Evolution and the Hand of God

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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

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

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

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?

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?

"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.

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."

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.

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

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!

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.

Excellent post, Yaweh.

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.

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.

Tarheel - Stop with Einstein, already!

He was a mathemtician; not a philosopher.

He is not an "authority" on the subject.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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...

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'!!!

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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!!!!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

"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.

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

Not within the procedural processes of disciplines themselves.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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???

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.

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

No evolution in the classroom, cry creationists.

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

Than

What is the translation of Genesis 1:1?

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.

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.

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!!!!

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.

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?

What if your minister was Thomas Edison?

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!

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."

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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

D. W. - Agreed!

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.

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

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

D.W. - No I'm not!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Did you SEE those nitwits up there???

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.

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.

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!

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).

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.

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"

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.

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.

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?

Rudy supports public funding of abortions. Yikes!

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

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

God created the universe.

Man wrote the Bible.

Take your pick.

Jack Fletcher

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

"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

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: 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: 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.

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.

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! :`}

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

I am neither, by the way.

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.

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?

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.

> 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.

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.

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/

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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?"

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."

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.

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?

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.

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."

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.

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)

It is sad so see how many will die again in the lake of Fire...It's not too late

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.

"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.

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.)

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.

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!!

-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.

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.

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."

"[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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I must be in hell

You make absolutely no sense.

"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.

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.

"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!

It is truly incredible that a modern nation like the U.S is capable of producing these fundamentalist backward people.

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.

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

So christine's are the world's oppressors? Who was fed to the Roman lions?

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!

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

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.

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?)

:)

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.

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.

Got to love self righteous anonymous posters.

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.

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)

"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.

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

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!

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

Any man who claims to speak for god is a flase prophet

I'm so disappointed in almost all of you!

What have I wrought?

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! |

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.

Worried - Where does time come from?

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!

At least we're CLones with morals! Not selfless pigs!

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?

Ignore my last post. It's all messed up and backwards. I can't type today, end of the day :).

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.

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?

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!!

"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.

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! :)

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

No one is surprised that these guys don't believe in evolution. They're complete idiots. Why bother with follow-up questions?

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

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.

200% agreement rufus! Some people are in office that need to answer for their actions.

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

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

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.

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!

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!

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

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.

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

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?

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!

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..

Sorry Tyrannosaur. I thought you were the same poster from earlier.

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?

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.

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!

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

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

Dude, I'm a partisan hack of a Democrat.

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

And thus is a thread derailed.

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.

Bah, Matrix was t3h 5uxx0r (it sucked). Too many ridiculous plot holes. Never saw the next movies.

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.

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 :)

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

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

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!

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!!!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

You show me an inteligent man. If he believes in god, I will show you a dumb brainwashed, myth believing idiot.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

In response to DW:

Faith is not evidence.

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"They laughed at Isaiah... Job... Moses..."

-Bravo, Steve!

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?

"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?!

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?

Well said Gage because evolutionists do have to have faith that one day their theory will be true.

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.

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.

Tyrannosaur -

Not to presume I can answer for Ben, but...

Why not?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)?

Ben: why?

Peace Soloman

I've gotta go to.

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?)

The Bible says, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." I believe it.

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.

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.

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.

Again, the Founding Fathers were mostly deists. Not Christians. Common mistake.

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.

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!!!!!!

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?

Its been a stimulating conversation Brad. thanks for the fun but I must go to work.

Be Good...

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.

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

Brendan,

700 dissenters out of 500,000 earth and life scientists in the U.S. alone? How does that work out, percentage wise?

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.

[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.

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?

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"...

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.

DW

You mean like how a single egg cell turns into a human?

What the thinker thinks, the prover proves.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

Ah the great debate.

Isn't evolution devine?

Check out a very cool examination of the subject at www.genesisinc.tv

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Everyone knows that creationism is correct theory. Ra created the heavens and the earth for all mankind.

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.

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

Brad -

We believers argue for the same reason - because the non-believing americans force their views on the american society.

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.

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!

Above was I.

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!

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.

Let them use last year's flu vaccine.

What's pathetic is when those three idiots raised their hands, x% of Republicans clapped with glee.

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.

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...

John-

Us non believers argue becuse we are tired of american belivers forcing their views on american society.

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?

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.

GDS, your comment about making decisions without understanding the choices is unintentionally hilarious, and sadly you may never know why.