, the belief of Muslems, or anyone of any faith. I envy them.

I sincerely hope they're right, and this life as not been spent for nothing. I also hope that your God allows people of any faith into His Kingdom if such a place exists.

I hope Ghandi is there despite his religion that does not accept Jesus. I hope the men that killed Martin Luther King Jr., John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Ab Lincoln can be truly forgiven and brought into heaven if such a place exists. I hope that all of the starving children in the world didn't suffer for no reason.

I hope your faith is right. I've just not found it, and instead choose to do what I believe is right and moral not because of some promise of a reward, but that is how I would like my family members, friends and neighbors to be treated by others.

I'm done responding to your postings. So if you still have the need to rant away, go for it.But don't take my silence as a sign you've won. For you've lost, lost the chance to spread the word.

I'll continue to wait for my question to be answered by someone who takes the time to read and understand what I've written.

Posted by: Tom Pain | May 4, 2007 8:20 PM | Report abuse

"Everyone knows that creationism is correct theory. Ra created the heavens and the earth for all mankind."

Not to nitpick, but Christians believe that it was Allah who created the heavens and earth. Arabic-speaking Christians do, at least.

Spanish-speaking ones think it was Dios. Francophones, Dieu. Germans, Gott. And so on. But they will fight great bloody wars over what the guy's name is. Yes, they are a blight on humankind, Christians, but with any luck we will survive them.

Posted by: Mark | May 4, 2007 8:18 PM | Report abuse

"The Pope has sanctioned the teaching of evolution in his recent Bull"

FINALLY, someone is calling these fiats issued on scientitific questions by these nonscientist tribal chieftains by their appropriate term.

Posted by: Mark | May 4, 2007 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Christian writes

"Tom Pain

Wow, your pretty sensitive! Sorry for hurting your feelings! My goodness. Your question as to where did God come from is a good question, but why? Why do you want to know where your creator came from? Will that give you the faith to believe? Either He is God or not. You either accept Him or not. I give Christians a bad name? Because unlike most I stand up for my God. I have faith in Him and believe in Him and don't search the world for hopeless religons and branchs of churchs looking for the answer to "my" questions. So God, I'll give you 20 questions about yourself and if you get them right I'll worship you! How about that deal!"

Oh Christian, the promptness of your response shows you did not go back and read my postings. Otherwise you would not have responded in the manner you did.

I'm not trying to dissuade you from practicing your faith. Nor was I supporting evolution. Had you taken the time to read before responding, you would have known that.

I'm happy you have "faith". And I'm happy you have live in a country where we can all practice what we believe and choose not to practice that which we don't.

The thread here started with which candidate believed in evolution and which didn't.

It was not a question of whether you believe in God or not. Many religious Christians believe in God and evolution.

However, so many posters tried to make their argument that evolutionist can't explain where the material came from for the Big Bang Theory. (I know I can't)

So it's their position that since evolutionist can't answer this question, creationist are right by default.

I'm just putting forth the same challenge to the creationists that they have posed to the evolutionist.

I personally have no idea how we got here, why we are here, and if in fact we really are here. I don't believe or disbelieve in the theory that time has more than one dimension, and when we make a choice, another one of us makes a different choice in lives in an alternate time line.

I just don't know!

As for your being a bad example for Christians, you did not bother to read what was written, you than wrote and attributed something to me that was completely wrong. Thus adding validity that the Bible cannot be taken literally. Additionally attacking me when I'm asking for more in this life then the material world I've been exposed to, demeans your faith. Not by your inability to answer my question, but to judge me. As your faith's leader says "Judge not least ye be Judged."

Like I said before, go back and read my earlier posting regarding my quest. I've not completed it, I'm still searching.

Posted by: Tom Pain | May 4, 2007 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Christian

Obvious you don't know much about your man there. That "test everything" bit? It's a quote from his book. That big one he wrote, called The Bible? You can look it up if you want. It'd probably involve you cracking open the book though... something you obviously don't do too often.

I take it you don't have anything to say about the false witness thing you did. That's okay, if you're really sorry he'll forgive you.

I, on the other hand, can hold it against you. :)

Posted by: Oden | May 4, 2007 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Christian:

Yeah, I do. Sorry. Catholics are not required to understand the book of Genesis literally. The Pope has sanctioned the teaching of evolution in his recent Bull, as long as it does not presume the negation of God or his purpose. There are many other Christians of other beliefs who profess the non-literal interpretation of Genesis. There are many other God fearing people who are not Christians who are cool with evolution.

So go ahead and hate me. You illustrate my point about the force of law. You are dangerous ideologues who seek the destruction of things you do not approve of from a purely liturgical point of view. That isn't America. In fact, the religiously persecuted came here to avoid people like you. So there.

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 4, 2007 8:06 PM | Report abuse

If George W. was a C- student, what was his specific grade in science?

A good question for all candidates is what grade did they get in Science, Economics & world history.

Posted by: Acrapist | May 4, 2007 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Oden

I forgot to type my name, I guess that makes me a coward? I guess you also don't know much to anything about God? No, He doesn't take to many questions...HE'S GOD...mighty ruler..creator..oooh I guess he shoud stop to answer the mighty Oden.

Posted by: Christian | May 4, 2007 8:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Christian. My Mother is an ordained Methodist minister. I believe that the world would be a far better place if we all lived our lives according to the words and widom of Jesus.

But I don't believe for a second that the Bible is science. It's a book that was written by human hands (albeit divinely inspired, but still human) hundreds of years after the fact, originally in Hebrew/Aramaic, then translated into Greek, then into Latin, then into English. Even today, there are different English translations which differ in significant ways from each other, and different sects utilize different versions.

And that's okay, because you don't have to believe that every word in the Bible is scientific fact in order to love God. You can believe in evolution while still believing in God and living by his teachings, if you accept that the most important part of God's message is not in the detailed recital of history contained in the book -- after all, God is not merely an anal-retentive historian whose sole purpose is to record lists of names, dates and events in painstaking detail -- but in the lessons that we are supposed to learn from those events and apply to our own lives. That's why it doesn't bother me that the Bible was a translated document and there are multiple versions today, because you can read any version of the Bible, in any language, and still come to the same conclusions about God's will, because even if the details are different, the lessons are universal.


Posted by: krane293 | May 4, 2007 8:05 PM | Report abuse

You people are fools if you think religion or evolution means anything to any of these three candidates. These are politicians my friend, they will say whatvever they think will help them get votes. They have only one god, and he's colored green.

Posted by: Just a Rationalist | May 4, 2007 8:03 PM | Report abuse

I must be in hell

You make absolutely no sense.

Posted by: Christian | May 4, 2007 8:02 PM | Report abuse

"Quit asking people questions"

I didn't know the big G was against questions. Never seemed like the "shut up and take it" type... he used to go on and on about "Test everything, keep only the good."

Oh, and the anon posting? Really brave guys. I should have more followers like you all.

Posted by: Oden | May 4, 2007 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Tom Pain,

your wrong, your heart is hardened. It's not to suffering, it's to God. You're asking people for a question and you should be listening. You've missed the entire point of the Bible, Jesus Christ. He is God's answer to the evil in the world. He died for you! So you wouldn't have to suffer. Your putting out an impossible question so that you won't ever have to deal with your evil, your wrong doings. Quit asking people questions and ask God to forgive you and allow His forgiveness to give you a peace you've never known.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 7:58 PM | Report abuse

"christine's" are not the worlds persecuters! We're actually a very nice bunch. And were quite a popular baby name a few years back!

Posted by: Christine | May 4, 2007 7:57 PM | Report abuse

It is truly incredible that a modern nation like the U.S is capable of producing these fundamentalist backward people.

Posted by: Fritz Schenk | May 4, 2007 7:56 PM | Report abuse

The pagans fed the Christians to the lions.
Who persecuted the Jews all though the middle ages. Hey, it was the Christians. Pogroms in the Ukraine, Russia, Poland, etc. What would Jesus do? Hey, wasn't this Jesus guy a Jew anyway

Fact is, Christians have no monopoly on bad behavior, or for that matter, good behavior. Thats the point. Get it.

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 4, 2007 7:55 PM | Report abuse

I must be in hell:

You believe in God??? What god and what belief system. How can you believe in God and discredit His word (Genesis) Have you studied it? I mean word for word, line by line? NO, you havn't, I can tell by your ignorance. It's not just the cadence of the literture it's the truth that has stood over 2,000 years. Do you know Moses wrote that book over 5,000 years ago! We're still talking about it. Millions still believe it. Is that not a miracle?

Posted by: Christian | May 4, 2007 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Servant writes:

"Hi Tom: your latest comments are revealing and confirm what I suspected. You don't have the ears to hear, and your heart has hardened. There is no possible theological discussion with you that won't end in hostility, and for that I'm sorry. There is no need for you to go any further with your fake "where did god come from" questions."

Ahh servant insults are the last refuge of the intellectually challenged when they can't supply an answer.

As for what you "suspect" about my heart harding, you are so wrong. I weep almost daily listening and investigating the myriad of abuse cases in my town. I donate 25% of my after tax income split between various charities in my community, like crime victims assistance,Helping hands for Vets, Bowls for the hungry, and many others. I spend most Sunday's preparing meals for the homeless.

My heart is hardened servant,it's broken, in pain, and unable to reconcile God with man's inhumanity to man and His lack of intervention.

My question has been out there for over 6 hours, and countless postings, and only one person made an attempt to answer it. You can read my response to it.

It was both civil and complementary for his taking the time to try.

Posted by: Tom Pain | May 4, 2007 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Hang in there Tom!

BTW - I delegated that post to one of my former Human assistants, which accounts for the typo - "Don't let Chrsitian know"

Posted by: God! | May 4, 2007 7:53 PM | Report abuse

When I hear people cry "separation between church and state" I wonder if they have any understanding of its origin or purpose. Do they have a clue where to find such a statement? In the constitution - hah! I would encourage them to do some research and they will be surprised at what they find. Those that know the facts find it very amusing when we hear supposedly intelligent people use this term. Its sole purpose was to keep the government out of the church's business, but the author of confusion once again has managed to deceive many.

Posted by: Bob T. | May 4, 2007 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Christian-

You give them a bad name by bearing false witness. I hear your Guy doesn't like that too much.

And feel free to give me 20 questions... but my answers might all be BECAUSE I'M GOD AND I SAY SO.

Posted by: Oden | May 4, 2007 7:49 PM | Report abuse

So christine's are the world's oppressors? Who was fed to the Roman lions?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Tom Pain

Wow, your pretty sensitive! Sorry for hurting your feelings! My goodness. Your question as to where did God come from is a good question, but why? Why do you want to know where your creator came from? Will that give you the faith to believe? Either He is God or not. You either accept Him or not. I give Christians a bad name? Because unlike most I stand up for my God. I have faith in Him and believe in Him and don't search the world for hopeless religons and branchs of churchs looking for the answer to "my" questions. So God, I'll give you 20 questions about yourself and if you get them right I'll worship you! How about that deal!

Posted by: Christian | May 4, 2007 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Socrates was forced to drink Hemlock, Copernicus was excommunicated, Galileo was burned at the stake. The Great Library at Alexandria was burned to the ground by religious fanatics. The Crusaders and the Grand Inquisitors tortured and killed thousands of scientists, mathematicians and free-thinkers in the name of God. The Bible wasn't permitted to be translated from Latin for a thousand years after the founding of the Church.

Why is it a surprise to anyone familiar with history that the fervently religious would rather believe what church leaders tell them, than what scientists have discovered?

"All we learn from history is that we don't learn from history" -- Mark Twain

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 7:47 PM | Report abuse

There are many who will tell you that it doesn't really matter what you believe. Surprisingly, still more who will tell you that it doesn't matter what the President believes, or at least says he or she believes, because all truth is some cesspit of relative nonsense. All that matters is if what we hear makes us feel good.

Not a particularly new idea. Still a very bad one. Arguments matter, and while we may not know the truth, we should not shirk from illuminating as much of the conversation as is possible.

The fact that we have a President that puts Creationsism on equal footing with evolution is not just amusing in a professional wrestling sense of the word, its shocking. Now, don't get me wrong. I believe in God. I just don't see how a President can get away with saying that Genesis is science. Even if you think evolution is crap, the statement should still make you blood run cold with fear.

It should bother you because it essentially confuses scientific method with divine revelation. And that is am absolute lie. It is a confusion that is certainly a disservice to science, and is a mockery of faith, all at the same time.

Faith is immutable, but science changes every day. And well that it should! That is its saving grace. Science is not dogma.

What, you want a body of scientists voting on religion? Guess what, no scientists wants that either.

Keep them separate and we are all cool. Karl Rove is an unbeliever, by his own admission. Still, he thinks he can get votes by pandering to those who are clueless about how scientists do science. B y being intentionally provocative.

All of you who mistake Genesis for science should take a hard look at the consequences of that belief.

I agree with the person who said that all those who pit that belief against science should forgo all medicine and live like primitives, or else be damned to that ring of hell reserved for hypocrites and liars.

Listen, I am happy that you think you are going to go to heaven for faith in something ultimately shown to be impossible in its literal interpretation. I don't mean faith in God, I mean the literal interpretation of Genesis.

But you are dangerous if you give that belief the force of law. Why dangerous? Because in order for you to win, you must destroy science and reduce it to sophistry.
And in the process, you will have created a science in its place that is a religion.

And the fact that you don't see how that will destroy us is exactly what makes you dangerous.


Posted by: I must be in hell | May 4, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

God posted"

"Pssst! Tom, Don't let Chrsitian know, but I always have been and always will be. And there is no way humans will be able to understand that.

Just take it on faith!"

God, whoever you are, thanks for a much needed levity in these postings.

By the way, don't let anyone else know but thanks for making me 9'11" tall and making Shaq look like a dwarf next to me. I also appreciate my Superbowl Ring, my 36 individual Olympic medals, (however, couldn't you have let them all be gold?)

:)

Posted by: Tom Pain | May 4, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

How can anyone with even half an education not be mortally embarrassed to be associated with the GOP today. I sincerely, profoundly do not get how they can show themselves in public and call themselves Republicans.

Posted by: Mark | May 4, 2007 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Hi Tom: your latest comments are revealing and confirm what I suspected. You don't have the ears to hear, and your heart has hardened. There is no possible theological discussion with you that won't end in hostility, and for that I'm sorry. There is no need for you to go any further with your fake "where did god come from" questions.

Posted by: servant | May 4, 2007 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Got to love self righteous anonymous posters.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Last I checked, those three candidates were still citizens of the United States, and guarenteed their own freedom of religion under the constitution.

IT DOES NOT MATTER what their personal beliefs are. All that matters is how they conduct themselves in the office of president.

A person need not believe in any religion to allow for freedom of religion for others. Similary, a person need not accept evolution as fact to accept it is at least the currently accepted scientific model of our history.

Even scientists would never say that it can not be proven false and a more accurate theory proposed as we continue to advance in our research. That is the whole point of science, to move on and not be rooted in theories of the past.

That some people find what they see as flaws that can not be excused away within the current theory of evolution is understandable. There is still much science itself does not understand or know yet.

What I find more disturbing here is that people seem to want to cling to evolution as some 'freedom from religion'. It's as if they say "We MUST have evolution to give us an alternative to G-d." That is why so many accuse those who accept the evolutionary theroy as having 'faith' in it. It is not because it is a science but because people's vehement attitudes about it go beyond mere acceptance into the realm of emotional 'faith'.

It really does not matter who choses not to accept evolution as fact.

If evolution stands up to the continued scrutiny of scientists and laymen alike, then just like gravity, germs and other resisted theories of the past, it will soon be accepted universally.

But this is a process that humanity has proven it needs to go through. Fact, belief, science, faith, it does not matter. The human species has proven over and over that this is the process that must be taken.

Posted by: PoV | May 4, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Look, let's just have a nationally televised debate: creation and evotluion. However, have the creationists pick their own to debate and the evolutionists pick theirs. Let's have them stay strictly with the physical, scientific evidences that exist; not ones where a poor hypothetical interpretation is jammed into them. Of course this debate will not happen. It cannot. Why? Frightened instituional evolutionists in the media, the educational system, and the "scientific" establishment. But, it would be great if I were proven wrong and the debate did come off. (Romans 1:20-22)

Posted by: Steve Sorensen | May 4, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

"It always amazes me how the author of confusion manages to twist things around. To disbelieve in the evolution myth has nothing to do with a belief relating to gravity. Elementary statement! But .... evolution states that your relatives were monkeys. Certainly not mine! Also - I can not fathom an explosion powerful and intricate enough to blow together rather than apart, the human body, and perfect enough to create the wisdom and depth of DNA. Science has done fairly well at explaining things after the fact, and with enough statistics, can sometimes even accurately predict the future, but only your Creator knows for sure!"

When you're living in the system itself, all is still run by probability.

When you're an observer outside of the system, the probability becomes certainty.

A fool would be concerned about a "relation" to monkeys, without realizing that such "relation" is based upon DNA similarities.

Guess what? We share many of the same genetic material, protein material, protein products, building blocks, and so forth with all other creatures on this Earth in one way or another.

Whether that's God's plan is irrelevent here, believe it if you will. But if you're trying to distance yourself from every living thing on Earth because you fear being "related" in any way, let's face it: your adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymines are the same ones found in every other living thing.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 7:39 PM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | May 4, 2007 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Dave Park

Obviously, you have not studied the Bible. God Himself Hates. Read Duet.12:31 or 16:22 or Malachi 2:16. God desires' glory for HImself. He's a being that we can't understand so therefore we assume He's not real. Just because you can't see the wind doesn't mean it's not there! It's not even funny how small minded you are. God must look down and shake His head at your ignorance and disbelief. EVolution cannot be proved. Take a computer apart throw it into space and come back in 4 billion years. Will it be put back together? No. It's not evident, it's not provable. Evolution is a hoax. What will you say when scientist one day say oooh well, we have another theory. This time we know we're right. I guess you'll be dragging your pitiful self right behind!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Our religon has been hijacked Dave PArk. We need to take it back from the right wing ideologes. God is love God is peace God is Guilt.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 7:38 PM | Report abuse

To the 30% of GOP presidential candidates, 40% of the public and who-knows-what % of the US public who do not "believe" in evolution:

PLEASE IMMEDIATELY STOP TAKING ANY MEDICATIONS THAT MAY BE KEEPING YOU ALIVE.

PLEASE DO NOT VISIT ANY MODERN MEDICAL FACILITY.

PLEASE DO NOT PARTAKE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OF ANY BENEFIT OF MODERN SCIENCE WHICH RELIES ON CURRENT BIOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE.

You are hypocrites if you do not follow these dictates. Talk to a biologist or medical doctor. Evolution is such a fundamental and accepted foundation of modern biology that if you do not think it possible, you should NOT TRUST THOSE PILLS OR FANCY MEDICAL EQUIPMENT THEY ALSO CLAIM ARE USEFUL TO YOU. JUST SAY *NO* TO MODERN MEDICINE (AND ALL OF SCIENCE WHILE YOU'RE AT IT - CAN'T BE TOO CAREFUL YOU KNOW). BUT DON'T FORGET TO VOTE GOP. I TALKED TO GOD YESTERDAY AND HE IS A REGISTERED REPUBLICAN. HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN ALL THAT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY CRAP EITHER. JUST AN APPLE AND A GOOD BOWEL MOVEMENT DAILY. THAT'S ALL YOU NEED REALLY. THANKS AND WATCH THIS SPACE FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. AND DON'T BOTHER THINKING. REMEMBER HOW MUCH IT HURT LAST TIME YOU TRIED.

Posted by: B2O | May 4, 2007 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for your insightful post dave park. Keep brining light to the blind. My goal is to save one person a day:) Thank you for your insight

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Pssst! Tom, Don't let Chrsitian know, but I always have been and always will be. And there is no way humans will be able to understand that.

Just take it on faith!

Posted by: God! | May 4, 2007 7:35 PM | Report abuse

One other thing I'd like to add.

Before anyone goes out and thinks I'm some "leftist bashing religion," I actually AM Presbyterian. I DO believe in God, enough to actually look upon scripture to wonder how I should live my life. And I do it as intelligently as possible, following it by context.

Religious scholars of the day were not concerned about the factual nature of the Bible. They understood that it's stories, but those with great moral lessons if taught correctly. In terms of the Creation, they were not concerned about the order of things, but rather the philosophical background behind knowledge itself.

Religion, however, is a dangerous tool for the foolish. Those so concerned about doctrine that they must impose it upon others should actually TRY TO READ THE BIBLE, try to understand it, and live by those morals, rather than quoting passages and imposing rules on others.

Because if this was even true, I highly doubt people would be looking upon those different from others and cast them aside, nor would we judge them based on differences.

Posted by: Dave Park | May 4, 2007 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Any man who claims to speak for god is a flase prophet

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 7:33 PM | Report abuse

I'm so disappointed in almost all of you!

What have I wrought?

Posted by: God! | May 4, 2007 7:31 PM | Report abuse


Christian Writes:
"Tom Pain

Wow, you've really studied the Bible! It's hard to argue with 4 whole days of studying! You have to know how foolish you sound! There are godly, good christian men who've devoted their entire lives to studying the Bible. They've come to grow in their faith more because of it. You've obviously not studied it since your argument is so weak. To say you studied as a catholic is even worse! Don't worry about religion. Read the Bible in it's context. Each book, with a commentary and concordanance. What other book is stayed so consistent, so alive in people's lives for so long!"

Here is why I hate getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed man!

Go back and read my post genius.

It says the following:

"However, I've read the Bible many times. I've searched for God through a number of religions beginning with Catholicism, followed by Mormon, Wesleyan, Unitarian, Quaker, and the last attempt, Lutheran. My search has covered 43 of my 50 years.
I've attended hundred of Bible study groups under each of these denominations. Have read the Bible from front to back on my own at least three times the first time over four consecutive days and nights."

You sir give "Christians" a bad name!

Now, since you've chosen to mention all of these Biblical Scholars, where is the answer to my question?

They've had centuries to supply us the answer. Where did God come from!

I notice you didn't put that into your response.

You might also want to go back and read the rest of my response and the one before it where I state I would like to find to God and the reasons I set forth. I wasn't being sarcastic on those to prior postings.

However, your knee jerk reaction and taking out of context what I wrote, and getting it WRONG! Did bring out the sarcasm this time.

I'll continue to wait for the answer to my question, and if you're a true Christian, you'll apologize for your most un-Christian like posting! |

Posted by: Tom Pain | May 4, 2007 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Christian. I wish I didn't have to blame at all. I also wish there was no Fox "news'", rush, hannity, coulter, savage, drudge. My point being. The republicans have been in control for ten years, for the most part.

They have taken zero responsibility for any failings. All the right has done the last 4 years is blame blame blame. That is my problem. How can you be in control all this time but nothing is your fault you don't know how anything happened? Accountability!!! Not if I fail I will blame the dems. That is my problem.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Worried - Where does time come from?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 7:29 PM | Report abuse

It always amazes me how the author of confusion manages to twist things around. To disbelieve in the evolution myth has nothing to do with a belief relating to gravity. Elementary statement! But .... evolution states that your relatives were monkeys. Certainly not mine! Also - I can not fathom an explosion powerful and intricate enough to blow together rather than apart, the human body, and perfect enough to create the wisdom and depth of DNA. Science has done fairly well at explaining things after the fact, and with enough statistics, can sometimes even accurately predict the future, but only your Creator knows for sure!

Posted by: Bob T. | May 4, 2007 7:28 PM | Report abuse

At least we're CLones with morals! Not selfless pigs!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Most politicians have absolutely no science background. The fact that they would rather pay more attention to distorted facts in the Bible rather than heed the MORAL warnings that the books have said worries me terribly.

In other words, Jesus wasn't great because he could do magic tricks. He was awesome because of his humility, humanity, and compassion. Unfortunately, "Christians" in America sort of conveniently forget this, which is why even in a religion that forbids hatred we have "Christians" bashing gays.

The existence of God or if He/she/it/them made the world isn't of particular concern to scientists. It's HOW that process occurred.

We have clear genetic and physiological evidence that evolution does occur. We have a sound theory that has yet to be disproven, but whose details still need to be worked out. Evolution isn't some guess; it's legitimate, it has a strong footing. To those who argue that it's something that cannot be absolutely proven, you're going into the realm of saying that gravity cannot be proven so it should not be believed (i.e. it's God holding our feet down on the ground, or some other ridiculous nonesense).

In contrast, we have absolutely NO evidence that a deity exists, that such a being has even created anything, that humanity was merely formed, and so forth. There's absolutely no empirical evidence for such a thought. Such ideals are, therefore, beyond the realm of science.

In other words, Creationism, for all it's worth, is NOT science. It's theology, philosophy, and should be taught as such. But it has no genuine fact behind the thinking, merely ones beliefs.

To take the word of scripture word-for-word without any context, to think in such simple terms of ones own belief without thinking rationally, to take something as fact when it was still written by men who most likely hallucinated or whose accounts have been altered over the course of time, THAT is ridiculous. I mean, that's why we're in Iraq.

That's what I'm worried about here. In the presidency, we need someone actually intelligent, not someone who goes merely by gut instinct. Your heart tells you what is the right thing to do, but your heart should NOT tell you when FACTUAL things must be put forth.

For crying out loud, politicians and those without any kind of background in any sort of science think that Global Warming is a hoax, while the vast majority of the scientific community (minus the oil industry) find this to be a large problem. Why do we believe and listen to those that have no clue what's going on rather than the experts that have dedicated their lives to analyzing such effects?

Posted by: Dave Park | May 4, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Ignore my last post. It's all messed up and backwards. I can't type today, end of the day :).

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Intelligent Design = "it's too complex to have occurred randomly, so someone must have created it on purpose."

Translation: "I don't understand it, so let's file it under 'because God said so.'"

Question: following the rationale of the Intelligent Design crowd, then where did God come from? He must be a highly complex being, so obviously someone "designed" him, so who was it? An even more complex "super" God? Which leads to, who created the "super" God?

Personally, I believe we are here because of 3 key ingredients: energy, matter, and time... lots and lots of time.

Posted by: Worried | May 4, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133

Do you think taking Saddam out of the picture is not good? Not a shot at the terrorists?

Are all the middle-east problems Bush's fault? So what your saying is that they're anybody's but the Dem's..Right?

Posted by: Christian | May 4, 2007 7:26 PM | Report abuse

We should debate here religon vs sceince. That cannot be solved, yet, by the pope and scientist. We should talk about how this topic effects us, in terms of the republicna candidates. To me they should have asked the question, but when the did, the results were very scary. I thought bush was one of a kind. Last night I found out the right is filled with them. CLones!!

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 7:25 PM | Report abuse

"How does a scientist believe in a theory that cannot be proved? I thought that was the definition of science?"

Easy, it's philosophical theory; not scientific theory.

That's where so many of you are making the disconnect. You're trying to fit the other guy's square peg into your round hole.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 7:24 PM | Report abuse

All of the discussions assume that Judeo-Christian belief system (includes Islam also, by the way) is the only religious system available to us to guide us in explaining the intricacies of creationism etc. What about other religions, like Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Ask any one of them and they'll believe in their own theories of creationism. Obviously there's a huge conflict among the religions that depend on irrational beliefs rather than a sound scientific explanations to talk about nature and other unknowns. So, how do we resolve this? By depending on science that depends on empirical evidence, non-emotional analysis, and hard-core research to come out with findings. If you use religion to explain things around you, where do you stop? Do you seriously believe that God causes rains, earthquakes etc? How do you resolve differences that are so hard-coded in your beliefs? Isn't this the first step for bigotry and tensions between religions?

Oh, by the way, I have read about most of the major religions in the world, and they all have one thing in common - God is vindictive! Do something bad, and he'll (its almost always a 'He') go after you! If he's so powerful, shouldn't he pre-empt my actions, and not let me do bad things? Wonder why can't he program me to do the "right" things and not bother about condemning me to hell! :)

Posted by: VV | May 4, 2007 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Mark F.

Good input! Wow, You sure bring a logical, educated argument! Could we get some more good followup statements, like, stupid or horse's-ass?

Posted by: Christian | May 4, 2007 7:23 PM | Report abuse

How so lab? Who are the bin ladens? Do you know their history, do you know bush's? Who is the big winner in the middle east right now, Iran? Is that all the dems fault to. Look at what is happening not what rush or bush tell you. Who is really supporting the troops, abroad and at home?

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Golgi:

"Personally, I don't think the R party is the anti-science party. There is no anti-science party among the major political parties in America today."

You do realize that until the Democrats retook Congress last fall, the GOP-appointed head of the Senate environmental appropriations committee (Inofe) was regularly calling anthropogenic global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind"? Maybe you missed that. This party is little more than the Taliban dressed western style.

Posted by: Mark | May 4, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Tyrannosaur

How does a scientist believe in a theory that cannot be proved? I thought that was the definition of science? Proving a theory by reason through a series of controlled experiements? You might not be a Christian, but you do have a religon, unfortunately, it's faulty.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 7:20 PM | Report abuse

it's funny that the lefty's have an alliance with the communist and the islamofascist against Bush, the Republicans, Christians, America and traditional American values.

Posted by: Lab | May 4, 2007 7:19 PM | Report abuse

No one is surprised that these guys don't believe in evolution. They're complete idiots. Why bother with follow-up questions?

Posted by: Mark F. | May 4, 2007 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Alright everybody. The sky is now purple. It is no longer blue. It "is" because I said "it is". What a load of garbage. The right knows this is bull, they're not that detached from reality. Anything to keep making all that stock money right? Who really cares what the right says as long as stock are at an all time high, right? The right has sold this country out for high oil and stock prices. Hopefully they are held accountable so all these MILLIONS of lives, on all sides for the last 80 years, are not in vein. The right has been fighting this war and lying to the american people about it since WW1. The war hasn't changed. Only the lies.

All power back to the people. ONE PEOPLE ONE WORLD

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Bulletin - evolution probably won't be the issue that decides the next election. Maybe we should be more concerned about the candidates' views on something important.
And to the person who said we should stop electing lawyers, I don't disagree, but then again, Bush isn't a lawyer, and that hasn't worked out too well either.

Posted by: A voice in the wilderness | May 4, 2007 7:13 PM | Report abuse

200% agreement rufus! Some people are in office that need to answer for their actions.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Ther eis a slide, your right. There wasn't ten years ago before the republicnas took over though. They are ruining this country. And the worst part is, they know it. This is sabotage. This is treason

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Alright then. Don't cry now when the dems do what we gotta do. Don't cry when the whole administration and many senator and congressmen are in jail for treason

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Well.. My thoughts are they should put guideline in effect that requires the government to be 50-50.. I know that is unrealistic but it doesn't hurt to dream. There needs to be a balance... I changed from time to time myself... I agree with some D views and I agree with some R views. Rarely do I agree with either 100%. And yes.. I have listened to Rush, etc.. They are good a spitting alot of poison... But... sad thing.. this country is "supposed" to be founded by the people for the people... so until there is some since of unity, despite opposing views, like what supposedly happened after 911... we will continue to slide towards a third world country.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133

Dems don't try to push Republicans out! Waaa Waaa! Geez what a baby! Grow up! That's politics. Your moral-less Dem's should understand that!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 6:58 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133

How is it you care for freedom so much but feel so ready to jump all over someone because they believe in something (other than themselves) and you don't? I run a business with over 250 employees. Over 40% of my employees have been here over 7 years! Does that sound illegal? No! You just like to stereo-type anyone who doesn't believe what you do! Maybe if you had some values in life you wouldn't feel so left out!

Posted by: Christian | May 4, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

That is true. That is also liberal tenats. What you just said/ blank poster, is the exact opposite of how the repulicans have been running the show. They have attempted to push ALL democrats out, where they could. HAve you ever listened to rush/hannity/o'reilly?

They have millions of viewers/listens. They are the AVATARS of the right. The right takes their words and rejurgetatees them daily. You want to come to me and say the left hates. WHHOAA

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Freedom is what it is all about! I want the ability to be able to say what I want, when I want, how I want.... and you should be able to as well. That is what makes this world so great! We can all be friends and think differently. That's what makes things work... yin and yang... good and evil.. can't have one without the other.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

I hear you blank poster. That is ideal. We should all listen to others opinions. We are all in this together. If that's the case, why has the right hijacked the government. Why is anyone who is not a republican, in republican districts/contractors/government, getting black balled. If we should all listen to each other why has the republican party isolated themsleves for the last ten years. You can't have it both ways. You can't run a government for 6 years with no democrats, then when the democrats take over say, "What about us." Practice what you preach

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Yes clones. If someone has to look/act/talk like you, befor eyou will hire them. That is illegal. If you only hang out with someone that likes Fox"news" nascar, guns and so on that is ignorance.

We are differant for a reason. If we all looked and talked the same how would that be. If eveyone was alike how would the world look? I live in a republican district, just moved here. Everyone hear dresses the same. They do the same things. They watch the same show. They all get their opinions from watching rush/hannity/o'reilly.I feel like I'm living in the twilight zone. What is wrong with the right wing conservative movement. Don't you people care about freedom?

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Wow - Chris you choose to support your theory of Creationism through this Dr. Dino huckster and all his website crap. J. Allen thanks for revealing that the supposed champion of the Creationists is an emperor without clothes!

Posted by: RT | May 4, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

RUFUS1133

That was precisely my point. All of this I'm right and you are wrong on this blog is nonsense. People will believe what they want to believe. The will ingest things and interpret them in whichever way makes them happy. So... although my beliefs may be different then the next... we are still all in this together. I will try to share with people what I believe. Should they decide to believe otherwise I won't hate them. I'll even listen to their since of reason. So long no one tries to force it down my throat or attempts to take away the right that I have to believe what I want and share should I so choose. The way I feel is that I can plant a seed. It may or may not be in fertile ground. If it grows great..

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Tyrannosaur. I thought you were the same poster from earlier.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Rufus1133

You're an idiot. Why does it bother you that so many people have similar beliefs? Clones??? What are you talking about? Just because some people have morals or ethics?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Oh, for anyone late to the Matrix conversation, I'm not sure exactly how I got classed as a Christian Republican... that's almost my exact opposite.
And I still want to know why 99.84% of earth and life scientists believe in evolution. That's a lot of people, who've devoted lives to studying this. How is it that a few people with no biology background know more than the entire scientific community that studies this? If a scientist came up with something that disproved evolution, or a new system supported by the evidence, that's their ticket to fame. Why wouldn't they leap at the chance to be the next Darwin?
Answer: because evolution is real. Wake up and smell the genomes, people. The Dark Ages are over.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Tom Pain

Wow, you've really studied the Bible! It's hard to argue with 4 whole days of studying! You have to know how foolish you sound! There are godly, good christian men who've devoted their entire lives to studying the Bible. They've come to grow in their faith more because of it. You've obviously not studied it since your argument is so weak. To say you studied as a catholic is even worse! Don't worry about religion. Read the Bible in it's context. Each book, with a commentary and concordanance. What other book is stayed so consistent, so alive in people's lives for so long!

Posted by: Christian | May 4, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

That's why I don't agree with the right. Clones. Everyone looks/acts/talks/lives like ronald reagan. I don't want to be reagan's clone. He was a great man, but I am me. We are all individuals. The right would make us all clones or better yet, the borg from star trek

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

"I listed my 43 year sojourn to find God. Alas, it has come to no avail." - Tom Paine

Maybe you have, and just don't recognize it.

I chuckle at all of the back and forth today, because many posters fail to see the relatively bright line between science and religion, with respects to the Origin (of everything).

Religion (faith) fills the gap between science and the Unmoved Mover. Many posters are arguing over the other side of the line - in both directions.

Religion needn't oppose science, anymore than science need oppose religion. They don't counterweight each other; one simply picks up where the other leaves off.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

I was think more on the lines of, don't believe everything that you see because you don't know who is producing that illusion. But hey. Whatever floats your boat. Hopefully everyone reads the cave analogy from plato and can make their own determination. The classification of "what is" by the right is the big lie. "What is" is differant to everybody

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 4, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Brendan,

That text you quoted about genetics, claiming that there's no connection between cladistics and genes? It's lying.

It's bearing false witness. It's not telling the truth.

Do you know that many sequences are online? Perhaps 10 years ago people could get away with lies about "humans are more like bananas or cabbages than mice." Nowadays you can do the comparison yourself.

And the genetic results are that:
* Tasmanian wolves were more like kangaroos and opossums than like wolves or dogs.

* Whales are more like hippos than like manatees, seals, or otters (and all of them are more closely related to each other than to, goodness knows someone would expect it, fish)

* Human chromosomes are almost identical to chimp chromosomes. "Wait" you say "Humans have 23, chimps have 24."
But human chromosome 2 looks just like chimp chromosomes 2P and 2Q fused together, complete with remnants of broken endcaps (telomeres) where they fused.

The genetic evidence matches what was *predicted* from fossils and from cladistics and morphology.

No evidence? Here's 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Each of the 29 *sets* of evidence comes complete with tests, falsifiability, and many, many references.

Again, if you tell your children that they only can believe in YEC, and that theistic evolution is evil, then they'll be in a world of hurt when they get to college. Because gene sequencing just gets cheaper each year. Online access to museum collections gets better each year. The lies that Dr. Dino says aren't getting better.


Posted by: Kathryn a biologist | May 4, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

The reason the question was relevant is what it shows about the candidates thinking, not their beliefs. If they were truthful, then they have confessed to, at best, an inability to grasp complex scientific issues, which our experience with Bush has shown is anathema to proper governance in a time where scientific issues are increasingly vital to crucial decisions. The examples of this under Bush are too numerous to mention them all ( stem-cell research, global warming etc.) The Soviet Union had to deal with Lysenkoism, which crippled their country in many of the sciences, and was particularly tragic for agriculture. Now we are suffering under an equally anti-science administration, and as a result, we have fallen behind much of the world in important research. We even have political hacks vetting the statements and reports of scientists, to make them comform with the religeous party line. This is why the question, badly phrased as it was, should have been asked. It is the 21st century, not the 9th. It is time we had a man in the White House who can think rationally about the important issues of our day, and base his decisions on the facts, not on his "beliefs". And if the three who raised their hands were lying, then they are guilty of pandering to the religeous right, and of outright deceit to the American people. In neither case should any of these three men be elected. They have revealed themselves to be incapable of governing well, either from a lack of honesty, or a lack of the kind of critical thinking a modern leader must have. As a previous post pointed out, we have already had at least two Presidents who were self-professed born-agains who disbelieved in evolution. I don't think our country, or the world, can survive a third.

Posted by: David C. | May 4, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Ahh.. the good ole Cave Analogy.. that is how I viewed my life before I became a Christian. I was a prisoner and viewed the world as shadows.... I was depressed.. felt there was no hope... and I became a Christian and my eyes were opened to vibrant colors, true meaning, and a life of enjoyment.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

The funny thing about this entire rant is that all of you, regardless of what you do or don't believe, and it really doesn't matter, are proof positive that the social engineers knew exactly what they were doing when they instituted religion and politics, as if there is a difference, for the purpose of exploiting ignorance and fear to their benefit. Division has been the greatest weapon ever engineered for population control. It's a dirty job...

Posted by: LooseNut | May 4, 2007 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Hmm, so nothing provable, so why not believe anything? Why not believe in nothing? If the assumption of knowledge is arrogance, then why bother attempting?

Forgive me thinking that the above is not instructive in any way. Science can't tell us everything, granted. It's a process of refinement, not a oracle of absolute truth. Given that, even its critics will have to admit it was a heck of a good past thousand years or so for the progress of science. I particularly liked the industrial revolution, but that's just me.

Yeah, I know, the atomic bomb bothers me, too. But the boys behind it did some pretty skilled research. It wasn't nothing, they might have actually known something, what do you think?

And Jesus wasn't some bloviating sophist. He had a message of love, as I read it, and salvation.

That's the two things science can't help us with.

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 4, 2007 6:30 PM | Report abuse

The anti-Christian, anti-faith vitriol is both breathtaking and expected.

Posted by: RetLt592 | May 4, 2007 01:18 PM

Typical "faith based" response! When you can't effectively deal with an issue, distort the language! Twist it into an attack on your irrational belief system, and then demonize the other side. You learn that in Sunday school?

You apparently equate all of the posted comments that express anti-ignorance and anti-superstition, or that support the use of reason and scientific method to understand God's creation, with anti-Christian and anti-faith.

Oh man! I thought I was writing to disagree with you and suddenly I find myself in total agreement instead!

What is really breathtaking is the immense separation between the "Three Amoeba's" (I like that one!) position and the and the accumulation of human knowledge over time.

If the Dems should choose Daffy Duck, Yosemite Sam, or Popeye for their candidate they would get my vote over any of the "cardboard cutouts" in the GOP photo.

Posted by: Seeker | May 4, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Well, whatever you are. Watch the Matrix movies. If you are a Christian like you claim it will open you eyes. If not you will see a dumb sci-fi movie. If you are a christian you will see the levels of that movie are very very deep. Watch it as a man, not as a ........

Watch the news as a man, for that matter, not a republican/american

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Dude, I'm a partisan hack of a Democrat.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Of course you didn't see them, Tyrannosaur . I'm sure your one of those republicans that CAN'T watch anything that they don't agree with politically. You are propbably one of these rupublicnas that say, "I only watch fox." I knows there is a lot of you out there living in caves. Read up on plato's cave analogy. It's better to know more than less. Don't let your FEAR hold you back

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 4, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

And thus is a thread derailed.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

How can anyone seriously believe in evolution? Everyone knows that 10,000 years ago, an alien race commanded by the all-powerful Lord Xenu was destroyed in a nuclear war, and that their souls remanied on earth after their deaths, attaching themselves to our bodies and causing all of the problems in our lives. Just ask my wife Katie and our alien-love-child Suri.

Posted by: Tom Cruise | May 4, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Bah, Matrix was t3h 5uxx0r (it sucked). Too many ridiculous plot holes. Never saw the next movies.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

I do not know what caused life to start, but I do think that it will end at the hands of republicans and religious believers.

Posted by: acrapist | May 4, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Five hundred years from now. If we lose the bible/koran/brisha and others.

Hopefully they still have the matrix. If so the future will be btter than it is today. Peace to you link. Fighters of the real world :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

A matrix analogy out of the blue. YEEEEAAHHH. That's what I'm talking about. That's what time it is. All the answers lie within the matrix :).

The matrix will save the world

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Garvity is proven by that standard you say is impossible, zouk. They used to say gravity, before it had a name, was caused by god

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

You can believe anything you want to. I choose to believe in things that can be proven. Being indocrinated to believe things without evidence is perpetuating ignorance and superstition. Fight for rational reasoning!

Posted by: Brian McArdle | May 4, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

All you believers in Evolution are so misguided. The TRUTH of the origin of life was revealed to us in the holy book of Matrix. Evolution is a theory and an old one at that. It has been proven error by scientific fact time and time again. There is an intelligent designer called Niobe. He is in three persons; Neo, Morpheus and the Oracle. (Morpheus 3:18-21) They were all present for eternity and at the creation of the universe, yes some 6,000 years ago. How do I know? I it is clearly revealed in the Book of Merovingian - when Morpheus spilled his blood for the salvation of Neo (Merovingian 21:13)

For all of you who believe in evolution, how do you explain the revelation of the Oracle to Neo on the Nebuchadnezzar? Clearly the fall of Zion was revealed to us by the Oracle - for it is only through the salvation of Switch and Epoch that we can understand the true meaning of the last Scion (Seraph 33:13) The Matrix is the ONLY source of truth about Niobe. Get saved, watch the Matrix, take a good look at the order of the universe and you will finally see how stupid it is to believe in evolution!!!

Posted by: Link | May 4, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

what is the only thing that unites all of us? that NONE of us knows anything without a shadow of a doubt.

so, if we cannot know, and the mythstories are legion, we have to accept everyone's story and our combined answer when someone asks about the truth of the universe becomes:

i don't know, but nobody doe and we're happy to hear your story too. too easy, i know. only time pleading ignorance is a GOOD thing.

Posted by: pre AmeriKKKan | May 4, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

You know, Zouk, I kinda agree. But it's a matter of relative probabilities. When the evidence lies so firmly in favor of evolution, it's rather foolish to ignore that.
And I'm wasting my life arguing this because today's final is over, I read Aviation Week, and I'm killing time until dinner.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Darwin--"The enlightened have no problem believing in simultaneous extinction (large asteroid, big dust cloud, extinction of dinosaurs in a matter of days due to rapid temperature shifts). They do a great job articulating that "theory."

Yet the same proponents of "simultaneous extinction" of a species reject the simultaneous creation of a species."

This is an astoundingly stupid argument (not to mention it is thought to have been several years for the dinosaurs to die off.)

To remain at around the same level of intellectual depth, ask yourself this question: why does it take a baby 9 months to grow in the womb? Why does it not happen instantly? I mean, a person can DIE instantly, why not be born? Why are we not born fully grown?

Posted by: roo | May 4, 2007 6:10 PM | Report abuse

To fyi:

I appreciate your tone of civility, which in retrospect is a much better tone than my posting to which you've responded. I allowed my frustration with various posts to affect me. I apologize and it isn't my intent to mock anyone's beliefs.

However, I weary at people who try to support their argument or position that items like the Bible, or the 10 commandments are somehow proof which those who disagree with them either have overlooked, or fail to consider.

I've considered all of these factors, and many more. In a subsequent posting I listed my 43 year sojourn to find God. Alas, it has come to no avail.

However, I have gone from an atheist to an agnostic. I accept I can neither prove or disprove the existence of God.

My question, which I've repeated posted remains. And remains unanswered.

Where did God come from?

I'm sincere in my desire for an answer, for I would like to have something more than the a believe in the innate goodness
of man upon which my earlier faith was based. However, since working as investigator, and continuing to see man's inhumanity to man, children abused by those who should have loved and cared for them, mothers who abandon their children for drugs, fathers who abandon their families for other pleasures, people's justifications for the violence or violations they commit against others, that belief is running thinner and more tenuous each day.

I've not found the answers in any religion, only questions. How could a loving God allow the pain to happen to so many innocent children? I'll accept the free will argument to many of these situations.

However, I can't reconcile this, why isn't there enough food and water distributed equally throughout the world if there was intelligent design? If we multiply has the Bible instructs, God had to know people would end up inhabiting places like Ethiopia, Bangladesh, India. Why didn't God give them the ability to sustain themselves?

So I'm not mocking anyone's faith in God, I suppose I'm mocking religious teaching and the acceptance of "it's God's Will", but hoping for an answer to my question.

Posted by: Tom Paine | May 4, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Ask Galileo, he was imprisoned by the church for his thought. History is littered with the bodies of "witches" who sought to oppose the teachings of the church. Tell me, if religion does not oppose science, what was the Monkey Trial?

Many of the Ancients R.M.M. mentions were pagans. Tell me, which religious test for science, the Holy Bible or the Bhagavad-Gita? Maybe we should have a war to settle that question?

By the way, Genesis does talk about the heavens revolving around the earth, etc. There were men who disbelieved that, many Christians, many not. Some were punished for that belief.

In 1995 the Vatican Observatory formally apologized to Galileo for his persecution. Better late than never, I say.

Answer me, R.M.M., is Genesis science?

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 4, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Let me be the first to tell you all who think you know everything:

You don't.

Start from there. the arrogance on this blog is astounding. Armed with the most minute understanding of anything, you believe that all things are knowable and that you already comprehend. Keep an open mind. It is the "liberal" thing to do. stay away from the scientific method, it is clear most of you are in the dark completely.

It is mathematically impossible to prove anything. One can only disprove something. Evolution, global warming, relativity and even mathematical induction are all theories based on a certain set of assumptions which are not considered facts because the jury is still out. there may not be a contrary piece of evidence lodged yet, but one could be around the corner. this happens a lot in pure science. consider Kepler's attempts to calculate the circular orbits of the planets.

why would anyone with an ounce of integrity spend their day arguing over this topic?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 4, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Brendan--"Here is some REAL evidence about the Bible and whether it has been revised. "

You gave no proof, just stated a few things you believe to be factual.

But if you, for example, outright reject the changes made the Councils of Nicaea and the Dead Sea Scrolls and if you do not wonder why the original Arameic or early Hebrew translations exist, it is pointless to argue with you.

Posted by: roo | May 4, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Bottom line. The lawyers have taken over. The soulless lawyers, who always see both sides. With lawyers nothing is wrong and nothing is right.

That's why we need a real party of the people. A real thrid party so the dems and repubs will have to answer to someone.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Darwin wrote:

*The enlightened have no problem believing in simultaneous extinction (large asteroid, big dust cloud, extinction of dinosaurs in a matter of days due to rapid temperature shifts). They do a great job articulating that "theory."

Yet the same proponents of "simultaneous extinction" of a species reject the simultaneous creation of a species.*


Darwin,

That's because most educated adults, scientists especially, know the Universe isn't time symmetric. Effects don't pre-date causes.

Knock a bottle of beer off a picnic table with enough force so that it breaks and let the results sit in the environment for a week or two. Easy, right?
Ok, now for the extra credit portion:

Un-decompose the remaining gunk, then re-hydrate that and then reassemble the bottle (right down to the correct quantum states of all of the particles involved as they were at the exact time of impact) and cause it to rise without perturbing it physicially, against the force of gravity, back onto to table.

Simply put:

Why no "simultaneous creation of species"?
It's called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
It's science. Check it out.

I'm not trying to insult you or anybody here, honestly, just trying to get you to think.

Posted by: Darwin's Barber | May 4, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

You show me an inteligent man. If he believes in god, I will show you a dumb brainwashed, myth believing idiot.

Posted by: Simon J S | May 4, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Arguments like this are the reason I am depressed about humanity. Honestly, I wouldn't mind if we all went extinct tomorrow. Let something else take our place. Perhaps it would use its brain better than our species seems to.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

For those who might actually be interested in how the modern Christian Bible came to be.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Canon/canon.html

Not exactly the "Word of God from the Burning Bush". It also took place more than 300 years after Christ died.

Posted by: Voiceofreason | May 4, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Great post Concerned Citizen . Keep it up. Don't worry about them attacking you. Your opinion is gold. Keep posting. Maybe you will open someone's persons eye. That's my goal. Maybe I can save one person a day:)

That's not to hard :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Tyrannosaur,
"Again, the Founding Fathers were mostly deists. Not Christians. Common mistake."

This is not true.
Of the hundred some odd signers of the Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independance, and the U.S. Constitution, only six were known to be Deists, the rest are overwhealmingly some flavor of protestantism.

Sad to say, it has become almost forbidden to teach frankly about the founding fathers and their convictions because of their overwhealmingly christian references and values.

The closest our modern society seems to allow is a discussion of Deism, possibly because Deism allows for the absolute soverenty of Man and Government (seeings as God retired), where Christianity professes "No Soverign but God, No King but Jesus!" as the revolutionary war battle cry goes.

The history of the founding ideals of the United States is deeply emeshed in Christianity, and may be the reason it prospered where the French Revolution led to such horror.

Posted by: represente | May 4, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

To Voiceofreason:

I understand some confusion on your part.

What I should have said is that the manner of speech/writing of some ancient scriptures can be translated in different ways.

For example, perhaps a phrase in a different language could be translated 'The man took the car to the store' or 'the man drove the car to the store'.

Both can mean the same thing basically. The first could also mean 'the man took the car along with him on his trip to the store but did not drive it' but as we can presume, this probably isn't the case.

You said:

:The 10 Commandments & "Judge not lest ye be judged yourself" and numerous other verses are pretty straight forward yet seem to be blatantly ignored by Christians on a regular basis."

Yes, many believers do break the 10 commandments. I've broken them all, if not in deed, in thought (which is the same as in deed per God's definition).

I hold myself accountable to God for this. If I were judged by God today, I should definitely go to Hell. But I also have repented of these sins and accepted Jesus as my Saviour; as my Saviour, he submitted himself on the cross for the forgiveness of Sins. On the day of judgment, I'll accept this gift gladly.

But it's great how you as a professed non-believer can 'throw that in the face' of believers, when you say that the bible cannot be considered the truth, or proof of God.

Maybe there is hope for you.

Posted by: D.W. | May 4, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

G--"You are exactly the same as some of the greatest thinkers in history who also believed the following to be fact:

The earth is flat.
The earth is the center of the universe.
The speed of sound cannot be broken."

This 'analogy' amuses me. You fail to appreciate a very important thing:

Each of your examples has the unscientific old lore being surpassed by a new, more scientific approach. Here, creationism is the old version and evolution is the new, scientific version.

Your argument, therefore, is illogical.

Posted by: roo | May 4, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

I'm with you. A theory is a lot more powerful than a hunch or a guess. Saying evolution is just a theory is like saying Michael Jordan was just another basketball player, or that a 1963 Corvette is just a car.

"a. People need to read, study and understand the meaning of the word theory when used in a scientific context."

Posted by: Len | May 4, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

If the religions of secularism and science are the sole monitors of reason and truth, then obviously they command our uncritical belief, and 30% of the debaters (and each one who supports them) can be ligitimately dehumanized. From some threads in this discussion it sounds as though the frustration has come to this point.

Posted by: c howard | May 4, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

I must say reading a sampling of these posts is quite a wake-up call. I was shocked watching the debate yesterday, watching those ready to "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" decry the great value human life. Perhaps they forgot those bombs they keep yearning to drop "over there" will actually kill people, likely a disproportionate number of innocent men, women, and children who, much like most people in this country want nothing to do with the matters of the state and are far more concerned with putting food on their table.

I am greatly concerned at the repeated incantation of the Great Ronald Reagan's name and memory -- have we forgotten the devastation his policies had on our economy, national debt, our involvement in terrorism and secret arms deals throughout Central/South America and the Middle East, our training and support of brutal regimes who terrorized their people with our help and training. Perhaps many in this great country would do themselves a service by reviewing the facts and realities of American policies over the past decades.

However, one of the most disturbing things I heard was in the dismissal of evolution by 30% of the candidates, as has been discussed widely in this post. It seems that a large number of people forget that evolution is proven to occur on basically a daily basis.

Simple example: drug-resistant bacteria and diseases, such as influenza, prove that organisms do in fact change based on actions occurring in their environment. There are numerous examples of antibiotic drugs that no longer work in many patients because the organisms they were created to fight have outsmarted the drug companies. Why do we have a new influenza vaccine every year? Evolution, adaptation to existing drugs, etc.

There are also many other examples of evolution in our life-times; such as the well documented example of an isolated population of mosquitos in London Underground tubes that were isolated from surface populations long enough to no longer be able to interbreed -- hence creating a new species -- hence, evolution proved. See link for more info. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2540.1999.00412.x

The same is happening now with the campaign to deny the existence of a human impact on global climate. I'd advise people to take a look at the source of their information before deciding -- Should you trust: A. 99% of actual scientists who study the matter and have basically unanimously agreed we most definitely are having an impact or B. A small number of people involved in or funded heavily by the oil, natural gas, and derivative industries (military industrial, construction, transportation, utility companies, etc.) who have a direct, vested interest in not changing the way we make and use energy, a set of people who intentionally fund faulty "scientific" studies that conveniently overlook reality in favor of their focus-group tested, palatable, easy-to-want-to-believe answers?

Sorry for the long rant -- first time poster. Must say it will truly be a dark day in history if one of these characters makes it to the White House.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen | May 4, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

So since science touches on our origins, we shouldn't teach it? Is that a recipe for success in the modern world?
I don't see what's wrong with sharing a common ancestor with chimps, and having arrived at our present form over time. Why is that so objectionable?

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

In response to DW:

Faith is not evidence.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

"I'd like to offer the following challenge to these folks [Creationists]: Go out and buy, oh, three or four 3-D jigsaw puzzles...each of a different object. Then, dump all the pieces out on the floor and mix them up really well..."

'Here's a better challenge to this poster:
After dumping all your jig saw pieces on the floor and mixing them up really well, turn on a floor fan, shake the carpet on which the pieces landed and do anything else to the puzzle pieces in a random fashion without employing intelligence to put the puzzles back together. Eventually, the puzzles will come together precisely - That's what you're claiming Neo-Darwin Evolution can do!'

'Rhodes, thank you! By your same logic, shake the pulp together and assemble the complete puzzle. Next make it come to life. Essentially that is what would be required for evolution- except on a much more complex scale.'

The original poster was describing the limitations of humans putting the pieces together in a short amount of time and having the final result exactly match the original puzzles. Evolution is not about re-creating something that used to exist, or creating something to pre-determined specifications. By definition, evolution yields _new_ things.

Posted by: Chris E. | May 4, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

The good news is, hisotry will judge. All these lies and propoganda. All this breacking of laws by the righ tin this country. We have the internet now. You can no longer say one thing to one group, then say the opposite to another. The internet is the great equalizer.

In ten years you republicans will see what the right has been doing for the last ten. I know you don't know or don't believe now. You will. How will history record the conservative movement. I think badly. The bush admin will be ranked, as far as evil, slightly below stalin and hitler. Not just for what they've done. But what they TRIED to do. They tried to turn this government in a fundemental christian state. The same as iran minus the muslim influence. This way he has an emeny. An opposite. That is a lie. We are all one. The right not only failed this country. They sold us out to line their own pockets.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

DW- I have read the constituion and I never said that people of faith should not be in government- why you and your kind (like the president) already are.

My problem is with the government favoring or showing any partiality to ANY religion. That keeps freedom of religion rights safe for everybody.

Obviously you are one of those who wants to turn our beloved country into a christian theocracy. If thats the case, there will be a civil war and I will see you on the battlefield.

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Come on Darwin's Brother

Scientist have concluded that the earth had a beginning. Think about it for a minute. How can you make something from nothing? You can't. Let's see someone try that.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Brendan

All mythology is based on partial facts. Pointing out that places existed that are mentioned in the Bible means nothing. Those have perfectly non-divine explanations.

Recorded events like the sky blacking out are explainable by natural phenomena. These texts were written by a primitive tribal people who had little understanding of the natural world. Why you accept their interpretations of miraculous events as fact is beyond me.

Posted by: Darwin's Brother | May 4, 2007 5:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm not writing here to argue about evolution, but I do want to point out that these 3 candidates were well within the mainstream of America.

A March Gallup poll found that 48 percent of Americans believe God made humans "pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

Other polls have had similar results.

If these 3 candidates are dinosaurs -- which they're not -- then so is half of America.

But to start another discussion, evolution SHOULD NOT be taught in public schools. And neither should creationism. All deal with origins, and that's dabbling with religion. The old question, "Where do we come from?" is a religious question.

Posted by: Michael | May 4, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Blank -

I throw your question back at you.

What it comes down to is faith.

I feel my evidence is in the Bible, my observations and faith in God.

You believe your evidence is the teachings of Darwin (and his 'apostles'), the presumed 'progression' of the fossil records and faith in evolution.

Posted by: D.W. | May 4, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

As a recently converted atheist (thank you, Richard Dawkins) at age 35, I understand from my own life experiences with religiosity and "spiritual agnosticism" that people need to believe in a God. And that's okay. People need to believe that our conciousness will survive after we die because it's not only impossible to imagine otherwise, but it creates overwhelming anxiety to think that life may, ultimately, be cruel and arbitrary. I now struggle mightily with that notion. My point is that something like 97% of our species believes that we have a "soul" that will survive. That's an awesome mental adaptation if I ever saw one;) Belief in an afterlife has helped us survive. The question now is whether it continues to serve its adaptive function...we shall see.

Posted by: ChrisCross | May 4, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

D.W. wrote:

To which I reply:

1. You cannot tell whether someone's read the bible just because 'you've read it twice'. Those who will not believe will be blinded to the truths in the bible.

2. There are different versions of the bible for many reasons:
a. Some ancient scripture can be interpreted in many ways.
b. Not everyone understands the same language.
c. The use of language changes - for example, we wouldn't use 'wilt', 'art', 'thee/thou' in today's language.

If you read the different versions, you'll see that the MESSAGE stays the same even though the language is different.

If you were truthful, you would be 'voiceofmybeliefs' and not 'voiceofreason'.

You contradict yourself, which seems to be a the core of all religion. If the "scripture can be interpreted in many different ways" how can the message be consistent as you claim?

The 10 Commandments & "Judge not lest ye be judged yourself" and numerous other verses are pretty straight forward yet seem to be blatantly ignored by Christians on a regular basis.

Another interesting one, Judas is pretty much reviled by Christians everywhere for betraying Christ. Now since it was all "God's Plan" and Christ had to die in order for humanity to be cleansed of sin why is Judas so reviled? God chose him surely as he chose Moses, Mary, or David to be the instrument of His will. Had Judas not pointed Jesus out then he might not have been Crucified, and humanity would be damned because Jesus' sacrifice would not have taken place. Either that of God would have had to choose another person to betray Jesus.

So going on the premise that it is "all in God's plan" should Judas not be honored for accepting the burden of his lot that was chosen for him by God similar to that of Job? Yet to this day he is reviled by Christians everywhere.

Posted by: voiceofreason | May 4, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Brad -

Do you even know what the constitution says?

If not, go here:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

Tell me where it says the people with religion (people who believe in a supreme being) cannot be involved in government.

I didn't say it could only be those of a certain faith. Even YOU could be in government if you want to. You'd have lots of company with others of your kind.

Posted by: D.W. | May 4, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

R.M.M., people think that people thought the world was flat. But, in fact, people have known the world was round since ancient times. Columbus knew it was round. So did everybody else. The argument was, not about what shape the world was, but about what size the world was. And, on this point, Columbus was wrong. The world was much bigger than he thought it was, and he wouldn't have been able to sail west and reach Asia. Fortunately for him, there was a continent in the way, and he was able to reach it before he ran out of supplies.

People have know the world was round since ancient times. The mathematician Eratosthenes (~200 BC) calculated the size of the earth. Ptolemy and other Greek scholars followed his example and came up with other estimates for the size of the earth. European scholars knew about Ptolemy and Eratosthenes and their calculations. Sailors knew that there wasn't an edge of the world--they saw land fall away over the horizon, and never fell off the edge.

It's a myth that people in the time of Columbus thought the earth was flat. This myth was invented and perpetuated by people in the 19th century who tried to promote the idea that science and religion were at odds, and that religion opposed science.

Posted by: Colin | May 4, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"They laughed at Isaiah... Job... Moses..."

-Bravo, Steve!

Posted by: fyi | May 4, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

funny i never said the founding fathers where chrisitans i said they belived in God and Faith. Are you saying that our country was not founded on the judeo chrisitan teachings and the BIBLE?

Posted by: clyde | May 4, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"Not to presume I can answer for Ben, but...

Why not?"


See, that is the problem. How can you claim that Evolution is false and Creationism is correct when you have absolutely zero evidence that suggests that this is the case?!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse


JGF writes:

"Hey damean, satans child? and to all you other mouthy folks out there. You have plenty of comments to TRY and discredit God and the Holy Bible. But I guarantee you NONE of you have read the Holy Bible! Not one of you have even attempted to understand what God has told us in the Holy Bible! You are all ignorant to God's word! Therefore it is impossible for you to understand anything I have said thus far. May God help all of you!"

Oh JGF. It must be nice to know what every human who disagrees with you as done. I won't even take this opportunity to take a shot at you for such a comment.

However, I've read the Bible many times. I've searched for God through a number of religions beginning with Catholicism, followed by Mormon, Wesleyan, Unitarian, Quaker, and the last attempt, Lutheran. My search has covered 43 of my 50 years.
I've attended hundred of Bible study groups under each of these denominations. Have read the Bible from front to back on my own at least three times the first time over four consecutive days and nights.

I know what is in there. What I don't know is who wrote it, who interpreted it, who decided what books would be in the New Testament. And as it's language has been changed multiple times throughout history, the last three, being Latin, German and English, just how exact it is.

The Bible doesn't call for a holy man to interpret it. Yet the Churches have for centuries attempted to keep the Bible out of the hands of the masses. It wasn't till Martin Luther and King Henry VIII that the Bible was converted to the language of the masses. In the case of the Holy Roman Church,it wasn't until the 1960's the Mass was allowed to be given in English.

Martin Luther was the first (1552) to translate the Bible into the common man's tongue. He and the Holy Father fought over this. The Holy Father condemned Luther's bible which later burgeoned into French, German, and English. As these were "translated" the accuracy cannot be deemed to be one hundred percent. As the Holy Father viewed the translated books as heresy and claimed they were inaccurate, how are we to know what is literal?

My advice to you is don't get into arguments you are ill equipped to support than reduce your replies to unenforceable guarantees (a promise or assurance, esp. one in writing, that something is of specified quality, content, benefit, etc., or that it will perform satisfactorily for a given length of time:) and cliche's.
Oh, as your guarantee has been shown to be false, what do I get as a benefit?

Posted by: Tom Paine | May 4, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Well said Gage because evolutionists do have to have faith that one day their theory will be true.

Posted by: GDS | May 4, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse


A five year old has this figured out when they ask "If God made the world, than who created God?"

Unfortunately, the belief in intelligent design really explains nothing about the origins of the universe.

A creationist will say that God has always existed. Isn't just simpler to say that the universe has always existed?

There doesn't have to be a first cause.

The fact is that we don't know, and probably won't know within our lifetimes.

Posted by: Darwin's Brother | May 4, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

It boils down to this: Is the Book of Genesis a scientific text? Well, there are many things in it we know to be untrue. The heavens do not revolve around the earth. The earth is not flat. How do we know it? Thousands of years of inquiry leveraging ever more sophisticated technology. There is no carbon dating or genome sequencing in the Good Book. I believe in God too, but I know that science has nothing to do with religion, for or against it. It's a process for establishing information about our environment; it isn't a religion. How far do you religious paranoids want to take this argument? Is long-division the devil's workshop? I'm sorry, no Presidents who believe science is evil, please. There is just too much at stake to allow that. Science has much more to give us in terms of health and quality of life. When Jesus walked the earth men were lucky to live into their forties. Very large percentages of women died in childbirth. If you choose to believe that Angels blow fairy dust up you behind, that's cool with me. But please, don't condemn science just because scientists can't prove that Angels exist.

Posted by: I must be in hell | May 4, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Tyrannosaur -

Not to presume I can answer for Ben, but...


Why not?

Posted by: D.W. | May 4, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

DW-

Your are mis-interpeting the constitution- but for arguments sake, then whic religion should the government favor or be involved with? Thats why absolute seperation of church and state PROTECTS freedom of (and from) religion.

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

BELIEVING THE EARTH WAS MADE IN SEVEN DAYS... IDIOTIC?

My point was no more idiotic or non-rational than believing in a supernatural God who can do anything if He wills.

If you believe in that, it's not anymore idiotic to believe he could (insert gasp) do something supernatural.

Posted by: Brendan | May 4, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I refer you to a picture of the Grand Canyon: http://www.rebeccamorn.com/images/gallery3/grand-canyon-sunset-4.jpg

Beautiful! Obviously, the sculptor of this magnificent work labored long and hard over each of the tiny crags and hollows visible in this photo. Notice the immense scope of the entire work, yet we know it is made up of tiny pieces carefully arranged in particular order to contribute to the larger whole. Incredible.

But of course we know that this complexity and beauty came about from the random meanderings of a river digging into the rock.

Don't mistake complexity for purpose.

Posted by: D | May 4, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

It could be said that evolution is as much a religion as Christianity, for one must have great faith to believe that, without any evidence, something as complex as a human being can evolve from nothing.

Posted by: Gage | May 4, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

For Tom Paine who is waiting for someone to tell him where God came from.

Tom, first you heed to have ears to hear. It is your task to search out God, nobody can deliver him to you on a plate.

If you are truly searching for God, you will find him. Read, study, discuss. If, by your comments you are merely making a rhetorical point, you will remain in the same place that you are right now. Waiting.

Posted by: servant | May 4, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Darwin's Brother

Yes, it was written by humans, no I can't prove it's divinely inspired.

However, it is HIGHLY different from every other book. More rooted in fact. More verifiable through archaeology, secular historical documents, than any other book throughout time.

There are other historical documents that even verify some of the miracles that some people would claim exagerrations (ie. the sky turning dark at Christ's crucifixion) there are actual 3 (secular historical documents) that attest to that miracle.

That, for example, is how/why the bible is different than EVERY other religious book.

You won't find anything like it.

Posted by: Brendan | May 4, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Brad the New Atheist-
RE: "Us non believers argue becuse we are tired of american belivers forcing their views on american society."

Brad,
Is it believers forcing their views on american society specifically that tires you, or is it anyone forcing their views on others that is the problem?

If it is unnaceptable for people to force their views on others, how can it be acceptable to force believers to be silent about their faith, and not teach others about it, or deny them political office because of it (other than as an endorsement of antifaith bigotry)?

Posted by: sspork | May 4, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Ben: why?

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Peace Soloman

I've gotta go to.

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

My previous post was for 'blank' - in case you don't know it.
Maybe identify yourself? It would give a bit more credence to your argument.

Brad -

Re-read the constitution. "Separation of church and state" means that the gov't won't get involved in religion. There's nothing that states the religious can't get involved in government. And that phrase isn't used in the constitution - as it's already been pointed out here by (Grandpa?)

Posted by: D.W. | May 4, 2007 5:38 PM | Report abuse

The Bible says, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." I believe it.

Posted by: Ben | May 4, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Brendan

Who cares if the Bible was revised?

Everyone knows that the Bible was written by humans. All mythology is partly based on historic events. However, just like all mythology, the events tend to be exaggerated and bent to suit a purpose.

Unless you can actually demonstrate that the Bible was divinely inspired, it is no different that any other mythology from any other culture.

Posted by: Darwin's Brother | May 4, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

IDIOTS FOR BELIEVING THE EARTH WAS MADE IN SEVEN DAYS???

Well I am not saying I know how old the earth is. To me it is irrelevant!

The fact of the matter is God is supernatural! These quote unquote science minded people who say I believe everything can be proven by science and I believe there is a God.

Seriously, if you're so scienceminded, how can you believe in something you can't see? Why on earth do you believe in something you can't hear, smell, or touch? Did God evolve from something????? Is He going to evolve into something else later? Is he matter? Does he have DNA? If He is truly God can he do anything supernatural? Would that be against science?

My point is, that somewhere along the lines, there are things there that will completely transcend science.

God is a supernatural idea, end of story. If you believe in God, you're submitting to some things that cannot be explained scientifically.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

GDS: Puhleeze. You're making the assumption that anyone who rejects the bible hasn't read it. I'm sure I am not alone here, but I rejected the bible *after* reading it!

JP, I said you have to understand it also. My child can read it.

We all make decisions and if you decided not to make one...guess what you just did. There you go mr. kevin.

Posted by: GDS | May 4, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Again, the Founding Fathers were mostly deists. Not Christians. Common mistake.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

One should not lable conservatives or liberals as "anti-evolution".

evolution is continually happening all around us. Look at micro-biology. Numerous strains of bacteria are "evolving" as we speak. The proof is that many of strains of the bacterias have evolve to the point medicines are not effective.

Please contact the CDC for evidence.

Posted by: AJC | May 4, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

you people must not know your history, our founding fathers belived in God and faith. This country was based on that Faith. Doubt it read up on your histoy. Most where guided by the TRUTH in GODS WORD (BIBLE) i must conclude that you where not educated on these truths about OUR American HISTORY!!!! OUR education system is broke!!!!!!

Posted by: clyde | May 4, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Hey

That's two cells, not a single cell.

Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I haven't studied science.

Unless you're talking about the Immaculate Conception?

Posted by: D.W. | May 4, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Its been a stimulating conversation Brad. thanks for the fun but I must go to work.

Be Good...

Posted by: Solomon | May 4, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Brendan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Recent_scientific_trends
Check the numbers there. And before you moan about Wikipedia, it's cited. Check the citations.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Come on guys/gals. As a resident Brit, we are constantly amazed at the utter stupidity of a lot of the USA citzens and obviously republicans. Like the rest of the civilized world knows there is 1) No judgemental god, 2) Evolution is a fact 3) People and dinasaurs did NOT exist at the same time. As well as this it is common knowledge that the new Testament was written by people between 70AD and 150AD. Since the average life expectancy at the time was 35, this means that nobody who wrote in the book knew him. As well as having no printing presses or newspapers it was all word of mouth for 50 years!!!! the guy never existed, its fairytales and most of you believe it. Get Real folks, its all fairytales like santa clause

Posted by: Simon J S | May 4, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Brendan,

700 dissenters out of 500,000 earth and life scientists in the U.S. alone? How does that work out, percentage wise?

Posted by: jp | May 4, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Tom Paine - the point of the old testament (10) commandments is to show us the futility of trying to be righteous on our own, i.e., pointing out our need for God. You mock him when you mock their validity. Of course, you will scoff at Jesus, who said, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." Yet he was the one man who did live up to those commands, which all people will see for themselves one Day. But I honestly do not blame you - just please rethink your attitude on this.

Posted by: fyi | May 4, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

[Indeed, the entire wacked out ultra leftist wing of the Dem party seem to inhabit this site daily. and they are angry and mean]

sounds like you're bothered by that.

Posted by: bobnjersey | May 4, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Solomon-

It pays to know your advisary-

What about absolute seperation of church and state? Everyone is free to believe or NOT believe and american laws reflect no prejudice one way or the other?

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Belief is irrelevant. I'll change that when God tells me to.

One must *be* evolved in order to *see* "evolved".

The Democrats are far, far worse.

Why is no one screaming for a *REAL*, rational, intelligent choice?

Repeating the same behavior, expecting a different result, is also known as "voting in America"...

Posted by: Jimbo | May 4, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Brad,

No, its not... but I don't presume to judge my deity. That is the one difference I see between Atheists and a believer of any faith... arrogance.

Posted by: Solomon | May 4, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

DW

You mean like how a single egg cell turns into a human?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

What the thinker thinks, the prover proves.

Posted by: BigD | May 4, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I am a former fundamentalist Republican who blindly accepted the ignorance spewed from pulpits and the Republican Party Leadership, aka. AOVI (Association of Village Idiots). Who in hell would entrust national and international policy and the authority to wage war to any of the AOVI's who lined up last night? Oh I have a prophetic answer .... the remaining idiots who vote Republican and flock to Jerry Falwell's museum replete of fossils which are no older than 10K years, proving that the enire Cosmos only took 6 days to form!

Posted by: Rafael of El Paso | May 4, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Bible Revised?!?

Here is some REAL evidence about the Bible and whether it has been revised.

I am very sorry, but that statement about the bible being revised is greatly mistaken. You have to do research on what that revised means. All versions revisions are just interpretations of the original greek and hebrew.

As far as the gospels being revised, that is an unfounded statement. There has been much newly discovered evidence with new manuscripts found, especially of Mark dating back to 50 AD (and not only that it was found all the way in Egypt!) All the copies found have been virtually identical.

Now before you scoff at that statement, let me give you some more information. When I say virtually identical, over the years they have found things scholars refer to as Variants. They have recorded every single one found, (and the company's who do translations today also have access to these variants).

Statistically about 85% of them were names, whos spelling and formation often gets lost or changed in translations. The other 15 % were mistakes and biblical scholars worked hard to study whether they found any serious mistakes that changed the meaning of any passages. None of the mistakes found, were reported to have changed the meaning of the passages.

That is a synopsis of the current scholarly understanding (Christian and non-christian alike) on the validity of the New Testament documents.

Posted by: Brendan | May 4, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Without humans, and our struggle, the world would be in perfect harmony. It is humans and OUR struggle that through the world off balance. We need to get back to god.

Not the republican: Intolerant, hate, fear,ignorant,money loving, war mongering.

The real god: Love, peace, tolerance and so on. God exists in us.

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 4, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Solomon-

as I said-

If you want to believe that a god who killed millions of children in a flood is "Good" it's fine by me. To me, any being myth or real that would do that is EVIL.

What about a god that tells a man to kill his son to prove his faith? Is that your definition of good?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

It's simply incredulous to see the posters who claim to have such loyalty to "science" bash anyone who doesn't believe in their theories.

The person who claims that all biologists accept evolution is every the left usually calls the right - "uncurious," intellectually disinterested and dogmatic. There are thousands of scientists who've written learned dissertations on creationism and show a scientific knowledge that these posters could barely hope to achieve if they spent the next 30 years trying. These would be the same posters for whom logic means nothing if it goes against the grain of their opinions. Such dogmatic faith in "science" and in evolution when they've never studied the subject aside from the overview they were taught in Junior High is hardly scientific.

Posted by: yp | May 4, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Ah the great debate.

Isn't evolution devine?

Check out a very cool examination of the subject at www.genesisinc.tv

Posted by: carwash jimmy | May 4, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

"Y'all dumb liberals just don't get it."

Well shucks, I'm convinced. Aren't y'all?! This country's going down the toilet.

Posted by: Mark P | May 4, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Brad,

It sounds as if you DO believe in Him... you just don't agree with him. I lay no claim to understanding His actions I just know the comfort He has given me in my life... and that is sufficient for me. I have faith that He had a reason.. if not, then there's not much I can do about it anyway. Anger is too stressful to maintain for a lifetime.

Posted by: Solomon | May 4, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Bottom line:

Since I am a believer, I can walk by faith. I live with my belief that I will one day be apart of something greater than what I have now. The physical world I live in is not chaotic. In my journey I can live a life that is full of meaning and purpose, and learn to treat other with respect, and have a crutch during the hard times. My faith, my God. And at the end.. if I'm wrong.. then so be it. No harm.. no fowl.

However, those who do not believe. At the end, if you are wrong. I pray that my God has mercy on you.

Posted by: Jason | May 4, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Darwin's Brother -

Unless you can show the evolution of a single cell ANYTHING to the present day human - right in front of me - I will not debate evolution.

Posted by: D.W. | May 4, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Everyone knows that creationism is correct theory. Ra created the heavens and the earth for all mankind.

Posted by: AP from California | May 4, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

We should have a legitimacy (bull****) test for any of these pathetic panderers who dares suggest they really don't accept the scientific explanation of our origin: unless they are claiming that only one branch of science (paleontology/biology) is corrupt in subscribing to evolution, then what they are saying is that they question the validity of the Scientific Method itself.

And any person, presidential candidate or otherwise, who is willing to use modern medicine to cure his ills, nuclear power to provide electricity to his house, microelectronics to communicate by cell phone and the fruits of a militarized effort to provide communications (DARPA, which led to the internet) cannot legitimately say they don't believe in the scientific method.

If they really don't like how we have arrived at the process of evolution to explain our existence, they should surrender all other modern conveniences - including medical treatment - as a demonstration of their contempt.

Otherwise, every single person who denies evolution but accepts other scientific advances is a fraud and a liar.

I will vote for an Amish candidate, but none of these fools.

Posted by: snafubar-none | May 4, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

The above site shows the fact of the matter is there IS scientific dissent from many scientists from all studies AND from prestigous universities from around the country.

People keep making these catch all statements, like there is no credible scientists who believe otherwise or anyone who believes this...

Seriously do you hear yourselves? Who is being ignorant. Be constructive and argue intelligently.

Until my next post,

Brendan

Posted by: Brendan | May 4, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Brad -

We believers argue for the same reason - because the non-believing americans force their views on the american society.

Posted by: D.W. | May 4, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Unless you actually can demonstrate that God exists and had a direct hand in producing the Bible, there is no point debating scripture. It is nothing more than human-created mythology.

Posted by: Darwin's Brother | May 4, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

GDS: Puhleeze. You're making the assumption that anyone who rejects the bible hasn't read it. I'm sure I am not alone here, but I rejected the bible *after* reading it!

Posted by: jp | May 4, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Above was I.

Posted by: roo | May 4, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Casually reading the comments on this blog makes me realize that there are an aweful lot of, really arogant people out there!
Speaking of pimples on the butt...Well they should know!

Posted by: SHETHORN | May 4, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Public service announcement to anyone new to the blog.

We, the Evil Libs, are intentionally ignoring the poster known as kingofzouk. Not because we are afraid to take him on, not because we are afraid to discuss issues with him.

In fact, as you may notice, we do discuss those very same issues with several of the other staunch conservatives, just not KOZ.

The reason we ignore kingofzouk is that he lacks the intellectual honesty required by a serious debate. His posts--rife with opinions and conjecture presented as facts along with the rare but easily disprovable links or citations--have been rebutted several times. Usually he responds to this in one of three ways: 1) ignore the response completely, 2) make a strawman against a single part of the rebuttal while ignoring the rebuttal itself or 3) admits he was lying or exaggerating and explains that "only perception matters, not the facts."

Enjoy the good parts of the conversation. Keep your hands and feet inside the vehicle and do not feed the trolls.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Let them use last year's flu vaccine.

Posted by: jeffrey | May 4, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

What's pathetic is when those three idiots raised their hands, x% of Republicans clapped with glee.

Posted by: Chris | May 4, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone tell me why creationism and evolution can not go hand in hand? The bible says god created the world in 7 days. Can anyone define the length of a day to god? Not I.

Posted by: SP | May 4, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Brad,

No it doesn't make him real to anyone but you. If you don't believe, fine. Many do, and they have the right to do so without fear of persecution. Don't belittle what you don't agree with only because you don't agree with it. I mourn your loss of the comfort I receive in my beliefs. I hope your beliefs give you the solace that mine do me...

Posted by: Solomon | May 4, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

John-

Us non believers argue becuse we are tired of american belivers forcing their views on american society.

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

JGF: I resent your implication I don't do research. Especially considering that's going to be my job this summer. I still want to know where you get your info on evolution.
I tried to read the Bible once. I bogged down a few pages in and tossed it aside. Never got back to it.
But I still can't see why the Bible and evolution are incompatible. The Pope agrees with me. You may not be a Catholic, but the fact that a high-ranking church official has said this should carry some weight, no? Or is it that some Christians are more Christian than others? In which case, what reading of the Bible should I trust?

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

It surprises me that the "But the Holy Bible says so" argument has not been dismissed even among lay, non-scientific circles. Science, unlike religion, provides clear methods by which to verify its conclusions. Religion can only lay claim to things that are (for now) not verifiable.

Posted by: Clayton Critcher | May 4, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

GDS, your comment about making decisions without understanding the choices is unintentionally hilarious, and sadly you may never know why.

Posted by: Kevin | May 4, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

All the creationists do is try to discredit evolution by presenting a straw man argument (presenting a false view of evolution and poking holes in it).

However, they convieniently do not put their own beliefs to the same test - a complete double standard.

Creationists, please present evidence that God exists and created man.

Posted by: Darwin's Brother | May 4, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Solomon-

If you want to believe that a god who killed millions of children in a flood is "Good" it's fine by me. To me, any being myth or real that would do that is EVIL.

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

You people who say you are evolutionist don't have a leg to stand on. Evolution has not been proven. Where is the evidence? There is a greater chance that a tornado would blow through a junkyard and build a 747 than man evolving from some slimy ooze. Even Darwin himself said that if the human body was found to be more complex (19th century 'Hello") than in his time, that his theory would break down. Look it up if you don't believe me. Let's face it, you guys that don't believe in the Bible have never read it. How can you make such an intelligent decision without reading all the facts? Read and understand the Bible and then make your decision. God still loves you.

Posted by: GDS | May 4, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

to Ben:

Can you kill god?

to Brad the New Atheist:

You forgot to mention that those that quote verses are ignoring the context for the sake of the quote; sort of like 'spin'.

This whole thing falls into one large bucket:

the Bible was written by men. Yeah, the ultimate word of god, conveyed by men. AND, re-written by men to make it easier to read and understand for King James, the ignorant.

Now, what part of something so imperfect is there to quote, believe, or have faith in, when it's inherent quality is that of un-provability?

Both sides are fighting a losing battle. The faithful can't be wrong, and the non-believers can't stop arguing.

Posted by: john of the nothingness | May 4, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

@logos:
The theory of evolution says nothing about the first life, only what happened after that. There's a whole different set of ideas related to abiogenesis.
And I will admit I can be contemptible. But I grow very tired of religious extremists and their misinformation campaigns designed to discredit a very well-supported theory simply because it doesn't fit their entire worldview. I see no conflict between evolution and God(s). I do see a conflict between the truth and lies.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Science or faith?

Reality or myth?

Fact or fiction.

We are all free to believe anything we want. I once believed in Santa. Does that make him really real outside of my belief?

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Godhimself above said it right. The truth is in all religons. We get in trouble when we say I am right you are wrong. Or my religon is better than yours.

Love is god. Peace is god. tolerance is god. GUILT is god

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 4, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

JGF: when was the last time you read anything about evolution from an actual scientific standpoint? I bet a very long time, if ever.
Therefore, you cannot understand us. May whatever god you believe in forgive your ignorance.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 04:58 PM

Hey slick, I have actually read about evolution. Your comment confirms what I said. You have never read the Holy Bible. I know you got upset when you noticed the word "ignorant". Maybe you will mature over the next few years enough to actually research everything involved rather than taking what one of your "democrat" friends has told you to be true. Your mind works one way. You are too immature to see any other possibility. I would love for you to print all of this out. Research the Holy Bible over the next few years and then read what you have printed. If you have sincerely made an attempt to understand the Holy Bible, you will see what I am seeing at the present.

May God help you and yours to understand what is real and have a great day!

Posted by: JGF | May 4, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, was in a hurry. the Spinach line was for you Brad.

Posted by: Solomon | May 4, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Voiceofreason stated:

"Actually I have read the Bible, and you obviously have not because you seem to miss 2 very important facts. The first is that there are many versions of the Bible, some with different content. That can't ALL be the right version can they? Second you've obviously missed that very small print in the beginning that tells you when it was last revised. In my copy it occurred after I was born, what year was yours revised? If the Bible is the perfect word of God why does it need to be revised?"

To which I reply:

1. You cannot tell whether someone's read the bible just because 'you've read it twice'. Those who will not believe will be blinded to the truths in the bible.

2. There are different versions of the bible for many reasons:
a. Some ancient scripture can be interpreted in many ways.
b. Not everyone understands the same language.
c. The use of language changes - for example, we wouldn't use 'wilt', 'art', 'thee/thou' in today's language.

If you read the different versions, you'll see that the MESSAGE stays the same even though the language is different.

If you were truthful, you would be 'voiceofmybeliefs' and not 'voiceofreason'.

Posted by: D.W. | May 4, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

@R.M.M.:
Perhaps someone who has a deep and abiding respect for nature and its processes? Or someone who has looked at the past and seen its development?

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

There are certain improvable portions of the popular conception of the theory of evolution I'm not in agreement with. Certainly there is a process where species differentiate over time, but evolution does not give us enough to test the very formation of life (self replicating DNA codes) from inert matter. I think it is also a mistake to say that because it can be observed that species differentiate themselves over time due to environmental factors, that it is impossible that a being or intelligence beyond the material universe had something to do with the very specifically ordered processes governing the operation of the universe as it proceeds through time.

What I do see is the growing vitriolic contempt displayed toward people of faith in the name of science and reason, as being every bit as inhumane and dehumanizing as any crime ever committed in the name of religion. Science does not make you a better person.

Posted by: logos | May 4, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Humans thought Earth flat, for many years.
Now we think it's round, thanks to Columbus, who saw for himself.
How can anyone look & see for him/herself, a plant as it turns from seed, to bud, to bloom, and NOT know it's of intelligent design ??!!

Posted by: R.M.M. | May 4, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Just because you hate spinach doesn't mean the rest of us can't love it. Stop being mean and try to be constructive...

Posted by: Solomon | May 4, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

JGF-

I have read the bible too- and it describes an evil monster it calls God.

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Patrick, I'm afraid you're wrong about the evidence for evolution. It's there, and there in spades. It's just not widely publicized by those who try to discredit evolution. But they've been trying for 150 years, while evolution only grows stronger. That should tell you something about the evidence for it.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

GJA stated:

"Just DON'T force it on me and make me live in a society that prevents women from having a choice over their bodies, denies the ill from the benefits of stem cell research and discriminates against other people who do not share those beliefs - that is what the Republican party does and that is what fundamentalists do."

My questions:

1. Who's forcing you? We're offering our opinions about belief in God the same way others are offering their belief in evolution. If you don't like it, don't read it.

2. What society do you live in? Despite the fact that many don't approve of abortion, it is legal in the U.S. so you must live somewhere else?
I hate abortion, I wish I could stop more women from having them, but I can't. It's another 'belief thing'. I believe they're killing humans - they believe it's their right to have the choice to do this.

3. Who's denying the ill from the benefits of stem cell research? There have been many advances in stem cell research - all from the use of ADULT stem cells.
I just don't want my tax dollars going to fund research in areas that show no signs of progress - such as embryonic stem cell research. If it's such a wonderful avenue of research, why aren't more private corporations funding it?


4. "...discriminates against other people who do not share those beliefs."
It seems that Christians - fundamental or otherwise - are discriminated against more than non-believers. In your very statements, you're discriminating against those who wish to state their viewpoints.
Is this more of the 'Feel free to voice your opinion - as long as it agrees with mine!' attitude?

Posted by: D.W. | May 4, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

JGF wrote:

"Hey damean, satans child? and to all you other mouthy folks out there. You have plenty of comments to TRY and discredit God and the Holy Bible. But I guarantee you NONE of you have read the Holy Bible! Not one of you have even attempted to understand what God has told us in the Holy Bible! You are all ignorant to God's word! Therefore it is impossible for you to understand anything I have said thus far. May God help all of you!"

Actually I have read the Bible, and you obviously have not because you seem to miss 2 very important facts. The first is that there are many versions of the Bible, some with different content. That can't ALL be the right version can they? Second you've obviously missed that very small print in the beginning that tells you when it was last revised. In my copy it occurred after I was born, what year was yours revised? If the Bible is the perfect word of God why does it need to be revised? Also, who approves the revisions, God from the burning bush?

Fanatics of any Religion bother me, they are the ones who often commit atrocities in the name of their God that often fly directly in the face of their own faith.

Posted by: Voiceofreason | May 4, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

We should not criticize those who hold God based religions because they are primarily faith without scientific proof. Let's face it, there is scarcely any scientific evidence for evolution. The missing links are all still missing; there is no way to prove an ancestor-descendant relationship between any of these fossilized creatures that have been found; no transitional forms have been located out of the billions of them that should be there; exaggerations and frauds decorate our family tree from Piltdown Man to Haeckles Embryos; the Cambrian Explosion contradicts the Darwinian model;there is no explanation for how the first single celled life originated or why it originated,and many other serious problems with the "theory".
The Big Bang is assumed to be scientific fact but no body can explain why or how it happened.
Richard Dawkins said that darwinism allows him to be "an intellectually fullfilled atheist". I believe that the atheism came first with Richard and then the Darwinism provided him a pseudo-scientific support.
With Bill O'reilly last week Richard said in response to the criticism that "you guys don't know how it happened" Richard conceded, "we're working on it"
O'Reilly responded with the proper attitude on the question of our origins,
"when you guys get it-then let me know".
That is what we all should demand of the ultimate scientific question.

Posted by: Patrick | May 4, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

All goddists and jesus-lovers-

I wish you would stop quoting bible verses like they were fact and everyone believes in them. They have no place in a logical debate becuse bible verses are KRAP unless you believe in them. And KRAP has more value than the Bible.

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

The Bible says, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." I believe it.

Posted by: Ben | May 4, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Chris, and anyone else who has tried to gain insight from the Dr. Dino website. I checked it out, and as incredible stroke of luck would have it, I knew this guy when I lived in Pensacola. I had a modal logic class with his son - he came in with his dad's arguments thinking he would destroy the arguments for evolution. He left only two weeks into the class when the flaws in his thinking were revealed to him and caused him to have to face some very tough logical consequences that he couldnt reconcile with his beliefs. His dad while very smart is (in my opinion) mentally unstable. Perhaps some of you interested in the claims of the Dr. Dino site should look at some of the "credentials" of the man who espouses them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Kent_Hovind

Posted by: J.Allen | May 4, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Just reading through these posts would show that even the self-identified believers have different interpretations of Genesis, etc. How can anyone be expected to pick the correct interpretation? And, that is why, it is what is in our individual hearts that count. Through oour works we will be known.

Posted by: tourist | May 4, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

There have been more than a few children left behind. Seems they've shown up here, all grown up. The anti-science, anti-evolutionists make me mourn for my country. Stay away from my children. They still have an intellectual future.

Posted by: KenP | May 4, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

God help this country from it's stupidity. Evolution is a fact, folks: there is literally mountains of evidence to support this fact. And yes, it is a theory as well: a set of statements to explain the fact. The Theory of Evolution is one of the greatest theories of all time, and has not only stood up to 150 years of railing against, it has actually flourished. You who have a problem with it do so becuase it contradicts what the bible says about creation. Get over it.

Posted by: jp | May 4, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

@Believer:
Long post, not so much substance. You still didn't really back up any of your assertions well at all. Still no reason that God exists, and still missing the boat on evolutionary theory.
You want me to go over the whole human evolutionary tree? I can- got a while before dinner yet, and I've finished my magazine.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

If God created the universe, then who created God?
Answering the Critics
by Jonathan Sarfati

A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question 'Who created God?' is illogical, just like 'To whom is the bachelor married?'

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: 'If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?' In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

It's important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time--God is 'the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity' (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy--the 'heat death' of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause--no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn't think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused--nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

In Summary
The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.

Objections
There are only two ways to refute an argument:

Show that it is logically invalid

Show that at least one of the premises is false.

a) Is the argument valid?
A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this paper is valid; it is of the same form as: All whales have backbones; Moby Dick is a whale; therefore Moby Dick has a backbone. So the only hope for the sceptic is to dispute one or both of the premises.

b) Are the premises true?
1) Does the universe have a beginning?
Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.2

Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is 'open'. According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass.3 Some recent evidence for an 'open' universe comes from the number of light-bending 'gravitational lenses' in the sky.4 Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universe's expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe5,6 It seems like there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a 'big crunch'. Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable 'inflationary' version of the 'big bang' theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse--a 'flat' universe.

Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical 'big crunch'.7 As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, 'There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.' Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that's the end.8

2) Denial of cause and effect
Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

... spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. ... Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation ... Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.9

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario 'should not be taken too seriously.'

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate--their 'quantum vacuum' is a lot of matter-antimatter potential--not 'nothing'. Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc. If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.

Is creation by God rational?
A last desperate tactic by sceptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened 'before' the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened 'before' the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe's beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies,10 pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says: The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can't be used to prove creation by God. Of course, sceptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

Further Reading
More information can be found in the following works. Unfortunately they are too friendly towards the unscriptural 'big bang' theory with its billions of years of death, suffering and disease before Adam's sin. But the above arguments are perfectly consistent with a recent creation in six consecutive normal days, as taught by Scripture.

Craig, W.L., 1984. Apologetics: An Introduction,Chicago: Moody.

Craig, W.L. online article The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe.

Geisler, N.L, 1976. Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker).

References
Actually, the word 'cause' has several different meanings in philosophy. But in this article, I am referring to the efficient cause, the chief agent causing something to be made. Return to text
Novikov, I.D. and Zel'dovich, Ya. B., 1973. Physical Processes Near Cosmological Singularities. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 11:401-2. Return to text
Schramm, D.N. and Steigman, G., 1981. Relic Neutrinos and the Density of the Universe. Astrophysical Journal 243:1-7. Return to text
Watson, A., 1997. Clusters point to Never Ending Universe. Science 278(5342):1402. Return to text
Perlmutter, S. et al., 1998. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe. Nature 391(6662):51. Perspective by Branch, D. Destiny and destiny. Same issue, pp. 23-24. Return to text
Glanz, J. New light on the fate of the universe. Science 278(5339):799-800. Return to text
Guth, A.H. and Sher, M., 1983. The Impossibility of a Bouncing Universe. Nature 302:505-507. Return to text
Tinsley, B., 1975. From Big Bang to Eternity? Natural History Magazine. October, pp. 102-5. Cited in Craig, W.L., 1984. Apologetics: An Introduction ,Chicago: Moody, p. 61. Return to text
Davies, P., 1983. God and the New Physics, Simon & Schuster, p. 215. Return to text
Craig, W.L., 1986. God, Creation and Mr Davies. Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 37:163-175. Return to text

Posted by: Jason | May 4, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

So this comes down to Genesis or Evolution..

A story that was written ages ago, by people/or a person, that didn't even know the world was round..

Or a theory, with holes; written by a conglomerate of smart, educated people, adding and subtracting ideas to come up with a theory that works on most cases.

Posted by: So tired | May 4, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

It's quite consistent that the people who are anti-evolution in this forum have lots of feel good talking points, but clearly have not read much about the theories involved.

Even the theory of gravity, as "obvious" and "simple" as it might seem to the layman, is not as simplistic to understand as you think. It's not just that "things fall down". Please do yourselves a favor read and get some solid understanding. There is a huge amount of math, physics, chemistry and biology involved.

If you don't want to understand the theories, but just want to read about someone's "feelings" that they don't believe what you also don't want to believe, that is fine also ... because it's a free country.

But don't claim you actually understand some scientific objection that apparently more than 100,000 other scientists through out the world seemed to have "missed".

I don't know if you can comprehend this, but it is exceedingly difficult to get more than 100, let alone 100,000, egomaniacs to think exactly alike and conspire to suppress some "obvious evidence" against evolution. You are just kidding yourself if you think such lock step thinking was possible with so many people whose only "fortune" in life is their scientific fame and glory.

Posted by: ErnstStavroBlohard | May 4, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

A quick perusal of the comments here has convinced me of many things, but most of all that:

a. People need to read, study and understand the meaning of the word theory when used in a scientific context

b. The human race is doomed

Posted by: Kevin | May 4, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Zealots,(every religion has em), do no one any good. Most religopus people are silent in their faith. I would never force you to believe as I do. I also believe a virtuous Muslim, Jew, Pagan, etc. will get into heaven as easily as any Christian. As with everything else, a few bad apples spoil things for us all.

Posted by: GJA | May 4, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Not coming down on either side of the evolution vs. creation debate, but can we at least agree that not all things that are true can be proven? Godel proved that there are true things that can not be shown to be true via a 'this statement is false' argument.

The point is, the lack of a proof does not make something false. The fact that god can not be proven to exist does not mean she/he/it does not exist. Lack of evidence is not disproof.

That being said, if a belief or theorem can not be tested and shown to be false then it has no place in science. Please explain how you would test intelligent design and what predictions it makes about the future? Evolution makes plenty of verifiable claims, as did Newton's LAW of gravity, and if we test and find answers different from what the theory predicted then it is wrong, as is Newton's LAW, and we can work from there.

Even given Godel's proven limits on knowledge, I am happier to work under the assumption that beliefs should at least be able to be refuted when predictions made by those beliefs are not substantiated.

Posted by: Brian | May 4, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

John-

You say that just becuse the bible says it is the word of god then it must be true?

I get it!!!!

So if I say that I am the flying spagetti monster than that must be true too!

America needs more people like you. Especially in positions of power. NOT.

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

JGF: when was the last time you read anything about evolution from an actual scientific standpoint? I bet a very long time, if ever.
Therefore, you cannot understand us. May whatever god you believe in forgive your ignorance.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

LOL. This is really funny. Actually the world was created in seven days. But the bible dosent really specify on this matter only that it was seven days, not wether it was one right after the other or not, man just assumed that and from the begging, so they counted the days according to how they thought it went, seven days one right after another. Also we must remember that the Lord created time itself so what time is for him and what time is for us is different. Time does not exist for God, so actually the seven days that it speaks about in the bible, is seven days for him, and several million years for us in our measure of time. Also God himself created Evolution, How do i know this u ask? Any reasonable person would be able to realize that if God created everything then he must have created evolution. And even today there is no direct evidence directly pointing to us coming directly from monkeys, I know i read it in a science magazine. If you dont belive me look for it urself, look for a map illustration of the family tree of humans. There was a map illustration i saw that scientists do to represent the human family tree, all of the findings they have made over time like "Lucy" discovered in 1974, (who by the way is reffered by scientists as a "southern ape" not the earliest human) and other such findings are all side by side but not connected as in other family trees like the one that researchers use to show the relation between certain species of plants and animals. This means that there has been no proof that we are directly related to these animals who as smart as they might be does not mean that they are related to us (just for the record dolphins are right out there with us but we are not their distant cousins) We can only guess from the clues we have so far, and as you can read in the first chapter ofthe book "The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence of Jesus" By Lee Strobel (i recomment reading that book) if you dont have all the evidence and clues no matter how many clues you have that seem to point directly at a certain outcome one clue can undo it all and change it eventually turning it in a completely different direction than what you thought it would be. The same goes for evolution. Truth is any respectable scientist will tell you that there is definite proof of what the earliest man looked like, why do you think scientists are still searching for the "missing link." Their trying to put those pieces together to prove their hypothesis. There are also dinosaurs in the bible, Job 40:15-18
15 "Look now at the behemoth,[a] which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
Just in case you dont know the fact that his tail is being compared to a Cedar tree reveals much about the animals size, a cedar tree is very big, used to be very common in the middle east around the time the first part of the bible was inspired by God to be written by man. Also to answer some nonrelated questions and comments i have read here some by Tom Paine and others, just a few things. First there is no creator of God, God just is (by the way humans only use a small percentage of their brains so trying to understand evrything in the universe is just not gonna happen) If there was someone or something that created God than he wouldnt be God. But he is so there wasnt. Even in the bible it says not to think too much of these things like Did someone create God? becuase we will not understand it until the end of days when we do see God, if we try to understand it now we will just be confused and arguing.....kinda like now, and god dosent like his beloved children to argue and fight especially for his sake. Either you believe or you dont. Oh and by the way, it is said by God that by only trying to be a good person we can get to heaven. Only through Jesus christ can that happen. No one can really be a good person because we will all eventually do something bad. But God does not expect us to be perfect, thats why Jesus died. Trhough slavation by Jesus is when qwe are saved and the good life we live is only a manifestation of what God is doing in our lives. But once again we are not perfect we sin, and he forgives ios that simple. And to answer the thing about there will be no God above me, and the ten commandments, is not that he is insecure, but hes God only he can save you so it makes sense that he lets you know that no other God above him cuz no other God can help. Thats like you being trapped in a burning building with a cellphone, you have one call to make and you know who it is your gonna call. And you remeber mom dad and everyone always told you while growing up to call the firemen because only they are equiped to deal with fires. They did not tell you call the cableman, or the FBI, and you probably had those fireman visit you in the third grade that told you "when theres a fire call the fire department". Did you think, " why? why not the national guard or something else are they insecure?" no it just means that they are theonly one that can help you. With God is "no other god". Because only he can give you salvation. By saying that there will be no thers does not mean he is recognizing that there are other Gods, but rather recognizing that we think that there are, and that man often makes up other Gods as evidence that we have throughout time. And also remeber that when Jesus died for us the old way was gone. And new commandments arrived. Mark 12:28-31 (New King James Version)
28 Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving[b] that He had answered them well, asked Him, "Which is the first commandment of all?" 29 Jesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: 'Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. 30 And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.'[c] This is the first commandment.[d] 31 And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'[e] There is no other commandment greater than these."
And also read this:
Romans 13:8-10 (New King James Version)
   
8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness,"[a] "You shall not covet,"[b] and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."[c] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law---

If you love the lord your God with all your heart then you will know by the spirit of God in you that you receive through Jesus Christ that there is no God other than him. Thats all ive learned when i first came to God a year ago. Also faith either you belive in him or you dont. Either way i know by the way he moves in my life that he is the one and only God. Sorry if i misspelled i was writing fast.

Posted by: Believer | May 4, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

think:

You should really quote whatever it is you're referring to. Each post comes with an additional 20 posts of bible verses and evolutionary bombardment. I can't provide proof of Wotan or Zeus - and I wouldn't waste my time trying to prove anything faith based - it defeats to purpose of it being faith based anyway.

Posted by: C Mariat | May 4, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Children,
Before I sign off, just remember this: It does not matter if you are Hebrew, Christian, Buddhist, Taoist or anything else. It's very simple. Every religion has IT. Salvation comes to those who can achieve SELFLESSNESS.
Be kind. Don't hate.

(Again, sorry about this whole fanatic Christian Right thing...it is not what I intended)

Peace.

Posted by: GODHimself | May 4, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Hey damean, satans child? and to all you other mouthy folks out there. You have plenty of comments to TRY and discredit God and the Holy Bible. But I guarantee you NONE of you have read the Holy Bible! Not one of you have even attempted to understand what God has told us in the Holy Bible! You are all ignorant to God's word! Therefore it is impossible for you to understand anything I have said thus far. May God help all of you!

Posted by: JGF | May 4, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

JGF write:

"An individual asked the simple question...."What proof is there that there is a GOD?" The answer is simple. The Holy Bible. Take the following statement to heart. MANY people have attempted to prove God isn't real, but NONE have been successful! Feel free, go ahead, try to prove God isn't real! If you ever truly attempt this you will surely fail! Darwanism, now that isn't simple minded theoretical hogwash now is it?.!@)x"

The existence of a book written by men, creates proof?

There's an old saying, the victors write history. However that doesn't make the history true.

Your theory must mean that since the Koran exists Jesus is not the Messiah. The old Testament upon which the Hebrew faith is based, is also their basis that the Messiah has not come yet.

The book of Mormon exists, and adds elements to the Bible most Christians do not accept.

L. Ron Hubbard wrote a number of books than turned them into a religion.

If your basis for the proof of God is man's writings, that is not the best basis I've heard.

Your other comment or arguement that people have been trying to disprove God and in your opinion have failed to do so, makes the converse true as well. Since Jesus, Christians have been trying to prove that Jesus was born via immaculate conception, is the son of God, and rose from the dead. However, even the church tells you this is based on "faith". No physical "proof" has been provided.

Agnostics believe that the existence of gods (or God) are unknown or inherently unknowable. Can neither be proved or disproved.

Your comments lead one to give the Agnostic view more credence than your clearly stated Christian view.

So I'll continue to wait for the answer to my question.

Where did God come from?

Posted by: Tom Paine | May 4, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Would someone give me one logical reason to believe that the "Holy Bible" is better or more true than any other religious book?

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 04:45 PM

Yup. The Bible says it's the word of God. Since the Bible is the word of God, what it says must be true.

Next question.

Posted by: John A. Broussard | May 4, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Solomon - I don't care if you believe in the Judeo-Christian God, Wotan, Thor, Zeus, Krishna, Buddah or anyone. Just DON'T force it on me and make me live in a society that prevents women from having a choice over their bodies, denies the ill from the benefits of stem cell research and discriminates against other people who do not share those beliefs - that is what the Republican party does and that is what fundamentalists do.

Sometimes it is clear why Europe got rid of these people who settled here in the 1600's.

Posted by: GJA | May 4, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

If God really did create humans he must be very disappointed. Not his best work by far!

Posted by: DMST22 | May 4, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Zach-

You say that 90% of americans believe in god- but which god from which "holy book" and what is god like? He? She? a force?

There are many definitions of "god".

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

In reference to proteins...

Evolutionists originally hoped to determine evolutionary
relationships between species by comparing the differences in their
homologous proteins. They expected that the protein sequences would
be more similar in species that were more closely related in
evolutionary terms. For instance, proteins in lampreys should be more
similar to those in amphibians than to those in reptiles and should
be even more similar to those in fish than to those in amphibians. As
expected the differences between sequences did match differences in
morphology, and charts of the differences between homologous proteins
in numerous species nearly perfectly reproduced the taxonomic
groupings; homologous proteins in humans and apes were found to be
much more similar than those in humans and dogs, and those in humans
and dogs were much more similar than those in humans and fish, and
those differences were small compared to the differences between
those in humans and insects.

However, comparisons did not reveal any evolutionary pattern.
Instead of differences in proteins producing sequential patterns as
predicted by evolutionists, the protein sequences showed that every
group of species was well defined and completely isolated from any
other group, and any member of these groups was equally distanced
from any member of another group. For instance, the differences in
proteins between the lamprey and any member of the jawed vertebrate
classes are nearly identical. Likewise, the differences in proteins
in any insect and any member of the vertebrate phylum are also nearly
identical. A strict hierarchical pattern remains completely intact at
ever level; no species is in anyway intermediate between any group.
This echo of the typological pattern of nature at the molecular
level, like the pattern of the fossil record and the problem of
homology, presents a further challenge to evolutionary theory.
Evolutionists have attempted to respond to this challenge
from molecular biology by reinterpreting the meaning of protein
differences using a theory known as the molecular clock. According to
this theory, since the time proteins first formed in the first cells,
they have undergone mutations at a constant protein specific rate
with respect to time. Such a process would produce protein
differences which represent the time since different lineages,
representing different groups in nature, split from a common
ancestor. Unfortunately, every scenario developed to justify this
theory contradicts numerous known facts from biology. In fact, no
evidence exists to support such a molecular clock except the
hierarchical pattern of proteins for which it was created to explain.

Posted by: Brendan | May 4, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

GJA,

Why does it bother you so that I believe? I do not require that you believe. Faith is personal and if there is a Judgement Day, (of which I am uncertain), then that too will be personal.

Posted by: Solomon | May 4, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Last one before breakfast. I'm a supporter of evolution. So, here:

Everyone is born different - we're not all equal whether is be by the word of God or by the law - it's bull. Not everyone was born with blue eyes or Huntington's disease - you can't argue that - and if you look outside and see a bunch of people who look like you...watch out for your doppleganger or get back into our dimension. Some people have traits more favorable than other people - so say only brunettes get picked to reproduce - blondes, and redheads would die out and the world would be populated with brunettes. Evolution makes sense (I don't really know about the human example though). Just to humor you, if blondes died out, then there would be the assumption that gentlemen died out since gentleman prefer blondes. And the theory of gentlemen preferring blondes has been disproven due to the abundance of blondes and the apparent extinction of gentlemen.

- sorry bout the tangent

Posted by: CCCC | May 4, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

brad -- check out allaboutjesuschrist.org for some of the evidence claims

Posted by: true blue | May 4, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Teacher,
Can two somethings combine to create nothing? If you've studied waves of course they can cancel each other out. So why do you see a conflict with the big bang theory seemingly creating something out of nothing.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I am a registered Democrat. I vote my conscience in every major/minor election. Looking past what can only be a minor hiccup in early debates, we live and learn as we go. I for one cannot hold anyone liable for their answers at this junction. Time and additional debates will prove that the cream rises to the top. I prefer to vote for the lessor of two evils than to follow any party line.

Posted by: Danielle Marie La Belle | May 4, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Art Klassen demonstrates precisely why a little science education does nobody any good. "Super-heated hydrogen" vrs "YHWH"? For the love of Willie Nelson, write and wear it on a sandwich board.

Posted by: KenP | May 4, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Solomon-

Well spoken and true. The problem I have is with people who quote the "holy bible" as a universal truth and try to force those beliefs and/or values on others.

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

To think - there is no archeological evidence whatsoever to prove there was a Man born to a mother but had no biological father who then discovered he did have a father who was actually himself and that there was a spirit that was also his father and himself and that before he died he prayed to his father (who was also himself and the other spirit that he was too) and was separated from his father (who was also himself and the spirit which was also him) and then came back to life by the power of his father who was himself.. grow up - Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Posted by: GJA | May 4, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone believe what a candidate says about anything that's not objectively verifiable? If we consider these declarations of faith in our biblical origins as qualifications, or disqualifications for office, we are all beguiled. What these protestations of religiosity show most clearly is the degree to which these three are willing to promote their candidacies by pandering their alleged faith.

Posted by: holy what? | May 4, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Rafer -

I wonder who/which party you consider the one 'that has taken this country and divided it.'

It seems that the country divided itself, depending on which beliefs they hold.

And, since the two major parties have different 'platforms' on religion, how could you blame one over the other?

Posted by: D.W. | May 4, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Let me start by saying that I acknowledge evolution as how humanity came to be. I don't believe creationism/intelligent design should be taught in science class (if a school offers a comparitive religions elective, teach it there). I also go to church every week.

That being said, this conversation illustrates why so many people in the middle of this country believe liberals (which I consider myself to be) and the Democrat Party hate people of faith. God is not some primitive concept that can be done away with. Over 90% of people in this country believe in God. Most people go to church. It is sad that people refuse to acknowledge that while God might not have a place in the public square, we are a religious nation.

Posted by: Zach | May 4, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Art Klasser wrote:

"Evolution fails in producing a viable cosmology of our solar system (and the universe)."

Actually, evolution also fails to explain why I like potato chips more than I like cookies, but it still seems like a valid theory to me.

Here's the thing about "failing" to disprove God: tell us how The Bible proves God beyond simply stating that God exists. If this is all this necessary, then Darwin has done as much as the authors of The Bible to prevent evolution from being disputed. Likewise, we should all believe in The Secret, in Lilliputians, and in The Wizard of Oz.

Posted by: Todd | May 4, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

true blue,

Is a virus alive? It does not eat or produce waste. It does not think.

Just curious as to your views on this.

Posted by: InKansas | May 4, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Brad,

The Bible is no better or worse than any other religious tract. True religion comes from the heart. Love thy neighbor as thyself is a good idea for civilization, (and this forum), but it is no more valid than any other; except to those who believe.

Posted by: Solomon | May 4, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Thank goodness 3 men had the guts to stand up for what they know to be true!!
BTW how did something come from nothing???

Posted by: Elem. Teacher in Washington | May 4, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

JGF,
That is correct, you can no more prove that one god doesn't exist than you can prove that 100 gods don't exist! This is why god is contradictory to science. What can be disproved is that the account of the creation in the bible is false.

Posted by: daman | May 4, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Would someone give me one logical reason to believe that the "Holy Bible" is better or more true than any other religious book?

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Gavin, my child:
Yeah, I talked to little georgie. but he misunderstood. I said your administration is full of "Mass Dysfunction". Again sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Posted by: GODHimself | May 4, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Would someone give me one logical reason to believe that the "Holy Bible" is better or more true than any other religious book?

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give to God what is God's." That's one of my favorite lines Jesus said, Tymonator.

I think you don't know the context of that statement. That statement was said when they were tryin got trick Jesus. They wer trying to have him imprisoned. They asked if THEY should pay taxes to Ceaser. He did say the above. The point of that statement is not to "give to ceaser". The point is THAT YOUR SOUL IS GOD'S. The money is nothing but paper, or coin in this case.

Don't use Jesus to support your movement. Everything the right has done during the last 6 years, in the name of god, has been a blasphamey to my god. Stop using him to line your pockets. God will be your judge not me

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 4, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

JGF, you know nothing about logical deduction and reasoning. The fact that it is impossible to prove a negative does not thereby prove its existence.

Try this:

"There is a giant yellow teapot that orbits the earth and answers your prayers"

You can't prove that is NOT true. That does not mean it is true.

Go back to school and read Bertrand Russell.

Posted by: GJA | May 4, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

c mariat -- can you provide any archaeological or historical proof to the existence of Wotan, Thor and Zeus? Currently there is a vast amount of secular historical evidence that supports many, many claims in the Bible... even third party accounts that Christ was accused of sorcery (strongly implying that he was doing something they sure couldn't explain). Many events in the Bible are strongly supported by historical evidence, and more events each day, are gaining support. Why don't you do the research, versus insult those who do?

Posted by: think | May 4, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

This is in response to "Grandpa's" scary implication that there is no seperation of church and state in the Constitution.

The separation of church and state is an important legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The phrase separation of church and state was introduced by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists. The phrase itself does not appear in the constituion, or any other founding American document, but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

(from wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

Posted by: For Grandpa | May 4, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

You see, The party that has taken this country and divided it, making people with opposing view points enemies, All the while the are steeling us blind... we spend so much energy in shouting each other down and saying I am right and your wrong bang... Ask yourself this one question, Do you love your children"? My answer is Yes so if your answer is Yes we agree on something, and that is a start.

Posted by: RaferJanders | May 4, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

JGF, you can't prove God does or does not exist. We have no way of knowing for sure. There's a reason it's called "faith".
How do you know the Bible is true?

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Creationists like to think that poking "holes" in Evolutionary theory somehow strengthens the argument for Creationism or "Design", but that is false reasoning. The fact that the Sun, stars, and planets do not circle the Earth does not mean that everything circles the Sun instead, nor does it mean that the Moon does not orbit the Earth. Negating one theory does not prove any other theory. Even if Evolution turns out to be wrong, Creationism would *still* be totally without scientific merit. It is a scientifically meaningless "theory" because it cannot be tested, since it denies the validity of any test. The only way it could be true is if God or Satan filled the universe up with contrary evidence in order to lead us astray. That argues for such a BS world that I, for one, could never respect any God who would allow it to exist.

Posted by: 333 | May 4, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Who or what is god? and what does it have to do with evolution?

Does god have to mean a supream being?

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

...and then God created the atheist... and it was hilarious. He's still laughing.

Posted by: Solomon | May 4, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I felt deppressed like you Peter from Holland, I looked up to America as a leader for so long time, but now with regrets. Anyway, we still are lucky as intelligent informations are readily available. Knowledges already at the tip of our fingers and now invading Europe, and the USA. Hope you will take a minute
to visit this site www.harunyahya.com.

Posted by: Pricilla S.Aquino | May 4, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Didn't God tell Bush that he should invade Iraq (so he says)?

Too bad he didn't tell him there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Posted by: Gavin | May 4, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

An individual asked the simple question...."What proof is there that there is a GOD?" The answer is simple. The Holy Bible. Take the following statement to heart. MANY people have attempted to prove God isn't real, but NONE have been successful! Feel free, go ahead, try to prove God isn't real! If you ever truly attempt this you will surely fail! Darwanism, now that isn't simple minded theoretical hogwash now is it?.!@)x

Posted by: JGF | May 4, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Blaise Pascal- Believed in God for this reason..

If you do believe in God, and you are wrong nothing changes..
If you don't believe in God and your are wrong, you go to Hell..
So why take the risk and not believe in god..

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

explain:

At the beginning of the age of the dinosaurs (Triassic), all the dinosaurs were small and most were quadrapeds. By the end of the age of dinosaurs, some of the largest creatures to ever walk the earth were strolling around. You cannot scale up the bone mass, structures, blood content, skin thickness, et. al. in the little dinosaurs to the big ones so they obviously are not larger versions of the same species. So where did the big ones come from? Dinosaurs lived on the earth for 180 million years; I'd call that Macro.

Your thoughts?

And please, if your answer is "there were no dinosaurs because they are not mentioned in Genesis", let's just go our separate ways and I'll just consider this a wasted effort.

Posted by: InKansas | May 4, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Just wanted to throw out a 'kudos' to Mr. Science.

You stated things very well.

Posted by: D.W. | May 4, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing to me how fired up people can get about evolution when they don't fully understand it. Evolution, on a small scale, happens every day. Some people call it "adaptation," however it's all the same in the end. It's simply one genetic change at a time, best illustrated by the fact that more often than not, children are born with the "best" genes and phenotypes from each parent (i.e. "Survival of the Fittest.) Now, if you have enough generations of people, eventually you will notice a change in phenotype of the species because each successful generation will have slight differences than the previous, usually attributed to an external/environmental stress. To put it plainly, if you believe in adaptation then you also believe in evolution. It's as simple as that.

Posted by: The Educator | May 4, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

What all of these Republican candidates--and much of the American public--refuse to face is the fact that a belief in species evolution makes it illogical to also believe in a caring, interfering god such as the standard Christian one.

The versatile human mind can accommodate, however, since--like the White Queen--we can believe as many as six unbelievable things before breakfast every morning.

Posted by: John A. Broussard | May 4, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Hi Seeker - I definitely agree with you that it is important to see all sides of an issue and to explore points of view at variance with yours. In that spirit, I would suggest that if you are turly wanted to "read both sides" that you add some math and science books to your nightly reading in addition to the Book of Mormon Bhagavad Gita, and Koran. Then I think your assertion that you truly "read both sides" will ring more true.

Posted by: Finder of Truth | May 4, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

The question was worded too vaguely to be answered. Macroevolution is what many rational, well-educated people reject. Microevolution typically does not bother anybody. Most of the hysterical responses that I ever encounter come from scientists too insecure to admit that they have persisted with "bad science." Same source for hate-filled insults of anybody who won't play by their set of "rules." I do NOT subscribe to the "6 units of 24 hours" for creation. I just respect good-quality science, and ascribe credit to God, without Whom nobody could discover anything accurate in the first place.

Posted by: AWC | May 4, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Brad -- the big bang and evolution are actually closely related. if you work backwards from today, according to evolution, you reach a point where there was a single, minimal organism that was the most elementary form of life. where did it come from? what could it have evolved from? it had to come from non-life, which, as it stands, is a scientific impossibility. non-life was composed of matter in the universe...where did that come from? The Big Bang. If you buy into evolution without God, then you need to be prepared to scientifically explain the whole chain of events. Since we're knuckle-draggers and morons, please enlighten us. You are obviously a more highly evolved form of super-intelligence. Or would you rather turn off your brain and spout out more insults?

Posted by: true blue | May 4, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

This election should be quite simple. On one side is: no abortion, no gays, God, cut taxes, and stay the course (whatever the course is). On the other side is choice, inclusion, free thinkers (which includes the right of believing in God), paying your fair share, and quit the killing in Iraq. The election is not God vs Evolution. But wait for the spin we'll hear on who believes in God.

Posted by: tourist | May 4, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

There is only no contradiction between God and science in your mind, Bruno. If you were to take a "logical and sincere review" of God, as you say is necessary, then you should be willing to do the same with the Gods, Wotan, Thor and Zeus just as you are the Judeo-Christian God which you so arrogantly presume is the only God that should be put up for "logical and sincere review".

That post was a pefect example of the religious arrogance, blind idiocy and convoluted, presumptuous and non-scientific method of "logic" that these people subscribe to.

Posted by: Gavin | May 4, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Grandpa,

I trust evolution with my life and enough to buy health insurance. I like your thinking though~

Posted by: C Mariat | May 4, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

My final, final thought ...

"If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates!"
Jay Leno (1950 - )

Posted by: LJB | May 4, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Stop throwing things into the theory of evolution that are not needed and are untestable. Doing so eliminates the scientific validity of the theory. Bottom line - you either believe evolution and basic science theory is correct or you believe in god(s). There is no middle ground.

Posted by: daman | May 4, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Evolution fails in producing a viable cosmology of our solar system (and the universe). The law of the conservation of angular momentum (AM) demonstates this. In our solar system, the sun has 99.8% of the mass and only 2% of the angular momentum (AM). The condensing gas cloud would have the bulk of the AM in the sun. Sir Fred Hoyle (of chance fame)proposed a theory of gas ionization that transferred the AM out to the planets. No one has been able to demonstrate this. In fact, in the Science Digest, May of 1984 he says, "a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory". The ionization, even if it could be demonstrated, could not explain how the AM in the planet/moon systems is the opposite of the sun/planet systems where they have the bulk of the AM. Even then the Big Bang takes billions of years for the formation and then disintegration of star systems (repeat 2 or 3 times) to build up the heavy atoms in the universe. The theories don't come close to demonstating how the solar system is put together. The textbooks describe the similarities but ignore or don't comment on the improbabilities of explaining the differences.
And so many of the bloggers exhibit blind faith in super-heated hydrogen to give them life. As for me, give me an intelligent engineer named YHWH as my creator God.
I applaude those who study the issues. I wish more politicians and readers did as well.

Posted by: Art Klassen | May 4, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

It's time for all of us rational, logical free thinkers (true Americans) to stand up and fight the darkness! The darkness of ignorence perpetuated by christian lies.

We must become more visable and fight for the truth!

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

D.W. writes
"I'd like it very much if you believed in God. Hell is going to be very crowded for you if you don't. Even with your advanced seating reservation... oh wait, it will probably be standing room only by the time you get there."

Dangnabbit! I figured with an early reservation they'd save a seat for me.

Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Whaaaat?

Posted by: Dubya | May 4, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Why does this always reduce people to name calling "my dad can beat up your dad". Intelligent? Too many want separation of church and state only when THEY want it. If 2/3rds of Americans believe in creationism it seems that there should atleast be some sort of civil discussions. What are the intellects afraid of?

Posted by: Moe | May 4, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

@enubbs
"To not accept evolution is actually a position many scientists today take."
Um, no. How many scientists do you know personally? Both my parents are earth science professors, and I've spent my entire life around scientists, and am currently a biology major. You're just wrong here.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

To Disgusted:
My child, my only mistake was not thinking this creation thing all the way through. Free will was the genesis for Repubilcans. I apologize for any inconvenience.

Posted by: GODHimself | May 4, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Solomon wrote:

"Tom,

Science can't explain everything at this time... neither can religion. So I don't know where God came from but you can't explain with 100% surety how gravity works... so we are even. I know there is a God and that gravity works... have faith, we'll figure both out eventually."

First, I'd like to commend you on a tone of civility that is rare on this string by people with opposing views. And since it's easy to misconstrue what someone is say, I want you to know, I'm not being sarcastic by saying this.

However, I must take exception to two of your points, and will try to do so in as respectable tone as you used. Please don't take this as an attack on you or your beliefs.

I'm not a rocket scientist, so excepting the laws of gravity are beyond my level of education as is Einstein's theory of evolution. I leave that to people with brains and knowledge way beyond my ability.

Nor do I profess to have the answers to the origin of man, earth or the universe.

However the Creationists (and the evolutionist) believe because they see themselves as right, the other side must be wrong.

Your example of gravity is what I'd call a red herring. I believe few people in the modern age dispute the existence of gravity, regardless of their ability to describe it. However we can see the variance between the earth's gravity and the moon's.

I've asked my question of the chicken and egg, or where did God come from, because of a prior post wherein the writer attempted to prove his theory by stating his wife asked some unidentified scientist if we came from Goo, where did it come from? This led me to ask the question in reverse.

Personally, I've taken no particular position as to the origin, as we're here, I'm not looking to escape being here, I enjoy life, try to live according to the golden rule of treating others as I'd like to be treated, and tolerate differing opinions as I find doing so expands my ability to understand people and enjoy people I may disagree with. (hanging with people who believe everything the all group does, can becoming boring)

To address the second area I disagree with you on, a little background history.

I work in the legal field, (No I'm not a lawyer) and my job is to interview witness. The original reports I receive and have to follow up on, frequently included statements such as "I know he (or she) did it." This can lead to an arrest. My job is to find out if there is enough to actually convict someone as the level of prove is different for an arrest (probable cause) then a conviction, (Beyond a reasonable doubt.)

When I have reports with "I know", I ask how they know. Many people who use this phrase confuse knowing with believing. For when I try to ascertain of they observed or heard the person they "know" did it confess, they answer many times is "I just know", or "who else could it be?"

I accept you believe that God is both real and is the creator. However, its my opinion that you believe that instead of knowing. And I mean that respectfully.

As Dr. Carl Sagan said: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." And the reverse is also true.

So I'll continue to await a creationist's response.

Though I appreciate your willingness to accept that science may one day bring us an answer. I hope we're both around when and if it happens.

Posted by: Solomon

Posted by: Tom Paine | May 4, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Hackuabee, Brownback, and Tancredo are completely ignorant. To lead a country, you cannot discredit scientific theory which is considered to be fact by 99% of the world's scientists. Irrationality and faith are not bases to command the world's most powerful country; intellectualism and rational thought, however, are such bases. How can they be even running? I fear the day that someone more faith based than our current president resides in the White House.

Posted by: Syme | May 4, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Test This:

Bacteria in you.. Antibiotics taken, then stopped.. Bacteria comes back.. Antibiotics don't work.. Why? they reproduced and evolved.. Life will survive, and continue, with or without mankind.. bacteria(surives in the hottest and coldest of regions) and cockroaches(simple life-forms that can adapt quicky) will ensure this..

Is the fossil record wrong???? Do those bones lie??


Posted by: Test this.. | May 4, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

To all of you that say that evolution is a 'proven theory'.

It's not. It's an applied theory based on observations. It's a theory that's evolved to fit the findings.

If we applied Creationism the same way the brilliant (but atheistic) scientists apply evolution, then Creationism would "win". You can observe more consistancies with Creationism then you can evolution.

And of course your professors and teachers would support evolution - it keeps their job secure.

'Backwardness' is relative. Some of you (posters) use it in reference to someone who doesn't believe the same as you. Your way HAS to be right, doesn't it?

You say 'Who can believe that the world was created in 6 days?'

I'll tell you who.

Someone who believes that God is who he is. It's called faith. You may think it's impossible to do this but if God is God, nothing is impossible.

Blaise Pascal - one of the most brilliant minds of any age - believed and God and wondered how anyone could NOT believe in him.

I'd like it very much if you believed in God. Hell is going to be very crowded for you if you don't. Even with your advanced seating reservation... oh wait, it will probably be standing room only by the time you get there.

But don't worry, I won't pressure you into believing as I believe. I'm only here to give you just one more opportunity. I can't twist your arm or hold a gun to your head to make you believe in God. You have to do that on your own. It's called 'free will'.

There's a debate on May 9th - it's supposed to be streamed live on ABC.com - between two atheists and two believers in God. I recommend you watch it.

I don't know who the atheists are but the believers are Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.

Posted by: D.W. | May 4, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

To not accept evolution is actually a position many scientists today take. it is only the media that likes to push darwin on the public. we have yet to find any true evidence of intermediary remains. the cambrian era explosion of fossil remains actually supports the idea that the majority of phyla appeared at about the same time, as opposed to the idea that various phyla evolved from each other. to believe that various elements happened to come together and get zapped by lightning, creating life where you can have an imagination good enough to come up with such a story takes more faith than faith in God. Bible students still debate the idea of six days of creation and a day of rest as being 24 hour periods as opposed to undefined periods of time, because the original Hebrew word does not necessarily refer to a specific time as we now define a day so your argument regarding time is shot. as for geneologies of the Bible, the word often translated as son is in ancient Hebrew translates better as descendent, offering the possibility of many missed generations, which would disclude the time argument in view of your 6,000 years. i highly recommend doing more in depth research into the LACK of any supporting evidence for darwinist creationism, and start to research the amount of evidence in microbiology, cosmology, etc., that points to one very strong conclusion: an intelligent designer.

Posted by: enubbs | May 4, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I just want to throw a couple things out there... one, where is the phrase "separation of church and state" found in the constitution? and two, from a Christian's perspective, at least a fairly to strongly conservative one, if you believe in the God who created the universe, then it is impossible in your mind to separate religion and science. If you're studying nature and the universe (science), and you believe that a God (religion) created all nature, then by studying nature your are in a sense studying God. The same way one would study paintings of an artist, and in turn that would help him understand the artist him/herself.

I just say that to ask, please don't attack you all's opposition by merely calling them stupid, idiotic, uneducated, etc. Prove them wrong! But, if you can't prove them wrong, then don't say anything, it reflects poorly on you and what you stand for.

By the way, I am a creationistic Christian, I believe in Intelligent Design. I'd rather not get in a hot debate on the topic on the comments on this article, but for those of you who would like to see publications on the subject from a creationist's point of view, visit http://www.answersingenesis.org/. I just ask you go to it with an open mind. For a long time people believed that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the solar system and the universe... What the masses believe isn't always true. Please don't blindly believe what you've always been taught... search for yourself the truth, make sense of it in your own head.

Posted by: Grandpa | May 4, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

THANK YOU, Bruno. We need more people with attitudes like that.
I'm an atheist, but I see no contradiction between a god and evolution. Who's to say that the mutations weren't supernaturally guided?

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Brenda wrote:

"Has anyone ever seen a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? And it's not able to be seen? Or proven? Come on. Not that I support evolution as I said, I don't believe in either or because there is no proof but at least evolution comes closer to proving it's self than god."

Caterpillars don't "evolve" into Butterflies, they go though a metamorphosis into a Butterfly. Please take this opportunity to educate yourself, http://butterflywebsite.com/educate/caterpillartobutterfly.cfm and I'll even provide the link.

Posted by: Voiceofreason | May 4, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Mr Science says
"I see man people in dismay over the 6 days discussion; does Einstein's Relativity not permit 6 days to pass in one frame of reference, while billions of years pass in another?

Do evolutionary processes necessarily negate the possibility of a transcendent force outside the universe responsible for its design?"

Bong hits for Jesus.

Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

And by the way. For all those who say evolution isn't testable or proveable, please come out of your home school and read up on modern scientific studies.

Not only can evolution be proven by the fossil record, but by the domestication of plants and animals. Bacteria has also evolved before our own eyes under a microscope due to short life spans and rapid reproduction.

This country is lost to myth. I am so glad I live in Holland now.

Posted by: James | May 4, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Dear "explain," one incidence of "one species turning into another" is called genetic mutation. It happens all the time, and results in new genetic differences and adaptations. Sometimes these differences are advantageous to the species, and so a change persists.

Imagine a field of pink flowers. There is a genetic mutation resulting in a handful of yellow flowers. It so happens that there is a kind of bee that just loves yellow flowers, and spends all his time bumbling in them. Pretty soon, you'll have lots and lots of yellow flowers in place of the pink ones.

Go to your nearest biotechnology research lab or seed company, if you don't think genetic change is happening all the time, all around us.

Posted by: Susan West | May 4, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

As if the Bible is the end all be all of everything, if you believe that I know a bridge in NY city I would like to sell you!

Posted by: Dave | May 4, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Will someone tell these sheep to read "The God Delusion" and then go back to their churches, shamans or soothsayers (they are all the same) to beg forgiveness from a non-existent God for their utter stupidity and blinkered arrogance that has stymied innovation and subjected millions to execution, torture and discrimination.

It is a very, very sad indictment on the US that their potential leaders are such spineless, sychphantic voodoo panderers.

The fact that abortion is even a debate in a western society (I refrained from using the word modern) is scarifying.

Posted by: Gavin | May 4, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

The perceived conflict between science and religion is imaginary.

Most of the great scientists throughout history believed in God. Even Galileo, who was persecuted by the church for his scientific theories, believed in God.

The correct interpretation of the Book of Genesis has been a point of debate among theologians for a long time, even before the theory of evolution was ever conceived. There is no reason to assume that the most literal interpretation of Genesis is the correct one. Many pieces of Scripture are written in a figurative fashion, and routinely interpreted in that way without any protest or complaint.

Evolution is good scientific theory, with a lot of genetic and fossil evidence to support it. There is also a lot of evidence that the biblical narrative of Jesus' life is true.

Both ideas require a logical and sincere review of the evidence to discern the truth.

There is no contradiction between science and God.

Posted by: Bruno | May 4, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"For anyone who belives in evolution as an explanation for how life began"

Idiot - Evolution (and the scientists who study it) never say such a stupid thing.

Evolution deals with life's adaptation; only crazy pastors obfuscate the issue by misrepresenting it. Now why would they need to do that if they're so honest and if their argument held any water?

Posted by: Boogy | May 4, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

My final thought ...
"In the beginning there was nothing. God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better!"

Posted by: LJB | May 4, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

When it come to hardcore creationists: OK, it's good that you have a strong faith - granted that you're not trying to argue it as fact, that would make you a hypocrite. I'm just not fond of having the theology rammed down my throat. I'm sure that strong faith is good enough for your heaven resume, leave the brownie points for conversions to Joel Osteen. I personally don't mind that I'm set for the 2nd circle of hell. I like warm places.

Posted by: C Mariat | May 4, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Evolution simply means change. Yes, there has been change in life forms. The question should have been "Do you believe in a creator, or do you think the universe and all life is just a big accident?". That is the question we all should answer in our own minds.

Posted by: Stephen Cook | May 4, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I see man people in dismay over the 6 days discussion; does Einstein's Relativity not permit 6 days to pass in one frame of reference, while billions of years pass in another?

Do evolutionary processes necessarily negate the possibility of a transcendent force outside the universe responsible for its design?

And in terms of science, is a fertilized cell anything but a living human individual growing from the moment its chromosomes come together? Leftists suddenly don't want to face science here when it verifies that abortion is the slaying of a living human individual. Then it's "Personhood" and other non-scientific beliefs.

Are not Adult stem cells producing the best medicinal results, with embryonic producing little result?

And yet, disagree with people who won't face these issues and discussions honestly, but instead invoke scientific or humanistic dogmatism, and suddenly you're a small-minded, backward, scared subhuman who's views and thoughts are unworthy to even contemplate or be heard.

So much for progress.

Posted by: Mr Science | May 4, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

And now we see the old "Founding Fathers were Christian" bunk. Fact is, most of them were deists, and as such would probably have believed in evolution. Thomas Jefferson in particular was very scientifically-inclined. And George Washington often waited outside church while Martha was inside at the service.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Why does the GOP have so many issues with science? Are some Republicans inbred?

Posted by: Disgusted | May 4, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Genesis is what it is; simply a quick account of the creation written by Moses, it is NOT a step by step how God created the universe.

Posted by: evolution proves nothing

First of all: Moses? Is this based on a handwriting analysis? At what point did God hand him a truckload of stone tablets with all the tales and travails of our earliest ancestors? Second: don't tell us that Genesis isn't the story of God's creative process. Tell that to your fundamentalist brethren. And if it's not poetry, but it's not necessarily fact, what the heck is it?

Posted by: Todd | May 4, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Then matter is eternal? how do you reconcile that with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything should be in complete disorder now.

That, my friend, is bad science.

Posted by: Seeker of Truth | May 4, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"Perhaps if you could put down your pornography and crack pipes long enough to grow a brain cell, you'd realize that."

OK! Thanks very much for your Christ-like message of tolerance and love for your fellow man!

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 4, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Liars - the only way to tear Evolution down is to misrepresent it first -rather dishonest.

Radio silence from space has jack $h!t to do with Evolution (and Jack just left town). You're only displaying your total ignorance (or more likely, your pastor's version of Evolution).

Evolution does not say something came from nothing (who says this anyway besides some uneducated, knuckle-dragging moron?

Seems these "scientific" Christian experts don't know the difference between the Big Bang and Evolution - no wonder they don't believe it with their pastors saying stupid things like "they think we came from monkeys"

idiots

Posted by: Boogy | May 4, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Greanery-

When you said that you will be in Heaven while us poor sinners burn in hell says a lot- I am sure most of the republican presidential candidates share your view- and for that we should all be scared-very scared.

What an evil god you worship that would burn people in hell. Thank god god is nothing more than a myth.

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Science is things that we can experience with our senses. Faith is what we cannot experience with our senses. No one alive today was present during the forming of our world. There is no concrete evidence that we can find for evolution (but many instances in which so called science has tried to create evidences and failed). Without going into a deep discussion on why I firmly believe in a Divine creation and not evolution, let me simply say that one simply has to look at the world around them to see that it is indeed following the 2nd law of thermodynamics and is gradually wearing down. Somehow I fail to see how a world that has been wearing down for all of recorded history can be said to have ever improved itself. And I think it is great that we haev men running for office who base their beliefs on what is proven instead of what society says is truth.

Posted by: Seth | May 4, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"What proof is there that there is a GOD?"

God is hiding with the weapons of mass destruction.

Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I DID create the world in six days. However, my calander is a little different. One of my "days" is 98 billion of your "years". Kinda like the dog years/human years thing. Any other questions?

Posted by: GODHimself | May 4, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Please, commentors like kingofzouk, educate yourself in science before trying to dismiss something as a theory.

In science a theory is the explaination of a natural law, backed up by evidence. And in the case of evolution, the evidence is enormous.

Evolution is not only a fact (as a general theory, SOME the details still have SOME issues) but it is the cornerstone of all the life sciences today.

America, please wake up unless you want to be living in a religous cave next to the Muslims. The time of ignorance is over, we are no longer bewildered at the natural occurrences of the world, we can explain them without summoning an old bearded man in the sky obsessed with morality, sexuality, faithfulness, and thought reading.

Posted by: James | May 4, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Evolution is a joke of a theory. It is not a law of science and the fossil record is very weak. In fact, the fossil record (Cambrian explosion, etc) is on the side of creation ... not evolution! It is about time that we see men who are brave enough to stand up for the truth of God and the scientific evidences for creation!

Why are so many people afraid of creationism? Why are so many people afraid to be accountable to God?

Posted by: Lou | May 4, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

After about six or seven posts from the God hating, bomb throwing, radical leftists who were the first to post here, I got the impression I was listening to a scratched record. They say turnabout is fair play, so try this one on for size you bigoted, mindless, impotent, barking jerks:

Anyone who is willing to urinate all over what was held sacred by the founding fathers, and remains sacred to like minded people today who have inherited the country from them has no right to be the President. Sound familiar? It should. I'm only turning your own crap right around, and sending it right back to you with a few words changed. I'll bet you poor sissies can't handle it though. Freedom of speech can be pretty bothersome for you when it's actually speech, can't it?

Whether you realize it or not has absolutely no bearing on the reality that we need a government that establishes strong, positive diplomatic relations with the supreme power of the universe. Not the UN. Not corrupt countries with vested interest in terrorist countries and/or countries who have declared themselves our sworn enemies. Not the adherents of the science fiction movement known as evolution. Not those who make a living off of murdering innocent people whose only crimes are not being old enough to defend themselves and posing an inconvenience to the lifestyle of people who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. The government of this country does not exist to empower the lies and corruption that have degraded this country from its once noble place, no matter how many leftists get their feelings hurt.

As for calling Tancredo, Huckabee, and Brownback cowards for having the nerve to eschew your anti-religion dogma, this sort of thing has been replaying over and over for thousands of years. They, being familiar with the history you revile in unabashed ignorance, knew in advance that mindless hate machines with brain sized holes in their heads would deride them for what they did, and they did it anyway. Only in the sick and twisted mind of a libtard would that be considered cowardice. If you want to know who the cowards were, it's the ones who are courting the votes of those who have bothered to learn the truth about the meaning of life, while simultaneously refusing to defend a small piece of that truth because they didn't want you to laugh at them. Tancredo, Huckabee, and Brownback aren't asking for any votes they don't deserve. Perhaps if you could put down your pornography and crack pipes long enough to grow a brain cell, you'd realize that. Assuming of course that you could be troubled to purge your souls of the slime and venom that motivates you to deride that which has not earned your scorn, and defile that which is sacred to those you do not even know, and who have never harmed you. How does it feel to know you are an antagonist, one who attacks the innocent, who pollutes peace with hostility?

Let me guess, I'm not allowed to fight back, right? Double standard, perhaps? Or maybe it's just that you can dish it out, but can't take it.

Posted by: Chet | May 4, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"Evolution is premised on the theory that out of nothing came something, out of the non-intelligent came intelligence, out of chaos came order. Can someone give me an example in this world where the effect is greater than the casue? I'm afraid most of the readers responding to this article have watched one too many Geico commercials. Newsflash: it's called makeup. They aren't real cavemen."

Sure, here's an example. Old, mild bacteria + too much antibiotics --> superbugs.

Superbugs are greater than the old bacteria, unfortunately, and are only due to indiscriminate antibiotic use.

Posted by: Golgi | May 4, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"JUST KEEP IN MIND, THERE IS NO PROVABLE EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. JUST THEORY".

What proof is there that there is a GOD?

Posted by: Believer | May 4, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

And so it goes. Everyone once in a while I forget just how backward and ignorant many of us in this country can be. When I have these lapses the mysteries of such questions as how can we be so stupid as to venture into Iraq militarily become unfathomable mysteries.

When I snap back to reality with stories such as this one all of a sudden the mysteries go away. We are still very primitive and will be for a long time. Tancredo and the rest have always been with us. It was their ilk that put Galileo under house arrest.

Posted by: cbrown | May 4, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone ever seen a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? And it's not able to be seen? Or proven? Come on. Not that I support evolution as I said, I don't believe in either or because there is no proof but at least evolution comes closer to proving it's self than god.

Posted by: Brenda | May 4, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Gregow: When you get there to be judged I am sure that Allah will have a rather long laundry list to show you your shortcomings...

If faith is all that matters then Muslims have as strong a point as any Christian.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 4, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"JUST KEEP IN MIND, THERE IS NO PROVABLE EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. JUST THEORY".

What proof is there that there is a GOD?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Gregow writes
"When you get there to be judged I am sure that God will have a rather long laundry list to show you your shortcomings..."

Yo Gregger - Judge not, lest you be judged. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

By all means, let's throw out centuries of scientific research for a book of stories by authors unknown. I mean, start from scratch. Tear down anything you might know or believe and then begin to form your opinion anew. Do you really think that out of anything that is known you will choose The Old Testament over all other sources on this topic?

Lest we forget, all of the geniuses who declared their lack of "belief" in evolution have already been selected by a group of people to represent them in our national legislature. Lord knows what would happen if you were traveling through any of those three districts and had the bad luck to need the services of a doctor. Wait a second...luck? I meant, if God willed an illness to befall you.

Posted by: Todd | May 4, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

The war in Iraq is a good argument for disqualifying any candidate who places faith over reasoning from evidence. The war was a Hail-Mary pass based on underpants-gnome logic ("step one, invade Iraq. Step two, ???. Step three, democratic middle east!") It shows that wishful thinking is not a good way to run the world, and we need to be sure that the next person in the White House bases their actions on the way the world is, rather than the way they would like it to be. If they cannot understand that there is a lot more reason to think that the world came into being the way Science tells us than there is to believe the poetic metaphors of some exiled Jews in Babylon - no matter how pretty they are - we cannot trust them in office. All Bush had to do to avoid this mess was to ask his father why he didn't go all the way in '91 - everybody with half a brain knew that the mess we have now was far more likely than a "free and stable" Iraq - but he thought God had put him in office, so there was no reason to listen to any pesky facts.

Posted by: 333 | May 4, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"This country is raising a pack of idiots. When a college educated person can say that evolution is science, and really "believe" it. Name one person that has ever seen evolution take place. It's untestable people!!! You have to believe and trust in it just as a Christian has to believe in creation. The only difference is that I will be sitting in Heaven, while you are burning in Hell.."

Evolution is entirely testable, and is tested every day in labs and the outside world. You just haven't looked for it.
And I think that self-righteous arrogance may be a nice ticket to hell too. "The meek shall inherit the earth" and all that.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Srry for the poor grammer at the end.. Typing faster then the mind..

Posted by: Questions to ask yourself | May 4, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Follow Up.

If anyone wants to read the other side of the Evolution/Creation Issue, there are hundreds of books with scientific evidence that is completely ignored by evolutionists, because it shows the impossibility of their theory.

To be a true scientist, you can't just ignore evidence. You have to deal with it, and acknowledge if something doesn't fit with your view. Then you change your view to accommodate the evidence.

Posted by: Seeker of Truth | May 4, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Evolution is a theory and an old one at that. It has been proven error by scientific fact time and time again. So when will you stop using leeches to bleed a dying theory. I challenge you to come to the truth. There is an intelligent designer call God. He is in three persons; The Father, the Son, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. They were all present for eternity and at the creation of the universe, yes some 6,000 years ago. How do I know? I am a daughter God bought by the blood of the Son of God, Jesus. You can believe too. John 3:16 (AND THEN AND ONLY THEN CAN YOU SEE THE TRUTH)

Sorry Jenny but the concept of the Father, Son , and Holy Ghost was adopted as part of the church cannon about 1000 years after the death of Christ.

Religion, not Faith, but Religion discourages the questioning of the world around you and the words & doctrine of the Religion and its leaders. How else do you think that Islam expressly prohibits both suicide and murder yet many Islamic fundamentalists/fanatics will strap a bomb to themselves and murder people. Christians are no different, nor Jews, or almost any religion. If you believe me wrong read about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the wars fought between the Calvinists & Lutherans. Its even in the Bible, God hands down the 10 Commandments where it is expressly stated "Thou shalt not kill." yet the Israelites put entire cites to the sword in later chapters of the Bible.

Is there Intelligent Design? I'd have to say yes, things just have too much of both a delicate balance yet stubborn resilience to be just random coincidence.

The thing I find most amusing though is not the Christians, but the venom & hatred hurled at Republicans/Conservatives by the Liberals/Democrats who seem to portray themselves as "morally & ethically" superior.

Posted by: Voiceofreason | May 4, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Jesus hates? Edgarstevenson wrote the following bible quote:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

This is an example of why religion gets us in such trouble. What Jesus was saying was that his disciples needed to be completely unattached to their circumstances, which included their family and life, in order to become Enlightened. Jesus was an Enlightened teacher of Enlightenment, sometimes called "the Rapture" or "being awake" or being "reborn" or Samadhi. This is exactly what today's teachers of Enlightenment teach. Non-attachment doesn't mean you don't love, it just means that you are prepared to let whatever it is go, which sets you free to truly become a conscious being instead of a patterned being controlled by your attachments. For example, you can love your children, but if they are taken away, you may grieve, but you don't collapse or react from the loss and pain, since you know that this was meant to be and it doesn't take away from who you are in any way. Not an easy teaching, and completely incomprehensible to most people.

Unfortunately, the Bible was translated so many times from the oral word of Jesus, that whatever he said along the lines of renouncing, letting go of, avoiding, or denying attachments has turned into "hating" them in the current language. And of course, that causes the literalists to run around in circles, all stirred up by something that seems not to make any sense.

Posted by: Seer | May 4, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Evolutionary theory proves nothing. It can not even come close to explaining how a single protein was born from nothing, much less how millions of proteins formed into cells, then into organs, then complex systems, male and female, then into different life forms and species, all while working off a food chain that didn't exist! I'm amazed anyone believes a theory with that many holes. The bible is not poetry. It's accounts of real vents from inspired men handed down through history. The secular proof is there. People who didn't believe it two thousand years ago at least believed Christ performed the miracles recorded in the book (Pleny the younger). Thousands sw him after he died. THese things were not done in a corner. Christ was and is who he says he is and he quoted the old testament, including Genesis, so you say he's also a fool. Genesis is what it is; simply a quick account of the creation written by Moses, it is NOT a step by step how God created the universe. I'll never cease to be amazed by these arguments by people about the bible who know nothing of what is says or the proof available that it is accurate historically, geographically and in contextually.

Posted by: evolution proves nothing | May 4, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Romney bothers me, yet I have to grant him some respect... Apparently, he believes in evolution. That's a point in his favor.

Posted by: Golgi | May 4, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"And Evolution has been proven to occur, over and over and over again. The thing that these guys don't 'believe in' is the origin of life by means of natural selection." This is from way up in the thread and I didn't have the energy to go up and cite the source.
How can the "origin of life" occur from natural selection? Isn't "origin" first? The "beginning?" What was the beginning selected from? Unfortunately I don't know. but there are plenty of questions I don't have answered and I still love my God everyday. If you all figure this out, please let me know.

Posted by: Liz | May 4, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Politics is ruining this country, that and allowing anyone who whines enough to get a law changed or a new bill that takes away other peoples rights. It is the politicians, Democrat AND Republican AND Liberals, that have allowed this wonderful country to dive to the lowest moral state ever. When someone says this country was built and designed on Biblical scripture, that is exactly what that means. And for all of you folks that like to say you can't take the Bible literally and that we evolved from monkeys, keep waiting. The day will come when everyone will believe the Bible and ALL that God has told us. Remember these: God IS Real, Heaven and Hell are real, We are clearly living in the end times, homosexuality not only spreads disease and uncurable sickness but also kills innocent people, abortion IS murder and if you take God from this country, this country will surely deteriorate at a MUCH faster rate! And for my final statement, NONE of the candidates are worthy of running this country. They will all give in to somebody or some organisation and will create havoc at some level for many people which will leave this country in an even worse situation than when they started their presidency. Politicians don't look at each individual person. I look at politicians like used car salesmen. They can't be trusted!

Posted by: JGF | May 4, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"

Evolution is false, a fools belief only.

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

...
...

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Posted by: Charles Darwin | May 4, 2007 04:15 PM "
1. No, they don't. We have a nice evolutionary progression from small theropod dinosaurs into birds.
2. Every time we fill a gap with a fossil, a new gap appears on each side of it. We actually do have many, many transitional fossils. More are found every year.
10. Actually, radio telescopes have found the background radiation left over from the Big Bang.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Certainly, there is some proof of evolution if defined as a change in gene frequency in a population over time. It is a huge step, however, to then make the assumption that this excludes a loving creator. There are many rational arguments for the existence of this loving creator. It is extemely arrogant for the hard core evolutionists to say that anyone who believes in creationism is a neanderthal and proof of a failing education system.

Posted by: Matt | May 4, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Did I miss something? Has someone actually put forth evidence that can be reproduced that shows evolution occurring before our very eyes?

Oh wait, no they haven't. Nor will they ever.

Oh, but you say it happened long long ago in a galaxy far far away. That's science fiction, not science.

Seek truth, and wherever it leads you, embrace it. Read both sides of the issue. That's what is called due diligence.

I've personally ready the Koran, parts of the Bhagavad Gita, and parts of the Book of Mormon. Why? Because I read both sides, not just the one I've been indoctrinated with.

Be a seeker of truth.

Posted by: Seeker of Truth | May 4, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

OK - no insults, just a simple, rational conclusion. No matter how unlikely it is that life evolved exactly as it did through pure chance, it is a logical necessity to conclude that the creation and existence of a supreme being which created and guided all these unlikely changes MUST BE EVEN MORE UNLIKELY.

Posted by: Jon L. | May 4, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Ya know,

Regardless of one's beliefs, kindness is universal. You may not believe in anything "Brad the New Atheist" but do not degrade the beliefs of others. It is small-minded, egotistical, and mean.

Posted by: Solomon | May 4, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

bslmon - When you get there to be judged I am sure that God will have a rather long laundry list to show you your shortcomings...

Posted by: Gregow | May 4, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

PeteFromHolland,

You know it wasn't to long ago that all the world's top scientist and thinkers thought the 'cornerstone' to world geography was a flat world! It's so funny to see scientists and you that follow them whole-heartedly following any theory that anyone else comes up with. One day you'll learn!

Posted by: Christian | May 4, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: I hear Ixion knows how to put on a nice barbeque in Tartarus.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 4, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

What is far scarier is that one of these men could shape policy based on his understanding of his bible. Much like previous Secretary of the Interior James Watt who, when asked if we needed to steward the environment for future generations, replied 'what future generations? Haven't you heard of the second coming?' Talk about shortsighted, and vain.

Posted by: BJ Johnson | May 4, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Evolution is premised on the theory that out of nothing came something, out of the non-intelligent came intelligence, out of chaos came order. Can someone give me an example in this world where the effect is greater than the casue? I'm afraid most of the readers responding to this article have watched one too many Geico commercials. Newsflash: it's called makeup. They aren't real cavemen.

Posted by: concerned voter | May 4, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

This country is raising a pack of idiots. When a college educated person can say that evolution is science, and really "believe" it. Name one person that has ever seen evolution take place. It's untestable people!!! You have to believe and trust in it just as a Christian has to believe in creation. The only difference is that I will be sitting in Heaven, while you are burning in Hell..

Posted by: Greenery | May 4, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"Everything that we now know will be mocked and made fun of by our own grandchildren"...

including evolutionary theory...there is a reason that EVEN science calls it a theory. Because there are gaps and holes that do not completely substantiate the information into facts. While no one disagrees with micro-evolution (christian or otherwise), the question is whether human beings and all animals came from single cell creatues of the way past. Towards this end, there has been limited, if any, data that supports this point of view. It is amusing that those individuals who seem to be the most staunch supporters of evolutionary theory on this board, are limited in their own knowledge of the subject. While I am not a 'creationist', we do have to recognize that as a scientific field that there is much to still learn...

Posted by: da professa | May 4, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Evolution is false, a fools belief only.

Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

...
...

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Posted by: Charles Darwin | May 4, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

2 Questions.

a. If religion is so bad and so false, shouldn't we stop taking Christmas and Easter vacations?

b. What is an acceptable amount of time to create an earth?


Posted by: bPoint | May 4, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Lord, save me from your followers.
Why is ignorance so preferable to knowledge? Why are ridiculously false statements preferable to the truth?
Treating evolution as a religion, believing in Young Earth Creationism, and ignoring science are all symptoms of a sick society. I despair for my country's future.
I'm only 18 and I'm already disillusioned.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Do you believe the Earth is 4.6 billion years old or there abouts?

Do you believe in Carbon 14 dating, or other half-life dating?

Do you believe we are all from one source, (Adam + Eve) or a bottleneck (trapped gene pool) of a certain group?

Do you believe the bible is fact or stories to guide and convey ideas?

Do you think a president should be open minded, or stongly set in his/her ways?

Do you you believe in a higher power; if so do you think it will save you, or is the power to save in you already?

Also, is it so wrong to believe that GOD, (the almighty, highest of all living things) would have done anything simple; if you had a million trillion year to do it.. 6 days could be 406 billion years in GOD time (Genesis: a simple minded explaination for simple minds writen ages ago) Could evolution of life be GODS major plan? A slow working one that is more complex then our best computers(DNA), but simple enough to make a puddle of dirty water in the right condition could spring forth simple lifeform.. Could the dinosaurs be GODS first pets or lab mice? Could things be greater then anyone can imagine or explain?

Its a big universe, and simple minds with limited thoughts on it, do not deserve the right to make decisions that will effect the world (being the President is the most powerful job in the world)

We need a President that will use the most complex thing known in the universe, that we all have.. the Brain. We need a Strong Business Man (able to run a 160 Billion dollar company), with amazing international savyness (we need to fix our relations quick, it is a small world), and has a finger on the pluse of America (We need big fixes here, and fast)

Posted by: Questions to ask yourself.. | May 4, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

"I have too much respect for the idea of God to make it responsible for such an absurd world."
Georges Duhamel (1884 - 1966)

Ah, Mr. Duhamel must have read this entire page ....

OK, Mr. Duhamle for president!

Posted by: LJB | May 4, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

LUKE 14:26 - YOU ARE ALL SOOOO WRONG!

The word "hate" is not an absolute term but a relative one. He is establishing a comparison: "You have to love Me more than mother, father, wife, children, brother, sister." We have to put Christ first; we have to love Him more than the others. Recall what He said to Peter after His resurrection. What was the first question? "Do you love [agape] Me more than these?" Who were the "these"? It was very likely the other disciples who were with Him. "Do you love Me more than your friends?"

What Christ said to Peter He is also saying to us! The standard is exactly the same. Though we may not have the responsibility of feeding the sheep, Christ must still be our first concern in life, and God expects us not only to be concerned, but to love Him with deep, family affection.

Posted by: Jason | May 4, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Which god should I believe in? The christian god? the muslim god? the hindu god(s)? the jewish god? Buddah? the Tao?

Why is the "bible" better than any other religious book?

The Bible makes better toilet paper than reading material.

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"evolution (as a process) is a demonstrable fact. Posted by: gfb1 | May 4, 2007 12:17 PM"

I should certainly like to see this.

Posted by: DC | May 4, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Man created God in his own image? If God is good - apparently he didn't create man with the same brain function. People are mean.

As for argument of creationism - people shouldn't argue it as fact because it undermines the idea of faith - which is what Christianity is based on.

I still trust evolution because, as much as I hate biology, it's pretty damned useful and I'd prefer to see a doctor over a Shaman any day (though, meeting a Shaman would be pretty interesting).

Posted by: Christian C Mariat | May 4, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

I've got to say, this little discussion has left me profoundly depressed about the future of the US.

Rampant and crazed fundies, semi-literate and incoherent (at times at least) defenders of the scientific method, bitter and cynical posters: look at yourselves people, because the rest of the world surely is.

And the rest of the world is less admiring and a lot less hopeful about you guys rising to the challenges of the 21st century (not the 9th century).

You (and we) need the next US president to be able to read and write, be capable of abstract and rational thought, able to understand and harness science and technology, and perhaps, perhaps, be someone with a strong moral compass. This to me doesn't discount a person with strong faith, but someone who doubts a cornerstone (evolutionary biology) of one of the emerging technologies (biotechnology) that will remake the world, must surely not qualify for such a role? Surely?

Posted by: PeteFromHolland | May 4, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

drindl, you must have never read anything about Christ. If He was a wonderful man and you don't believe He was God then your an idiot. He claimed to be God, claimed to come back from the dead and also claimed He could heal you. Does that sound like a 'good' man? Either believe He is God or call Him crazy, but you can't ride the fence. He is God.

Posted by: Christian | May 4, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

THREE OF THEM CAME IN A TIME MACHINE FROM THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

Just amazing that three politicians aspiring to the presidency don't believe in the scientific fundament of modern biology. When they are sick they go to church or take their antibiotics?

If any of those wins we'll be deserving an invasion of Iranian mullahs, becasue will be just like them.

Posted by: What!! | May 4, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution.

Posted by: k.Vedros | May 4, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

they should have polled the candidates to find out how many believe in the easter bunny!

Posted by: helloya | May 4, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

I am astounded that it is a possibility that someone who doesn't accept the tennets of science could actually run a country dependent on scientific advancement.
Also, you don't have to believe in science. It's not faith based. Gravity doesn't care if you believe, elements don't care if you believe, motion doesn't care if you believe, they still exist.
A belief in an all powerful, invisible white guy over the facts that make evolution the most likely reason for everything's existence, is downright ludicrous. It's scary that someone who places their faith in ignorance can also be proud of it and justify it as a reason to disbelieve in scientific fact.
I'll take a chimpanzee over any of those guys, it seems the chimp is more evolved.

Posted by: William | May 4, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"but the proof that one creature actually evolves into another?"


dogs & wolves are different species. science (DNA) tells us dogs came from wolves.

Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

It is impossible to believe in evolution and the Bible. The two are completely opposites. Evolution is not science, but a religion. Science is defined as knowledge that is gained through observation and experiments. Because no one has ever seen anything come from nothing (like the big-bang "theory") and no one has ever observed an ape produce anything other than an ape, that means, believing in evolution is simply a religious belief.

Let's not make uneducated statements, assuming that people who believe in the Bible are unarmed and unintelligent. I have a biology degree and the equivalent of a PhD from yeas of studying the Bible. And in an unbiased and in-depth look at both evolution and the Bible you can make several observations and experiments to draw an intelligent several conclusions. Here is a brief overview of the conclusions you will make:

• No One has ever seen an explosion create anything orderly, just ask Hiroshima after WWII. If an explosion called the bib-bang is the foundation of evolution, then evolution is highly unstable, as it's foundation has already exploded.
• Carbon dating is not accurate and can only reasonably be done if you knew the exact amount of carbon in the earth from the beginning. And because you weren't here according to evolution, you would have to assume an amount you can't prove to be true.
• No one has ever observed anything produce outside of it's kind. A poodle and a wolf are both a kind of dog. A dog according to our observations has never produced a non-dog.
• The reason the word dinosaur isn't found in the Bible, is that the word dinosaur forum wasn't made in 1841. Hundreds of years ago people identified them as dragons, and there are countless reports of people having encounters with dragons.
• The flood of the Bible is a far better explanation for the Grand Canyon than the Colorado river. Logically the Colorado river couldn't have carved out that canyon, because it is flowing in the wrong direction to do so.

There are dozens of conclusions that you would also make these are just a few... For more about evolution vs. creation go to: www.drdino.com

In my opinion evolution is a religion that people often times just believe in to try to avoid being accountable to God.

Make sure you do your research and get the facts, not the opinions. "And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" (John 8:32).

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Children, children...If you do not play nice, I'll take my big blue marble and go Home!

Posted by: GODHimself | May 4, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

It's all Foolishness to the Fool

Posted by: Will | May 4, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Solomon, please tell me who these masses of people are? Aren't they the actual people here in this arena as you call it? I for one have never been given any type of anything asking whether or not I believe in god or evolution. I'm betting no one else has ever been asked either. So who decides that it's the mass or majority of the people? I for one don't believe in god or evolution but that doesn't make me less of an American. It just means that I like facts. The fact of the matter is we'll probably never see a good reliable honest president ever again as long as we let the "masses" decide what's best for the American people.

The masses seem to like the war right? I bet if you went to a busy city street and asked 100 people if they support the war you'd end with a at least 98% of the real masses telling you, no.

And if there were a god who was supposed to be so compassionate and kind and giving..why would this world wreak such havoc now? Why not destroy it like they did in the bible. Build a boat.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

capnboost:
I can't provide a link, because the journals are restricted. Find a good college library. And the flies would not mate with each other.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

can one of the folks who thinks that the candidates who do not believe in evolution are idiots please explain to this forum the hard proof and observable data that shows that macro-evolution truly occurred? Not the micro-evolution that occurs within species (i.e. finch beaks on Galapagos that become large or small depending on rain fall... but remain finches...) -- but the proof that one creature actually evolves into another?

Posted by: explain | May 4, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

The truth about monotheism:

Man craeted god in his own image.

Posted by: Brad the New Atheist | May 4, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Why must this debate always be between science and religion? The arguments are SOO tired! Each side says, "well, there is a flaw in their reasoning, so my side must be right!" This is the limitation of either-or thinking.

Well, folks, there is a Middle Road, another answer, and it doesn't involve either side being right. I just read a great book called "Science and the Akashic Field" The author, Laszlo, shows how the latest scientific experiments are showing how there is an inexplicable unifying pattern to the universe: something religion hints at but doesn't get quite right, and something science hints at, but doesn't get quite right.

As a result, he points out that evolution is a flawed theory, and scoffs at creationism. He suggests that the latest discoveries show that there are other ways that the physical universe organizes itself that we haven't even conceived of so far. Principles that can be reproduced in small scale in the laboratory, but yet fall under what we today call "religion" or "spirituality."

So really, this whole debate is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic... all the old world-views are on their way out, and the best thing we can do is keep an open and inquisitive mind.

My suggestion is that if you need the comfort of something old and reliable to feel safe, you go and get your Blankie!

Posted by: Spiritual | May 4, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Do you really need proof of disapproval over evolution? There's already a lot of people who disapprove of it.

If religion over science causes so many problems, it really should be left out of politics and kept a personal thing.

Posted by: Christian C Mariat | May 4, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

'I would welcome intelligent discussion and open minds from those who profess to have them.
That aside, Chuck Norris believes in God. 'nough said. ;-P'

why wouuld i care, chris? and no thank you, i was raised as a fundamentalist and my poor dear mother didn't believe in evolution either. one of the reasons i left home as soon as possible... the backwadness of fundamentalists shocked me even as a child. so i had 'discussions' for many years - many wasted hours. it all goes back to 'if it's in the bible it must be true'.

i want you to stay as far away from me as possible. i been there and done that. Christ was a man, my friend. A wonderful man. But that's all.

Posted by: drindl | May 4, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Gregow writes
"When we get before the Judgement Seat we will understand it all..."


I prefer an open system of law where I understand the rules before I go to court. Do I get to see the evidence against me when I'm before the Judgement Seat? Or is it secret stuff due to national security?

Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Creationism is not only "not" even close to being a theory (try to test it, please), it doesn't even qualify as a hypothosis.

Besides, if you look at the Biblical creation story, it's all out of order - check the sequence of creation for plants, water, and life. Don't even try to tell me that plant life existed w/o sunlight first.

Posted by: Boogy | May 4, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Why is this even an issue? Tancredo, Huckabee and Brownback weren't even regarded as possible choices for the nomination, so why brood over the "catastrophic possibility" that they'll be nominated? Their belief that creationism still exists contributed to their low standing (I disregard Time's B+ rating for Huckabee); the more serious candidates put their trust in evolution, in stem cell research, and allowing the states to assess whether or not abortion is a legitimate operation of contraception.

Posted by: Bill | May 4, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Where's all the angry Buddhists? Why aren't they teaching Karma in schools?

Buddhism says that life itself is eternal. It was not created, not will it be destroyed. Life goes through the transition between latency and manifestation (existence and non-existence).

When a life is 'destroyed' it becomes latent. When conditions permit, that 'life' will re-emerge in a form relative to those conditions and the life's past causes.

Actually, it appears that Buddhism supports evolution. All things influence one another and are therefore subect to change [evolution] based on a combination of internal and external stimuli.

Posted by: bodhissatva | May 4, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Christian, believing in evolution does not mean you believe mankind evolved from a monkey or a tadpole, it means you believe in the fact that species evolve. Some people may say by believing in evolution they believe the world came to be through evolution, but that isn't necessary. Evolution doesn't have all the answers (at least in my studies); there exist even the smallest organism with highly technical machines. You trace it all the way back and you hit a wall.

Posted by: Shane | May 4, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Judge C Crater writes
"Wrong! Apollo is just a theory. Giant dung beetles do the pulling. You are obviously going to spend eternity in the Netherworld where you will be burned in ovens and forced to swim in your own blood etc, etc."

There are no ovens in Pluto's land. Once I cross the River Styxx, its raw food only. I will surely miss the tasty seared flesh of our fellow animals.

Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Tons of proofs in disapproval of evolution are already available at this site :
www.harunyahya.com. or www.harunyahya.net.
for all of our dear americans to digest. In this age of easy access to information I felt very shock that americans are not yet aware of this! why?

Posted by: Pricilla S.Aquino | May 4, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Can't you all accept the fact that maybe we weren't supposed to understan this type of thing?? When we get before the Judgement Seat we will understand it all...

Posted by: Gregow | May 4, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I have never had a conflict with believing in GOD and in Evolution, GOD is the why, Evolution is the how.

It's only people who have a limited concept of GOD that have a problem wrapping their Brainwashed minds around this concept.

Posted by: Dave | May 4, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Evolution makes good fodder for scifi, but make absolutely no sense and can't be proven anyway. Can somebody explain how a "big-bang" can instantly "create" non-biological matter, and then millions of years later a piece of that non-biological matter instantly became biological and "evolved"? Come on--most people are smart enough to know that only an eternal creator, God, could have created space, time, and matter? Why can't the universe be 6,000 years old? It makes sense that God would have created every thing full-grown with age. By the way, God is real, the Bible is His word, people who are not believers CANNOT understand the Bible, and yes, people will actually die and go to a real place called Hell if they don't accept Christ as Savior; and those who do believe will go to a real place called Heaven. The Bible is the ONLY source of truth about God. Get saved, read the Bible, take a good look at the order of the universe and you will finally see how stupid it is to believe in evolution. By the way, evolution requires positive mutations from one species to another. Any mutations I've read about were never beneficial. If evolution is fact, why should we care about endangered species, or the environment at all. Hitler was an evolutionist by historical accounts. Evolutionist should applaud his efforts. Anyway, thanks for reading this. Christians really do want the best for you and the world.

Posted by: Believer | May 4, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"A professor of mine in undergrad put it well. He had one Ph.D. in theology and another in physics. He said that science gives the how. Religion gives the why. There's only conflict why (when) religion tries to say how things happen and science tries to say why."
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, even from someone in law school, professors included, and trust me, I've heard heaps of it. There is only one 'why' that science needs to answer someday, and that's why people keep spouting religious claptrap in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: dauphin | May 4, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

For anyone who belives in evolution as an explanation for how life began, A challenge: Come up with a logical debate for any of the arguments set forth in "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. The most intelligent and prominent Neo-Darwinists of our day can not combat Behe's examples, and you can't either. He has thrown down the gaunlet for any of these gentlemen to debate him, they refuse time and time again. I have read their books as well, and I am NOT a creationist. They re-write theories that have long since been disproved.

Behe doesn't claim to know the answer, but as many have already stated, theories on the level of evolution can not be proved, only disproved.

Darwin himself stated that if it could ever be shown that a system could not have been formed through progressive steps, than his entire theory breaks down. Behe gives several examples of systems that absolutely could not have formed step-by-step. Therefore, according to Darwin himself, the theory, as an explanation of how life began on earth, is

Behe's examples are based on the very smallest building blocks of life. Never before have we been able to view the mitochondria that are the building blocks of our cells. This research has shown quite clearly that evolution in no way explains how tiny organisms formed cells and came together to form larger organisms.

Do species "evolve" and adapt to their surroundings? Anyone who says otherwise is clearly incompetant. Can Evolution explain the origin of life? Without a doubt it can not.

Posted by: Josh (Realityville) | May 4, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Um, Steve, it appears you are not aware that science as we know it did not really exist until the 17th century (an odd coincidence how it immediately preceded the spread of democratization and industrialization that created the world we now know, isn't it?).

So whoever it was laughing at Isiah and Moses, it wasn't scientists. They were probably a bunch of priests and wise men whose knowledge was based on stories received from long ago and never tested against observable facts.

Posted by: Jon | May 4, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Ron...I'm not sure where you get your 'information' that you use to claim that science is proving the world is a mere 6,000 years old, but it's bunk. I garauntee it.

Posted by: jscollins | May 4, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Paul said:

"Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."

If we were in a room together, I would hug you. Because you stand by your beliefs, and no one can prove you right or wrong.

And your faith carries you through life and love. And I have beliefs that carry me through life and love. The difference is that you will hate me for not believing in your God. And I will not hate you.

Then again,

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26


Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 4, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

bsimon responds:

"Tom Paine writes
"If God created the universe, who created God?"

God, duh.

Next question."

So God, out of nothing created a God?

I hope this was sarcasm, and not the best 6000 years of God's creation of man and the Earth, and 2,000 years of Christianity can come up with.

You all have had centuries to come up with an answer for this and it always get back to "faith"
"I'm the Alpha and the Omega" an unprovable believe.

So really explain God's arrival, where he is, and how wherever that is got there!

I'll continue to wait.

Posted by: Tom Paine | May 4, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

@ Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 03:55 PM

So you have a better theory for the beginning of the universe? I'd like to hear it.

Is the big bang still taught in schools?

Posted by: capnboost | May 4, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Ron Henderson says
"Cutting edge research (true science, which only means "knowledge," folks)today shows more clearly that our planet is only about 6,000 years old."

That would be the cutting edge of a lobotomy.

Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Dear People at Washington Post,
I saw only the given names of those making a comment, so have included my name and surname. Thank you.

Posted by: Lloyd Heberden | May 4, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Actually the Republicans are closer to Heartland America than that. McCain's answer is among those that show evolution indoctrinators that their efforts over the last 50 years have been a failure.

Posted by: Daniel | May 4, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Jon L. knows the answer: Lewis Black for president. Now there is a person I can relate to! A person that can speak before a crowd, takes nothing at face value, hates everyone equally, and is actually funny. And -- boy -- do we need more humor in politics!

Posted by: LJB | May 4, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Where do some of you come from that think that Creationism in the WhiteHouse is new? If you asked any President since George Washington if they believed in God and creationism 99% would say yes!

Posted by: Christian | May 4, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

"In the 1800's, using careful experimentation, Louis Pasteur proved this concept wrong and verified that life only comes from previously existing life. Ironically, many scientists have once again returned to the belief that life came from non-life"

If you break down the chemistry, all of our cells are made up of chemical elements (they make atoms, structures, systems). Life can be broken down to units that would be considered not living. O'course, I wouldn't say it was sheer coincidence that all these elements come together in such a perfect fashion that a living human is made.

I'm not really fond of addressing groups of people: You Liberals! You Republicans! It's kind of mean. People are so vicious these days. I actually finished a paper on how politics is the nuevo racism because people like being angry.

I actually friends with people from both sides. I'm not fond of alienating people since anyone can be a friend. I think...(not that anyone cares) that people should believe what they want to and not have anyone tell them what to do based on someone elses beliefs and that the law should facilitate this. You believe in creationism? Hey! I believe in evolution - let's get coffee!

Posted by: Christian | May 4, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

"What does this 'orbit' word mean? The sun is pulled across the sky in a chariot driven by Apollo.

Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 01:10 PM"

Wrong! Apollo is just a theory. Giant dung beetles do the pulling. You are obviously going to spend eternity in the Netherworld where you will be burned in ovens and forced to swim in your own blood etc, etc.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 4, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

wow -- I was just scanning the posts and all I see is dogmatic, insult throwing, hyper-sensitive folks who are compelled to tear down anyone who disagrees with them, instead of actually engaging in an intelligent discussion. For a group so wrapped around the axle to keep religion out of politics, why do you keep making it an issue? Faith is belief in something you cannot prove. I hate to burst your bubble, but evolution in regards to molecules becoming people is unproven and the preponderence of evidence is very much against it. It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution than an alternative origin theory. How many of you have even read a book on the topic? The way you lash out at anyone remotely differing in viewpoint from you seems to imply that you would much rather attack character and people versus use your brains to actually seek truth or display tolerance. I used to be a staunch evolutionist, and used to verbally abuse Christians and the ilk on a regular basis... then I realized one day that if I wanted be a sincere person, I should at least explore the other side of the coin. What I discovered was quite eye-opening. I've studied evolutionary biology extensively in a secular, collegiate setting, and have come to the conclusion that more needs to be taught about evolution. Particularly the flaws that most folks refuse to acknowledge, or censor from the conversation. As you demonstrate clearly in this forum, you would rather tear folks down versus actually discuss a matter. There are many, many academics who question the theory's validity. Sure, animals within a species can change to adapt to their environment, because they were endowed with a robust gene pool, but science has never observed one creature becoming another -- even in a lab with may flies who pass through a generation every few days, in which scientists intentionally tried to cause mutations...sure, you may get may flies with four wings... but they cannot fly, and they are STILL FLIES. Evolution in the sense that one species can become another, that we all evolved from lifeless matter is a theory that has much evidence against it and limited to no fossil evidence. For every species on earth today, you should be able to find millions of transitional fossils leading to each... but we have a 2 to 3 possible candidates, each of which are dubious at best. You may think the fossil evidence is there, but I challenge you to do the research, instead of swallowing every pill you're handed and insulting anyone who actually questions things. Darwin thought the inside of a cell was just a clump of jelly-like material. We now know it is populated with micro-machines as advanced as the most complicated factories man can create, which, many credible scientists are indicating could in no way have "evolved" randomly. Most mainstream folks are afraid to seriously consider this type of thing, though, b/c of the far-reaching implications... and they too easily throw around labels and insults to folks who actually do the extra research to form their own conclusions. And if science is your hot button, one of the foundational laws in science is that something CANNOT come from nothing. THIS is a scientific law. Yet, the Big Bang indicates first there was nothing -- no matter, no time, nothing -- then a universe... then, somehow rocks spawned microbes, which spawned fish, then rats, then people who comment on political web-sites. All randomly. Just because. Sorry, I don't have enough faith to believe that hog-wash. But this is what many of YOU expect the world to fully accept, without question... and if we do question, you insult and attack, without once offering a logical justification for your position. Mainstream folks once thought the earth was flat as well, and violently opposed those who disagreed... so times don't change. Throw insults at me, if you wish, but I challenge you to actually find the character to investigate this topic in earnest, and try to understand how intelligent people are questioning evolution. I ensure you, the ones who go out on a limb to publicly refute it have taken their heads out of the sand and have done a lot more research on the topic than 95% of the folks posting to this forum, just in order to defend themselves from the personal attacks from those who disagree.

Posted by: trueblue | May 4, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

@ Tyrannosaur

I'm not going to buy anything. Care to provide a link?

I'd like to confirm that by speciation you mean offspring that was unable to successfully breed with the species that spawned it (naturally- that is w/o gene splicing or external stimuli)

The classic fruit fly study isn't going to cut it.

Posted by: capnboost | May 4, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes, the Flood.
Tell me, if dinosaurs and so on lived at the same time as humans, why don't we find their bones in the same strata of the rocks? And it can't be flood sorting, because then we'd see small dinosaurs in with small mammals, and sauropods next to mammoths. We clearly don't. We can observe an evolutionary progression in the rocks. Why is that?

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

As long as people keep projecting God outside themselves, they end up with an image of God as their parent: to be obeyed, bowed down before, and of course to be feared for His capricious ways. We're programmed with this view of Authority as infants, and then as adults we create it all around us; in God, in our governments, our supposed "experts" that we let tell us what to do, and of course our clergy.

Ultimately since there isn't a God you can go chat with like a shopping mall Santa Claus, we end up giving our power away to these human surrogates for the Divine and wonder why we get into such muddles as a result: they're no wiser than we are!

When will people wake up and realize that God isn't a projected parent, but rather the awesome unifying force of consciousness in the universe, of which we're all a part? Only on that day will we find solutions to our problems, because on that day we will stop waiting for our parents to fix things for us.

Posted by: Devoted | May 4, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

How can anyone say they're a Christian and an evalutionist? Have you read the Bible? Start with the begining! Genesis 1:1, God was and is! You that put down Christians are sad. I pity you. You're all so angry and confused. Have you ever wondered why it is you hate Christians so much? Jesus said the world would hate Christians like the world hated him. Jesus is the way, truth and life, no one comes to the Father but thru Him. These three men who raised their hands are courageous. How can you not appreciate the fact they stood up for what they believe? It would've been a lot easier to waffle like the other canidates. Those that say they believe in God, but don't believe is Word or follow it.

Posted by: Christian | May 4, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

So much unnecessary hostility. It is unfortunate these candidates didn't have more time to respond. I was actually surprised only 3 of them didn't believe. But then again, I believe in God and evolution, so it shouldn't. I think the way this debate was run left far too many things open to misinterpretation.

Posted by: Shane | May 4, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Dear SSb,

Wrong wrong wrong. Read "the origin of species"

Posted by: Doomed in LA | May 4, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Chris, for your oversimplified and erroneous explanation of your concept of how evolution works. I think my IQ lowered just reading it, which would still leave it slightly higher than you and all 10 of your candidates combined.

Posted by: jscollins | May 4, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Bob Dykstra,

"Use the Bible to address who created and why"? You are serious, right? All religious books do is confuse the easily led. I say use the Bible as an agent to war and to justify me, as your pastor, finally getting my jet so I can fly to other countries and preach the word of Jesus. Now that is the bible to good use.

The Bible was invented to control the poor and weak minded. The Bible is an effective means of crowd control, I give it that. Anyone can write a bible and make it official. Your degrees make you sound official but the degrees were bestowed upon you by unofficial people.

Remember:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26

When the Mormon's take over our country, you will not be invited to the temple. Lucky you. You will be shown to be a man of no principles because you don't believe in Joseph Smith as the prophet. How does it feel to be excluded?

Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 4, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Tom,

Science can't explain everything at this time... neither can religion. So I don't know where God came from but you can't explain with 100% surety how gravity works... so we are even. I know there is a God and that gravity works... have faith, we'll figure both out eventually.

Posted by: Solomon | May 4, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Only 30 per cent of Republican Presidential Candidates don't believe in Evolution?

Well, they're a lot closer to Mainstream America then the Democrats can ever hope to be on this question, but they still fall quite a bit short of the majority of Americans who answer poll questions on this topic in ways that frustrate the dickens out of evolution indoctrinators.

Posted by: Daniel | May 4, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Evolution? That's the bigest lie in town! Gravity we can measure; precipitation we can reproduce; other laws of nature we can work with; but evolution is a disaster and failure. Imagine a gas (how it originated or evolved is a mystery) producing solids and other gases that we have today! And if it were at all possible to produce rocks and dirt, like other inorganic material, then what about organic solids like earth, or soil? How could that come about with no previous matter to live on? I guess live today can only come from living matter; but in the past it had to come from non-living matter and grow on non-living solids! Give me a break. Cutting edge research (true science, which only means "knowledge," folks)today shows more clearly that our planet is only about 6,000 years old. This billions theory does not wash!!

Posted by: Ron Henderson | May 4, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

But Jimi, when was the last time you looked to sources other than Answers in Genesis and the like for info on evolution?

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

capnboost says
"The big bang theory requires an un-moved mover to start because energy out cannot happen w/o energy in. Physics."

Big Bang is but one theory of many; my understanding is that big bang is no longer a leading theory in the origins of the universe.

Next!

Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Dear People at Washington Post,
Such erudite folks and their comments!
Almost like the hand of God was guiding them!
You really have to ask, who was Adam's anceswtors, and realize that Adam did not have an ancestor, he w2aas created by God.
"Lucy",and all her ancestors disappeared
with The Flood, and which happened far
more than any amount of years mentioned in the comments.
FOR Noah to have knowledge about the coming
flood, and to know about the shifting
geographical plates that could cause a flood, is quite astounding! Noah had to be in touch with the Creator! Who really knows the Creators design for Evolution
and Creation? Thank you.

Posted by: Lloyd | May 4, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"God" is an emergent property of a society, much like "I" am an emergent property of my cells.

in fact, there are too many parallels between the two to enumerate here.

Nerves = high speed communication
blood cells = cars and trucks
immune cells = police
kidneys = water treatment
brain = government
...
get the idea?

I believe in the existence of a higher consciousness, just not a creator-god. We are part of god, we underlie the mechanism of "god". By this definition, there are many gods...

pick yours and make it better.


Posted by: Flip it over... | May 4, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

What is sad is that most of you "free and real" thinkers do not even know the other side of the argument. Yes there are many Christians who don't believe in evolution. The majority of all creationists do beleive in evolution, but you get your facts wrong.

Evolution can happen within a species, but the second you take that outside of that species you kill it. Mules cannot have children because they were bred outside of their species. Evolution is just change. Change happens and the Bible does not argue that point.

What is funny is that all of these so called scientists on this website have never truly researched the other side, you call creationists ignorant but you spit out the same babble over and over again that you learned from some professor in college or high school. Next time really research the argument before you start spitting out your ideas and "truths" and you will sound a lot more intelligent.

Posted by: Jimi | May 4, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

The question is whether these politicians are able to make fair choices without their own views about religion clouding them. I personally do not think that this is possible. However, religion and beliefs are private and I do not want to hear them elaborate on why they do not believe in evolution. All I care about is if they are able to make the decisions that reflect what the majority of the country wants. This is why I think that humanists/ atheists should be the ones in politics.

Posted by: Darwin | May 4, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Every knee shall bow and every tongue shallc confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Posted by: Paul | May 4, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Oh, the breathtaking inanity!!!

Posted by: Luis Vazquez | May 4, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

I would guess the current occupant of the White House also doesn't believes in evolution. It seems like we have candidates who should be running for office in the nineteenth century and not the twenty first century. It doesn't portend America retaining its high quality of science. Religion has definitely reared its ugly head into politics.

Posted by: Don Luke | May 4, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Tom Paine writes
"If God created the universe, who created God?"

God, duh.

Next question.

Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

It's not every day that you hear someone actually stand up and defend Lamarck!

Poste by Murray

"While I belive in micro-evolution - the adaptation of living things to their environment - there is not one single shred of evidence in the fossil record to show that macro-evolution is anything more than a theory!"

Posted by: SSB | May 4, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

'Whenever someone says they believe the earth was created in 7 days, I grab a fossil and say, "Fossil." And if they keep talking, I throw it just over their heads' -Lewis Black.
It astounds me how successful the religious right has been in causing an avalanche of cognitive regression in this country.

Posted by: Jon L. | May 4, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

@ Posted by: Tom Paine | May 4, 2007 03:47 PM

I'll bite Tom:

The first "law" of thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy and matter in the universe is constant. That is: matter & energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

God always existed.

The big bang theory requires an un-moved mover to start because energy out cannot happen w/o energy in. Physics.

Hope you visit soon; i'll be waiting for a rebuttal.

Posted by: capnboost | May 4, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

This is Huge!!

The three candidates that raised their hands are appealing to the same religious right minority who got Bush elected. These people (including Bush) think that Jesus is coming any day and therefore there is no need to protect the environment, no need for stem cells or education. They have no interest in the future, only their immortal souls, and the policies they support reflect that attitude. Danger!!! If people like this keep making it in to office, they will doom us all.

Posted by: Doomed in LA | May 4, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

@ capnboost:
Two references for speciation observed in labs:
Rice, W.R. and G.W. Salt (1988). "Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence". The American Naturalist 131: 911-917.
Dodd, D.M.B. (1989) "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura." Evolution 43:1308-1311.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Enough already with candidates that have only law degrees. Time for "real" people: engineers, scientists, doctors, etc.!

Posted by: LJB | May 4, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Still waiting creationist.

Where did God come from?

Posted by: Tom Paine | May 4, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"...Before I sit down, Mr. President, I will suggest another matter; and I am really surprised that it has not been proposed by some other member at an earlier period of our deliberations. I will suggest, Mr. President, that propriety of nominating and appointing, before we separate, a chaplain to this Convention, whose duty it shall be uniformly to assemble with us, and introduce the business of each day by and address to the Creator of the universe, and the Governor of all nations, beseeching Him to preside in our council, enlighten our minds with a portion of heavenly wisdom, influence our hearts with a love of truth and justice, and crown our labors with complete and abundant success!..." - Benjamin Franklin, 1787, Constitutional Convention

Are there really some of us who believe that our founding fathers' belief in a Creator God somehow inhibited their ability to govern? Or, is the wealth and success of this nation over the last 200 years really an answer to the prayers of those same people?

Posted by: tj | May 4, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

These dumb Republicans are trying to kill the world with their pseudosciences. They have a contempt for women, gays, the environment, legitimate science, and free inquiry. Now they are going to over turn precedent Supreme Court cases. What a bunch of simple minded fools. They lack all integrity but hide behind the guise of religion and people are dumb enough to vote for them just because they have archaic views of social and science topics.

Posted by: Andrew in Dallas, TX | May 4, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Party has become the Taliban of America, dominated by a growing pack of religious zealots. This debate gave dangerous indications that this is unfortuantly a fact.

If you look deep into the GOP, you will find a large base of true-belivers hell-bent on transforming our government into a Christian Theocracy.

Posted by: Brad a New Atheist | May 4, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

edgar stevenson writes
"Who is to say each man cannot have three wives? Joseph Smith said it was ok."

No, Joe Smith did not say it was 'ok.' He said it was the only way to truly achieve God's vision for mankind, or something comparable to that. In short, it is far more than OK - it is preferred.

Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Jesus Christ - you Christofascists totally misrepresent Evolution then tear down that misrepresentation. I've nearly counted every logical fallacy imaginable on just half of this thread.

Evolution never states we came from monkeys (why would anyone ask why there are still monkeys) - retarded.

Evolution has been observed in both the lab and in the field. Organisms adapt to their environment (diet, climate, altitude, etc.,).

And by the way, Evolution could have just been "how God did it" because I doubt very seriously that God literally meant 6 days (could have been more like 6 billion years), also I really doubt a god would give a crap what we believe about our origins; rather it's probably concerned with how we treat each other.

Could you imagine how ill-informed Adam and Eve must have been? I mean, do you really expect a god to explain how he created organisms to adapt (you know, to help them survive) to those two knuckle-draggers? Like he would expect them to understand and record how he created such complex systems.

But all this is the devil's advocate - the universe is quite explainable without the need to throw in the "god of the gaps"

Face it, religion is a political tool to make our butts except our crappy station in life with promise of rewards of candyland. It's much easier to talk people into working their entire lives in a craphole job if you promise them heaven.

Posted by: Boogy | May 4, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

There must have been intelligence or call it "hand of God". First is creation and then evolution. My guess is that we are "cloned" since that symbolically is said "God created us after his image". A monkey is a monkey, can not be "improved" and become intelligent human being by evolution. I dont think old testament is just poetry, symbolic language in that is what we need to decifer.

Posted by: Diti | May 4, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse


I am a scientist at an Ivy League university with nearly a hundred publications in biomedical science. I do not "believe" in evolution either. For some purposes, I "accept" it as being useful, but shaping my worldview, or serving as the basis for moral judgments, are not among those purposes.

As for gravity, believing in that will eventually let you down.

Posted by: Ack | May 4, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

This is friggin' depressing. Evolution is as close as you can come to scientific fact. If it was as full of holes as some people seem to think, why hasn't it been taken down after almost a century and a half of criticism? Instead of falling to pieces, it's become STRONGER due to new evidence and observations. I cannot fathom why it is so hard to accept.
Also, reading through the comments, I've noted a profound ignorance of what science is and how it works. That is a bad sign if we want to stay at the forefront of the global community.

Posted by: Tyrannosaur | May 4, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

It would be useful for the candidates to read about how nearly 8,000 scientists supported evolution in a four day grass roots unfunded drive compared to the heavily funded effort by the the Discovery Institute which in five *years* have gathered only 400+ signatures by scientists (many not even in evolution study related fields) *opposed* to "Darwinism".

http://www.shovelbums.org/content/view/156/527/

The Discovery Institute's petition can be found here

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

I also think that any of the candidates who do not believe in evolution quit seeing doctors whose medical training is based on biological principals rooted in evolution and only use faith healing.

R. Joe

Posted by: R. Joe | May 4, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I would be more interested to see which of the candidates could actually define evolution (or a stem cell).

Posted by: SSB | May 4, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

There's a lot of REACTING to something that NEEDS CLARIFICATION.

If Huckabee, Brownback, or Tancredo denies that evolution is a process at work in the natural world, that person is an idiot and unworthy of the Presidency.

If they CLARIFY (as McCain apparently did) that they don't believe evolution is the sole explanation for the world's biological diversity or the emergence of man or even the fossil record - then I have to acknowledge that these explanations are theories and while I believe them, a thinking person is entitled to questions and doubts.
http://getthisoutthere.blogspot.com

Posted by: Gotta get this off my chest | May 4, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm still awaiting a response to the question I posed.

If God created the universe, who created God?

Please explain this, I'm more than willing to keep an open mind on the subject. When provided new information, I'm willing to consider it, and alter my position.

So please creationists, explain where God came from.

And don't throw back were did the Big Bang come from?

That's already been thrown down, and that poster didn't say where his God came from.

I'll continue to wait.

Posted by: Tom Paine | May 4, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

First off- evolution is hardly a fact. It's a theory. There are very few "facts" in science. Science is simply a tree of interrelated theories that we use to try to establish a set of rules for our existence.

If you think evolution is a demonstrable fact i challenge you to show me one, just one, single occasion, *EVER* that speciation ever occurred. Alternatively demonstrate for me how a collection of chemicals can spontaneously become alive.

"As for the flat earth" comment(s) you are of course aware that back in the day of the "flat earth theory" it was the religious folks that were able to read and write, ran universities, and educated the peasants.

It's cute when you try to point out someones ignorance and wave your own stupid flag to the intarwebz.

Posted by: capnboost | May 4, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Partisanship is ripping our country apart. It is sad to go into these forums and read how much people hate each other under the guise of backing their candidate. Most people who feel passionately about politics and claim to have an open mind are most likely lying.

Posted by: the Anti-party | May 4, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

First of all, Evolution is irrelevant to the presidency. Also, I'm surprised as to how many self proclaimed experts and narcisstic hawkings wannabees there are on this board discussing the validity of evolution in itself. Trust me, you're not nearly as smart as you think, so quit being so judgemental.
Let's debate something that has importance today.

By the way, the Bible is an interpretation. Just thought I'd throw that out there for all the peoeple who are quick to discredit the Bible without ever having read it. You can't take Days literally. Metaphors, you know? It really does make sense.

Also, refer to very first post. Likes that one- "Science gives the how. Religion gives the why. There's only conflict when religion tries to say how things happen and science tries to say why."

Posted by: Franssen | May 4, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

LifeInChrist says
"A true believer KNOWS that Moses didn't part the Red Sea, but rather God parted the Red Sea. Moses was just the vessel in which God chose to perform a miracle. This doesn't mean that God needs a vessel to perform a miracle, just that it makes the miracle that much more amazing. All things are possible throught christ jesus."

I thought moses came before jesus.

Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

My friends, Jesus was a war monger. Jesus would of had stocks in companies who war. Jesus would be killing kids at Kent State in the 60's. Jesus would of voted for Reagan and Nixon. And Bush. I say Jesus will vote for the Mormom. Because the Mormon's are truly in touch with our souls. Who is to say each man cannot have three wives? Joseph Smith said it was ok. Uh-oh, wait, the Christians don't like the Mormons. This is blasphemy.

The following proves that man can talk his way into and out of anything because language is a weak descriptor of reality.

Drum roll...

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.html

In response to Luke 14:26

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.:

Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 4, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

"The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it" - JohnOneFive

Posted by: John One Five | May 4, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I am a Ph.D. chemist and a Christian. One of my beliefs is that God will not force us to be bear false witness against His creation, which is what you would have to do to think the world is young. It is obvious that the earth is old, and that evoluation is the likely process through which God created life. Use the Bible to address who created and why; use science to determine how and when. There is no conflict between science and religion. Once you choose your God, you can then get on with the science of evoluation. Evolutionism is the belief in a god called "chance", the power that created life here on Earth. Christians believe in the God of the Bible, the power that created life here on Earth.

Posted by: Bob Dykstra | May 4, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm so tired of religious fanatics, especially in our government who ignore science for outdated views that should be placed in a historical and cultural perspective, not continually upheld as the truth. Until our politicians start separating church and state, we do not have a true democracy. As a person raised buddhist and catholic, faith is a personal matter that should not be imposed on other people. Spirituality is necessary but not the evalangelical imposition of religious views, which continues to separate and divide hummanity.

Posted by: Denise Hall | May 4, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

tom.w.
Why Gore/Edwards?
Why not Edwards/Gore...Gore should never be president...just another chronic liar...I should know...but Edwards has a chance

Posted by: William Jefferson | May 4, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Four years ago the question about evolution wasn't asked. Four years from now 60% of the candidates will reject evolution.You evolutionists need to catch up with the current science.

Posted by: wScott | May 4, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

My response to this news? Appalled and embarrassed to be part of the American voting body, when it can demonstrate itself to be so ignorant of science and logic.

Belief and opinion are both in abundance, yet by definition neither requires ANYTHING to prove it.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

This whole debate shows us how limited the forum for national discussions of important issues has become. With such limited and faulty examination of ideas, we end up with faulty public and international policy, which in turn is responsible for one disaster after another: terrorism, the poor education of the American youth, a defective energy and environment policy, increasing intrusion of government into our private lives and on and on.

I this case, the focus is Christianity versus Science. I can't even begin to list all the ways that framing a discussion in this way keeps one from seeing truth. First of all, Christianity today doesn't begin to represent what Jesus taught: instead its a mishmosh of rules and dogma created by 2000 years of power brokering in the name of God. Only the weak-minded who want easy answers to everything would accept what the Bible purports to say without critical analysis. Much of it is parables and metaphors that are open to many interpretations, anyway.

Then, there's the issue that this country isn't Christian anymore, anyway. It's pluralistic and has opened its arms to people of all faiths. Other faiths don't necessarily believe in Creation as sold to us by Christianity. In many faiths, there isn't even an anthropomorphized externalized God that people give their power away to, which renders the debate about Creation moot .

And don't forget the separation or church and state. Why does our government seem obsessed with implementing Christian dogma? If you want to see the results of letting religion run the State, you need look no further than Iran. It's no coincidence that our leaders view Iran as evil: they are seeing their own mistakes reflected to them in the mirror. Fundamentalism is ugly and deprives individuals of the fundamental right to flower to their full capabilities, no matter what religion it adheres to.

So, the issue here really is: why is religion such a big issue in the political scene? The answer is an ugly revelation about the dark underbelly of our nation: its tendency towards religious fundamentalism and the resulting righteous entitlement to tell others how to live their lives.

Ultimately, the presidential candidate that rises above this debate is the one that will have the interests of this nation best at heart.

Posted by: Seer | May 4, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

I am a scientist and I believe in God. I think back a hundred years ago, when scientists were discussing whether there was one galaxy or two. The fact today is that there are inumerable galaxies.It changes the way we see things. Science has only a small portion of the facts. I think of the creation story. It is the description of how things came to be. None of us really know exactly how things happen. I don't think either is the complete detailed story. What I do see in both,though, is the consistency in the order of the way things came into being.For myself, I don't buy into the theory of evolution for the following reason. Survival of the fittest. If it is carried out to its conclusion, it would mean that there are some humans who are more fit than others to survive. And that is contrary to what I know about God's care for humanity. All humans are equal, and worthy of survival. I don't throw out the science because it enables us to see how things work, but I believe in the equality of all humankind. We are in this world together.

Posted by: Be open | May 4, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Unbelievable! People, religion is relevant in politics because the MAJORITY says that it is relevant. When the voting public stop voting men of faith into office, then it will become a non-issue. It matters not what anyone in this arena thinks singularly, only the masses matter... and apparently the masses are still predominantly Christian in this country. It may be a silent majority, but it is still clearly a majority.

Posted by: Solomon | May 4, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

The real question here is, "Does it really matter what they believe with regard to evolution?" I think it's about time all of us stop making our voting decisions on such narrow issues. I am a conservative, and I neither believe in evolution nor the 6000 year biblical genenealogical side of things. I believe God created us, but I suspect it was a lot longer ago than 6000 or so years. Am I right? I have no idea, and neither does anyone else, not with absolute certainty. But to me, what these candidates believe about evolution, by itself, has nothing to do with whether or not they are qualified to run this nation of ours. The day there is a candidate who believes exactly the way I do about every issue, well, that could only be me, and I am not planning to run any time soon!

Posted by: Ken | May 4, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

How do you teach something that you can't prove even a little bit. At least with evolution there is some scientific evidence to support it. What evidence is there of God besides a fable that found many many moons later? I think that people only want to believe because they NEED something to believe in and are afraid to NOT believe because they might end up in eternal damnation.

Seriously though, this really has limited effects on our country and it's leader. Who cares who believes in something you can't prove? How is that going to stop oil prices from rising, the war from ending, poverty from striking. There are so many more important things going on in the here and now that aren't being dealt with.

Give me a president with a brain and a real thought process of their own and they've got my vote.

Posted by: Brenda | May 4, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Believing true scientific discoveries does not negate a belief in God. I personally believe HOW God brought everything into being doesn't change the fact THAT He did it. And I doubt that the 90+ percent of people in America who believe in God are going to be offended by a candidate who believes in Him.

Posted by: Lana Cox | May 4, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

It is very important that we not select a person who will govern by religious faith. Otherwise, we can expect endless religious wars, here and the world over. This country should sever all ties with all religious states. Supporting religious state, or becoming one, is a perfect formula for disaster.

Posted by: San Miguel | May 4, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

The fact that this question on evolution was asked proves that religion and politics are connected. No matter how much we try we cannot take religon away from people and politics. Those who say they have no religion, also follow a religion - the religion of self-rule. As a nation we should get back to religious people to lead a religious nation. No religion at all is a big political mistake.

Posted by: all4religion | May 4, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

It is a fool who says in his heart there is no God. All you have to do is see the order there is in this universe to see the hand of God. So all you blind fools keep on denying him and see who will have the last laugh. It won't be you.

Posted by: oscar | May 4, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

"Scientists debate on the details of exactly HOW evolution does what it does, but THAT IT DOES occur is universally accepted by scientists."

Umm, Golgi, I'm not sure what planet you're from, but here on earth, evolution is NOT universally accepted among scientists . . . and I'm not referring to fringe religionists masquerading as scientists. You need to read some journal articles from outside of your narrow socio-political field to find out what real scientists on both sides of the theory actually have to say.

Posted by: nocauseinme | May 4, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Evolution is a proven fact? - you guys are so brainwashed.

Talk about small-minded - it takes a pretty small mind to believe that everything in and outside of the known universe with all of its perfect design and balance of incredible intricate systems just came from nothing. If you really believe that you are the product of our public education system.

Everyone of you will also one day willingly bow down to the Creator who created it all whether you believe you will or not and you will beg for mercy for not giving the Creator the glory He so rightly deserves.

Posted by: evolution-what a joke | May 4, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

A fossil is evidence that something died. No more, no less. THAT's the end of discussion.

Posted by: Larry | May 4, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Science gives the how and religion gives the why? I am not sure why Poseidon created the oceans but I am sure he had a good reason; maybe it was all a plot to annoy Ulysses eventually.

It's astounding that people who do not believe in evolution could even be considered for a political office. The Bible is a story book, like the Koran, the Illyad, the Talmud, etc. It's interesting to read, and some people might find it insightful and comfortable but it's just a mythology book, full of factual errors and contradictions.

The Republican response to growing religious fanaticism around the world seems to be the need for more religious fanaticism right here at home: "We'll defeat the Muslim extremists by putting Christian extremists in charge". That's absurd. European history has shown us that the way to defeat religious extremism is through science and reason. As people know more, they rely less and religion and superstition. And the path to more knowledge is through science, not through blind faith in some old storybook. I say throw the bums out.

Posted by: YA | May 4, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Of course they moved on. Should they have given them the opportunity to elaborate they may have caused a few people to change their minds... now they don't want that do they. If more people voiced what they believe we would be in a better place. All of you that doubt the power of Jesus Christ will one day truly understand what is fact and what is fiction.

Why they didn't ask them to elaborate all summed up:

For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

Luke 21:15

Posted by: Jason | May 4, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Chalk one up for mankind's ability to hold onto irrational, superstitious, beliefs in the face of clear scientific evidence and rational thought.

Posted by: Neal Perrine | May 4, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if America really needs another president who does not believe in evolution. These men all believe in the power of science - they get medicine when they are ill from a doctor and not a witch doctor, they drive cars, fly in airplanes, etc. etc. all the result of scientific theory and practice, yet when it comes to evolution they cherry pick and say they don't believe it. Private belief is one thing, to fly in the face of evidence and dismiss the science of evolution just because it doesn't fit narrow ideology is another, and not the mark of someone who would make a rational president. America is world leader, derision of the holder of the office of president does not make America strong in the eyes of the world. As we have seen the celebration of ignorance does not become the office of president.

Posted by: James | May 4, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

It's hard not to think that the "raise your hand if you don't believe in evolution" moment was designed to make some candidates look foolish. As this piece notes, it just came across bizarrely, in particular because the candidates were not given a chance to explain their thoughts on the subject. It's a big subject, and a simple "I believe" or "I don't believe" is insufficient. After all, evolution is a scientific theory, not an article of faith. Right?

Posted by: Sean | May 4, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

The NATURAL mind cannot understand the things of God. Call us names, call us ignorant and uneducated, and we love you anyway.

Posted by: Paul | May 4, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

it's sad but i dought that this country is ready to elect a non believer as president so everyone has to at least acknowledge god's presence, that's why mccain's answer sound like he was playing both sides. evolution is no longer a theory it has graduated to facts and how we know that? it's true because our brain's evolved so we can notice it's presence

Posted by: Jay | May 4, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Adam and Eve made fruit salad with the dinosaurs

Posted by: Oliver | May 4, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Science is the foundation of our incredible civilization, and still our "leaders" have the gall to act as if science is some kind of epiphenomena, a whimsical belief system we can choose to accept or deny. These men have no idea of how scientific ideas are produced.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Man! If Huckabee, Brownback or Tancredo were to get the nomination, let alone be the president, we would be the laughing stock of the world.

Posted by: JVT | May 4, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

For those that "question" evolution, I have one thing for them to explain to me ... fossils! Maybe we need to teach a few science courses in law school!? (End of discussion ...)

Posted by: LJB | May 4, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes, the brilliant, cutting-edge intellect of the Republicans shows that they are prepared to lead us through the 21st century.

Posted by: Buzz | May 4, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure if you asked the candidates what our economic or military policies should be they would have somewhat informed opinions, but when it comes to making hard decisions they would defer to the acknowledged experts, i.e. Ph.D economists and generals. Yet for some reason when it comes to science and especially biology, these guys have ill-informed opinions and can't even acknowledge that their beliefs go against what the overwhelming majority of the experts believe. Their willful ignorance in this area may never directly influence what they do as President, but it says a lot about their character and their leadership style. The last 5 years are a great example of what happens when you get a POTUS who listens only to God, and ignores the experts.

Posted by: Jaybob | May 4, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

It is a sad reflection on the state of education in this nation when a sizable percentage of the population remains ignorant and fearful of science. The scientific method of inquiry requires us to use our rational minds to explain the natural world, in a logical and consistent fashion, that is subject to objective findings from verifiable experiments. This is about facts that you cannot argue away.

What this reflects is that a large portion of our society is fearful of the facts and has not learned to use the rational part of their mind to discern that the question of evolution is not at all at odds with religious belief. That choosing between evolution and religion is a false choice. That a literal interpretation of the Bible is ignorant folly and does not follow the will of God.

Thus the evolution issue in America truly proves that we are no better, no farther along in humanistic terms, than the Muslim fundamentalists we wage war against. That many of these so-called Christians simulaneously take the irreconcilable political positions of anti-abortion while promoting the death penalty is a testament to their utter ignorance of Christian values, or any consistent value system. The term "pro-life" stands for the practice of necrophelia--see Iraq, health care, violence, and the idea of punishment.

I respectfully submit that the hard religious right is in reality an American Talibanism waiting to happen. What do minds that do not respect human enlightenment do when they come to power? Squelch dissent, abdicate the rule of law, promote cronyism, practice malfeasance, promote corruption. Welcome to the USA of the 21st century under GWB. Now you understand how Nazism could take over Germany.

Posted by: AgentG | May 4, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Why this constant reference to "white guys"
like it's a bad thing?

More racism from the "liberal" inclusive groups?

Posted by: Ponsonby | May 4, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone think God or Science will care who you vote for? Nope...only the special interest groups care. So, pick a special interest and vote for their candidate.

Posted by: Kevin | May 4, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

The posts here are hilarious. "Evolution is a demonstrable fact" and "anti-science" are comically preposterous. Break your chains of inculcation; evolution - as a theory of origin - is a fully, scientifically debunked myth. Open your mind, view science as a method and not a religion, and THINK FOR YOURSELF! Evolution is a 19th century false religion that has been completely exposed as such.

Posted by: Larry | May 4, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

By the way... the reason the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution can be clearly seen by reading this blog... the evolution of this blog has moved towards a constant state of disorder... in other words, not getting better or more improved, much like humanity!

Posted by: Tymonator | May 4, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

wow, the lack of any understanding at all in this comment thread is pathetic. whats scary is that people like most of the above are trying to reshape our society into a cesspool of idiocy and immorality.

as far as the "cardboard cutout" candidates are concerned, they are not the mud puddles that you would like to believe, but the scions of the same type of real men that founded this country, not the whiney, submissive, power-hungry scared rats of the dem party. not scared to stand up and say what they believe.

oh and btw, a woman in power is a sign of weakness.

Posted by: right | May 4, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

MOSES-
A true believer KNOWS that Moses didn't part the Red Sea, but rather God parted the Red Sea. Moses was just the vessel in which God chose to perform a miracle. This doesn't mean that God needs a vessel to perform a miracle, just that it makes the miracle that much more amazing. All things are possible throught christ jesus. Also, Bravo for those who don't buy into the lie of evolution and Bravo to those who don't support evolution or stem cell research. To those of you who do, I will pray that God opens your eye's that you may see the light.

Posted by: Life inChrist | May 4, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

They laughed at Isaiah when he said the world was round (Is. 40:22 c. 750 B.C.), but then science eventually realized they were wrong. They laughed at Job when he said (from the middle east) that the oceans in the north freeze over, but science eventually journeyed up there and found him to be correct. They laughed at Moses for quarantining people with infectious diseases 3000 years before germs were discovered. They laugh now at these three men and say they are not worthy to serve their country because they believe in what Job said, what Isaiah said, and what Moses said. History repeats itself.

Posted by: Steve | May 4, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

It seems remarkable how we have candidates and a percentage of the American Public that seem more comfortable during the era of the Salem Witch Trials then in country where our economic competitiveness depends on rational reasoning rather than a Theocracy. What may be even more scary is the latest extensive polling of Latino's in America Belief System (see http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=75).

However, these republican views are so extreme and fearful that they finally can do more to galvanize the educated to wake up and take back our country before we are back in the Stone Age than to bring out the Theocratic Base.

Posted by: Joe | May 4, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I neglected to mention that I am a registered Democrat, though I do not vote straight ticket.

Posted by: TraumaDoc | May 4, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Looking at that group, they give monkeys a bad name.

Posted by: Tork | May 4, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

as a follow-up to my above post, for those who don't 'believe' in creation, i think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who actually believes the creation of the earth took 6 days (144 hours). it's genreally accepted that these 'days' are not measured by a single rotation of the earth.

Posted by: lauren | May 4, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Wow, i am shocked that 30 percent swung that way. I think the party is coming undone?

Posted by: http://affadshaikh.blogspot.com | May 4, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Only in America! It says something about the deterioration of education in this country that three presidential candidates from a mainstream party could publicly display such ignorance. I can't think of any other major country where that could happen.

Posted by: Richard Mendales | May 4, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Welcome to the Republican party, please set your watch back 200 years.

Posted by: Webcretin | May 4, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the how and why theory. During medical school, internship, residency, etc, I saw many great things, and many horrific things. This has been furthered in my practice now. To reiterate McCain's comment about the hand of God, I can see how science builds the natural world, but can't fathom it without a master.

Posted by: TraumaDoc | May 4, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Believe it or not, everything in this universe is created by GOD, that includes you and I.
Those who have experienced GOD in a real and personal way, will agree, those who haven't may not.
There is no need for argument because,
Any which way you think, HE will still have HIS way in HIS world!!!
GOD bless America.

Posted by: John Koshy, Canada | May 4, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Hey evolutionists - get a clue scientifically. It's a THEORY. No transitionary species ever found, and no real proof. Talk about a belief system that requires faith. You folks just don't WANT to believe in the Bible or in the God of the bible.

Let's get real please.

Now, that would be a real "Inconvenient Truth"...

Posted by: gs | May 4, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

It's absolutely inexcusable for a candidate in this day and age to openly say that he doesn't believe in evolution. In the coming decades, government support for science and technology will continually grow in importance: we cannot allow ourselves to elect a candidate who puts religion above the scientific method.

Posted by: Mike Fallopian | May 4, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

a talking chimp in the white house is proof enough of evolution.

too bad the current trend is only ignorant incompetent fools run for president.

Posted by: David Guttlieb | May 4, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

This just illustrates the sad state of learning in our country. It should be an immediate disqualifier for anyone running for any public office - unless of course you live in theocracy like Iran.

It is beyond high time to dismiss such idiocy as exactly what it is - A wild imagination!

Posted by: Gregg W. | May 4, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Posted by: Craig | May 4, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I won't support a candidate that is so superstitious; it doesn't make for reasoned decisions.

Posted by: marc vandenplas | May 4, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

none of the individuals who proclaimed that they were "creationists" will ever be elected president so it is really a moot point

however, parts of America are clearly different from others, and i find it hard to believe that we will be the United States as we know it, 200 years from now, when approximately 30 to 40% of our population in 2007 believes that the world was created in 7 days; it seems to me that one part of our population is getting smarter and the other dumber at an increasingly large rate, and,in my opinion, chaos will eventually ensue

Posted by: never be president | May 4, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Just wondering how the creationists will split time amongst all the theological and mythological explanations for the creation of the earth.

There's a heck of a lot of cultures out there in this world with just as many stories about how species came into existence.

Strangely, across these lands, there is only one valid scientific argument, transcending cultural and religious bounds. Coincidence? I doubt it....

Posted by: Tired of ID | May 4, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

The universe is vast, beings inhabit many planets. Wur prime directive is not to interfere with the early stages of a new planet or society. (With this one exception, if they have humanoid women, I get to have relations with them)

In the vastness of space, it's difficult to imagine we're the only planet populated by the Christian concept of God.

Yet, if you believe in Christianity, the rest of the universe is doomed to an eternity of hell, because they've not embraced Jesus as their lord and savior.

Babies, unbaptized, spend all of eternity in
"Limbo" (though there is no reference to "Limbo" in the Bible.

The acceptance of the Bible as a literal how to manual fails to take into account so many variables.

There were no copy machines. The Bibles were hand written, usually in monasteries by different factions within the same religion. The biases of the writer either directly or indirectly is more likely than not a part of the scriptures.
The King James version, stemmed from Martin Luther's interpretation of the Bible, which at that time, was viewed as heresy. However, King Henry VIII, pouting because the Pope wouldn't grant him a divorce or annulment, created his own church, using Luther's Bible in the beginning.

The Catholic Church, long the keeper of what they portray as the original scriptures, admit to many of the books of the Gospel not being included .

If you truly believe in Jesus, you should throw out everything in the Old Testament, for it was Jesus intent to clarify man had gone astray, and He was here to pass along the Father's messages. They were very simple, render unto Cesar what is Cesar's, whenever two or more are gathered in my name, so shall the Lord be present, love thy neighbor as thy loves thy self, turn the other cheek,and give to the poor and it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle, than a rich man to make it to heaven, and the most important, judge not least ye be judged.

So to all of you self proclaimed "Christians" stop your hate of those you perceive to be "liberals". Your hatred defies the word of your Lord and continues to provide doubters a basis for finding you hypocritical.

As for the universe,it keeps on expanding. Where is the universe and what is it expanding into?

Are the planets nothing more than what we see and define as molecules which make up a larger body? And we are a cancer destroying our host? The expansion of the universe nothing more then the body we inhabit getting older and fatter?

Its for these answers I will continue with my mission, even though our five year mission was cut short. And if I continue to receive a little alien love along the way, so much the better.

Kirk out.

Posted by: James T. Kirk | May 4, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Evolution is so obvious that some people are blind to it.

Posted by: John in Attleboro Mass | May 4, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I think the only problem people have today is what started the evolution? That's the only thing i'd like to ask anyone who is 100% evolutionist. If you can give me a scientific answer, i would never even say a peep about creationism, BUT, i believe something, God, Allah or whatever, created something, then evolution did the rest.

Posted by: Dick Plaus | May 4, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give to God what is God's. That is how I view my Christianity! Jesus was "A"political and although I, like most every other human being allow what I believe to influence my worldview I recognize that paying taxes is just a part of living in theis great country... if their is another system that is embraced I will still pay my taxes... as far as laws go, I think there are all kinds of bogus laws... Why should I buckly myself up in a car? Why do I not have the right to choose? If the government can prove that by me being in a car wreck my dead carcus would be thrown from the automobile and become a deadly projectile that could endanger the lives of other citizens then I would agree that I should have to buckle up. Problem is... I still buckle up because I don't want a fine. Why is it ok for the government to impose that moral but not the moral of killing an unborn baby... which by the way "Fetus" in latin means. Furthermore, I am sorry to say we are so off thread and I still feel bad for those three guys who stood up for what they believe... and now much lesser men critisize them for.

Posted by: Tymonator | May 4, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I think we live in a time when people can't put forth their real beliefs.

I say. Just say what u believe. Dont try to hide behind foggy answers. If u don't believe in God.....or evolution. Fine!

Hopefully we wont see u any where near the whitehouse.

Posted by: Yousuf | May 4, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

RCK,
Your typing monkeys is an example that is used over and over by evolutionists.
"What if we randomly chose leters out of a bag? Over time we could spell a word. Eventually, we could even make a sentence. Given infinite time we could and would eventually write a novel."
It is completely irrelevant. The letters don't make words without a language. What if a nonenglish speaking person saw the letters. Would they say anything? It is a language that makes the novel not the letters. Life is a language written, designed and created by God.
All of these postings about evolution being science are ridiculous. By definition evolution is not science until it can be observed. I'm not talking about mutation evidence; mutating does not mean evolving. When someone makes life from nonliving things I will start to listen. Even then, to say, "I took my years of study, carefully set up an experiment just the right way with my high tech, expensive resources, zapped something in just the right spot at just the right time and proved that life was created BY CHANCE!!" Funny when you really think about it isn't it?

Posted by: chad | May 4, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

How many of y'all evolutionists were there 6,000 years ago? But we "fundamentalists" have an eyewitness account!

Posted by: TR | May 4, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

to begin, I hardly find one's belief (or lack there of) in evolution a means of determining ability to govern a nation. but more to the point, i don't believe the two stories to be mutually exclusive. there's no reason to 'pick a side'. the story of creation in the book of Genesis explains the process of creation in six divine days. evolution tells the same story but speaks with regard to earthly years. the two are not inconsistent, but somehow serve to drive a massive wedge between science and religion.

Posted by: lauren | May 4, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm sitting here reading how you all treat each other...with utter disrespect...THAT'S what's wrong with this damn country, YOU!

All of you are shoving beliefs onto each other. None of you are better than anyone else. Bunch of hypocrites...

Posted by: rob | May 4, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I am happy these candidates came out and said they do not believe in evolution. It makes my elimination process all that easier. It is amazing, that to this day still, we allow religious superstition and ancient paradigms to dominate our thiniking. It is the couch on which progress languishes.

Posted by: Daniel | May 4, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Can we please not elect a retarded president?

Please. Someone with an education would be great

Posted by: Oh my f'in god | May 4, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

First of all, I do believe in God. However, I do not believe that a presidential debate is the proper forum to discuss it. Ask questions about the welfare of our country. Nothing more to say.

Posted by: Gary Grant | May 4, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I didn't watch the debate but were democrats asked the same question ? Its only fair.

Posted by: Mark Perrone | May 4, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Why believe in evolution? Why believe in any empirical science? Just because it is astoundingly useful in understanding and manipulating our world? Revealed knowledge is obviously just as legitimate. Maybe more so. Thank god we have potential leaders who have the courage to place their confidence in obscure ancient texts rather than the insidious findings of obviously liberal scientific research. Does this mean the Pixies in my back yard are really there?

Posted by: Entripic | May 4, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

JUST KEEP IN MIND, THERE IS NO PROVABLE EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. JUST THEORY. I am not saying which is right, but I just want to make the declaration. Considering records were kept at the beginning, everything is just a theory.

Posted by: David | May 4, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

There was no follow-up because Chris Matthews had to get to more pressing questions, such as whether anyone wanted to see Bill Clinton living in the white house again.

Posted by: Joan | May 4, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

The bizarre thing is that Brownback is Catholic, and Pope John Paul II gave a speech about 10 years ago indicating evolution is not incompatible with the Catholic faith.

Posted by: Jay | May 4, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

WOW!
Is this the most important question for a president? I wonder if the candidates, who were not allowed to comment, but raise hands, meant "evolution" as a body of evidence, or as a paradigm for scientific theory or as an article of secualarism (i.e. there is not God or "secular naturalism") the Term and it's adherents mean many things by the term, as is true for Creation. (by the way E. O. Wilson, confirmed "evolutionist" uses the term Creation freely.)
Let's skip the hand raising questions!

Posted by: David C. | May 4, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Ok Tymonator. Your a rupblican, right. By that justification all our laws are from the creator. How do you feel about the irs? Do you believe the irs is a valid and great system, many rebuplicans want to eliminate it.

How can you pick and choose what "God" wants? Who makes these calls? You cannot pick what is valid not not valid and follow what you want. How many laws has teh right violated in the last 6 years? Whay are they not being tried for treason?

Posted by: rufsu1133 | May 4, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Wow rufus1133 you almost sound like the warrior/patriot!

Posted by: Tymonator | May 4, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

The Seperation of Church and State... hmmm it seems as if I remember a little rebuttle that Jefferson wrote clarifying that it is not the Church that should stay out of the States affairs, rather it is the State that should stay out of Church affairs! And whether your want to admit it or not EVERY single law is based on some sort of "moral". Therefore, somebody's beliefs get turned into laws that inevitably affect you and I.

Posted by: Tymonator | May 4, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Its amazing how everyone takes the "Separation of Church and State" out of context. The founding fathers wanted to protect against a Theocracy, not faith. No where in the constitution does it say that a religious man can not hold office. As a matter of fact I believe those same founding fellows relied on "Devine Providence" quite a bit when forming our government... and they did ok. the athiests survived that, they'll survive this.

Posted by: Solomon | May 4, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

No Tymonator. What Bush did was an ATTEMPT at fascsm. He lost. the right lost. Now we can move forward as a nation. We need to start by telling the american people, whould are supposed to run this country, the truth

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

No creationist here has made a claim that isn't already in the "Index of Creationist Claims." It's a list of hundreds of common arguments. Each claim is refuted, with links to research papers and additional evidence.

These are the claims that are so old that there's been time to write books on them, and then write books about those books.

And yet the claims still get made.

If you make one of the claims without checking to see if it's been refuted since it was first made in, say, 1910 or 1950, then you're lying.

For example:

Evidence for macroevolution is written in the genetic code of all creatures.

Fossils *don't* date the rocks.

Transitional species? Even without genetic evidence, there are fossils you have to lie about if you say there is no evidence. The whale set, for example, is quite good.

Posted by: Kathryn a biologist | May 4, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

We can't do that soloman. We have a little thing called seperation of church and state in this country. Your or my religon SHOULD not effect the next man. The president following religous rules violates that seperation. The problem as I see it, I'm a Christian, is the right has twisted the christian religon. They have preachers out there preaching that God wants you to be rich. The right has people out there saying God would say we need to go to war. That is were the problem lies. It's not as simple as you do your thin gI'll d mine. The right has trampled that belief. That's why they continue with gay marraige and abortion. A woman can't ahve an abortion because god said so. That takes away from choice. That is not a christian principle. There needs to be that choice. Again, the right have twisted my religon.

They follow money, war, hate, intolerance, jealousy, stand on global warming. None of these are christian principles. They have tried to destroy my faith. I'm glad real christians now know what time it is. I hope they don't continue to follow these false-flag christians. I call them false prophets

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Yes we do need the warrior/patriot and the thinker/revolutionary... the only problem I have with that is when the thinker/revolutionary believes that they are the only one that knows right for this country... Isn't it pretty revolutionary for Bush to lead a war on "Terrorism"?

Posted by: Tymonator | May 4, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Just because someone has faith does not make them, by default, an idiot. Just because someone is a secularist they are not automatically evil. America is supposed to be a melting pot that accepts everyone. Vote your conscience people and leave the inflamatory rhetoric out of it.

Posted by: Solomon | May 4, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

It's almost impossible to witness, even second hand through the eyes of the media, the carnage wrought world wide and still believe in a benevolent God who wants the best for his subjects. For a more believable theory than creationism or evolution, I think I'll go back to Erich Von Daniken's (sp?) "In Search of Ancient Astronauts" in which he propounds that being who live in the clouds and are far advanced technologically would appear as "gods" to the ancients of earth. Indeed, we could even go so far as to examine the possibility of previous civilizations on earth having "advanced" to the point of genetic engineering and other medical marvels, as our current "civilization" seems to have done, which led to the planet's destruction as the culture clash became too great to overcome without a worldwide. That is easier to imagine than an immaculate conception which was not the hand of God, but of a (lower-case) god and in-vitro fertilization. The farther we "advance" the more we look to science as the answer to all of our problems. But even those viewed as Gods, I'd wager, would have still more questions about the origin of the universe we all live in.

Posted by: J. Maibie | May 4, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

America is not based on only war. Listen to this statement because it is very important for you.

America is based on two people. The
1. warrior/patriot and the 2.thinker/revolutionary

You cannot have one without the other. You cannot kill the warrior, needed for PEACKEEPING. You need the intellectual because without him you have nazi germany. You have a facsist sate of control with no freedom. America is not yours. America is not mine. America is a movement for the world. Stop being selfish. This is not a monarchy. This is not an empire. You need both the warrior and the idea man. America is nothing without both. The right is destroying what this country is. I think you people who are first to kill are facsits. OOOHHH. Before you call me a coward. I was army infantry 11b. Now what

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Kenigan: Sceince, happily, is not based on fundamental analogies to driving a car. Not all analogies are enlightening.

Posted by: Ippolit | May 4, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I know... that's why it's called Sarcasm rufus1133! I am merely pointing out that people are set in their ways and belittling three men for what they believe is just a pathetic excuse to try and validate what they believe.

Posted by: Tymonator | May 4, 2007 3:01 PM | Report abuse

That's not a good reasonable debate Tymonator. I know that's what the right wants. Settle this once and for all right? Who's country is it, right? LEt's kill each other to find out who wins? That is why the right is down in this country. You cannot ATTACK everything and everyone who disagree's with you or your movement

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

oops,

Wrong subject. Please forgive me, I have no light in here. Dunno who turn out the light, when I was in the middle reading. And I can't find that damn switch to turn on the sunlight.

Posted by: bob | May 4, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Bushtopia is based on a breath-taking talent for ignoring evidence staring you in the face - thus Iraq, global-warming dithering, and semi-intelligent design, etc., etc., etc.

Posted by: Lee in Downey | May 4, 2007 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Man, some poor political staffers are going to have a dreary time sorting the dross from the gold on this board today.

Oh well, that's what you get when 3 of 10 presidential candidates don't believe in evolution.

Posted by: Golgi | May 4, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Maybe what the country ought to do is split down the center with Libs on the left and Conservs on the right and then we could have another Civil War! Hmm... I don't think it would be much of a war though because all you libs gave up your guns in exchange for sitting around and attempting to point out how ignorant three men are because they answered a question that to them may or may not point to a Constitutional right that they have as Citizens of our great country!

Posted by: Tymonator | May 4, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I couldn't help myself... With the monkeys typing, and the jigsaw puzzles, I had to come up with one of my own: When you get in a car, and turn the key, the engine comes on. If you don't want it to hit nobody, then you gotta steer that baby. The car don't get there by coincidence. There has to be a person turning the key and paying for gas. Y'all dumb liberals just don't get it. Looking in the mirror in the morning should be enough proof that God exists. We were made in His image, you see it in front of your face. Except for hemapherdites.

Posted by: kenagain | May 4, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I hear you edgar. So your saying, "they are dylusional and proud of it." They have their convictions and they are stand by them. Understandable. I think they should be pointed out, though.

My point was, just because I say I can fly doesn't make it reality. There are a few factors that would have a say about that. If someone says EVOLUTION isn't real, well there are a few FACTS that would hamper that arguement. :)

Posted by: rufs1133 | May 4, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

G -

You had an interesting post in which you asked what non-believers have to live for except eat, sleep and procreate.

As a non-believer I would respond that that's all anyone has to live for. The fact that I also choose to live my life morally and equitably to those around me even though I don't harbor a hope that when I die a make-believe cloud city awaits me doesn't preclude me from entering in this type (or any type) of debate. So - I would respond if YOU need that fairytale system in place to make it through your day, then best of luck. You're always welcome to the party.

Oh and thanks for whoever posed the Jesus as moderator post. Good point.

Keep it up Edgar, witty sarcasm is still witty.

Posted by: a reasonable person | May 4, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Now Republicans know how Democrats felt in 1988 faced with a choice from among the "Seven Dwarfs" then running.

An uninspiring field of small men and smaller minds.


And I'm a Republican.

I won't be voting with my party.

Posted by: TK Major | May 4, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if the three disavowers of evolution would want the FDA to test new drugs on, say, kangaroos as opposed to monkeys. Since they feel that we are not related to other primates, what difference would it make to them? Or, when push comes to shove, would they back down? I would bet on the latter.

Posted by: plh | May 4, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Fox news is on the air because the fools need a place to hang out. Kind of like a neighborhood hangout where the kids can speak in tongues without being hassled.

Rufus1133,
If you say you can fly through the air like superman, then you are saying this because you believe in it. And I admire your statement. You can try it or not try it. It is like the Bible, people say it is the exact word of God. The golden statue is more credible God to me. Yes, yes, yes, Charlton Heston would eventually throw his tablets on me while I was partying with Edgar G. But Moses was violent in that way. How many head did he crack with those tablets?

Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 4, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Ultimately it takes faith to believe in what you don't know. We don't now that the universe came from nothing. We don't know that an intelligent designer created the earth. Both options seem a little far fetched.
It takes less faith to accept a single group's theory or belief than to think it through on your own. If you accept the principles of evolution because "science" tells you it's true, you are no more noble or intelligent than an individual who believes a twelve headed snake vomited up the universe in all it's glory.
How does a person's faith or lack of faith in evolution affect his/her ability to lead a country? It seem like some individuals are threatened by people who don't fit into their group way of thinking. Neither party practices tolerance. Although only one party claims to.

Posted by: Robo | May 4, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

That's funny bob :). I also heard of a story regarding Hitler's mom. She dreamt she was going to birth a rabid wolf that would devour the world. Against these protests she had the baby. She named him adolf which meant Wolf in german. I wonder i hitler would be pro-life or pro choice.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Arguing online is much like being in the Special Olympics... You might win but you still look retarded!

Oh, i'm sorry if I offended you libs by using the word retarded or compared what is going on here to something that looks retarded but last I checked I am still entitled to my free speech!

I say let the candidates have their opinions much the same way you have yours... the fact is, us Repubs are the ones having larger families these days and you libs are a dying breed!

Posted by: Tymonator | May 4, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

GOO? Your wife asked a scientist about where the Goo came from? And he couldn't answer?

Huh, maybe I'm missing something here, but in your posting did you include how GOD got here?

I'd like to hear from all of you faith based creationist to answer which came first, the chicken or the egg?

In other words, if God created man, who created God?

It's much more likely that man created God to explain away all of the laws of nature we did not yet know. For God was not the first deity.

I believe the Christian version of God required that man put no other God above him.

I'm also curious to hear why the Christian God is so insecure, not only do we have his demand that we place no other God above him, but the silly Ten Commandments being referred to repeatedly only 6 refer to human interaction the other four sound like cult leader's attempt to control the masses. Lets go through them.
1. You shall have no other Gods but me. (Sounds like God recognizes there may be other Gods.)
2. You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it. (Humm,Catholic Saints anyone? Sound like rules for being in a high school click?)
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God. (Certainly thinks highly of himself)
4. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.(My favorite, and one that all religious people should follow. Practice your faith on the Sabbath, in your house of worship, and leave the rest of us alone. Oh, don't just go to church for a few hours on your Sabbath devote the entire day. Maybe that will give you your fill and the rest of us alone!)
5. Respect your father and mother. (Shouldn't there be an escape clause if your parents abuse you?)
6. You must not kill. (I find this one to be the least practiced in history as there does not seem to be any addendum or codicils to this one yet blood as been spilled in the name of God as long as history has been recorded.)
7. You must not commit adultery. (Oh Christian Right , hypocrisy be your true name. Newt, Mccain, or Gulliani, anyone?)
8. You must not steal. (Okay this one is way too easy, this administration as stolen and plundered through crony-ism billions of accounted for sums of money via Iraq, and all politicians from either party don't seem able to understand this one)
9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbour. (Alberto Gonzales, Rove, Scooter etc. . )
10. You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour. (Isn't the foundation of capitalism creating a need to keep up with Jones'?)

Why does God sound like an insecure Hollywood star in the first 4?

Shouldn't we change it to the 6 commandments? Then actually follow them?

Posted by: Tom Paine | May 4, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

"Nurse, schedule the procedure immediately"

"But Doctor, baby Saddam is already 6 months"

"Well, the mother has predict that he will grow up to be a rebellious and violent teenager. And call the cops on those pro-lifers outside."

Posted by: bob | May 4, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"If they see us leave now, or set a timetable to leave (always a bad strategy to tell the enemy how long they need to wait), they will declare a god-given victory and their numbers against us will grow. If you think Christians are bad, wait till you have these guys coming for your head, or blowing stuff up all around you. ;-P"

Chris, no I don't think christians are bad, I hope I didn't send that message.

Interesting though what you say that "if they see us leave now..." The problem is no matter when we leave, 2 months, 2 years or 10 years, they will still claim victory.

This is what worries me, there are now more people siding with the insergents (those planting IED's are mostly insergents not terrorists, and according to the CIA, there were about 5,000 members of terrorist orginizations in Iraq before the war and now there are estimated to be 20,000. We ARE making the problem worse.

The Iraq mess/civil war is going to happen no matter when we leave. In addition we really can't afford the billion$ of dollars we are spending we can't afford to do it for much longer. Might as well bring our boys home now.

Posted by: cjackson | May 4, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Edgar, your mockery only undermines you. You can bash us all you want while proclaiming equality under a banner of peace and love for all, and it will always reek of hypocrasy.

Posted by: Chris | May 4, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

That is an ignorant statment edgar. You think they are brave for making a statement that is not widly haeld? That is why Fox "newS" is still on the air. It's not that their speading lies and propoganda. They are brave for questioning reality, right edgar? If I say I can fly throught the air like superman, I'm I brave for disputing reality or am I dylusional?

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Who here believes Bush was created by an intelligent designer? Who here believe the intelligent designer was having an off day when he created Republicans? Who here is making a killing on their Raytheon stock and who believes that Jesus would support companies that have a financial stake in creating more wars to justify profits? Who here believes that beleiving in creationism or evolution makes any difference to their daily lives? Who here believes in the invisible man called Christ? Who here is insulted by science? Who here will vote for Huckabee? Who here speaks in tongues for an hour at a stretch?

Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 4, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

The GOP won the illiterate moron vote last night.

Posted by: Christian in NYC | May 4, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Further, I have read a lot of posts that say something like "there is so much complexity and variation that science cannot even begin to..." to which I reply:

1. Just because you are unaware of the many, many ways that science explains nature, does not mean that there aren't many many ways in which science explains nature.

2. Just because science hasn't explained everything to your complete and utter satisfaction, does not mean that what it has explained is wrong.

3. Just because there is an arguable gap in scientific knowledge does not madate that God lives in that gap. It is perfectly plausible that there are things we just haven't quite figured out yet that are not a result of the Almighty's direct tinkering.

Posted by: ippolitq | May 4, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

They obviously reflect the ignorance of the core republicna vote.

Posted by: Ken | May 4, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Thank you independent thinker for your thoughtful post. You articulated the debate nicely.

Posted by: cjackson | May 4, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"The person who argues with the Bible in hand is unarmed." - Jesus

I think it takes guts to say you don't believe in evolution. That is true faith and sticking to your principles. If this is what Huckabee believes, good for him. You have to admit the kid's got guts. Not an intelligent man, but gutsy. All the more to vote for him. I would hope that if a true powerful Christian becomes president that he/she rounds up the non-believers. Here is what I would do:

1. Round up all non-Christians and send them off to Greenland.

2. The Bible replaces the Bill of Rights.

3. Make all women servants, take away their freedom of choice and freedom to vote. That'll learn (sic)them...

4. Continue to blame Chavez for our oil woes. Which recent oil company had the biggest profits in any corporation's history?

5. Export all US jobs to China and India. They certainly have the manpower and are willing to work twelve hour days for Ganesh and Buddha.

6. Make speaking in tongues are a requirement to graduate high school. Please, a 30 minutes time limit to each session.

7. Again, get rid of the non-believers. Damn Liberals.

Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 4, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

It would be a crime to say that homosexuality is immoral- even if you are just quoting the Bible.
I will go a step further- as a Christian I am saying remove religion and focus on women and children, or even mankind in general. Currently, by law- everyone is to be accorded equal protection under the law. Meaning- if someone kills someone else, they should be held equally accountable. This bill would afford someone a special "more protected status" if they were a homosexual. I think they should be given equal protection under the law- the same protection given to you or I. Do we need a law that would add 20 years to someone's sentence if they attack a homosexual? From a logical standpoint it makes no sense.

More on www.worldnetdaily.com

Just because something sounds good on the surface doesn't mean you have to swallow it all from one news source. The net is a big place, stop paying attention to reality TV and challenge what you are told.

Look at the mess we made in Iraq. I, as a disabled vet am all for getting the heck out of the middle east and cutting ties to big oil- but there are MANY stories of troops doing incredible things there. The reason why they face many deaths and challenges is that they were denied adequate support from the beginning. We made a mess and need to clean it up. Blame who you want later. By studying how terror groups work, and the recent statements of insurgent leaders- they are fully intent on "surging" after we leave. Regardless of what we were told our best interests were, it is beyond any reasonable doubt in the best interests of America to clean up our mess. If they see us leave now, or set a timetable to leave (always a bad strategy to tell the enemy how long they need to wait), they will declare a god-given victory and their numbers against us will grow. If you think Christians are bad, wait till you have these guys coming for your head, or blowing stuff up all around you. ;-P

Posted by: Chris | May 4, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

I agree you can't get nothing out of something. "The Big Bang"

With that said, it is blasphamous to say you are speaking for that "something"

The right has betrayed the christian cause. To speak for god is blashpamy. ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 4, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"I believe that the three who raised their hands were lying."

Why?

Posted by: Golgi | May 4, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

From those who say evolution is "theory" and not proven... I'm always curious to know if they also believe the Bible is proven fact? Here is where you see critical thinking fly out the window and this is why these men can NEVER be President. We've already seen the effect of one like this. (Note: I do not believe my Christian "faith" and evolution are mutually exclusive).

Posted by: LizardKing | May 4, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I believe that the three who raised their hands were lying.

Posted by: bookkeepersson | May 4, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"Please realize that you are being just as ignorant in thinking that evolution MUST BE FACT as someone who thinks CREATION MUST BE FACT."

You are flat out wrong in this assertion. Do you want to know why? Because evoltion is science based. The process of scientific discovery has built in adjustments so that when we learn more we get closer and closer to the actual fact or proof of something.

As our understanding of evolution deepens our ability to explain it in more detail will be available.

Posted by: cjackson | May 4, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm an independent politically because I'm an independent thinker. I can look at both sides and make my own judgement. It is clear to me, kingofzouk, that science is real. I'm convinced. There is such outstanding evidence in the authenticity of science today, which is based on the very principle of initial doubt, that I trust it completely when scientists en masse report the same things.

Now that we know science is real, and that scientific results are heavily scrutinized before concluding to be true, I can then take that information and say, okay, it's fine to teach alternative views, but only when children reach the proper age to distinguish the difference between a fact and a point of view. If you know how to teach pig farming and want to, fine. I wouldn't object you teaching my kid about that, and about the different ways it could be done. But on creationism, and the rejection of evolution, to me I have used my adult mind to see both sides and I know that evolution is real -- too many artifacts, scientists, and mathematical experiments prove that it exists for me to deny it or to believe in the six days claim. I trust the people and machines that give me this data because I'm sitting typing a blog entry on a computer -- a man made machine that is based on technology which comes from math which is a foundation of SCIENCE.

Instead of saying that creationism means being a devoted worshiper, why don't we thank God for finally providing us with tools and minds that helped to explain so many of the things that baffled our predecessors? Can we prove, beyond our faith, that creationism happened or didn't happen? We already use science to prove that evolution happened, and while maybe there are holes to fill, does that discount all of the present evidence? Not at all. This is the study of past to present life, not the conduction of a trial. Our children should not be subjected to ideas that will corrupt their abilities to make personal judgements at college age. Science is evolution -- keep that in the classroom. Creationism is belief - that should stay in sunday school if it's going to be taught at all, and NEVER a substitute to science. If new proven science comes along that contradicts old proven science, the community adapts accordingly. Maybe it wouldn't be as bad as everyone thinks to apply that same philosophy to religion.

We are a progressive species with cherished beliefs that may be difficult to adapt in light of our (well some of our) developing minds. We grow smarter and get mad at each other when our brains catch up to our beliefs that explained the unknown. Some people didn't believe the Holocaust could be happening at first and some believed it right away. First were stories. Then pictures. When Joe Shmo disbeliever sees this new evidence, he says okay, maybe I want some more evidence tomorrow, but this seems to be a pretty horrible truth after all -- I may have been mistaken. That's okay to make a mistake, but if Joe then becomes a holocaust denier -- whoa, we got a problem.

Evolution is not a liberal thing to believe in just as creationism shouldn't be a conservative thing to believe in; rather, evolution is the modern explanation next to an older explanation of creationism. Our faith in God does not vanish because of this -- there is plenty we don't know that He may never allow us to.

I've said all I can right now. I hope you and everyone else sees I'm trying to stick up for God, Science, independent thinkers and I'm simply opposing the danger of keeping old explanations in the foreground of K-12 classrooms and government.

Posted by: independent thinker | May 4, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

That evolution creates diversity is one of the cornerstones - no, it's the very foundation of evolutionary theory. All of you people saying "if evolution is true, why is there so much diversity" are really displaying stunning scientific ignorance. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just obvious that you very profoundly don't know what you're talking about.

Darwin's writings on evolution were very heavily based on his obervations of finch diversity in the Galapogos Islands. Each species of finch was subtly different from the others because they had evolved to fill a niche that allowed them reporductive success. One had a strong beak to break a certain kind of nut; one had a narrow beak that was good at catching a certain kind of insect. There was a niche available that encouraged a particular genetic variation that better exploited it. Over time, the variations became greater until the two groups became difference species. The original group doesn't go extinct because a "better" group takes its place, it continues on because a different group has developed a new career path. Thus, evolution is a process that tends to expand diversity of species over time.

Posted by: ippolit | May 4, 2007 2:23 PM | Report abuse

A little confused here RS...since when did my actions not affect anyone? We all live and act in communities, not in isolation. How I believe will affect how I live, and how I live will affect the lives of others. Religion and beliefs affect everyone. Can't take that out of the political spectrum, because that exists in the same reality we all function within.

Posted by: a.johnson | May 4, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

To Sonclad:

Your counter-argument was amusing. It was clever. And, dare I say it, you actually have a point, though I don't agree with it. However, I must give credit where it's due. Good rebuttal. :)

Posted by: LJ Rhodes | May 4, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Such a strange country. I heard this week on CNN that Obama didn't have the gravitas yet to be president. Oh, I guess that means that he has to acquire the gravitas that George W. has in abundance, which allowed him to be president? Am I missing something?

And your nation seems to have already elected a president who believes in all sorts of religious gobbledegook. And look where that has brought the world!

Posted by: Terence | May 4, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk above makes one useful point and then fouls it up by making some useless ones.
True, evolution is a theory. However, like gravity, it is a theory that happens to have a whole helluva lot more evidence in favor of it than evidence against-- of which there is really NONE. Gaps in the fossil record? Maybe, but let's see the creationists produce evidence of spontaneous generation of species. I wish them the very best with that.
The President is not in charge of teaching our children, true.
But the President should set an example by *being* an educated person.
For myself, I would never vote for anyone who does not believe in evolution.

Posted by: DB | May 4, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

RCK, but where does the force behind the shells come from? You surely see that the pellets do not all originate from the exact singularity in space and time.

As far as the just right combination to make a whole... I love the monkeys on keyboards and hope that somewhere in the universe God has immortal monkeys doing just that so we can get a good laugh at all the pullitzer news articles they've created along the way- they would run out of ribbon/printer ink long before they managed to make the right combination come alive. Squish a bug. The exterior characteristics are the only thing changed. All the ingredients are still there in the right combination. Why is it dead? How did it become alive? Where did the energy come from?

Check out that drdino site, it's an interesting site that will lead to more questions, and possibly some answers. I'm sure many will ridicule it if they bother to go, but if you approach things with a mind open to logic, and not filled with contempt, you can learn much there.

Posted by: Chris | May 4, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Faith in religion is not bad. Follow the 10 commandments. They are not going to affect any one badly. But blind belief or fanatical following of religion is not what a country's leader should have.
I am willing to bet that none of these idiots follow the 10 commandments to the letter. They change it according to their wishes and interpretations.
If one of them becomes the president then he is going to thing about real issues like a religious fanatic and not like a logical person. He is not going to support abortion or gay marriage or similar issues saying the bible says so.
If that happen we might as well have the pope ruling as. I believe religion is a guide line for how a man should behave, it defines his character. It should not affect his fellow men or others should not be affected by his beliefs.
A president is a law maker he should not be so strong in his religious beliefs.

Posted by: RS | May 4, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I think the question was asked to draw out any differences in the non-diverse GOP group. I am surprised, however, that almost a 1/3 believed in evolution and they left it with no discussion.

I can't believe how many people on this forum are 100% certain about the "undeniable" truth that is evolution(more correctly.. Darwinism).

You are exactly the same as some of the greatest thinkers in history who also believed the following to be fact:

The earth is flat.
The earth is the center of the universe.
The speed of sound cannot be broken.

We have obviously come a long way since those were "known" to be fact but it shows we are constantly disproving accepted "facts". We are not done learning about our universe. Please realize that you are being just as ignorant in thinking that evolution MUST BE FACT as someone who thinks CREATION MUST BE FACT.

If you believe in evolution then chances are you don't believe in heaven and hell the way they are decribed in the bible. In that case... you really don't have anything to live for except to eat, sleep, reproduce, and die just like every other animal on earth. So... why do you have to come post something here bashing 2/3 of the US with your theories? Does it help you get through one more day of your meaningless life to debate where you came from? One more day before you die and go... wherever you think you go.

Posted by: G | May 4, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

It strikes me in the comments here that we as a society cannot have a civilized debate between the political spectrums. I read insult after insult from both sides towards those they disagree with and quite frankly, I for one am sick of it. The conservatives act like those who disagree should be tarred and feathered while those on the left respond in kind--and nothing but hatred comes of it. I can't see why everyone cannot at least show a modicum of respect to those who disagree with them. It's this type of ridiculous and childish behaviour which has not only made politics the mess it is, but has alienated approximately 50% of the US electorate (and given us such winners as the current administration and other partisan hacks on BOTH sides of the aisle). In conclusion, a pox on both the GOP and the Dems--here's hoping we get a real, viable alternative that's neither right nor left in 2008. God knows we surely need better candidates than the choices we have from both major parties--particularly from the GOP's list of cookie cutter candidates offered this year. Thank you.

Posted by: Michael | May 4, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Much of the problem with the debate format defaults, yet again, to the media. They seem quite determined in forcing the "religion vs state" debate to rage on. I would much rather concentrate on issues that truly matter. As a life long atheist and 30 year member of the GOP, it has saddened me that their ardent support of the Fundamentalists has sent me to the Libertarian camp. The candidates quest to win the nomination from the party "Faithful" has been at the cost of the swing voters. My greatest fear now resides in the Democrats, and who they nominate, for the Republicans are rapidly losing the middle.

Posted by: Pierce | May 4, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

As Thomas Jefferson said;

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies."

"The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight..."

Posted by: Thomas McGuire | May 4, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Chris, tell me more about the Hate Crimes bill. Why does this threaten free speech?

Posted by: cjackson | May 4, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

The term "scoffers" is used in the bible and it describes those that are willingly ignorant. Can you figure out who is who?

Posted by: seeker | May 4, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo are the three wise men. They got my vote. You see, we need men of little intelligence to run our country. Therefore, they can be easily manipulated and the extraction of the middle-class' wealth and its transfer to the super rich is complete. We don't want a smart person in the White House. Especially one who believes in the Bible as the word of god. Which god? The Hedge Fund God or the Allmighty. The one true God that rules and is our master. The Hedge Fund god also believes in 12% annual returns on his bonds. Non-taxed.

Here is my wish:

Israel takes back their biblical land.

The messiah returns.

The rapture happens.

Just think of the deals on the stuff that is left behind. Still, there will be billions of people still left on Earth. And our cat food will still be made in China.

Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 4, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Evolution vs. Creation is not the important issue, folks. Especially those of you who profess to be Christians, if you're debating this, you're fighting the wrong battle. "Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments..." Don't be so absolute about your interpretation of Genesis 1-1 - did you ever see Jesus fall into that debate? He knew when a question was a trap and a decoy. Focus on the important issues: the heart, faith, right and wrong, love and hate. Your part in this foolish argument only contributes to sin and hate. Let it go. Those candidates should have deflected the question as unworthy of response or at least responded with wisdom. As for the creationists, your position is understandable, but isn't constructive. OK, it's a scientific theory based on observation. Now tell me how much man really knows and understands about this universe. What percentage of the facts do you think we collectively really know? To be very generous, how about 0.1%? (Ha!) Now why would anyone rest on a conclusion based on such a measley amount of facts? And Christians are supposedly naive to believe and profess what what they do? I confess, I believe in God and that he could act through something like creation within the framework of Genesis 1-2. Why not, but let's not be dogmatic about it. How about some humility on both sides? Otherwise, who cares about your position on things political? So let's deal with things that we can actually do something about, such as living right, valuing people, and conducting ourselves with integrity in this world? If I may speak for my fellow believers, Jesus was about this and so should Christians be. Read the gospels. Find some Christians who are serious about biblical faith and living, drop your weapons, and find out what they are really about, then we'll talk politics.

Posted by: fyi | May 4, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

It is perfectly fine for people to believe whatever they will and live with the consequences of these beliefs.

What is obviously wrong and self-destructive is to confuse your disciplines. Is it wise or proper to teach Chinese in French class, auto repair in history class, math in wring class, or science in Sunday school? Of course not.

Neither is it correct to postulate a spiritual explanation to observable phenomena in a science class; not because religion is wrong but because it violates the foundational methodology of science. Any unexplained phenomenon can be attributed to "God" and that would be the end of exploration. Why do apples fall? God. Why do plagues happen? God. This may not be wrong in a sense, but it is not science. Science deals only with what can be observed, with no reference to any other discipline or authority. Anything else is simply not science.

If your beliefs demand that you mingle religion with science, expect the worst results for both science and religion. It is best for these two disciplines to respectfully address each other from across the aisle, and not to go leaping for each other's throat.


Posted by: Jon | May 4, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Erik J

You hit the nail on the head when you said one sem of ungrad biology "MAKES" you believe in Evolution! Sounds like you have been taught WHAT to think as opposed to HOW to think!

Posted by: Tymonator | May 4, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

We did evolve. We got increasingly stronger against bacteria and viruses. That's about it. Heroes is just a tv show:).

To lastlib's point. That is a possibility. Is that why my unborn child, in his mother's womb, looks like the a alien of lore :). The matter had to come from somewhere. Maybe they will land and tell us they created us. It's as plausable to wait of aliens as it is to wait for god or jesus to return. We made these problems on earth. God/Jesus/Aliens are waiting for us to clean our own house. None will return until we solve our problems. Then we cna live as one. ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 4, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Had Jesus been the moderator last night, he probably would have asked the question "We're going to give you about one trillion dollars a year to spend if you're elected President. What are you going to do with it?"

Jesus wasn't all that concerned about evolution. Or about our National interests. Or about most of what we debate in blogs.

But the answers the candidates offered to that question would be really interesting...

Posted by: Chip | May 4, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Hmmmm. I thought a scientific FACT was something that could be proven?
There are many things science can prove. We can make hypothesis of what happened millions of years ago but we cannot prove anything.

Observances of circumstantial evidence does not make a fact.

You can prove natural selection by performing test but you cannot prove evolution, and they are two separate things.

Just because the cells are similar does not prove evolution, even if they were identical.
Some things in this world are similar because that is the only way the will work.
If you were a designer would you design everything completely different or would you reuse your good ideas?

When scientist start stating theory as fact it is no longer science it is a religion.

Posted by: listening | May 4, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Last I checked, those three candidates were still citizens of the United States, and guarenteed their own freedom of religion under the constitution.

IT DOES NOT MATTER what their personal beliefs are. All that matters is how they conduct themselves in the office of president.

A person need not believe in any religion to allow for freedom of religion for others. Similary, a person need not accept evolution as fact to accept it is at least the currently accepted scientific model of our history.

Even scientists would never say that it can not be proven false and a more accurate theory proposed as we continue to advance in our research. That is the whole point of science, to move on and not be rooted in theories of the past.

That some people find what they see as flaws that can not be excused away within the current theory of evolution is understandable. There is still much science itself does not understand or know yet.

What I find more disturbing here is that people seem to want to cling to evolution as some 'freedom from religion'.

If evolution stands up to the continued scrutiny of scientists and laymen alike, then just like gravity, germs and other resisted theories of the past, it will soon be accepted universally.

But this is a process that humanity has proven it needs to go through. Fact, belief, science, faith, it does not matter. The human species has proven over and over that this is the process that must be taken.

Posted by: PoV | May 4, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"I have no problem with you practing whatever religion you want as long as you don't try to change laws to force me to follow it, as religious consertives want to do."

Actually there is a democratic bill, a wolf in sheeps clothing, that threatens to limit free, religious, speech. It has such an appealing name that it has gathered much support. It is the hate crimes bill.
There is also the issue of the right to bear arms, which is time and time again challenged despite overwhelming proof that when you create "gun free" zones you are creating a bunch of victims.

Don't get me wrong, both parties are corrupt beyond measure, and neither truly has the best interests of this country at heart. I do not believe in state sanctioned religion, and how a person is capable of performing in the office of president should be the true question. However, the media always distorts things and places the focus somewhere else while something important is lost. We should be screaming for justice, and the well being of troops who have been denied the latest technology in armor- Transparent Aluminum. Yes, now there is a great new scientific fact for everyone. This stuff is thinner than paper, stronger than steel, and can bounce an armor piercing bullet. The protection is improved further with each thin layer. With the billions wasted on everything else, where is this? The practical uses are endless, yet we can't even give it to troops? That's just one of the many things that slips through the cracks. I'm not saying that one party holds the answers, just suggesting that those who claim to be open, truly become so, in order for them to see the corruption on BOTH sides.

www.worldnetdaily.com is a great alternative source of news.

Posted by: Chris | May 4, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Wilberforce

Does that name sound familiar to you who posted about Slavery and Christianity?

Wilberforce was a Christian PASTOR who stood up for abolishing Slavery when it was unpopular.

Today the Muslims still practice slavery!
Also the BIBLE never supported slavery only commented that slave or free all ARE ALIKE IN CHRIST, there is no difference for those IN CHRIST!

deal with that please!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Just for the record, 3 of 10 said they didn't believe in evolution. That means 7 of 10 do. I find it funny how many people immediately lumped all Republicans into the anti-evolution crowd when 70% said they did believe in evolution. Also, the 3 that said they don't believe in evolution have no shot at the candidacy anyway. Get over yourselves.

Posted by: Trey H-J | May 4, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"It amazes me how self righteous secular liberals get worked up when someone has the nerve to challenge their religion of evolution."

Sorry TexasWiseguy, evolution is not faith based it is fact.

Posted by: cjackson | May 4, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

How does the 2nd Law of Thermodynaimcs disprove evolution? We're not a closed system, we constantly receive energy from the sun. Hence, the 2nd Law is, again, like equating the scientific term "theory" with the colloquial term "theory" fundamentally dishonest. Perhaps a more honest argument would lead to respect?

Posted by: arc | May 4, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

It's so unbelievable that US has so many top universities and research organizations, and high technology companies in the world, under this kind of leaders.

I think no other countries would have a debate on this kind of stupid topic.

It seems your God and Bible is a perfect excuse for everything. funny...

Posted by: comment | May 4, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

We as a society like sound bytes. We like to attach single adjectives to people and take no thought for why they think or believe the way they do.

Evolution happens. We can, in controlled experiments see evidence that it happens in our comparisons of various species. I bet that even those that raised their hands believe that evolution happens. What I would like to know is what question they are answering.

"Do you believe in evolution?" is a very vague question and I would have a difficult time answering it in one word. There are two ways that I see of interpreting that question.

1. Do you believe that the earth and all life on it was created completely by chance? To this I would answer NO. This may be what those that raised their hands meant...but we don't know because they were not given time to explain themselves.

2. Do you believe that evolution happens (and has happened)? I believe the answer to this question is YES. It would be of some concern if this was the question they were answering.

Science cannot prove that there is no God. It cannot prove that there is no Creator. At some point one has to decide whether they believe in version 1 or version 2 of evolution. And that is completely a belief. There is no hard evidence either way. But without further explanation, I have a hard time with people pinning beliefs on the candidates.

Posted by: Jeff | May 4, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

"Separation of church and state should not only be a requisite in debates, it should also be a requisite in candidates." ??

This phrase has been misrepresented to the point of infringing upon the First Amendment, which says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please forgive me for stating the obvious: The First Amendment restricts the government, not the people (including those running for Pres.) Jefferson's wall is a one-way wall. Any religious person, any religious organization, any religious conviction has its place in the public debate. It's called pluralism, in the classic sense of the word.

Posted by: Sonclad | May 4, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Why is that Democrats try to force every Republican to believe in evolution, abortion, stem cell research and on and on and on. Every Democrat I have ever talked to claimed they were open minded and say that I should be also, but when you can prove on of their theories untrue or even offer a similair theory then throw up a wall of hate.

I am a Christian and usually vote Republican and the two have nothing to do with each other. The way I vote is based on what I believe and I share more views with Republicans than Democrats.

Everyone keeps bringing up the fact that 30% of the candidates had the balls to say they don't believe in evolution. They didn't throw it down anyone's throat, they just honestly answered a question. I am willing to bet that a lot more than 30% of Democratic candidates would argue for days that killing an unborn child is just fine or even that humans were formed when a lightning bolt hit a pool of "goo" or something like that.

I believe there is just as much "faith" in science as there is in religion. My wife asked a biology professor once about the creation of man and he spit out the same theory that most scientists spit out, but when she asked him how the lightning occured or were the puddle of "goo" came from, he responded that it was just there. So, are we to believe that this pool of "goo" sat on Earth since the beginning of time and then all of a sudden boom lightning. Sorry but that sounds like faith to me.

Oh and one more thing, why is it that neither religious theories or scientific theories say anything about dinosaurs, they seem to just skip right over that, now don't they.

Basically my whole point is that neither theory is right or wrong. I believe that both are correct, but what I don't get is why so many people are so easily worked up over something noone will ever answer.

One more thing, somebody above said something about blindly following religous leaders, but they are compeltely fine with blindly following scientists.

Posted by: Scott | May 4, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE... Where is that in the constitution again...? I can't find it. I do find in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." which says to me "Government can't force you to have religion, but it also shouldn't get in the way of people exercising it. In the early days of this country, that meant that it COULD be part of government (hence prayer in congress, 10 commandments in public buildings, "In God we trust" on money, etc...). It was only a loose interpretation of some Jeffersonian letters that later CHANGED the meaning of what our founding fathers were trying to get across.

So PLEASE quit saying "Seperation of Church and State" as if it were a basic pillar of our constitution... because it's not, and was never intended to be.

Posted by: Dan P | May 4, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I also didn't say anything about magic rock apes. To hint that I did is also a lie.


Posted by: Golgi | May 4, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

For all of those spouting the infallibility of the scientific method, and using that as "proof" of these men being nutty, just stop and think for a minute. Did it ever occur to you that they may accept the microcosm of species evolution, but do not believe that evolution was the initial creation of everything? You don't know, because they never clarified their answers. Therefore you are condemning them on an ASSUMPTION of what you think they believe. That is not proof, and that is not the scientific method which you wave as a flag.

Newton's most famous law of motion:
force = mass times acceleration
is also a theory and is also WRONG. It's a good approximation, but it breaks down dealing with objects approaching the speed of light. Read Einstein.

Evolution is a theory and not a "fact" because you don't understand the definition of the word "theory." Scientific theory is something that is most likely true due to the available evidence until such a time as it can be disproved. Evolution, as a theory, COULD be disproved (but it hasn't been yet) so blindly accepting it as "fact" is just as bad as blindly accepting creationism as "fact". At least creationists make no pretense about it being based on faith.

I don't believe in creationism, but the assumptions against these men that they treat the words "theory of evolution" the same as "unfounded wild guess" rather than its proper scientific meaning just because you do so is ludicrous.

Stop making assumptions from a short blurb you read on the internet, because it's an affront to the very scientific method we're trying to advance.

Posted by: Khyris | May 4, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I love when people quote the Bible. As if the Bible has any legitimacy. Here is one for you my feeble minded Christian slaves:

"When you approach a city to fight it, offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, all the people found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, besiege it. When the Lord your God gives it into your hand, kill all the men in it. Take as booty only the women, children, animals, and all that is in the city, all its spoils. Use the spoils of your enemies which the Lord your God has given you... Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. Do not leave alive anything that breathes" (Deuteronomy 20:10-17).

Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 4, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Kingofzouk - interesitng that you FInd "Spartan" the only one worthy of intellectual exchange.

I too wish to engage in a dialogue with those whose opinions differ from mine. An exchange of ideas to get a better understanding. Here are the problems I have with your approach.

"I know you Libs like to control the message and dictate from DC all the way down the chain."

-In flammatory statement, irrelavent to the debate, an opinoin that attacks others, is hard to prove, and is founded in your perception of the world. This kind of statement could be fired at anyone, really, your side too. It serves no purpose.

"..but if I live in PA and think my local school should teach hog farming, why not? - Good point.

"Can't you trust the student to arrive at conclusions on their own as they mature? can't you trust the parents to decide what should be taught. do you require limited thinking to maintain power? "- Interesting conclusion, but again inflammatory more than seeking an exhcange of ideas....And here each side can accuse the other, and produce anectdotal evidence.

Search on Shinseki to get a sense for controlled thinking. He disagreed with the president and was fired...and yet his ideas now seem presicent. So it goes both ways. Attacking the Libs here doesn't support your desire to engage in thoughtful debate.

"Why are you such control freaks? It is not just in education, it is economically too."
Same thing here, these are not productive statements, these are inflammatory accusations founded not in any common definition. Are you familiar with the steel tariffs and farm subsidies enacted by the current administration?


"the only thing you leave to the individual is s*x. the message control has gotten so out of hand you now think it is admirable to knock fox news every chance you get, instead of engaging the ideas and defeating them on their merits."

I think you would be better served, "... instead of engaging the ideas and defeating them on their merits."" if you avoided statements like those I've highlighted above.

Seriously, You don't see the hypocracy in your statements?

"..but if this website is any indication, your fellow Libs are ill-equipped to make arguments that are satisfying to the undecided..."

This an interesting and provocative statement.

Sadly this is the level of discourse we engage in. Some good intentions, some thought provoking ideas, interspersed with accusations without much thought, perjoratives, and attacks.

This question a good, one, is burdened by the rest of your thoughts. "What exactly is so wrong with teaching alternative theories or ideas in school."

I actually agree with you here. Even if it's something I'm not completely comfortable with, I agree, presenting alternative views is generallya good approach in education.

Posted by: Lokiforever | May 4, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Insofar as claims about God are empirical, God can be disproven. The only way to place God above disproof is to restrict claims about him to the non-testable and non-empirical. Unfortunately, to do so renders God powerless. If you want your God to be powerful, you must also subject him to examination, and the possibility of disproof.

And Bobby, MD... Your ignorance of science is apalling, especially for one who claims to be both physician and scientist. What do you make of Tiktaalik roseae?

Human interpretation of the natural world is indeed flawed, but not nearly as flawed as human interpretation of ancient texts describing human interpretations of the natural world.

Posted by: Zellman | May 4, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"Man made religion for God, God did not make religion for man, Man is forming religion to his own beliefs not to God's. God made the universe for God not man. God made earth for man. Man is distroying both earth and God with pollution and hate. Republicans are ruining both the earth and religion. May God help America..."

Interesting. If it turns out that science solves the puzzle of who/what created the universe ie: intelligent design, we would see the say that scientists were infact studying the creation of god all along and the 'religious people' were studying a thing of their own creation' ie: BS.

Posted by: cjackson | May 4, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

No wonder the so-called bible-belt states are at the bottom of the barrel in terms of educational effectiveness. Hope the kids in these States don't take their religious beliefs while answering SAT questions.

Posted by: Bright | May 4, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

How exactly would a creationist president govern? Would he shut down NASA, the NSF, the NIH, the CDC?

Posted by: wow | May 4, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

When we see a painting we know there is a painter.

When we see a building we know there is a builder!

These 2 above examples are much simpler than a living organism.

We can see in the CREATION all around us Complexity of a scale way beyond a painting or a building; therefore the following rings true...

because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.


Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

It amazes me how self righteous secular liberals get worked up when someone has the nerve to challenge their religion of evolution. It is a religion because you have to accept on blind faith that somehow everything just appeared out of nothing. And before you drop the religious fundamentalist line, i actually have a PHD in Physics, its my passion and my background. Evolution is a theory not a demonstrative fact. Unfortunately, too many people have tried to politicize science. Science isn't political, but unfortunately scientists are. Give the presidential candidates credit for standing up for something that the Washington insiders don't like

Posted by: Texas wiseguy | May 4, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

In response to someone above, I did not post any comment today about physics or big bang theory.

It is a lie to hint that I posted such comments.

Posted by: Golgi | May 4, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

It could not possibly have happened by the right chemicals just "coming together".

Chirs, suppose years and years ago billions of monkeys sat in a room banging away at typewriters. Eventually, one of them will come up with the right combination of letters to write "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country". According to your argument, there is no possible way that this monkey happened to randomly hit all these key strokes in all these perfect positions - therefore, he must be of intelligent design.

Furthermore, whats wrong with the idea that remnants of the big bang spin in different directions. Shotgun pellets on differnt sides of the shell will experience counterrotation. This is the first time I have ever heard your argument against the big bang and I must respectfully say it seems awfully weak.

Posted by: RCK | May 4, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Dear Zouk,
Nobody minds if you teach pig farming, animal husbandry, or whatever, as long as it is in the proper classification.

"Faith" is something one believes in, not a "fact". Graduation requires a certain credits in many diverse areas. Math, English, and History to name a few.

If your school wants to set up a comparative religion course, they are certainly free to do so.

As a fifty year old man, I still recall taking a number of "electives" (all schools have them) where I chose to learn about the "Lost Generation" (Hemingway, F. Scott, John Dos Pa sos, and others)I also signed up for Greek, Roman and Norse mythology course (other silly religious "faiths" to explain away the forces of nature and fate by the uneducated masses.) While your average Christian would not want these faiths taught in science class, for some reason, they believe their "faith" is on par with science.

Personally, as a life long independent liberal who believes everyone has the right to their own thoughts and believes, (no matter how silly they may seem to me) I'm not the least bit intimidated by knowledge, or the exposure to differing views.

However,as a life long agnostic, who, during elementary was forced to stand up and bow my head during a daily Christian school prayer, and when pledging allegiance to my country add "one nation under God" I'm opposed to force acceptance of someone else's faith at the expense of my own, or to Jews, Muslim's, Buddhist,Sikhs, Pagans, or even the ridiculous Scientologists. Let's all bow our heads and pray to Zenue.

However, I'm not opposed to placing each of these in an appropriate setting I can opt out of.
And I agree with another writer's statement, love religion? Use the day your God set aside for it, the Sabbath.

Posted by: Olberbend | May 4, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

When someone you know you cannot trust tells you something, do you believe them?

What about when someone you do trust...?

What about a book written before your great-great-g-g-g-g-g grantparents were born? Oh yeah, it was also rewriten and edited an unknown number of times by many people (Holy Roman Empire, both first(Constantinople) and second(Modern Day Germany), then the church of England (King James Version, Henry VIII)) books omited because they ran contrary to other ("proven," in their day) stories in the bible, and translated through several common languages in the Roman controlled Mediteranean. And supernatural events that no modern educated person has ever seen run rampent, as well as lots of interesting concepts that run contrary to our modern concept of democracy (subjigation of women, for one). Hmm, that sounds good! I think I'll trust that, because I'm a rational person.

Belief in God as a idea is not irrational. But not questioning the motives of those proported to have "heard" God and written them down, translated through three languages (ever studied a foreign language - b/c its all about interpretation), and now has millions of foolowers who donate money to meth adicted child molesters (true, those are very extreme cases) But religion was once supposed to have been about the individuals relationship with God, until the Egyptians showed the power of controlling the masses through religion. So the romans applied that in their state. Then changed religions to Christianity under Constantine, as monotheism made more sense at that points, as greek philosophy and science began unraveling their "old ways" of politheism. Then the Holy Roman empire perseviered through Mongol invations, famine and plauge, limiting the few religious scholars who could even read religious texts, as well as translate them for their practitioners. Hopefully, you the point. Christianity, what ever it once was, has become a tool. And sadly, its leaders have made its voting practitioners tools of their own devices(as predicted by our nations founders). Voting based on religious morality and beliefs will destroy our country. Not practicing, but voting.

"Jesus for President!"

Posted by: nonbelieverwillburninnonexistenthell | May 4, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"Separation of church and state should not only be a requisite in debates, it should also be a requisite in candidates."

Actually, it was instituted to protect the church from the state, not the state from the church.

"We are getting our butts kicked in scientific research, medicine, engineering, manufacturing, etc. around the world - in fields that obviously require an advanced grasp of the balance and difference between science and religion."

This has to to with our imperial policy and greed in the US; it does not have to do with our lack of science knowledge/training that you portend. We cannot compete in any of the categories you cite when we require $50 and hour to do the same work that another country will do for $0.30 an hour.

"There are no missing links anywhere. There are no fossils that even hint at it. Show me one, and I'll listen. I can't believe how many people call those who don't believe in evolution "idiots" or "stupid" or whatever. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics alone is enough to disprove evolution."

Someone who has actually researched the topic at hand instead of blindly accepting macro evolution as fact.

Posted by: Andy | May 4, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"I'd like to offer the following challenge to these folks [Creationists]: Go out and buy, oh, three or four 3-D jigsaw puzzles...each of a different object. Then, dump all the pieces out on the floor and mix them up really well..."

Here's a better challenge to this poster:
After dumping all your jig saw pieces on the floor and mixing them up really well, turn on a floor fan, shake the carpet on which the pieces landed and do anything else to the puzzle pieces in a random fashion without employing intelligence to put the puzzles back together. Eventually, the puzzles will come together precisely - That's what you're claiming Neo-Darwin Evolution can do!

Posted by: Sonclad | May 4, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious!

Posted by: Carlito | May 4, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

For more than FOUR HUNDRED years people used the bible to justify slavery. It made sense to Christians that this process of enslaving Africans was a noble undertaking. Slavery would humble these savages and give them an opportuntiy to "accept" Christ. Your most prominent plantation owners were the leaders of the church. Eventually, the political debate was about the morality of enslaving these African "Christians"( as they were also children of Christ). Most importantly ending slavery would destroy the American economy... The bible has been used for too many years to control the progress of people. It should be used to create hope, and abolish hate. But instead it motivates fanatics to have a complete disregard for knowledge and Mother Nature. And still the world economies and the bible are the excuse for destroying the world we live in. These religous politicians are holding steadfast to the disbelief that human activity is destroying the world. Why? Because the bible says so. Besides, gas prices will go up. The world's scholars are laughing at us, America.

Posted by: Ken | May 4, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

I have created my own version of the Bible. It begins with "And there was no God." The Bible according to Edgar is only one page long. The Bible is a fabrication and is nice mythology, but that is it. I have seen people speak in tongues and I must say it was a good show to increase the money flow from the idiot poor to the wealthy pastor.

Who on Earth wants to go to Heaven to join the rest of the idiots?

Who here believes their dog is God?

Do you know what true faith is? That your blog post is making it through wiring to get to a server hosting this blog site. That is all the faith you need.

Posted by: edgar stevenson | May 4, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Just consider and open your hearts to this:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and again: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:1 and 26-27).

The beautiful creation and creatures in this world could not just have evolved. God spoke it into existence. The politicians are taking the popular stand by either being of two opinions (McCain) or avoiding all together.

Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodness and wonderful works toward the children of men! (Psalms 107:8).

Have a blessed day!

Posted by: Ms L | May 4, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

What I find most amusing about the 'creationist' crowd is their insistence on the inclusion in school curiculums of their minority position. Very liberal attitude to take. Too bad it does not translate to their wider political view, wherein the role of women and minorities and their often grim fate in the founding of our country is vigorously suppressed from the same. All white 'manifest destiny' all the time, celebrants of a dead end.

Posted by: KenP | May 4, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Evolution has not been proven, but it accepted throughout the scientific community. If you want to see evolution happening, look at viruses, they evolve constantly. That is why there is such a scare with avian flu, because the flu can evolve so that humans can catch it. Look at bacteria, there is a growing number of bacteria that is resistant to anti-biotics. That is evolution as well.

It isn't that we came from apes, it is that both apes an humans share a common ancestor, I think this is a common misconception when people think of evolution.

It would have been interesting to see if these canidates had misconceptions about the theory of evolution or if they completely reject all aspects of it.

Posted by: Tina M. | May 4, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Did someone mention gravity? This says it all:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Posted by: racqueteer | May 4, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Evolution has not been proven, but it accepted throughout the scientific community. If you want to see evolution happening, look at viruses, they evolve constantly. That is why there is such a scare with avian flu, because the flu can evolve so that humans can catch it. Look at bacteria, there is a growing number of bacteria that is resistant to anti-biotics. That is evolution as well.

It isn't that we came from apes, it is that both apes an humans share a common ancestor, I think this is a common misconception when people think of evolution.

It would have been interesting to see if these canidates had misconceptions about the theory of evolution or if they completely reject all aspects of it.

Posted by: Tina M. | May 4, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

All of this shameless Reagan-worship is just another reason I'm a Democrat. Republicans are stuck in the past and the status-quo.

Posted by: MBW | May 4, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

To the Jesus Campers out there...

(Zouk and Chris - this means you).

I respect your right to believe whatever you want and I also respect your right to support your political party's views, even when they clearly cross over to more church than state. I'll even grant that much of evolution is indeed a theory, but only in the most scientific sense of the word (look it up).

But why must you insist on supporting intelligent design as a thoery when it is clearly based on your own faith and has absolutely zero empirical evidence to support it? Simply ripping on evolution doesn't constitute proof of your faith. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it's wrong.

And Chris - if you want to talk about "magic" so much.....I don't recall evolutionary theory ever discussing walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes, talking to burning bushes or making water magically turn into wine. Of course, those stories must be absolute fact.

Posted by: a reasonable person | May 4, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Forgive me, but I fail to understand why a presidential candidate believing in evolution or not matters. Either way, this issue should be covered in public school on a scientific rather then religious basis. If there is discussion students should be able to discuss their views on either basis without giving or receiving ridicule.

Roe vs. Wade, if the Supreme Court were to overturn it, Congress is able to change the laws to get at least some portion of it back in law. As are state governments at this point. Presidential views on this matter is more of how much they are going to interfere with the states or support congress interfering with the states. If the Supreme Court overrules it altogether, then it would be how much he would support congressional action on laws supporting abortion.

There are issues that President's have more influence over such as war, immigration, etc.


Posted by: win | May 4, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

A few things concern me about the responses I read above. One, nobody asked them what type of Evolution they didn't believe in... a.k.a. Micro, Macro, Cosmic etc... Furthermore, when did it become acceptable in this country to persecute a man for what he "Believes"? Have you all forgotten why we have this great country of ours? Oh yeah, just a little thing like "freedom" of religion. I could sit here all day explaining to you why the God of the Bible didn't use evolution because it violates the necessity of Christ by having death before Adam but the fact of the matter is that you have your beliefs and Christians have theirs! So... if science wants to argue Evolution as "Fact" then a debate sould ensue, but as for one's personal beliefs I think that is going a bit to far, don't you? In other words, you scoffers argue about something you know nothing about because it is a BELIEF within a man, a Christian or any other religious man/woman has the right to dispute and argue theoretical science because it portrayed as FACT.

2 Peter 3:3

Posted by: Tymonator | May 4, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Man made religion for God, God did not make religion for man, Man is forming religion to his own beliefs not to God's. God made the universe for God not man. God made earth for man. Man is distroying both earth and God with pollution and hate. Republicans are ruining both the earth and religion. May God help America...

Posted by: Pitt07 | May 4, 2007 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Religious Teachings program the student through to adulthood, and the student is trained to believe in the Fairy Tale, the student is programmed to believe.
The so called scientist is in the same boat because he is most often afraid to admit that he doesn't know, his ego gets in the way of reality. The reality of the situation is, we are all caught in a mysterious Universe, admiting that we don't really know is to open up the mind.
We lack minds that are really open. Both Religion, and Science can put one to sleep.

Posted by: ejfineart | May 4, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Spartan - OK I went back and read what you said per your request. Here's a quote pulled from your post "...the most recent poll from 05 had 2/3rds of the country beliving in creationism? chalk that up to not funding education."

So what am I misunderstanding? You said we don't fund education right?? If that's not what you're saying then I apologize to you. My comments were only to people who say we don't fund education enough.

Posted by: Dan P | May 4, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Evolution has not been proven, but it accepted throughout the scientific community. If you want to see evolution happening, look at viruses, they evolve constantly. That is why there is such a scare with avian flu, because the flu can evolve so that humans can catch it. Look at bacteria, there is a growing number of bacteria that is resistant to anti-biotics. That is evolution as well.

It isn't that we came from apes, it is that both apes an humans share a common ancestor, I think this is a common misconception when people think of evolution.

It would have been interesting to see if these canidates had misconceptions about the theory of evolution or if they completely reject all aspects of it.

Posted by: Tina | May 4, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

kimberly82: "There's a good reason why they're up there and your not."

did you say the same thing to your fellow cons when the Democrats held their debate? No, I didn't think so. Bye and thanks for playing.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 4, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

Too bad this country lacks the courage that the founders possessed. They believed in God, professed His care and concern - trusted Him with their lives, futures, and provided for us in this shameful day of pomposity and rebellion to
God's word, and world - when this world is on fire - who will they all call on? Hilary or ?? will it be Almighty God?

You know.

Posted by: Margaret Anderson | May 4, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

The thing that scared me the most was all of this talk about repealing the AMT; not modifying it, eliminating it. If it currently only affects the top 3% (4 million out of 135 million) of individual filers why is it so important to eliminate? Sure it is projected to affect 32 million in three years, but that would be the top 24% of the 135 or so million filers. I just kept hearing how this was hurting the middle class. Since when did the top 3% (or even top 24%) become middle class?

Posted by: Kerry | May 4, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

The idea that the question asked betrays more than the answers is certainly relevant here. I don't think the blame should be placed on the candidates, but rather on the format of the meeting and ultimately on the American voters. First, the asking of the question is a seemingly important one in the mind of many voters. Who's fault is that? Second, the necessity for a truth value to be placed on such a statement forces the candidates to take a polarized approach to the topic. If given the room to speak, these candidates might make it clear that they are supporting the institutions that support such ideologies which get them elected. (Of course, they are politicians so they won't.) They are not experts...they have been told what to believe and since they find other benefits with this system of belief, why would they not support creationism? It seems that the American voters want such a question, answered in such a way to inform their ability to vote. Well, it seems that the criticism is shifting to those "ignorant folks" in the American public who would vote for someone supporting such ideologies. But then again, it is not that they are necessarily ignorant, but that they want to support the institutions and leaders who maintain a strong priority in their life choices....or maybe they are just ignorant (in historical text development, cultural anthropology, archaeology, and liberal theology)....but aren't most of us?

Posted by: of course... | May 4, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I HAVE PROOF OF EVOLUTION!

We all come from single-celled organisms. And we evolve into multi-cellular organisms. It's called GESTATION. When your father's sperm meets your mother's ovum, there is one cell. It splits again and again and again, and you become a multi-celled organism.

So if this can happen in 9 months, how minuscule and parochial does your mind have to be to believe that it can't happen over millions of years?

PS. If God is all-powerful, who are you to say that he can't create evolution? HA!

Posted by: babyjeebus | May 4, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

People who cannot reconcile the Divine with scientific realities such as 'evolution' are pathetic , and should not be trusted with making any decisions in a modern society . Rather than being men of Faith , they appear to be willfully ignorant as they fashion religious Belief into a strategy for political consumption purposes.

Posted by: Daniel Wargo | May 4, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

While the Repubs sit around debating who's going to be the next Reagan....and who can take us back to the 'good old days,' the Democrats will be busy looking forward and deciding how to run the country for the future.

All of this shameless Reagan-worship is just another reason I'm a Democrat. Republicans are stuck in the past and the status-quo.

Posted by: MBW | May 4, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

In response to RickInLawrenceville's comment "All this means that, in order for the chemistry to have come together in the first place, the individual atoms must have been purposefully and simultaneously organized by a creator having the knowledge and power to do such a thing. It could not possibly have happened by the right chemicals just coming together." :

If you want an attempt at a scientific explanation of the origins of life, don't look to evolutionary theory, as it does not address the issue of origins (only how life changes). I recommend the short book "Origins of Life" by renowned physicist Freeman Dyson, where Dyson demonstrates how it is mathematically possible for life-as-we-know-it to form from randomly and naturally occurring chemical processes.


In response to Golgi's refutation of evolutionary theory "We are the magic rock apes!... So, we came from rocks? Now who sounds stupid?" :

I invite you to explain how evolutionary theory explains, or even attempts to explain the origins of life. (Hint: It doesn't.)


In response to Golgi's refutation of big bang theory "if all matter were originally condensed into a small spinning dot, when it exploded in a big bang, how is it that things rotate in different directions?" :

Wow. Your amazingly intimate knowledge of physics has led you to this brilliant counterexample. You've conclusively refuted big bang theory with this one!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"We all have our faiths. Why are we so ridiculed for believing in Jesus when I should have freedom OF religion in this country, not freedom from it? Why all the attempts to silence and suppress us? Why the efforts to deny us our voice? Calls to make our beliefs illegal? Where is the freedom in that?"

Fair question. First let me just say that science is not a faith. As science continually evolves to better procedures as more understanding comes to us. Religion does not follow this model. So religion and that way of thinking is very old (2000 years only) and is already showing signs of age.

I have no problem with you practing whatever religion you want as long as you don't try to change laws to force me to follow it, as religious consertives want to do.

Posted by: cjackson | May 4, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Here's the honest answer you won't hear about the origins of the universe:


"I don't know."


C'mon, say it with me and let's move on to something important.

Posted by: tony | May 4, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Libs are so good at putting words in peoples' mouths.

They raised their hands and didn't get a chance to explain their reasoning. Give it rest. Please reread your comments you all sound like raving angry lunatics just because they have different beliefs than yourselves. There's a good reason why they're up there and your not.

Posted by: kimberly82 | May 4, 2007 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I love these open opinion debates, which just goes to show how we've moved to a society based on opinions ( I believe that is called "relativism" ) and where a man or woman who believes in something that someone else doesn't agree with no longer has the right to be "OK". C'mon people, lighten up and get over yourselves. If creation or evolution is right, we'll each find out for ourselves that last time we close our eyes and pass into the great unknown. Just try and figure out if it is better to believe in something rather than nothing......

Posted by: Erik | May 4, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

For the comment LJ Rhodes made concerning food processers, pulverizing jig-saw puzzles pieces...can you please educate those of us that do not know, your methods and scientific conclusions, that can say with 100% certainty, and I quote you, "But, this is exactly what time has done to probably the majority of the fossil record." "Exactly" and "probably" do not belong in the same sentence. Please do not contradict yourself.

Posted by: Rennie M./Journalism Student | May 4, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Excerpt from: Evolution Can't Explain Morality by Gregory Koukl

[I'm not the author. Just posting an excerpt from one of his articles]

There was another bit of step by step reasoning that I used to show, I think, very clearly that what evolution might describe couldn't possibly be what we understand morality to be. My basic point is this: what naturalists explain when they seek to explain morality in naturalistic, evolutionary terms is not morality at all. They are explaining something different. I get to that by asking a series of questions. Instead of looking backward, I look forward, and I ask a question of moral behavior like "Why ought anyone be unselfish in the future?" for example. The question came up yesterday regarding an observation that was done with chimpanzees. There was a group of chimpanzees which had, in a sense, punished one member for being selfish by withholding food from that member and therefore teaching that member moral behavior. Apparently, the moral rule that undergirded the lesson was that the other chimpanzee ought not be selfish. That's a moral statement and the question I'm going to ask is "Why ought the chimp (or human) not be selfish?" I'm looking for a justification there.

The answer is going to be that when we're selfish, it hurts the group. But you see, that answer isn't enough of an answer because that answer itself presumes another moral value that we ought to be concerned about the health of the group. So, I'm going to ask the question, "Why ought we be concerned about the health of the group?" The answer is going to be because if the groups don't survive, then the species doesn't survive. Then you can imagine the next question. "Why ought I care about the health of the species and whether the species survives or not?" You see, the problem with all of these responses that purport to be justifications or explanations for the moral rule, is that all of these things that are meant to explain the moral rule really depend themselves upon a moral rule before they can even be uttered. Therefore, it can't be the explanation of morality. When I ask the question "Why ought I be concerned with the species?", the next answer ends the series. The answer is, "I ought to be concerned with the species because if the species dies out, then I will not survive. If the species is in jeopardy, then my own personal self interests would be in jeopardy."

So, in abbreviated form, the reasoning goes like this: I ought to be unselfish because it is better for the group, which is better for the species, which is better for me. So why ought I be unselfish? Because it is better for me. But looking at what is better for me, is selfishness. So all of this so-called description of where morality comes from, gets reduced to this ludicrous statement: I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish. That is silly. Because we know that morality can't be reduced to selfishness. Why do we know that? Because our moral rules are against selfishness and for altruism. They are against selfishness and for the opposite. When you think about what it is that morality entails, you don't believe that morality is really about being selfish. Morality is about being unselfish, or at least it entails that. Which makes my point that this description, based on evolution, does not do the job. It doesn't explain what it is supposedly meant to explain. It doesn't explain morality. It is simply reduced to a promotion of selfishness which isn't morality at all.

Morality is something altogether different. We may debate about all that moral views and understandings entail, but one thing we can all agree on, I think, is that when we are looking for a definition of morality, we know it isn't about selfishness. It is about not being selfish, just the opposite. That's why these explanations don't work. They either smuggle morality into the equation by describing the behavior that is meant to be explained by evolution so they depend upon morality to do the job, or else the descriptions and explanations end up being reduced to selfishness, which isn't what we're trying to explain. We're trying to explain why one ought not be selfish, not why one ought to be selfish.

Posted by: FoodForThought | May 4, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

The debate of where politics, science and religion cross over will always be an angry one it seems like. Those who side with "science" feel that it should be in the public sphere, and "religion" should stay in the private sphere, never intermingling. And, if they do intermingle, then let's throw a tantrum, because they must stay separate! It will be inevitable that what people believe will affect all areas of their life, be it science, politics, economics, foreign policy, etc. "Religion" is what governs everyone's views (being a-religious is still a religious stance that shapes how one views and lives life) and will continue to do so, be they the president or a normal citizen. I don't understand why so many are surprised or disheartened that candidates don't agree on all of the same subjects. And to call someone crazy, stupid, ignorant or a number of other names because they allow their views to come out in a public debate? If the views relegated to the private sphere were allowed to become fair game in the public sphere, then much of this debate may be eliminated.

Posted by: a.johnson | May 4, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Today, it seems that legions of people - growing legions - are falling victims to ideas and beliefs that on the face of it are patently false...things that are so clearly and obviously nuts that you really have to wonder what deep, mighty engine of emotional need could possibly drive a brain so deep into a hole. Seriously now, there are millions and millions of people on this planet who will torture logic and reason to mind-bending extremes in order to believe monumentally ridiculous "religions"... religions drawn from an emotional need so warped and debased that you are catapulted beyond anger and disbelief directly into pathos and the desire to call 911 before these people hurt themselves.

Posted by: catmando | May 4, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

For the comment LJ Rhodes made concerning food processers and pulverizing jig-saw puzzles pieces...can you please educate those of us that do not know, your methods and scientific conclusions, that can say with 100% certainty, and I quote you, "But, this is exactly what time has done to probably the majority of the fossil record." "Exactly" and "probably" do not belong in the same sentence. Please do not contradict yourself.

Posted by: Rennie M./Journalism Student | May 4, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

This is why initial reactions are often wrong. Democrats were initially upest that Matthews threw the GOP candidates some red meat with his Clinton question, when they should be overjoyed that he asked the evolution question.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 4, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"This part of evolutionary theory is a lie, and the only reasonable, and therefore scientific, explanation for intelligently designed life is an intelligent designer."

Did your 'intelligent designer' invent gravity? Light?

Posted by: cjackson | May 4, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

As far as the time of 6 days, more is now understood about the effects of gravity, which I ALSO believe in by the way, on time. Einstein and everyone else believe gravity has an effect on time. Please see the articles in the link posted on a possibility that could explain a relatively young earth.

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=1

We all have our faiths. Why are we so ridiculed for believing in Jesus when I should have freedom OF religion in this country, not freedom from it? Why all the attempts to silence and suppress us? Why the efforts to deny us our voice? Calls to make our beliefs illegal? Where is the freedom in that?

Posted by: Chris | May 4, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

It is incredible that there are people in the 21st century who are so deluded as to believe in the superstitious nonsense containhed in the bible (koran, torah, etc)

Posted by: Bob Nichols | May 4, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Dan P-go back and read my earlier posts again. i didnt say anything about school funding. dont put words in my mouth ok?

to the supporters of creationism/intelligent design-ok, here's the same question i asked zouk, can you prove your theory? honestly why are we having this conversation in this day and age?

Posted by: spartan | May 4, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Biology DOES NOT rely on EVILUTION

Yes I spelled Evolution as EVILution for that is what that deception is when it moves from the Science part (Micro) of small adaptions over time into the belief part (MACRO) small changes over LONG TIME HAD TO give us all this variety.

Read the SCIENCE that refutes the idea of that Biology relies on Evolution:
http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Evolution is a teory based on fact, mountains of data and logic. When you ignore fact, data and logic and believe in psuedo theories, you get our current self made fiasco called Iraq.

Posted by: sanity | May 4, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

The issue extends beyond creation vs. evolution. Ultimately everyone needs to choose a view of reality to live by. Those who follow the Christ of the Bible hold that the Bible is true, there is a God, Jesus Christ is God the Son and the Son of God, that everyone in innately sinful and incapable of eternally being in the presence of a holy and living God, that only through Christ's death on the cross and resurrection is there hope for a meaningful life on earth and an eternal life in heaven. If you are not a follower of Christ, then I do not force my views upon you, because faith can not be forced. Yet, I challenge you to thoughtfully compare what view of reality best explains EVERYTHING. For example, ponder why do people feel guilt? why can material things, power, prestige not bring true lasting peace? why hasn't mankind found a solution to war? why is unrest increasing in the world? Critics might say, this proves there is no God. I say, try this: take the Bible at face value, that it is what it claims to be -- the written word of God, and look for what answers it provides. You may be surprised that it's different that what you've heard. I follow Christ because, to me, the view of reality presented in the Bible fits life and death better than any other the hodge-podge of theories, and the impact of this faith on those who earnestly follow it is real ... lives are changed in ways that can not be explained apart from the work of the God of the Bible.

Posted by: Chris L. | May 4, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Silly people... Flying Spaghetti Monster is the great creator. Sure you might have your "facts" & "evidence" which completely disproves that, but it's a belief.

Belief don't requires "facts" or "evidence" - all they require an unwavering faith in that belief which completely ignores contrary "facts" or "evidence".

Honestly, the religious mind ehh? :)

Posted by: Thomas McGuire | May 4, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Believing in God and evolution are two concepts that are not mutually exclusive. So, why the stress? Science tries to prove how He did it -- have at it. Haven't seen any proofs God doesn't exist or isn't interested in every little tid-bit we do. Can't say I've keep His laws. I'm just sorry Somebody had to suffer for the mess to win me back. Somebody loves me.

Posted by: GaryK51188 | May 4, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Last I checked, those three candidates were still citizens of the United States, and guarenteed their own freedom of religion under the constitution.

IT DOES NOT MATTER what their personal beliefs are. All that matters is how they conduct themselves in the office of president.

A person need not believe in any religion to allow for freedom of religion for others. Similary, a person need not accept evolution as fact to accept it is at least the currently accepted scientific model of our history.

Even scientists would never say that it can not be proven false and a more accurate theory proposed as we continue to advance in our research. That is the whole point of science, to move on and not be rooted in theories of the past.

That some people find what they see as flaws that can not be excused away within the current theory of evolution is understandable. There is still much science itself does not understand or know yet.

What I find more disturbing here is that people seem to want to cling to evolution as some 'freedom from religion'.

If evolution stands up to the continued scrutiny of scientists and laymen alike, then just like gravity, germs and other resisted theories of the past, it will soon be accepted universally.

But this is a process that humanity has proven it needs to go through. Fact, belief, science, faith, it does not matter. The human species has proven over and over that this is the process that must be taken.

Posted by: VoR | May 4, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Don't blame religion for humanity's failings. Faith and Christianity are just fine... it is Free Will that is putting the monkey into the wrench!

Posted by: What?? | May 4, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Cookito says
"The FACT is that there is a God who made everything, including us."

What fact? Point me to this fact, and the proofs that prove the fact.

Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I get it. This is just another ploy to get up the hit count of the site. Like the gun-control and abortion discussions a few weeks ago. CC thinks of a hot-button topic and tells people to debate it. Then it gets linked from the Post front page and a bunch of conservative blogs, and the hits roll in.

Well, I have better things to do than read several posts per minute including the same talking points and gross misunderstandings of evolution. So long!

Posted by: Blarg | May 4, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

if the anti-religion sentiment in these reactions bother you, then you should hear what we aren't posting.


example given---when confronted by proseltyzing zealots and accolytes, my response is who asked you?


be careful, GOP-xtians, in how far you go in cramming your fundamentalist, croney-fed political culture on the rest of us. because there is a law in physics that goes like this---for every action, there is an equal and OPPOSITE reaction.

what we really need are MODERATES and PERSONS OF GOOD WILL. these people are in scant supply, or don't feel safe to speak?

Posted by: the real tony | May 4, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Question for Mike from Westminster: how do you explain the growth of a crystal from a solution? You don't understand entropy, go back to grade school.

Posted by: Chris Fox | May 4, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

For the comment LJ Rhodes made concerning food processers and pulverizing jig-saw puzzles pieces...can you please educate those of us that do not know, your methods and scientific conclusions, that can say with 100% certainty, and I quote you, "But, this is exactly what time has done to probably the majority of the fossil record." "Exactly" and "probably" do not belong in the same sentence. Please do not contradict yourself.

Posted by: Rennie M./Journalism Student | May 4, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

I love when the Creationists pop their heads up to say that evolution is not proven. I wish I could force them all to take just one semester of undergrad biology. Doing so forces you to believe one of two things: either A) evolution is real or B) Darwin started the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind, including 100+ years of fake evidence and several million scientists "in on it". Personally I think evolution being real is more likely...

By the way, the man who decided to use the word "theory" for an undeniable rule of science really dropped the ball. The same goes for the guy who decided to use the term 'stem cells' for two completely different things, and just throw 'embryonic' or 'adult' in front of them. 'Adult Stem Cells' and 'Embryonic Stem Cells' sound about as different as 'McDonalds' hamburgers' and 'Burger King hamburgers' to the average American. These problems with vocabulary are vexing the science community at every turn, and we will continue to hear how "evolution is just a theory" and "adult stem cells are just as good as embryonic stem cells" until the media decides to educate the public. Because we all know the schools aren't doing it.

Posted by: Erik J. | May 4, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Am I mistaken or is there this little sentance somewhere in american political fundamentals that states that there must be "a separation of church and state"? Therefor I do not believe that a politicians personal theological belief or understanding should be reflected in his governmental work. A representative is there to represent many different kinds of people who believe in way to many different things to even take theology into concideration when determining what is best for the development of the populous. The fact that they think evolution never happened just shows that they aren't paying attention, we have demonstrations of evolution every day. Take something as simple as a car for example, a 1970 Ford Mustang has evolved into a 2007 Ford Mustang. They are still the same make and model of car but have been evolved to meet the needs of our ever EVOLVING society. Anyone who doesn't see that does not deserve to even think about running for any kind of office. I know i wouldn't feel safe. If they are missing these simple things what else have they missed that we as a people are now paying for? Any religious oppinions should be kept to yourself and not forced onto the people around you who have oppinions of their own.

Posted by: Leigh | May 4, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

So, does believing in evolution mean that we as Americans are no longer "endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights" as the Declaration of Independence says?

Posted by: libertad | May 4, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

What was before the Big Bang? Nothing? Can nothing produce 'something"?
It seems obvious to me that Nothing cannot even produce more "nothing".
If the universe is a steady state, then the law of thermodynamics is wrong. Everything consumes energy. If the universe is steady, then there would have to be a constant supply of replacement energy. The only logical conclusion is creation by 'something'.

Posted by: dan | May 4, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Believing in the unlikely is everyone's right. Organized religions require it. Let the dummies believe what they will, but just don't elect them to office. If there were no organized religions warping us, we could be far more objective about a body of facts that points to a logical conclusion, such as the acceptance of evolution as historical and scientifically provable concept. In fact, if there were no organized religions, fighting over real estate and wealth, the world would be a richer and kinder place. Certainly there would be fewer wars like the conflicts that have dominated the Middle East for thousands of years.

Posted by: Richard Mitchell | May 4, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

I would be scared to death to know that the next president didn't believe in evolution. Science is built on facts, religion on believes. Believes are far from facts. I said it all. I assume these people went to prestigious schools and sad to see they only retained so little of them. It is beutiful to have faith, but it is horrible to blind yourself. Those three ignorant candidates will definetly be eliminated, not only for being unpopular, but for being dumb. Like i said, haveing faith does not have to make you bling and ignorant. It's 2007!!!

Posted by: Bernardo | May 4, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

So many of you 'enlightened liberals' all sound the same. Why not try to do a little research into the subject? First, the question should have been qualified as to macro or micro evolution. Second, you can be a 'creationist' and not believe the earth was created 6-10 thousand years ago. And finally, well over 400 scientists in all fields have signed a statement saying they do not believe Darwinian evolution is capable of explaining the complexity of organisms or 'first cause'. At one time the 'intellectuals' assumed the world was flat, when the Bible has always referred to it as an orb or ball. Do some research and critical thinking before you jump off the cliff with your pals.

Posted by: czig42 | May 4, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

The idea that the question asked betrays more than the answers is certainly relevant here. I don't think the blame should be placed on the candidates, but rather on the format of the meeting and ultimately on the American voters. First, the asking of the question is a seemingly important one in the mind of many voters. Who's fault is that? Second, the necessity for a truth value to be placed on such a statement forces the candidates to take a polarized approach to the topic. If given the room to speak, these candidates might make it clear that they are supporting the institutions that support such ideologies which get them elected. (Of course, they are politicians so they won't.) They are not experts...they have been told what to believe and since they find other benefits with this system of belief, why would they not support creationism? It seems that the American voters want such a question, answered in such a way to inform their ability to vote. So who are the silly ones?

Posted by: ofcourse | May 4, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Bobby, MD proves the point:

"Still no missing link found after all these wonderful fossils have been discovered. HOW CAN ONE LOOK AROUND AND CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO CREATOR. It would be like walking down a city street and denying that there were laborers or engineers who built the city."

Bobby, what proof is there of a creator? The creator is a product of faith. The only argument for a creator is that, as we continually ask "what happened before that?" we eventually answer "I don't know." And so people say "Aha! Then there must be a God, a 'Prime Mover!'" As a scientist, you know there is no proof of a god, just like there is no proof that there is not a god (or gods, for that matter).

Posted by: bsimon | May 4, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Wow... I can't believe how many people actually still believe, with all of the evidence and FACT that has been uncovered, that macro evolution is actually a possibility. Of course, micro evolution is happening all the time. Darwin saw it on the Galapagos islands. Natural selection happens all around us. But there is not one fact that leads to even the slightest possibility of a species evolving into a completely different one. There are no missing links anywhere. There are no fossils that even hint at it. Show me one, and I'll listen. I can't believe how many people call those who don't believe in evolution "idiots" or "stupid" or whatever. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics alone is enough to disprove evolution. Before you start trashing people for not believing, get the facts. Being yelled at and called names will only get people mad, and it only proves that you ultimately have no way to back up what you are saying. I could sit here and call you "pathetic" and whatever else I can think up, but it's not going to change your mind. The facts are the facts. Please study them before deciding that you are the ultimate authority on the matter. The FACT is that there is a God who made everything, including us. Just because you don't want to be held accountable to Someone else doesn't give you the right to beat down those who have given their lives for what is true and right. Search for the real TRUTH, and you'll find it.

Posted by: Cookito | May 4, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Great comments - clearly a reflection of the numbers of people who know how to use a computer, can and want to have an independant thought, can articuate that thought and not necessarily a mirror of the population.

I think its absolutely terrifying that there are three GOP candidate who don't "believe" in evolution. Look what we got last time. (Does Bush believe in evolution? Somehoe I don't think so).

We are getting our butts kicked in scientific research, medicine, engineering, manufacturing, etc. around the world - in fields that obviously require an advanced grasp of the balance and difference between science and religion.

I'm not going to be able to sleep at night!

Posted by: Mollie | May 4, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I just wanted to express my complete contempt for the opening comment. Efforts to reconcile religion and science are misguided and foolish. Religion makes claims about origins that are wrong, period. Those men who raise their hands are psychotic.

Posted by: Chris Fox | May 4, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

All of the systems and organisms in the world are so complex that we can not even begin to explain them. Their existance screams of the existance of GOD, yet in our arrogance, we fail to recognize that there is a creator. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation. Regardless of your view, both involve faith, since neither you or I were actually here when the earth began.

Its a well know fact that the earth is in a constant condition of decline. (2nd law of thermodynamics for you scientific types) Given the existance of that constant deteriorating condition of the earth and its inhabitants, how could organizms start simple and evolve to more complex?? Darwin and the like sidestepped that little fact! I guess it only gets in the way.

I stand firmly by those 3 GOP candidates, and pity the rest!

Posted by: Mike from Westminster | May 4, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"The anti-Christian, anti-faith vitriol is both breathtaking and expected." RetLt592

Sorry you feel that way. Some have said that religion tries to explain the 'super natural'. I'm not sure what that means? Miracles? There are no miracles. A miracle is just an event that science hasn't explained yet.

The true power behind religion is the ability for it to bring peace to someone. Others such as myself have found better ways to do that with out believing in a fictional god.

Posted by: cjackson | May 4, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Wow - now I can see how Barabbas was released...

Posted by: Steve | May 4, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"Evolution" refers not to only a process of change, which is neither demonstrable nor occuring.

The word "evolution," you morons, refers to a group of ideas, known as evolutionary theory. Nefariously hidden within evolutionary theory are the "facts" on the origins of life, i.e. why warm water became butterflies and parrots. Miller/Urey is the heart of this section of evolutionary theory. This part of evolutionary theory is a lie, and the only reasonable, and therefore scientific, explanation for intelligently designed life is an intelligent designer.

Has nothing to do with bibles, or being a zealot on any side. It's just a very painful, impossible to conceive truth.

THAT's the issue. NOT any improvement of an animal over generations. By the way: Such improvements always being from, or being encoded back into the animal's DNA, is also medically known to be NOT the case. So, ya lose that one too guys.

Sorry. Keep stereotyping the American heartlanders as yokels and fools. You look foolish and exposed.

Posted by: Eric Glassman | May 4, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

As an Earth Scientist who believes in an Intelligent Design, I would prefer that Pat Robertson did not teach his version in a Science classroom. Amen.

please excuse the spontaneous response spelling errors...

5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It is the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power -- not as an alternative to but that compliments the theory of evolution. I think it's a combination of both water and soil.

http://tinyurl.com/bzpsn
http://tinyurl.com/2rl54y

Posted by: Diana | May 4, 2007 1:37 PM | Report abuse

I think those 3 who don't beleive in evolution are just reflecting the fact that probably 30% of Republican voters, maybe more, maybe less, refuse to believe in evolution either. These are the same kind of voters who also believe that teenagers need to be taught about sexual abstinence instead of safe sex practices. It's really sad that MY Republican Party has so many narrow minded members and electoral candidates. These are not ignorant or uneducated people either. They are however, so rigid in their rather peculiar beliefs, that they cannot bring themselves to face the facts regarding such issues. Unfortunately, NONE ARE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO REFUSE TO SEE. Trying to use scientific data and or logic in discussing such issues with them is pointless because they DO NOT WISH TO BE CONFUSED BY THE FACTS. You are better off if you just leave them alone and allow them to go on living in their own little fantasy world. I believe this is the most CHRISTIAN way to deal with such non-believers.

Posted by: charles laffiteau | May 4, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Science explain what happen during creation and what was involved. Human mind is finite, limited and cannot compare to span of time used during the creation or God's creation. 1 day could have been thousands if not millions of year. Evolutionist trying to fit time, span of time for human to understand when, where, how long took the creation time.

Posted by: scientist | May 4, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I noticed a few comments above such as:

"Perhaps we should also ask the candidates whether they believe in gravity. Come on people, this one was settled hundreds of years ago: "it still moves."

The theory of Evolution was not presented until Darwin's book "Origin of the Species" until 1859. Science did not officially argue a position on modern evolutionary theory until the 1930's.

Another comment made suggests:

"just for the record...
the correct answer is that you cannot 'believe' in evolution.
evolution (as a process) is a demonstrable fact.
just try 'disbelieving' in gravity."

I tend to disagree with the suggestion that you cannot believe in evolution. Evolution is still theory, unable to be proven conclusively because we have never actually seen one species evolve into another, nor have we found all the "missing links" appropriate to scientifically satisfy with overwhelming evidence that mankind or any other species began as one organism and transformed into another. Belief is apparent in all theories because we cannot prove outright that our theory is fact. I believe the key issue Christians and others have with evolution is the fundamental idea that we are an accident and that God does not have complete control over His creation.

The bottom line for me is that I "believe" God did create mankind for a purpose and does have complete control over the universe from the smallest atomic particles, to Red Giant stars that all exist in a seemingly unending space. I love science and find it to be one of the most helpful institutions man has ever founded, but unfortunately, some have made science their own god--the 21st century religion. The bottom line is that science will never fulfill or win our hearts like God does--and for those few who see science as a tool of understanding and not "understanding," you catch my drift.


Posted by: cq from LA | May 4, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Rhodes, thank you! By your same logic, shake the pulp together and assemble the complete puzzle. Next make it come to life. Essentially that is what would be required for evolution- except on a much more complex scale.

Posted by: Chris | May 4, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Those who say that creationists reject the theory of gravity and accept the flat earth; only show their own ignorance of this whole issue!

The flat earth idea was never accepted by Bible Believing Christians, it has been shown that those pushing such a lie that Creationists and Flat earth go together are themselves ignorant or deceivers knowing little about History in order to try to discredit their opponents when they lack any substanial arguments.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

It shouldn't matter what a president personally believes. It should only matter how they act in the interests of our country.

Is it really relevant whether what they believe about how the world was created? So long as they keep that out of our school systems, and fund medical research that will save lives and cure diseases, It doesn't matter much.

That being said, the GOP and the Christian Fundamentalists aren't doing that. Stopping the funding of stem cell research and forcing intelligent design education in our schools because of the whims of people's faiths is simply wrong. So is denying a woman's right to choose. Its a clear violation of the sentiment of the separation of church and state. These are not issues for politics, rather for personal morals.

And THAT is the real core of the issue. Are they behaving within the tenets of our constitution. And we all know what the track record is thus far.

(democrat, scientist, and firm believer in God)

Posted by: NYC-Democrat | May 4, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

I am always so stunned by the people of science that have no room for faith in their lives. Who says that God didn't start the Big Bang and invent evolution? He may have done it in six days... but does anyone know how long one of His days might be? Science and religion are never mutually exclusive!

Posted by: Stunned | May 4, 2007 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Because "Christianity" and "faith" are currently the biggest threat to our having any kind of civil, global society if not the survival of the human race... as a non Christian, non white, non male, It's pretty clear my name is on the endangered species list.

Posted by: angryGirl | May 4, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Let's align the U.S. Geological Survey mandate with this sort of thinking and rename it the U.S. Theological Survey.

Posted by: Geoff, MN | May 4, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Separation of church and state should not only be a requisite in debates, it should also be a requisite in candidates.

Posted by: Albert from N.Y. | May 4, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Creationists: Thanks for proving my point. You haven't made the slightest effort to understand evolution. (Excuse me, EVILUTION.) Evolution involves none of the following:

1. Magic rock.
2. Creatures arising fully-formed from goo.
3. The eventual arising of superpowers. (Unless you're a fan of the show "Heroes", that is.)
4. The extinction of all "lower" creatures.
5. "Sheer chance". At least, not the way you use it.

You don't even know what you're arguing against!

Posted by: Blarg | May 4, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Dear politicians:

It can be difficult making sense of the subtle differences between intelligent design and evolution. However, trust me, they are deeply important.

It is worth your time as a public figure to familiarize yourself with the distinction.

The issues are treated concisely and elegantly at http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
The feature is titled
"Intelligent Design? A special report reprinted from Natural History magazine"

Posted by: Golgi | May 4, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Seems like people don't quite understand about what they are arguing. Micro evolution is demonstrable and is valid. Darwinian macro evolution is more of a belief system at best.

There are data that fit well with Darwinian evolution and data that fit well with creationism. Unfortunately, textbooks in school won't tell you much about the data that conflicts with macro evolution - you are told that it is a proven fact.

Many things in the realm of science have been revised and/or abandoned many times. Just because something is presented as "fact" does not make it so. People have a choice in what to put their faith. Some choose evolution and others, creationism. But make no mistake - believing in, accepting, studying - whatever word you want to use to describe what you think about evolution is still just a reflection that you've chosen to put your faith in macro evolution. IMO, belief in that requires more faith than in creationism.

Posted by: Andy | May 4, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

The person who wrote

"They look like a pack of chimps to me"

above wasn't quite right. Although both they and chimps have the same ancestors, they're evolved from the "chump" line.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 4, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

All right... I've had enough, and had to speak up. To Spartan on the subject of funding education: 1) The U.S. puts more money per capita in education than any other country in the world, 2) In real dollars (adjusted for inflation) we put more money into education today than we have at any time in our history, 3) there are hundreds of studies that prove that there is very little, if any, relationship between spending and successful learning. So don't go down tangents you can't defend.

For everyone else... I don't know anyone who is educated that doubts the existance of 2 very distinct worlds that we live in. One is the physical, the other is the spiritual. Let's face it, science is great at explaining the physical world, absolutely. But science is lost when it comes to the spiritual world. Some things just can't be explained by an experiment! So... please get off your scientific high-horse and face the fact that those who believe differently than you (in creation for instance) could very well be correct, and if you only have your scientific blinders on you are missing half of the information.

Posted by: Dan P | May 4, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

The ones with their hands up are idiots no different from other fundamentalists who abdicate their god given logic and intelligence.As such they are the mirror in our society of those our brave soldiers are dying against in muslim hell holes across the planet

Posted by: Harry Gill | May 4, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Evolution occurred for millions of years! The natural selection did not work in creating a species that had any progressive tendices. God stepped in and created the human species so that some chance of intelligence could prevail.

Based on some the comments I have read, some strains of the early critters on this earth was passed down to modern man.

Posted by: Tom Blevins | May 4, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Zouk:

We have to learn to understand one another. But first, a few things need to get out there to clarify the whole argument from both sides (these are not personal attacks at you, just things Im thinking):
(1) People, in general, are not open minded - ie, not mutually exclusive to political affiliation. They want to believe only what they want to believe - unless otherwise provided a convincing argument. which leads me to # 2...

(2) Using assumptions or personal opintions as an basis for argument is not appropriate if you want to be taken seriously.

(3) ("Good") Science is based on empirical evidence. Science does not seek to manipulate - at its core it is driven by the curiousity of the scientist. Albert Einstien did not forsee Hiroshima any more than Jesus did the Crusades. The rules driving scientific discovery and change allow for dissent - even if human behavior gets in the way from time to time. It openly rewrites what it finds to be false, in the end.

(4) Religion intends to make people whole, and happy; its success is based on that and other inherently selfish desires ("I dont want to go to hell!) being turned around to make every practitioner "good." People, however, are flawed, and as such history has shown that the organizations behind religion use the corruptability of humanity, and the controll ideas (Ask Sir Isaac Newton or Capernicus) through the structural organization of its internal societal network and (sometimes) blind obediance of its followers (hey, isnt that just like the terrorists?).

With that said, I shall now commence with my personal attack:

Your ideas lack convicing arguments, and reading your thougts is quite frustrating and at best, and terribly boring due to a lack of original ideas (Fox News is actually entertainment, not news - there is a difference; I am not entertained by it, for the record, but some people are). You are full of it, and sadly represent much of the closed minded, mis-eduacated community in this small world. I can't stand closed minded anyone, including liberals. I happen to be an open minded one, however.

On this issue:
Evolution is based on empirical evidence. Fossils are not ancient monsters, they were creatures that once lived on this planet waaaay before humans werent monkeys, even. Birds are actually evolved dinosaurs. I know you probably don't believe these things, and that is your right.

But consider this: the fossil fuel you burn in your car to get to work was derived vicariously through scientists/geologists who located that oil by recognizing fossils in the ground based on the known fossil (ie, evolutionary record) - your car is fueled by not a belief, but by the application of evolution. Are you now required by your closed mindedness to boycott driving your car?

A scientific theory has a body of evidence proving proof supporting premise. The existence of atoms is a theory. Electricity is a theory. Try posting close minded blogs without it sometime.

Posted by: nonbelieverwillburninnonexistenthell | May 4, 2007 1:32 PM |