Different camps weighing in on the debate on whether Florida schools should teach evolution said at a public hearing that the other has no proof on how life originated.
Speakers that included local educators, parents and students made their final arguments Tuesday in favor of and against the teaching of evolutionary theory in science classes at Everglades High School in Miramar.
It was the last of three public hearings before the Florida School Board votes the issue on Feb. 19. Just last week, a meeting was held in Jacksonville.
Among other revisions in the state science standards, the board is expected to decide whether to mandate the use of the word "evolution" in place of "biological changes over time," which is used now.
"We're in opposition to teaching evolution as a fact. Evolution continues to be a theory," said Oscar Howard Jr., superintendent of Taylor County school district, according to the Associated Press.
Howard’s district is officially opposed to teaching evolution as a fact after a resolution on the topic was passed by the Taylor County School Board.
If the state approves the new standard regarding evolution, Howard indicated that there will be backlash. He said he has heard from hundreds of parents who promise to pull their children out of the school system and put them in private schools.
While he has nothing personal against supporters of evolution, the superintendent contended that "they can't prove a darn thing they're saying."
Laura Lopez, a parent who has three children in the Palm Beach County school system, took a more direct swipe at evolution, calling it "a lie."
"Satan is telling people these lies and people are believing them," she told the crowd of about 75, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.
Representing supporters of the new changes, Shawn Greene, a senior at South Broward High School, argued that it was creationism – a biblical view that God created the universe – that lacked evidence.
"Evolution, although it has been said to be a theory, it is basically been proven. Creationism is a religious concept, an abstract one at that."
Those favoring the revised standards believe they would help students perform better in science classes.
State Rep. Shelley Vana (D-Lantana), who has taught Advanced Placement Biology, said, "You can't even teach that and have your kids pass the test if you don't teach evolution," according to the Sun-Sentinel.
But Richard Wilbar, an English teacher at North Miami Senior High School, said the wording doesn't need to change as long as all the facts are taught.
"Keep the language as it is," he stated. "Evolution, you know and I know, is a loaded word, and we don't need it." Children should be taught biological facts but not theories about "an organizing force for life."
Members of the State Board of Education have yet to fully disclose their positions although at least one said he will vote for the standards and one has expressed dissent.
In addition to comments made at the public hearings, the Board is also expected to consider the views reflected in over 10,000 online comments to its website.
RSS
Detailing Darwin
My muse is clothed is sackcloth
Like sunglasses in a dark place
The Paleozoic need
Sleeping with a light in your face
Memoirs detailing Darwin
Madame Tussauds waxing cold
Hunting phantasmagoria
Persons of that serpent of old
Like some post Freudian slip
Darwin’s recantation at death
He said as he held his Bible
“That my theories were just a guess!”
His book, “My Life and Letters”
“My ideas were uninformed”
And I quote him verbatim
“Not one species has evolved!”
“And to my astonishment
The ideas took like wild fire
Made into a religion”
Of which the atheists admire!
The ‘fairy tale’ graveyard lift
The mortal theory held dear
Pray tell, will you answer then
When will our replacements get here??
Nothing real can be threatened
Just as nothing unreal exists
Science can’t prove evolution
Yet the uninformed still persist!
God created man from ‘dust’
To rule over fish in the ‘sea’
Darwin died citing Creation
And he begged God’s message be preached!
Tragedian Bete Noire
www.rapturealert.com
2-10-08
“he comes up with the idea that we need to stop wars because we are insignificant.”
Chris, I guarantee that wasn’t what Sagan was implying. Rather, he views our history as part of a small anomaly in terms of everything else in the history of our Universe. His eagerness for humanity to realize that in only a few 1000 years we have already produced the means to destroy ourselves means we should operate in the most rationale means and drawdown and remove our nuclear weapons aimed at each other.
I think the absolute opposite is inferred, in that in all the cosmos our own existence is up to us to decide. As he put it succinctly, we have discovered the power to use as we will and must decide if we will use it to spread our seed amongst the stars, or to destroy ourselves
“If evolution theory has nothing to do with the origin of life, then it surely cannot comment on theism. Yet we see two hypocricies here. The first is that "atheistic" evolutionists do comment on theism,”
Chris, Evolution can’t describe theism or god, but science and all it’s realms of study can to an extent touch on it, more so as it relates to miracles and the like.
“My statement was that the random side of evolution (which is necessary for evolution) is not supported by evidence”
What Random side of evolution? Mutations are the only ‘random’ thing involved with natural selection and evolution. If you think evolution is random, you've not read it in depth enough.
“So you say, "Miracles do not exist, because God does not exist, because miracles do not exist. SEE YOU THEISTS ARE STUPID AND ILLOGICAL!!!"”
No, we look at the evidence for and against miracles and determine how miraculous they all are in the abstract and form a conclusion that they don’t occur. If miracles don’t occur it doesn’t mean ‘no god’ either as Deists and Pantheists whom believe in god don’t believe in miracles
I considered copying and pasting from my past arguments to re-refute every point you brought up, but I think I would be wasting my time. If you are interested, you can go back and reread them. And if you are interested, you can actually deal with the points I made and come up with real arguments against them, if not and you want to keep positing circular arguments and name-calling then I am done.
There have never been any miracles because miracles are impossible. You don't seem to understand the concept called "reality". The idea there's a creature with unlimited powers is a man-made fantasy.
People invented zeus, god, judaism, christianity, and islam. Man invented every miracle, including the muslim story about the moon splitting into two pieces and the disgusting christian story about the jesus zombie. People wrote the Bible. There was no god whispering in their ear when they wrote it. Just like the fiction writers of today, they made things up. They had strong imaginations, and from what I have seen in the Bible, their imaginations were disgusting.
Every single detail of every single religion is an invention. Mental child abuse is required to keep these myths alive. Believers in this nonsense are victims. Their belief is a disease but they refuse to admit how sick they are.
The people who lived 2,000 years ago thought the stars they could see was the entire universe. They thought the earth was the center of that universe, and they thought our sun orbited the earth. They knew nothing about evolution. They didn't know people were apes. They didn't know how stars and planets form. They thought everything was magically created. These were the kind of people who were willing to believe anything, even something as idiotic as the Resurrection.
How convenient that you explain the Resurrection by saying god can do anything. This is the problem. The answer to every question is god-did-it. There is no answer more boring and more worthless than invoking a magic man who can do anything. Totally unlimited powers. He can destroy or create, whatever he feels like doing, he does it. It's totally a fantasy. Totally man-made.
I thank the people who laughed at my idiotic religious beliefs 42 years ago. They made me realize how sick in the head I was. Accepting reality and rejecting the insanity of supernatural nonsense is the best thing that ever happened to me.
Yes I watched it,
It was very moving. And I couldn't agree more with him, except that somehow he comes up with the idea that we need to stop wars because we are insignificant. I was expecting him to say something in the end like, "After all the wars suffering and death, we can see that none of it really makes a difference, and only we care, but we are going to fade into nothingness" He made good points, except he didn't give a reason for the end which seemed to be the point he was trying to make. I think if you took that off, then his speech would have made more sense.
I will look at your link though
"every reference to god it makes, and every single miracle, has to be a made up story."
This is circular reasoning, it says "Miracles can't be true, because miracles aren't true"
You seem to have the view that the universe was always here, and then God "picked" our solar system arbitrarily. This goes against reason. First of all no matter what planet God chose, you would still complain that He could have done it some other way.If you keep at this argument you end up saying, why didn't God create a universe the size of our planet and just have everything in it? Yet this is a double standard, you question me as to why things are the way they are, but if I ask you, scientifically, why things are the way they are, you say, "They just are, accept it!" If I took the same line I could just say with the exact same veracity as you say, "This is just the way God wanted it, accept it!" Nonetheless, as John Polkinghorne puts it well, I believe this planet and universe, at least from the knowledge we have, is highly specified and likely to be the best possible universe for life as we know it. (I wouldn't make a claim like this on my own, but he is a quantum physicist so I trust him).
Also, you claim that the body of Christ must have been this maggoty corpse or some such nonsense. So you say, well even if God could resurrect someone, He surely could not preserve a body. Or you say that He couldn't just reproduce the body's pattern from the existent materials. (Yes I copied from my argument below, it is sufficient to re-answer your propositions)
"Another question is why did god perform his magic during a time when people were most likely to believe anything, no matter how crazy and impossible it is?"
You assume ancient people were ignorant, and we are somehow smarter. This is not a fair assumption. Also there were several reasons why Christ came when He did, (various prophecies in the Bible and what not). Besides that, I highly doubt that if you heard tomorrow that a man had been resurrected and 500 people saw it, that you would believe it anyways. You don't believe anything except for science (blindly if necessary).
My attempt to make a link didn't work. If you want to watch the video you could copy and paste this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
I highly recommend it. The music is excellent, Sagan's words are beautiful, and his message is extremely important.
Chris333, to help you understand the point I was trying to make about the insignificance of our planet, I suggest you watch this 3 minute YouTube video.
Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M
I'm going to try to make it so you can just click on it. I hope this works.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M">Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot</a>
Hello Chris333. Think how boring it would be if we agreed about these things.
If there's anything in the Bible that isn't about god or miracles then I don't care if it's true or not, but every reference to god it makes, and every single miracle, has to be a made up story. Then there's the disgusting violence in the Bible, which makes me wonder why children are exposed to this nonsense.
What's most interesting to me is why so many people think their planet is so special. I was at the bookstore earlier today looking at a book of pictures from the Hubble Telescope. One large photo was almost completely filled with stars. There must have been millions of stars in just that one photo. The 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 estimate of the number of stars I talked about earlier has to be an underestimate because the light from millions of stars hasn't reached earth yet, because they are so far away. More stars than grains of sand on all our deserts and beaches. A number so large it's impossible to imagine it. Yet people think god chose this place for his magic tricks.
Also interesting to me is the magic trick the christians think god performed. You didn't seem to like my description of the dead body of jesus. I could have went into a lot more detail about what a 3 day old corpse looks like. It really is disgusting and the smell would be unbearable. So why did god choose this magic trick? Is god really that perverted?
So we got two major problems with the Resurrection. Why here, and why choose the most repulsive magic trick possible?
Another question is why did god perform his magic during a time when people were most likely to believe anything, no matter how crazy and impossible it is?
It all adds up to be the biggest hoax in human history. This con job continues today, thanks to the religious indoctrination of gullible 5 year olds. I'm glad I have nothing to do with a religion that requires mental child abuse to survive. I can't imagine anything more immoral than teaching children that what are obviously made up stories are facts. There can be no crime greater than lying to children.
Then you seem to have the view that the universe was always here, and then God "picked" our solar system arbitrarily. This goes against reason. First of all no matter what planet God chose, you would still complain that He could have done it some other way. If you keep at this argument you end up saying, why didn't God create a universe the size of our planet and just have everything in it? Yet this is a double standard, you question me as to why things are the way they are, but if I ask you, scientifically, why things are the way they are, you say, "They just are, accept it!" If I took the same line I could just say with the exact same veracity as you say, "This is just the way God wanted it, accept it!" Nonetheless, as John Polkinghorne puts it well, I believe this planet and universe, at least from the knowledge we have, is highly specified and likely to be the best possible universe for life as we know it. (I wouldn't make a claim like this on my own, but he is a quantum physicist so I trust him). Also, you claim that the body of Christ must have been this maggoty corpse or some such nonsense. So you say, well even if God could resurrect someone, He surely could not preserve a body. Or you say that He couldn't just reproduce the body's pattern from the existent materials. Of course these claims are ridiculous, so you back up and say "Magic, magic, it's all just magic!". Which really isn't an argument, it is the equivalent of saying, "Miracles cannot be true, because they are magic (not true but for sake of argument I will accept it), and then we know magic is silly and childish (how do we "know" this? Not that I am denying it), and since if God did miracles, which are really magic, then that makes God a big magician in heaven (also not true, or even a logically coherent argument, it is just playing with words) this makes God silly and childish, so only silly and childish people believe in God!" This is not an effective argument on any level. Change the words and it says, "Believing in God is silly, because miracles are silly, and since God performs miracles it makes Him silly" The argument is just silly.
By the way, you say science allows us to communicate this far, I say it is the God who gave us life and the ability that allows us to communicate. This is only a matter of interpretation.
Bob, you are twisting my statement. I didn't even suggest that atheists were evil. I made a statement, and you didn't answer it. I hope you are doing this unknowingly and not intentionally, but if you are doing it unknowingly, then you might want to think about your whole argument, because it might be possible that you are misinterpreting the facts there also. If you are doing it intentionally, then I have no reason to debate any longer.
Also, I didn't say the Bible was correct because it says it is correct. I said the Bible is a trustworthy book (more appropriately a trustworthy collection of documents). Time and again the Old and New Testaments are corroborated by archeaology, and only the fringe liberal scholars would deny this. There is just overwhelming evidence for its historical accuracy, at least to the time of Abraham. The NT is overwhelmingly supported by historical accuracy as well. Take in mind the Bible was written over 1500 years and by around 40 authors from all walks of life. This kind of accuracy and diversity is unheard of, anywhere.
July 23, 2003 CNN news article: "Ever wanted to wish upon a star? Well, you have 70,000 million million million to choose from. That's the total number of stars in the known universe, according to a study by Australian astronomers. It's also about 10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts."
Chris333: "we have the Bible, and we have the resurrection."
Of course the Bible, written by ancient ignorant people who didn't know anything about science and who were likely to believe any nonsense, certainly could not have any made up stories in it. After all, the Bible says the Bible is correct, so the Bible must be correct. That sure makes sense to me.
And of course a god would choose our solar system, out of 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 solar systems, to perform his disgusting magic trick, turning the stinking maggot infested corpse of jesus into a zombie. Yeah, right, that makes sense. Of course the jesus zombie then flew up to the clouds. That's so easy to believe I wonder why more than 4 billion people think the Resurrection is an insane idea.
Isn't it interesting, Chris333, that we have been having this conversation even though we live on opposite sides of our planet. What made this possible, science or god?
If someone can derive satisfaction from murdering 7 year olds then he has found meaning for his life. In fact, that's the meaning of my life. There's nothing I enjoy more than murdering children. Virtually all atheists find meaning this way, from killing for the fun of it. We must be pretty good at getting away with it, because there's virtually no atheists in American prisons. There's 30 million atheists in America, every single one of them is a serial killer, and not one of them has been caught yet. If only we had an invisible friend called Jesus. Then we could have the same moral values only a Christian could have.
"You got no evidence for any of this Chris333. Not one shred of evidence for any of it.
People believe this only because this is exactly what they want to be true. It's pure wishful thinking and nothing more. "
I beg to differ. Objectively, we have the Bible, and we have the resurrection. If these two events are considered trustworthy (the argument is easy to make, providing you don't write off God from the beginning) then we have some evidence at least. But also we have experiential evidence, which I believe to be more convincing. Believe it or not I have really experienced God in my life, you say prayers are just talking to yourself, but my talking to myself cannot provide external solutions to my requests. It just isn't explained by science. I also believe that if seen from a different perspective, then evidence for God can be seen all around us. It is completely based upon the perspective, and science should not comment on this.
So, to date, I have not seen any good arguments against God from you, and certainly not against Christianity, other than that it has miracles or that God is silly or something of the sort, which isn't an argument. And I have provided you with reasons why I have a rational logical faith in Christianity, which I haven't seen you respond to, other than that it has miracles or that it is silly, which isn't really a response.
It has been very interesting discussing with you though, and you were right that we are mostly in agreement, but the few things we disagree on make all the difference. I am sorry that your childhood was like that, and I will say that it is against the true message of Christianity that something such as that should happen. I hope you will hear that message.
Right,
Yes I do believe atheism cannot provide real meaning in life. You said it best that people just create their own meaning. This means I can derive satisfaction from murdering 7 year olds or saving them, and both are equally valid goals in life. Please, do not deny this, it is painful to see the arguments made by atheists to prove otherwise.
"Being an atheist means being completely free"
Alas, this is the main reason people are atheist. It is not science, it is not philosophical or moral, it is this supposed "freedom". I think I have proven on this and other blogs that you can fully accept science and be a believer, and surely philosophy and morality are compatible. But I would argue with you on the freedom. I am a Christian, and I hope you would not assume me to be brainwashed and a victim of society. I also feel immense freedom and joy in being a Christian, and I do live my life as best I can following Christ. The NT itself coins the term, "And the truth will set you free" Here is the thing, all lies enslave people. So yes if Christianity is a lie, then I am enslaved (but not unhappy) but if Christianity is true, then you are enslaved to the lie that is prohibiting you from having a real relationship with God (though you are not unhappy now).
You said you went to catholic school when you were a child. That explains something to me, I do find that by and large the most vocal atheists had experiences of going to catholic school. However, indoctrinating is not the way to show someone the truth, it is by showing a clear argument (and if God is true then letting Him work in their hearts) I do hope you do not believe me to be brainwashed or a victim of some conspiracy.
Just for the record, when I say the god myth is insane and childish, I'm not talking about the people who believe in it. I consider them to be victims. Victims of the culture they grew up in. Their brainwashing was so intense they never had a chance. I speak from experience. 9 years of catholic school, kindergarten thru 8th grade, hearing the words "christ died for your sins" every single day for 9 years, several times a day. I know all about the fine art of religious indoctrination. They get to the kids when they're gullible and willing to believe any nonsense no matter how crazy it is. When they become adults, they are so brainwashed they abuse their own children with the same insanity. Even the smartest children usually don't have a chance to recover from this child abuse. I recovered from the mental illness called "religion" only because I was very lucky.
"But rather He did love us, and He does care about this speck in the universe."
You got no evidence for any of this Chris333. Not one shred of evidence for any of it.
People believe this only because this is exactly what they want to be true. It's pure wishful thinking and nothing more.
"Christianity is a majority in the world. It is the largest group by believer."
Christians have the largest religion (if you add up the countless sects), but of course they are less than one third of the world, and I have to wonder how many Christians take their religion seriously.
"For better or worse atheism has nothing to offer people."
Being an atheist means being completely free. Atheists are not slaves of any god. They can sleep late on Sunday morning, or at least not waste time in a church, and they get to laugh at people who pray, which is just talking to yourself. Being an atheist means being able to understand reality much easier than most theists can. It's for a good reason only theists deny the fact of evolution. Atheists don't have to worry about hell, and even more important they don't have to worry about eternal boredom in heaven.
"People largely do not want to have no meaning in life"
Do you seriously believe atheism means no meaning in life? Do you think people are so stupid they can't give themselves any meaning they want? Do you think people have to have an imaginary friend to give themselves meaning? If you threw god in the garbage where it belongs would your life have no meaning? I don't think so. You would probably continue your same life, except you wouldn't waste it believing in the god myth which is, with all due respect, as childish as the tooth fairy myth. I got so much meaning to my life I don't have time for all of it. Religious beliefs really are good for nothing. God is a disgusting waste of time.
"and people largely do want to believe in something higher than themselves."
I can't imagine what the benefit is of thinking there is something higher. What's the point? It's nuts.
This is what excites me - In a universe at least 8 billion years old, our solar system formed, which was a violent birth, a completely natural event that took millions of years. Millions of years later our planet cooled and the first living cells formed, possibly from organic matter from the countless comets that crashed into the ancient earth. After four billion years of bloody natural selection, one branch of apes developed a larger brain, invented agriculture, and sent themselves to the moon, and they did it all on their own, with no help from any mythical god. It was billions of years of all natural processes. That's a thousand times more interesting than the incredibly childish and insane god myth.
**"I very intelligent man" below should be either "a very intelligent man" or "I knew a very intelligent man"
You said that the average human (I would say most) live the way we do because of the work done before them. This is amazing! Can you not see that? Why do you hate mankind so much? Chimpanzees will never be able to benefit from the knowledge obtained by his father. They are forever doomed to using sticks to get ants out of trees. Dolphins do not have the level of conciousness that we have. Sure all animals have some conciousness (probably) but nothing like we have. I can write an autobiography and share my life with others who can learn from me, dolphins are smart, but they are a different kind of smart by far. It is a joke to say they are smarter than humans. Yes we have many weaknesses, and I am not saying we are inherently "better" than any other animal. But because we are the special creation of God, we have real value and we are above other animals.
It is funny that you said the dolphins would disagree with me, I doubt they would ever be able to understand what I am saying about them, let alone have the ability to choose whether they accept it or not. The real differences between our positions is the perspective we are coming from. We are barely arguing.
Bob,
I know your reasons for calling humans human apes, but I am saying it is just to egg a question. I don't call dogs dog-canines, I just call them dogs. You said that if people realize what they were the world would be a better place, I cannot agree more with the statement, but I cannot disagree more with the context you are using it in. Please, go to Kenya and tell them that they don't need to fight anymore because they are apes, or go to N. Korea and tell Kim jung il that he doesn't have to oppress his citizens because they are all apes. It is okay if you believe in atheism, but please do not pretend like atheism can solve problems, you said earlier that the only thing it says is that there exists no God, leave it at that.
People have been saying that religion would be dead for a long time. They have been wrong every time. Sure Europe and N. America is becoming more secular and atheistic. But religion is growing far faster than atheism. I very intelligent man once said that atheism will not win in the future, it will either be Christianity or Islam. For better or worse atheism has nothing to offer people. People largely do not want to have no meaning in life, and people largely do want to believe in something higher than themselves. Also, Christianity is a majority in the world. It is the largest group by believer.
Also it is not what you do that necessarily causes Christ' sacrifice to be necessary. By all means, God was not required to do anything, He could have done just what you keep suggesting and let humans rot on this speck of nothing. But rather He did love us, and He does care about this speck in the universe. He didn't send Jesus just because of what you did, or even what everyone does, but because of our nature and the imbalance. It has to be set right, no free lunch.
"I actually saw an article about the tests on short term memory for chimpanzees just the other day, it was very interesting."
I saw the videos. The humans struggled with it. I would have had difficulty with it. For the chimps it was easy and effortless. They have a photographic memory. They made humans look like dumb animals. Actually humans are (mostly) dumb and they are definitely animals. People say "we can go to the moon so we must be special" but these same people couldn't describe the science required to get there. The average humans survive because of the hard work of millions that came before them. The average human, if he had to live in a chimp's environment without all the inventions he could never invent on his own, would be dead in less than a week.
consciousness: "A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group"
"The bottom line is that we are at a level of consciousness high above any other life form ever to have existed, and ever to exist."
A few thousand dolphins would disagree with you. Also, we are not the only human ape species that has ever lived. There were several humans species that died out, including the Neanderthals, who might still be alive today if our ancestors didn't invade their habitat (and maybe even murdered them). Also in a universe of trillions of planets, it's darn crazy to claim humans are the best species there is. You keep forgetting earth is just a speck of almost nothing.
"I'm doing just fine without (God)"
Chris333: "Do you mean that you feel good? Or that you feel successful? Or that you are functioning? Do you really place all your bets on these things? Besides that I meant spiritual death, and the fish doesn't die immediately."
All four of your questions - the answer is yes. Religious words like spiritual and sin I never use because they have no meaning to me. Religious words are as useless as the religions they come from.
A few years ago I heard some people talking about what Clinton did with an intern. Somebody said something about Clinton's "sin". I told the person what Clinton did was his own private business and when you use words like "sin" you sound like a nun.
"probability of having a life-permitting universe" Why even talk about this probability when we know there's at least one planet teeming with life, even in the worst conditions. This planet is perfect for the life it contains because life evolved to adapt to this planet's environment. In a different world with different conditions, life would evolve differently to survive in a different environment. Like I said before, life is just chemistry and there's no reason our universe or any other universe shouldn't be full of some kind of life on millions of planets. Also, like I said before the god hypothesis is not necessary for life or gravity or anything else. Gods really are the most worthless inventions ever dreamed up by primitive ignorant humans. Just the wheel and how to start fires have been far more valuable to the human race than mythical gods like Zeus and the Christian Bible God.
Religions will be extinct some day because eventually people will understand how useless gods are. We can thank science for our ability to feed our massive 7 billion and growing population. Religions have never solved any problem and they never will.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20080119.gif
"You surely do not believe that you have been perfect all of your life?"
I certainly haven't done anything that would require a man-god to come down here and get executed to save me from something for my "sins". We are just animals for goodness sake. If people understood humans are not the big deal they think they are, this jesus business would be just a joke. Well, jesus is a joke and most of the world laughs at it. Christians are the majority in god-soaked America but they're a minority in the world. I predict the extinction of their strange religion. How many thousands of years can people be ignorant of what they really are? How many thousands of years can people continue to believe in strange and disgusting myths like the Resurrection? This nonsense can't last forever. In Sweden 85% of the population is atheist. The churches in Europe are empty. In Canada religions are becoming obsolete. Even hopelessly god-soaked America is becoming more secular. America and the Muslim countries will be the last countries to accept reality, but sooner or later all religions will be found only in museums. People could still be alive a billion years from now and there's no way all these strange myths are going to last that long.
"I don't know why you keep saying human ape"
Calling people "human apes" or "apes" is more accurate than calling them "humans". We are an ape species. People who think a god would give a fig about them need to be reminded they are only apes and nothing more. Lots of people think we evolved from apes and they are correct, but they are forgetting we are still apes. Just because we have less hair than other ape species does not mean we are no longer apes. If you look up "Great Apes" in any encyclopedia you will see a list of the Great Apes: chimpanzees, bobobos, humans, gorillas, and orangutans. Most biologists would agree humans are a type of chimpanzee. You, me, the pope, and Jesus are a type of chimpanzee ape. If you worship Jesus you are worshiping an ape. If only people understood what we really are, the world would be a better place.
"Speak for yourself my friend. I don't have any sins, whatever that is. "
And you called me arrogant... But just to define sin, it would be something that separates us from God. You cannot objectively say that you have done "nothing that separates you from God" But if we modify the definition of sin to mean that you have done something "wrong" then I think you will at least have the humility to admit that you have done something "wrong". You surely do not believe that you have been perfect all of your life?
"People who believe in a supernatural magician seem willing to invoke it for almost anything, but they forget scientists have pretty much wiped out all of god's hiding places."
This was referring to my comment on the natural laws. By laws I didn't mean "natural selection" I meant the fundamental laws that govern the way matter and what not works. Gravity, nuclear strong and weak forces, and so on. Physicists support the idea that these laws are not static and that the beginning moments of the Big Bang would have decided how these laws work. If changed even a fraction we would get universes composed of only hydrogen, or other absurdities where life is impossible (the probability of having a life-permitting universe was said to be the equivalent of aiming at a square inch target on the other side of the universe and hitting it). Also, science cannot explain the why, it can only explain the how. Science cannot say why everything obeys these rules of nature, they can only explain how things do. I would argue that God is not retreating into ever distant "hiding places" as you suggest, but that God is evident everywhere, if you are looking for Him.
"All holy books, including the Bible, are full of wild guesses and extremely improbable crazy ideas."
Well, I will not speak for other religions, but the Bible doesn't make a lot of wild guesses, and certainly not improbable crazy ideas. It doesn't say for instance that the world rests on the back of a turtle, or that a multitude of gods were fighting and the earth came as a result. Rather it says that God created the universe.
"I suggest believe in a god if you want, but don't waste time pretending you could know anything about it. I could never believe in the crazy god idea, but if there was a universe god, I'd be surprised if it knew we we(re) here. "
Well, I hope that at least you don't think that my belief in God is based upon crazy ideas that have no basis in reason. And I would argue that depending on the perspective, I could say that I would be highly surprised if God did "not" know we were here.
Well Bob, again you made some good points, I will try to respond in the order you gave your comments.
Yes there are other "intelligent" animals, but only humans have been able to go into space, create systems of government, reflect upon what it means to be "human", discuss the difference between right and wrong, and do all of the other number of things that make us human. Some could suggest that ants are more efficient and therefore better than us, or that there are more of them than us so they must be better, or that bacteria are more efficient than us. The bottom line is that we are at a level of consciousness high above any other life form ever to have existed, and ever to exist. (I don't know, maybe in a few thousand years planet of the apes will come true, but I wouldn't put my money on it). I don't know why you keep saying human ape, I suppose it is somehow different than the simple term human. I actually saw an article about the tests on short term memory for chimpanzees just the other day, it was very interesting.
"The boss of trillions of solar systems is going to give a fig about human apes? I don't think so."
I do, the simple fact that we are here and alive could be considered evidence that God at least cares about our survival (and if Jesus is true, then He also cares about our ultimate wellbeing).
"Just because scientists are still working on it doesn't mean life can't appear easily all over the universe."
True, but studies are showing up more and more that life is extremely unlikely to even be possible let alone similar to life on earth. As science progresses we are not seeing good possibility for extraterrestrial life.
"why would god want a relationship with a bunch of human apes on this insignificant speck of nothing called earth?"
This all depends on the perspective you are looking at it from. I see this world as a cherished speck in the vast universe that God has created. I mean you have to at least admire the beauty of earth seen from space? And also I see this universe as testimony to our relative smallness and dependancy we have towards God. This is just a matter of perspective.
"I'm doing just fine without (God)"
Fine in what sense? Do you mean that you feel good? Or that you feel successful? Or that you are functioning? Do you really place all your bets on these things? Besides that I meant spiritual death, and the fish doesn't die immediately.
Whoops. At the end of my last comments I meant "I'd be surprised if it knew we were here", not "I'd be surprised if it knew we we here".
Chris333: "if God created this world and instituted the laws that govern this universe (as the Bible suggests) then we will be sure that these laws will be the norm that we can rely upon."
I assume you know all planets and stars, including our sun and earth, have formed naturally. Thanks partly to the Hubble telescope, scientists have worked all this out. Like everything else, the god hypothesis is not required to create this world or any other world.
Did god make laws that govern this universe? No, of course not, because an inventor of natural processes was not necessary. For example, why would gravity require an inventor? Why would natural selection need an inventor? These laws that govern the universe are just how things work. The god hypothesis is not necessary for this or anything else.
People who believe in a supernatural magician seem willing to invoke it for almost anything, but they forget scientists have pretty much wiped out all of god's hiding places.
Even more interesting is people who believe in a god seem to know so much about it. They make fantastic claims like this god loves us, as if a god of a huge universe would single out one ape species on one little planet for special treatment. How the heck could anyone know anything about a god? All holy books, including the Bible, are full of wild guesses and extremely improbable crazy ideas.
I suggest believe in a god if you want, but don't waste time pretending you could know anything about it. I could never believe in the crazy god idea, but if there was a universe god, I'd be surprised if it knew we we here.
I'm going to throw out my common sense again and pretend there's a god.
"The case can be made that if God does exist then He at least cares about humanity's survival."
The boss of trillions of solar systems is going to give a fig about human apes? I don't think so.
"The simple fact that life exists is extremely unlikely (mathematically 0) and this earth has no real reason for having been able to support life for billions of years."
Since we are here I would say life is extremely likely, otherwise we wouldn't be here, would we? Life is just chemistry. Volcanos under the sea would have been one of many places for the first living cells to develop. Just because scientists are still working on it doesn't mean life can't appear easily all over the universe.
"But this doesn't explain why God would send Christ. To answer that you need to look at the very nature of humans and of God. The Bible tells us that God loves us, and that God is perfectly holy. God wants a relationship, but our freedom (given by God) has caused our separation from God."
The Bible is full of wild guesses and assumptions. In a universe of trillions of solar systems, why would god want a relationship with a bunch of human apes on this insignificant speck of nothing called earth?
"human beings separated from God cannot survive"
I'm doing just fine without it.
"God is holy and just and we are separate and sinful. If you believe in the idea that there is no 'free lunch' then you will at least be able to understand that somebody has to pay for our sins."
Speak for yourself my friend. I don't have any sins, whatever that is.
Christ333, I have some ideas about why people seem so much different from other animals even though in my opinion we are not that much different from them at all. We are certainly a very successful species, if you want to call being able to totally trash and pollute the planet successful. The worst thing that ever happened to this planet was the evolution of ancient ape-like creatures into human apes. Of course since I'm a human ape I'm not complaining about our existence. However I wish my fellow humans would stop destroying this planet.
Human babies are as helpless or maybe even more helpless than chimpanzee babies. Human apes who lived 100,000 years ago were not much different from any other ape species. They were just different. They had evolved larger brains and the ability to walk easily on 2 legs. Other than that they were just like any other animal and they were not yet on top of the food chain. It took thousands of years to invent agriculture, and to learn how to breed cows. Thousands more years went by before we had the conveniences we have today.
We do not have a monopoly on intelligence. I would bet the dolphins (mammals like us, a large brain like ours, and descendants of land animals) are just as intelligent as we are. They can't do what we have done because they must live in the ocean. We just happen to be the species that evolved to have superior intelligence, and hands to make tools and hunt. Now we look like a big deal, but that's only because of thousands of years of accumulation of knowledge. If we had to start all over again, we would not be any better off than any other animal.
By the way, recent tests have proven chimpanzees have a much better short term memory than humans, which is another reason I don't think people are the big deal they think they are.
okay okay, one more thing
Far be it from me to assume arrogance. Though I was created in God's image, I by my own will, have made a mockery of this high calling and have proven myself to be more in the image of satan than my creator. (I know you don't like this talk but bear with it) By accepting the sacrifice of Christ I admit this and if my faith is true then I should be humbled by this. Thanks for pointing this out though, I don't want to be more arrogant than I already am!
Good points Bob, and I wasn't meaning to change this from a discussion about evolution/ID to one about miracles/au natural. But anyways I will respond, and then I have to go to the grocery store.
Yes if there is a God then "anything" is possible...perhaps... But this doesn't mean that reality is meaningless, rather I would suggest that it affirms the meaning of reality. For instance, if God created this world and instituted the laws that govern this universe (as the Bible suggests) then we will be sure that these laws will be the norm that we can rely upon. This actually provided much of the impetus of the early scientists who assumed that because God created the universe it must be intelligible and also reliable. Just because God decides to "intervene" at points doesn't negate the normal laws that govern us. Matter is very simple after all, and some scientists have gone so far as to suggest that there are "white holes" or some kind of metaphysical imbalance in the "vacuum" of space that will randomly "create" matter (this theory by the way is meant to disprove God).
Aside from this, you brought up another point. Why does God care about us, and why would He send Jesus? This is a large question, and I do not feel fully qualified to answer it in anyway, also this goes into the question of theology and strays from science so for your sake and this posts sake I will try to make this brief. We have to understand that God is more than just related to sciences and natural arguments. He is also related to abstract things such as "love" "justice" and "personality". We know these things to be as real as sciences, but we also realize they are distinct from sciences. The case can be made that if God does exist then He at least cares about humanity's survival. The simple fact that life exists is extremely unlikely (mathematically 0) and this earth has no real reason for having been able to support life for billions of years. But this doesn't explain why God would send Christ. To answer that you need to look at the very nature of humans and of God. The Bible tells us that God loves us, and that God is perfectly holy. God wants a relationship, but our freedom (given by God) has caused our separation from God. As a fish out of water cannot survive, human beings separated from God cannot survive. Unfortunately it is not so simple as just jumping back into the water. God is holy and just and we are separate and sinful. If you believe in the idea that there is no "free lunch" then you will at least be able to understand that somebody has to pay for our sins. Again, the question and answer deserve much more thought than this, but I hope I have been able to give a basic answer, and I hope that it is at least logically coherent, if not rationally so. Good night Bob, I will respond again later.
arrogant: "Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance."
Chris333: "I believe we are primarily created in the image of God and our source is in God. (Just bear with me) The second is that I do not have a problem with us having come from "apes" as you put it. I would not be so stupid as to accept or deny this, I just do not have the credentials to make a fully educated statement. However I will say that your arguments are convincing for what they are worth. I need to emphasize that this does not do anything to my faith. Even if we are connected to "apes" we are separate from them in a much larger way than just a few evolutions. I know you were using the DNA indicators to show the link between humans and animals, which is fine, but what I am saying is there is more than just 1-2% difference in the DNA to attribute to all of the advances of humanity."
This "people were made (by supernatural magic or evolution) in the image of God" is an idea from people who thought they were such a big deal that god must look like them. What arrogance!
Heck, I guess I can talk about religious stuff even though I suggested we not bother with it.
Chris333: "if God does not exist then the resurrection is impossible, but if He does exist then it is possible."
If there's a god then anything becomes possible and that's the problem. Once a person accept the idea there's a supernatural magician somewhere, who can intervene and do its magic any time it wants, then reality becomes meaningless. That's why even religious scientists keep all gods out of their work, because the god idea would make science a waste of time.
Let's throw out all common sense for a minute and pretend there is a god. Why would this master of trillions of solar systems do something as boring and trivial as send it's assistant, jesus, down here to get himself murdered? Why the heck would a god do that? In my opinion the people who think the god of their imagination would perform a cheap disgusting magic trick like making jesus become a zombie, have no respect for their imaginary god's intelligence.
Well I don't ignore you Bob =O). But it is hard to keep atheism and theism out of a debate that is based on whether or not atheism or theism is true. Also you need to be careful of a double standard. You say that morals and theism bores you and doesn't interest you, and expect me to accept that, but if I say that science and evolution bores me and doesn't interest me then you reserve the right to laugh at me and call me unintelligent.
Chris333, Just a suggestion - let's keep theism and atheism out of it. Let's focus on science. Scientists don't talk about the existence or non-existence of gods when they are discussing science, and I suggest we do the same. Do what you want of course. I suggest things and people ignore me all the time.
I do believe in a "literal" interpretation of the Bible, and I do believe that evolution (as long as it is not atheistic in nature) is not contradictory to the Bible. I cannot go back in history and make sure that we did evolve from monkeys, but I can see from the evidence now that our bodies are connected to theirs (and also bananas appearantly from someones post on another site). And also that there is more to us than just this difference, which science hasn't even begun to explain (and I believe that science cannot explain). Anyway as long as you look to only science for the answers, questions like these will be forever beyond your grasp.
Finallly I need to follow up on my Resurrection statement. Yes I believe in the actual physical/spiritual resurrection of Christ. I think I could guess what you would say about it, but I also think that it would be hinged upon a disbelief in God. If you have a historical or scientific argument that is not based upon a disbelief in God, which refutes the resurrection, then I would very much like to hear it. But I have studied the debates of the greatest and they have almost always boiled down to, "Well history cannot comment on theology" or "Science cannot accept "supernatural" explanations" This proves nothing except that, if God does not exist then the resurrection is impossible, but if He does exist then it is possible. (Please note, some brave historians and scientists have even attempted to disprove the resurrection without this assumption, but majority of the time they go back to the assumption, this probably frustrates you, I know it frustrates me.)
Now I will respond to Bob:
"I said discussions about morality are boring because they are boring. Who cares about it? I sure don't. I make sure I live a good life. What other people do is their business, and as long as they don't harm me, what they do is none of my business."
I know you don't really mean this. Have you seen the movie about the hotel in Rhwanda? If you watch that movie and at the end say, "Oh well, it isn't bothering me so I don't care" then you are just heartless, I am sure this is not the case. Besides that, you do seem to care about how other people live their lives, you feel contented to post on here that anyone who believes in religion is a fool. I know you don't live this out in your daily life either. You don't think that if parents want to abuse their children then we should just let them live the way they want so long as it doesn't bother you? Nor do you think that torturing another for their beliefs is fine and dandy as long as it isn't you or someone you know? I care about morality a whole lot more than I care about whether or not our bodies descended from animals.
But nonetheless I will respond to the second part of your comment.
"That's great. Does this mean you accept the idea humans share a common ancestor with the other ape species?
If yes, then I owe you one standing ovation.
If not, why not?"
First of all, applause means little to me. I have had my fair share of people curse me and applaud me. Congratulations proves little. I will respond however, and after that you can curse or applaud me however you feel. The first thing you will probably hate hearing, and that is that I believe we are primarily created in the image of God and our source is in God. (Just bear with me) The second is that I do not have a problem with us having come from "apes" as you put it. I would not be so stupid as to accept or deny this, I just do not have the credentials to make a fully educated statement. However I will say that your arguments are convincing for what they are worth. I need to emphasize that this does not do anything to my faith. Even if we are connected to "apes" we are separate from them in a much larger way than just a few evolutions. I know you were using the DNA indicators to show the link between humans and animals, which is fine, but what I am saying is there is more than just 1-2% difference in the DNA to attribute to all of the advances of humanity.
Hello Chris333. I live in Florida but I don't go to bed until the sun rises.
Mutations, also known as copying errors, are random. The natural selection of favorable mutations is not random, for the same reason artificial selection (humans breeding cows, etc.) is not random.
The animals best able to survive long enough to reproduce are the animals that pass on their genes to the next generation. There's nothing random about it. Natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift are 3 mechanisms of evolution I know about.
The fact that animals can gradually develop into new species is a proven fact. The same kind of DNA analysis used for paternity testing is also used to determine evolutionary relationships. This DNA analysis proves beyond any doubt which species are most closely or less closely related to each other. There is no debate about the accuracy of this evidence.
I'm just wondering. Do you or do you not accept the idea chimpanzees and humans are close cousins who share a common ancestor who lived about 5 or 6 million years ago?
Agentorange:
"Evolution ONLY deals with ORIGINS OF SPECIES and NOT ORINS OF LIFE. Evolution only deals with life after it already exists. Read up on Natural Selection, you’ll see it’s hardly random."
I am not exactly sure what you are arguing against me here, I can see some connection though and I will just briefly comment on it. If evolution theory has nothing to do with the origin of life, then it surely cannot comment on theism. Yet we see two hypocricies here. The first is that "atheistic" evolutionists do comment on theism, and evolutionists do comment on the origin of life. Evolutionary theory might not be able to tell us exactly how the first cell got here, but it does say that all life originated from one celled organisms. This is origins, possibly origins plus a little ignorance.
Anyways, your comment was not really directed at my statement which is what baffled me. My statement was that the random side of evolution (which is necessary for evolution) is not supported by evidence, but by guesswork (it is not necessarily bad guesswork, but it is still guesswork).
"No Chris, we attack miracles, as this is what evidence theists use to claim that their god is indeed real. For if there are no miracles involved, people likely wouldn’t follow the religion at all. This way, at the very least a given definition of god can be disproved and tossed on the heap of other mythological dead gods. "
I am not sure you are really saying anything against what I said, you might want to rephrase this statement. In any case I was trying to argue that the only ways you can define miracles as impossible is if you show that God does not exist, and as you have defined roughly in the above statement, if God exists then necessarily miracles would also exist. So in order to show that God does not exist, the atheist attacks miracles trying to show that they do not exist. So you say, "Miracles do not exist, because God does not exist, because miracles do not exist. SEE YOU THEISTS ARE STUPID AND ILLOGICAL!!!"
Ok, glad to see there was some activity since I left. And yes Bob it is good to be back again. I am in a very different time zone so I have to wait till everyone is gone to post, which isn't always so bad.
First, I'll respond to Agentorange:
"When H. Sapien and H. Neandethalensis DNA is compared they only show a 1% difference, but between H. Sapien and Chimps the figure is closer to 95.5% identical. You’re leaving out that of our 195,000 year existence (according to mtDNA), only the last 6000 years were recorded, and only in the last 10,000 did we use agriculture, so even our own progression of technology was relatively recent."
Good, then we are mostly in agreement. A fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible would put the arrival of human beings (as God created them at somewhere between 6000-10000 years ago.) This would coincide directly with as you put it well, the relatively new advancements that honestly separate us from every other living thing on earth. My point was in saying that 2 Percent is responsible for this rapid development, seems to be lacking. I do believe we have a spirit, and that it is this spirit that fundamentally separates us from animals. The biblical idea of God giving us a spirit at somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years ago, seems to be right on.
I am not going to comment on the Chromosome ERV comment, because I am not a scientist, and the little I know about these things does not qualify me to even make a judgment on it. Yes I am admitting ignorance here, but unless you hold a phd then I doubt you fully understand these arguments either. I will just say that it really doesn't affect my argument.
"To be sure, speciation doesn’t happen daily. But, it has been observed over and over and over again. Google ‘nylon digesting bacteria’."
I have heard about this, and it is interesting. But it really doesn't prove evolution in a grand scale, it proves natural selection, which I have no problem with. The point is that the bacteria is still bacteria, and not only that it is still the same "strain" of bacteria, just a little better adapted. This certainly isn't comparable to gravity, which doesn't require a phd to study.
theotrek: "What made them special was the timing of the events. In that, it was perceived that God was acting. The method of intervention did not matter. If God intervenes through what we might call suggestion, does that interfere with scientific inquiry or the laws of the natural world?"
Do you seriously believe a god influences the timing of anything, or a god makes suggestions?
I said believing in a god is a waste of a life, and you didn't seem to like that. Why shouldn't it be a waste of time to pretend there's a supernatural creature in the sky somewhere? If somebody could live to be an adult and somehow avoid ever hearing about gods on this insane planet, and then somebody told him about a god who influenced the timing of events, he would probably say "Are you nuts? What the heck are you talking about?"
If only parents didn't abuse their children with this strange god fantasy. Then the world could finally be rid of this nonsense. Any person not exposed to this god craziness until he was old enough to think for himself could never believe any of it.
You are pro-science so I have to wonder why you would want to have anything to do with the god idea which is extremely anti-science. Perhaps the god of your imagination does not interfere with how the world works, but the very existence of a god seems very anti-reality to me. Why bother with it? It really is a waste of time.
“I cannot believe that 2% difference in DNA is accountable for all of the civiliazation, advanced reasearch, literature, creativity, and philosophical and religious thought.”
When H. Sapien and H. Neandethalensis DNA is compared they only show a 1% difference, but between H. Sapien and Chimps the figure is closer to 95.5% identical. You’re leaving out that of our 195,000 year existence (according to mtDNA), only the last 6000 years were recorded, and only in the last 10,000 did we use agriculture, so even our own progression of technology was relatively recent.
“Evolution is not like gravity, we can test gravity a million times a day and we can see the results of it always.”
We can use the mode/theory of evolution to make predictions on what should happen for tests and when they conform they reaffirm evolution. Case in point, Human Chromosome 2 fusion and 7 Identical ERV’s.
“Evolution must be tested in a lab and we cannot even view it happening (new species are not being created every day).”
To be sure, speciation doesn’t happen daily. But, it has been observed over and over and over again. Google ‘nylon digesting bacteria’.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
“The atheist says that all life is the product of randomness and natural selection (only half of this statement is based on evidence”
Evolution ONLY deals with ORIGINS OF SPECIES and NOT ORINS OF LIFE. Evolution only deals with life after it already exists. Read up on Natural Selection, you’ll see it’s hardly random.
“So you have to qualify this statement and attack miracles…. and we know that miracles are not real, because they are impossible,”
No Chris, we attack miracles, as this is what evidence theists use to claim that their god is indeed real. For if there are no miracles involved, people likely wouldn’t follow the religion at all. This way, at the very least a given definition of god can be disproved and tossed on the heap of other mythological dead gods.
BobCu--
I forgot where I first heard "Any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic." Many of the "miracles" recorded in the Bible are events that were completely natural. What made them special was the timing of the events. In that, it was perceived that God was acting. The method of intervention did not matter. If God intervenes through what we might call suggestion, does that interfere with scientific inquiry or the laws of the natural world?
BobCu--Would you please unpack this:
"At least you are pro-science, so your life is not totally wasted."
How Evolution REALLY Works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s
The world is full of misinformation.
Interesting how most of the Young Earth Creationists and people pushing Intelligent Design, clearly don’t have an education in the biological sciences. Evolution is the product of Natural Selection AND Mutation. Either alone does nothing.
Evolution is the logical outcome of the world around us. Organisms that store their genetic information in DNA are guaranteed to have mutations. Mutation produce NEW variation. Reproducing organisms are guaranteed to compete for resources. Competition between variable organisms leads to natural selection, i.e. those organisms that possess variation that gives then an advantage will out compete those who don’t. Organisms with deleterious variation will lose to all other organisms. In this way the ENVIRONMENT SELECTS the best organisms, which has the effect of passing beneficial mutations on to the next generation and removing deleterious ones. Over time natural selection will lead to a net shift in the genome of the population, i.e. evolution.
Yes, this really is evolution. Changes in allele frequency, changes in gene expression, changes in transcription factor binding efficiency, they are all evolution.
Logic predicts evolution, and observation confirms it. Evolution has been observed in the lab and in nature. Speciation (macroevolution) has been observed in the lab and in nature. Large changes in appearance has been observed in the lab and in nature. Beneficial mutations have been observed in the lab and in nature.
To deny evolution is to deny direct observation. It is as silly as denying that the sky is blue.
"then I would first point you to the resurrection of Christ"
You don't want to do that, Chris333. You don't even want to know what I think about that idea.
Hello Chris333, glad to see you're back again.
"You say that morals and whatnot bores you..."
I said discussions about morality are boring because they are boring. Who cares about it? I sure don't. I make sure I live a good life. What other people do is their business, and as long as they don't harm me, what they do is none of my business.
I said "To Chris333 and anyone else who does not think there is proof we share common ancestors with the other ape species." and your reply was "I cringe whenever people attribute to me things I never claimed!"
That's great. Does this mean you accept the idea humans share a common ancestor with the other ape species?
If yes, then I owe you one standing ovation.
If not, why not?
You talked about a 2% difference in DNA. I'm assuming you are talking about the comparison of human apes to chimpanzee apes. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about variable markers that get inserted into DNA and if these rare variable markers are exactly the same and if they are in exactly the same place in the DNA of two different species (for example human apes and chimp apes), then scientists know their common ancestor also must have had the exact same variable marker in the exact same place in its DNA. This is the same method used for paternity testing, which is accepted by creationists. If creationists understood the same principle was used to determine evolutionary relationships they would have no reason to deny it.
This is what I was hoping you would understand. If you accept the results of paternity testing, there's no reason you shouldn't accept the results of testing for evolutionary relationships, because the exact same method is used for both. Any comments? Do you want that standing ovation I promised?
Sorry, but gods and moral values really does bore me to death. I can talk about it a little while but now I'm quite sick of it.
I will say this about evolution and moral values. Since altruism has been observed in our closest living non-human relatives, the chimpanzees, it's fair to say human apes do not have a monopoly on moral values. Also, I have read about dolphins, who are a very intelligent mammal species which evolved from land animals, has in the past saved the lives of humans in the ocean. Why would a dolphin do this if this wasn't an altruistic species?
You write good comments Chris333. See you later.
Bob said,
"To Chris333 and anyone else who does not think there is proof we share common ancestors with the other ape species."
I cringe whenever people attribute to me things I never claimed! Nonetheless, I cannot believe that 2% difference in DNA is accountable for all of the civiliazation, advanced reasearch, literature, creativity, and philosophical and religious thought. (This is not denying evolution)
Evolution is not like gravity, we can test gravity a million times a day and we can see the results of it always. Evolution must be tested in a lab and we cannot even view it happening (new species are not being created every day). Evolution also can be interpreted through a theistic and atheistic lens. The atheist says that all life is the product of randomness and natural selection (only half of this statement is based on evidence, the other is complete conjecture), the theist says that life is the product of God's working, part of which is through natural selection (only half of this statement is based on evidence, the other is complete conjecture). You are right in that you assume that Natural arguments cannot prove God, you are wrong in that you assume that they can disprove God.
I think this is why you back into a corner and start calling God a magician and miracles magic whenever you want to give reasons for why you don't believe. You say that morals and whatnot bores you, but I think that is because you realize the deficincies in your theory to account for "objective" morality (Dawkins does the same thing and it is very frustrating, but I applaud both of you for realizing this). Basically your argument goes like this, "Well God is not real because God is impossible (of course we know that there is no real reason to assume that God is impossible, it is complete conjecture to say such a thing)" So you have to qualify this statement and attack miracles, then you say something like "Well if God were real, then He would have to perform some miracles (you go so far as to say that God's very being is a miracle, which I will concede, and I will also concede that if God didn't perform miracles then He wouldn't be of much interest to us at least)" but then you make the huge jump and say, "and we know that miracles are not real, because they are impossible, because God is not real, because miracles are not real (ad. infinitum)" You don't seem to realize this, but it is really what you are saying. You cover this up by trying to pick on miracles calling them "magic" as if the word magic or miracle makes a difference in what you are arguing. Now if you are going to say something like, "Miracles do not happen" then we can talk. But if you do say that, then I would first point you to the resurrection of Christ, and finally testify to miracles in my own life that I cannot explain by rational thinking (I hope you are not going to accuse me of inability to think rationally now).
theotrek, even children know magic isn't real. Do you seriously think there could ever be any evidence for magic? I don't know what miracles you believe in, but if you believe there's a god you have to believe in at least one miracle, unless you think the god of your imagination never did anything. Also, just the existence of a god would be a miracle. It's so obvious every god is a fantasy and every religion is a collection of fantasies.
Miracles are magic. God is a magician. It's easy to rule out magicians and their magic because it's just plain nuts. The idea magic could be possible is a waste of time to talk about. What's more interesting is what is wrong with the people who believe in magic. They are victims of mental child abuse and they justify their beliefs by denying the obvious fact god equals magic. They look around and see billions of other people with the same delusions, so they think they are normal, but there's nothing normal about believing in magic. What's really sad is they abuse their own children with god fantasies just like their parents did to them.
theotrek, At least you are pro-science, so your life is not totally wasted. The creationists really have a big problem. They don't even know what they are, and I don't think they have any chance of understanding how wrong they are about everything. I have been trying to explain some powerful evidence that proves humans are part of nature, but I have never known any creationist who was able to understand it.
BobCu-- It used to be "obvious" that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones--at least until it was demonstrated otherwise. Most people did not bother proving the foregone conclusion. Why bother?
It used to be obvious that man would never fly, since we don't have wings or feathers. Those who tried to do so were ridiculed by most.
You want to call divine intervention magic, fine. How does that make it an obvious logical impossibility? If science has boundaries to its realm of inquiry, there is at least a logical possibility of the existence of the supernatural. Must we write off logical possibility as impossible until proven true?
theotrek, Theists deny what supernatural really means. I tell them supernatural equals magic. They reply "no, supernatural is NOT magic."
Who do they think they are fooling? If a god makes a miracle occur, it is performing a magic trick. I don't understand why anyone would deny what is obviously magic is magic.
Perhaps they lie to themselves about what supernatural is, because they know if they say they believe in magic, they sound nutty.
They say they believe in a god, but they call it a god only because calling it what it really is, a magician, makes it sound as likely as a tooth fairy.
I can't disprove magic but why would anyone even bother to disprove something that's so ridiculous it isn't worth taking seriously?
It's extremely obvious all gods were invented and it's extremely obvious all gods are equally imaginary. The god of the bible is no more likely than Zeus. People who don't believe in Zeus should be able to understand why I don't believe in their god. Both Zeus and the God of Abraham are equal to a belief in the tooth fairy.
The biggest excuse theists use to justify their god fantasy is their ignorance of a natural explanation of how something happened. I'm ignorant about a lot of things but I don't use my ignorance as an excuse to say it must have been magic.
To Chris333 and anyone else who does not think there is proof we share common ancestors with the other ape species.
Probably virtually every creationist accepts the results of paternity testing in humans. What they don't understand is the exact same method is used to determine the relationship of different species. If they accept the method used for paternity testing, they have to accept the results of this exact same forensic evidence that proves beyond any doubt we are close cousins of chimpanzees and the other ape species.
From page 99 of the book "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" by Sean B. Carroll:
"Fortunately, there is, however, an altogether new way of deciphering species' relationships. It also relies on DNA, but rather than being based on the degree of sequence similarity, it looks for the presence and absence of certain landmarks in specific places in species DNA. These landmarks are produced by accidental insertions of junk DNA sequences near genes. Particular chunks of junk DNA, call long interspersed elements (LINES) and short interspersed elements (SINES), are very easy to detect. Once a SINE or LINE is inserted, there is no active mechanism for removing it. The insertion of these elements marks a gene in a species, and is then inherited by all species descended from it. They are really perfect tracers of genealogy. These insertion events are very rare; therefore, their presence in the same place in the DNA of two species can be explained only by the species sharing a common ancestor. The inheritance of variable markers in DNA is the same principle applied to paternity testing in humans. By surveying the distribution of a number of elements that arose at different times in different ancestors, biologists have sufficient forensic evidence to determine species' kinship beyond any doubt."
Please watch the YouTube videos I recommended on this thread on Jan 14, 2008. These videos explain the DNA analysis that determines evolutionary relationships, using the same method used for paternity testing in humans.
BobCu--Sorry you find this boring, but thanks for answering anyway!
As best I recall them, I don't see your comments consistently saying that the supernatural is something which you do not believe but can't prove. I don't see the jump from moving to belief as considering yourself out of your mind. Many of the Christians posting would have the same reaction to their moving to accept the science of evolution.
What is the difference between asking others to examine the evidence for the science of evolution and asking you to ask God to reveal himself if he is real?
Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like you have determined the inexistence of the supernatural as foundational to any inquiry and your own being, yet you seemed to accept that the supernatural is beyond the bounds of scientific inquiry.
theotrek: "As to faith and the scientific method, you agreed that one cannot scientifically prove nor disprove God. What is there to be lost in asking God to reveal himself in the event of his existence? If you are correct that God does not exist, what difference would it make?"
This is boring stuff, but I will reply anyway. You are saying if your invisible friend is just a fantasy you have, what difference would it make if I asked your invisible friend to reveal itself.
The difference is if I started talking to other people's invisible friends, I would have to consider myself to be totally out of my mind.
Do you understand now why I think this god nonsense is incredibly boring? To help you understand, think about the idea there's a god whose name is Zeus.
Zeus: The supreme deity in Greek mythology— the usurping son of the Titans Kronos and Rhea. In the Theogony, written soon after 700 BC, Hesiod states that Zeus was ‘wise in counsel, father of gods and men, under whose thunder the broad earth quivers’. He defeated his father Kronos, and forced him to yield up not only his swallowed children, such as Poseidon and Hades, but also the imprisoned offspring of Ouranos, his grandfather. In gratitude the primeval Cyclopes presented Zeus with his powerful arms: thunder and lightning. The defeated Titans—the descendants of Ouranos and Gaia—Zeus confined in Tartarus, the realm beneath the underworld.
You would call the Zeus idea totally insane. Now you know what I think about your god idea, and why your god idea is incredibly boring to me. If only people could rid themselves of this god nonsense.
Chris333: "Also, I have seen the evidence via DNA for evolution. It is not that I disagree with evolution so much that I do not agree with atheistic evolution. Anyway, a strict interpretation of evolution I do believe to be contradictory to the Bible, and if it were proved then I would most likely give up my faith (the problem is that it cannot really be proved, so we will have to stake our positions on faith). Nonetheless, evolution as a theory for the way life progressed I can accept (though I do not necessarily believe it completely)"
Evolution does not need any adjectives, especially not the adjectives atheistic or theistic. Nobody talks about atheistic gravity or theistic gravity. Evolution, like gravity, is just science, and it says nothing about the existence or non-existence of supernatural magicians. If some scientific fact disagrees with some claim in some holy book, that does not make it atheistic. It just makes the holy book's claim wrong, but no scientist, religious or not, would let a holy book influence his work. Scientists can't care about what some religion says. A religious scientist who said "this discovery can't be true, it's against my beliefs", would be a disgrace to his profession.
Creationists claim similarity of DNA in 2 different species means the same magician designed each animal. What the creationists don't understand is the accidental insertion of variable markers that marks a gene in species. When these rare insertion events are found in the same place in the DNA of 2 species, it must also have been in their common ancestor. The common designer idea doesn't work, and if you watched the videos I recommended earlier in this thread you would understand why. This is the proof you are denying. I suggest learn about this powerful evidence first and worry about the religious implications later. It's crazy to let any belief get in the way of understanding science.
The other stuff we were talking about, moral values and gods, bores me to death. Evolution is much more interesting.
theotrek,
I will respond to your replies and then I have to go to bed, it is very late (or rather early in the morning) where I am. I agree with just about everything you say about the resurrection, there is only one problem. Why does the Bible say that the tomb was empty?
I understand that you don't want to get Bob bogged down in theology, I don't either. But what you are doing is not for Bob's benefit. Bob doesn't want to be smiled to and told that we just have to make exceptions for parts of the Bible that seem a little hard for us. Bob's problem is with faith in general. Telling him that it is just a relationship with God is not going to change him any more than telling him what you think God is like. (Right Bob?) Another thing you need to realize is that defining God based upon the revelation He has given us is not wrong. You have to know who you have a relationship with in order to have a real relationship. Truth comes first, then a relationship, not the reverse. Your website was interesting, I would like to comment on some things, but this blog is not the place.
Chris333--
You will notice that I did not call the Biblical narratives fairy tales. I mentioned that even fairy tales are a means to convey truth. It is not necessary that biblical narratives be historically accurate narratives in order for them to do a good God of conveying theology, introducing us to God.
We often look at the Bible from an Enlightenment perspective. The Baptist Faith and Message of 1925 actually stated that "Christianity is the religion of Enlightenment." I have trouble with that perspective and am glad is was removed in the 1963 edition. At the same time, it set a stage for how the Bible should be interpreted in our day. That heritage is still active.
Calvin did not take the same perspective to his biblical study as do so many in the more conservative evangelical camp. He pointed out discrepancies in the Bible and noted they simply needed to be corrected. (Theology of the Reformers, Timothy George)
It is not necessary to prejudge Scripture as needing to be taken literally in order to appreciate its theological import. That was my point. I know solid Christians who read the Genesis narratives as polemics against the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh epics that circulated around the Hebrews in Babylonian exile. That was perhaps their most significant contribution, not speculation on the historical details underlying the accounts.
I will not force a specific theory of inspiration on someone who is struggling to make any sense whatsoever of biblical revelation. I want them to see the theological message, not agree with a pre-defined standard of interpretation based on one of seven theories of inspiration.
Chris333-"Hebrews had a total view of human beings and they saw body and soul as two parts to the one whole." Genesis 2 posits a body + life = soul. Not body + soul. "And he became hephesh hayyah," living soul/being. The Hebrews did not think that one could exist without a body, whether that be physical or spiritual.
Yes, Christ's resurrected body was physical, but it was somehow different from his pre-resurrected body. The Bible does not go into details, but it does declare some kind of distinction in a body that can appear in a closed room, disappear, and rise into the clouds. I highlighted that distinctiveness with Bob, as he was apparently concerned with decomposition issues. Yes, Jesus' resurrection was bodily, physical, but also somehow altered.
"BobCu-- ...
As to faith and the scientific method, you agreed that one cannot scientifically prove nor disprove God. What is there to be lost in asking God to reveal himself in the event of his existence? If you are correct that God does not exist, what difference would it make?"
Ahh a point we can agree fully on!
theotrek, you are killing me my friend! You have been too influenced by postmodernism I believe. It is well attested that Christ's physical body was resurrected, as well as His soul. You see the Hebrews had a total view of human beings and they saw body and soul as two parts to the one whole. John Polkinghorne (a reknowned quantum-physicist from oxford who is now an anglican priest) admitted that there was not real difficulty in a physical resurrection, our bodies after all are not so difficult actually, they are just a pattern of elements that nearly reproduces itself every several years anyways. All that must be done to reproduce a body is to copy that pattern. Why do you insert a difficulty into the Christian message that really doesn't need to be there?
theotrek, I apologize for not making myself clear and for being too fast. It is not that I wanted to criticize your personal belief (I did state that) I didn't even want to criticize your given reasons for belief, which I believe to be legitimate reasons. I would humbly suggest that you add something about the truth of Christ's resurrection and the need of humanity to find salvation through that in even the most basic of apologetics. Otherwise you might lead someone to believe something false about Christians.
That being said, you have said something that I feel compelled to comment on. Parts of the Bible are clearly not meant to be taken literally (Psalms and Proverbs for instance) but they were never taken to be comparable to fairy tales, and the vast majority of the Bible was never taken to be such. You have said that Christianity was that way and that 19th Century thinkers forced the idea that something had to be 100% true. While the thinkers of that time period were largely realists and rationalists the idea that the Bible is historically accurate did not begin from this time. It began with Christ and the Apostles, you know this. I would rather argue that it has been the postmodernism of the late 20th and 21st century that has only recently called into question the reality of real truth. I don't know exactly what you are trying to say here, but you are comparing the Bible to Cinderella, I would have expected that from Bob or any other atheist, but not from a Christian. Whatever you are trying to imply, you ought to be careful because once you start saying this part of the Bible is not really true in the "reality" sense, then what is to stop you from saying any of it is true? I do not believe in the Bible because it is a nice story that teaches me some nice things, I believe in it because it is true. Bob does not care one bit if the Bible is a nice story, he cares whether it is true or not. Please understand theotrek, I do not know you well enough to criticize your faith, nor do I want to, rather, I want to stop you from saying such appearantly anti-Christian remarks, while claiming to be a Christian. I do hope you will correct me, and show a real faith in Christ.
BobCu-- ...
As to faith and the scientific method, you agreed that one cannot scientifically prove nor disprove God. What is there to be lost in asking God to reveal himself in the event of his existence? If you are correct that God does not exist, what difference would it make?
BobCu-- ...
Sunday school does not normally teach us to recognize the various literary styles in the Bible. It does not normally distinguish between those texts that should be taken more literally from those for which a literal reading is unjust. It does not get to the level of looking for authorial intent, and so misses the point of a text all too often.
Despite all that, I have found that the message of the text is ultimately true. It speaks of God in whose character I see what I would wish that we would become. If nothing else, it points me to a quality and character of living that calls me out of my pettiness into a higher plane of life.
Unlike you, I believe the resurrection, but I do not conceive it as a physical/material reality. Perhaps the Star Wars picture of life for the killed Jedi is a descent image. After all, Jesus seems to eat, drink, be touched, and walk through walls after his resurrection. It is a different order of living experience that is not confined to the physical reality we know.
I don't have all the answers. My wife will be the first to back that up. I do know that in spite of the grief and pain of death and loss, there is peace and strength available in Christ to renew our living
...
Bob,
You said:
"So who's the better person? The atheist who does good things on his own with no possible hope of reward, or the theist who does good things because he wants to go to heaven?"
You know this statement is false, even from an atheistic perspective. Very few people do good just because it is good. Rather they train themselves or society trains them to do good. It can also be argued that there is almost always, if not always, some kind of reward for doing the socially "right" thing. Nonetheless, you admitted something and it brings me great joy that you had the intelligence and also the ability to admit, and it is that atheism doesn't say anything about morality. This means that if a person feels that it is okay to rape 7 year olds and then kill them afterwards in front of their parents, then it is not bad by atheist's standards it is morally valueless. The best you can say is, "I do not like that" Or else try to force them to do what you feel is better. It is not so surprising to me that atheists would be just as prone to being "good" as theists, because I believe that God has given them that inclination, and it is in the heart of every person. However what baffles me is why if atheism were true and believed to be so, why would the proponents ever give up personal advantage for the sake of another? It logically does not make sense. (Subjectively the case can easily be made, but surely not logically).
You asked me if I felt that Luther had anything to do with the fate of Jews in WW2. I would say most likely, just like the Catholic church's non-confrontational attitude towards Hitler probably did not help their situation either. Here is the thing though, Luther wasn't Christ, the Catholic church isn't Christ. Christ would never have approved of what happened. He cried out for forgiveness from the very people who killed Him, not destruction.
Regarding your statement about theists threatening children with torture. I do not think this reflects the majority of Christians. I can easily attest that it does not reflect my life or any of the Christian friends that I have. No we don't whisper in our childrens ears at night that if they do not pray they will be tortured for eternity (you know atheists are quick to accuse Christians of demonizing them, but they are often guilty of this themselves). But let's just suppose that Christianity is true (for the sake of argument) who is worse, the parent who rightly warns his child about the possible danger ahead, or the atheist parent who tells his child that there is no danger? I know you believe God doesn't exist because God is impossible because He doesn't exist, but you could be wrong, and you could be responsible not only for your own misfortune, but of others as well. I try to becareful with the way I speak to any child, I would ask that you do the same.
Bob,
Please understand, I am currently living in an asian country and my wife is asian, I have nothing against asians, I have, however, seen Chinese T.V shows geared towards children to make them believe that democracy is a horrible thing. Though I do have to admit, that the tides are changing in China for the better, of course as Communism dies each day, Christianity is strengthened, but many there still do hate democracy, and many Russians will tell you today that they were better off under Gorbachev. (I wanted to address this first because I am an individual who does believe in the virtue of diversity and I hate discrimination) But this still fails to explain why so many people willingly "elect" dictator like people in so many countries.
Secondly, the resurrection is by no means comparable to what you just said. We have evidence the moon didn't split in to (we were there) but I am not here to debate Muslims. Your assumption that the resurrection is impossible is based on your assumption that God does not exist, which is based on the fact that you have proven that God doesn't exist, wait did you do that?
Also, I have seen the evidence via DNA for evolution. It is not that I disagree with evolution so much that I do not agree with atheistic evolution. Anyway, a strict interpretation of evolution I do believe to be contradictory to the Bible, and if it were proved then I would most likely give up my faith (the problem is that it cannot really be proved, so we will have to stake our positions on faith). Nonetheless, evolution as a theory for the way life progressed I can accept (though I do not necessarily believe it completely)
BobCu--
...
The Bible points us beyond the events of history, specifically to that "Other" you deny existing. It uses various literary forms that spoke to its intended audiences. The Egyptians spoke of kings reigning for multiple thousands of year, not that people actually believed the accounts literally, but that they sensed behind it a concept of the ruler's power and authority. The myths of ancient Babylon (Gilgamesh) were not taken so much as historiographical fact as declaration of faith and a picture of what the gods were like (character, identity). It was a way to make sense of life with its unexpected and irrationality. These peoples believed that they had found a way to make sense of life and the world in which they lived.
On one hand, that was their scientific method. On the other hand, it was the sense that there must be more to life than the physical, material reality with which science can grapple.
...
BobCu--Even as a Christian, I must say that I had to throw out a lot of what I received as religious instruction in childhood. Much of that, I simply had to understand in a greater depth. Some was just emotional reaction to a text that made no sense from the text itself. As an adult, I must still sift what I hear to find what is true and meaningful.
Not that I take the Bible simply as fairy tale, but even fairy tale conveys a message. If you read the classic Cinderella (or the Disney one), then read Ella Enchanted, you can see two messages, neither of which has anything to do with the proposition that the characters and events in the story happened.
A lot of what I have heard in Christian circles wants to assume that for anything to be true it must be 100% historically accurate. That is 19th Century philosophy speaking from the ideals of "unbiased historigoraphy", not Christianity. It assumes that one could be unbiased, yet even the selection of material is biased. ...
Chris333-As I said, my posts were "a portion of my basis for belief." They were not directed to you, either, they were directed toward someone who has a hard time accepting anything other than the natural world. If I were addressing you, I would be quoting the Bible. Every statement cannot and should not be one's full confession of faith. If you would like more, read all my postings on www.theotrek.org. That should take you the better part of the semester.
theotrek: "I can't escape the sense that you have suffered a bad experience at the hands of some abusive religion wielding which has prompted you to stand against it."
What I experienced is normal in America. Virtually every child in America, even today, gets the usual religious brainwashing. The reason I threw it out more than 4 decades ago is not because I am bitter about being lied to, it's because when I became old enough to think for myself, nothing about supernatural beliefs made any sense. For awhile I thought everyone was like me. I thought everyone grows up, figures out Bible stories are all fairy tales, and virtually everyone throws it out. I thought it was a normal part of growing up, like not believing in Santa Claus anymore. I was surprised when I met somebody from grammar school many years later and he still believed all the nonsense. That's when I realized not everyone grows up.
Chris333: "Also you said that most atheists today are civil and love peace and democracy. This may be true for America, but it is not true for the majority of atheists who are asian (they certainly do not like democracy)..."
Do you seriously think the millions of Chinese, whether or not they believe in a magic man, would not be very happy about being able to choose who is in their government? Do you have something against Asians or are you just bigoted against atheists? I doubt you're bigoted, but somebody who reads your comments for the first time might think you have an unfair attitude about the one billion atheists in this world, especially if the atheists are from asia.
Just because people live in a dictatorship, does not mean they are against democracies. I don't think atheism or theism has anything to do with it. Nobody wants to be a slave of some dictator.
I think you either typed something you didn't mean to say, or perhaps I misunderstood you.
Chris333: "atheism is silent about morality"
I agree. Atheism says only one thing: there ain't no gods. It doesn't say anything else.
So how come atheists, no matter what continent they live in, are so moral? Why do they often go out of their way to help other people? I don't know, but isn't it interesting they help other people even though they have no religion that tells them to do this, they have no fear of punishment in hell, and they have no expectation of reward in heaven.
So who's the better person? The atheist who does good things on his own with no possible hope of reward, or the theist who does good things because he wants to go to heaven?
Also, who has the best moral values, the atheist who explains to his children to only accept ideas that have strong evidence that can be tested repeatedly, or the theist who tells his children it's a virtue to have faith, and it's OK to believe things that have only an ancient book as evidence, and they must believe certain things or else risk eternal torture in hell.
Atheists are not perfect. Nobody is perfect. But at least an atheist would never threaten anyone with torture, especially not children, but theists threaten children with torture in hell every single day.
Oh, by the way, you do you think what Martin Luther said about Jews had anything to do with all those pogroms?
ifeelfine, it is not that these men killed anyone themselves persay, but nobody would deny that information is far more deadly, it was their philosophies that were used to justify the mass killings. It doesn't matter if I stick the knife in someone, or convince another person to do it, I am responsible for their death and am a murderer. Do you deny this? (not I but anybody!!!)
"Paul says that if the resurrection is not true, then our faith is meaningless."
Chris333, I'm terribly sorry, but the Resurrection is not true.
How do I know? I have seen a person take her last breath. I saw and felt the body get cold. I saw the corpse being put into a body bag. From what I saw, there is no possible way that dead person was going to return to life, even after being dead only a few minutes. The idea a maggot infested 3 day old corpse could return to life is even less likely than the Muslim belief the moon split into 2 pieces. The impossible never happens. That's called reality.
Does this mean your faith is meaningless? Yes, I got to agree with Paul. Your faith really is meaningless. Not to worry, reality is a wonderful thing.
Did you check out the YouTube videos I recommended on this thread a long time ago?
Those videos are an excellent easy to understand explanation of the DNA evidence for evolution that very few creationists understand. Even most pro-science people don't understand it. I highly recommend those videos which can be found on this thread if you look back far enough.
Ifeelfine wrote, "Who did Nietzsche kill, except maybe himself? Same goes for Marx (although I think his death was a little more peaceful than Nietzsche's). I love it when Christians try to romanticize Christianity and pretend that Christians have not ever killed anyone on a wide scale. How about Hitler? He claimed to be a Christian. In any case, those folks didn't kill for a disbelief - their motives were altogether different. I'm not defending atheism (because I'm a Christian) but if we're going to have an honest discussion then we need to be honest."
This must be a joke, you cannot honestly be serious. HITLER did not use a Christian philosophy for killing millions of people, rather he employed Nieztschean and Darwinian philosophy. Please do not even pretend that Christianity was responsible for that massacre. Hitler may have used the name of Christianity, but he did not use the teachings. Can you not see that? Marx also was responsible for the death of millions, he himself said that he desired a violent uprising of the proletariat. I am not being dishonest, I am being a realist. I don't know if you are being dishonest or just ignorant, but whichever it is, you are coming off as someone who hates Christianity and makes absurd claims like the one above.
Here is the real clincher though, Christianity (I mean a plain interpretation of the NT) can easily condemn all these killings in the name of superior race, class, and atheism. But atheism cannot even begin to condemn them. By the end of the civil atheist's condemnation he says something like, "Well I really don't like that these things happened" Give me a break.
Bob,
Faith does not mean believing in things that have no evidence, you do not understand what faith is or atheism. Faith is believing in something because of the evidence. Blind faith is believing in something regardless or without evidence. Atheism is the assertion that there is no god, you have to have evidence for this assertion, and you cannot show positive evidence for a negative, it is just logically impossible. Rather highly suspicious agnosticism is logically tenable, because it can assert that there is either little or no known evidence supporting God, at least from the perspective of the speaker. This is all I meant.
Regarding your comment that religion causes violence, I highly disagree. You compared America and Sweden, this is apples to oranges and I will explain why. Japan also has very low crime. But the countries with low crime are usually homogenous. America has a wide variety of people, and most of the crimes committed in america are a product of our heterogenous population. This is not to say that diversity is bad, I am very fond of diversity myself. The thing is you will find 99% of crimes in America as not having been related to religion. Some religious motivated crimes hit the papers, but the vast majority are committed for secular reasons. I think that your atheists commit less crimes statistic is not objectively founded. However even if it is, this doesn't prove anything. Just because over 70% of the jail population in a certain city is composed of black males, when the population is only 15% african american, does not mean we have to jump to the conclusion that black people are in any way inferior to white people. Rather, we could say there is some social reason for this. You jump to conclusions too quickly.
Also you said that most atheists today are civil and love peace and democracy. This may be true for America, but it is not true for the majority of atheists who are asian (they certainly do not like democracy) and very few people anywhere will openly say they love genocide. Statistics still show that atheists have been responsible for the overwhelming amount of deaths in all of history, even today they are responsible for a great many. (Observe some asian countries), but even if this were not so, atheism is silent about morality, there is no objective case to be made that a certain behavior is inherently right or wrong.
I too think you are an intelligent person, I am sure we would agree on much more than we would disagree with, however the things that we disagree about make a huge difference. This post isn't for outlining the differences between atheism and theism, so I too would rather leave it for evolution and what not.
Theotrek, I am not going to deny anything you just said, but just substitute what you said with a Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, or Hindu terminology and you will see that it validates any of them just fine. Please think, these are all good things, but a Christian is more than just someone who feels comfortable in a generic god. Not once did you even mention the grace of God and the sacrifice of Christ. Paul says that if the resurrection is not true, then our faith is meaningless. You felt sure of your faith without even so much as mention of the resurrection.
ifeelfine72, I'm giving you a standing ovation right now for your honest comments. If only every Christian could be like you!
Chris333--Please see my posts as to a portion of my basis for belief. I have found Christ Jesus to call me to be more than I would otherwise be. I have found in Christ the strength to be more than I would settle for. I have found that as I minister to others, I find direction beyond my limitations and abilities. I have found the Biblical witness to Christ Jesus to bear out in the workings of life in my own experience, as well as that of others. I have seen in retrospect the working out of a larger plan that I would not have chosen, but that God chose for me. In looking back, I find the privilege and blessing of seeing how my life has been useful for what I was unable to see in its various moments past.
BobCu--
You commented that we would be better off with science sans religion/superstition. Certainly, much evil has been effected in the name of religion. The same could be said of science. I would rather look at both instances as a perversion of something good.
At its best, religion tends to seek to call us to our "better" selves or potential. It calls us to harmony, unity, peace, love, and caring for others. While it is not only the religious who would call us to those things, it seems to be among the greatest religious thinkers that morality and ethics of human relationships has most often been promoted.
I can't escape the sense that you have suffered a bad experience at the hands of some abusive religion wielding which has prompted you to stand against it. I have had my own experience with those who would use religion as a weapon or tool of violence. That does not bring me to the conclusion that religion is all false and the supernatural does not exist. It calls me to recognize that we are prone to abuse most anything, even those which in themselves are good. If I am called to a higher standard for living, it is not due to science, but a sense of the eternal or that I can invest my life to make the lives of others better.
BobCu--
In my own life, I have faced various crises that I entered with a mixture of anxiety and peace. There was seemingly no way out, yet I sensed a conviction that all would be well, against the odds and any sense of logic.
My wife and I went to Mexico. She did not know Spanish and began learning after we arrived. Some people could communicate with her on a rudimentary level after about 4 months, but only on superficial issues. One night she was left with a 14-yo who could never understand her, as the rest of the church went to the funeral home for visitation at her father's death. The two of them talked for hours, far beyond my wife's limited Spanish. The next morning, the girl could not understand her again.
I could go one with various other experiences of my own and the stories of others. I will not bother quoting the Bible to you. Suffice it to say that while I appreciate what science can tell me about the world in which we live, there are things it cannot explain. Some of these are simply lags in our knowledge. Some of that lag is in the area of psychology. I find, however, that the interconnected balance of life indicates something more than just the material naturalistic universe.
...
BobCu-- Yes, from the standpoint of scientific inquiry, God cannot be proven or disproven.
In the Biblical stories of the New Testament, miracles aside, we find accounts of men and women whose lives were changed radically without the benefits of education or other naturalistic explanations. They found some kind of meaning than enabled them to become different in character or quality than before.
Paul speaks of an experience with Christ on the road to Damascus. He moved from one religious framework to a wholly different one. This time, however, into a position that was likely to get him killed, not to speak of assaulted on many fronts.
Perhaps more significantly, a ragged band of disciples with no background to speak of, beyond that of common laborers began a movement that swept the countryside. They stood to speak in such a way that commanded attention from the public. The elite recognized their following, as well as their lack of background besides having traveled with Jesus for a mere three years (or portion).
If we go back to Jesus, he claimed to have an intimate link with God, and even to be God come in flesh. He allowed himself to be killed for that position. Lewis famously argued that he was logically either a liar, a lunatic (read delusional?), or Lord. If delusional, he commanded respect of the crowds and gave origin to a major change in the world. People like Ghandi, who were not Christians, accepted his ethic of non-violence as very exceptional. If delusional, it was delusion that made many have to stop and think, ultimately bringing about a great change throughout the world.
In my own life, I have witnessed radical change in the lives of others who have committed themselves to Christ Jesus as Lord. I have seen drunks become clean, I have seen families united, I have seen addicts to various substances find new strength to kick their addictions.
Brasil has a lot of African religious background, as well as native American religious background. This is similar in some ways to voodoo (I call is Afro-Brasilian Spiritism), complete with the consulting of the dead, sacrifices on street corners, various elements of astrology, and other animistic practices. People live in fear of oppression from spiritual forces/witchcraft. Often, those practicing these animistic rites will fall into trances, speak in tongues, or be visibly altered in grotesque ways that belie naturalistic explanations. Obviously, some of this is fake and has been documented as such. The fear and oppression resulting from these practices is very real. I have watched people coming from such a background take a stand for Christ in opposition to friends and family and find strength and peace beyond expectation.
...
Chris333 - Who did Nietzsche kill, except maybe himself? Same goes for Marx (although I think his death was a little more peaceful than Nietzsche's). I love it when Christians try to romanticize Christianity and pretend that Christians have not ever killed anyone on a wide scale. How about Hitler? He claimed to be a Christian. In any case, those folks didn't kill for a disbelief - their motives were altogether different. I'm not defending atheism (because I'm a Christian) but if we're going to have an honest discussion then we need to be honest.
"It can neither be proven, nor disproven."
Right. So what? It's the same for Zeus, yet you probably are certain there is no Zeus god. I feel the same way about your god.
BobCu--
1. I can't accept your starting premise that God cannot exist. By definition, God is beyond the bounds of scientific inquiry. It is not even good science to posit that God cannot exist, for God would be "supernatural" (beyond the bounds of the natural/material universe).
2. Your second premise is acceptable--that the natural laws of the universe do not require the existence of an agent. That does not mean there is no agent. It simply means that agency is not required to describe the natural phenomena.
3. Your third premise that one should not believe in something that cannot be proved cuts two ways. I cannot prove conclusively that God does not exist, even as I cannot prove through scientific means that God does exist. The only logical position is the starting point of the agnostic, accepting that such is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry. It can neither be proven, nor disproven.
...
Chris333, here's the 2nd part of my comments.
You suggested that not believing in the invisible magician requires faith. Would you say not believing in a tooth fairy requires faith? Atheists don't see any difference between the magic man and the tooth fairy. We consider both ideas to be childish myths. Faith means believing in things that have no evidence. Tooth fairies and gods have no evidence, and since atheists require evidence for the ideas they accept, they don't accept the idea there's a magic man. If one person has a fantasy, like for example the fantasy there's a magic man or a tooth fairy, it really doesn't make sense to say faith is required to rule out that person's idiotic childish ideas, no matter how many other people share the same fantasies.
It's not the theists' fault they believe in god. They were victims of intense brainwashing when they were gullible children. The indoctrination is sometimes so intense it's virtually impossible to recover from it. I know all about religious brainwashing because I was a victim of it. Fortunately when I grew up I realized how crazy and idiotic all religious beliefs and all beliefs in god are. I remember being told "Christ died for your sins" several thousand times. I remember the hell business that was drilled into us. Now I realize my religious teachers were insane and immoral and I'm glad I didn't turn out to be like them.
Anyway, Chris333, even though we disagree, I think you're a smart OK person, and I wouldn't mind discussing evolution or anything else some more with you. I would bet we probably agree about more things than we disagree about.
Chris333, I went over the 3,000 character limit so I'm splitting these comments into 2 parts. Here is the first part.
Hello Chris333. I'm glad you returned. If you look you will find some comments I made about evolution and I was hoping you would reply to those comments, preferably after watching the YouTube videos I recommended.
You said something about if god exists, then the Resurrection would be possible, but you are forgetting god is impossible. I compare god to the idea elephants can fly. God is a magical supernatural creature who lives who knows where. It's so obvious god was invented to explain things science can now explain. Perhaps god was useful to primitive ignorant people, but thanks to modern science we don't need to pretend there's an invisible magician anymore.
A big problem with believing in god is then anything becomes possible and reality becomes meaningless. The Resurrection miracle the Christians believe in, and the "moon was split in half" miracle the Muslims believe in, are two examples of how supernatural beliefs can get completely out of control. It's likely the Muslims think the Resurrection is an insane idea, and of course Christians would say the idea the moon could be split in half is totally crazy. Both the Muslims and Christians are right. Both ideas really are completely nuts.
A few dozen times I have heard theists give me a list of 20th century dead insane stupid communist dictators and they tell me it was their not believing in the invisible man that made them kill millions. They are forgetting these people were idiots and they are forgetting that they are dead. The atheists of today are mostly capitalists like myself, we love democracy and peace, and we don't kill people for the fun of it. We don't even eat babies. We also notice that virtually every violent conflict going in the world today is at least partly because people disagree on which god is real. This is unfortunate and idiotic because no god is real.
I would also like to point out in the country called Sweden, where 85% of the population does not believe in the magic man, there is not much genocide going on, and not much crime either. Meanwhile in ridiculously religious countries like America, crime is out of control in some cities, with murders every single day. Our prisons are full of religious people, but even though there are at least 30 million atheists in America, almost none of them are in prison. Perhaps that's because atheists tend to be more educated than theists and educated people are not likely to become criminals. Of course there are many very educated theists, but I noticed the more uneducated a person is, the more likely he goes to church.
theotrek, I do believe that Bob did say at least one thing that has merit, and that is not to believe something without good reason. I too would like to know your reasons for believing in God.
Well this seems to be one of the most active blogs, I had to back track several pages just to see my last post! Whoever said they cannot believe in the resurrection, because they can't believe the impossible to be possible. That is a very silly statement. If God exists, it is not impossible. That is the simplest answer to your statement. You assume God does not exist, so therefore a resurrection could not possibly happen, your assumption could be wrong, what then?
Bob said,
"This is why I'm in favor of the complete eradication of all supernatural beliefs and all gods. It's the only possible way to get rid of the massive ignorance and never ending religious violence in this world."
This is a joke, a very sad joke in fact. Nieztsche, Marx, Stalin, Lennon, Kim Jung Ill, and the slew of other atheists that are responsible for the deaths of more people than all the religions combined have shown your statement to be utterly flawed. (YES atheism is responsible for more killing than all religious beliefs combined, you can add it up yourself if you do not believe me). Atheism answers nothing, except perhaps that human beings have no real purpose. You need to rethink what you believe there. What are you going to tell the man who takes Nieztsche's will to power and combines it with Darwinian philosophy and decides to wipe out an entire race because he feels existentially threatened by them? Nothing! Or maybe you will say, "I don't like what you are doing, please stop." If you were really true to your faith then you would realize that there is no objective right or wrong in atheism. YES atheism is a faith, I will use the two in the same sentence because that is proper. Atheism is literally the belief that there is no God. I have argued on other blogs that this is not only a faith, but a logically untenable faith, because it asserts a negative.
You see Bob, you are a relatively moderate atheist, and if all atheists were like you, then I wouldn't be bothered by it, but you see, there are radical atheists out there, that are torturing and killing my brothers and sisters in Christ just because of what they believe in. And you see these radical atheists justify themselves by pointing to people like you and Dawkins. This is why I am in favor of the eradication of all atheist belief.
Give me a break Bob, you should stick to your scientific arguments and not try to bring morality into the discussion.
www.theotrek.org: "What do you do with those of us who accept both God as Creator and evolution as justified theory of the process of life's development? My kids will grow up hearing both as non-contradictory. God as agent/cause and evolution as the process. The first is a position of theology and faith. The second is a position in regard to scientific inquiry."
Hello theotrek. What do I do with these pro-science theists? I congratulate them for being pro-science, and I feel sorry for them for believing in a supernatural creature called god.
Evolution, like gravity, did not need an inventor or what you called an "agent/cause". These are just explanations of how nature works. There is no reason to claim a god had anything to do with these scientific facts.
You are a pro-science so we mostly agree about almost everything. However, I would suggest that you make your children understand that they should never accept anything that doesn't have strong evidence, and I'm afraid the god idea doesn't have any real evidence at all.
I have a problem with all theists, no matter how pro-science they are, and even if they are very intelligent like you obviously are.
Theists like you are harmless, and if all theists were like you I would ignore religions. The problem is the anti-science theists need people like you. Because of people like you, the religious nuts can say "I must be sane because even educated pro-science people believe in god." The anti-science Christians need the moderate Christians just like the Muslim terrorists need the moderate Muslims. And the Muslims, including the terrorists, also need the moderate Christians. The terrorists who believe in heaven, which has become a favorite and dangerous weapon of the suicide bombers, can point to the moderate Muslims and moderate Christians, and say "I'm not completely out of my mind because look at the billions of Christians who believe in heaven like I do".
This is why I'm in favor of the complete eradication of all supernatural beliefs and all gods. It's the only possible way to get rid of the massive ignorance and never ending religious violence in this world.
I looked at your www.theotrek.org. You live in Arrington, Virginia? I used to live in Alexandria, Virginia when I was in the Army.
BobCu--What do you do with those of us who accept both God as Creator and evolution as justified theory of the process of life's development? My kids will grow up hearing both as non-contradictory. God as agent/cause and evolution as the process. The first is a position of theology and faith. The second is a position in regard to scientific inquiry.
Slacker, A scientist or science teacher who denies the fact of evolution IS incompetent and should find something else to do for a living.
What you and other creationists don't understand is: evolution-denier = flat-earther.
A belief in creationism or intelligent design creationism is equal to a belief the earth is flat.
If a science teacher told her students the earth is flat, she would be lying and she should be fired.
If a science teacher told her students god make people, or evolution is not a scientific fact supported by mountains of evidence from several branches of science, she would be lying and she should be fired.
There is no excuse for incompetence in any career, especially not teaching.
"Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?"
-- Stephen Jay Gould
"Public school math teachers who think 1 + 1 = 3 probably would want to be quiet about it. A biology teacher who denies the science of evolution would be like my mythical math teacher. I don't think censorship has anything to do with a teacher who is afraid of telling her students she thinks 1+1=3 or a teacher who is afraid to admit she denies the fact of evolution. It would be admitting incompetence. "
You don't think this is exactly the censorship that was talked about, if the teacher doesn't accept Evolution they will be "admitting incompetence" as you said. Its like accepting something you don't believe in because you will be thrown out of your job for it. That is exactly the censorship being discussed. Don't you get it, that if some scientist didn't believe evolution was factual then they would be "blacklisted", you admitted it yourself. As much as you want to talk about evolution as fact, maybe you need to quite distorting the truth and learn alittle...
I think a spam filter is blocking a comment I wanted to make about a Ken Miller YouTube video. Oh well, never mind.
"Even public school biologists can't speak up against it. Censorship does not equate to agreement."
Public school math teachers who think 1 + 1 = 3 probably would want to be quiet about it. A biology teacher who denies the science of evolution would be like my mythical math teacher. I don't think censorship has anything to do with a teacher who is afraid of telling her students she thinks 1+1=3 or a teacher who is afraid to admit she denies the fact of evolution. It would be admitting incompetence.
I keep getting this message when I try to comment here:
"You don't have permission to access /article/a_comment.php on this server."
btw a 2 second google search popped up with this link http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci/ It shows apartial list of creation scientists in the biological sciences with....DEGREES :)
Well hopefully I'm fairly compotent... I'm thinking about going into surgery ;) So you would rather take facts that don't make sense, that can be disproven, to keep things "not boring'. Physiology, anatamoy, immunology,pathology all stem from biology and don't need evolution to make them interesting. Perhaps very few "Biologists" deny the science of evolution because to be a run of the mill biologist you have to embrace it uncondtionally and are penalized for speaking out against it especially in a university setting. Even public school biologists can't speak up against it. Censorship does not equate to agreement. Creationists do contribute a lot to science. Because you choose not to look for them or read them does not mean they do not exist.
thebioman, Biology without evolution becomes just a boring collection of facts with no glue to put the facts together to make sense out of them. Have you heard of any significant contributions to biology from creationists recently? I sure haven't. Perhaps that's because there are no competent biologists who deny the science of evolution.
I've read A LOT of science articles, been taught a lot of Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, even some Anthropology, Archeology etc.... Always in the process of learning, and questioning. NEVER ACCEPTING BLINDLY.. I would be the first person to embrace evolution IF the tests, the results, the interpretations presented to me PROVED evolution... even resonably. However, a critical review of the science leads to a suprising conclusion...evolution is wrong.
"major in Biology"
And you deny the cornerstone of biology, evolution. I don't get it.
Dear BobCu: It's very interesting that you find fault with the person who presents an argument as opposed to the argument itself. Very briefly, I copied and pasted for simplicity sake. I can find you various articles I have read written by PhD's and biologists/chemists etc... if you would like. Off the top of my head I personally know a Dr.Edward Neeland professor at UBC-Okanagan with a double major (major in Biology/Chemisty) teaching as an organic chemistry prof that has presented the same arguments and conclusions in seminars outside of the university setting. I myself have a major in biology and currently in my 2nd of 4th year at Medical school. I have been subjected to a phenomenal amount of evolutionary theories; so i'm not approaching this blindly. It's easy to dismiss an argument and not challenge it critically if you don't hold the presenter in high regard. So instead try to challenge the argument.
thebioman said "Nope not magically but by the loving hand of a creator. Science will not say "Jesus is Lord", but it will disprove evolution, and simply stating, in the absence of evolution there is creationism. From there, take it where you will. In essence, evolutionists believe that it all magically started. They need those initial cells to pre-exist for evolution to occur and there's no way for them to have spontaneously evolved from...nothing. AND THIS, has been proven, thanks to a critical review of MIller's experiment."
"the loving hand of a creator"
I give you a lot of credit for being honest. Some people who call themselves intelligent design proponents try to hide the obvious fact that the designer is God, because they want their creationism to look scientific when it's really nothing more than a religious belief.
"They need those initial cells to pre-exist for evolution to occur and there's no way for them to have spontaneously evolved from...nothing. AND THIS, has been proven, thanks to a critical review of MIller's experiment."
First of all nothing is proven in science. Science is all about disproving things, and by the way scientists have been testing evolution for more than a century and evolution is still accepted as fact.
No scientist has ever said something came from nothing. That would be magic, not science. Scientists are still working on how the first living cells arose. We know those first cells appeared because the last time I checked there is life on earth. If you want to invoke magic for the beginning of the first life, that's fine with me. Just please don't be too disappointed when scientists chase your magic out of there. Evolution begins after life begins and there is DNA evidence all life evolved and all life is related. Did you see the videos I recommended? I think agentorange also recommend some YouTube videos.
In theological education, we teach people not only to read the Bible and commentators with whom we agree. We have to read folks who will critique our positions. Only then can we be on good footing when we read the Bible. Looking at someone's bibliography is the first step in assessing the strength of their positions. You'd think that ID proponents would do the same if they were sincere in seeking the truth, rather than shouting what they already believe to be true.
"Do-While Jones writes and speaks about software development in general, and about the Ada programming language in particular. This page lists his books, lectures, magazine articles, and CD-ROMs. He also writes the feature articles for the Science Against Evolution newsletter."
http://ridgenet.net/~do_while/
thebioman, I have no problem with people who copy and paste, but I noticed you have been copying and pasting from a website written by a computer programmer, not a biologist and not any kind of scientist. Computer software engineers are not scientists, and they certainly are not biologists. I used to be a computer software engineer before I retired and I never called myself a scientist.
He also is an electrical engineer. Electrical engineers are not scientists. They are electrical engineers and of course they are not biologists. Biological evolution is best understood by biologists, not software or electrical engineers. Since this person is not qualified to speak about biology why do you cut and paste from his website? He is what I call a liar for Jesus. He takes quotes from real scientists out of context just like the professional liars who work for the Discovery Institute.
Not all, but most creationists I have talked to, when they want to get information about evolution, they get it from non-scientists or fake scientists who are against evolution. Does that make sense? I don't think so. For example you have been cutting and pasting from a "Science Against Evolution newsletter". Has it ever occurred to you a real scientist who works in the branch of science called evolutionary biology just might be a good source of information about evolutionary biology. I'm sure Do-While Jones would be a good source of information about the Ada programming language, but I would prefer to get information about biology from a biologist.
Dear BobCu: Nope not magically but by the loving hand of a creator. Science will not say "Jesus is Lord", but it will disprove evolution, and simply stating, in the absence of evolution there is creationism. From there, take it where you will. In essence, evolutionists believe that it all magically started. They need those initial cells to pre-exist for evolution to occur and there's no way for them to have spontaneously evolved from...nothing. AND THIS, has been proven, thanks to a critical review of MIller's experiment.
Dear agentorange: Also, in regards to your fancifull interpretation of 98% Chimp found on the excellent scientific website http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v7i4f.htm, I highly suggest you re-read the whole article, look at the sources cited to understand where the information was taken from. Also focus on what was actually compared (without sounding condesending you didn't understand what was compared or how the values were obtained). Honestly give it a moment to "stew". Then let me know what you think.
thebioman, I'm wondering what is the point of all your comments. Are you trying to prove all species were magically created?
Dear agentorange: In response to your "Unlike your ‘neat cooler’ organisms are living systems that reproduce by themselves, undergo natural attrition, predation and habitat lose, and also undergo random per generation mutation rates. Your inanimate cooler is a man made object."
Anybody who has taken cell signalling, immunology, cell biology can agree on one simple fact. The cell is AMAZING!! :D The various processes of cellular life related to dna transcription, translation, energy utilization, cellular apoptosis pathways are inherently complex. Much more than a cooler. Now the question becomes if you believe in evolution....how did that 1st initial primordial cell develop w/ the ability to evolve? No evolutionist can say how. Miller tried to show amino acid formation and discovered that by highly maniuplating a closed system with a reducing atmosphere, an electric stimuli, clay trap yadda yadda yada you can create a few amino acids (not all required for cellular life) which normally would degrade outside such a system. And even if you give Miller the benefit of the doubt how do amino acids evolve into a functional cell? There is not "natural selection on an amino acid level". A cooler has just as good of a chance of evolving from nothing as does a cell.
thebioman,
“The answer might be found in an evaporative cooler…..There is less than 1.5% difference between an evaporative cooler and a truck!”
this is like the old ID/Creationist argument that b/c rain clouds are 98% water and water melons are pretty close that they should be related. NO. with DNA it’s a whole different type of analogy as a living systems use their DNA to reproduce and it shows their GENETIC relative similaties.
MAJOR FAIL!
Unlike your ‘neat cooler’ organisms are living systems that reproduce by themselves, undergo natural attrition, predation and habitat lose, and also undergo random per generation mutation rates. Your inanimate cooler is a man made object. It can’t self reproduce, it doesn’t undergo attrition or predation, nor does it under go any form of natural mutations by itself, thus your ‘neat cooler’ can’t undergo natural selection, which is the foundation for Evolution to occur. MAJOR FAIL.!
HELLO EVERYONE , you can’t compare a living system that undergoes all such processes and compare it to a cooler, a watch, a painting or any other non living organism. It’s is seriously comparing ‘apples to oranges’ here as all inanimate objects are quite different.
thebioman,
"98% Chimp??!??!?!? (written 2003)
No, 98% represents how Identical the Nuclear DNA is wiithout additions and deleations. with such additions and deletions added Sapiens are 95.% geneticall identical to Chimps and slightly more identical to Bonobos.
"Is our DNA really more than 98% the same as chimpanzees?'
No, it's certaintly not MORE than 98% identical, as Homo Neanderthalensis were only 98% Identical. Clearly you're attempting to mislead people.
“Did they just pull 98% out of the air?”
No, they didn’t. they refered to the DNA that does include deletions and additions/insertions tard. Also, keep in mind to identify how relative similar genes are doesn’t require inspection of every single base pair and only those that were different. Namely those deletions and insertions.
‘much to our surprise, we found around 57 areas of rearrangement between the human and the chimp,” says Cox.”
Right, these are the insertions and deletion segments that weren’t till recently deeply analiyzed.
“Perhaps they compared the 46 human chromosomes with the 48 chimp chromosomes. They could not possibly have done that and come up with a figure exceeding 97.8%’
Here’s why they could have. It’s b/c Human Chromosome 2 shows Telomeres in its middle (which can only happen via fusion) and it also shows an extra pair of centromeres in the middle, when there should only be 1.
“Seriously, chimps and people really do have very similar genes. But that doesn’t argue in favor of a common ancestor any more than it argues in favor of a common designer.”
How does your designer explain these?
Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
YouTube - Ken Miller Human Chromosome 2 Gnome
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FGYzZOZxMw
Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
Gen1_28 said "To really answer all these questions, we really need to discussing our presuppositional starting points.... after all, we all have the same evidence- we just interpret it differently (based on those presuppositions I just mentioned.)"
We all have the same evidence, but some people are not interested in understanding it. I don't know if they are afraid of it or too lazy to study it. Perhaps they think science is boring and requires too much thinking. Perhaps they prefer god-did-it because magic is easy to understand.
Gen1_28 and others, I suggest watch the YouTube videos I recommended. Keep watching until you get it. Also, read the book by Carroll I quoted from. Find more information on the internet or at the library. Or you could just invoke magic and forget about it. Nobody can help the willfully ignorant.
Chris333, I'm hoping you have the common sense I think you have. In my opinion you have what it takes to understand the videos I recommended. In my entire long life, I have never witnessed an evolution-denier change his mind about anything. I guess I'm hopelessly optimistic because I think the evidence for the common ancestry of apes and all other animals is so strong, that sooner or later a creationist somewhere in the world will understand it and accept it.
Unbelievable! They found one segment of fish DNA that is 80% similar to human DNA, and jumped to the conclusion that humans got it by a “genetic invader” and co-opted it to do something other than what it does in a fish. This is simply fanciful speculation, but it somehow got through the peer review process and was reported as scientific fact in a prestigious scientific journal.
Facts Foul Up the Theory
Unfortunately for evolutionists, ultraconserved DNA presents a difficult problem for evolutionists. Remember, these regions are supposedly conserved because they are critical to the life of the organism. Scientists intentionally damaged some of these ultraconserved regions in some mice, expecting them to die. The cause of death would show what function these ultraconserved regions performed. When they did the experiment, they got surprising results.
A colony of mice whose very existence defies logic could rewrite our understanding of human evolution, health and disease, researchers say.
…
[Nadav] Ahituv [a human geneticist at the University of California, San Francisco] made four mouse 'knock-outs', each one lacking a stretch of DNA between 222 and 731 base pairs long. These same stretches of DNA exist in human genomes, base pair for base pair. This 'ultraconserved' DNA is exactly the same across the long evolutionary distance between humans and mice and rats. So why the mice lived could answer fundamental questions about evolution. 4
If it is really true that these segments of DNA have remained absolutely unchanged over millions of years of evolution because any change would make the creature unfit for survival, then changing them should kill the creature. But experiments have shown that mice can live without them. Apparently, there must be some sort of redundancy in the DNA code that allows the creature to function despite damage to these “critical” regions. It is almost as if the DNA code was designed to be robust enough to withstand some damage. But if that were the case, and if mutations in DNA have been going on for millions of years at the rate evolutionists believe, then these apparently redundant regions would have showed some mutations by now.
Our Rat Relatives
Finally, we cannot help commenting on “the long evolutionary distance between humans and mice and rats.” Evolutionary distance is said to be long or short, depending upon what suits evolutionists the best. The reason has to do with Animal Rights and Evolution, which just happens to be the topic of this month’s Evolution in the News.
Footnotes:
1 Erika Check, Nature, 6 September 2007, “Crashing DNA's ultraconservative party” pages 10-11.
2 Nature, 6 September 2007, “Life as we know it”, p 1.
3 Erika Check, Nature, 6 September 2007, “Crashing DNA's ultraconservative party” pages 10-11.
4 ibid.
Feature Article - September 2007 http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v11i12f.htm
by Do-While Jones
Ultraconserved DNA
Evolutionary bias drives terminology, and terminology drives thinking.
You may have heard the term, “ultraconserved DNA.”
Ultraconserved DNA was first described in May 2004, when a group led by David Haussler at the University of California, Santa Cruz, reported the existence of 481 stretches of DNA more than 200 base pairs long with completely identical sequences in mice, rats and humans. 1
The paper in question focuses on segments of 'ultraconserved' DNA — sections that have stayed exactly the same throughout recent vertebrate evolution, and are identical in humans, rats and mice (see page 10). The available evidence suggests that this extreme example of DNA conservation is no accident: the sequence stays because there is a strong selective force weeding out mutations in it. In other words, it is likely to be important to its host. 2
The basic assumption behind the term is that some parts of a creature’s DNA have not changed much over millions of years of evolution. That is, its DNA sequence has been “conserved.” If it hasn’t changed at all, then it is “ultraconserved.”
This terminology is based on the assumption that all DNA sequences are the result of random mutations filtered by natural selection, rather than design. Since the ultraconserved DNA segments are presumed to be the same because they have not changed during millions of years of evolution in different creatures, the existence of ultraconserved regions cannot be used to prove that these regions have not changed for millions of years. That would be circular logic.
An Amusing Waste of Time
Certainly there is value in examining DNA sequences, and attempting to correlate DNA sequences to functional results. Comparing DNA from various creatures is useful because it advances science in theoretical ways (basic understanding of life) and practical ways (medical breakthroughs).
Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists tend to get distracted in a futile attempt to reconstruct evolutionary history. DNA analysis can never establish the way in which creatures evolved if they are not really the result of evolution. It is an analysis that is doomed to fail, which wastes time, talent, and resources. It only results in some amusing conclusions. Here is one:
Only a single ultraconserved element has so far revealed its origins. By scanning genome data, Haussler's group found that one human ultraconserved element is 80% similar to a piece of DNA found in a 400-million-year-old class of ancient fish that includes the coelacanth. The element had been shuttled into the fish genome by a genetic invader called a retroposon, but mammals have now co-opted it to boost expression of a brain-development gene called ISL1. 3
Chris333--I mentioned a few verses to illustrate. My argument is not that I think the Bible teaches a flat earth, but that is what they church used to think. It does indeed use language of an older cosmology. Heaven was viewed as a physical space above the clouds. God had a literal throne in heaven (understood as a physical place).
BANDSTRA, Barry L. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Second Edition. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999. p. 51-56
WEST, James King. Introduction to the Old Testament, Second Edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1981. p. 81-83.
If you want my thoughts developed more fully, see:
http://www.theotrek.org/resources/th/2007_Narratological_Theology_and_Homiletics.pdf
The section on cosmology begins on p. 64.
I am not saying that Jesus simply told people to get along and be nice. I am speaking of a life ethic patterned on his own example. Love people to death. Give your life fully to God, such that you no longer seek after selfish interests, but trust God to care for your needs. Along with this ethic, inseparably so, is fellowship with God that lasts beyond this world without interruption. And BTW, I was using these terms not speaking to Christians, but to non-Christians. I see no need to use Zionese or flesh out every thought fully. There is not room here for that.
Walkinonsonshine,
“Ok...call me simple-minded but if evolution is a THEORY that is valid then why aren't chimps, orangutangs & apes still evolving into humans?”
This is b/c they are evolving according to their own unique DNA and their own evolutionary trajectory. Evolution isn’t a linear step ladder, organisms branch off from their parent species to exploit new habitats and evolve accordingly. This is why we have birds wings. Evolution never implies that today’s apes are going to evolve into modern humans, nor does is suggest that one species, a Chimp, can give in one generations naturally give rise to a human. Evolution is a collective process built upon progressive naturally selectable traits, largely depending on the organisms habitat and if it can exploit other nearby ones.
If you want an idea on just human evolution, pick up a book like “From Lucy to Language’ and it will explain many of such processes. The points you made an orangutan that turns 55 and why it’s not evolved into a human. Brush up on this generalized version, refer to articles and links on bottom of page for further details on the process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
To understand how evaporative coolers evolved into trucks, we have to study the electric motor in the cooler, and the alternator in the truck. Externally, both look very similar; but the motor is wound for a single phase, while the alternator has three phases. This is evidence of gene replication. Furthermore, the alternator has evolved a six-diode bridge, which originally had some unknown survival benefit, but was later adapted to converting alternating current to direct current.
Despite the obvious similarities, there are many differences between a truck and an evaporative cooler, which prove that it has been a very long time since trucks and coolers shared a common ancestor.
Some people might say that trucks and coolers were designed by engineers, and that the similarity in the brackets is evidence of design. After all, it is a simple and effective method for adjusting belt tension. But if trucks and coolers were consciously designed, it must be the case that the engineers conspired to make it appear that both trucks and coolers evolved from a common ancestor. Therefore, if engineers really do exist, they ought not to be trusted because they are sneaky and deceitful people.
Seriously, chimps and people really do have very similar genes. But that doesn’t argue in favor of a common ancestor any more than it argues in favor of a common designer.
1 Gibbons, Science, Vol. 281. 4 Sep 1998, “Which of Our Genes Make Us Human?” pp. 1432-1434 (Ev)
2 ibid.
3 Fujiyama, Science, Vol. 295, 4 Jan 2002, “Construction and Analysis of a Human-Chimpanzee Comparative Clone Map” pp. 131-134. (Ev)
4 ibid.
5 ibid.
6 Science, Vol. 298, 25 October 2002, “Jumbled DNA Separates Chimps and Humans”, pp. 719-720 (Ev)
Article written and taken from http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v7i4f.htm www.ScienceAgainstEvolution.org
How similar is human DNA to chimp DNA? We don’t know; but the 98% number certainly doesn’t seem to be born out by recently published data.
Significance of Similarity
Having said all that, we admit that there is a certain amount of genetic similarity between humans and other animals. What does that mean? Is genetic similarity necessarily the result of evolution?
The answer might be found in an evaporative cooler.
Those readers who are not fortunate enough to live in the Mojave Desert probably aren’t familiar with evaporative coolers. Evaporative coolers have large fans which suck hot air (more than 100 degree F) through wet fiber pads. The hot air evaporates the water, resulting in a heat transfer which cools the air down to 80 degrees F (or lower, if you are lucky). The fan blows the cool, moist air into the house.
Pictures found @ http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v7i4f.htm
The lower picture is a close-up of the bracket that holds the electric motor on the evaporative cooler on the roof of my house. When both screws (and two other similar screws on the other side) are loosened, the bracket can be rotated so that the distance between the motor and the fan can be adjusted to produce the proper tension on the fan belt.
There is an almost identical bracket that holds the alternator in my truck with the proper tension against the fan belt! This bracket represents about 1% of the total mass of the cooler, but it is 98.5% similar to the bracket that holds the alternator in my truck. Not only that, the fan belts are virtually identical. (Both are cracked and liable to break at any moment.) The pulleys are identical too. There is less than 1.5% difference between an evaporative cooler and a truck!
Looking at the most similar sequences, they said, “The number of BESs having an alignment longer than 50 base pairs (bp) with 90% identity was 77,461 [out of 114,421].” So, they found that only 67.7% of the sequences were at least 90% correlated. If that is true, where does the 98% similarity figure come from? Later in the report they say,
The BESs mapped with high confidence were used to calculate the difference between the chimpanzee and human genomes at the nucleotide level. The number of sites in valid alignments (nucleotide sites that have PHRED quality values q >= 30) was 19,813,086. Out of this number, 19,568,394 sites were identical to their human counterparts for a mean percent identity of 98.77. This value is consistent with previous observations; however, our calculation comes from a much larger random comparison of slightly less than 1% of the total genome. 5
That explains it. If you look at less than 1/100th of the total genome, you can find areas that are 98.77% similar! But this is not always true.
For almost 30 years, researchers have asserted that the DNA of humans and chimps is at least 98.5% identical. Now research reported here last week at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting suggests that the two primate genomes might not be quite so similar after all. … The researchers assessed the resemblance between the chimp’s chromosome 22 and the equivalent human chromosome, 21. They compared 27 million bases, and “much to our surprise, we found around 57 areas of rearrangement between the human and the chimp,” says Cox.
There seemed to be no rhyme or reason to the changes; they occurred just as frequently outside coding regions as within. The density of these differences is “a little higher than anyone would have predicted,” says Eichler. “The implications could be profound,” he adds …
Locke’s and Frazer’s groups didn’t commit to new estimates of the similarity between the species, but both agree that the previously accepted 98.5% mark is too high. [emphasis supplied] 6
The recently released human genome sequences provide us with reference data to conduct comparative genomic research on primates, which will be important to understand what genetic information makes us human. Here we present a first-generation human-chimpanzee comparative genome map and its initial analysis. The map was constructed through paired alignment of 77,461 chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome end sequences with publicly available human genome sequences. We detected candidate positions, including two clusters on human chromosome 21 that suggest large, nonrandom regions of difference between the two genomes. 4
They were trying “to understand what genetic information makes us human.” To do that, they looked carefully at two small parts of just one of the 46 human chromosomes. There is nothing wrong with that.
Furthermore, they picked areas “that suggest large, nonrandom regions of difference between the two genomes.” That was perhaps a poor choice of words. They probably meant “significant regions of difference”, as opposed to “irrelevant regions of difference”. Evolution is supposed to work through random changes. If the changes were “nonrandom”, that implies they were part of a conscious design. They certainly didn’t mean to imply that!
They must have used their judgment to distinguish “nonrandom regions of differences” from random differences. One might wonder how they did that. It implies that they might have some criteria for differentiating design from random processes. Too bad we don’t have space to explore that idea in this essay!
Let’s be perfectly clear on this point. Fujiyama et al. were perfectly justified in selecting what part of the genome to study. They were looking for differences in very similar sequences, so they picked very similar sequences that had some interesting differences. That is perfectly good science.
They were not trying to most accurately compute the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA. But they did mention some interesting numbers in passing which do pertain to genetic similarity. If you refer back to the extremely technical paragraph we quoted earlier, you will see that they produced “114,421 valid BESs”. Of these, they found “14,901 BESs that did not match with human sequences”. That means 13% of the sequences were totally different. In other words, only 87% of the sequences showed enough similarity for them to even attempt to match them.
Let’s look at some of the most recently published data comparing chimps and humans.
In this report we present the construction and analysis of a first-generation human-chimpanzee comparative genomic map based on the alignments of 77,461 chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequences (BESs) to human genomic sequences obtained from the public databases. To prepare the BESs, we used two independently prepared BAC libraries, PTB1 and RPCI-43. Briefly, we sequenced 64,116 BAC clones (roughly 3.3 times coverage of the currently available human contiguous genomic sequence) that produced 114,421 valid BESs. The BESs were then aligned with the RefSeq human genome contigs [National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)] through NCBI-BLAST. The number of BESs having an alignment longer than 50 base pairs (bp) with 90% identity was 77,461. Out of this number, 49,160 BESs from 24,580 clones formed paired ends where each pair was derived from the same clone. Only one end could be successfully aligned from the remaining 28,301 clones. The remaining 36,960 BESs that were not mapped to the human genome were categorized into three different classes: (i) those corresponding to repeat sequences (1168 BESs) or showing hits to human sequences not included in the NT contigs (20,376 BESs), (ii) those matched only with sequences from several species other than human (515 BESs), and (iii) the 14,901 BESs that did not match with human sequences, which either correspond to unsequenced human regions or are from chimpanzee regions that have diverged substantially from humans or did not match for other unknown reasons. 3
Creationists are often accused of “carefully choosing their data.” We have never understood why evolutionists thought this was worse that carelessly choosing data, but we sometimes have trouble understanding how evolutionists think. If you understood nothing else in the paragraph quoted above, you must certainly realize that they went into great detail to justify the way in which they chose the data they actually analyzed.
We aren’t criticizing them for doing that. Scientists have to choose what data they analyze. One of the services I perform at my day job is real-time data reduction. My computer programs present pertinent data to the customer in graphical form, suppressing the irrelevant data, so that the customer can tell how his test is working while the test is still in progress. This gives him the opportunity to modify the test while it is still in progress, if necessary. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with analyzing only part of the data. You usually have no choice. You can’t analyze it all.
Fujiyama and his associates chose the data they were going to analyze. What they were looking for affected what they chose to study. Their goal was clearly stated in the abstract of their paper.
Perhaps they compared the 46 human chromosomes with the 48 chimp chromosomes. They could not possibly have done that and come up with a figure exceeding 97.8% Here’s why:
Let’s compare the chromosomes of a boy and his mother. A boy gets 23 of his chromosomes from his mother and 23 from his father. Clearly, at least 23 of the chromosomes will be identical to his mother. Therefore, the similarity will be at least 50%.
But one of the chromosomes he gets from his father must be different because his mother has two X chromosomes (if she didn’t, she wouldn’t be female), and the son has one X chromosome and one Y chromosome (because he is male). Therefore, at most, 45 of the 46 (97.8%) chromosomes will be identical.
So, the boy’s Y chromosome is guaranteed to be different from his mother. What about the other 22 chromosomes he gets from his father? Societies generally try to discourage incestuous relationships, and scientists have discovered that there is a good reason for this. It reduces the chance that a baby will inherit the same defective gene from both mother and father. If the boy’s father and mother come from unrelated families, it is almost certain that most of those 22 chromosomes will have at least one different gene.
So, if you determine genetic similarity by counting identical chromosomes, the genetic similarity of a boy to his mother is likely to be closer to 50% than 100%. “Scientists” certainly could not have found that humans and chimpanzees are 98% alike by counting chromosomes.
Of course we know that they didn’t count chromosomes when making the comparison. We only mention it to make the point that what you count will affect the result you get. You can use a method of counting that gives close to 50%, or you can use a different method that gives a much higher number.
We need to know two things. First, are their figures accurate? Second, if they are accurate, what does it mean? Is genetic similarity really evidence for evolution?
Accuracy
We have always been skeptical of the 98% figure because we know that 82.3% of all statistics used in debates are simply pulled out of thin air. (For the benefit of other readers who didn’t get the joke--certainly not you--we will explain the joke to them. It is very unlikely that anyone has ever done a study of debates in which statistics were used to make a point, and then gone to the trouble to determine if the statistics are based on studies or not. So, the humor in the joke comes from the irony that someone is pulling a statistic out of the air to prove that statistics are often pulled out of the air to prove a point.)
For decades scientists have known that at least 98% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees. 2
But the human DNA sequence was just recently decoded. (It was published in the 16 February, 2001, issue of the journal Science.) Work on decoding the DNA sequence of chimps is just beginning. (See Monkey Business, in the Evolution in the News column in this issue.) How could they have been able to calculate the similarity of two sequences “decades” ago when neither had been decoded? How can they calculate it now when only one of them has been decoded? Did they just pull 98% out of the air?
98% Chimp??!??!?!? (written 2003)
Is our DNA really more than 98% the same as chimpanzees? And, if so, what does that really mean?
You have probably heard an evolutionist claim that chimpanzees and humans are almost identical genetically. Statements like the one below are common.
We humans like to think of ourselves as special, set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom by our ability to talk, write, build complex structures, and make moral distinctions. But when it comes to genes, humans are so similar to the two species of chimpanzee that physiologist Jared Diamond has called us "the third chimpanzee." A quarter-century of genetic studies has consistently found that for any given region of the genome, humans and chimpanzees share at least 98.5% of their DNA. This means that a very small portion of human DNA is responsible for the traits that make us human, and that a handful of genes somehow confer everything from an upright gait to the ability to recite poetry and compose music. 1
walkinonsonshine--Evolution is not a predetermined process that invariably produced a standard progression of steps over and over. Recall that species transform slowly over time. I don't recall scientists positing the ancestral heritage for H.Sapiens as including modern apes. The evolutionary changes scientists discuss occur over milenia, not a handful of generations. It is a slow process, as I understand it. You wouldn't recognize it easily over the last 2000 years. At the same time, I can see changes in the height of today's youth as compared to my parents' generation. Our cushy medical advances and care for allergy issues in N.America are creating a society that is much more susceptible to health issues, as those with allergies and other conditions live longer and pass their health challenges on to generations to come. In the past, many of them would not have survived. These are evolutionary processes at work. They work slowly.
Mind you, I am not saying they don't show some relevance in our own HUMAN heritage- I am just making the case that they exist and just because two things are similar, no matter how vast the detail, doesn't give us reason to believe in evolution.
To really answer all these questions, we really need to discussing our presuppositional starting points.... after all, we all have the same evidence- we just interpret it differently (based on those presuppositions I just mentioned.)
Ok...call me simple-minded but if evolution is a THEORY that is valid then why aren't chimps, orangutangs & apes still evolving into humans? Why, a 55 yr. old orangutang just died at a zoo in Miami after a life there, should he have started to look more like a human at some point if evolution were true.. or why did my grandfather never tell me that my great-great- great- grandfather was THE guy in our family who finally did it!! He was the one that was an ape that became a human.. IF evoltion were a valid theory that is...
I'm not going to argue that this DNA marking is aything other than what it is-
It exists.
It still doesn't show how a human came from an ape or antyhing like that. When God designed things he used many similarities. This is just another. Why should I believe this is "final evidence for evolution". It just continues to show me God has fantastic creative abilities which use similar concepts to come to similar conclusions.
Chris333,
"2% could not account for all the civilization, literature, advanced discoveries, and extreme philosophical and religous ideas that have come from humans'
I see where you're going with this. But you should realize that we humans have over 3 Billion base pairs and a single 1% difference is all that seperates Homo Sapiens from Homo Neaderthalensis DNA. So in that terms a 1-2% difference is huge.
Since you are considering the DNA evidence for evolution just temporarily, also realize that the oldest mtDNA evidence traces our H.Sapiens group back nearly 195,000 years. Over that period, only the last 10,000 years did we realize we could use agriculture, and 6000 or so ago have we seen written language and the other things that followed that radically advanced humanity.
Refering to BobCu's point on variable markers in DNA, you would like to know that b/c of these types of studies, people in of Jewish background that have last names that match those indicated as the offspring of Aaron from the bible show a remarkable identical parts of their variable markers and using molecular clocks the ages date ages to very close to when Aaron is recorded as having this offspring. So in part DNA can back up some accounts in the bible it seems. If you're going to use such evidence to back up your side you could at least give it credit when its used elsewhere.
Mongolia is unique for over 13% of its popualtion share a singe group of variable markers in their DNA. Guess who's it is? Ghengis Khan. Thorough this process we are finding some of the relatives of Thomas Jefferson who had offspring with his slave. Also, we are finding how people world wide are related.
If you want information on how its down here you go.
www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
Chris333, Like you said DNA analysis has shown a large percent is identical when two species are closely related, except I don't think you agree they are closely related. What many people don't know about is something called variable markers in DNA. When the exact same variable marker is found in the exact same place in the DNA of two different species, scientists can be certain a common ancestor of these two species had to have the exact same variable marker in the exact same place.
From page 99 of a book published in 2006 "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution" by Sean B. Carroll:
"The inheritance of variable markers in DNA is the same principle applied to paternity testing in humans. By surveying the distribution of a number of elements that arose at different times in different ancestors, biologists have sufficient forensic evidence to determine species' kinship beyond any doubt."
Carroll explains it in more detail in his book. These YouTube videos explain other DNA evidence for evolution.
Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0&feature=related
Evolution Primer #5: Did Humans Evolve?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5NG8SYQSzE&feature=related
The Macaque Genome - Segment 1: Macaque, Chimp, Human
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRGYX_YWnpA
Ken Miller on Human Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk&feature=related
Evidence for Evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ
Hello Chris333.
You said "... if the resurrection of Christ is shown to have been false, then I would give up my faith."
It's interesting to me how important the Resurrection is to Christians. This is something I could never believe. I'm just not capable of believing the impossible is possible.
You said "Also, depending on a scientists faith (be it Christian, Muslim, or Atheist) they are going to view the world differently, and depending on what branch of science they are working in, it will alter the way they work and interpret the observations they make."
I have been told religious scientists do not bring their holy books into the lab. What I mean is they can't and don't let any beliefs in the supernatural they have influence their work. It has something to do with the scientific method.
This is just nitpicking but I don't think the words atheist and faith belong in the same sentence.
You said "You are right in your assumption that I am against evolution, at least on a macroevolution scale. I can agree with natural selection and small changes within a species, but that is not the whole story of evolution theory, it also uses these random mutations to get major changes in animal and plant life, and then it invokes some random process for the origin of life as well. I do have problems with these assumptions."
Those major changes are a long series of baby steps taking millions of years. The mutations, also known as copying errors, are random but the natural selection of mutations that are favorable is not random. There is not some invisible barrier that makes evolution come to a complete stop before a species extremely gradually changes into another species.
How the first living cells arose is a problem scientists are still working on. This has nothing to do with biological evolution because evolution requires life to evolve from. This would be a great place for the God of the gaps to hide until scientists chase it away. Personally I prefer to say "scientists are still working on it" instead of invoking magic.
Let me explain my stance on this point, say evolution is true (but also that it was the method by which God "formed" our bodies) of course science could never say this, but here is an interesting thing. The Bible tells us that God created all the animals and then lastly man, what is more it says that God created man from the 'dust of the earth', and then finally it says that God 'breathed' His spirit into man. I think that probably all evolutionists will agree that human beings are of the last creatures to appear in history, you have rightly said that our physical bodies have amazing similarities to animals (the simple fact that our DNA is only 2% different than that of Chimpanzees is enough to make that case), but finally we do know that there is something different about humans. 2% could not account for all the civilization, literature, advanced discoveries, and extreme philosophical and religous ideas that have come from humans. As well we appear to be the only creatures with moral sense. Rather I would suggest that it is the spirit of God that separates us from the animals, we have a soul, so to speak. If you take a literal 6-day interpretation of the genesis account out (which I have argued that the days could not possibly mean literal days, the Sun wasn't even created to distinguish a day on the first days, even the most naive ancient Hebrew would have known that the sun's 'rising' and 'setting' marks a day!) then you have an at least compatable account in the Bible with that of evolution. Again I do not agree with everything evolution proponents say, but even if it is or has been proven then this would not deter my faith.
Nonetheless, you probably would like to know a discovery that might go in direct conflict with my faith, and thereupon ask what would I do? Well I will give you an example, if the resurrection of Christ is shown to have been false, then I would give up my faith.
In closing, I too am convinced all life is related, but I do see something drastically different about human beings. Also I do not invoke magic either, I base my faith on both objective evidence, and personal experience. Faith without reason is not faith but blindness.
So what do I do if something from science contradicts something I believe in, with specific reference to evolution? You are right in your assumption that I am against evolution, at least on a macroevolution scale. I can agree with natural selection and small changes within a species, but that is not the whole story of evolution theory, it also uses these random mutations to get major changes in animal and plant life, and then it invokes some random process for the origin of life as well. I do have problems with these assumptions. My rejection of evolution on these points is not because of my faith (on that assumption you were wrong, but it would be an easy mistake depending upon what comment of mine you read, and given everyone else's) in fact I have often argued with Christians on this site that evolution would not force a denial of the truth of the Bible.
Great, I enjoyed your answer and it showed a humility I have yet to see from the pro-atheist side so far. You are also one of the few that did not assume to know what others believe. You also posed real questions unlike a lot of the stuff I get.
To begin, I would like to just comment that many scientists do believe that since God created the universe it must have intelligibility, this is a small thing, but it has big implications. Also, depending on a scientists faith (be it Christian, Muslim, or Atheist) they are going to view the world differently, and depending on what branch of science they are working in, it will alter the way they work and interpret the observations they make. Still, I don't want to push this point because it seems you are more interested in the other side.
Chris333, OK, thanks for your reply. I assume you understand scientists could care less what any religion says about anything, except they do pay attention to religion when they notice the religious are trying to force their myths into science classes which is the subject of this thread.
You answered my question "What happens when theology and science conflict with each other?" but I wished I asked this question instead: What would you do if there was strong scientific evidence that conflicted with a religious belief you have? And of course I'm talking about evolution. Evidence from several branches of science completely support the idea all life evolved and no there's no scientific evidence against evolution, despite what you may have heard from anti-science organizations like the Discovery Institute. What have you done about this? After looking at a recent comment you made about intelligent design creationism, I think you have decided to reject the evidence that supports evolution, and I think the reason you rejected the science of evolution is because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. I'm assuming a lot here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. You talked about irrational beliefs. Would not a denial of evolution be because of an irrational belief?
"This also works the other way, for instance if our faith says that God created the world and created human beings, then we will not look at human beings as only the product of biological randomness, but unique and valuable beings."
"biological randomness" I hope you understand there's nothing random about natural selection.
Do you think people are separate from nature, and not related to other life? Do you understand DNA evidence shows beyond any doubt all life is related?
Sorry about these questions and assumptions. I'm often wrong about what people believe, so please let me know if my assumptions are wrong.
I personally am totally convinced all life is related because I have been studying evolution a long time. I never invoke God for anything because I don't believe in magic. I'm convinced all processes are natural, and there has never been anything supernatural.
Bob, to give a short answer to your question, whichever is true should win. But winning doesn't mean the other is proven wrong, it just may mean that the proponents of faulty science or theology just have to change their understanding of things. In either case, I was only trying to state that they do affect each other, they don't just answer their own questions separately. If your belief says the world was created 6000 years ago, then if science proves it to be untrue, then you will have to either maintain an irrational belief, change your belief, or change your understanding of your belief. This also works the other way, for instance if our faith says that God created the world and created human beings, then we will not look at human beings as only the product of biological randomness, but unique and valuable beings. We would also assume that there would be an intelligibility of the universe so that when we conduct experiments and search for answers we can assume that there is some real answer. John Polkinghorne illustrates this well.
theotrek, I think you can throw the psalm out as evidence that the Bible supports a flat earth view or something of that sort, it was first of all a poem and therefore the true meaning was not in the literal interpretation, and secondly you aren't taking the context into consideration. As far as Babel, it only said that the people were trying to do this to reach God. There problem was arrogance, not that they were going to literally get to heaven, even if that was their goal. Jacob's ladder was a dream or vision, this is not grounds to say that the Bible makes this kind of assumption.
Yes Paul was doing what he did because he believed it was right, but you have to remember that he was persecuting Christians before his vision. He faced all evils because he knew his soul was concerned. And yes Jesus does focus on the here and now, but only in anticipation of eternity. You do good now and sacrifice now, because now is not what is ultimately important, rather it is eternity that is important. Eternity is only accessible because of Christ' sacrifice, which was the meaning of his coming to earth, not just to give the sermon on the mount, as great as it was. Paul himself says that if the resurrection was not true then our faith is worthless and we are to be most pitied among men. Christ did not come to share new ethical positions with us, He came to save us. The ethics are a part of that, but they are not the foundation. When you speak to people, as a Christian, you should not say, "Oh well the important part of Jesus' message was to be kind to each other" or whatever, rather as a Christian you should be telling people about their hope in Christ, the only way. Do you deny any of this? If you don't we have no problem, if you do then your argument is with the Bible not me.
Hello Chris33. You said "Theology and Science do discuss different realms of inquiry, but they are directly related and affect the understanding of each other."
What happens when theology and science conflict with each other? Who wins, theology or science?
For example, according to the theology of several million Christians (not all Christians), the science of evolution is false, or evolution is true but God directs it. But according to the biologists and geologists and many other branches of science, all the evidence shows evolution is a fact and the God hypothesis is not necessary to explain the diversity of life. The biologists say evolution is directed by natural selection and other natural mechanisms, and God had nothing to do with it. Who is right, the anti-science Christians or the scientists? Who wins, science or Genesis?
Chris333--I speak of Jesus' ethic (the manner of life that he prescribed), not ethics. The Sermon on the Mount was the central point of his teaching that was later fleshed out in the events of his ministry. In it he spoke about how to live the reality of God's Messianic Reign. The focus was not on eternity, but on the here and now. Yes, this living under God's reign lasts forever, but Jesus was more concerned with our allowing God's reign to begin in our lives here and now. Entering this new life was linked with living according to its ethic of sacrificial love. Paul was willing to face persecution and death both for the inherent higher quality of this ethic as well as his security of living beyond death. They are two parts to the same reality.
As to Galileo and Copernicus, the church attacked them for being heretics. They announced their scientific discoveries and were viewed as speaking against Biblical views on the structure of the world (cosmology). They read the Bible as speaking from the cosmology shared with the Babylonians and Egyptians: a flat earth covered by a firmament that held off the heavenly oceans. Windows could be opened to let in water for rain. The stars circulated just above the firmament and below the physical heavenly throne. Remember the tower of Babel and Jacob's ladder? Both were reaching into a physical location of God's abode. A Psalm also speaks of God leaning down out of heaven to see people. This was understood as inspired Biblical science, along with Paul's comment of a man caught up into the third heaven.
One last thing theotrek, the church was not afraid that galileo and copernicus would destroy what the Bible says, they were afraid it would destroy what they said, you need to make that distinction, lest you lead people to believe the Bible says something it does not. Flat earth and a geocentric universe were products of human imagination not the Bible. You blur lines that are not meant to be blurred. Also if I have to forget science when I read the Bible, and forget God when I study science then the contradiction would be more than tolerable. Theology and Science do discuss different realms of inquiry, but they are directly related and affect the understanding of each other.
theotrek, you have a lot of talk about ethics when mentioning the purpose of Christ' death. He did not die for ethics, He died so that we can live. Paul was not willing to undergo persecution because he wanted to tell people about how good they could be, he did it because he knew his soul was saved. I am not sure if you agree with this or not, but you put ethic way too much in defining what Christ did. Christ didn't come to make bad people good, he came to make dead people live, morality and ethics are a result of that, not the foundation.
ifeelfine, you have to be kidding me, ID cannot get a peer reviewed article out, look at the case of Richardson and the Smithsonian. I am all for peer reviewed articles, but the ID proponents cannot get one because of the bias. Yeah and keep on saying evolution is fact, like you can prove that in any way. Theotrek, you do not understand ID, I am not going to debate with you because it is a waste of my time, you can find the answers on your own.
BobCu--I had a lousy science education at my ultra-conservative Christian high school. many there were afraid of science. Thankfully, I also had Christians around me who had studied a lot more science and added to my learning. I particularly agree that a good science education will benefit Florida students. My kids homeschool, but don't censor standard texts on evolution. I want them to marvel at the marvelous diversity and intricacy of the living systems God created. I am also convinced that science will never discover anything that should undermine their faith in God. The purpose of science is to discover how the world works. It just cannot address what is beyond the limits of the material universe. We need revelation for that. If nothing else, I find the highest ethic for living in the words and practice of Jesus. It just so happens that he died to live by that ethic, declaring himself to be God in the process. He was either right, wrong, or delusional. After persecuting Christians, Paul found something in Jesus that turned his life around. He became willing to be persecuted while living according to Jesus' ethic and direction. I find the greatest peace not in times without conflict, but in times when I follow Jesus' example in spite of common sense arguing against it. While there is more to the story, there is enough here for me to understand that there is more to life than what science can describe. It is enough to give my life to following Jesus' teaching and example as best I know how.
thebioman--These are basically the same arguments used in Galileo's day to try to convince him not to tell the world that the sun did not indeed revolve around the earth. Copernicus had been silenced before him. Has knowing how the solar system in structured kept you from faith in Christ Jesus? Do you accept that science of astronomy? The church was adamant that such should be kept quiet because such knowledge would destroy faith and cast doubt on the reliability of the Bible. Apparently, we have learned nothing from that discussion. It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to finally recant on their position against Galileo.
The Bible is a text of theology, not science. It uses language from the science of its day at times. That does not make it wrong. It makes it ancient.
Evolutionary theory might someday be changed even radically. I remember arguing with a professor that potential energy did not reside in the object, but on the force exerted on the object. Turns out I was right, but someone else had already figured that out. Our text was woefully out-of-date. The "science" against evolution that I have seen is more like that outdated textbook or fearful propaganda.
God does not need protection. People will find another excuse not to believe. There are plenty out there. Lets get on with preaching the gospel of Christ and let scientists work out the question of how God engineered such a marvelously diverse creation.
Hello thebioman. I have a confession to make to you. In the last paragraph of my previous comments I was joking. I don't really think parents should say bad things about science teachers. And I if I gave you or anyone else the impression I am anti-evolution, I'm sorry about that. I like evolution very much and I really shouldn't joke about it like I did.
I'm interested in the topic of this thread because I live in Florida, and I think it would be nice of the students in my state received a decent science education. I am very pleased with the new science standards that were written by scientists and science teachers and I expect the new standards to be accepted without any changes. The old science standards are so terrible they received the lowest possible grade, "F", from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. For evolution, the Florida science standards received the lowest possible score: zero. They said "The superficiality of the treatment of evolutionary biology alone justifies the grade F."
In the 2nd paragraph of the 3 paragraphs of my last comments, I wasn't joking when I said I agree with you that evolution is anti-Christian, but I could be wrong about that. Certainly it does conflict with Genesis, and if Genesis is wrong it's fair to say other parts of the Bible could have problems. If you are determined to remain a Christian no matter what, I suggest you might want to be more flexible to accommodate science. Personally I think it's easier to throw out the whole religion, but I have been told several times I am wrong, and I was told a person can be a Christian and still accept evolution.
You said: Even if evolutionists are NOT atheists the most common view is of an unchristian god which set things in motion as a primordial goo for us to evolve from. This leads an interesting world view and morality becomes quickly boiled down to “its okay as long as it doesn’t hurt me”.
Do you really believe that? Do you really think a person loses all his moral values if he accepts the science of evolution? I think a few million people would disagree with that.
In any case, all the evidence shows evolution is correct. If you really care about your religion, it might not be a good idea to make it look like an anti-science religion. A smart young person would not want anything to do with a religion that is against science.
In response to [www.theotrek.org] It is not a hyperbole. Evolution is inherently anti-Christian and to make a concession to its scientific legitimacy is both uninformed and unnecessary. Evolution is used on a daily basis to both attempt to explain the origins of life and to discredit creationism. How can Christians, live God’s love reflected in John 15, remain intimately in Christ, join in unity, extend the gospel etc.. etc.. if the 1st critical step of doing that, which is accepting Christ as your personal savior is sabotaged. And yes evolution sways people away from Christ. Even if evolutionists are NOT atheists the most common view is of an unchristian god which set things in motion as a primordial goo for us to evolve from. This leads an interesting world view and morality becomes quickly boiled down to “its okay as long as it doesn’t hurt me”. WITHOUT using the Bible or trying to interpret it, one can look at evolution from a scientifically critical perspective and realize that its assumptions are inherently wrong. Science objectively it points emphatically away from evolution. From there theological apologetics, historical and many scientific arguments supporting Biblical events lead us to accept Christianity as the absolute truth and Jesus as our Saviour. Finally in regards to your comment that, “it boils down to an argument of Biblical interpretation, not the fundamentals of faith and following Christ Jesus as Lord.” I am reminded of Luke 6:46-49 about the wise builder building his house on the rock so it would not be washed away. What is blind faith but a house without a foundation? Wisdom is a gift from God. Remember Solomon?. 1 Kings 4:34 Men from all nations came to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom! I challenge us all to pray for wisdom and to become more scientifically equipped to stand up for the truth!
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/index.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/whales.asp
thebioman said "The greatest challenge facing Christianity and our children is evolution."
I agree. Even if people somehow interpret Genesis to mean evolution is OK, evolution still has too many religious implications for Christianity to survive. If evolution is a fact, then humans are an ape species, and people are just one branch on the tree of life. If humans are just another animal species, not much different from chimpanzees, then it's fair to ask why would God single out humans for special treatment. Also, if evolution is a fact, then God had nothing to do with the diversity of life. If that's true, then it fair to ask if God was necessary for anything else. Another problem is, if humans are just an ape species, then Jesus was just an ape. Why would a Christian want to worship an ape?
So, thebioman, I think you are right about evolution being a threat to Christianity. A high school student in a biology class could be convinced by a biology teacher to accept evolution. Of course it's possible the student then might question his faith. The solution you suggested is correct. Parents who want to make sure their children continue to be Christians should teach them that biology teachers are dishonest and biology teachers know nothing about biology. Children must be made to understand that only their pastor can be trusted to speak honestly about biology. All students need to understand if they want to know anything about science, they should get their information from Bible websites like Answers In Genesis, and not from any know-nothing dishonest science teachers.
thebioman--"The greatest challenge facing Christianity and our children is evolution" Please tell me this is a joke or hyperbole!
There are much larger fish to fry:
Christians actually living God's love before the world in such a way that we reflect John 15, remaining intimately in Christ.
Christians joining in unity as Christ commanded.
Extending the gospel through love and peace, rather than force.
Living according to the Sermon on the Mount, rather than having it show up our faith as an irresponsible claim to accept Jesus' teaching and lordship.
Evolution is only a challenge for those who hold to one specific view of inspiration, among the 7+ theories of Biblical inspiration. It boils down to an argument of Biblical interpretation, not the fundamentals of faith and following Christ Jesus as Lord.
The greatest challenge facing Christianity and our children is evolution. As your child grows into a young adult the Bible is harder for them to accept with "just cause", or "you can feel God", or "just have faith". If God is a God of science then Physics, Chemistry, Math and yes even BIOLOGY, should all lead us to Him... AND IT DOES! When faced with pseudo-science like evolution you have to first educate yourself and then teach your children the SCIENCE behind creation, and the SCIENCE AGAINST Evolution. They will not get this critical view of evolution in the real world in public schools or universities. So educate yourself its easy to do, you don't need a PhD. Find and read scientific articles bring them to the pastor to read and others both within and outside your church. Then as you learn you can carry a Scientific argument with those that embrace evolution with talking about feelings and faith. Feelings and faith change from day to day...but the facts of science are true. Some good websites with scientific articles reviewed and explained are http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/index.htm http://www.kingdom-gospel.com/evidence.html http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/whales.asp
karl: Never wrestle with a pig because you'll both get dirty and the pig will actually enjoy it. Science doesn't need this debate - ID does since the science is in and evolution is a fact. If he wants a debate, create some peer reviewed data and let the debate be civilized.
If you've got legitimate math that disproves evolution, we'd of heard of it before, otherwise its probably the same half-baked ideas in "new and improved" packaging.
I am a recently retired public middle school mathematics teacher in West Virginia with over 30 years experience as an educator including administration.
For the last five years of my full-time career, with the full knowledge of State, County, and ACLU officials, I demonstrated to my students that mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense. The students saw that the evidence clearly shows that every item associated with humans, animals and plants are Intelligent Designs and Intelligent Design is science because it is observable by billions of people trillions of times, always has been, always will be. I always let them figure it out for themselves and allowed them to believe what they chose, but at least they were exposed to the scientific facts that extremists want to censor from the minds of public school students. After the lesson a student from an atheist family said, "Evolution is silly."
Evolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge from Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. See the list at http://www.lifescienceprize.org/
Chris333- "bias against ID in the scientific community" yes, about the same bias as that against the folks who still hold that the earth is flat and man on the moon as a Hollywood production. ID is not science. It masquerades as such.
theotrek,
Evolution is the only theory considered in the scientific field, that doesn't make it right. Nearly everyone believed the universe went around the earth, that didn't make them right. Also, I think you will find extreme bias against ID in the scientific community.
Chris333--In scientific terms, law and theory are not really that distinct. What we may consider incontrovertible laws of nature may turn out to be theories that don't quite hold up (http://www.bartleby.com/64/C004/032.html). Currently, evolution is the best, most tested, and verified theory regarding the development of life's diversity. I don't hear folks from the academies of science promoting ID as a competing theory on the same playing field. By definition, it goes outside the boundaries of scientific inquiry by asking questions that science cannot answer. ID looks for agency and purpose. Science seeks to describe process.
ifeelfine, you need to figure out what Intelligent Design is before you start bashing it as some religion, or religion motivated movement. Separation of church and state has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. You need to stop spreading misunderstandings on this post.
Theotrek, nobody is saying that evolution shouldn't be taught, you need to think about what is actually being said by this superintendent. He wants evolution to be taught, but not as the only explanation. Evolution is not like the laws of Gravity and so on. Gravity can be tested any time and results be obtained, longterm evolution can never be tested, and other tests for evolution have shown to be failures (so called induced evolution such as that of fruit flies) However, I too am not against evolution being taught in schools, however if there is a competing theory, that has good grounds to be discussed, then I see nothing wrong with it.
Actually, it sounds like he knows what he is talking about Mr. Strawman.
"Evolution continues to be a theory" ... sounds like the superintendent of schools need to go back to Science 101 (http://www.nebscience.org/theory.html). By definition, theory is not an unproven hypothesis, which is what he is trying to say. It has substantial evidentiary support. For all practical purposes, it has been proven to the extent that our theories of gravity, relativity, and thermodynamics.
If you need more compelling evidence that evolution needs to be taught, listen to the superintendent who does not understand what a theory actually is. I learned that much by 8th grade in a substandard science class.
Danieljacob76 - not all creationists believe in change over time or natural selection. Also, mutations have been shown to add to the mix - not take away.
Most Christians - even "fundamentalists" aren't opposed to the teaching of Darwinian evolution as a theory or an idea, but we are opposed to the teaching of it to our children as dogma. Private Christian schools and the bulk of homeschoolers will in fact teach their students about Darwinian evolution, but not teach it as the settled answer concerning the big question of origins and that it is "fact." A problem I see consistently in both camps is the sloppy use of language. We must not employ the "shell game" when we use our words. "Change over time" is NOT Darwinian evolution! Creationists believe in change over time. Creationists believe in natural selection. This is not the thing we're arguing against! However, we ARE arguing over the pervasive dogma of molecules-to-man evolution. Molecules-to-man evolution is not simply "change over time." It is natural selection paired with random mutation hat somehow results in the ADDITION of information to the genome (thus the idea of a single-celled creature being the progenitor of human beings and such.) This is something that is definitely not proven and has not been observed. There has been no mechanism discovered to show how Darwinian evolution can do this. All we have been able to see through our direct observations of "change over time" is LOSS OF INFORMATION. There are significant problems with Darwinian evolution. Children should be exposed to the truth about this and not subjected to deceitful word games. Christians should also be very clear in their discussions about this topic as to be more effective.
To me it just proves the dishonesty of fundamentalism. Everyone here believes in God, just say, ID is in line with your religious beliefs. Then try to get it passed.
I'm for a clear separation of church and state and don't want my kids to learn this type of religion (ID).
Amazing, I am thrilled this debate is happening. I hope ID wins so that kids can hear something other than the constant pro-atheist rhetoric they are getting.
DARWINISM and ATHEISM both UNSCIENTIFIC & MYTHICAL
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com