monkey, monkey, Carl Sagan was not a flunkey... Evolution vs. Creationism..

I'm not convinced that all those 'of faith' really believe the word of the Bible. I think they pick and choose what parts to rely on. But, I am reasonably sure that the majority of church going, God fearing, Christians are as hypocritical as can be. If they practiced their religion it would be great. Too many of them just brag about it, but don't practice it.

amabreeze...in your article, are you referring to Bill Maher, who is an atheist, or Bill Moyer who is on public television?? I enjoy both of them.

I think I'm going to hell.

I think we've already arrived...

Great article, Wordflow. As far as the two theories, I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle, possibly incorporating the two views with information that has not been received yet by the mainstream public. Personally, I believe evolution explains creation but there are still missing elements that the whole have not considered or or the few have discovered yet. There may be energies that come from the outer rims of space or center of our galaxy that speed up our evolution or change it in some fundamental way. We just don't know enough to have definitive answers.

And by the way, I'm not going to argue with anyone regarding my beliefs. Share, yes; argue, no. They are beliefs, and just as people's beliefs should be, they are subject to modification when new information arrives on the scene. That's the fun of wondering, researching and thinking! :)

Either way, can't we all just get along?

Seriously?

Religion and the Bible, at least in the USA, make you turn off your brain. How can you engage in independent thinking, with this kind of religious crap going on in America today?

"...you can't have a living functioning human beitng without a combination of both"

Let's say I put a person in a molecular duplicating machine, with no spiritual anything. What do you believe will emerge from the other side?

1. Evolution is based on a physiclal science.. Even though religions organizations look for physical evidance for their beliefs it's not needed.. True belief in God in it's purest form is spiritual... And you can't have a living functioning human beitng without a combination of both.. No matter what facts you bring up or reasoning you suggest or either your lack of or belief in God,,,, THANKS

and thank you Amabreeze for your column. I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond to this sooner since it is fundamental to understanding. I think you've expressed the most deeply misheld mumpsimus at least since Sir Francis Bacon established scientific method.

Evolution is no more, nor creationism any less, based in science. SCIENCE is science, and its data is then applied to either support one's religious belief of whether God exists or not. Generally then, understanding the cosmos is either by creation or evolution. The religion is then either atheism or theism. Atheism is the religious belief that God does not exist, and theism is the religious belief that He does exist. So, belief in God is just as much based in physical science as is non-belief.

Though relatively disorganized and yet on the increase as such, but yet a religion, atheism is in dire need of scientific data to support its position while theism is in no need of it. Yet, as science progresses and we find no end to the complexity of living and non-living systems and matter, the accumulation of data is self-defeating for atheism.

Also, in the primary context that a person is a trinity; body, spirit, and soul, yes, humans live without a spirit--exanimous. Their soul, or mind, is alive with their body, but dead indeed might they be spiritually.

Evolution is no more, nor creationism any less, based in science. SCIENCE is science, and its data is then applied to either support one's religious belief of whether God exists or not.

Creationism is not science simply because it is untestable and unfalsifiable. You can't even form a hypothesis around it, like searching for divine genes.

Generally then, understanding the cosmos is either by creation or evolution. The religion is then either atheism or theism. Atheism is the religious belief that God does not exist, and theism is the religious belief that He does exist. So, belief in God is just as much based in physical science as is non-belief.

Your world-view is so skewed that I wonder how you get up in the morning. What about the Catholics who believe that evolution was directed by God? And no, belief in God is not based in science. If it was, it would not be called FAITH.

Though relatively disorganized and yet on the increase as such, but yet a religion, atheism is in dire need of scientific data to support its position while theism is in no need of it.

How is atheism a religion? Does it have a set code of dogma, preachers that dress up in funny robes, knock on your door, and scream about denying human rights to anyone that they think doesn't fit into God's plan?

From Merriam-Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

If you look at it under its textbook definition, atheism is not a religion. And by the way, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which you have none of.

Yet, as science progresses and we find no end to the complexity of living and non-living systems and matter, the accumulation of data is self-defeating for atheism.

Uh, no. The reason why atheism exists in the first place is because there is no credible evidence for supernatural phenomenon in the natural world. And if there was, you would still have to confirm that it was your God or Demon of choice that was causing it.

By the way, you are using the irreducible complexity argument that has been thoroughly debunked.

Also, in the primary context that a person is a trinity; body, spirit, and soul, yes, humans live without a spirit--exanimous. Their soul, or mind, is alive with their body, but dead indeed might they be spiritually.

Prove that a spirit or soul exists in the first place, then we'll talk.

There are only two things that really contribute to a person's well-being: the condition of their mind and their body.

Atheism is the religious belief that God does not exist,...

Well, let me get back to my hobby of NOT collecting bottle caps. Then I can relax with my favorite vice, NOT smoking. And since I'm dieting, I'm going to have a piece of pie (NOT "not eating sweets").

Thanks for that, Jack-1666973, I'll be using that in future :)

dbm -

My pleasure. I did have to think carefully a moment regarding the "not not".

////// Creationism is not science simply because it is untestable and unfalsifiable. You can't even form a hypothesis around it, like searching for divine genes.

Yes, I've always said, creationism is not science. Nor do I say that the idea that existing things evolve cannot be subjected to scientific investigation. But again, SCIENCE IS SCIENCE. You need to review the definition of hypothesis, too. If evolution is testable and falsifiable, then the falsification of evolution confirms creation. Prove one and you falsify the other; falsify one and you prove the other. They are both amenable to scientific data. It is an either, or, proposition, therefore, Creation can be confirmed or falsified using data from the scientific method that falsifies or confirms orthogenesis. It's called an apagoge. Therefore, the belief in creationism is as much BASED in science as is the belief in evolution. Formerly, I consigned persons such as yourself arguing this point as using a deliberate refusal to admit understanding. I now am convinced it is rather an intellectual inability.

////// Your world-view is so skewed that I wonder how you get up in the morning. What about the Catholics who believe that evolution was directed by God? And no, belief in God is not based in science. If it was, it would not be called FAITH.

Do you know what a world-view is? My world-view gives me an understanding of the origin, meaning, and destiny of all things of the universe. It gives me confidence in my existence and future. I get up every morning with alacrity, confidence, humility, and thanks to the Almighty that created this cosmos. How do you get up every morning, thinking as though you know, that you face annihilation all the while dealing with consenescence (and now me) as reminders of your caducous purposeless existence? You WILL now wake the morning after reading this and recall what I've just mentioned to face your purposeless existence. You WILL recall this first thing.

My belief in God can and does incorporate science. It includes both faith and fact.

////// How is atheism a religion?

In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), the SC treated secular humanism as a religion.

In Kaufman v. McCaughtry, a federal court ruled atheism as a religion, and the Colorado Springs Gazette reported, "...its philosophy is analogous to religion...Religion at its root is belief, which means it has everything in common with atheism and secular humanism. No theological position - "there is a god," "there isn't a god," or "it doesn't matter" - serves as common ground upon which the state can reside in order to avoid establishment and prohibition of free exercise."

////// And by the way, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which you have none of.

As the fish might say, "There is no water.”

///// By the way, you are using the irreducible complexity argument that has been thoroughly debunked.

By the way I am not invoking this at all, and nevertheless, the only debunking is in your opinion. And how does your "scientific" mind read,”…as science progresses and we find no end to the complexity..." and equate that to the irreducible complexity argument? I think this is clear evidence of your inability to comprehend.

///// Prove that a spirit or soul exists in the first place, then we'll talk.

Prove that matter comes from nothing, or that life comes from non-living elements, then we'll talk.

///// There are only two things that really contribute to a person's well-being: the condition of their mind and their body.

Being now aware of your self-assigned purposeless existence, I suspect the condition of your mind will deteriorate.

ahh, well, it can most likely be said, many will suspect the condition of your mind long ago deteriorated.

If evolution is testable and falsifiable, then the falsification of evolution confirms creation. Prove one and you falsify the other; falsify one and you prove the other. They are both amenable to scientific data. It is an either, or, proposition...

This is simply not true. Evidence against evolution would simply mean that evolution fails the test, meaning that something else must be fact. It does not follow that the something else has to be creation - it could be Lamarckism, for instance, or something else we have not thought of yet.

Do you know what a world-view is? My world-view gives me an understanding of the origin, meaning, and destiny of all things of the universe. It gives me confidence in my existence and future. I get up every morning with alacrity, confidence, humility, and thanks to the Almighty that created this cosmos. How do you get up every morning, thinking as though you know, that you face annihilation all the while dealing with consenescence (and now me) as reminders of your caducous purposeless existence? You WILL now wake the morning after reading this and recall what I've just mentioned to face your purposeless existence. You WILL recall this first thing.

No I won't. Unlike you, I am able to make my own meaning, and take meaning from the others that affect my life. I have no need to look to an outside agent for meaning. It is sad to me that you do. And the fact that you can't face life without it does not magically mean that it does actually exist.

Prove that matter comes from nothing, or that life comes from non-living elements, then we'll talk.

The first has been done in experiments with vacuum energy, showing that particles continually pop into existance in cmpletely empty space. The second is an interesting, and ongoing, area of research.

Word,
I won't even go into what's wrong with the things you said about Maher and Sagan, but I will answer your question.

Why is this discussion a[n] important part of politics..?

If there was a complete separation of church and state in America, then I couldn't care less what people believe. The problem is that all the bible-thumpers in this country aren't content with keeping their beliefs to themselves.

You don't feel that this issue relates to politics, but I think it's quite the opposite. What I know about the evolution of life, and the universe itself, helps to shape my thought. I am very logical and reasonable. I think if more people thought like that, then more like-minded people would be elected to our government, which in turn would pass better laws and make better long-term decisions.

You called me an advocate for evolution, but the only thing I'm advocating is rational thinking.

I won't go into the issue of creation/evolution (orthogenesis), but casual cogitation and a sprinkle of acroatic effort might be why some have made a decision to the creation side. Let's see...with orthogenesis, the first two axiomatic laws of science are violated and nowhere in nature are exceptions to be seen. Nowhere in man's recorded history--roughly 5 thousand years--are exceptions recorded. Certainly, the 1st was at least at one time in the past violated because matter exists, but the cosmos does not have an answer for its own existance. Hawking I describe later in this post. Nevertheless, no matter what one has decided on this issue, I care so very much about what others believe, because their beliefs affect my government and my government affects how I live. This is an intermingled social/political/religious issue and cleaving one from the other only serves to enervate full understanding. Just as each type of government (self, ecclesiastic, civil, and family) has its legitimate sphere, they unavoidably overlap. It is puerile and naive to think otherwise. The only separation one can have between civil government and church government is that civil gov. does not establish a religion via coaction. However, it is even more important to have separation of state and education. The only legitimate government educational institutions are military schools. The government should only establish by law, the requirement for education. ALL primary, secondary, and post-secondary education should be PRIVATE. All problems in public education are manufactured by the nature of public funding. Remove public funding and the problems associated with it evanesce. By choosing your child’s education, one can then be as tendentious as one wants with whatever brand of doctrine. It is not the 1st or 2nd amendments to our Constitution, but rather, freedom of education which is the "Mother of all freedoms." My wife and I have homeschooled our 4 children all the while paying for public education, the philosophy of which is an affront to us. Yet, by coaction brought on by the votary, we've been forced to support doctrine and methods we abhor.

Your statement about what you know of the evolution of the universe and life is haughty hubris at least and is tantamount to a 1st grade rodomont bragging about his academic achievements to a true polymath. Also, this attitude is typical of evolutionists who think they “own” science while we all use the same data that science provides. The trouble with atheist evolutionists is that they self-apotheosize and aggrandize themselves as intellectuals all the while many are mere sciolists, and many haven't the slightest idea of epistemology. (Hawking defined. Though he may be agnostic or atheist light.) Attitudes like this, coupled with public funding of education, are what concern me. With atheist evolutionist agendum prevalent in public education, it has become a self-perpetuating system. You should fear the day a petty plebicolist adept at pathopoeia comes to the world political scene who has an evolutionist schesis.

>>>Is the Evolution vs., Creationist debate going to create more jobs ?

I have to give a paromology here. Yes, a belief in evolution does create jobs. NASA, SETI, and other publicly funded entities and programs have and have had at their core, the belief that the universe evolved, and every “cosmic rock” they turn over is a chimerical search for support for their belief in abiogenesis (they just won’t take Pasteur for his work). There is a better way however, to create jobs, stimulate the market, and establish eunomy. Get government out of education (other than the above mentioned constitutionally legitimate exception), and allow free market capitalism (the best system available to mankind as long as it's tempered with Christian compassion). The world has once witnessed the refulgency of the Christian Creationist Cosmogony and Cosmology. It is what put the wind in the sails of this great U.S.A.

>>>If we finally figure out how we got here even if we were dropped off a alien aircraft would it make our lives better...

If we finally understand a creationist cosmogony and use it as our Telesis the telestic effect will certainly serve mankind for the better. Had the creationist cosmogony been in place in the past, many adults now without tonsils, appendixes, etc., would still have important parts of their immune systems intact. Many Australian aborigines would have not lost their lives to Darwin’s head hunters. Much money would not have been wasted because of paralogistic/evolution based research such as assuming that there is such a thing as “junk” DNA.

>>>>These positions should be considered social issues not political. There not going to improve the economy. stimulate the stock market, preserve social security or improve health care......

I whole-heartedly disagree. Acroatic cogitation required here.

Your statement about what you know of the evolution of the universe and life is haughty hubris at least and is tantamount to a 1st grade rodomont bragging about his academic achievements to a true polymath.

Wow, you nailed me. I'm just a bragging 1st grader. Thank you for putting me in my place.

Please, if you would, indulge me and share your wisdom. I would absolutely love for you to tell me exactly what it is that you teach your four children about the world and about where they came from.

Feel free to use some of that science that we evolutionists "own"

p.s. See my post #2. Seems to me that (b) fits you best

So (b) fits me best. How does it feel to do all that hard work just to prove your opponents point? What a wonderful expression of a characteristic of an evolutionist. With no information to support it, they make absolute statements and assessments as though fact. Now, get to the subject at hand. The true giants of science were not at all hobbled by the fact that they believed God created the universe. What did Sagan give us? What has Hawking given us? Not much more than stultiloquence posing as science. What has Maher given us but an example of a bigoted Christian hater who cannot even defend his own beliefs?

Yes, obviously, you are much smarter than Sagan and Hawking, and you have contributed much more to science than they could ever dream.

That's why I desperately wish to hear some real science (not those nasty lies from the evolutionists).

Will you not enlighten me?

That's what I believe. The bible tells us who did the creating, but it never specified HOW He did the creating. I see no reason God would be unable or unwilling to use evolution in the creative process.

.. I'm not trying to imply that I am for Evolution or Creation..

i apologize if my response gave that impression. i did not gather that from your article. my post was directed at anybody who argues for either absolute, as if there can be nothing in between.

i agree wholeheartedly this subject has no place in politics.

The only ones that know the truth are not talking. They are dead.

>>>>I see no reason God would be unable or unwilling to use evolution in the creative process.

No degree of theodicy would suffice to explain the above statement. This statement is tantamount to saying that the Almighty is a cruel, inefficient, malevolent, incompetent being. Does not work for me.

>>>>The only ones that know the truth are not talking. They are dead.

I know one who knows. He is Jesus the Christ, and His resurrection is the best proved fact of history. He's been there and is alive, forevermore.

To Charles Martel

Sorry Resurrection never happened. It is simply one of the many lies the apostles came up with to keep themselves in authority after their meal ticket was crucifide.

Sorry, Mark. Not the best of any sophistry will debunk the fact. Now do the seeder a favor and do an epanodos (second definition) and get back to the topic.

>>>>this subject gets to much attention on the political scene. Arguing about it pushes each side further apart. You gave the perfect answer of ' maybe God intended for species to evolve '... a compromise.. And I just can't figure out why all this time is spent on this subject and how it makes our political and economic situation any better..?

Being an adiaphorist leads to "road kill." The middle of the road is where you get hit by both directions of traffic. Compromise is no solution here. The solution to remove this from public/political debate is to end forced public funding of education.

A creationist cosmogony is what inspired most all the scientists who made the fundamental scientific discoveries upon which sustained modern science rests including Herschel, Lister, Pasteur, Boyle, Mendel, etc. What they have given society via science is positive and immeasurable... to the annoyance of all these Christian Creationist haters. Obviously, a true understanding and practice of a Christian Creationist cosmogony is beneficial to all mankind and his endeavors and institutions.

To Charles

You have never read any of my articles I see, I use the bible to debunk the bible.

and His resurrection is the best proved fact of history

Charles, certainly you're not going to argue that the Bible states it, therefore it's fact. The Bible (NT) was written at least 40 years after Jesus allegedly had been crucified (and some books even later). The Romans, who were excellent keepers of history back then had NO mention of any Jesus being crucified. His resurrection is a matter of your faith, and nowhere near enough proof exists to call it a fact. Your beliefs (and mine as well) cannot be considered facts....which is why they are called beliefs in the first place.

There is a great book on the subject called "The Case for Christ" which does a fairly good job of putting the resurrection story to the scientific test. I don't advocate for or against the belief since religion is an explicitly personal endeavor as far as I am concerned, but you have to educate yourself to both sides of the argument to understand it.

To Mo Jito

I based my belief that the Resurrection is pure fantasy on the Gospels themselves. The Gospels contradict each other on every major event recorded in the N/T. If the authors of the Gospels are proved liars, then nothing they recount can be deemed valid.

This statement is tantamount to saying that the Almighty is a cruel, inefficient, malevolent, incompetent being.

Can you explain why you think evolution is cruel, inefficient, malevolent, or incompetent?

What do you think about the Texas Board of Education requiring that 'creationism' be included in biology texts along with 'evolution'??

This would be rather meaningless, except that the source of the textbooks is, essentially, the same source for all the other 50 states. Which means that these religionists will have their beliefs transmitted to all children, not matter what their non-Texan school district wants !!

If you want me to go along, prove your stuff to me in experiments that I, too, and duplicate and with which I, too, will reach the same conclusions. Then I'll consider what you have to say.

i apologize if i am wrong, but your post implies that you believe God is a myth. maybe you should prove them wrong in order for them to consider what you have to say?

it takes an open mind to engage in earnest discussion, while i agree many religious people do not have an open mind, your post makes you sound as closed-minded as they are.

Correct, RETLAW...................that is why Evolution vs Creationism shouldn't be a political suject *UNLESS* it affects our Children's School books! Creationism should not be taught in schools AS a Scientific Philosophy, it is but a Sneaky way to bring Religion into Schools.........NOT ACCEPTABLE. Religion belongs at home and in Church only. The same as Slavery DID exist and GENOCIDE WAS used on American Native Indians.

P.S. AAANNNDD since the Bible states that GOD made man in his own image..............then all races are the same. We all have the same body parts and the same color blood. We grow the same amount of teeth etc.

My mind is completely open, inde. I'll listen to any presentation. I'm a student of science, mathematics, statistics, quality management, and human nature. I welcome learning new things. In fact, learning is my favorite activity. My largest descretionary expense has always been books! Text books; reference books; books that teach are my favorites.

As for religion, I don't have a favorite. As I said, my mind is open.

G.H. - You can not teach history without religion. Religion shaped every aspect of our history in some way, and continues to. I think the key is making sure that religion is taught in an historically accurate way as opposed to a biased or skewed narrative to appease any one view point. It's a difficult fence to straddle, but I think it can be done. I'm a pretty conservative thinker, but I agree that you leave creationism out of the science textbook. It isn't a scientfic theory and doesn't belong there. It is an alternative theory, but unless you can apply the scientific process to it, it is not part of science. Parents are welcome to teach whatever they want at home. I have no idea what the islamic, buddhist, or hindu view of the creation is, but I know I never learned it science class.

>>>>My mind is completely open, inde. I'll listen to any presentation. I'm a student of science, mathematics, statistics, quality management, and human nature. I welcome learning new things. In fact, learning is my favorite activity. My largest descretionary expense has always been books! Text books; reference books; books that teach are my favorites. As for religion, I don't have a favorite.

Excellent! Try, reading some articles from http://www.icr.org/

Religion shaped every aspect of our history in some way, and continues to. I think the key is making sure that religion is taught in an historically accurate way as opposed to a biased or skewed narrative to appease any one view point

I think the most important point to note is that when religion had its' biggest influence....it was called the Dark Ages. Perhaps fittingly! And even more telling, I believe if we teach the history of religion....perhaps even more will reject it....because the history of the "mainstream" religions is awful! The Spanish Inquisition....the Crusades....the Salem Witch Hunt....the hiding of pedophile priests....it goes on and on.....

I think the most important point to note is that when religion had its' biggest influence....it was called the Dark Ages. Perhaps fittingly! And even more telling, I believe if we teach the history of religion....perhaps even more will reject it....because the history of the "mainstream" religions is awful! The Spanish Inquisition....the Crusades....the Salem Witch Hunt....the hiding of pedophile priests....it goes on and on.....

Don't forget the Holocaust, the 9/11 attacks, subsequent terrorist attacks throughout the 21st Century, the firebombing of clinics, targeted killings of doctors and U.S. soldiers, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Irish Republican Army, the Lord's Resistance Army, and several genocides.

What, you think I'm joking about the Holocaust? Consider this:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

And then, how do we distinguish between what was done BY religion and what was done by crazy people in the NAME OF religion? How do you get the slant out of the historical account when it's all so personal?

How about "owning up to" the artocities that are directly attributable to a religion?

And then, how do we distinguish between what was done BY religion and what was done by crazy people in the NAME OF religion?

They are one and the same. Religion may have "united the tribes" back in the day, but today they stand in the way of our own evolution.....stifling free thought and science. And why not? How else can you get the masses to accept their lives of slavery and servitude when convincing the people that their rewards will come AFTER they die? It's a scheme Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff only wish they could have thought up!

How about "owning up to" the artocities that are directly attributable to a religion?

They couldn't, otherwise they'd easily figure out that these atrocities are mainly inscribed in the Bible, Koran, and Torah themselves.

And then, how do we distinguish between what was done BY religion and what was done by crazy people in the NAME OF religion?

Hmmm if the Vatican is God's house on earth, and the pope God's messenger does that mean when the pope during WWII times transmitted a papal notice telling priest to NOT save jews or anyone else being hunted by the Nazi's lest those priest who did try to save them be excommunicated, that this was in the name of religion or was it by religion? I ask this since the Vatican is the original source of all dogma as well the final authority on any Christian religious interpretations/decrees?

So did the pope do it in the name of religion or was it by religion as he is the head and voice of the religion?

How about "owning up to" the artocities that are directly attributable to a religion?

There have been massive atrocities done in the name of religion. Name a religion and I am sure we can find an atrocity. People because we are people will take anything good and use it for evil. That is what we do best, and have done best for thousands of years. The biggest problem with humanity is humans.

I can only speak for Christianity and then only from my perspective. Religion is man made. Mankind has taken what God has given a corrupted it for their own gain. For me to be a Christians is to walk as Christ to follow the precepts of Father ,Son and Holy Spirit. To love God with all my heart , all my soul and all my mind. To love my neighbor as I love myself.

1-if the Vatican is God's house on earth----2-I ask this since the Vatican is the original source of all dogma as well the final authority on any Christian religious interpretations/decrees?-----3-So did the pope do it in the name of religion or was it by religion as he is the head and voice of the religion?

1-The Vatican is not God's house on earth. It is a church a really big church and the political offices of the Catholic Church. God does not have on specific house nay where on earth.

2- The Vatican is the source of all Catholic doctrine not the doctrine of all Christians. That source is the Bible. It is the final authority of the Catholics not all Christians. That final authority lies with God.

3- The Pope is appointed by the Cardnials of the Catholic church. it is part of their man made doctrine. You will not find doctrine in the bible that outlines the Pope, Cardinals, or any of the other hierarchies of the Catholic church. That is religion it is all man made. The Pope is the voice of the Catholic church and the Catholic church only.

Yes, let's own up. Now how about that atheist/evolutionist religion? It is the atheists' religion that has taken more innocent lives than any other. It's a war that has never seen a truce or pause. You know...the one waged by self-serving persons; atheists, humanists, pancosmists, evolutionists, in short, those who hold to anomy. Think of the streets of every city in the world where these types of persons commit murder, rape, theft, and the rest every day and from the beginning. This is the war waged by uncicurated atheists, and the body count grows daily, hourly, by the minute in every city of every nation of the world.

To Charles

Embryos are nothing more then genetic material waiting to be flushed, it is not human life and flushing it to the sea is not murder.

My mistake I thought you were on a abortion rant, my mistake, and your post is way out into left field by the way. The Bible Lies, Christianity is founded upon those Lies so Christianity Lies, might as well cut to the chase.

Think of the streets of every city in the world where these types of persons commit murder, rape, theft, and the rest every day and from the beginning.

So you're saying that people would rape and kill at will if God was certainly non-existent?

Your morality is nothing more than a s*** sandwich.

By the way, atheism is not a religion. Get that through your head.

Now how about that atheist/evolutionist religion? It is the atheists' religion that has taken more innocent lives than any other. It's a war that has never seen a truce or pause.

Proof? Considering that if you believe your Bible to be true, then your God drowned the entire PLANET. Oh, and don't forget all those atrocities.

He makes Hitler (a Christian) and Stalin (an atheist) look like marionette puppets.

If the vatican decides doctrine then they define their religion, therefore any atrocities done by the vatican can be said to be done by religion. And there are several, including torture, orders to murder, the so called crusade, and the refusal to live up to their professed belief by refusing to help people in need because of their religion, their sexual preference, or status.
Your slippery 'logic' fails.

Rahily -

I never said that the Vatican did not do what they did and have done outside of their religion. What I did point out is that the Vatican does not speak for all Christianity only for the Catholic religion. Second that religion is indeed man made and that a Christian is not and should not be defined by any man made religion. A Christian by definition cones from Christ. It is a way of life not a religion.

Think of the streets of every city in the world where these types of persons commit murder, rape, theft, and the rest every day and from the beginning.

ROFL, sorry but there is actual evidence that this statement is not only wrong, but that the exact opposite is true. In America where atheists make up about 10% of the population, the also make up LESS THAN one half of 1% of the prison population. Atheists commit LESS crime than Christians do in America. Sorry dude, your rapists follow Jesus.

kav,

So true.

I was agnostic before I became a Wiccan. My religion doesn't tell me that I was born evil and must rejoice in my poverty as sign of my piety and that all suffering is because I was a born a sinner and DESERVE it. Since I threw off the shackles of sin and christianity, my self respect has skyrocketed. It has, I no longer feel guilty of every little speck of selfishness. I'm human and imperfect as long as I do my best to become better, why should I sit around and immerse myself in a religion that says every little thing I do that isn't with God or Jesus in mind means I'm damned.

Ya know, I don't see Wiccans out there bombing abortion clinics. I don't see Buhddist out there harrassing children of same sex parents and driving them to tears. I don't see Agnostics screaming on street corners about how if we don't believe them then we will suffer of eternity. I don't see Athesists saying that if we don't enshrine thier non-belief in any deity in the constitution then they will do thier best to take over the government. In fact, all they want is no support for any religion and no interference of the government in any religion.

When you live a miserable life, you act out and make others miserable so you think "oh see I'm actually better off than them, my life is better because I made thier life worse." Notice how many of these miserable people then realize, "oh yeah, I'm a Christian! I'm Saved!" in jail?

Sorry if I sound a bit bitter about my experience with christianity but if other people want to stay there. I don't care, but don't blame others for your misery anymore. I got out of it.

My religion doesn't tell me that I was born evil and must rejoice in my poverty as sign of my piety and that all suffering is because I was a born a sinner and DESERVE it.

It's obviously working to actually INCREASE your dignity and self-worth rather than decrease it. So this non-religious person says good for you.

Rahlly,

LOL, I used to be Wiccan before I became atheist (I was raised Christian)! I loved the Wiccan religion, I just realized I didn't believe in the supernatural anymore. Yeah, those poor Christians do seem to love their misery. Not a happy religion. Paganism is so much more life-affirming and uplifting.

IF I were religious, I'd be pagan too but at this point, I'm offing myself from anything metaphysical. that doesn't mean spiritual, it means metaphysical. I find spiritualism is the plugging in of our energy and the cosmos. Where it comes from I don't think we've found the answers yet.

And as a huge Carl Sagan fan, I take offense to his good name and hard work being trashed.
THIS IS WHAT Carl Sagan thought and said (many times) but here's a good note-worthy link.

http://wimp.com/carlsagan/

I don't know why but I can't get my program here to link. Will someone please do so, so it's easier to take a looksee and listen to the great wise Carl Sagan first-hand?
In all your fancy big words Charles, you couldn't hold a candle to an ounce of his wisdom and knowledge..

YOU have reached a conclusion without evidence. You are a pedant of wishful thinking, not evidenced by a single solitary truth or axiom. This is the mark of a liar, a deciever, not the mark of a scholar.

http://wimp.com/carlsagan/

There you go.

I humbly appreciate your help (as well as good nature and intellect, Mark.) :-)

To Robin

If I was a cat, I would be puring right now :-), did I mention I also have a sense of humor as well LOL. Not a problem Robin. for future ref all you do is write what you want linked.

Marks Group

You then highlight it as if you were going to copy or cut it, next to the (ABC) is a chain link and a broken chain link once you highlight the words, these will be highlighted. click on the unbroken link and a window will open up. paste the address in the first box, the second box allows you to have the link open in a new window which is what I do, so it does not disrupt the page I am posting on.

Well that is about it,

////// By robin-6; In all your fancy big words Charles, you couldn't hold a candle to an ounce of his wisdom and knowledge..

Robin, I'm sure you know that wisdom and knowledge are not measured in terms of weight, volume, specific gravity, etc., but were they measurable as such, I doubt he had the sapience or sagacity to match mine. His knowledge in certain areas (as is the case from most any individual to another) may have been more extensive than mine, and then again, mine in other certain spheres of knowledge, I'm sure, would have been much greater than his.

///// YOU have reached a conclusion without evidence. You are a pedant of wishful thinking, not evidenced by a single solitary truth or axiom. This is the mark of a liar, a deciever, not the mark of a scholar.

I'm sorry, but you are not completely correct. In some ways I am a pedant (1st definition [Obs.], and to some degree the 2nd and 3rd definitions, minus the negative connotations), and I've reached conclusions with extensive evidences. How about the axioms of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics? Are they axiomatic enough? Admittedly obdurately tendentious when engaged as a preceptor, I hold the idealistic intent of pantological perlustration. I am totally uncensorial. Now a scholar can be a liar and mendacious, but I find no reason to be one. Just a humble human am I. Have looked for and found what I now believe in. But I never tire of hearing what others think. I take it, evaluate it, consider it, and make up my mind about it. Paradoxically, however, having such an open mind leads to conclusions, and then one can be defined as closed-minded. It's the human thing to do. Cogitation leads to conclusion.

I don't have time now, but I am going to try to get back with at least one question for you. It will be a question of a humble human looking for answers from those I have yet to fully understand. And by the way, poor Carl, he now realizes, I'm sure, he was just as wrong as Darwin.

Ahhhh here you are. Okay Charles. I apologize for coming off a bit more rude than I actually intended-- but I will do better and hear you out-- under one condition as you have piqued my curiosity. Without coming across as a smartass entirely, I have to hear this explanation of how you get from thermodynamics to your god conclusion.

Now for the condition: IF your goal is to exercise abasement, or convince me/us of your sincerity; then please use less sesquipedalious-type diction. It isn't necessary. In fact, it's rather a turnoff even for the most erudite obsturantist in a setting such as this. I don't have to pull out the ole Oxford to understand you (many here won't) but still, look where you're at. We just like to talk basic ole English speak around here. Although Dr. Diction turns up once in awhile; even he understands the importance of talking to his audience. In case you didn't know, we're all just a bunch of peabrains here. So spare us and bear with us.

Dr. Carl on the other hand; I wish for him that he's discovered billions and billions of star stuffs-- or a wormhole or two that's led him to a dimension we have yet to imagine. But, I highly doubt he's sitting on a cloud surrounded by harp-playing cherubs telling your God how wrong he was for having been born with an inquisitive mind that required actual empirical evidence not predicated upon feelings or wishful desires for his conclusions. I also highly doubt he's locked in a time-out zone awaiting his impending eternal damnation.

//// Robin-6, I’ll answer your question first combined with a comment from your last paragraph: ////

I have to hear this explanation of how you get from thermodynamics to your god conclusion. I highly doubt he's [Carl Sagan] sitting on a cloud surrounded by harp-playing cherubs telling your God how wrong he was for having been born with an inquisitive mind that required actual empirical evidence not predicated upon feelings or wishful desires for his conclusions.

///// I’m picturing poor old Carl sitting in Hell. He’s been given just enough light to read by—lucubration…ooppps, sorry, this sesquipedalian won’t let that happen again. I just couldn’t help it. OK He has the Bible, that collection of books and letters so disdained I’m sure in his world, and there are highlighted sentences. First, he reads, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished…,” and poor Carl does a forehead smack with his open palm and says, “duhhh, the 1^st law of thermo….ooopps, too long a word, he says, “duhhh, the law of conservation of matter and energy!” Then he reads, “..Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish…all of them shall wax old like a garment…., and Carl does another slap to the forehead, and says, duhhh, the 2^nd law of thermo….the law of increasing entropy!” Then perhaps, finally acknowledging God he says, “But God, why didn’t you make me smart enough to see such simple things?”

//// Now it’s your turn. Holding you to the same standard applied to me and other God believers, give me some scientific reasoning to support your following statement. ////

“I find spiritualism is the plugging in of our energy and the cosmos. Where it comes from I don't think we've found the answers yet.”

////// AND do you not answer your own question with the invective against me as follows? ////

“YOU have reached a conclusion without evidence. You are a pedant of wishful thinking, not evidenced by a single solitary truth or axiom.” This is the mark of a…..///// I’ll end the quote here because I have no intent on being a bully.

//// I do sincerely accept your apology, and am not being vindictive here by bringing in these prior statements, but I rather really want to understand how you might, as an evolutionist (correct me here if I’m wrong), defend these. ////

I do believe people are generally good but when they're not, its a matter of brain dysfunction and or bio-chemical anomalies either naturally induced or self-or man-made, i.e. insane in the membrane.

Then of course, there are sociopaths and psychopaths that by their very physiological nature, may not ever have had a chance to be anything but what evil is.

Bully mentality stems a great deal from the old green monster.

///// What is evil? Does Mother Earth see, speak, and/or hear evil? If not, how does an evolutionist identify evil? Don’t we see “bullying,” fighting, maiming, and killing over mating, food, and shelter as commonplace in nature and consistent with the evolutionary struggle? How can one who believes in orthogenesis—sorry, I HAD to use this word because evolution is so misused and misunderstood in the context of discussing origins and the reasons for complex life—repudiate and/or refute the tenets , the empiricals, the characteristics, and dictates of this belief system? ////

ahh, well, it can most likely be said, many will suspect the condition of your mind long ago deteriorated.

//// You are on the right track here again. The Creation Model predicts just this which is consistent with the 2^nd law. I like to think I am still ascending in intellect, though I do expect a decline. As for mankind in general, I believe intellect is but a decadent remnant of what people had, in general, in the distant past—about 6000 years ago.

//// Now for THE question: knowing the tenets and doctrine of the evolution of Darwin, Sagan, Gould, etc., which “race” do you think superior? Since man came out of Africa, and the Negro is first and least developed, but is it the Caucasian or Asian which is more developed on the scale of evolution, and are you personally courageous enough to publicly admit to being a racist? And how would, if you do, condemn the likes of Hitler, or even a rapist, or murderer. They all seem consistent with evolution. ; Hitler trying to create a superior race, a rapist driven by nature exercising his strength and will to pass on his superior genes, and a murderer since nature does not recognize murder? ////

Wow, sorry I asked. Nevermind. I went in this with trying not to have any expectations but I really ought to have known better. You really are indoctrinated and too prejudiced to be able to get to yourself to use intellectual honesty.

Now for MY honesty. I got to thru the Carl putdown and your sick desire, and I couldn't read any further. It made me want to puke! Like Woopi and Joy; I'm walking off this stage. You're not worthy of another moment of my time. In fact, you so balanced well-minded Christian (NOT!) you're now on my ignore list. I should have done that from the onset.

Religion is man-made and ALL men are of a religion. What does that say for you? As for sexism and racism, tell me how an atheist evolutionist avoids this unwanted baggage. These are pure fundamentals of evolution and any attempt for an evolutionist to distance himself from these is a mere relative play on morality to appease extant for now, social sensativities. If you are an evolutionist, by nature you are a sexist and racist.

Embryology is informative. Needless to say, genetics has proven Darwin's theories. Plant breeders rely on evolutionary science routinely. That science has been used so well and often by medical researchers that it's taken for granted.

We ought not teach ignorance in our schools. Teaching and ignorance ought to be incompatable, especially in public schools funded by taxpayers in a democratic, purportedly modern nation. Don't you think?

The people who advocate and demand and insist upon teaching ignorance in public schools are hurting our communities and nation for selfish reasons. We ought to resist them; it truly isn't a national or even local priority to make our children stupid just so these religionists can cop their religious buzz. They are being too damn selfish at too high a cost. Screw 'em.

I'll teach what I want at home, but I am wondering if your ethological system would afford me my money back from having paid so many years for public education while homeschooling?

would afford me my money back from having paid so many years for public education while homeschooling?

No. Just like I don't get any money back because I didn't have any kids. And I certainly don't want to contribute to you brainwashing your kids with superstitious nonsense and ridiculous fairy tales instead of useful things.

No, you are comfortable with forcing others who cannot afford private school or engage in homeschooling to be brainwashed in the inferior institution of public education with, as Prof. Louis Bounoure put it, "evolutionism...a fairy tale for grown-ups."

Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity, it just isn't rational.

You'll be sorely disappointed. Have you not learned in grammar school of something called, "begging the question"? Aren't you going to ask the aliens whence they've come? Did they evolve or were they created? I pray you and all non-believers come to accept Christ but if not....I can't wait for the day when every word you're responsible for must be attoned for. The day when every atheist evolutionist will ask THE ANSWER and answer their question all in one statement, "Oh my God, where the in hell am I?"

charles - If the aliens do come, I promise that will be the first question I ask. If they say Jesus Christ is their savior, the Bible and New Testament are the word of the one true God, and that all other religions are false, I will be converted. If they then suggest that Christian morality be the basis of our politics, I will politely ask them to leave. The whole point of this article is not to condemn religion or those of faith, but to just keep it out of politics.

and how about separation of education and state, Forever?

The good thing for us Charles, (sorry about yer bad luck!) it will NEVER happen! Yahooooo!!!

I agree there is nothing wrong with polite rational discussion on the topic of Evolution v Creation.

Which is tantamount to saying there is nothing wrong with polite, rational discussion on the topic of Vaginal Birth v. Stork Transport. Same parallel, one involves science, the other a made-up story.

Unfortunately WF a - politicians believing in fairy tales often does end up on science's doorstep. It is the whole reason the NCSE exists.

jsweck-

AS I stated in my previous post we all have bias that includes those that believe in evolution. I noticed that your post only touched on religion. it works both ways my friend.

1. - Math is no the absolute that many people think it is. It can be manipulated like anything else.

2- You are right to a certain extent about "childhood prejudice" however this is not exclusive to religion it includes all beliefs.

3- Again you are partially right. Religious beliefs of all kinds are and will always be influenced by the family you were raised with. However there are a growing number that do not fallow that thinking.I was not raised in a Christian home in fact I was an Atheist for 47 years of my life and am now a Christian. Everything else you stated in this point can also be applied to people who believe in evolution. Your opening staement is a perfect example, as you state that Genesis is a myth. Your own prejudice will not let you accept the idea that it is actual history. You rationalize the evidence you see and come to the conclusion you do.

4- Yo are right about why it makes for such provocative discussion. You are also right that science has provided many advances for society as a whole. However all science does not hinge on evolution. These advances were made by using observational science not historical science. The point at then end "If you screw with science your kids will pay: I can only conclude you saying that if we do not teach our kids evolution then they will not know science. That is a fallacy, I know many kids and adults who are in the sciences whether in work or in college that believe in creation and are doing quite well. If that was not your intent in that statement I apologize.

5 - "Prejudiced people are inflexible by their nature, and believe that elements of their doctrine, and of course their core prejudices, are absolute truths." Here again is a half truth. In many case you are right again this applies to all people whether you believe in evolution or creation. Then again we can change I am living proof of that very fact. Having a prejudice towards evolution and now a firm believer in creation. I know several people that have made the same journey.

Your own prejudice will not let you accept the idea that it is actual history.

Fine. Explain how two people could sustain and create a global population?

...

...

...

They can't. The story of Adam and Eve as the first (and only) two humans is falsifiable because of the fact that having that amount of humans start a viable society is impossible. A large amount of inbreeding would result which leads to a catastrophically high risk of birth defects and susceptibility to diseases.

Not to mention the fact that the Bible gets it wrong on what the default form of humanity is. We all start out as girls until the mutations of the Y-Chromosome take effect for us males.

Don't forget that they thought diseases were caused by demons and likely sufferers of schizophrenia were thought to be possessed. And here is the kicker that I can't get a straight answer for:

How was Jesus born a male when there was no Y-Chromosome in play? You need one from a human male to be born as a male. There are two solutions that I can think of.

1) Mary used a turkey baster.

2) Mary lied and said that her child was of God to keep herself from getting stoned. This is especially relevant given what we know about OT and NT laws.

3) The story never happened. This is relevant given the fact that there is no historical evidence for it, especially due to all of the strange occurrences and the non-existent slaughter of infants in ancient Israel.

Hiram,

I'm not speaking of bias, I'm speaking of prejudice. I define this as "the inability to doubt something". I agree that it applies to many ideologies, but it's most noticeable in the religious realm, because it's viewed as a virtue. Many people in religious, political, and racial realms have a core group of leaders that literally can't stop believing things, "the priesthood". In the religious realm this prejudice is called "faith". People have other rationales they call faith as well, but prejudice I think is the most important because it explains so much about religious behavior. Why have doctrine? Why proselytize? Why is more belief better? Why are we talking about "belief" at all? Why are many religious people so inflexible and sensitive? Why do religions schism? Why don't religious people see their own religion as a myth? The answer is simple, prejudice - a significant subset physically can't stop believing.

1. Math is absolute in its own realm, which is virtual. Its application the universe can be manipulated.

2. I agree.

3. Everyone has a different story about their life, and society has lots of variation, but the norm of what I have seen shows a direct link between a person's prejudice (if any) and their early childhood experiences. No one has prejudices created in adulthood - adults always have doubts, and take any ideology with a grain of salt. Kids frequently don't have that luxury, and have to incorporate their parents ideologies, whatever they are. Prejudiced people create all doctrine because they can't live without it, and so they set up the rules and standards for everything in their realm. All prejudiced people see absolute belief as a desired goal, more belief is better, etc. Also, I'm not prejudiced, if you show me evidence the something like the garden of eden is true, I will listen and perhaps change my mind. A prejudiced person never changes their mind, god always exists 100%, forever - that's the core of the problem, not evidence for alternate histories. Prejudiced people are evidence immune - they don't really care, the prejudice is their first love, and every minute of their life they are building an alternate world with the prejudice at its core. People don't get prejudiced with ideas like the eden story or evolution, because no four year old can understand what you are talking about. They are being prejudiced by parental ideological cores like "god exists" and "souls exist". What four year old gets an earful of evolution? All prejudice must go through a four year olds understanding of the world. This why prejudices are always simple one liners like "god exists" or "jews are evil".

4. All science boils down to evidence, and all evidence must be properly processed so you don't fool yourself. There is a wall of properly processed evidence supporting evolution. The only people that I have seen challenge this are religious people, that insist on holding onto an old myth. Why do they do it? You tell me, why does this particular scientific fact get extra scrutiny? A deep interest in science? Of course not, they are defending something, not discovering anything. That is the basic pattern of religious life, an endless defense of a prejudice. The vast majority of people I've run into, willing to argue this topic, are people that where prejudiced from birth, what do you expect them to say, except "god god soul god bible, etc"? Why are these people so cock sure they are correct about what mommy and daddy told them, and yet ignore an evidential edifice like evolution? My answer is prejudice, especially if you've been prejudiced with something like "my doctrine is true", and are parsing the bible for "orders from god".

5. One does not switch prejudices, it's fixed for life. If you can doubt god, jesus, and souls, etc, you are not prejudiced. Prejudiced people physically can't doubt their prejudice in the slightest, it's a lifetime of 100% confidence.

Not all human organizations are prejudice clubs, but many are. A simple test is: did people on the average learn the organizational "core ideas" as toddlers. Do people always seem to be rationalizing? Is the organization sensitive and inflexible? Do they have lots of doctrine, and speak of "beliefs" and "absolute truths"?

All religious organizations have normal believers too (non-prejudiced). But how do you think they are viewed by the prejudiced ones, and what rank do they have? My guess is that they see them as second class believers, that have not really done their homework, and earned greater faith. Alternatively from the perspective of the nonprejudiced, the prejudiced are viewed as zealots, with no "real reason" for their faith.

Does that clarify my view?

The opponents were arguing if they could say something was millions or billions of years old of the past, predict the weather for one month in the future, accurately. Of course they couldn't, Meteorologist said they could only predict the weather 3 days confidently...

Apples and Oranges. You are comparing two totally different fields.

Weather events are subject to dozens, if not hundreds, of factors, but it is far simpler for fossils and other forms of dead life.

If you would just come down to earth with basic common sense and think how many varibles you would have to account to say something was a million years old, it would be astronomical.

Nope. There is really only one variable in terms of carbon or uranium dating. That is the amount of carbon-14 or uranium in the organism compared to the products of radioactive decay. In other words, the only condition necessary to be observed is half-life as the organism's burial is under fairly uniform conditions.

It has gotten down to a margin of error of a few million years, which is small compared to the overall age of the Earth.

This debate is not new about the origin of Mankind, to prove if it was by Evolution or by the Creation of God.

Actually, it can be totally disproven, depending on what kind of story you go with. Adam and Eve would not be enough to sustain the human genetic pool because of massive amounts of inbreeding and a catastrophic risk of birth defects that would lead to extinction.

There is where you get into a bunch of fudge factors, especially since the God of the Bible knows less about the universe than we do.

If you read Genesis, you find that God creates light and plants before the Sun. (By the way, the Moon is not a light.) Not only is this stupid, but plants require photosynthesis in order to sustain themselves. He apparently also made the stars after light was created, too.

If you are tying yourself to the Genesis story, then you probably also buy into the story of Noah's Ark.

There's absolutely no evidence in geology, paleontology, anthropology, or archeology of that either. And even if there were, wouldn't that make the God of the Bible a mass murderer?

Even above all of that, try to sift through this.

Why do we share 98% of our genetic code with the great apes? How do you explain the fact that we have found amino acids and the like naturally occurring in deep space on the comet Wild 2? How do you explain the fact that we have replicated the primordial soup in a laboratory and produced several amino acids from a non-life scenario?

I might be wrong about the connection of Carl Sagan use of marijuana which might have diminished his credibility to inform us about how old tihings are... He might have been getting so high on weed that he floated all the way outside the earth's atmosphere. And then he could have carbon dated outer space

Carl Sagan wasn't personally responsible for carbon dating. He was an astronomer. He was simply passing on information. His marijuana use has nothing whatsoever to do with the reliability of carbon dating. Talk about a red herring wrapped around an ad hominem attack!

You know, ' The Gunshark ' I might be wrong about the connection of Carl Sagan use of marijuana which might have diminished his credibility to inform us about how old tihings are... He might have been getting so high on weed that he floated all the way outside the earth's atmosphere. And then he could have carbon dated outer space.. Sorry about that..!

Nice job not answering any of my questions and resorting to pointless ad hominem attacks.

Gunshark -

Fine. Explain how two people could sustain and create a global population?

Actually it is very simple. If we take a conservative number and say that the earths population doubles about every 150 years ( a more modern number shows this happens about every 40 years) Even from the point of the flood that is plenty of time to reach a population number we see today. If indeed mankind has been around for the 50,000 years or so evolution says the number would be a staggering 1 followed by 100 zeros.

The reason marriage of close relatives was possible in the beginning is that when God created man He created a prefect being designed to live forever. There were no genetic flaws. It was not until after the fall that these flaws would start to appear. The closer the population was to Adam and Eve the less chance for defects to occur. God did in His own-time outlaw the marriage of close relatives.

Mary and the birth of Jesus was a miracle conceived through Immaculate conception just as foretold in Scripture. Not a hard task by a God that created man from dust and the universe with a spoken word. It was record in the bible which is a historical document that as under gone some of the closest scrutiny of any other ancient document and stands the test. There are many other ancient events with even less accurate evidence yet we believe that it happened.

To Hiram

The virgin birth prophecy could not have been fulfilled by Jesus. If the virgin birth prophecy had come to pass, it would have to have occurred 500 years or so prior to Jesus.

Mark-

The virgin birth was the fulfilment of the prophecy. the prophecy never gave a date only a place and circumstances. As for the Resurrection being a lie just ot keep the Apostles in power that is a fallacy. If they really wanted to stay in power they would have done what every was need to stay alive. Yet they died because they refused to deny the truth of the Resurrection.

To Hiram

Jesus did not meet the requirements of the virgin birth prophecy.

I thought I had already written an article on this subject, but appearently not, so I will c/p it from my book and post it as an article for you.

Thank you Mark I look forward to the read. I am now going to play a mindless game of chicken invaders.

To Hiram

Actually I found it, it was in my False Prophecies and Prophets Article, but I posted it as an article by itself. The Virgin Birth Lies, you can find it in my column.

Yet.. how is this debate going to improve are economic and political situation that exist in the present time, meaning today, right now and in future months to come.?

I'll give you three reasons. The expansion of science education, the improvement of funding for research and development surrounding genetics and other life sciences, and an increased understanding of issues in relation to global climate change, disease epidemics, and sociological problems.

Actually it is very simple. If we take a conservative number and say that the earths population doubles about every 150 years ( a more modern number shows this happens about every 40 years) Even from the point of the flood that is plenty of time to reach a population number we see today. If indeed mankind has been around for the 50,000 years or so evolution says the number would be a staggering 1 followed by 100 zeros.

As I have said, there is zero evidence that the Flood even happened. And no, humanity has actually been around for approximately 200,000 years in terms of modern anatomy, but 50,000 in terms of modern behavior and psychology. The reason why our population is not high is due to the explosive rates of infant mortality, disease epidemics, and other issues that came into play before the invention of modern medicine, sanitation, and other modern conveniences that have taken root starting only 200 or so years ago.

The reason marriage of close relatives was possible in the beginning is that when God created man He created a prefect being designed to live forever. There were no genetic flaws. It was not until after the fall that these flaws would start to appear. The closer the population was to Adam and Eve the less chance for defects to occur. God did in His own-time outlaw the marriage of close relatives.

Hiram, have you even studied genetics or the role of death in the continued existence of life itself? There are genetic flaws and mutations (good and bad) all over the place and several characteristics that we share with the great apes pointing to our evolution.

There is no perfect design because of vestigial features.

Mary and the birth of Jesus was a miracle conceived through Immaculate conception just as foretold in Scripture. Not a hard task by a God that created man from dust and the universe with a spoken word.

Uh, I don't know what reality you're living in, but this universe was not built via a spoken word and humans are made up more of bacteria than human cells. (You think I'm joking? Your stomach contains billions of bacteria on its own.)

And no, you cannot create a male without a male sperm with a Y-Chromosome and a female egg with an X-Chromosome. It's simple biology.

It was record in the bible which is a historical document that as under gone some of the closest scrutiny of any other ancient document and stands the test. There are many other ancient events with even less accurate evidence yet we believe that it happened.

Look closer. If you talk to the people that study this stuff seriously, you will find that the first five books of the Bible were written by multiple authors, the Gospels are a patchwork of stories that follow no real logical progression, we cannot confirm the existence of Jesus (none of his contemporaries wrote about him and the Gospels are hearsay assembled hundreds of years after the fact), and there is no evidence of many (if not all) of the supposed historical events mentioned.

The concept behind this is the illusion of historical legitimacy. We can confirm that Pilate existed because he is mentioned extensively in Roman records as a governor in Judea who had no sympathy for rebellion and local rebels hated his guts. We can confirm that Caesar and Herod existed, but nothing about the strange paranormal occurrences or infant murders that surrounded the story. Nothing about the attack of the zombie saints or any form of mention about a celebrity preacher.

So here are the best solutions that can be offered:

1) Jesus was just a normal rabbi or teacher with a small following whose followers called him divine after his death and wrote the New Testament to reflect that idea.

2) Jesus never existed and the Christians ripped off his story from several other savior gods of the time, like Mithras, Osiris, and other supposedly pagan deities.

Number 2 is especially interesting because there was not one Christianity that supposedly emerged from the pre-New Testament period (as it was written and voted on), there were hundreds. Some of them thought that Jesus was a figure whose story was played out on a higher spiritual realm, others thought that Paul was a heretic, some thought that the Old Testament should be tossed in the garbage, and the others are the Christians as we would come to know them.

Gunshark, excellent posts. Although I fear your sound logic is wasted on your intended audience, hopefully other readers will take away something from them.

The reason why our population is not high is due to the explosive rates of infant mortality, disease epidemics, and other issues that came into play before the invention of modern medicine, sanitation, and other modern conveniences that have taken root starting only 200 or so years ago.

The figures I gave take those factors into account.

There are genetic flaws and mutations (good and bad) all over the place and several characteristics that we share with the great apes pointing to our evolution.

Those mutations are a result of the fall and fall right in line as to what the bible teaches of our history. We also share many genetic traits with the flat worm. Even in the 2% that some say keeps us from being apes, there sre thousand of differences in that 2% of the DNA.

There is no perfect design because of vestigial features

Many of the vestigial organs that we once thought useless indeed have a function including the appendix.

Look closer. If you talk to the people that study this stuff seriously

I have looked closer and have and do talk to and study those that have more knowledge than I. They have come to a different conclusion than you. The thing about evidence it only leads you where you want it to. I let it lead me to the point where I feel as you do that God was joke and the bile was a lie. I was lead there for 47 years, I cannot explain what happened in human terms but God has shown me the real truth.

The Gospels all follow the same story and are in line with each other. The whole Bible itself follows one story the fall and the redemption of man. When read together it makes perfect sense. When we talk about the time line of the manuscripts they are just as or more reliable than many of the other ancient manuscripts that we deem true.

There is a lot more evidence than many people think. Main steam media and society tend to push it aside because they do not want to be held accountable to the truth. Have you ever read Josh McDowels book "Evidence that Demands an Answer" volumes 1 and 2 or "A Case for Christ be Lee Stroble. If not you should check them out.

I believe C.S.Lewis said it well when he said and I am paraphrasing. Jesus was who He says He was the living Son of God on earth or he was a raving lunatic on the level of some one who thinks he is a poached egg, or he was the devil himself. Scripture leaves nothing to chance that He is who He said He was.

I am in my heart sure He is who He said he was. Simple as that, you can accept that or refute it. I will give you my views and evidence to support it. As you will give me yours, I do no think neither of us will budge. But as I have stated many times before I was where you are and I must say I am feel more peace , more content, more life, more joy in where I am now.

Genetic Drifter-

Funny thing I feel the same way. That perhaps someone reading this will look at the logic and look into there hearts and take something away from this.

There is a lot more evidence than many people think. Main steam media and society tend to push it aside because they do not want to be held accountable to the truth. Have you ever read Josh McDowels book "Evidence that Demands an Answer" volumes 1 and 2 or "A Case for Christ be Lee Stroble. If not you should check them out.

I have and the case they present is paper thin.

The Gospels all follow the same story and are in line with each other. The whole Bible itself follows one story the fall and the redemption of man. When read together it makes perfect sense. When we talk about the time line of the manuscripts they are just as or more reliable than many of the other ancient manuscripts that we deem true.

You think I'm joking? The worst offenders are the Doubting Thomas story and the recycled feeding people with magic food stories.

It follows a repeating pattern which I reflected on.

A. Jesus says he is going to perform a miracle.

B. The disciples ask how this is possible.

C. Jesus condemns them for their lack of faith/performs miracle.

D. The disciples are amazed. Then their memory is wiped so the process can begin again.

The worst offender of all is the Doubting Thomas story, though. Where he doesn't believe a word of what the disciples have said.

HELLO?!

You've been with this man through nearly his entire ministry, saw him walk on water, helped him feed thousands of people with magically generated food, saw him drive out demons and instantly heal the sick, and witnessed him raise the dead on two separate occasions. You should be totally jaded by now!

I believe C.S.Lewis said it well when he said and I am paraphrasing. Jesus was who He says He was the living Son of God on earth or he was a raving lunatic on the level of some one who thinks he is a poached egg, or he was the devil himself. Scripture leaves nothing to chance that He is who He said He was.

Ah, the Liar, Lunatic, or Lord argument. Here's one thing that good ol' C.S. left out: legend.

Seriously, where is the contemporary writings outside of the Bible that describe any of the strange paranormal occurrences surrounding his life, ministry, or death?

Those mutations are a result of the fall and fall right in line as to what the bible teaches of our history. We also share many genetic traits with the flat worm. Even in the 2% that some say keeps us from being apes, there sre thousand of differences in that 2% of the DNA.

Keep in mind that you are talking to a geneticist here. Of course, you are going to have many differences in your base code when it stretches into millions of base pairs.

Despite that, there are actually certain organisms that have far more genes than we do.

I am in my heart sure He is who He said he was. Simple as that, you can accept that or refute it. I will give you my views and evidence to support it. As you will give me yours, I do no think neither of us will budge. But as I have stated many times before I was where you are and I must say I am feel more peace , more content, more life, more joy in where I am now.

If you think your belief system helps you out, good for you as long as it doesn't harm or hurt others. However, you presented no evidence to support a scientific position or anything like that.

The first rule that scientists are taught is to NEVER inject your opinions or views on the subject into your work. Remember that.

The first rule that scientists are taught is to NEVER inject your opinions or views on the subject into your work.

I respect your knowledge as a geneticist. However that last statement is humanly impossible to do. We all have bias and presuppositions that we bring to ever aspect of our lives. There is no such thing as an unbias person.

Gunshark -

I have to second Genetic Drifter's thoughts. While your posts are informative, they are wasted here. Those who believe in 2000 year old stories are not going to change simply because of your explanations of science.

I need to sign off now. I'm getting a headache, all I can hear in my head is this loud thumpin'.

Me thinks me smells a sciolist geneticist, along with a pack of Darwin's chihuahuas. I suspect that our arrogant prognathous geneticist is not even an abecedarian in the field but rather a wannabe. The intent of the seeder, as I can tell, was to discuss whether the creation/evolution issue is of value in the political arena. However, it did not take long for the thread to become a chimp gang attack on Christian Creationists, using vapid, infecund, and trite attacks. Keep up the good work Hiram.

To Charles

All someone has to do to invalidate the Christian Fable of Creation is to read genesis. Who ever wrote it was probably on drugs of some kind, for it makes absolutely no sense in regards to reality.

True, Mark, let's not forget that if you read Genesis then 'God' supposedly created woman twice. First time with Adam, then the second time from his rib.

but-but-but there's only adam and eve!!! You lie!
/end

Now that's the most GLARING error but then again that book is RIFE with errors.

Now that's the most GLARING error but then again that book is RIFE with errors.

Not. Even. Close.

There is a massive plothole in the fable where God lies directly to Adam and Eve's face. Genesis 2:17.

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

...yet Adam lives for another 900 or so years, which is complete bulls***.

Gunshark-

God did not lie Adam did die. "For in the day"" God did not say on that same day. In the Hebrew language that particular phrasing means that in time you will die. It is all about context and understanding the language. As Romans says "The wages of sin is death , but the gift of God is eterna life in Chrsit Jesus or Lord" Romans 6:23

It is all about context and understanding the language.

Prove it and source it, Hiram. People often use a similar excuse to compensate for the story of Genesis with regards to our knowledge that the universe is 14 billion years old.

Either way, Adam and Eve probably didn't exist.

Romans says "The wages of sin is death , but the gift of God is eterna life in Chrsit Jesus or Lord" Romans 6:23

And no contemporary sources can be found that point to Jesus' alleged existence. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of passages in the Bible that explain that Jesus was referring to the idea that the Second Coming would happen to those standing before him that day.

In order to even worry about a Second Coming, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a FIRST Coming.

And yes, people have died for lies. They have yesterday, they will today, and they probably will tomorrow.

To Rahlly

Actually for me it is the creation of the earth first with plants before the Creation of the Sun and moon that got me.

This is an article I did on Genesis, Genesis contradictions and inconsistancies

That book is the best tool to explain logical fallacy ever!

If you want to know what evolution looks like, look up certain dog breeds, most notably daschunds and English bulldogs.

There are taxidermed dogs and skeletons of these breeds that show quite a few differences than the versions today (daschunds had longer legs; English bulldogs didn't have an extreme pushed in face and a jutting-out jaw). These are purebred dogs, mind you, that were taxidermed. The constant breeding, along with breeding with 'defective' dogs create a different looking animal. Same animal, different appearance (I'm talking bone structure, not color).

And, not only that, certain purebreds dogs today, evolved from being bred with other dog breeds. The golden retriever is a cross between a hound and another dog breed. One of these ancestoral breeds is extinct today, but the golden retriever shares its genes with it.

If you want to know what evolution looks like, look up certain dog breeds, most notably daschunds and English bulldogs.

My Physical Anthropology Professor explained it nicely using dogs. If all you had left were Great Danes and Chihuahuas, they are NOT going to be able to mate with each other and will eventually diverge into different species.

This sucks because I can't find the website that someone showed me a year ago about the dog breeds. But:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Olddachshund.jpg

This a dachshund in the past. note how long the legs are in comparison to the breed today.

From wikipedia: "The original German dachshunds were larger than the modern full-size variety, weighing between 30 and 40 lb (14 and 18 kg), and originally came in straight-legged and crook-legged varieties (the modern dachshund is descended from the latter)."

I know, it's "..my wife and me..." She taught English grammar. I taught science and vocabulary.

Closing public schools is not feasible. It is the foundation of our society that affordable schooling is available to everyone. Just because you believe in fairy tales doesn't mean everyone wants to have them taught.

Schools are for learning the arts and sciences. Keep your frickin' religion in your frickin' Sunday schools or churches.

Also, since when did children belong to their parents?

To Charles

From the top, the Bible Lies, Christianity is founded upon those lies, I/E Christianity lies.

To Charels -

The Bible is the inerrant word of God, Christianity is built upon that precept, Christ is the aboslute truth. You can trust man or God I put my faith in God.

Mark-

Dang dude that post at my time says 2:25am.

The Bible is the inerrant word of God, Christianity is built upon that precept, Christ is the aboslute truth. You can trust man or God I put my faith in God.

The Bible is the inerrant word of God myths written by man - not any god, Christianity is built upon that precept, Christ is the aboslute truth of those myths. You can trust man or God myths, I put my faith in God myths.

The above blockquote is where we run into trouble with politicians and school board members who cannot seem to keep those beliefs (not facts) out of government and school.

The earth is not 6000-10,000 years old, it is closer to 4.5 billion years old.

The Bible is the inerrant word of God

I'm always amazed that anyone can read the Bible and STILL believe that. God would have to be a confused idiot for THAT to be his word.

To Hiram

Yep I have a wierd schedule at the moment. I get up at 2am drink a couple hours of coffee before doing my business.

>>>>Closing public schools is not feasible. It is the foundation of our society that affordable schooling is available to everyone. Just because you believe in fairy tales doesn't mean everyone wants to have them taught.

Closing public schools is not incomprehensible but to a nescient mind that has become inured with a system. Be a free thinker. There is a better way. Public education as is currently funded, force-funded, is not affordable. It is overwhelmingly, unnecessarily expensive. Like the liberals say about religion...it's all about money and job security, [and I'll add in regard to education, it has much to do with otiose indolent parenting]. The whole point is, keep government out of education, and the issue of creation/evolution in politics becomes at least nearly mute.

>>>>Schools are for learning the arts and sciences. Keep your frickin' religion in your frickin' Sunday schools or churches.

Schools are for the grammars of each subject to be developed with logic and rhetoric, maintaining a dunce corner for the likes of most of these posters. How about you keep your voting hands out of my pockets? Like the liberals say about sex...keep government out of the bedroom. I'll keep my religion out of your government schools if you keep your hands out of my pockets to pay for them.

>>>>Also, since when did children belong to their parents?

Since any parent stands between the likes of you and their child (the exception being atheists who wouldn't really care).

Closing public schools is not incomprehensible but to a nescient mind that has become inured with a system. Be a free thinker. There is a better way.

What a load of crap! What a pessimistic view of a publicly funded service. Maybe your children are/were not capable of thriving in public education, but mine have done very well. I'd stack my free-thinking children up against any of your fairy tale indoctrinated children any day of the week and twice on Sunday!

I'll keep my religion out of your government schools if you keep your hands out of my pockets to pay for them.

So sad, you lose. You pay for public education because it is a service for the general welfare of the people. You may pay extra fairy tale indoctrination fees if you wish to spend your money that way. I choose to spend my money more wisely, on things such as...eh, pizza!

Since any parent stands between the likes of you and their child (the exception being atheists who wouldn't really care).

I prefer to think of children as something a parent should love, nuture and protect - not as a possession to do with as they will. Ah, more sanctimonious pap from a thumper regarding those who do not believe in 2000+ year old fairy tales.

So I guess charles never goes to a doctor who attended a public school, yeah?
And never asks a publicly educated cop for help? And never eats food made by a publicly educated chef? He probably doesn't use roads laid down by publicly educated workers nor does he depend on the street lights that publicly educated technicians have installed? Oh and I bet he built his own garbage dump rather than the ones run by the publicly educated sanitation engineers.

We have public education not just for ourselves or our children whether we have them or not... AND I DON'T!!! We have public education to teach the masses of children so that they can become the people needed to keep our country working. I'm not talking about politicians, I mean the real people who keep this country running. The engineers, the nurses, the sanitation engineers, the construction workers, the road layers, the bridge builders; they are the people needed.

I'm not talking about politicians, I mean the real people who keep this country running. The engineers, the nurses, the sanitation engineers, the construction workers, the road layers, the bridge builders; they are the people needed.

Precisely. The public education system, however flawed, has been the catalyst for a thriving middle and working class. You de-fund that and you might as well kiss America's superpower status goodbye.

Most of our Presidents came from public school backgrounds, so that's okay. If anything, we need to increase funding for colleges and universities as well, but require that much of it goes towards reducing tuition and making college actually affordable.

I guess he wants a credit every month his house doesn't catch on fire!

===Closing public schools is not incomprehensible but to a nescient mind that has become inured with a system. Be a free thinker. There is a better way.

What a load of crap! What a pessimistic view of a publicly funded service. Maybe your children are/were not capable of thriving in public education, but mine have done very well. I'd stack my free-thinking children up against any of your fairy tale indoctrinated children any day of the week and twice on Sunday!

==I won't insult your children, but mine are academically sound with either college degrees or in the process of getting one. I doubt, however, judging by your tendentious attitude that they are free thinkers. Perhaps once they are emancipated from you and the public school system. I've said a prayer for them.

=== I'll keep my religion out of your government schools if you keep your hands out of my pockets to pay for them.

So sad, you lose. You pay for public education because it is a service for the general welfare of the people. You may pay extra fairy tale indoctrination fees if you wish to spend your money that way. I choose to spend my money more wisely, on things such as...eh, pizza!

===I pay for public education because of a circle of public school graduates becoming voters, then becoming parents to put more children into public education to become voters, and on and on. It is a self-perpetuating un-American ideology. It is Marxist in nature, and you are comfortable with it. Are you a veteran? Do you know one? Well, it is a spit in the face to all veterans who served to fight for this nation. It is a basic denial of freedom. It is morally reprehensible. It is about money, and to control and brainwash YOUR children, and guarantee its existence. It is inferior and an evil in itself--malum in se.

I prefer to think of children as something a parent should love, nuture and protect - not as a possession to do with as they will. Ah, more sanctimonious pap from a thumper regarding those who do not believe in 2000+ year old fairy tales.

===Well, your on the right track. You should love them, but you don't love your children. You knowing I'm sure, of the moral degradation occurring within these schools over the last decades, with alacrity, send them into an inferior system with the likes of Melissa Ann Andreini and Marco Alferez. But perhaps that is what you want for your children.

==Ah, just some more garbage from the mind of a public school product who is enured with a system that teaches secular tripe.

Hmmm, I noticed you didn't reply to others who thought your idea was a boatload of crap. In fact, no one has ever jumped in and said your ideas are worth consideration. A little self-delusional are we? Oops, scratch that - of course you are.

==I won't insult your children...

I won't insult yours, either. Mine happen to be academically sound. too. Mine are in the process of getting a college or HS degree. Your point?

...judging by your tendentious attitude that they are free thinkers.

Hah! Shirley you jest? (I know, don't call you Shirley.) You make a comment such as that after this -

I know one who knows. He is Jesus the Christ, and His resurrection is the best proved fact of history. He's been there and is alive, forevermore.

Give me a break. Hey, I don't believe in Zeus or Thor, either. Does that make me even more tendentious?

Perhaps once they are emancipated from you and the public school system.

I never controlled my kids the way you apparently controlled yours. They need no emancipating. Too bad about the public school thing, too. They both go to public schools. In fact, my son goes to the top public university in the US. I think he'll do alright without your concern or prayers.

=== I'll keep my religion out of your government schools if you keep your hands out of my pockets to pay for them.

Nope, you just keep your god and your creationism out of public schools.

===I pay ...Well, it is a spit in the face to all veterans who served to fight for this nation... - malum in se.

Hah, again. How pompous is it for one to assume one speaks for all veterans? I'm sorry, but this whole paragraph is too wacky for me to respond further.

...but you don't love your children.

Oooooooo-kay. I believe everyone knows wack-a-loon talk when they see it. Your credibility is now sitting at zero.

...send them into an inferior system ... . But perhaps that is what you want for your children.

My children do well in public schools. The school system here is rated #1 and my kids take/took as many Honors and AP classes as possible. All that with no myth indoctrination.

Ah, just some more garbage from the mind of a public school product...

Now that's what I call a knee slapper! I'm a product of Christian schooling. I simply outgrew my need for scare tactics and false beliefs.

...who is enured with a system that teaches secular tripe.

Quite succinctly making my point that we need to ensure our elected officials don't harbor such sanctimonious pap.

I believe I'll pass on any further discussion with you. Anyone who claims someone else doesn't love their children is too far gone for me. Enjoy your crazy stories, but keep them out of public schools!

cm2 - The true story of Jesus, wouldn't you say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd7iXASIOdA

Or perhaps a world wide flood that destroyed life some 4500 years ago.

To Hiram

The only survivors of the biblical flood was Noah and his immediate family. His immediate family did not have 500 or so breeding age females. The Genetic history shows that all of mankind today, can be traced back to maybe 500 breeding females some 70,000 years ago it is called a Genetic Bottle Neck.

A super volcano blew its top some 70,000 years ago. It was not the biblical flood that caused the bottle neck. I think it was the Toba eruption.

The genetic history of mankind can be traced back to one female. The measurement of the time of the Toba eruption is based on radiometric dating which has been shown to be inaccurate and fallible. The amount of ash and cloud produced by this eruption vaired dependingon location and produce anything form a cloudy day to a complete blockage of the sun.

The genetic history of mankind can be traced back to one female.

ROFL. Just like a religionist. You grab onto any scientific findings that you THINK support your superstitious beliefs and cry and insist any science you DON'T like can't possibly be true. What a crock. Don't try to use science to support your fairy tales, you haven't earned the right.

To Hiram

There is no genetic evidence to support your statement that all life can be traced to one female. There is genetic evidence showing that all life can be traced back to some 500 breeding females though. The time line generated by the number of times that the genes were passed on is based upon the mothers DNA puts the bottle neck at approx 70,000 years ago.

The only event that is known to have occurred in that time frame is the Toba event, which is dated by many different methods the fact that there are no genetic traits outside of the 500 or so breeding females shows that a mass extinction occurred.

This is an interesting theory that has a fair amount of support for it.

However, Mark, the numbers are currently within a range of 500 to 5,000 breeding females from what I've heard. Although based upon the catastrophic size of the event, it's probably safe to assume that the numbers were on the lower end of the spectrum.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100227170841.htm

However, there is also evidence to the contrary. See the link above for more. :)

To Gunshark

Thanks for the link, and I did read it, and will have to think on it. The author used terms such like, "May have polluted fresh water, May have affected animal life, May have affected humans". We are talking about a Super Volcano, not some average volcano, that might only have polluted the waters and killed off things for a short distance around it.

When a super volcano blows, it makes Mount Saint Helen's look like an annoying fly as compared to a swarm of killer bees. I will read through it again but there is just something nagging me about the article. But once again thanks.

keep em busy, Hiram. You are doing a wonderfully good job.

Yes Hiram

Keep us busy, some of my best writings have been done in response to Christians supporting their fantasy.

I am glad I can keep you occupied my friend. The same goes here, you are great at keeping me on my toes. Encouraging me to dig deeper in to what God has to say.

Or perhaps a world wide flood that destroyed life some 4500 years ago.

If you actually believe that myth, then by all means, prove it! So far, there is no empirical evidence (or logic) to support the notion of a world wide flood.

Gordy

Here is some information that I hope helps. This can explain far better than I can.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/geology-israel-pre-flood

http://www.icr.org/article/geology-flood/

http://www.icr.org/article/studies-creationism-flood-geology/

To Hiram

(Thumbs Up) Yes so long as we avoid personal attacks or out right chaos, it seems we are doing well so far. You remind me a bit of Butch Howard, and you should take that as a compliment.

Hiram, your articles are nothing more than religiously biased sites, with little to no scientific value. How about presenting something independent, empirical, and peer reviewed?

Hiram, your articles are nothing more than religiously biased sites, with little to no scientific value. How about presenting something independent, empirical, and peer reviewed?

I said it before and I'll say it again. Those websites are obviously designed with a religious bias. Real science is done without as much bias as possible.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that NONE of these are peer-reviewed and some of them, such as the ICR Studies page, are "studies" conducted by a single author.

...which is especially absurd when he doesn't know that coal takes millions of years to create.

That being said, I could post serious refutations on every last one of the points in those websites until the cows come home.

gordy/Gunshark-

That wsa pretty much the response I expected. The question is did you actually read anything or just blow it off? Whether you want to believe it or not at least it would do you well to fully understand what the "other side " thinks and believes. I read books by non-believers because I want to understand. I feel I have a pretty good idea of where they come from as I once was an Atheist. If you want good understanding there several books by Dr Gary Parker you should check them out.

When we talk about peer review, we are not talking about an unbias group. Unfortunately we are talking about a group such as teh NAS, that are extremely bias towards anyone who even mentions the words Intelligent Design or Creation. Being an organization of scientist that are suppose to be open to all possibilities they are actually very closed minded. That is not a peer review that is censorship of ideas they do not agree with.

Hiram, if you went to my college and those were resources for a thesis, you would have flunked. You CAN'T put up a bias website as a source.

If the website has a link or a resource to, say, another article from an UNBIASED source, THEN it can be taken into consideration.

Checkmate-

Then every source you put up would cause you to flunk. There is absolutley beyond any doubt no such thing as an ubiased source.

The question is did you actually read anything or just blow it off?

Yes, I did. A similar conversation to this about a year ago presented me with the exact same websites you're posting. No new ones.

The. Exact. Same. Websites.

When we talk about peer review, we are not talking about an unbias group. Unfortunately we are talking about a group such as teh NAS, that are extremely bias towards anyone who even mentions the words Intelligent Design or Creation.

Yes, we are. Scientists don't vote to say, "Hey, even though this one has evidence, I still think we should not follow it." We go where the evidence points.

This guy presents numerous fudge factors and injects his personal opinion into all of it. The reality of the situation is that there is no evidence for a worldwide global flood, coal and other fossil fuels are formed over millions of years, and virtually every other factor involved in the creation of these writings is seriously flawed.

An obvious indication of global water activity is the very existence of sedimentary rocks all over the world which, by definition, were formed by the erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediments by moving water with the sediments gradually converted into stone after they had been deposited.

You know something, he's right here... except for the fact that sediment is also deposited by air, wind, gravity, and ice. So... he's not right and he's just injecting his myths into his findings.

But how can we know which fossils lived in which ages? No scientists were there to observe them, and true science requires observation.

Wrong! Wrong, Mister Creationist man! Have you heard of Uranium or Carbon dating, half-lives, or any other facet of work that scientists have done?

Aside from that, he only uses references from scientific papers that are thirty years old or more. You know, before the discovery of genetic sequencing, PCR, and several other scientific breakthroughs?

The addition of "God promises" and "As said in Genesis *:**" only lends further evidence to the fact that this would get rejected by editors and laughed out of the room. It doesn't even follow the scientific method and presents no evidence.

There is absolutley beyond any doubt no such thing as an ubiased source.

Wrong.

Example: If I wanted to put up Peta's (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) euthanasia record, what would I use as a source? A website called: petakillsanimals. . .OR VDACS (part of it stands for Virginia Department of Agriculture) where they list ALL animal shelters in the state (Peta being one of them), and give out info on euthanasia, adoption, death, etc. It states numbers, the year, etc.

The latter is an UNBIASED website because it is not attacking/defending anything. It is also current (usually reliable sources are at most 10 years old); anything longer and it is no longer current and may not work with your argument.

And as Gunshark mentioned, a professional article does NOT have personal opinion in it.

Let me qualify that statement. There are sights that give facts or data from multiple sourcesFacts and data are unbiased. However the interpretation of the facts and date are not. Every paper that purposes a hypothesis is an opinion. The results that the author comes to are going to be influenced by what they believe. You for instance disagree with the articles I posted because your biased starts with the idea there is noGod ore there is a God and evolution is a fact. These are bias based on what we believe to be true. Your biased is obvious in much of the language that you use. "he's just injecting his myths into his findings." ; "Wrong! Wrong, Mister Creationist man!" ; "It doesn't even follow the scientific method and presents no evidence." ( evidence is presented, and observational science is used you just happen to disagree with it).

a professional article does NOT have personal opinion in it

The only way this could be accomplished is if were all robots. You also have to take into account that the article is on a Christian website, so the inclusion of Christian principles is to be expected. There is no 100% conclusive evidence that either side is correct. It is all based on interpretation of teh evidence at hand. And that is influenced by personal opinion biased,and presuppositions.

Really, Hiram? Robots?

The best articles are ones that give both sides. If you can't do that, then the article isn't professional. The idea behind an article is just to give facts and let the reader decide. Here is the question. Here are the facts that support each side of the issue. You can't lean on either side on an issue or else you are showing a bias. This is the major problem today even in the media.

Checkmate-

You may say you cannot lean either way however it happens and it happens all the time. When we talk about research papers like you mention the one I posted http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v3/geology_Israel_pre-Flood.pdf

Presents the evidence and lets the reader come to a conclusion based on that. In the 26 pages of the paper the word God is only mentioned 5 times and only reference as to the days of creation and if God did it that way this is what we would expect to see. It is well written with all the pertant data included, to support the authors thoughts.

You for instance disagree with the articles I posted because your biased starts with the idea there is noGod ore there is a God and evolution is a fact.

See, here's the difference: there is absolutely no empirical evidence for god and plenty of evidence for evolution. That's not bias. That's simple fact. Bias would be refusing to accept any fact despite any evidence to the contrary simply because it runs counter to what you believe. So, if you want any credibility in your argument, provide empirical evidence which either proves god and/or discredits evolution!

You also have to take into account that the article is on a Christian website, so the inclusion of Christian principles is to be expected.

And that is biased! A christian website probably will not even entertain the idea that there is no god. Theists generally think their beliefs are right and they generally don't even consider that such beliefs could be wrong or invalid.

It is all based on interpretation of teh evidence at hand. And that is influenced by personal opinion biased,and presuppositions.

Evidence is not based on personal interpretation. Interpretations is based on the evidence on hand. Do you even understand what the scientific method is?

Whether you want to believe it or not at least it would do you well to fully understand what the "other side " thinks and believes.

I'm very much aware of what the other side thinks/believes. The thing is, the 'other side' thinks their beliefs are correct over established facts or collected evidence and won't even consider any opposing views. The 'other side' has not substantiated their beliefs with empirical support. They think belief = fact.

I feel I have a pretty good idea of where they come from as I once was an Atheist.

Apparently not!

that are extremely bias towards anyone who even mentions the words Intelligent Design or Creation. Being an organization of scientist that are suppose to be open to all possibilities they are actually very closed minded.

Maybe because ID or Creation is not science, but myth and superstition, without any scientific validity whatsoever. You can claim Creation is true or as fact. But you fail to prove it. How can it be taken seriously or as credible by science then? Being open minded does not mean entertaining fantasy as reality.

There is no 100% conclusive evidence that either side is correct.

It's more like 99% for Evolution to 0% precent for Creationism. Evolution has become so rock-solid that it is now a unifying theory in numerous scientific fields leading up to the idea of the evolution of artificial intelligence.

The 1% left over is just in case we find alien life. Based upon what we've found in outer space, it may be more common then we think.

The day that we discover it, and a fossil record to go with it, will mean that evolution would be on the verge of becoming a scientific law.

Example: If I wanted to put up Peta's (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) euthanasia record, what would I use as a source? A website called: petakillsanimals. . .OR VDACS (part of it stands for Virginia Department of Agriculture) where they list ALL animal shelters in the state (Peta being one of them), and give out info on euthanasia, adoption, death, etc. It states numbers, the year, etc.

Bingo! Another one would be to probe PETA's association with ecological terrorist organizations. Would I use Penn and Teller: Bulls*** or statistics and references from the FBI and the Justice Department, trackers of activist cash donations, and so on?

I feel I have a pretty good idea of where they come from as I once was an Atheist.

*sigh* If I had a nickel for every Christian claiming they USED to be an atheist. Apparently there used to be more atheists than Christians sometime in the last 20 years before they converted en masse. Or perhaps they are all referring to the first few years of life before they were indoctrinated??

sigh* If I had a nickel for every Christian claiming they USED to be an atheist.

You'd be freaking RICH! Considering the atheist population of the US is just a smidge under 15%.....

My favorite thing is watching Christians who are just so sure they have the answers. They believe mankind fell from a naked woman and a talking snake. A man built a ship big enough to house 2 to 7 of every animal on the planet. A man lived in a "big fish" for 3 days. Yet these same folks look at Mormons, Scientologists, Buddhists, Hindu, etc and say "Those guys are SO wrong! They're going to hell because their beliefs are wrong!"

Amazing.

"...leading up to the idea of the evolution of artificial intelligence"

If you have a computer, you can build a universe, because informationally they are the same thing. Once people and the world are pure information you can build any type of universe that can be properly defined. You can live a life that we would call magic. You can experience it at high bandwidth - meaning it would feel more real than our current reality. There will be no disease, mental illness, and no death. We could go to the stars, or anywhere else, instantly (subjectively), using prepositioned communications equipment.

You can experience it at high bandwidth - meaning it would feel more real than our current reality.

Kind of like virtual reality. Or the holodeck on Star Trek.

Considering the atheist population of the US is just a smidge under 15%.....

Really? That high? I guess there's hope for our species yet.

"Kind of like virtual reality. Or the holodeck on Star Trek."

Yes, a virtual reality. The star trek holodeck uses our current reality augmented with 3D feelable images. I have no idea how to do that kind of technology.

What I mean is something more like the Matrix, but without biological brains, just a software version of the brains, like the agents - there's no need or desire to keep the meat. Also the Matrix is at the low end of what can be done.

Another way to imagine this is by replacing the primitive "AI" software elements in games like World of Warcraft, with actual mental software systems, and the players would also be AIs living there for a while. At current bandwidths this creates a kind of cartoon reality, but as you speed up computing power you get a more and more real world. In a sense computation is life, and the more computation you have, the more perception you have, the more alive you are. So in comparison to these future kinds of reality, our current life seems like the cartoon.

Evolution has become so rock-solid that it is now a unifying theory in numerous scientific fields....

..... will mean that evolution would be on the verge of becoming a scientific law.

===Such will become the most risible ludicrous antinomy of the greatest proportions, with nature itself in full violation. Imagine, a man-made law to cicurate nature.

Recently a molecular biologist working on identifying genetic controls for diseases was interviewed by George Caylor of The Ledger, Lynchburg, Virginia. His article entitled, "The Biologist," appeared on February 17, 2000. [John D. Morris, Ph.D.] received permission to reproduce parts of the interview, as a conversation between "G" (the interviewer) and "J" (the molecular biologist). It began by discussing the complexity of human code.

J: "I'm a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britanica."

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by `genius beyond genius,' and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

J: "No. I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living."

G: "I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest."

J: "The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the `elephant in the living room'."

G: "What elephant?"

J: "Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!"

===The real geneticists (not our in-house wannabe), physicists, astrophysicists, chemists, etc., are even more forthcoming and honest when engaged in conversation with their bartender.

charles,

To understand why a person thinks that god is always "in the room" you have to understand the nature of prejudiced belief. All prejudiced people see their own prejudice as foundational truth because they learned it as a young child. This truth never wavers in confidence, it's 100% for a lifetime. There are no choices involved, and there is no valid judgment involved when it comes to this "truth", it's simply copied from parents.

What do people do when they have one of these prejudices in their head? They don't actually see the object of their prejudice of course, so they come up with reasons why they don't see it, and importantly, don't ask too many questions about the reasoning. This habit goes on for a lifetime, slowly building an alternate world with the prejudice at its core. People do this rationalization because they don't have any other choice. If you believe something absolutely you tend to put it at the center of things, because of all things you "know" that the prejudice is completely true, right? In fact a prejudice is always subjectively true, no matter what - that's its nature. Slowly a prejudiced person builds up an entire world of explanation for the missing prejudice, this explanation is called "doctrine".

A prejudiced person always sees their prejudice "everywhere", and sees it as "involved in everything". They do that because every time they learn a new topic, they explain it with that "absolute truth" they think they have. In the religious world you see things like "god is everywhere" and "god is involved in everything", etc. In the racial prejudice and paranoid worlds you see conspiracies that are "everywhere" as well. What do spirits and conspiracies have in common? They are both insensible. You could have a million of them in front of your nose and not see a thing. So they're used to explain the missing prejudice.

Some scientists have been prejudiced as well, there is no "off switch" to an absolute belief any more than there is an "off switch" to believing in "blue". So it is not surprising that some of them think there are "invisible elephants". There is no rational process or knowledge you can use to unboot a prejudice: the smarter you are, the more elaborate the rationalization.

I hope this helps.

respectfully to jsweck,

I'm sorry, but I do not agree at all. But, consider your position by another person's antipodal opinion. Just add the word, NOT as follows:

To understand why a person thinks that god is {NOT} always "in the room" you have to understand the nature of prejudiced belief. All prejudiced people see their own prejudice as foundational truth because they learned it as a young child. This truth never wavers in confidence, it's 100% for a lifetime. There are no choices involved....

My opinion is that all persons have free will with a basal conciousness that all the cosmos has been created, and then--for those who do search--it takes a deliberate intellectual indagative effort to convince oneself otherwise. Everyone has a nascent understanding of God. For those who do not search, the intellectually otios and indolent, (both believers and non-believers)they just follow those to whom they've given authority to think for them and go with those who are assumed to be the intellectuals. But great intellectuals have both believed that God does not exist as well as many who believe He does. So, believing or not believing is not ultimately decided by one's I.Q.

Of course, the following is but a cursory touch on the subject, but I believe the opposite of what you've posted. ALL people are indagative by nature. All must come to a conclusion. Those who claim to be agnostic, in my opinion, are just suppressing their basal awareness of God and/or ignoring it. Those who claim atheism, usually do so by heaping sorites and prevarications with a false tumid intellectualism in what actually amounts to feckless attempt to understand an acatalepsia. Being unable, they then convince themselves of something that does not exist (the only other choice since creation and evolution exhaust all possibilities of explaining our existence), namely, evolution (orthogenesis, not to be confused with change).

Although I object in the strongest manner any human institution/government, other than parents, having the authority to dispense indoctrination, I yet believe scleragogic and tendentious eduction nor parental imperiousness has any hold on a person's ultimate decision about cosmogony and cosmology. The mind remains free. No one can make you believe anything. One must accept what one believes, and no one can blame or give credit to another for what you believe.

Personally, I've done my best with the time and resources I've had, and have read works of creationist's, the (types) Morris's and Whitcombs, the Asimov's and Gould's, and with an unbiased mind, independent of my childhood environment, I find God to be responsible for this infinitely complex universe....not nature or nature's law. But again, ultimately, it is not intellect nor indoctrination that determines what you believe as for a cosmogony and cosmology. It is your independent, free-will decision.

As I mentioned, this is cursory and quite hurried. Sorry for, I'm sure, many [sic]'s.

"George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by `genius beyond genius,' and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

This is an example of a personal bias based upon religious belief. He doesn't present any evidence that this could be divinely designed, especially when we know how virulence factors and other pathogenic features work in the natural world, along with their relation to genetics.

If he was so certain about creationism, he would do as most scientists do and seek to hypothesize and replicate his results... if he had any.

Again, competent scientists try to NEVER inject their personal beliefs into the discussion. (We don't use "I feel... I believe..." or anything like that in our papers.) It is: "Here's what I found out. Can this be replicated to achieve similar results?"

charles,

Minds are based on brains, and brains like any computer, are bounded in many ways: energy, senses, speed, etc. A mind doesn't instantly exist when you turn on a brain, it takes about 5 years to make one by building up and processing all the abstractions of a child's life. During this time a person is effectively being constructed with a bunch of absolute beliefs about the world. One such set of mental bounds relates to what you believe, and the character of that belief. Most of the time this isn't a problem because the child observes the universe directly with their senses, but what happens when parents speak repeatedly of ideological elements in front of them? They incorporate it as best they can. They don't know yet how nonsensical the language is that most adults use, they don't know about deception, don't how to be skeptical, they don't know about myths, so they just record it and build up more abstractions. This is where an absolute belief has the potential to be constructed. In a way you are always bounded by your beliefs, but the more absolute the belief the more it has to be followed. An absolute belief is akin to an order that must be obeyed. This mechanism may be great for colors and sounds, but for words, it's a big problem. Words need the equivalent of a decontamination chamber before you can even partially trust them, and little kids don't have this facility.

On the average, kids copy the ideologies of their parents, and their core beliefs and prejudices mirror those ideologies. Also, they may believe it absolutely, and be forced to use it as a foundational truth for a lifetime. As an adult the person physically can't choose because the belief is stuck on, and they are "evidence immune" on the belief. The language system is not perfect and can be spoofed, especially just after you've just learned your first language at around five years old.

When it comes to beliefs we are born as a blank slate. God is not built into the brain in any way, the idea is just copied from parents. If this weren't true everyone in the world would have a common biological basis for a common religion. If this were true then everyone in the world would be, in one way or another, speaking of god as part of their lives, and so it would be akin to something like morality. The world is actually filled with a wide variety of religions, filled will a disparate collection of core beliefs that relate to the evolution of local mythologies. The idea of prejudiced belief solves the problem of why myths continue to exist, and how they propagate down through the generations. Without the core group of prejudiced individuals no one would bother maintaining doctrine, or building churches. For a prejudiced person this is never a problem - they must have doctrine, and always generate it. Why did Hitler write "Mein Kampf"? This was his bridge back to objective reality, his explanation for his missing prejudice.

Try explaining to Hitler that "Jews aren't evil" and he will tell you that absolutely they are, it's obvious before we even speak, "jewish influence is everywhere", and he'll back it up with a mountain of "evidence". Hitler's judgment is mostly intact, but is bounded like a brick wall by his prejudice. Every habit considers it, every attitude incorporates it, his entire life is wrapped around it. Hitler can't doubt what he was programmed with as a small child, and can't take back an entire lifetime of habits anchored on that prejudice. All people with prejudices are bounded in this way.

hhmmmm, the post got lost somehow. I was trying to say, Rarely do I come across a post I want to copy, and frame it to my wall.

Excellent reasonable logical explanation! Super jsweck!

And yet you took the time to post a comment. This thread is blessed indeed!

And dogs remain dogs. Oh, evolution happens too slowly for us to see them diverge into something other than dogs, right? But it happens too slowly to see it in the fossil record, right? That's a nice convenient way to ignore the fact that orthogenesis is false.

And neanderthals were humans. Along with Cro-magnuns (spelling?). Just a different type of human.

Way too many delusional and scientifically ignorant statements to address. Your post is the very reason we need the NCSE, to prevent religious pseudo-science crap from entering public education.

Examples of a free thinker:

...the Christian Creationist haters...

...these poor individuals are spiritually dead. So say a prayer for them and especially their children.

Even poor Mr. Stephan Hawking is ...but a sciolists (sic) with no sapience or sagacity and such a pathetic man. Those who follow him to hell ...

...careless statement of a shallow thinker...

...and anyone of such a nugatory opinion is a fool.

...and the only creations you have are the machinations of your evil heart.

Are you a finished product of public education? (stated sarcastically)

And you call yourself a scientist? BAAAA

Your belief requires enormous amounts of nugacity and nugae to explain.

It is sad to say that this poor man’s schesis of mind is in the same condition as his body.

And it’s ABOUT TIME you oppugnants of freedom of education have a well-deserved antistrophon thrown in your faces

I want MY paradigm used, and I want the teachers to represent MY values.

Wow!

...going to brainwash children to believe Darwinian desipience in an academically epicerastic institution that serves the intellectually otios and sexually rapacious perverts...

Only brainwashed minions and parrots of secular/atheist/evolution that follow the hackneyed herd of sciolists scientists believe such nonsense.

Well, the truth is that you are either but a nescient bumbling idiot enamored with your own self-confirming encomium who is unable to read beyond a fifth-grade level, thanks to, I but guess, the public school system, or just a hate-filled person whose agendum is to vulnerate Bible-believers, or a combination of the two of which I believe the latter.

Not even a puerile author would be so dumb to make the mistake you charge, but your hate-energized anti-Christian bias and parvanimity will not allow you to consider or admit...

...became as you now are, spiritually exanimous.

Only because you, the scientist are beset with prior assumptions, biases, and personal prejudices as most secular scientists are.

A perfect score of 100 on the laugh meter!

Are you sure you are a real geneticist? I doubt it.

You are retarded academically; ...

...we can surmise that all your other opinions are LIES and you are a LIAR.

I have just proven you a liar,...

They are lies and you lie...

...another demonstration of one’s hubris causing fools to think of themselves as wise.

So, how many CoH violations, all in one place?

Just a thought: "Dogs are dogs; fruit flies are fruit flies, always have been and always will be." When is a dog not a dog? When it is the product of a wolf and dog or a coyote and dog. It's not a dog anymore. It's not a wolf (or coyote) anymore.

Recently, an Australian lizard made news by switching from egg-laying to giving live birth. It was always an egg-layer until just recently. That's evolution. It's change. It's adaptation.

Recently, an Australian lizard made news by switching from egg-laying to giving live birth. It was always an egg-layer until just recently. That's evolution. It's change. It's adaptation.

===and it's still a lizard and that is not orthogenesis. Dream on with your intellectually soporific renditions.

===and it's still a lizard and that is not orthogenesis. Dream on with your intellectually soporific renditions.

You are only partially right in this case. Speciation occurs when two populations of the same species are diverged for a period of generations to the point where they can no longer interbreed with each other.

They will both still be lizards (or anything else), but a member of one species cannot produce viable offspring with the species that has splintered away.