Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Education|Wed, Jan. 09 2008 05:04 PM EST

Florida School Board Hears Final Evolution Arguments

By Lawrence Jones|Christian Post Reporter

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.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
  • Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    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

  • Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:42 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    “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

  • Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:25 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    “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

  • Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:29 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

    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.

  • Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I will look at your link though

  • Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "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).

  • Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:50 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    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.

  • Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:44 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    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>

  • Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:30 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    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.

  • Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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?

  • Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:32 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    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.

  • Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:22 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "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.

  • Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "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.

  • Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    **"I very intelligent man" below should be either "a very intelligent man" or "I knew a very intelligent man"

  • Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "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.

  • Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "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.

  • Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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

  • Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "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.

  • Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "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.

  • Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "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.

  • Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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".

  • Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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!

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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!

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.)

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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?

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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!!!"

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    “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.

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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?

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    BobCu--Would you please unpack this:
    "At least you are pro-science, so your life is not totally wasted."

  • Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    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.

  • Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "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.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links