Is Religion A Crock of ****?

[FOSCO]

OK. Let's keep the flaming to a minimum and respect each other here.


Do you think that religion a crock of ****, or do you think it is not.
Explain your answers!!

I will start. Religion is a crock because it is the basis of wars, cause of death, etc... blah...

FOSCO 8)

[theFerf]

ferf sticks out his 10ft pole and pokes "the topic" realizing there is no way he is going to get involved in this conversation.

[bazookajoeshow]

I really don't think this is the place for this topic. It's offensive to make fun of other people's superstitions.

Bazooka Joe

Do you think that religion a crock of ****, or do you think it is not.
Explain your answers!!

I will start. Religon is a crock because it is tha basis of wars, casue of death, etc blah...)

[Craig]

Superstition: An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. --American Heritage Dictionary

Just for the record, that doesn't describe my relationship with God nor does it describe the vast majority of Christians I know. Anyway, I know a baited hook when I see one and I also don't think this is the place for this topic (albeit for different reasons than Joe) so I'm going to hang out with theFerf for the duration. I will leave a response in the form of two podcasts though:

http://www.godcast.org/mp3/harvest/crusade050714.mp3 (starting at 1:50)
http://lifespringonline.com/podcasts/crusade050731.mp3 (starting at 5:30)

Enjoy, and feel free to PM or email me if you're truly interested in the subject and still have an open mind (aren't Christians the ones who are supposed to have closed minds?.

Craig

[jimk]

To be fair, you have no more evidence of your relationship with God than I have of my relationship with invisible aliens from Raellgia 7. if I were able to gather a few billion to believe the way I (don't) believe, I would gain legitimacy on the world stage, but still be no more closer to reality than any other man-invented mythos to any outside observer.

What I mean is this: If I were say, to invent a made-up religion and have the pull of an L. Ron Hubbard, and in 2000 years, my religion, although considered crackpot and invented at first, was the equal to Christianity in popularity...and then some scientists from another galaxy were to come here and look at both religions...

How would anyone be able to seperate fantasy from "reality?"

Answer: They can't. It's all superstition and mythos to someone. Not long ago, natives to the continent I am on believed the sun was carried across the sky by a giant turtle, because they had no frame of reference with which to understand the world and they desperately needed an answer.

And today we have the "sons & daughters" of Abraham and Mohammed and Christ locked in eternal battle. Because they don;t have a frame of reference with which to understand their place in a natural world...they need to make it more than it is. But they can't agree of what the "more" consists.

Short, non-pretentious answer: You need it to be true, so it's true. But you have no quantifiable, reproducable, independantly verifiable evidence to prove your beliefe is any more or less a superstition than walking under a ladder or black cats or saying "Good luck" to actors. Don't be defensive about it to the point that you start trying to defend it with objective criteria.. If your faith is enough for you...so be it.

[bazookajoeshow]

My apologies, Craig. But I sincerely would like to do a cast with you regarding free will in religion.

Bazooka Joe

Enjoy, and feel free to PM or email me if you're truly interested in the subject.

[Craig]

My apologies, Craig. But I sincerely would like to do a cast with you regarding free in religion.
No problem. PMed you.

Craig

[audiocollective]

My apologies, Craig. But I sincerely would like to do a cast with you regarding free will in religion.

Bazooka Joe

My co-host Cory and I talked for hours about free will... luckily we didn’t podcast it because it was a little strange.

If anyone else wants to hear some good not so religious Christian stuff check out the other podcast I have just started for my church: http://www.audiocollective.net/throughthelookingglass/

Keep up the great discussion!

[bazookajoeshow]

Hopefully in a couple of months I'll be able to do an interivew with philosopher Daniel Dennett. He's written some great books about consciousness and evolution but he wrote a book about free will and determinism called Elbow Room. It's a quick read but definitely thought provoking.

From what I recall, Dennetee believes we might have free will but our free will operates within the narrow confines of biological, sociological and temporal restraints. Hence, the title Elbow Room.

Bazooka Joe

[spartacusroosevelt]

I am shocked by this line of thinking. How can you doubt our creator? It is probably because you have not been touched by his noodly appendage (http://www.venganza.org/)

[docsnavely]

religion is nothing to be ridiculed or laughed about imo......

I'm not religious, nor was I brought up as such....

but.... religion gives many people direction in life, and the justification at times to lead a moral and self fulfilling life.....

those who are religious have something that some others may not have.... belief that their life is worth more than anything else that has been given to them.....

just my 2 cents....

[FOSCO]

religion is nothing to be ridiculed or laughed about imo......

I'm not religious, nor was I brought up as such....

but.... religion gives many people direction in life, and the justification at times to lead a moral and self fulfilling life.....

those who are religious have something that some others may not have.... belief that their life is worth more than anything else that has been given to them.....

just my 2 cents....


Josh I give you a big AMEN to that ****!


Fosco 8)

[docsnavely]

holla.....

[Jellicle]

Atheists (like me) are generally quite happy living with no invisible means of support.

[Steev]

Quite right. In fact, the thought of a supreme being kind of weirds me out.

Strangely enough, going to church when I was a kid was what turned me into an athiest. If you take a step back, and look objectively, just about every religion looks as wacky as the spaghetti monster.

[Zecryphon]

I've read a few comments in this thread about evolution, the "fact" that there is no God. People who hold views such as these have my admiration, only in the sense that it takes more faith NOT to believe in God, than to believe in God.

For those who hold evolution near and dear, I have some questions I'd like you to answer if you can.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the unverse come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

5. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?

6. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

7. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction, reproduce?

8. Why would any animal or plant want to reproduce more of its kind, since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival. Does the individual have a drive to survive of the species? Expain this.

9. The Big Bang Theory? Have you ever seen order come from an explosion?

10. When, where, why and how did:
a) Single celled plants become multi-celled (where are the two and three-celled intermediates)?

b) Single celled animals evolve?

c) Fish change to amphibians?

d) Amphibians change to reptiles?

e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

Now, I don't honestly expect anyone to have an answer to all thse questions, but they are something to think about. If you can answer any of them, I would love to hear it.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[docsnavely]

thanks for the sermon dude, but i do not believe anyone in this thread was countering with an evolution discussion......

how about you read the posts before you start preaching....

people like you are the ones who have strayed me away from the church....

i used to feel pretty good about my connection with God and all, but when retards like you jump in and feel you HAVE to justify your stance and try to make everyone who disagrees with you feel like a demon.... it just makes it difficult for me to believe......

again, this is just my opinion

[richpav]

I like puppies. Little, fuzzy puppies. With big eyes. Does anyone else here like puppies as much as I do?

How 'bout those Mets, eh?

Some weather we've been having lately, don't you think?

Hey, what's your favorite pizza topping? (Mine's pepperoni.)

If you won $100,000,000,000,000 in the lottery, how would you spend it?

I'm listening to show tunes right now.

[Steev]

For those who hold evolution near and dear, I have some questions I'd like you to answer if you can.

I don't think anybody is saying that any religion's view of these things is impossible, but given what else we know about the world, most religion's views of these things seem unlikely. Nobody is saying you can't believe what you believe, but personally, I feel more comfortable leaving them unanswered (for now) than to make up a unprovable story and calling it fact.

[FX]

What if God created evolution?

Then what would you argue about? :)

[jeffoest]

The question of who's God is correct, who's philosophy on living is correct, etc... will go on eternally as that seems to be the human condition - that of wanting all the answers.

I am not a religious person but I have learned that to enjoy and respect wonderful people, it's just a fool's errand to argue about religion. People on all sides think they have the answers just as people on all sides think that the others don't.

There's really no additional information at this point in time that anyone is going to put on the table to 'convince' someone else. So why bother? Respect others and respect differences in opinion and get along with each other! I'm convinced this is a happier way to go through life.

[Craig]

when retards like you jump in and feel you HAVE to justify your stance and try to make everyone who disagrees with you feel like a demon
Ironically, I'm sure most people who do believe in God would say the exact same thing about those who don't believe in God, especially after reading this topic (probably without the retard part).

Sheesh...the guy wasn't preaching; he merely asked some valid questions (scientific, incidentally, not religious) worth thinking about that were completely relevant to this discussion in terms of addressing "does God exist or not." And Bazooka Joe brought up evolution first, albeit in passing.

Craig

[pwfenton]

I've read a few comments in this thread about evolution, the "fact" that there is no God. People who hold views such as these have my admiration, only in the sense that it takes more faith NOT to believe in God, than to believe in God.

For those who hold evolution near and dear, I have some questions I'd like you to answer if you can.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the unverse come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

5. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?

6. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

7. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction, reproduce?

8. Why would any animal or plant want to reproduce more of its kind, since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival. Does the individual have a drive to survive of the species? Expain this.

9. The Big Bang Theory? Have you ever seen order come from an explosion?

10. When, where, why and how did:
a) Single celled plants become multi-celled (where are the two and three-celled intermediates)?

b) Single celled animals evolve?

c) Fish change to amphibians?

d) Amphibians change to reptiles?

e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

Now, I don't honestly expect anyone to have an answer to all thse questions, but they are something to think about. If you can answer any of them, I would love to hear it.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon
The nature of this website doesn't allow me to quote these questions and answer them individually

The answer to a large number of these questions is "I don't know" an answer that more Christians should admit too.

Religious documents don't answer them either.

All religions attempt to answer the unknown... simply by offering up an explanation requiring pure faith in it's validity

Science attempts to go a step beyond that by offering up explanations that offer up observable, and repeatable experiments, and challengeable facts.

There is nothing challengeable about fiction. It merely exists as a representation of the imagination of man, which can't be challenged on any legitimate level, because it in itself has no legitimacy.

Heroine is comforting... but expensive.

Religion is comforting and free.

People, unfortunately, often don't seek proof of the truth. They seek to prove what they DESIRE to be the truth.

[Zecryphon]

This post is in response to Jeff. As to who's God is correct and who's philosophy for living is correct, I would have to say that Christianity's is the way to go on this one. All other religious leaders and or figures are dead and in their graves. Buddha, Mohammed, Confucious, L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith. This however is not true with Jesus. He rose from the grave after 3 days, and continued to appear to his followers and others for 40 days afterwards, until He finally ascended in to Heaven.

Now, what other religious figure has done that? I can't think of any. Now, I know there are alot of people out there who say that the disciples stole his body from the tomb and hid it. Well, that would be quite a feat, since the tomb was guarded by Roman soldiers, whose methods of killing and torture are legendary. These guys were like the Green Berets or Navy Seals of their day. It would be obvious if anyone tampered with the tomb, since it was sealed by Herod. If you broke that seal, the punishment was death, no questions asked. The rock that sealed the entrance to the tomb weighed about 6 tons, was around 12 feet tall, and set into a groove into the ground. I know me and 10 of my friends couldn't move something like that.

So, think about this, Jesus had 12 disciples when He was crucified, Judas betrayed Him, Peter denied knowing Him not once but 3 times. And the others ran for the hills when the Roman soldiers started looking for followers. So ask yourself, "Why would 11 people who were fearing for their lives for even KNOWING Jesus, risk trying to steal his body? And if by some miracle they did do it, how did Jesus then appear to all those people, including those who were not followers like Saul on the road to Tarsus?

This will sound like a sermon I know, and I can deal with whatever backlash comes from it. But these are just some facts that brought me to become a born again Christian.

[jeffoest]

Thanks Zecryphon,

I'm sure that you are committed to your beliefs and all I can do is respect your right and passion and congratulate you on finding your peace. Something many people don't do in this lifetime.

See? How hard is that?

;-)

[bazookajoeshow]

I must confess, out of the historical figures, I'd like to meet Paul and find out what made him tick.

No Paul, no Christianity.

Bazooka Joe

[jeffoest]

Bazooka, me too man....

[bazookajoeshow]

Good point.

Another remarkable thing about Christianity that no other religions can claim are Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Of all the other religions, how many of them have figures like Santa Clau or the Easter Bunny? Think about it. Every year Santa Clause rides a sleigh from the North Pole with his twelve reinders (there's that number again) to deliver Christmas presents made by elves to every boy and girl in the world after checking his list for who has been naughty and nice by going down chimenys. Every year the Easter Bunny comes hopping down the rabbit trail to hide Easter eggs and give children baskets of candy.

Can any other religionmake the claim of a man rising from the dead or a fat man who delivers presents or a rabbit that hides eggs?

I don't think so!

Bazooka Joe


All other religious leaders and or figures are dead and in their graves. Buddha, Mohammed, Confucious, L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith. This however is not true with Jesus. He rose from the grave after 3 days, and continued to appear to his followers and others for 40 days afterwards, until He finally ascended in to Heaven.

Now, what other religious figure has done that? I can't think of any.

[s]

The answer to a large number of these questions is "I don't know" an answer that more Christians should admit too.

Actually dude, we do. It's part of the whole "religion" thing. We don't know, we believe. That's the thing about faith.

And as for people jumping all over Zecryphon's questions, I think that guy accidentally made a point he didn't intend to that I'd like to dig out of the dirt (while keeping him at arm's length for trying a bit too hard to prosyletize in the wrong forum). And that point is, a lot of the "truth" that militant atheists treasure in the realm of science isn't philosophically much more solid than many tenets of faith. Repetition from experimentation does not equal Absolute Truth. Even the things we call "laws" are really just curve fits on data in some cases. So don't act like your **** don't stink.

I am an engineer by trade and have an undergraduate degree in philosophy concentrating on quantum theory and cosmology. I was raised Catholic and stuck with it largely out of cultural habit through college, but once I boiled everything down in the world of quantum theory, I realized I had nothing left. Sure, quantum mechanics presents a mathematical formalism that isn't possible in the realm of faith, but if you really looked behind the curtain at "science," you would realize that believing in the day-to-day **** you take for granted is not that much less ridiculous than believing in a Creator that we can't quite comprehend.

As for whether and how such a creator might manifest in the world as we know it -- through prophets, miracles, divine saviors, or just the simple act of keeping our quarks from flying apart on a whim -- well, I leave it at "to each his own."

On a related note, I finally rented that "What the Bleep Do We Know" flick last night, and while I was pretty disappointed (NOT a good movie if you already know quantum theory -- it's like the aerospace engineer side of me watching a crapper like "Armageddon"), it still might be worth your $4 if you're at all curious about the subject. It drops the ball on the quantum theroy half of the movie and seems to end on a very biochemical "think happy thoughts, it's good for your health," but the first half DOES at least make a pretty good case for the fact that we really DON'T have a solid grasp of reality, and reality is very much not what we think.

Phew, what a freaking mouthful. And I just popped in to read about iTunes cheating. Jeez!

[Craig]

Another remarkable thing about Christianity that no other religions can claim are Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
If you can find a reference to either of these in the Bible I'll renounce my faith right here. :shock:

Craig

[bazookajoeshow]

I've worked very hard to not be the obnoxious punk I used to be and this topic is bringing out the worst in me so I'm going to bow out discussion with whatever dignity I have left.

A final not to the rest of you still posting on this topic: you can't talk about religion without talking about faith and that's where rationality can't tread so for me, I feel continuing this thread is pointless.

Let's all just agree to disagree.

Bazooka Joe

[jeffoest]

Joe - that's a smart tact I think..

For those of us that HAVE argued religion before, the results are always the same. The conversation gets heated, people say things they really wouldn't have said in a normal conversation (and things that they really don't fully mean), no one is convinced, both sides gets defensive and too proud to back down or even admit a truce, it's just an ugly place.

[gazsoup]

here's my answers to the questions

Either Amazon.com or it was always there just in a different state of compression
See above
Physics
PG&E or maybe solar power
I don’t think matter is dead
Just like hard-drives and women’s purse – things expand and multiple to fill the space available
Barry White music
Breeding and art (including podcasting) are things we do beyond selfishness and yes
This is the logic that George W uses for Iraq but I don’t believe him
Not sure but I think about 3.7B years ago . . . at least on this planet
See above but adjust year
See above but adjust year
See above but adjust year
See above but adjust year . . . what’s more interesting is what happens in the next million years?

[Craig]

Breeding and art (including podcasting) are things we do beyond selfishness
I'd have to argue that the actual act of breeding is completely selfish (at least for the male...ask any female) although the raising of the offspring is definitely not.

Same thing with recording vs. post.

Craig

[Steev]

Every year Santa Claus rides a sleigh from the North Pole with his twelve reinders

Only 8 reindeer, dude. 9 if you count rudolph. Don't you remember the song?

1. Dasher
2. Dancer
3. Prancer
4. Vixen
5. Comet
6. Cupid
7. Donner
8. Blitzen
(9. Rudolph)

[Craig]

Don't you remember the song?
Nooooo, not the song, please...it's only August.

1. Dasher
2. Dancer
3. Prancer
4. Vixen
5. Comet
6. Cupid
7. Donner
8. Blitzen
(9. Rudolph)
Aargh!!!

Craig

[bazookajoeshow]

Years ago on one excruciatingly hot and humid 4th of July I did a show at my old radio staiton back east and played three hours of Christmas songs.

I got a lot of puzzled phone calls.

Bazooka Joe

[quote="Craig"Nooooo, not the song, please...it's only August.[/quote]

[FX]

Good point.

Another remarkable thing about Christianity that no other religions can claim are Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.


Both Christmas and Easter have pagan roots.

Christmas was Yule - basically a festivial to bring cheer on the longest and darkest day of the year.

Easter - was Eostar [it's spelled different ways depending on what source you use]- an ancient celebration of the return of fertility to the land. That's where the rabbits and eggs come from. They are symbols of sex and fertility.

---

Thats about all I have to say on this topic. I don't want to get into a long drawn out discussion on religion and the meaning of life, etc.

[swoopy]

And that point is, a lot of the "truth" that militant atheists treasure in the realm of science isn't philosophically much more solid than many tenets of faith. Repetition from experimentation does not equal Absolute Truth. Even the things we call "laws" are really just curve fits on data in some cases. So don't act like your **** don't stink.

Terrible comparison, absolutely terrible.

We fly planes, orbit satellites, watch T.V., drive cars, build homes, engineer great towers, discover medical cures, collide atoms, clone life, create light, save lives, and many other things based on those 'laws' you believe are just some wild-*** horseshoe toss that somehow equates to 'faith' or philisophical beliefs.

When any of those above SCIENTIFIC concepts fails, a plane crashes, a building falls, a person is lost on the operating table. It's not because we got our 'science' wrong, its because of an accident, mechanical failure or otherwise.

Gravity works man, it's not just some hokey 'concept' that can somehow be equated to the explainations given by blind faith.

I love how people construct great sounding re-torts to make science sound like it is not much more than a different type of faith. Well, no matter how good the words are put together, the concept is still hogwash.

It is all as maddening as those negative IQ soft-brained rednecks that have been sold into 'Intelligent Design Theory', as if it has any solid foundation in science, or scientific theory.

In science... when something is 'Just a Theory'... we can still launch people to the moon and land them there, bring them home, and play with the rocks from another world.

When philosphers say... 'Just a Theory', I'm not even gonna get on their bike.

(And this is Derek... not Swoopy... I happen to be on her computer.)

[spartacusroosevelt]

Swoopy aka Derek--

I knew there was a reason your show is the only non music podcast I didn't have to force myself to listen to all the way through.

I likewise will resist the urge to dive into the conversation before I go on my soapbox and get no work done for the next couple of hours typing a many paragraph post. I won't convince anyone who isn't already a non-theist anyway. Just don't make my sons listen to ID in biology, OK?

[Hittman]

Sparticus: Very nice. I particauarly like the connection between global warming (exuse me, climate change) and pirates. I had no idea! I'll be putting a link to that on my blog when updating it this weekend.

religion is nothing to be ridiculed or laughed about imo......

IMNSO, I think it should be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity.

but.... religion gives many people direction in life, and the justification at times to lead a moral and self fulfilling life.....

Very true. But religion is entirely unnecessary for any of that. If someone who can't be moral without the threat of a nasty sky-daddy rosting and torturning them in hell for one billion, trillion, years, sixteen eternities, twenty seven forever's, eleven thousand year's after that*, then I'm happy they have a superstition that keeps them from murdering me in my sleep or stealing my car. But I don't trust them, because it's very easy for a True Believer to reinterpt their belief to and justify something evil.

OTOH, When an atheist makes a moral decision, it's based on reason and logic, something that's not likely to change.

those who are religious have something that some others may not have.... belief that their life is worth more than anything else that has been given to them.....

Life is even more precious to us atheists. Believers have an afterlife to look forward to (or a rebirth, depending on their particular superstition.) An atheist only gets one life, so we make sure it's enough.

only in the sense that it takes more faith NOT to believe in God, than to believe in God.

A very common belief held by those who, by definition, can be fooled into believing just about anything.

Atheism does take a tiny bit of faith. It's not possible to prove something doesn't exist. For instance, can you prove you're not sharing the room with an invisible pink unicorn? Since you can't prove the IPU isn't there, you have to have a sliver of faith to say, "that's ridiculous. I don't believe the IPU exists."

Atheism requires exactly the same amount of faith it takes to deny the existence of the IPU, the Easter Bunny, or The Great Pumpkin. No more, no less.

What if God created evolution?

Some people believe that god used evolution, guided it, to create what we have today. At least that belief doesn't completely ignore the facts.

I must confess, out of the historical figures, I'd like to meet Paul and find out what made him tick.

No Paul, no Christianity.

Paul put the nasty into Christianity. If the NT stopped with the gospels, Christianly wouldn't be such a hateful, authoritarian religion. (You'd still have to hate gay people, though.) Paul was the clown who saddled it with heaps of rules and regulations, made it evangelical, and used the phrase "born again" often enough to fuel the rise of the most ignorant form of the religion.

the first half DOES at least make a pretty good case for the fact that we really DON'T have a solid grasp of reality, and reality is very much not what we think.

My new dog, Sammy, is smarter than any of my past dogs. On the scale of dog IQ, I'm guessing his is pretty high. But no matter how much time I spend with him, he will never be able to grasp even the simplest concepts of math. He will never, ever be able to look at 1+1=X and solve for X. It's simply beyond his intellectual capacity.

It is quite possible, maybe even likely, that human beings don't have the intellectual capacity to understand some of the most fundamental facts of the universe. The Unified Field Theory may be right under or noses, and we're looking right at it with the same comprehension of Sammy looking at 1+1=X scratched in the dirt.

But adding a god to the equation is a cop out. It's not an answer to the question, it's an evasion of it.

The concept of an all powerful god that is both benevolent and omniscient can be disproved by reading any daily newspaper. You can have a god who's benevolent. You can have one who's omniscient. But he can't be both, not in this world. If he were, he'd be guilty of criminally negligent homicide every time someone dies in a freak accident.


*Ten points and an Attaboy to anyone who recognizes this reference.

[Craig]

It is quite possible, maybe even likely, that human beings don't have the intellectual capacity to understand some of the most fundamental facts of the universe.
On this we both agree. But yet with your admittedly limited knowledge you're willing to completely rule out the possibility of God being one of those fundamental facts? That makes no logical sense.

The concept of an all powerful god that is both benevolent and omniscient can be disproved by reading any daily newspaper. You can have a god who's benevolent. You can have one who's omniscient. But he can't be both, not in this world. If he were, he'd be guilty of criminally negligent homicide every time someone dies in a freak accident.
Assuming, of course, that you have a full comprehension of what constitutes benevolence and guilt from a universal perspective (which you've already admitted you don't). Not to mention the fact that you assume death is a bad thing.

Just a few things to think about.

Craig

[Craig]

It is all as maddening as those negative IQ soft-brained rednecks that have been sold into 'Intelligent Design Theory', as if it has any solid foundation in science, or scientific theory.
Funny, I could say the same thing about the theory of macro evolution, which I didn't buy into even when I was an atheist. Micro evolution I have no problem with, being a proven fact.

Craig

[kickasspodcast]

Lemme take this moment to entirely agree with Craig.
It rarely happens, but Hitt's opinionated rant was nothing
but assuming and ordinary. Hey Its so rare that I agree
with Craig that I simply must point it out.

Hittman-
Shame on you for wasting your time ranting and typing about
religion and God. You should know better than to think anyone
gives a **** what you think about God. How Foolish of you
to think you can convince anyone of your views on the religion
through false logic and bullshit. Shame on you.

<shakes head>
:roll:

Craig- I was gonna post but I knew someone would tear up this factually
inaccurate opinionated sludge.

Paul put the nasty into Christianity. If the NT stopped with the gospels, Christianly wouldn't be such a hateful, authoritarian religion. (You'd still have to hate gay people, though.) Paul was the clown who saddled it with heaps of rules and regulations, made it evangelical, and used the phrase "born again" often enough to fuel the rise of the most ignorant form of the religion.

Factually wrong, entirely opinionated, typical Hittman. check out Quickhitts for more!
His shows are actually shorter than his posts!
:roll:

Jack B.

[kickasspodcast]

And that point is, a lot of the "truth" that militant atheists treasure in the realm of science isn't philosophically much more solid than many tenets of faith. Repetition from experimentation does not equal Absolute Truth. Even the things we call "laws" are really just curve fits on data in some cases. So don't act like your **** don't stink.

Terrible comparison, absolutely terrible.

We fly planes, orbit satellites, watch T.V., drive cars, build homes, engineer great towers, discover medical cures, collide atoms, clone life, create light, save lives, and many other things based on those 'laws' you believe are just some wild-*** horseshoe toss that somehow equates to 'faith' or philisophical beliefs.

When any of those above SCIENTIFIC concepts fails, a plane crashes, a building falls, a person is lost on the operating table. It's not because we got our 'science' wrong, its because of an accident, mechanical failure or otherwise.

Gravity works man, it's not just some hokey 'concept' that can somehow be equated to the explainations given by blind faith.

I love how people construct great sounding re-torts to make science sound like it is not much more than a different type of faith. Well, no matter how good the words are put together, the concept is still hogwash.

It is all as maddening as those negative IQ soft-brained rednecks that have been sold into 'Intelligent Design Theory', as if it has any solid foundation in science, or scientific theory.

In science... when something is 'Just a Theory'... we can still launch people to the moon and land them there, bring them home, and play with the rocks from another world.

When philosphers say... 'Just a Theory', I'm not even gonna get on their bike.

(And this is Derek... not Swoopy... I happen to be on her computer.)

What Science are you studying man?

Try Quantum Physics. Learn that and then come back and give
us all your informed opinion. The argument is ultimately about the
Interconnectedness of all life in regards to individual spiritually and
the cultural manifestations of that shared uncertainty. It is easy to
pick apart specific ideologies but Scientifically speaking there are
in fact near miraculously unexplainable truths about our world that
even the greatest of minds cannot appreciate.

I am Protestant, I believe God and Quantum Physics holds the key.

Peace out~

Jack B.

[s]

Terrible comparison, absolutely terrible.

I love how people construct great sounding re-torts to make science sound like it is not much more than a different type of faith. Well, no matter how good the words are put together, the concept is still hogwash.



Yeah, thanks man, that was nothing but a brilliant sounding retort (not re-tort). Like I said, my perspective is as A MAN OF SCIENCE, almost done with my doctorate in engineering, and I understand the solidity and utility of the laws of physics. I was a god**** aircraft accident investigator, so believe you me, I know what it takes not to drop your sorry *** out of the sky.

BUT I did also manage to complete a degree in philosophy, so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm saying from my study of dumbasses from Descartes to Kuhn that scientific observation and theory can still ultimately be undermined. It was a pretty freaky day for me when I learned that, being a Man Of Science and all that. If that's the kind of shock skeptics can't handle, well...nut up, man.

[Craig]

If the NT stopped with the gospels, Christianly wouldn't be such a hateful, authoritarian religion. (You'd still have to hate gay people, though.) Paul was the clown who saddled it with heaps of rules and regulations, made it evangelical, and used the phrase "born again" often enough to fuel the rise of the most ignorant form of the religion.
The most ignorant form of Christianity is that spread by people who know nothing about it. I don't know who's feeding you your information but you need to stop relying on them as a source. Jesus never preached hatred (quite the opposite) or authoritarianism. He was the one who made Christianity evangelical (if by that you mean to spread Christianity throughout the world...and then he meant to inform, not enforce), not Paul. The phrase "born again" only appears three times in the Bible. Twice it's used in the same conversation by Jesus explaining the need for a spiritual rebirth in order to have a relationship with God. The other time it's used by Peter to explain the same thing. As for rules and regulations, the only ones in the NT are those designed to help anyone willing to listen to live a spiritually healthy life (both now and for eternity).

Craig

[dcolanduno]

In science... when something is 'Just a Theory'... we can still launch people to the moon and land them there, bring them home, and play with the rocks from another world.

What Science are you studying man?



Try Quantum Physics. Learn that and then come back and give
us all your informed opinion.


Hahaha,

You are kidding right? Did you READ what I stated? I didn't bring up Quantum Physics...

But, yes, lets take Quantum Physics... there is still a ton of FACTS about that still relatively 'young' science. And they keep making HUGE leaps.

My 'opinion' isn't an 'opinion'. We really did go to the moon, we really HAVE flown airplanes, we really know that gravity works. That's not an opinion man, those right there are facts.

You can't say that water is 'wet' is an opinion because it gets in the way of your clever argument. Although, that's what always happens when people have so little faith in the sheer power of humans.

Scientifically speaking there are
in fact near miraculously unexplainable truths about our world that
even the greatest of minds cannot appreciate.

But, we will...

That is the lacking side of any argument that stems around using a LACK of discovery as a REASON for the divine to exist.

You can have a million reasons for believing what you believe, but don't for one moment use the flimsy logic that, just because we don't understand something NOW, that God must exist.

People have done that since the beginning of written history...

People have formed whole religions around unexplained phenomena that we now understand to an amazing level.

So, what happens when someone does finally finish the math and crack the Unified Theory? They will... trust me... it's happened again and again, over and over, throughout history.

Then it will be the NEXT discovery that we haven't pushed through that will prove that God exists?

It is a very illogical and feeble argument to say that what we don't know now... proves anything. Or should be the basis on which your own inner proof of something spiritual exists.

In a not too distant time ago... people were saying what you just said about Quantum Physics... when they spoke of the unification of Gravity, Magnetism and Electricity...

[Craig]

It is a very illogical and feeble argument to say that what we don't know now... proves anything.
And with that Derek has brilliantly answered the original question as well as addressed the evolution issue for all involved!

Let's move on.

Craig

[dcolanduno]

[quote=swoopy]Yeah, thanks man, that was nothing but a brilliant sounding retort (not re-tort).

Ahh, the schoolyard internet forum spelling correction trick. Always the first sign that someone is against the ropes. I never correct spelling on the internet, because I realize that people aren't going to hire a copy editor for every post. Guess some people think that it proves something when they catch a spelling error.

Like I said, my perspective is as A MAN OF SCIENCE, almost done with my doctorate in engineering, and I understand the solidity and utility of the laws of physics. I was a god**** aircraft accident investigator, so believe you me, I know what it takes not to drop your sorry *** out of the sky.

So, has a plane ever crashed because the laws of physics changed? Or, were incorrect as of late? Just a question...

One of my largest clients that I had for 5 years were the fine folks at the NTSB, ironically enough. I worked with folks that performed Aviation Crash Analysis. Helped develop logic routines for investigative analysis and pattern discovery.

I work for an engineering company now...

But, I didn't think this was a resume' war...

BUT I did also manage to complete a degree in philosophy, so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm saying from my study of dumbasses from Descartes to Kuhn that scientific observation and theory can still ultimately be undermined. It was a pretty freaky day for me when I learned that, being a Man Of Science and all that. If that's the kind of shock skeptics can't handle, well...nut up, man.

Let us see... the only degree I do have is... Theology. I never once got 'freaked' out by philosophy, which is most of what a Theology degree is. It never broke any science in my mind.

Philosophy is the creative and 'thoughtful' side of almost all science. Heck, without some level of it, no one could have ever come up with some of ideas being put forth in String Theory.

Although, being a creative subject matter, it does have the ability to talk itself into a contradiction. I don't see anything in philosophy that 'proves' anything, or 'disproves' anything in solid science.

Again, a lack of complete infinite knowledge on a subject does not, in any way, support a particular religion, belief, or concept of spirituality.

On the flip side... science has always done a pretty spiffy job of proving that many of it's 'theories' are correct in some very spectacular ways.

[dcolanduno]

It is a very illogical and feeble argument to say that what we don't know now... proves anything.
And with that Derek has brilliantly answered the original question as well as addressed the evolution issue for all involved!

Let's move on.

Craig

But, we know A LOT about evolution... tons and tons... the proof is immense and vast.

The arguments against it reside in the small spaces in between.

Religion: "But you haven't found a fossil of a human ancestor past 40,000 years..."

12 years later...

Science: "Here is a fossil of a human ancestor from over 1 million years ago..."

Religion: "But, where are the fossils from in between..."

5 years later...

Science: "Here is a fossil of a human ancestor that not only is in between, shows that the evolutionary chain of human development forked into more than one intelligent species..."

Religion: "But... what about... between those four now?"

Science: <sigh> "You are just desperate now aren't you?"

Oh, fossils don't do it for you? The visual record not sufficient?

This is why I love science:

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

I didn't address the evolution issue at all... but I did scratch its surface a little with this post.

People keep asking why I haven't done the 'big' Intelligent Design vs. Creationism vs. Evolution issue on my show.

Mainly, because the science is so immense on this topic it shocks me when, even mildly intelligent people have any questions on this issue. I lump it in with the whole... "I think Satan put fossils on the earth to fool us..." crowd. But, I always forget that a lot of creative people put together the fairy tale of Intelligent Design 'Theory' to dredge this whole issue back up. I sometimes forget how persuasive their bulls*it is.

Look folks, like it or not, the concept of Evolution is not in question, in either a 'macro' or 'micro' sense. It is a sad wedge issue that lots of people just refuse to completely understand.

I'm not trying to be a total a-hole here, but... this one really gets to me, cause it isn't about opinions... there are FACTS, very solid ones that outline how species are developed over time by mutations and errors in DNA. It isn't about how we evolved from Apes... it is about the sheer, un-deniable fact that we all have EVOLVED. There were no 'apes' as we know them millions of years ago... apes are the result of evolution as well.

This isn't a religious issue, unless your faith is weak and relies on some small story in a book written by a bunch of MEN. The Earth wasn't 'created' from scratch, it wasn't designed out of the box. We have a very good grasp on planetary and biological evolution. The details are where the fun stuff happens, and it is just a process of discovery.

This is just as simple as the Earth Revolving around the Sun. The church used to argue that there was no 'solid' proof, even though there was a ton. People were put in jail over believing the truth then.

Guess what? They didn't know how orbital gravity worked then, but they didn't need to know that detail to KNOW that the Earth revolved around the Sun. It was pretty evident by using the Scientific Method.

That is where we are with many of these issues that the 'we want to use a lack of knowledge to support my faith' folks bark about. Just because we don't have EVERY detail doesn't mean that scientists don't KNOW what the picture looks like. They just don't know what each little pebble looks like in the picture yet... but they **** well know it's a picture of pebbles.

Belief doesn't require the lack of evolution, anymore than it required the Earth to be the center of the universe in the past. The disbelief in solid well-researched and analyzed science, does promote a lack of sophistication in a belief system, however. I always plead with people of faith not to repeat the errors and follies of their historical counterparts on issues like this. It tends to fall on deaf ears, because the power of the mind to link an internal belief to something so... unbelievable... usually pushes individuals to resist accepting certain inaccuracies they may cling to as 'proof' or 'support' for their conviction.

Fighting against the progress and power of the human mind to discover and answer questions... is a tradition of many religions and faiths.

[Ricky]

On this we both agree. But yet with your admittedly limited knowledge you're willing to completely rule out the possibility of God being one of those fundamental facts? That makes no logical sense.

There is a difference between not accepting God based on a lack of evidence, and completely ruling out the possibility. I can't speak for Hittman, but I don't believe in God because that there is no evidence. I don't think that he doesn't or can't exist, although I think it is highly unlikely.

What Science are you studying man?

Try Quantum Physics. Learn that and then come back and give
us all your informed opinion. The argument is ultimately about the
Interconnectedness of all life in regards to individual spiritually and
the cultural manifestations of that shared uncertainty.

Oh ****. I just had my bullshit meter fixed, and now you went and broke it again.

Where the hell did you learn that crap from? You got one word right, "uncertainty." The subject of Quantum Physics is very simple. All it is, is understanding how particles and energy act on extremely small scales. It has nothing to do with spirituality, or the interconnectedness of life. It's just describing how particles act.

It is easy to
pick apart specific ideologies but Scientifically speaking there are
in fact near miraculously unexplainable truths about our world that
even the greatest of minds cannot appreciate.

How do you know when something is unexplainable? I mean, you know that something can not be explained right now, but does that mean it will never be explained? I certainly hope not. And for your sanity, I hope you don't think so either.

So please, give me an example of something that you know can not be explained. Not just something that hasn't been explained yet.

[spartacusroosevelt]

Edit: Never mind, I really won't be say anything beyond pointing and giggling at theists

[kickasspodcast]

Where the hell did you learn that crap from? You got one word right, "uncertainty." The subject of Quantum Physics is very simple. All it is, is understanding how particles and energy act on extremely small scales. It has nothing to do with spirituality, or the interconnectedness of life. It's just describing how particles act.




Way to pretend to sum up all of Quantum Physics in 1 paragraph!

My favorite line was


It has nothing to do with spirituality, or the interconnectedness of life. It's just describing how particles act.


Because you see, to Pysicists these are the same things
particle interaction = interconnectivity of life.


Oh Well-

Its been Fun~

[Ricky]

Way to pretend to sum up all of Quantum Physics in 1 paragraph!

Biology is the study of life, astronomy is the study of our universe, chemistry is the study of chemicals and the interactions they go through, physics is the study of how particles and energy interact and behave, geology is the study of planet composition.

It can be done for pretty much any science, let alone a sub-division of science, which is what quantum physics is.


Because you see, to Pysicists these are the same things
particle interaction = interconnectivity of life.

Quote me one peer-reviewed paper which supports that claim. Particles are what we are made out of, so in that sense, yes, we are connected to them. But that has nothing at all to do with science. Quantum physics only studies how they act, not how all life is connected.

[Kil]

I think it is interesting that it is only those scientific theories that are in conflict with religion that have been the subject of attack by those people of faith the theory makes uneasy. As Derek correctly pointed out, no one seems to be contesting the physics of flight. Science says nothing about religion, so the conflict does not come from the science end of things. The very same scientific method that leads to support for evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on our planet is also the method used to explain the physics of flight. So it is clear that it is only those particulars of science that are seen as in conflict with a particular worldview that get this kind of attention.

That fact alone should cause alarms to go off in most people. Sadly, it seems that our schools have let us down. Critical thinking and a firm grasp of the scientific method have been found lacking in far too many people. Most people make no distinction when regarding a scientific theory and the more common use of the word theory when it is used as a synonym for mere speculation. So you get the “it’s only a theory� comment. The truth is, there is a profound difference in usage. A scientific theory is as good as it gets in science. What does that mean? It means that a hypotheses has been supported by solid evidence (facts), it has been tested and retested, it makes predictions that are in the realm of the falsifiable (or tests and experimentation would not be possible) and then verified by peer review, (a chance for other scientists who are experts in whatever field the theory is being suggested to shoot it down if they can.) Only after all of that can a hypotheses rise to the level of a theory. And that is a far cry from saying something like “I have a theory that an intelligence created the eye because it looks designed,� since none of the above protocols can be used to support that speculative brand of theory. Speculation does not rise to the level of a theory in a scientific context.

Evolution has been under constant attack since Darwin first proposed a naturalistic mechanism to explain his observations. And while Darwin may have been wrong about some of the details, (he was, after all, working on this over 100 years ago) evolution has become one of the best-supported theories in science. Every year we learn more and the support for evolution becomes stronger. In fact, at this time most arguments about evolution among scientists are about the mechanisms of evolution, not that evolution happens. Evolution happens just as gravity happens. Even Behe does not argue against common decent. But gravity does not seem to conflict with anyone’s worldview. So gravity gets left
alone…

[Craig]

But, we know A LOT about evolution... tons and tons... the proof is immense and vast.
For micro-evolution, yes. Not for macro...the arguments FOR macro reside in very small spaces that are anything but conclusive. As I stated before, I hold this position not because I'm a Christian but because the scientific evidence supports it; I held the position as an atheist before becoming a Christian. I'm not going to argue it here though because being a Christian now my argument will simply be dismissed and ridiculed as Creationist nonsense without any consideration to the facts behind it. (I speak from experience.)

This is why I love science:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
This is an interesting article and theory. But it doesn't prove evolution any more than it proves ID.

Mainly, because the science is so immense on this topic it shocks me when, even mildly intelligent people have any questions on this issue.
It shocks me when intelligent people are able to ignore the gaping holes in the science and make statements like "the concept of [macro] Evolution is not in question" when there are a significant number of respected atheist scientists who would disagree with you.

This isn't a religious issue
Agreed.

I'm not going to argue the point further for the reason I mentioned above. But for anyone who still maintains an open mind on the topic, there are plenty of non-religious books, papers, and articles you can Google that present the scientific evidence against macro evolution. Assuming, of course, that you're open to macro evolution being proven wrong...but isn't that openness, or objectivity, a critical part of the scientific process?

Craig

[Kil]

Craig:
For micro-evolution, yes. Not for macro.

This is an old creationist argument. They do not contest the idea that small changes happen within a species. But they argue that speciation doesn’t happen. It’s an odd argument. What they are saying is that given enough time along with micro changes a new species never happens. Only variations of existing species.

It seems to me that enough micro changes would lead to speciation. And of course, it does. Transitional species abound in the fossil record. Creationists summarily dismiss them as best they can, and there best is not really good enough.

We have whales with legs, dinosaurs with feathers, hominids that display features both ape and human like. We have a very complete picture of fish to amphibian and to reptile. I could go on. What the creationists like to do is to point to what we don’t have. Ah ha! And they will not be satisfied until every single gap is filled. They steadfastly refuse to consider the whole picture.

That Craig had a problem with evolution back when he was an atheist means nothing. His mentioning that is only a pitch to show that reasonable people can come to what he thinks is a reasonable conclusion. All it tells me is that Craig was not a critical thinker and had little grasp of science. Being an atheist does not automatically confer these things upon you. And I might add, not that it means that much, that plenty of people of faith have no problem with evolution. And some of those people are evolutionary biologists…

[Hittman]

It is quite possible, maybe even likely, that human beings don't have the intellectual capacity to understand some of the most fundamental facts of the universe.
On this we both agree. But yet with your admittedly limited knowledge you're willing to completely rule out the possibility of God being one of those fundamental facts? That makes no logical sense.

Why not? The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. No one has ever been able to support the claim that such a creature exists.

Completely rule out the possibility? Not really – if someone could prove it to me with real, actual evidence, I'd have to admit I was wrong. But so far, no one has been able to do that.

The concept of an all powerful god that is both benevolent and omniscient can be disproved by reading any daily newspaper. You can have a god who's benevolent. You can have one who's omniscient. But he can't be both, not in this world. If he were, he'd be guilty of criminally negligent homicide every time someone dies in a freak accident.

Assuming, of course, that you have a full comprehension of what constitutes benevolence and guilt from a universal perspective (which you've already admitted you don't). Not to mention the fact that you assume death is a bad thing.

Touche. I can only view it from a human perspective. (Although, that should be good enough if we're made in God's image.) If I allow an accident I could have prevented to happen, and someone dies as a result, I'm guilty of Criminally Negligent Homicide. Why should God be held to a lesser standard?

Kickass: Whatever.

I don't know who's feeding you your information but you need to stop relying on them as a source. Jesus never preached hatred (quite the opposite) or authoritarianism.

I stand corrected on the "born again," which I thought was more common in Paul's writings.

I guess we differ on the meaning of authoritarian. Demanding obedience is authoritarian. Threating to torture someone for etertnay if they don't believe in you and worship you is about as authoritarian as you can get.

As for rules and regulations, the only ones in the NT are those designed to help anyone willing to listen to live a spiritually healthy life (both now and for eternity).

Yeah, great rules. Hate gays. Don't wear jewelry. (1 Timothy 2:8-9) Don't have sex unless you're married, but don't get married (1 Corinthians, 7:27). If you are married, ignore your wife, because the end is so near. (1 Corinthians, 7:29). Women must be subordinate to men. People who sell their possessions and give the money to the church, but keep a little for themselves, should die. (Ananias.) Reject any science that disagrees with the church. (1 Timothy 6:20) Make women wear head coverings in church, and shave their heads if they don't. Believe in Christ, or our loving, benevolent Jehovah will allow you to be roasted and tortured in hell forever.

I think there are far better rules to live by. The Golden Rule is a good place to start, but it's hardly unique to christanity – it's simple common sense.

I guess that's the bottom line – I wish more people could apply common sense instead of demanding an authoritay (an imaginary one at that) tell them how to behave. Most of our basic rules (don't steal, keep your promises, don't kill, don't initiate violence, and so on) can be arrived at with the most basic common sense. There's no need for an IPU (or any other invisible creature) at all.

People keep asking why I haven't done the 'big' Intelligent Design vs. Creationism vs. Evolution issue on my show.

Mainly, because the science is so immense on this topic it shocks me when, even mildly intelligent people have any questions on this issue. I lump it in with the whole... "I think Satan put fossils on the earth to fool us..." crowd. But, I always forget that a lot of creative people put together the fairy tale of Intelligent Design 'Theory' to dredge this whole issue back up. I sometimes forget how persuasive their bulls*it is.

Kind of like speaking out against the idea the earth is flat. The "intelligent design" critters on that exact same level.

It's interesting to note that every time religion has arugued with science, they've been wrong. Every time! With a record like that, why would anyone pay any attention to religious ramblings on scientific issues?

[dcolanduno]

This is why I love science:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
This is an interesting article and theory. But it doesn't prove evolution any more than it proves ID.

<goes back and reads> Ummm, absolutely wrong. It is very strong evidence for how evolution operates. In no part of that study did they mention anything to do with an 'invisible intelligent force', or anything that pointed to 'design' over genetic mutation and error patterns.

It shocks me when intelligent people are able to ignore the gaping holes in the science and make statements like "the concept of [macro] Evolution is not in question" when there are a significant number of respected atheist scientists who would disagree with you.

Wrong again, there are no peer reviewed papers that support ID... but thousands, possibly over a million that strongly support the evolutionary process. It is a very big myth perpetuated by a lot of folks in the ID crowd that 'several respected scientists' believe that. But, it just isn't true. They rely on continuing to repeat that statement in an attempt to develop it as a truth. It's pretty far from the truth.

I'm not going to argue the point further for the reason I mentioned above. But for anyone who still maintains an open mind on the topic, there are plenty of non-religious books, papers, and articles you can Google that present the scientific evidence against macro evolution. Assuming, of course, that you're open to macro evolution being proven wrong...but isn't that openness, or objectivity, a critical part of the scientific process?

Don't try that slimy con-man trick. It's beneath you.

Science is open, but it is not open to the re-packaging of Creationism in a new silly name, "Intelligent Design".

The whole concept has been torn to shreds in the scientific community. But, people just want to keep saying cute things like; "If you are open, and objective." Guess what, tons of scientists already were, they have already shot the whole thing out of the sky with a thundering roar.

It's not even a debate anymore in the science community, it's come down to an obvious need to educate people on the facts.

Tip, there is NO SUCH THING as 'macro' and 'micro' evolution. That's a made up concept. Toss that one out with the trash, it's about as 'true' as spoon bending.

I'm sorry but, not going to allow people to continue to make people believe there is some form of legitimate debate about this. It is a concocted debate, some people got scared that creationism was losing ground, they made up a new, shiny sounding 'theory' and are trying to up-sell it.

They are doing a good job on the up-sell, but it still is just a bunch of drivel at the core. Please don't fall into the trap of believing an once of what those agenda driven, morally corrupt, con men, say.

Mind as well go and listen to JZ Knight, and the Ramtha folks, they do a great job of making their BS sound like science too... Actually, they might even do it better than the ID folks, and that's saying something.

[Ricky]

It's interesting to note that every time religion has arugued with science, they've been wrong. Every time! With a record like that, why would anyone pay any attention to religious ramblings on scientific issues?


And science (or rather the people who use science, scientists) has been wrong many times in the past. But it's funny how when it is wrong, it is never a religion who corrects it. It has always been scientists themselves who change science.

But one can not use this reasoning for future claims. Each claim, no matter where it is from, must be examined carefully. Who knows, maybe once religion will get it right.

Even a blind squirrel bumps into a nut once in a while.

[Hittman]

It's interesting to note that every time religion has arugued with science, they've been wrong. Every time! With a record like that, why would anyone pay any attention to religious ramblings on scientific issues?


And science (or rather the people who use science, scientists) has been wrong many times in the past. But it's funny how when it is wrong, it is never a religion who corrects it. It has always been scientists themselves who change science.

An exelent and very important point. Science is self-correcting. When an error is discovered, there's some debate and double and triple checking to be sure the new discovery is correct, and then all of science says "Hey, now we know better" almost overnight.

When was the last time that happened with any religious doctrine?

[kickasspodcast]

This is why I love science:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
This is an interesting article and theory. But it doesn't prove evolution any more than it proves ID.

<goes back and reads> Ummm, absolutely wrong. It is very strong evidence for how evolution operates. In no part of that study did they mention anything to do with an 'invisible intelligent force', or anything that pointed to 'design' over genetic mutation and error patterns.

It shocks me when intelligent people are able to ignore the gaping holes in the science and make statements like "the concept of [macro] Evolution is not in question" when there are a significant number of respected atheist scientists who would disagree with you.

Wrong again, there are no peer reviewed papers that support ID... but thousands, possibly over a million that strongly support the evolutionary process. It is a very big myth perpetuated by a lot of folks in the ID crowd that 'several respected scientists' believe that. But, it just isn't true. They rely on continuing to repeat that statement in an attempt to develop it as a truth. It's pretty far from the truth.

I'm not going to argue the point further for the reason I mentioned above. But for anyone who still maintains an open mind on the topic, there are plenty of non-religious books, papers, and articles you can Google that present the scientific evidence against macro evolution. Assuming, of course, that you're open to macro evolution being proven wrong...but isn't that openness, or objectivity, a critical part of the scientific process?

Don't try that slimy con-man trick. It's beneath you.

Science is open, but it is not open to the re-packaging of Creationism in a new silly name, "Intelligent Design".

The whole concept has been torn to shreds in the scientific community. But, people just want to keep saying cute things like; "If you are open, and objective." Guess what, tons of scientists already were, they have already shot the whole thing out of the sky with a thundering roar.

It's not even a debate anymore in the science community, it's come down to an obvious need to educate people on the facts.

Tip, there is NO SUCH THING as 'macro' and 'micro' evolution. That's a made up concept. Toss that one out with the trash, it's about as 'true' as spoon bending.

I'm sorry but, not going to allow people to continue to make people believe there is some form of legitimate debate about this. It is a concocted debate, some people got scared that creationism was losing ground, they made up a new, shiny sounding 'theory' and are trying to up-sell it.

They are doing a good job on the up-sell, but it still is just a bunch of drivel at the core. Please don't fall into the trap of believing an once of what those agenda driven, morally corrupt, con men, say.

Mind as well go and listen to JZ Knight, and the Ramtha folks, they do a great job of making their BS sound like science too... Actually, they might even do it better than the ID folks, and that's saying something.

What a joke man-

how can you possibly consider yourself scientific in any way?
You actually quote yourself and then say "Wrong again"? wtf does that mean? You are now arguing with yourself.

You all need to go read The Universe in a Nutshell by Hawking.
There Ricky is your 1 Peer Reviewed, somewhat notable published work that clearly states over and over again that the interaction between particles is tanamount to the interconnectivity of life. All life, action and energy is about particles interacting with other particles. The fact that each human life and the universe are connected and affect one another is illuded to in that book as well as countless other publications.


Skepticality-
I think its absolutely hilarous and hypocritical that you would create Audio Promotions for your show bashing Indie Podcasters and Bashing People who debate in forums while all the while you make yourself out to be "Indie" and you also debate rediculous topics on the forums. As if you "real" podcasters are above the very **** you are now slinging.

Maybe thats my scientific side talking- I dunno.
Seems pretty ironic you would create Promo's with Bob Taylor
making fun of people who debate on forums when you are
sitting here throwing feces around and acting as if you represent
Science because one of your Clients was the NTSB? WTF?
You do realize you said nothing scientific at all (as far as real information)
just more opinions.

I swear I f'ing hate people who pretend to have "THE answer" Religious or Scientific; both kinds are a pompass as it gets. Why be a hypocrite? Why pretend you know the answers to what the worlds greatest Physicists admittedly cannot even collectively begin to comprehend.

oh ya

Wrong again, there are no peer reviewed papers that support ID

Your lies don't help your case either- we all know this isn't true.
Can I name one?
Name me the 1,000,000 peer reviewed papers that strongly support the "evolutionary process" (whatever the hell you think that means).
You didnt say

...thousands, possibly over a million that strongly support evolution.


And there is probably a good reason you didn't- because it wouldn't be true would it?

Atheism = Nihilism
Blind Faith in God = Ignorance

Why don't you use any Science or data in the arguments you are making instead of saying things you expect us to believe?


I haven't claimed to know the answers on either side.
Just FYI-


Jack B.


***ADDED
I personally believe evolution "happened" but I would be naive to think that
anyone has actually "proved" this as a fact.

All in all it doesn't really matter, if you need "Proof" to believe everything you believe I feel very sorry for you as a person. At some point, life demands a bit of faith.

[dcolanduno]

Let us remind everyone that your co-host started this thread with this line:

OK. Let's keep the flaming to a minimum and respect each other here.

Funny that you were the first one to flame out of the gate... guess you don't play by your co-hosts rules.

So, lets then look at the first flame that you shoot out of left field... doesn't even have an OUNCE to do with what we are discussing.

Skepticality-
I think its absolutely hilarous and hypocritical that you would create Audio Promotions for your show bashing Indie Podcasters and Bashing People who debate in forums while all the while you make yourself out to be "Indie" and you also debate rediculous topics on the forums. As if you "real" podcasters are above the very **** you are now slinging.

That is what you have to resort to? Taking something that is CLEARLY a joke and trying to make it like I'm suddenly some 'hater' of all indie podcasting? Either you are kidding with this argument, or... I'm just baffled. Have you ever HEARD the Bud Light commercials we were using as our inspiration for those. They are toungue in cheek funny stuff. Wow, give me a break, I'm not sure what to say about someone that doesn't understand the basic concept of humor.

Seems pretty ironic you would create Promo's with Bob Taylor
making fun of people who debate on forums when you are
sitting here throwing feces around and acting as if you represent
Science because one of your Clients was the NTSB?

No, I pointed it out because the OTHER person pointed it out. READ before you respond... I even made it a point to say... "I didn't think this was a war over resume's."

I was POINTING out to someone else that it DIDN'T matter. Bitch at THEM for doing that not me, that's what I was doing. READ a thread before you respond... sheesh...

Wrong again, there are no peer reviewed papers that support ID... but thousands, possibly over a million that strongly support the evolutionary process.
You actually quote yourself and then say "Wrong again"? wtf does that mean? You are now arguing with yourself.

Again, read the thread, so the quoting system sucks on these systems... I think anyone that takes the time to go back and read the section of the post that came from, can easily see the comment Craig made that I was addressing. How grade-school can you get with that comment?



Wrong again, there are no peer reviewed papers that support ID .

Your lies don't help your case either- we all know this isn't true.


What lie? That is completely true. So, who is this 'all', they aren't people that pay attention to the science community. There have been maybe only four, maybe five 'notable' papers that ID folks point to. Four of which have been de-bunked. And the fifth... doesn't mention ID, or anything that supports the theory. Just points out some possible flaws in some of the elements of the DNA research being done. Doesn't even say that Evolution is incorrect, just some of the popular DNA evidence MIGHT not stand up.

So, where did I lie? Never have in this thread, not once.


Can I name one?
Name me the 1,000,000 peer reviewed papers that strongly support the "evolutionary process" (whatever the hell you think that means).

Did you seriously just say "Whatever the hell you think that means" come on man. Seriously come on... I think anyone that has made it through some basic classes on biology all know what we mean when we discuss the evolutionary process... what's your angle? Cause, none of this post made much sense so far.

Obviously you don't like me for some reason, and you are choosing a really bad tactic of attempting to make someone seem 'illogical' but... you can't do that by just stating it over and over... the only stuff you manage to talk about is your lack of understanding of the humor in some promos we made... and called me a liar on something that... Isn't a lie, and an attempt to make my arguement look 'stupid' by taking something out of context when anyone that has read the thread will understand.

Ok... so... you just asked if anyone could point to the possible millions of scientists and mountiains of peer-reviewed papers on the evidence of biological evolution? Seriously? I'm asking, because that was potentially the most comical statement of all time.

There are so many I wouldn't know where to begin, because there are hundreds of thousands! It's like asking me to point to all the papers that prove we are breathing oxygen. Which particular topic in biological evolution do you want a few hundred papers for?

You didnt say

...thousands, possibly over a million that strongly support the evolution.


And there is probably a good reason you didn't- because it wouldn't be true would it?

It would be true... I think you are splitting hairs, and in a really strange way.

Why don't you use any Science or data in the arguments you are making instead of saying things you expect us to believe?

As I said, I'm the only one that has provided data in this whole thread. Why don't you take your attacks and point them at all the people that HAVEN'T done it? Nope, you attack me... for no obvious reason, since half those arguements you started with were either useless attacks about your lack of the basic understanding of humor, or your inability to read and attacked me over something someone ELSE did... then you say that the burden of providing evidence is on MY shoulders only... even though, I'm the only one that has provided any.

And... we are talking about evolution here, one of the most widely accepted concepts in science. You make it like I am trying to convince you that the sky is green. Give me a break with that attitude. It is the folks that are arguing AGAINST evolution that have the convincing to do, and they haven't managed to make much of a breakthrough in the scientific community. They keep trying though.

I haven't claimed to know the answers on either side.
Just FYI-

I think by the fact alone that you decided to attack me in a pretty irrational, poorly thought out manner... you HAVE decided you have an answer of some sort.

[dcolanduno]

Here is a half-decent setup for this whole thing:

http://www-instruct.nmu.edu/biology/ALindsay/Evolution/Scott_Branch2003.pdf

It's even presented from an educational standpoint more than the pure science standpoint.

Start following the referenced works, they will lead you to more... and so on. That is probably one of the better, more easy to consume essays on the issue. I guess the first one was too complicated for some to be considered 'evidence' so I'll put up something with less science-speak in it.

[kickasspodcast]

OK-

What data did you provide other than to say that there is not 1 single peer reviewed paper that supports ID?
Which is itself speculation unless you are aware of all peer reviewed studies.
In fact it is somewhat cheap to act as if you get to decide what kind of studies should be considered for the creation of all existance. Its common among scientists to exlcude people and other ways of studying and doing things. You only eat "peer reviewed" cereal too?

As far as the promos and me not understanding humor- in the Beer Commercials they make fun of people who clearly deserve it, but in your version they don't? Or you are making fun of yourself? See why I am confused?
Several people I know have listened to them and been turned off.(Despite the phenominal production and quality) Maybe its because you say you are "Truth In Podcasting", maybe its because you go on and on speaking for the entire "scientific community" or making huge generalizations about the beliefs of the 'entire scientific community'.

To say that the evolutionary process and the overall subject of Evolution are the same is simply not true. If I am splitting hairs, I am sorry.
As far as calling you a liar-
maybe I was harsh- if you say something that is entirely not true you are called a ___________________?

A common objection to intelligent design theory is that intelligent design is not science, or at least it is "bad science" because papers advocating intelligent design are seldom found in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals. This article will attempt to discuss the objection, why are pro-intelligent design articles seldom found in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals.
Link to the rest:
http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/IDjournals.htm

If its not lying its being an *** about what kind of data you are willing to consider. Sorry.
Look I don't entirely agree with everything in that link or with the people behind the site, but I can say that its way too common for you Derek and other people who are "science minded" to dismiss alternate theories and explanations and then proceed to "set the record strait" as if you are the end all "record setting straiter guy", seriously MAN.


"I didn't think this was a war over resume's."

I dont think anyone thought of anything even close to a "war or resumes" but the guy who says the kinda thing like "war of resume's" usually is the guy who thinks he can win- its just been my experience- sorry if in this case its not true.


Again, read the thread, so the quoting system sucks on these systems...How grade-school can you get with that comment?

High School? I think the quoting system is just fine thank you!
Don't blame the Science of the system man- blame the user! ;)

You take this

Just points out some possible flaws in some of the elements of the DNA research being done.
Add it to this

When an error is discovered, there's some debate and double and triple checking to be sure the new discovery is correct, and then all of science says "Hey, now we know better" almost overnight

Wth?
Flaw = Error

And you are saying all the studies (4-5) are useless and have been debunked as if people aren't continuing to debate and re-calculate and
review and continue to search and be umm... Scientific.

You say Evolution is about as widely accepted as it gets- well wouldn't you agree it is also about as controversial as an issue could be. You "scientists" can so easily come across as egotistal when you readily dismiss all theories not in your realm of expertise, that is oftly convenient. Are you saying that
all cultural teachings of creation are entirely untrue and you are absolutely certain of that? How can you know that everyone else but you is wrong?
I don't believe I know the truth for certain.
I don't say that other people are wrong for disagreeing with the "mainstream" of any community- even if its the Science Community.

Hopefully this clarifies things- If you make well produced humorous promo's that make fun of yourself then fine- I just don't find that funny or I don't buy it.

You come across as if you have all the facts and can prove it all and you call everyone else stupid or ignorant by your actions and certainty- maybe it just rubbed me the wrong way.. Thats all...

And lastly- I don't dislike you Derek. I am sorry if I gave you that impression.

Jack B.

Why I get involved in Fosco's crazy threads...

[Dr. Mabuse]

What a joke man-

how can you possibly consider yourself scientific in any way?
You actually quote yourself and then say "Wrong again"? wtf does that mean? You are now arguing with yourself.

You all need to go read The Universe in a Nutshell by Hawking.
There Ricky is your 1 Peer Reviewed, somewhat notable published work that clearly states over and over again that the interaction between particles is tanamount to the interconnectivity of life.
Actually, you're wrong about this. "The Universe in a Nutshell" is not a peer-reviewd scientific paper. It's popular science litterature. And while most of what you read in that book have scientific background, it's not a scientific paper per-se. Not peer-reviewed.

Let's examine your paragraph again: "the interaction between particles is tanamount to the interconnectivity of life"
Does Hawking really write that in Universe in a Nutshell?
Please provide me with chapter and page-number and what edition you are reading so I can look it up myself.

All life, action and energy is about particles interacting with other particles.

That's is true.

The fact that each human life and the universe are connected and affect one another is illuded to in that book as well as countless other publications.

Aside from Universe is a Nutshell (which isn't strictly speaking peer-reviewed), what other publications are there?

Skepticality-
I think its absolutely hilarous and hypocritical that you would create Audio Promotions for your show bashing Indie Podcasters and Bashing People who debate in forums while all the while you make yourself out to be "Indie" and you also debate rediculous topics on the forums. As if you "real" podcasters are above the very **** you are now slinging.

Hey, I was one of the targets of one of those promos, as I'm often found debating politics on Skeptic Friends Network.
And I laughed my *ss off then I heard it.


Wrong again, there are no peer reviewed papers that support ID

Your lies don't help your case either- we all know this isn't true.
Can I name one?

I dare you to. Complete with references.


Name me the 1,000,000 peer reviewed papers that strongly support the "evolutionary process" (whatever the hell you think that means).

How about <almost any random paper> in Nature?
Try google for HERV, Human Endogenous Retro-Virus. Footprints of HERV in primate DNA is pretty much by itself conclusive evidence for evolution of all primates, including humans, from a common ancestor species.

***ADDED
I personally believe evolution "happened" but I would be naive to think that
anyone has actually "proved" this as a fact.

Skepticism and Critical thinking means that all conclusions are tentative. There is an objective truth out there, but since our knowledge is limited, we must concede to the fact that our knowledge will be subject to revisions as new evidence is gathered. "Proof" is an absolute concept, and as such, it belongs in Mathematics (and whiskey).
In physics and biology there is "evidence". And "a truckload of evidence". And in the case of evolution, even "an astoundingly overwhelming mass of evidence".

[Hittman]

I'm not sure what to say about someone that doesn't understand the basic concept of humor.

Have you seen any basic concepts that he has any understanding of? I have yet to see a single one. This boy is completely wrong about everything, and that's pretty rare. Which is why my only reply to him recently has been

Kickass: Whatever.

While sometimes it can be fun to poke at the village idiot with a stick, eventually you've got to fall back on the "teaching a pig to sing" rule.

Skepticism and Critical thinking means that all conclusions are tentative. There is an objective truth out there, but since our knowledge is limited, we must concede to the fact that our knowledge will be subject to revisions as new evidence is gathered. "Proof" is an absolute concept, and as such, it belongs in Mathematics (and whiskey).

Very well put.

Whenever anyone claims to have The Truth (and you can hear the capital letters when they say it) I put my hand on my wallet and back away slowly. Don't give me your truth. Give me the facts. Solid, real, verifiable facts as close to unvarnished as you can make them. Then I can figure out The Truth for myself.

[dcolanduno]

What data did you provide other than to say that there is not 1 single peer reviewed paper that supports ID?

You didn't read the whole thread did you? I've now provided more than one reference. And, you know what... all I really have to do is say that there isn't one peer reviewed paper that supports ID, and the argument is over. That IS how it works. when you are talking about science and proof. ID has attempted to find any proof for it's theory time and time again, every-time it has been shot down during critical review.

It is one thing to hold the belief that ID 'might' someday have the ability to even be considered a viable option. But, to say it has any scientific support is by far, untrue. ID is just a concocted idea, that still has no proof, or accepted discoveries that support it. Therefore it is an idea, no more supported than me just making up some idea about how we are all just an experiment being conducted by aliens from another galaxy. I can come up with a ton of great 'sounding' ideas about why that might be true, but, until I come up with some way to test the theory, and then verify that there is some evidence to support that. It is just an idea, not science.

ID is exactly that, an 'idea', that many hopeful anti-evolutioners believe is true. But, until they can actually find an example of a natural system that is too complex to explain by natural development. The whole thing is still just a big philosophical desire/hope/dream. Nothing, to date, supports the idea and wishing it, and believing the story because it 'sounds good', isn't healthy, it's foolish.

Many, many, successful medical treatments have arisen from much of the study and work performed in the analysis of evolutionary research. There was actually some hard-science researcher that went a little too far and has/had been advocating that when you check into a hospital you should have to check a box stating which version of human development you believe in. Then they would just exclude treatments that were developed directly or indirectly from the evidence they have discovered that ties to the Evolutionary process.

That's a bit harsh, but quite a few people think it would be a great way to prove the point. You'd have a lot of people dead from some pretty easy to treat illnesses if that happened.

I don't advocate that, but I think it does hit home a huge point.

Which is itself speculation unless you are aware of all peer reviewed studies.

It's not speculation, many, many, scientists have recently been pulled away from what could be life-saving, and other very important scientific work. JUST to fight against the current wave of propaganda the 'ID' crowd has unleashed. It is not speculation, it is a well documented fight to make sure that real science is kept out in front of agenda driven dogma, wrapped in a thin paper to disguise it as science.


In fact it is somewhat cheap to act as if you get to decide what kind of studies should be considered for the creation of all existance. Its common among scientists to exlcude people and other ways of studying and doing things. You only eat "peer reviewed" cereal too?

Actually, it isn't 'cheap' to exclude ideas that have no evidence, proof, or validity in science. It's required. Just because someone has a 'belief' doesn't give them any credibility when they try to pass that off as science. Science is by far and away more INCLUSIONARY than almost any group. You just have to have some foundation that can be tested, then you have to provide some proof or evidence that the test can either be met somehow. The latter is usually in the form of mathematics, since in many situations concepts can be accepted based on the validity of their possibility. String Theory is a perfect example of this, right now it's just math, and somewhat broken math. There is a pretty large contingent of folks that believe that they can solve the broken bit, as Einstein did with relativity, and others. But, there are also a large number of folks that look at the math and think there is something 'missing' in the logic.

THAT is a scientific debate.

Biological Evolution has had many, upon many, trials and tests that have built a mountain of evidence that support the concept.

Intelligent Design has weakly attempted this and has yet to succeed. It does, however, keep trying to use small detail arguments that DO occur in the cracks of the Evolutionary research to try to point out that Evolution is not 'certain'. Well, that is trumped up hogwash. Yes, there are very FINE points of Biological Evolution that are being studied, and while that happens, people test, and re-test. That is how science works.

But to take small points out of context and then hold them up to an un-educated crowd as 'proof' that even the scientists studing Evolution aren't 'certain' about the entire concept, is... propaganda.

Not to mention, even IF there were 2 or 3 papers that showed that we are off track with our current larger Evolutionary Concepts. It still provides ZERO support for Intelligent Design. Why? Because ID has had no success in proving or finding evidence to support it's claim. It's just a bunch of deep thought, and fairly bad deep thought at that. It is full of holes, once you step back and look at the idea.

They are just real good at the packaging.

As far as the promos and me not understanding humor- in the Beer Commercials they make fun of people who clearly deserve it, but in your version they don't? Or you are making fun of yourself? See why I am confused?

First off, why did attacking me for that belong in this thread? Second off, you are kidding right? Making fun of 'yourself' is what ALL great comedians do. Seriously, I don't see why you are confused.

Several people I know have listened to them and been turned off.(Despite the phenomenal production and quality) Maybe its because you say you are "Truth In Podcasting", maybe its because you go on and on speaking for the entire "scientific community" or making huge generalizations about the beliefs of the 'entire scientific community'.

First off... I don't know anyone that was 'turned off' by them, you would be the first if that were the case. I dare you to name them off... or, are ya gonna hide behind the old... "I know people, and I'm not gonna name them" gradeschool game? It's one thing to do that when you are making general claims, it's another when you are doing it to attack someone personally.

Secondly... Go peek into the 'scientific community' and ask them how they feel about the topics we have presented. I dare you. They are a lively bunch, and will give you feedback. We've had many members of the scientific community ON our show. And, we actually got turned down by one prominent member of the science community because we wouldn't let him get as nasty about the ID movement as he wanted to. You will find on many of the topics we talk about, we are sheep, the real scientists are usually so upset about topics like Intelligent Design we know of several of them that have just 'had enough'. I'm a pussycat put next to the fury that many of them have for this topic, and many others we discuss.

I GET my topics from scientists, astronomers, theorists, etc, etc. We talk about the stuff that is hot and being bantered about in the open channels among critical thinkers and scientists.

To say that the evolutionary process and the overall subject of Evolution are the same is simply not true. If I am splitting hairs, I am sorry.
As far as calling you a liar-
maybe I was harsh- if you say something that is entirely not true you are called a ___________________?

Since I didn't say anything that wasn't anything but true. You don't have to find any derogatory name for me. Sorry, but you just don't get to have that feeling of accomplishment on this topic.

A common objection to intelligent design theory is that intelligent design is not science, or at least it is "bad science" because papers advocating intelligent design are seldom found in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals. This article will attempt to discuss the objection, why are pro-intelligent design articles seldom found in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals.
[/i]Link to the rest: http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/IDjournals.htm

They try to get many of these reviewed, and they don't pan out. I could write several hundred books about how God is really a plate of meatballs and noodles. But unless it can pass through the scientific process it's still a bunch of ideas, no matter how good it might sound to the lay-person.

Take for example, Scientology. They tout a ton of 'researched' science in their work. But none of it passes the stink test in reviewed science. Just because it sounds good to a lot of people, and I mean A LOT of people. Doesn't make it science. And if science refuses to publish it, doesn't mean that they are 'scared' of anything, there is just no evidence to support the claim.

Look I don't entirely agree with everything in that link or with the people behind the site, but I can say that its way too common for you Derek and other people who are "science minded" to dismiss alternate theories and explanations and then proceed to "set the record strait" as if you are the end all "record setting straiter guy", seriously MAN.

Seriously MAN, science is about discovery. I'll lay cash that myself and millions of other scientists would actually PAY money to find or discover, or learn about something so mind spinningly cool as Intelligent Design, or any other crazy UFO, Big Foot, Psychic Phenomena type theory. I'm serious. Look at how excited science is right now about stuff like the String Theory, and some crazy planet-rock thing that many folks would have dismissed off-handedly before there was proof?

If someone came out and just stated the concepts of string theory without any mathematical evidence, or well documented and reviewed research. The science community would laugh at them, and not publish and ounce of their words. In fact, THAT HAPPENED. It took a long time for someone to finally get enough evidence of support together to even get the first paper through the door. And it was a bit of a struggle. Now a whole set of researchers has blossomed to figure out just how true, provable the concept is.

You have to understand the full claim of Intelligent Design. For it to be taken seriously, you have to have some evidence to support the claim. The only testable theory that is prevalent in ID is that biological organisms are too 'complex' to have developed from other organisms. They have tried to use different aspects of mutually developed organs as 'evidence'. Such as; The Eye, Flagellum, Cellular Growth, and the list goes on. Each time, when the evidence has been measured and studied, it was shown that it was completely possible for any of those organic parts to have evolved naturally and easily from other means. Essentially, something has to be found that could be pointed to as evidence. Until then, ID is a just a 'concept' being touted as real science.

It all might sound good on the surface, but to folks that do the research, it's just a bunch of bunk right now.

Think about it... if *you* were a scientist, wouldn't you want to be the first one to find something so complex in biology that it just flat out cannot be explained in any other way than a mechanical, or methodical influence? Seriously? I would. Then we could sit around and figure out WHO did it. Half would think it's God, the other half would think that it was then some previous race, or alien influence.

In any case, you'd win a Nobel Prize and a ton of recognition.

You make it like scientists have something to 'lose' over shooting down every concept that attempts to claim it is 'true'. No, they don't, but they certainly lose everything if they just publish stuff because a ton of people 'believe' it.

Science isn't science when it just gives up and allows something to be published as evidence and fact just because lots of un-informed people have bought into the propaganda.


"I didn't think this was a war over resume's."

I dont think anyone thought of anything even close to a "war or resumes" but the guy who says the kinda thing like "war of resume's" usually is the guy who thinks he can win- its just been my experience- sorry if in this case its not true.

You say Evolution is about as widely accepted as it gets- well wouldn't you agree it is also about as controversial as an issue could be. You "scientists" can so easily come across as egotistal when you readily dismiss all theories not in your realm of expertise, that is oftly convenient.

The controversy isn't due to scientists, it's been manufactured by the proponents of Intelligent Design, and other forms of Creationists. That doesn't mean scientists disagree. You are hard pressed to find anything but a few vocal fringe scientists that have come out in support of ID, and usually they have a money trail back to the pockets of folks like the Discovery Institute.

The people that are dismissing Intelligent Design ARE in the realm of expertise that ID suggests it has a theory for. The testable theory of ID is that there are examples of organic and biological elements that can only be explained by something 'developed' outside of the 'chaotic' course of nature. The folks that are dismissing the claims, are all seasoned research scientists that are well rooted in the concepts and arena of biology. So, it is a far stretch to say that; "You "scientists" can so easily come across as egotistal when you readily dismiss all theories not in your realm of expertise, that is oftly convenient." because, it IS scientist with more knowledge in how biological systems work than the entire staff of the Discovery Institute combined.

I don't know where you get your information, but jump out of the propaganda wing of the internet. People like controversy, but controversy is a far cry from anything resembling truth or logic.

Are you saying that all cultural teachings of creation are entirely untrue and you are absolutely certain of that?

ALL? Well, I am sure I don't know all of them. But I know several of them that have no evidence to support them. And until they do, what does it matter? I don't believe anything fantastic just because a ton of other people want to, or have been groomed to. There are several different ideas of religious creationism. Anyone that believes any one of them, is making a mistake. Since none of the ones I know of have yet to prove an ounce of their story.

How can you know that everyone else but you is wrong?

I don't, but I, and millions of scientists around the globe have a heap of evidence to support our theory. THAT is science.

I will stand firm and fight with all my vigor anyone that wishes to present completely unproven and unsubstantiated concepts and ideas as an 'equal' or 'alternative' to concepts and theories that have stood the test of thousands upon thousands of rigorous scientific study. Especially when people want to teach such propaganda and untruth to children, or other un-knowing, or easily manipulated people.

Intelligent Design is just an 'idea'. And if we were to teach other 'ideas' to people as of they were equal to science. You'd have to let in folks that have a bigger following for their ideas as well. Which would start to include the UFO/Alien interference crowd, the JZ Knight whackos, the Scientologists, and the list goes on. They all have just as much published material and as many or more followers as the hard core Intelligent Design crowd has.

The ID people just did one thing right... they wrapped up their idea in an easy to consume 'solution' for religious folks. So, what we have is a ton of religiously driven people, trying to push something that they say is 'science' and then when the scientists fight back... a ton of people cry; "But it is my belief, you can't dismiss my belief."

Guess what... yes, I can. Once they put their foot into the realm of science, and are attempting to PROVE a scientific idea. Then you have the right to be shot down. It is the risk that many, many, many, scientists take every year. Although, this time, when someone shoots ID down, they run back to their core religious base and cry 'foul' as if there is some conspiracy against religion in science. Guess what? There isn't. Science just wants some evidence that supports the hypothesis that ID presents. To date, it hasn't happened.

And papers, small evidence, and statement that attempt to somehow diminish evolution... don't support, bolster, or make more certain the concept of Intelligent Design, not even a little bit. Since it isn't an 'either/or' argument.

Even if you PROVED that our current concept of evolution was completely incorrect. Intelligent Design would STILL be just an unproven, unsubstantiated idea. And not worth teaching to anyone but the stalwart researchers that might be clinging to the hope that they will find the evidence they desperately desire.

I don't believe I know the truth for certain.

Well, you have to accept the facts that have been proven, and the supported evidence that has been uncovered. Or else you are just whistling in the wind. No scientist know the WHOLE truth about anything, it's an ongoing discovery process.

But it is a naive position to claim that you have to know 100% of a well established picture to understand what the picture is. Evolution provides an 88% complete 10,000 piece puzzle. You can CLEARLY see what the picture is of.

To say that, the folks that only present 10 completely un-related puzzle pieces, that might not even be of the same puzzle, and might not even be pieces, to that same 10,000 piece puzzle deserve the same treatment, or place at the table, is just naive.

I don't say that other people are wrong for disagreeing with the "mainstream" of any community- even if its the Science Community.

When they believe that any unsubstantiated idea should be counted as equal to a stack of well documented evidence... Yes, you can easily say they are wrong. It is one thing to have an idea you like the sound of. But that doesn't mean you just instantly get to say it is equal to well proven theory. No matter how much media attention or half-baked documentation you have people write for you.

Hopefully this clarifies things- If you make well produced humorous promo's that make fun of yourself then fine- I just don't find that funny or I don't buy it.

What don't you 'buy'? You sound a little bitter over an obviously very funny promo. Unless you think it was directed at you. And, anyone that found those promos 'offensive'... Let me know who you are, No one I know has skin that thin... and if they do, I am amazed they would last out in the real world. It sounds to me like a bunch of smoke blowing for effect.

You come across as if you have all the facts and can prove it all and you call everyone else stupid or ignorant by your actions and certainty- maybe it just rubbed me the wrong way.. Thats all...

Well, there are such a thing as FACTS. That's the problem these days. People don't like facts. CNN, FOX, all those 24hr. news channels keep ratings up by presenting 'both sides' to every story. MANY stories don't have 'two sides' there are FACTS in this world.

Problem is, people have been groomed to buy into the concept that you are just supposed to be able to dismiss facts and have an 'opinion' that contradicts the facts. And if you dare state the facts and try to show someone some of the truth behind a situation... you are somehow 'bad'. Sorry, I don't buy into that. It is not a bad thing to know historical, modern, or scientific truth. And it IS a bad thing to give 'opinions' and 'alternative concepts' equal footing and 'consideration' against well established facts. Our current media culture, is all about doing just that though.

Both sides of politics do it daily... Air America, Rush Limbaugh, FOX, CNN, etc, etc... you get ratings by arguing stuff and allowing the truth to be clouded. Otherwise, you'd have nothing interesting to discuss 70% of the time.

So, the stuff that deserves a debate? It gets lost. Why? Because usually it benefits no religion, company, or politician collectively.

Look at how hard the aid workers in many countries have to work that get no attention... all over Africa, Asia, etc, etc... hell even North Korea... it gets some random airplay about nukes, but no open discussion on the torture and concentration camps, the living conditions, etc. Why? Some would say that there is no Oil there, no political advantage, and no religious advantage. So, no one wants to touch it.

Instead, we have bullsh*t like Intelligent Design sucking down scientific, media, and governmental resources like a sponge. When, it's just a bunch of well constructed, easy to push aside concepts. Why? Religious AND Political advantage.

So, yea... I will do my best to promote the TRUTH about science. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I'm not spouting opinions here... this is all well established factual information about the way the scientific process works. The issue is that many, many, well organized people want the public to question it, as if there should be a debate.

Where, in scientific terms... Science is saying "2+2 = 4" and the other side is getting a TON of people to keep saying "2+2 = 6" without evidence or substantiation. But, because there are a ton of people saying it... "We must question it." No... we don't have to... the sky is blue, it isn't green today.

[kickasspodcast]

Wow

Hitttman

Dr. M

and

Derek

all completely devoid of fact.

If I have to explain to anyone that Quantum Physics studies how
particles interact and that all life and energy is made up of particles
I am afraid we cannot continue. The whole flock of Seagulls = Tidal Wave thingy nobody can quite seem to get their heads around.

Hittman can only slander me- what's new? He's call's me boy- ouch~


Dr. M.

Hey, I was one of the targets of one of those promos, as I'm often found debating politics on Skeptic Friends Network.
And I laughed my *ss off then I heard it.
Well since you are obviously neutral in all of this you opinion means even more. I mean its like an honest debate about Soccergirl with Hollywood Adam- ain't gonna happen.


All life, action and energy is about particles interacting with other particles.


This is the entire freakin point.

Look- I am tried of cocky know-it-alls trying to 'Set the Record Strait' and "Recalibrate my BS meter" and preach to me about "critical thinking" without actually saying anything at all. Don't you get it? When people try and act as if they are the ones with the truth or the answers it drives me up the wall. It doesn't matter if they are in Lab Coats or Clerics Robes- its the same pompacity that makes me want to puke.

We have Hittman trying to create an open and shut case to finally prove their is no God.

And we have Derek who is trying to "set the record strait" and claims to know the origin of all planetary existance-

And then we have Dr. M encouranging both of them on their rants to prove once and for all...Dude go find your own pages, paragraphs and studies- peer reviewed or otherwise- I.d.g.a.f. A true scientist doesn't try and come up with more facts to back up his theory- but tries to find ways to disprove it.

tired of arrogance in podcasting~

No setting my record strait, no recalibrating my bs meter- i'm all set guys.

After reading derek's last post- Its clear he thinks this is his show or something- sorry dude- i'm not interested in your agenda- Scientific or otherwise. The arrogance and smugness just shines man!


<pukes>








:roll:

Jack

[kickasspodcast]

So, yea... I will do my best to promote the TRUTH about science. And there is nothing wrong with that.


my point exactly

You claim to have the truth and you plan to promote it.

Just like the Catholic Church and Al Qaeda.

<pukes again>

just admit that you are pretty sure-
there is no way you or any other person to
know for sure.
This is the arrogance of Science
This is the arrogance of the Religion

Thats my whole freakin point Derek.

I am sure you love your Promo's I don't know why I even mentioned it-

***Added
Getting pretty weak when you have to Throw in North Korea, Air America & Rush Limbaugh into your "Scientific" argument.

<poke>

[spartacusroosevelt]

about how God is really a plate of meatballs and noodles
http://www.venganza.org/shirt100.jpg (http://www.venganza.org/)

[dcolanduno]

This is the arrogance of Science

So, tell me... how is it arrogant of science to stand behind its evidence, and ask others to just present evidence as well?

Nothing arrogant about that.

Not a single ounce of what I said was devoid of fact.

The part where science has proof and evidence that support Evolutionary Theory?

Check, that's completely true...

The fact that all the attempts that Intelligent Design has made to submit different organic elements as 'too complex for development' and yet they have been proven wrong?

Check, that's true...

The fact that science won't just publish ANY idea, an idea has to have some study, research, and evidence before it will be accepted?

Check, that's true...

Having a hard time finding where any of it was 'devoid of fact'.

If I have to explain to anyone that Quantum Physics studies how
particles interact and that all life and energy is made up of particles
I am afraid we cannot continue.

Umm... how is this relevant to the Evolution/ID discussion? And, did anyone here say that everything ISN'T made of particles? I'm trying to understand what your point is here...

Because something is made of particles doesn't suddenly give a ton of support to Intelligent Design...

Or maybe you are just having your own discussion over there. Because you certainly aren't involved in this one. Claiming that a simple, well established description of the Scientific Process is 'completely devoid of fact' is pretty wild.

What you are saying then is that you just dismiss the entire scientific process as 'false'.

So, how can you take part in a discussion about science, when you claim that the entire process of science is 'devoid of fact'. Tell that to the doctor next time he patches you up.

I'm serious... people have attached some 'arrogance' to science, as if just asking for proof is a bad thing. That isn't arrogance, it's just simple, plain, common sense.

[dcolanduno]

about how God is really a plate of meatballs and noodles
http://www.venganza.org/shirt100.jpg (http://www.venganza.org/)

Hahaha... oh thanks for reminding me about that picture...

[dcolanduno]

And we have Derek who is trying to "set the record strait" and claims to know the origin of all planetary existence

For the record... yea, you hit it on the head... I AM trying to set the record strait about a lot of FACTS that people believe are opinion, or that believe incorrect information about. THAT is what my show is about.

But, did I claim to know the origin of all planetary existence? Nope, but I know of some darn good well-established theories with a ton of evidence that make the picture a little clearer.

And, there hasn't been a real challenge made against any of those theories yet, especially by the Intelligent Design folks. Even IF they have made a lot of noise. Noise and chatter does not equal proof or evidence.

Why is that a foreign concept to people? It's pretty much grade-school Scientific Theory.

You can complain all you want about science and Evolution, you can try to put your agenda in the school system, you can try to force people to believe that your concept has merit all day long.

But science will fight all of that, until you focus more of your time finding proof and evidence to your claims. So far, the I.D. movement has been putting most of its money in public campaigns and developing papers, books, and propaganda to claim that what they say is a scientific 'theory'. Right now, that is far from the truth. It is still only a concept/hypothesis. Mostly philosophy, but not anything close to verifiable science.

Even the folks that run the Discovery Institute have gone on record stating that they have no evidence or proof, so they are focusing their time on finding small ways to make people doubt the theory of evolution.That isn't what scientists do, they usually will focus on their own theory, not focus on the dismantling of others.

Several internal documents for the group have been made public that clearly state that they are approaching their theory from a religious standpoint, and that any evidence, or rebuttal that does not line up with that philosophy, will be countered.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html

http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Wedge_document (with some dubious notes)

That's propaganda folks, not science.

[NateandDi]

Jesus H.Christ, people!


There's an argument of this nature and we weren't notified?!

Got back from a brief sabbatacle just minutes ago, and found a link to this wonderfully fun thread waiting for us in the email box.

Incredible! We'll chime in with our reply to the title of the topic in the morning...

[jimk]

When people try and act as if they are the ones with the truth or the answers it drives me up the wall.

Then why do you do it with such vitriol, disdain and personal attacks against those who disagree with you?

[Craig]

That Craig had a problem with evolution back when he was an atheist means nothing. His mentioning that is only a pitch to show that reasonable people can come to what he thinks is a reasonable conclusion. All it tells me is that Craig was not a critical thinker and had little grasp of science.
Actually, it means that part of my critical thinking process involves being willing to research and consider both sides of an argument. I come from a scientific background (my Dad was an industrial chemist and instilled a love for science in me at an early age) and I graduated from an very well-respected college that did a fine job of honing my critical thinking skills as well as my grasp of science. And despite my religious beliefs, I have no vested interest in evolution being true or false; my faith isn't dependent on it one way or another.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
http://www-instruct.nmu.edu/biology/ALindsay/Evolution/Scott_Branch2003.pdf
http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/IDjournals.htm
Try google for HERV, Human Endogenous Retro-Virus
Lots of interesting reading to follow up on here...thanks for the links.

Hate gays.
For the second time, Jesus never preached hatred. In fact, he was often chastised by the religious leaders of his time for talking to and spending time with the types of people they thought he should be hating.

Don't wear jewelry. (1 Timothy 2:8-9) Don't have sex unless you're married, but don't get married (1 Corinthians, 7:27). If you are married, ignore your wife, because the end is so near. (1 Corinthians, 7:29). Women must be subordinate to men. People who sell their possessions and give the money to the church, but keep a little for themselves, should die. (Ananias.) Reject any science that disagrees with the church. (1 Timothy 6:20) Make women wear head coverings in church, and shave their heads if they don't. Believe in Christ, or our loving, benevolent Jehovah will allow you to be roasted and tortured in hell forever.
The danger of pulling segments out of any written or spoken work at random is that you lose the surrounding context, which is exactly what you've done here in each case. (As well as describing several of them inaccurately in the first place.)

Anyway, I've contributed far more to this topic than I originally intended to (as indicated in my original post) so with a heavy work week ahead of me I'll just leave everyone to their debates. Play nice.

Craig

[GOD]

Just looking in on my creation...

[awaretek]

OK, that (is religion a crock of *?) is sort of the whole theme of my whole podcasts series, AwareTek. Listen to it and find out the answers! :shock:

Or, at least somne of the questions.

http://www.awaretek.com/podcasts/index.html

or subscribe http://www.awaretek.com/podcasts/index.xml

[jeffbearer]

GOD Wrote:
Just looking in on my creation...


The Internet??? Al Gore is God?? Great...

[Ricky]

The danger of pulling segments out of any written or spoken work at random is that you lose the surrounding context, which is exactly what you've done here in each case. (As well as describing several of them inaccurately in the first place.)

You say he has lost the surrounding context, yet don't point out how. So you're just going to say he is wrong, and leave it at that? Why not say why?

Don't you get it? When people try and act as if they are the ones with the truth or the answers it drives me up the wall. It doesn't matter if they are in Lab Coats or Clerics Robes- its the same pompacity that makes me want to puke.

Do you puke when you are told that gravity is a fact? Or how about when told that radio waves are traveling through your body every second of every day? Or that neutrinos pass through your body as well, then through the entire earth (most of them)?

The same thing which produced our ability to make cars, tv's, computers, planes, also produced evolution. Evolution is backed by just as much fact as any one of those, if not more.

Can evolution be wrong? Yes, all conclusions are tentative. If new evidence comes our way, we must reexamine the theory. But out of the millions of biologists who have worked on evolution over the past 100 years, why has none found such evidence which would make us question evolution?

Possibly because it doesn't exist?

[Kil]

Kil:
That Craig had a problem with evolution back when he was an atheist means nothing. His mentioning that is only a pitch to show that reasonable people can come to what he thinks is a reasonable conclusion. All it tells me is that Craig was not a critical thinker and had little grasp of science.
Craig:
Actually, it means that part of my critical thinking process involves being willing to research and consider both sides of an argument. I come from a scientific background (my Dad was an industrial chemist and instilled a love for science in me at an early age) and I graduated from an very well-respected college that did a fine job of honing my critical thinking skills as well as my grasp of science. And despite my religious beliefs, I have no vested interest in evolution being true or false; my faith isn't dependent on it one way or another.

Well, Hmmmm. I’m glad that you have no vested interest in evolution being true or false. As long as you are not pushing creationism (or the ID version of creationism) as a legitimate science that should be taught as science in public schools, I have no argument with you there. What I find odd is your use of the terms micro and macro evolution. Those terms are a creationist invention. Why on earth would an atheist, even one willing to consider both sides of an argument use terms invented by people who’s goal is to promote a literal reading of genesis? Forget ID. The micro macro baloney came from the minds of Henry Morris and Duan Gish and other new earth creationists. Their agenda, to this day, is to prove that evolution can’t happen (because the bible tells them so) and which (by their convoluted logic) would make “creation science� the winner by default. ID proponents suffer the same break down in logic.

All, and I mean all creationist “theory� rests on attacking certain particulars of science. Creationists have no theory of their own. So I am wondering how, after regarding the evidence on both sides of the issue, you came to the conclusion you did using critical thinking skills and your knowledge of science? How did creationist concepts and terminology get in there?
I may be wrong but this smells a bit fishy…

[Craig]

Let me quickly tie up a couple of loose ends.

What I find odd is your use of the terms micro and macro evolution.
I actually picked those terms up recently and was not aware of their origin. I had been using "inter-species" and "intra-species" for years, came across "micro" and "macro" in an online article somewhere and thought they were more succinct.

I may be wrong but this smells a bit fishy…
I don't know if you intended the humor here (Christian fish) but nice one if you did!

You say he has lost the surrounding context, yet don't point out how. So you're just going to say he is wrong, and leave it at that? Why not say why?
Because he's given the references that let people who really care research it on their own and because I don't think anyone here really cares, other than for the sake of sustaining an argument.

Craig

[Zecryphon]

What it basically boils down to is that all of this (the universe, human life, the ability of the body to heal itself, the ability to procreate, etc.) it's all an accident. And that's what the scientific community needs to believe. Because if there were an all powerful creator, with a plan for each of our lives, and a plan for our lives after we die, then people would actually be accountable for their lives and have to answer for what they've done.

Well no one wants to be held accountable for their actions or answer to anyone else for what they've done. So it's simple, remove God, remove judgement. Now whether or not they believe in God is immaterial, it doesn't matter. Because when they die they will have to face Him. Then how much proof are they gonna need.

And the notion that the Bible and God were man made concepts, that were invented by men to explain what we don't understand, well who the hell came up with science? Another thing I find amusing is how many sceintist would recant their findings under the threat of death. I know for a fact that Galileo, when threatened with death by the church, recanted his findings.
Granted it was an absolutely disgusting abuse of power by the church that ignored the teachings of God and Christ to pursue their own goals. But when threatened with death Jesus never recanted who His father was. So if He is willing to die for the statement that God is His father, that's all the proof I need for the existence of God.

What bothers me more than anything else in this particular thread is that the scientific community can't even agree on what it says. I've never seen more in-fighting and disagreement about what is scientific and what isn't, what makes good science and what doesn't.

As for the statement that religion is the basis for all wars, death etc. Let me say this, hatred, ignorance, misunderstanding and intolerance are the basis for all wars. The scientific community has certainly had a hand in the destruction of mankind. Remember the atomic bomb? Nuclear weapons? These are not the end results of faith in God.

As far as I'm concerned forget the debate on where you came from, worry more about where you're going. The choice is up to you. Believe or don't believe.

Zecryphon

[Ricky]

What I find odd is your use of the terms micro and macro evolution. Those terms are a creationist invention. ... The micro macro baloney came from the minds of Henry Morris and Duan Gish and other new earth creationists.

From Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html):

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist. Moreover Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition.[/url]

[Ricky]

What it basically boils down to is that all of this (the universe, human life, the ability of the body to heal itself, the ability to procreate, etc.) it's all an accident. And that's what the scientific community needs to believe. Because if there were an all powerful creator, with a plan for each of our lives, and a plan for our lives after we die, then people would actually be accountable for their lives and have to answer for what they've done.

Why can't we be held accountable for what we do in this life? Isn't that what the criminal system is all about?

And the scientific community doesn't need to believe anything about God. There are theistic scientists, and then there are atheistic scientists. Science says absolutely nothing about God. It doesn't say he doesn't exist, it doesn't say he does. All science says is that God is beyond the realm of science.

Well no one wants to be held accountable for their actions or answer to anyone else for what they've done. So it's simple, remove God, remove judgement. Now whether or not they believe in God is immaterial, it doesn't matter. Because when they die they will have to face Him. Then how much proof are they gonna need.

For every action, there are consequences. If I run my car into my garage, I now have to pay to get my car and garage fixed. This is a natural consequence, it always happens, there is no getting around it. Then there are criminal consequences. If I kill someone, I go to jail (if caught). Then there are moral consequences. If I embarrass a friend in public, I feel guilt.

You don't need God to be held responsible for what you do.

Another thing I find amusing is how many scientist would recant their findings under the threat of death. I know for a fact that Galileo, when threatened with death by the church, recanted his findings.

A foolish man is willing to die honorably for a cause, a wise man is willing to live humbly for one.

There are of course certain ideals that are worth dying for. Freedom is one of them. However, I think that dying for scientific progress is not one of them.

Granted it was an absolutely disgusting abuse of power by the church that ignored the teachings of God and Christ to pursue their own goals. But when threatened with death Jesus never recanted who His father was. So if He is willing to die for the statement that God is His father, that's all the proof I need for the existence of God.

Like I said, freedom is an ideal worth dying for. And what it basically boiled down to is that Jesus died for freedom of religion (or so the Bible says...).

What bothers me more than anything else in this particular thread is that the scientific community can't even agree on what it says. I've never seen more in-fighting and disagreement about what is scientific and what isn't, what makes good science and what doesn't.

That is what makes science so great! Not everyone agrees. The scientific community is constantly fighting, new hypothesis are continually being brought forth and then rejected. Scientists often have heated debates. New ideas are put through scrutiny. They are harshly questioned every step of the way. Very few ideas survive this process. One that has survived is evolution.

As for the statement that religion is the basis for all wars, death etc. Let me say this, hatred, ignorance, misunderstanding and intolerance are the basis for all wars. The scientific community has certainly had a hand in the destruction of mankind. Remember the atomic bomb? Nuclear weapons? These are not the end results of faith in God.

It isn't so much religion that is the basis for wars, but the people who use religion as an excuse to go to war.

As for science producing weapons, yes, it does. Science is a great tool and can get you almost anything you want. You want death and destruction? Science gives you atomic bombs, guns, cannons, grenades, and now lasers. You want to cure the sick? Science will give you medicine, a proper diet, antibiotics, pain relievers. You wanton to eliminate hunger? Science will provide the methods and technology for farming, as of late, hydroponics. You want to see whats in the depth of the oceans? Science provides you with the ability to compress oxygen, subs, remote controlled subs. You want to dance with the stars? Science gives you shuttles, space ships, probes, space stations, and more recently SpaceShipOne.

That is the power of science. But far more people have been helped by science than killed in all wars combined. I would not be alive today if doctors were not able to remove my appendix at age 7. Would you?

As far as I'm concerned forget the debate on where you came from, worry more about where you're going. The choice is up to you. Believe or don't believe.

The choice is up to you. But if you are going to go about believing in whatever you want, you have no right to force public schools to teach something you just want to believe in a science class.

[dcolanduno]

Here is something to lighten up the thread:

http://www.thewilsonshouse.com/guest/Ali_G_vs_Kent_Hovind.wmv


For reference... Kent Hovind, one of the 'guests' is one of the big creationist people.

[Hittman]

Hate gays.
For the second time, Jesus never preached hatred. In fact, he was often chastised by the religious leaders of his time for talking to and spending time with the types of people they thought he should be hating.

Romans says they are deserving of death. 1 Corinthians 6:9 says even being effeminate will keep you out of the kingdom of heaven. Does that sound like love, or hate?

Don't wear jewelry. (1 Timothy 2:8-9) Don't have sex unless you're married, but don't get married (1 Corinthians, 7:27). If you are married, ignore your wife, because the end is so near. (1 Corinthians, 7:29). Women must be subordinate to men. People who sell their possessions and give the money to the church, but keep a little for themselves, should die. (Ananias.) Reject any science that disagrees with the church. (1 Timothy 6:20) Make women wear head coverings in church, and shave their heads if they don't. Believe in Christ, or our loving, benevolent Jehovah will allow you to be roasted and tortured in hell forever.
The danger of pulling segments out of any written or spoken work at random is that you lose the surrounding context, which is exactly what you've done here in each case. (As well as describing several of them inaccurately in the first place.)

That's a cop out, Craig. Nothing was taken out of context – heck, I've even supplied the scriptures for most of them, so anyone interested enough can check out the context for themselves.

What it basically boils down to is that all of this (the universe, human life, the ability of the body to heal itself, the ability to procreate, etc.) it's all an accident. And that's what the scientific community needs to believe. Because if there were an all powerful creator, with a plan for each of our lives, and a plan for our lives after we die, then people would actually be accountable for their lives and have to answer for what they've done.

Ah, yes, the old Scientists Want to Be Evil Argument. How can anyone be simple enough to believe this?

I don't believe in a sky-daddy, and that makes me MORE acounatable for my life, and having to answer for what I've done. I can't blame it on the devil. I can't blame it on sin. I have to take the blame, all of it, myself.

What bothers me more than anything else in this particular thread is that the scientific community can't even agree on what it says. I've never seen more in-fighting and disagreement about what is scientific and what isn't, what makes good science and what doesn't.

Then you're ignorant of science.

First off, there is no disagreement about what makes good science and what doesn't. None. There is complete agreement among real scientists as to what it takes for something to be proven.

When new ideas are presented, they are debated rigorously, attacked even, in an attempt to find any flaws in them. If flaws are found, more science is conducted. If they are not, the new idea is worked on until it can be proven.

The only debate about evolution is finer and finer details being discussed. No real scientist is arguing if it happened or not. The evidence is too overwhelming for that.

As for science and war, never ever forget that 9/11 was caused by a belief in God.

And the scientific community doesn't need to believe anything about God. There are theistic scientists, and then there are atheistic scientists. Science says absolutely nothing about God. It doesn't say he doesn't exist, it doesn't say he does. All science says is that God is beyond the realm of science.

The coolest job I ever had was a two year contract supporting the scientist and engineers at GE's biggest R&D facility in the US. These were some of the most brilliant minds, not just in this country, but in the entire world. They imported people from all over the globe, and it was not uncommon to hear four or five people discussing something in four or five different, thick accents.

I wasn't unprofessional enough to bring up the subject of religion, but with simple observation it was pretty easy to tell who was religious and who wasn't by they way they adorned their offices and work spaces. There were fewer religious displays than you'd find in most workplaces, and none of them were ostentatious, but they were there. It was obvious that some of them believed in God. A smaller percentage than the general population, perhaps, but the evidence was there.

You're right, science deals with what can be proven, nothing more, nothing less. God isn't even a consideration for science. If someone could come up with scientific proof indicating his existence, then it would. But that hasn't happened in a few millennia, so scientists, instead, continue to direct their efforts at understating reality.

[kickasspodcast]

OK-

Let me just say again that I totally believe in both Natural Selection
and Evolution. I also consider myself a somewhat spiritual person.

I am not trying in any way to argue for ID or against Evolution.

I am merely saying that to act as if one can be absolutely certain either
way is arrogant. It is common in both Religious and Scientific communities.

If anyone is trying to convince me that Evolution happend or that ID is incorrect- you can stop wasting your time. I got involved in this thread
in regards to Quantum Physics- a favorite subject of mine because it is
one that no individual can fully (begin) to understand. It is to me the
scientific equivilant of the "meaning of life". That's just my take on it.

There was debate that Quantum Physics may or may not have anything
to do with Evolution. I argued that at some point the two overlap. Some
people argued otherwise.

I continued the conversation extensively with Derek because I felt he
came across with a certainty that was bullish and naive. Some people
may disagree with my interpretation- some may not. Hittman and Dr. M.
chime in still trying bolster the case for "No God" or "Evolution = Fact".
That was disapointing to me because I do not take issue with the evidence
they present. I do however recognize that there is no way to know for sure
how we and our Earth came about. Evolution does not only refer to what would fall under Darwinian Evolution- but it also includes the Evolution
of our planet, galaxy, and universe.

If you guys disagree and do not think that Derek was a bit brazen in
acting as if he is 100% correct and should repeatedly speak for the "entire
scientific community"; that is your own interpretation.
But I have general disdain for any group of people
or persons who summarily dismiss other points of views because they
believe they are the ones with the truth. And then his
outright statement of saying "yeah I have the truth and I plan to spread it..." well thats cool, I mean its a free country (or was), but you can't
expect people to think that is any different than someone doing it
from a religious point of view. It also seems reasonable that there
would be people who find that claim of having the truth to be
egotistical.

This was a great way for this whole discussion to get sidetracked.

Each person has to figure out for themselves what works- what makes
them happy. Perception is the only reality. I am still suprised that
so many Westerners act as if they they are solely responsible for their
religious views- I mean it has alot to do with how and where you were
raised etc.

As for faith- that is the real issue, Faith.

IF you have faith in youself, a belief that you can do something you may
have never done, maybe never attempted, that manifestation of confidence- your faith in yourself is as intangible as a man's faith in
God would be considered to be intangible. This is about as close to a
quick demonstration on where to locate or identify faith.

I understand its not an arguement about weather or not Faith exists- of
course it does, but to a Spiritual or Religious person, Faith is one of God's
graces upon you. And that is all there is to it.

I was raised protestant, very openminded (liberal parents), I always
questioned and challenged- I also grew up in the Belt Buckle of the
Bible belt where religious conversations would get pretty heated
among different groups.

To each his own.

Evolution did happen-
but it cannot be considered to be as concrete of a fact as Gravity. That
kind of presumtion is why I took issue with Derek in the 1st place.

Good to see my Craft Beer Radio in the forums!
The Saison show rocked! I like the way you guys
are evolving, very good stuff.


Everyone else- Take Care-
We are releasing 3 shows in the next 3 days!

Jack B.

****ADDED
Any scientific claims I make in this post are purely the culmination of my own experience and manifested here as my written opinion.
By saying "Evolution did happen-" I mean "I think Evolution Did Happen-"
Had to add this, thanks.
**********

[Ricky]

Evolution did happen-
but it cannot be considered to be as concrete of a fact as Gravity.

Not so:

The theory of Gravity is becoming a complex one. String theory predicts the existence of gravitons, and I think (but am not certain) that Special Relativity does too. However we have yet to detect them. The theory of gravity has been changing, mostly with the work done by Einstein. It may change radically again in 2007, when the particle accelerator which should be able to detect gravitons will be completed. However, the fact that gravity happens is as solid of a fact as any.

Evolution is a very complex theory and it describes many things. It is constantly changing when new evidence is presented. When new fossils are found, old time lines are abandoned and new ones are made. However, the fact that evolution has happened is as solid of a fact as any.

Evidence from independent fields: astronomy, biology, geology, all agree on this. We can see gradual changes happening in the fossil record (although some are less gradual, remember gradual is a relative term), and we can see small changes still happening today. What more do you want?

[volwrath]

Science is T0+

God/religion is T0-

edit: I should add IMO

[Kil]

What I find odd is your use of the terms micro and macro evolution. Those terms are a creationist invention. ... The micro macro baloney came from the minds of Henry Morris and Duan Gish and other new earth creationists.

From Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html):

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist. Moreover Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition.[/url]
Huh. Well I’ll be horn swoggled… Never the less, the creationist use of these terms is dishonest…

[Dr. Mabuse]

Wow

Hitttman

Dr. M

and

Derek

all completely devoid of fact.

Wow... what kind of cognitive filter do you use? Morton's Demon?

You read the words I've written, but you don't seem to understand what the words mean.
FACT: Steven Hawking's book "The Universe in a Nutshell" is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

If I have to explain to anyone that Quantum Physics studies how
particles interact and that all life and energy is made up of particles
I am afraid we cannot continue.

You said that Hawking wrote (paraphrased?) "the interaction between particles is tanamount to the interconnectivity of life"

I object to your wording "interconnectivity of life". I want to know what you mean by that.
There is no dabate that Quantum mechanics is about particles, and energy, and how they interact with eachother.

Life is a chemical and electrical process, governed by the laws of thermodynamics. There is no interconnections between different life-processes, other than it braches off. Put them at enough distance from eachother, and they will have no interaction what so ever. That is the extent of life's relation to quantum mechanics.

The whole flock of Seagulls = Tidal Wave thingy nobody can quite seem to get their heads around.

You will need to explain what you mean with that, because to me it doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting that the seemingly random behaviour in a flock of birds are just that: random?


All life, action and energy is about particles interacting with other particles.

This is the entire freakin point.

I don't understand what you get so worked up about...
Life is a process that depends on energy. That we seem to agree to.
But Quantum mechanics is a different level of abstraction. There is to my knowledge nothing that suggest that knowledge of QM is going to give us any clues about life. Just as you don't have to know how a transistor works in order to write software on a computer.

Look- I am tried of cocky know-it-alls trying to 'Set the Record Strait' and "Recalibrate my BS meter" and preach to me about "critical thinking" without actually saying anything at all.

Critical thinking is a tool to evaluate the validity of claims of fact.
It's used to separate knowledge and truth from bullshit. If you are not interested in learning/utilizing critical thinking, then you will not be able to tell them apart. Where you go from here is entirely up to you.



<pukes>

:roll:

Jack

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Craig]

And what it basically boiled down to is that Jesus died for freedom of religion (or so the Bible says...).
No it doesn't. The reason the religious leaders of the time had for wanting him dead may have been for what he was preaching, but he didn't die for the right to express it. What the Bible says is that he died to reconcile man to God; it was his death itself (and subsequent resurrection), not the motivations behind it, that was important (and the whole reason for his being on earth in the first place). As both God and man, his death paid the price for the sins of all those who choose to follow him, and erased the divide that had existed between man and God since the days of Adam.

Whether you believe that to be truth, nonsense, or something worth looking into isn't the point here...I'm just responding to the statement, "or so the Bible says."

Craig

[Dr. Mabuse]

Here is something to lighten up the thread:

http://www.thewilsonshouse.com/guest/Ali_G_vs_Kent_Hovind.wmv


For reference... Kent Hovind, one of the 'guests' is one of the big creationist people.
Oh, MAN! That is precsious!

Thanks for a good laugh! Kent Hovind is really more a clown than anything else.

[dcolanduno]

I continued the conversation extensively with Derek because I felt he came across with a certainty that was bullish and naive.

If you guys disagree and do not think that Derek was a bit brazen in
acting as if he is 100% correct and should repeatedly speak for the "entire
scientific community"; that is your own interpretation.
But I have general disdain for any group of people
or persons who summarily dismiss other points of views because they
believe they are the ones with the truth. And then his
outright statement of saying "yeah I have the truth and I plan to spread it..." well thats cool, I mean its a free country (or was), but you can't
expect people to think that is any different than someone doing it
from a religious point of view. It also seems reasonable that there
would be people who find that claim of having the truth to be
egotistical.

<blink>

No, THATS bullshit... You just refuse to read entire posts, but I kept pointing that out for people that are smart enough not to believe your arrogance. Look, all your arguments stemmed from personal attacks. Everything I said was plan and simple facts about HOW the scientific process works, and information that is 100% true about the current state of the I.D. / Evolution debate.

YOU were the only bullish bastard that said crap like; "you are completely devoid of fact" when the entire post you said that about was ONLY facts, not opinions. THAT is bullish, brash, and egotistical.

What you want to do is create that age-old bullshit 'there are two sides to every story' garbage about things that are simple fact. The manner in which the scientific process works is a fact. It is a fact that the I.D folks haven't yet had a successful test of their hypothesis is a fact.

Were you like this in school too? When someone says they KNOW that 2+2=4, or that the first president was George Washington do you call them 'bullish and naive'? So, if people that didn't know American history were in here arguing over if Washington or Jefferson was the first president. The first person to stand up and say... "Ok, here is how the history ACTUALLY was." and provided the links so they could LEARN... that guy would be an *****le in your book?

Simple fact is simple fact. It is in NO WAY naive to know facts. It *IS* naive to argue with them. Is is even WORSE to knowingly allow people to accept a distorted fact. ESPECIALLY one like the Intelligent Design 'debate' because it has been foisted into the public eye as if there *IS* a debate among the general scientific community. There isn't, and yes, some magazines and news outlets will allow anyone with a fancy 'science' sounding name say that they are 'for' I.D. because it makes good news. But in all those cases, those are NOT main stream scientists. It is a fake 'debate', which is why the science community not not show up to the Kansas debates. They were attempting to demonstrate that there was no debate.

The outcome of allowing people to just casually believe the propaganda and bullshit of the Intelligent Deign con-men is that our children, the children of the U.S. will slip even FURTHER behind in science than we already have in the world. We will be teaching non-science AS science, and that is just plain unacceptable if we wish to remain a viable workforce in the advancement of science. You let one issue like this slip through, and it's the precedent for the next line of BS to be pushed into the classroom.

What makes it worse, is when people like you spend more time feeling like someone has offended you personally for showing you some facts and issues you might not have known, rather than being interested in learning.

I never ONCE talked down to anyone personally in this thread, until you had to post a ton of ONLY personal attacks about me that had nothing to do with the discussion at all.

But now we know what your problem is... you just flat out hate to learn new things from other people. That makes you feel all bad inside, so you must lash out and call them 'naive' for knowing a little bit about something you might not have known.

Well, everyone can learn something from everyone else, *I* know that, that is why I like science. If you went around feeling that everyone with something to show you was a 'naive' bastard in the science community, you would run out of friends real fast. I let those people tell me stuff all the time, and they are a heck of a lot more firm and convicted in their knowledge than I am. Not once have I been offended, or thought someone was 'naive' for educating me on something I didn't know about, or had wrong facts/information about.

I actually ENJOY learning about things I don't know, and having people point things out to me that I didn't know before. I'm not going to be made to feel, or look, like an *****le for just stating simple facts on a subject, just because some people want the world to ALWAYS be full of false opinions. Or, because they want some fuzzy wild place where EVERYTHING is up for the Devils Advocate arguement. Because, in many cases, bad 'opinions' are formed from not having the facts.

Trouble is, in todays world, we have been taught to just let that slide, and to 'respect' it when people are completely misinformed.

I don't respect anyone that believes that people should just be left to wallow in uneducated naivety. YES there are real issues that you can have an 'opinion' about, politics and your own personal opinion of spiritual matters are two good examples.

But, in this matter, all I have been pointing out *IS* the facts that many people don't know, or misunderstand when they hear, or see this Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate on T.V. or in periodicals such as TIME magazine. Those guys are looking for a 'story'. And even when they try their ****edest to seem 'fair' they fall on their face.

Take for example the recent TIME article. They had a section where they interviewed four people that were 'for' and 'against' Intelligent Design. Of course, they had it be two people for and two people against.

Well, statistically in the scientific community, you would have all four be in favor of Evolution. Why? Because you will probably find less than 1% of working scientists, believe or give credit to Intelligent Design. So, in a group of four, you would have all four likely be pro-evolution.

Ok, that doesn't make a good story.

So, I understand the need to toss in Albert Mohler. That guy is the best of the worst... well, there still is Kent H., but I digress. For the record Albert is a self professed 'young earth' guy. He thinks we all just popped up 6,000 years ago. AND he has a whole library of 'papers' to prove it. See why just having a stack of people agree with you doesn't make you any more 'legit'?

In any case, the SECOND guy they dig up for the TIME article is a familiar face; Michael Behe. He is a great one for CNN, FOX, and people like TIME. He makes their article look 'fair'. He has a title: "Biochemistry professor Lehigh University. Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute".

MOST people will see that and say... "Whoa, a SCIENTIST that believes in Intelligent Design, there MUST be a real debate here."

Nope.

See, most people don't realize that good old Michael is a paid fellow of the Discovery Institute. "Well, it said he was a senior fellow RIGHT in his title." you might say. Unfortunately for him, and others... that was a real clever name for the group that has been soliciting millions of dollars since 1999 to promote Intelligent Design. The fellows are PAID members.

So, even with his fancy 'biochemistry professor' title, the man is paid to say I.D. is great.

So, again... the media has made this whole argument look 'balanced'. Well, it is NOT a balanced argument, or a debate in science. The only 'debate' in the science community is how to do damage control on the perception of the rest of the country. Evolution is one of the cornerstones of modern science. It has proved out to be a solid well-developed theory. YES there are some SMALL details about it that scientists are still figuring out. But, they are also doing that with Gravity... and we still launch space shuttles and fly from place to place on our developed knowledge of that theory. We have done the same with the study of biological evolution in the field of medicine. If we were so completely, or even 'mildly' incorrect about the fundamentals of Evolution as the I.D. crowd claims, we wouldn't have MANY modern medical cures and marvels. It is that simple, and that is a fact that just cannot be denied or made into an 'opinion' argument.

And NO those medical breakthroughs were not based on the misconception of 'micro' and 'macro' evolution as the ID folks like to claim. Because, there is no such thing. It sounds good in simple-speak. But, when you fully understand the science behind evolution, there is no 'macro' or 'micro' evolution. It happens, or it doesn't.

Evolution does not only refer to what would fall under Darwinian Evolution- but it also includes the Evolution
of our planet, galaxy, and universe.

We do have a pretty intense knowledge about how planets are formed. And it didn't happen in some esoteric 'unknown' spiritual way. We have a pretty decent idea of how galaxies came to be, based on other fundamental knowledge. And the universe? There are a ton of very good scientific theories on that, with a lot of solid math to back many different concepts up. You make is sound like scientists are just all sitting around going... "Well, you could say a giant interdimentional dog could have coughed up the universe, and we are just all sitting in his hairball."

Yes, there are a ton of unknowns in that aspect of science, but... sorry, it isn't as simple as you saying... "Shut up for even saying that science knows ANYTHING on this topic." and have people just go... "Oh, okay, we know nothing about that..."

We know quite a bit about it, compared to... lets say... a spiritual guess.

in regards to Quantum Physics- a favorite subject of mine because it is one that no individual can fully (begin) to understand. It is to me the scientific equivilant of the "meaning of life". That's just my take on it.

So, when they finally finish the math on Quantum Physics. We know the meaning of life? Because, they will, at some point finally get the answer. The proponents of String Theory think they are close. You DO realize that many people felt the same way you do about the Unified Theory, (Electromagnetism and Gravity). Of course, once that was solved, and someone mentioned 'Quantum' they all got excited and had a new one to point at.

It *is* naive to hang your hat on any one aspect of science and claim that we will never fully understand. We HAVE begun to understand many aspects of Quantum Physics. And currently it *is* the physicists holy grail. But, humans, in the past, have proven time and time again that we figure these things out. In the end, we always have.

Remember, 40% of the scientific community stood FIRM on the fact that man could NEVER break the sound barrier. They believed that it was impossible. Not because they they 'knew', but because they felt that we had only 'begun' to understand the effects. Some radical theorists, similar to the string theory folks said... "We believe we are so close to accurate that this will work.".

See, all throughout time science has been just **** cool that way. It's an adventure. And enjoying the new frontiers of science is a hell of a lot more fun than most things I know of.

BUT to believe that science is 'arrogant' when it does have facts, and theories tied up, or to take a small kernel of unknown and then use that as your rationale for saying scientists are just all a bunch of arrogant ***-holes for saying they KNOW anything. Is just a massive distortion of reality.

And then to hate anyone, as much as you obviously do, that tries to educate people on knowledge that is not made available in most media outlets. Is just one of the many reasons why, as you stated before, our country has been slipping away from freedom.

People have been groomed and told too many times that knowledge and the teaching of factual information is 'arrogant', 'bullish', and 'naive'.

That attitude has been working real well for society hasn't it?[/quote]

[Zecryphon]

There is one more question I would like an answer to. Science seems to be able to answer the other questions like, how we got here, where we came from etc. My question is why are we here? What's the purpose of living life on this earth?

I know the answer to this question for myself, but since my "truth" comes from the Bible which is written by men it somehow is invalid. The scientific community is made up largely of men, but these men are somehow more believable than the men I choose to belive.

Oh and another question. Have any of you scientists on this forum ever read the Bible with an open mind? But since you can't accept the first four words of the Bible, I doubt it. If there is no God, and science can explain everything that has happened; why can't science reproduce what has happened? Why hasn't science recreated the big bang? Why haven't you created your own universes, planets, life forms etc?

The thing that gets me is that alot of the scientists you guys admire, Darwin and Einstein in particular, believed in God. I'd be very careful about setting out to prove that there is no God. C.S. Lewis set out to do that very thing, when all the facts were in, and all the research had been done, he not only came to believe that there was a God, but that Jesus Christ was in fact His son. He went on to become the best selling Christian writer of all time. That honor may soon go to Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye if it hasn't already.

[podx]

Im having talks with satan and god and trying to get them to stop all this ancient nonsense. Both of them should be ashamed! Acting like children all these years lol!


Why can't they get a long like christians and muslims?????

[Ricky]

There is one more question I would like an answer to. Science seems to be able to answer the other questions like, how we got here, where we came from etc. My question is why are we here? What's the purpose of living life on this earth?

One thing science does not answer is why. Why do two hydrogen atoms bond to one oxygen atom? Science can tell you how it does it, because of the electrons and a property elements known as covalent bonds, but it can not tell you why. Why is there gravity? Science can tell you how gravity works by bending a fourth dimension, but there is no answer to why we have gravity.

I know the answer to this question for myself, but since my "truth" comes from the Bible which is written by men it somehow is invalid. The scientific community is made up largely of men, but these men are somehow more believable than the men I choose to believe.

I would say there is no correct answer here. My answer is that we are given the power to choose our destiny, to make our own path, and create our own purpose for being here.

But my answer is no better than any other. If you want your purpose to be praising God, there is nothing wrong with that. I personally think that it is a waste of time, but again, that is just me because I don't have that belief.

One answer that is often overlooked is that there is no purpose.


Oh and another question. Have any of you scientists on this forum ever read the Bible with an open mind?

First of all, I can't speak for others here, but I am not a scientist. I just have a love for science. No, I have not read the Bible cover to cover. I have tried, but failed getting all the way through Genesis. I decided I should know what it says, but after a little while I discovered that it was a waste of time. I'd rather be reading science articles and actually learning.

If there is no God, and science can explain everything that has happened; why can't science reproduce what has happened? Why hasn't science recreated the big bang? Why haven't you created your own universes, planets, life forms etc?

Science can't explain everything that has happened. That is why we still have scientists! But as to why we can't recreate the Big Bang, it is mostly because the expansion of space. We have no known way of condensing space itself. We can condense matter by putting pressure on it, sure, but space? How do you make space smaller?

No one knows if there is even a way.

We are working right now on creating life, abiogenesis. As for planets, it really isn't practical right now, as we have 8 perfectly good ones. But aside from that, it would be extremely difficult to make a planet. You would have to get millions of rockets, place them on different pieces of asteroids, and make them all come together. That is pretty much all a planet is. But why would we ever do that? As for creating a universe, we still don't know a hell of a lot about the big bang, about how our universe was created. Some think that we may never know. But only time will tell.

The thing that gets me is that a lot of the scientists you guys admire, Darwin and Einstein in particular, believed in God. I'd be very careful about setting out to prove that there is no God. C.S. Lewis set out to do that very thing, when all the facts were in, and all the research had been done, he not only came to believe that there was a God, but that Jesus Christ was in fact His son. He went on to become the best selling Christian writer of all time. That honor may soon go to Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye if it hasn't already.

Yes, there are theistic scientists. Some of our greatest minds have been. That is no problem to science. The only problem is why you don't allow people to peruse science because of what a religious book says.

As for proving that god doesn't exist, it is not possible to prove a negative. You can't show the non-existence of something, whether it be invisible pink unicorns (IPU) or little green men, or a dragon in my garage.

[dcolanduno]

There is one more question I would like an answer to. Science seems to be able to answer the other questions like, how we got here, where we came from etc. My question is why are we here? What's the purpose of living life on this earth?

I love snide off-topic, "I won't address the facts" comments like this. Makes me all happy inside.

Those questions aren't in the sphere of science, since those, even if there was an answer, would have to be different for each person. Since, they aren't 'facts', they are fulfillment issues. *If* there is a purpose for people to be here, do you think it would be the same for all of us? And, *if* there was a purpose for living on this Earth... do you think you would know it already? Or, do you think that it is obfuscated or hidden? Because, if I created a bunch of free-thinking organisms to serve a purpose, I'd **** well let them know what it was.

But that is just me. And since those questions aren't anything to do with the physical universe, which science plays in. They have no connection to wether or not science is wrong about Evolution. ;)

I know the answer to this question for myself, but since my "truth" comes from the Bible which is written by men it somehow is invalid. The scientific community is made up largely of men, but these men are somehow more believable than the men I choose to belive.

You do know the answer? Because... I have yet to meet, in person, even the most devout minister, priest, or church leader that claims to know the meaning to life and why we are here. They leave that to God, and claim no ego so great as to know what God's plan and true ultimate meaning is.

You make it as if the science of the physical world somehow conflicts with a connection you have to the spiritual. That might be the problem. If your faith is something that you feel can be broken by the discoveries of undeniable facts in the physical world. Then you might want to re-think your tethers of belief.

If learning the facts about how the biological processes of the planet operates threatens your version of spirituality. Then, you might want to re-think how you believe within yourself. That is the equivalent of my Great Grandmother, who until the day she died claimed the Dinosaur Bones were put here by Satan.

Well, in that regard she was a fool, and had a tragic lack of solid faith.

Oh and another question. Have any of you scientists on this forum ever read the Bible with an open mind? But since you can't accept the first four words of the Bible, I doubt it.

I probably have read more versions of the Bible than you have, and of many different faiths. I had extensive Collegiate schooling in theology, and trust me, I didn't decide to incur the student loans, just to argue about it.

Plus, it is irrelevant, faith and science are completely separate issues, unless people want to use their faith as an argument against science. The two are separate issues, until you decide to mix them together, OR you are frightened by the act of scientific discovery.

If there is no God, and science can explain everything that has happened; why can't science reproduce what has happened? Why hasn't science recreated the big bang? Why haven't you created your own universes, planets, life forms etc?

That is the biggest BS argument of all time. You been listening to those Kent Hovind types too much?

Why hasn't science recreated the Big Bang? Well, first off, we don't have enough energy on this planet alone to do that. Second, if we could, what would it prove? We'd all be dead. Third, you are saying that science is all full of crap until it can create whole universes? Give me a break, somewhere there is a flat line where there should be a brain-wave in that argument.

The thing that gets me is that alot of the scientists you guys admire, Darwin and Einstein in particular, believed in God. I'd be very careful about setting out to prove that there is no God. C.S. Lewis set out to do that very thing, when all the facts were in, and all the research had been done, he not only came to believe that there was a God, but that Jesus Christ was in fact His son. He went on to become the best selling Christian writer of all time. That honor may soon go to Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye if it hasn't already.

What? What does it matter what C.S. Lewis did? First, he wasn't a scientist. Second, it was self-serving. He was a christian, setting out to 'prove god didn't exist'. So, a non-scientist that was a christian, did a ton of 'research'... then said that not only God exists, but that Jesus was his son?

Wow, amazing... You know what, you could do that same thing... What does it matter who did it?

For those that don't know who Clive Staples Lewis was:

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/cslewis.htm

http://personal.bgsu.edu/~edwards/biobib.html

His first work was of poetry, Spirits In Bondage, it was primarily about evil. He was evidently conflicted about his belief early on;

http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/lewis/spirits/

By his THIRD book he was already writing stories with definitively Christian overtones. At no time did he publish a 'research' paper on his proof that God and Jesus were facts.

I've heard that Urban Legend about C.S. Lewis before on Theology discussion websites and newsletters, but no one takes it seriously in academics.

It *is* likely true that he did some personal soul searching from his first book of poetry to the third book Pilgrims Regress. He was a 'light skeptic' before that. Not fully understanding his own interpretation of good and evil, and why God would allow some of the tragedies of the world persist.

But I think *ALL* men of faith do that at some point.

Just because someone can tell a good story about Christianity, doesn't levy any proof of anything.

The scientific community at large is NOT trying to set out to prove that God doesn't exist. Although many people have such a weak foundation of faith that they believe that discovering and learning the facts and mysteries of the world and universe might somehow prove to THEM that God doesn't exist.

And that is where the fear of the Theory of Evolution and other scientific advancement blooms from.

I am NOT an Atheist, because I cannot prove that God doesn't or DOES exist. And I am smart enough to know that.

But one thing I do know, is that that anyone who is scared of the progress of science as it pertains to their religion or personal faith, should either re-think their beliefs... or stop listening to the preacher/minister, or clergyman that spreads that fear.

For that, that is true evil. The evil that stems from the fear of lost power, money and followers.

Real spirituality and faith comes from a place that doesn't require a fear and abolishment of the discoveries of science and physical universe.

Attempts to tear down the tenants of science and sly uses of commonly misunderstood scientific theories by folks like the Discovery Institute, the pushers of Intelligent Design, are at the root an attempt by seemingly faithful to ensure that they keep followers by creating debate and fear where it has no place.

The Wedge Strategy Plan/Memo from 1999 was a clear indication of that.

Some try to say that the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution 'debate' isn't about Religion, it is about 'science'. But that is utterly and completely untrue. The entire concept of Intelligent Design was manufactured as a tool of religion. It was stated clearly and plainly as such when the Discovery Institute was founded.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html

http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

[kickasspodcast]

I continued the conversation extensively with Derek because I felt he came across with a certainty that was bullish and naive.

If you guys disagree and do not think that Derek was a bit brazen in
acting as if he is 100% correct and should repeatedly speak for the "entire
scientific community"; that is your own interpretation.
But I have general disdain for any group of people
or persons who summarily dismiss other points of views because they
believe they are the ones with the truth. And then his
outright statement of saying "yeah I have the truth and I plan to spread it..." well thats cool, I mean its a free country (or was), but you can't
expect people to think that is any different than someone doing it
from a religious point of view. It also seems reasonable that there
would be people who find that claim of having the truth to be
egotistical.

<blink>

No, THATS bullshit... You just refuse to read entire posts, but I kept pointing that out for people that are smart enough not to believe your arrogance. Look, all your arguments stemmed from personal attacks. Everything I said was plan and simple facts about HOW the scientific process works, and information that is 100% true about the current state of the I.D. / Evolution debate.

YOU were the only bullish bastard that said crap like; "you are completely devoid of fact" when the entire post you said that about was ONLY facts, not opinions. THAT is bullish, brash, and egotistical.

What you want to do is create that age-old bullshit 'there are two sides to every story' garbage about things that are simple fact. The manner in which the scientific process works is a fact. It is a fact that the I.D folks haven't yet had a successful test of their hypothesis is a fact.

Were you like this in school too? When someone says they KNOW that 2+2=4, or that the first president was George Washington do you call them 'bullish and naive'? So, if people that didn't know American history were in here arguing over if Washington or Jefferson was the first president. The first person to stand up and say... "Ok, here is how the history ACTUALLY was." and provided the links so they could LEARN... that guy would be an *****le in your book?

Simple fact is simple fact. It is in NO WAY naive to know facts. It *IS* naive to argue with them. Is is even WORSE to knowingly allow people to accept a distorted fact. ESPECIALLY one like the Intelligent Design 'debate' because it has been foisted into the public eye as if there *IS* a debate among the general scientific community. There isn't, and yes, some magazines and news outlets will allow anyone with a fancy 'science' sounding name say that they are 'for' I.D. because it makes good news. But in all those cases, those are NOT main stream scientists. It is a fake 'debate', which is why the science community not not show up to the Kansas debates. They were attempting to demonstrate that there was no debate.

The outcome of allowing people to just casually believe the propaganda and bullshit of the Intelligent Deign con-men is that our children, the children of the U.S. will slip even FURTHER behind in science than we already have in the world. We will be teaching non-science AS science, and that is just plain unacceptable if we wish to remain a viable workforce in the advancement of science. You let one issue like this slip through, and it's the precedent for the next line of BS to be pushed into the classroom.

What makes it worse, is when people like you spend more time feeling like someone has offended you personally for showing you some facts and issues you might not have known, rather than being interested in learning.

I never ONCE talked down to anyone personally in this thread, until you had to post a ton of ONLY personal attacks about me that had nothing to do with the discussion at all.

But now we know what your problem is... you just flat out hate to learn new things from other people. That makes you feel all bad inside, so you must lash out and call them 'naive' for knowing a little bit about something you might not have known.

Well, everyone can learn something from everyone else, *I* know that, that is why I like science. If you went around feeling that everyone with something to show you was a 'naive' bastard in the science community, you would run out of friends real fast. I let those people tell me stuff all the time, and they are a heck of a lot more firm and convicted in their knowledge than I am. Not once have I been offended, or thought someone was 'naive' for educating me on something I didn't know about, or had wrong facts/information about.

I actually ENJOY learning about things I don't know, and having people point things out to me that I didn't know before. I'm not going to be made to feel, or look, like an *****le for just stating simple facts on a subject, just because some people want the world to ALWAYS be full of false opinions. Or, because they want some fuzzy wild place where EVERYTHING is up for the Devils Advocate arguement. Because, in many cases, bad 'opinions' are formed from not having the facts.

Trouble is, in todays world, we have been taught to just let that slide, and to 'respect' it when people are completely misinformed.

I don't respect anyone that believes that people should just be left to wallow in uneducated naivety. YES there are real issues that you can have an 'opinion' about, politics and your own personal opinion of spiritual matters are two good examples.

But, in this matter, all I have been pointing out *IS* the facts that many people don't know, or misunderstand when they hear, or see this Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate on T.V. or in periodicals such as TIME magazine. Those guys are looking for a 'story'. And even when they try their ****edest to seem 'fair' they fall on their face.

Take for example the recent TIME article. They had a section where they interviewed four people that were 'for' and 'against' Intelligent Design. Of course, they had it be two people for and two people against.

Well, statistically in the scientific community, you would have all four be in favor of Evolution. Why? Because you will probably find less than 1% of working scientists, believe or give credit to Intelligent Design. So, in a group of four, you would have all four likely be pro-evolution.

Ok, that doesn't make a good story.

So, I understand the need to toss in Albert Mohler. That guy is the best of the worst... well, there still is Kent H., but I digress. For the record Albert is a self professed 'young earth' guy. He thinks we all just popped up 6,000 years ago. AND he has a whole library of 'papers' to prove it. See why just having a stack of people agree with you doesn't make you any more 'legit'?

In any case, the SECOND guy they dig up for the TIME article is a familiar face; Michael Behe. He is a great one for CNN, FOX, and people like TIME. He makes their article look 'fair'. He has a title: "Biochemistry professor Lehigh University. Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute".

MOST people will see that and say... "Whoa, a SCIENTIST that believes in Intelligent Design, there MUST be a real debate here."

Nope.

See, most people don't realize that good old Michael is a paid fellow of the Discovery Institute. "Well, it said he was a senior fellow RIGHT in his title." you might say. Unfortunately for him, and others... that was a real clever name for the group that has been soliciting millions of dollars since 1999 to promote Intelligent Design. The fellows are PAID members.

So, even with his fancy 'biochemistry professor' title, the man is paid to say I.D. is great.

So, again... the media has made this whole argument look 'balanced'. Well, it is NOT a balanced argument, or a debate in science. The only 'debate' in the science community is how to do damage control on the perception of the rest of the country. Evolution is one of the cornerstones of modern science. It has proved out to be a solid well-developed theory. YES there are some SMALL details about it that scientists are still figuring out. But, they are also doing that with Gravity... and we still launch space shuttles and fly from place to place on our developed knowledge of that theory. We have done the same with the study of biological evolution in the field of medicine. If we were so completely, or even 'mildly' incorrect about the fundamentals of Evolution as the I.D. crowd claims, we wouldn't have MANY modern medical cures and marvels. It is that simple, and that is a fact that just cannot be denied or made into an 'opinion' argument.

And NO those medical breakthroughs were not based on the misconception of 'micro' and 'macro' evolution as the ID folks like to claim. Because, there is no such thing. It sounds good in simple-speak. But, when you fully understand the science behind evolution, there is no 'macro' or 'micro' evolution. It happens, or it doesn't.

Evolution does not only refer to what would fall under Darwinian Evolution- but it also includes the Evolution
of our planet, galaxy, and universe.

We do have a pretty intense knowledge about how planets are formed. And it didn't happen in some esoteric 'unknown' spiritual way. We have a pretty decent idea of how galaxies came to be, based on other fundamental knowledge. And the universe? There are a ton of very good scientific theories on that, with a lot of solid math to back many different concepts up. You make is sound like scientists are just all sitting around going... "Well, you could say a giant interdimentional dog could have coughed up the universe, and we are just all sitting in his hairball."

Yes, there are a ton of unknowns in that aspect of science, but... sorry, it isn't as simple as you saying... "Shut up for even saying that science knows ANYTHING on this topic." and have people just go... "Oh, okay, we know nothing about that..."

We know quite a bit about it, compared to... lets say... a spiritual guess.

in regards to Quantum Physics- a favorite subject of mine because it is one that no individual can fully (begin) to understand. It is to me the scientific equivilant of the "meaning of life". That's just my take on it.

So, when they finally finish the math on Quantum Physics. We know the meaning of life? Because, they will, at some point finally get the answer. The proponents of String Theory think they are close. You DO realize that many people felt the same way you do about the Unified Theory, (Electromagnetism and Gravity). Of course, once that was solved, and someone mentioned 'Quantum' they all got excited and had a new one to point at.

It *is* naive to hang your hat on any one aspect of science and claim that we will never fully understand. We HAVE begun to understand many aspects of Quantum Physics. And currently it *is* the physicists holy grail. But, humans, in the past, have proven time and time again that we figure these things out. In the end, we always have.

Remember, 40% of the scientific community stood FIRM on the fact that man could NEVER break the sound barrier. They believed that it was impossible. Not because they they 'knew', but because they felt that we had only 'begun' to understand the effects. Some radical theorists, similar to the string theory folks said... "We believe we are so close to accurate that this will work.".

See, all throughout time science has been just **** cool that way. It's an adventure. And enjoying the new frontiers of science is a hell of a lot more fun than most things I know of.

BUT to believe that science is 'arrogant' when it does have facts, and theories tied up, or to take a small kernel of unknown and then use that as your rationale for saying scientists are just all a bunch of arrogant ***-holes for saying they KNOW anything. Is just a massive distortion of reality.

And then to hate anyone, as much as you obviously do, that tries to educate people on knowledge that is not made available in most media outlets. Is just one of the many reasons why, as you stated before, our country has been slipping away from freedom.

People have been groomed and told too many times that knowledge and the teaching of factual information is 'arrogant', 'bullish', and 'naive'.

That attitude has been working real well for society hasn't it?[/quote]


<chokes>

You keep claiming to be 100% true.

Read what you are writing back to yourself Derek. I am not going to keep beating a dead horse.

If it was possible for you to reply without putting words in my mouth I would respect what you say alot more. I never said Scientists were all a buncha arrogant *****les.

The funniest things is you are so absolutely freaking sure about yourself and you just can't see how that comes off as egotistical.

In truth, you and Dr. M. don't actually reference many facts at all- you bring in other ****- your not REALLY saying anything- its just enough words to make someone die from your post. Not a Peer-reviewed paper? Continued blind arrogance. As is a book by Steven Hawking is somehow inadequate to illustrate a basic point. Nice try *****le.

Stop acting as if you are skeptics then if you are so freakin sure about yourself and your beliefs.

I just re-read everything in your last post.

Are you kidding me? You are no scientist dude. You just gave us
your take on everything from Science, to Theology, to your grandmother. Frankly its a little offensive that you think people
wouldn't know the difference.

Stop giving us "your take" and maybe us real skeptics will
start to listen ok?

Buh-bye.


Jack.

ps-
calling something a "personal" attack is another nice cop-out when you have insulted everyone here who doesn't agree with your lock on truth.

[kickasspodcast]

oops!

I forgot to ask!

So Dr. M-

How is that Skeptic Friends Network working out for ya buddy?

Making some new friends are we?

[Zecryphon]

I probably have read more versions of the Bible than you have[quote]

Well then that was a waste of time, because you only need to read one version... they all say the same thing.

I have no problem with the teaching of evolution or other sciences. I myself love science too. I love discovering all the intricacies of God's design. Scientists are playing a never-ending game of catch up. When there is a new discovery in the scientific realm, it's not really new. God designed it, you're just now finding out about it. I don't know how all the scientists and people who love science can look at all they've found, marvel at the complexity of the universe, or the human body, the nervous system or whatever and not realize that there is intelligent design there. That everything has a purpose and a function, and it's not all some big accident.

I have no problem with science being taught or evolution. I fear neither. I want science to continue so that one day they may come to the realization that there is a designer and a creator. I don't know how much more they will have to see to make that realization, but I pray that one day they will. The refusal to teach the ID theory in school doesn't come from the scientific community as much as it comes from the legal community as a separation of church and state. I would personally like to see both theories taught so that the future of America has a choice about what to believe and that they understand both sides. But the classroom is not a place for faith. That happens in the church. The classroom deals in facts, or what others believe are facts. Some things are true whether you belive them or not. Not believing in something doesn't invalidate it's existence.

If I didn't believe in gravity, thought it was just a myth or a superstition because I can't see it, or touch it. And I decide to jump off a cliff or a building is gravity going to have any power over me? According to some on this board, the answer would be no, since you don't believe in it or see any physical evidence of it, it does not exist.

As for the person whose great-grandmother thought dinosaur bones were put here by Satan. She was mistaken, dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. So in this case, science has proven what the Bible says. The two can exist together. For one side to say the other side is wrong, just because of a personal opinion is just plain silly.

Put simply the bible is your instruction manual from God. In it, He tells you what you need to know, and how to live your life. Now you may not like what it says, you may not agree with it, but it doesn't change the fact that the answers have been given to you, you just need to know where to look. If anyone tries to read the bible cover to cover, I'd be surprised if you made it out of Genesis. I tried that approach myself years ago and gave up after I got done with Leviticus. If you want to read the bible do yourself a favor and start in one of the gospels. I say start with Luke, others say start with John and then read Romans, if after those two books you feel it is not for you, you don't have to read anymore.

I pray that you will read at least those 2 books out of a total of 66. Am I really asking that much?

Your friend in Christ

Zecryphon

[jimk]

oops!

I forgot to ask!

So Dr. M-

How is that Skeptic Friends Network working out for ya buddy?

Making some new friends are we?

That was pathetic and a total cheap shot designed to do nothing but create hate and argument.

[dcolanduno]

You keep claiming to be 100% true.

Read what you are writing back to yourself Derek. I am not going to keep beating a dead horse.

And you keep saying I'm not, but not referencing anything I have said. I have not claimed to be 100% anything. Yet, YOU keep making absolute statements, where I have backed mine with dissertation and fact.

Maybe you should take up the fine art of reading... I read just fine, thank you.

If it was possible for you to reply without putting words in my mouth I would respect what you say alot more. I never said Scientists were all a buncha arrogant *****les.

You not only inferred it several times... you pretty much did say it...


just admit that you are pretty sure-
there is no way you or any other person to
know for sure.
This is the arrogance of Science
This is the arrogance of the Religion


And that was after and before quite a few rants where you blanketly attacked scientists and sciencetific theory... at one point you even referred to a whole post I made which was nothing more than accepted scientific theory as;

all completely devoid of fact

Next...

The funniest things is you are so absolutely freaking sure about yourself and you just can't see how that comes off as egotistical.

In type, you must be inferring that. Since in type all I can say is 2+2=4. And my information on the scientific process and in the case the current available evidence on Evolution and the attempts by Intelligent Design to prove their 'hypothesis', I am correct. It's documented. No less untrue than 2+2=4.

Presenting documented fact isn't 'egotistical'. It's third grade nanny-nanny mentality to think so. If you are saying that you should NEVER correct people so you don't hurt their feelings... then I can't disagree more.

In truth, you and Dr. M. don't actually reference many facts at all- you bring in other ****- your not REALLY saying anything- its just enough words to make someone die from your post.

Actually, since you haven't referenced ANY facts... how can you attack others for it? We have referenced facts. And, if you want to find out if I am correct on HOW scientists prove a theory, and how peer-review works. Go and get any one of the 4,000 books on the topic. Or just punch it into Google. All I am stating are just plain facts of the system.

It's like you arguing with someone about how we elect a president in the United States, after someone explained it to you in a factual manner. If someone didn't know how that process worked, and made a bunch of false claims about it. Would I be egotistical for explaining the process and how others have attempted to make others believe an incorrect version?

You can't dispute HOW the currently accepted scientific process works. And how peer-review works. You can disagree with it. But you can't say that it is 'untrue'. There is a factual manner in which it is done.

But, you want to call people egotistical for discussing it.

And you only attack the people that have that information directly and personally.

I find that an amusing side note.

Not a Peer-reviewed paper? Continued blind arrogance. As is a book by Steven Hawking is somehow inadequate to illustrate a basic point. Nice try *****le.

You DID reference it as a peer-reviewed paper, and I quote:

You all need to go read The Universe in a Nutshell by Hawking.
There Ricky is your 1 Peer Reviewed, somewhat notable published work that clearly states over and over again that the interaction between particles is tanamount to the interconnectivity of life.

Oh boy...

Stop acting as if you are skeptics then if you are so freakin sure about yourself and your beliefs.

I am pretty sure about how the scientific process works my friend... It's no act.

I just re-read everything in your last post.

Are you kidding me? You are no scientist dude. You just gave us your take on everything from Science, to Theology, to your grandmother.

It's not 'my take' on science, it's how it works... you obviously hate when there are things in life that have rules and factual information.

I gave my 'take' on theology because the guy ASKED me directly.

Frankly its a little offensive that you think people
wouldn't know the difference.

It was SAID by someone earlier in this thread that the Intelligent Design debate wasn't 'about' religion. And it is... So, obviously, some people DON'T know the difference. And, it's not their fault, because, the I.D. movement has had a plan, and has been following it to the letter since 1997. It is well documented.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Wedge_document

The media and news outlets have over, and over again... failed to mention that point... except to have people on the air to 'argue' about it. But, there is no argument on this one. There is factual information.

It would be like the news having people on to argue about weather or not there was a storm outside while they are sitting outside enjoying the lightening and thunder.

The news, fears people like you, who hate it when facts are mentioned, and want to keep everything in the fuzzy happy land of;

"Don't offend people if they don't know the truth, just let them keep thinking the wrong thing... or else, I and others will call you names and think you are arrogant."

No... I don't believe that people like you, that want to continue to inspire doubt about things in which there is none, should be allowed to get away with telling folks with the information to shut up because it might offend the people with eggshell heads.

Stop giving us "your take" and maybe us real skeptics will start to listen ok?

Hahah, Well, next time I run across someone that has to use weird uses of foul language, off-topic insults, bizarre personal attacks, and funny little grade-school attempts at humor such as:

Buh-bye.

OR

So Dr. M-

How is that Skeptic Friends Network working out for ya buddy?

Making some new friends are we?

I'll hope that they don't really think they are good at discussing a topic, or a skeptic...

calling something a "personal" attack is another nice cop-out when you have insulted everyone here who doesn't agree with your lock on truth.

What's the cop-out? Who did I PERSONALLY attack now except the people/person that attacked me? Look, if people are offended by the FACTS on an issue. I'm not attacking them, or insulting them, they just need to check their problems at the door.

I'm STILL not sure which part of my 'lock on truth' you find me to be so factually incorrect about. And, skip the post about Theology, that IS an opinion piece, but it was ASKED for... again, if you would have bothered to read thoroughly.

All you keep doing is just saying myself and others are 'wrong' and using words like 'puke', and 'buh-bye' and other kiddy BS, and expect it to actually be an argument.

All I keep seeing is the fact that somehow you THOUGHT you knew a fact about something, and you are now angry that it was wrong. And somehow, you are pissed at the messenger. Or, there is something in particular you keep referring to that I am 'false' on, but never really directly reference it. Maybe then I can point you in the right direction to some references.

[dcolanduno]

oops!

I forgot to ask!

So Dr. M-

How is that Skeptic Friends Network working out for ya buddy?

Making some new friends are we?

That was pathetic and a total cheap shot designed to do nothing but create hate and argument.

Which one of his posts hasn't been? They have all been pretty much personal attacks on myself and some of the other folks here.

Oh, and so you know... Skeptic Friends Network... yea, one of those places where science minded and scientific community people hangout kickass...

Nice that you claim that by me stating factual information I may have insulted a whole group of people. But you just DIRECTLY managed to insult a whole community that has a much larger number of members than PCA...

[Craig]

But one thing I do know, is that that anyone who is scared of the progress of science as it pertains to their religion or personal faith, should either re-think their beliefs... or stop listening to the preacher/minister, or clergyman that spreads that fear.
Very true.

Craig

[Dr. Mabuse]

oops!

I forgot to ask!

So Dr. M-

How is that Skeptic Friends Network working out for ya buddy?Great, thanks. Why do you ask?
(the address is www.skepticfriends.org you are welcome to visit, and learn something about critical thinking)

Making some new friends are we?

Obviously, since I was promoted to staff member close to a year ago.
Are you concerned that I might be/get lonley?

[Dr. Mabuse]

In truth, you and Dr. M. don't actually reference many facts at all- you bring in other ****- your not REALLY saying anything- its just enough words to make someone die from your post.

Ok, what fact do you want me to reference?

Not a Peer-reviewed paper? Continued blind arrogance. As is a book by Steven Hawking is somehow inadequate to illustrate a basic point.

No, not peer-reviwed. Do you know what makes a publication peer-reviwed?
It's when a paper gets examined by other scientists (edited to add: scientists working in the same or related field to the one which the paper submitted is addressing), they critically check the paper for errors in logic, and errors in the scientific method. If it's found lacking, it is returned to the author and he's told to do better.

When Hawking's publisher got the manuscript for the book, the only review was the proof-reading, checking spelling.

Nice try *****le.

Getting testy are you? No need to get verbally abusive, it doesn't make you score any points.

You still haven't addressed my question about "interconnectivity of life". Where in Hawking's Universe in a Nutshell can I read it? I don't have the book, but I can go to the library. But I definitly don't have the time to read all of it just to find out if you were bullshitting me or not.
Chapter and verse, please.



ps-
calling something a "personal" attack is another nice cop-out when you have insulted everyone here who doesn't agree with your lock on truth.

Well, I consider "Nice try, *****le" a personal attack. But I realise that you are stressed out because of your inability to answer our questions, so I forgive you. But you should try to tone down the abusive langage.

[dcolanduno]

I probably have read more versions of the Bible than you have

Well then that was a waste of time, because you only need to read one version... they all say the same thing.

Whoa, you didn't just say that did you? There have been whole wars between different sects of Christianity over the differences between them.

http://www.bessel.org/bibles.htm

http://www.dtl.org/books/preview/dbbv.htm

What crappy links, but they still get the point across.


As for the person whose great-grandmother thought dinosaur bones were put here by Satan. She was mistaken, dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. So in this case, science has proven what the Bible says. The two can exist together. For one side to say the other side is wrong, just because of a personal opinion is just plain silly.

Unfortunately, that is a hotly debated topic, even in theology circles. A whole wild and fun discussion all to itself. It is a fun one though. The attempt to merge science with biblical message was always a interesting topic for me.

I pray that you will read at least those 2 books out of a total of 66. Am I really asking that much?

Depending on which version, could be 2 out of 81... or 2 out of 73... ;)

[kickasspodcast]

You not only inferred it several times... you pretty much did say it...



In type, you must be inferring that.


Maybe you should take up the fine art of reading... I read just fine, thank you.

Really? Maybe you should review your OED for the definition of inferred.

What you seem to blindly be ignoring is that I am not disagreeing with many of the facts you are laying claim to.

You have said that you have the truth and plan to spread it.

I have said time and again that I personally believe in God and Evolution.

Why are you missing this?

Jimk who call's people pieces of **** has alot of room to talk about attacking people personally. His show is derisive and he makes fun
of people all the time. Now you can add hypocrite to your resume Jim.

Derek this is about done with for me man-

you keep chasing your own tail, I am just saying you are being
arrogant for how sure you are acting and how outraged and verbose
you are getting when people ask "Are you Sure?" It doesn't matter
if I think you are right, you are acting so sure of yourself and slamming
anyone who doesn't bow down to your 'peer reviewed' facts. You are
speaking for the entire scientific community as if its your place to do so.
instead of saying this is my conclusion based on X, Y, and Z. You assume
everyone already believes X,Y, and Z and act bullish when people do not.

Oh and it doesn't help that you don't just stict to your "facts". You would be
far more successful if you just presented your case and didn't mix it with
defensiveness or derision or sarcasm or disinformation.
Like this one


Nice that you claim that by me stating factual information I may have insulted a whole group of people. But you just DIRECTLY managed to insult a whole community that has a much larger number of members than PCA...


Really? I just checked on the forums there and can clearly see the record best. Months back even...
Active Users Record: 49 | Record Set On: 03/31/2005 at 14:05:56

Wow 50 people on at one time!
PCA could never do that!

I am sure you have some other "fact" or "figure" to point to but the easiest one to find on the site itself says 49 people is the record.



And that was after and before quite a few rants where you blanketly attacked scientists and sciencetific theory... at one point you even referred to a whole post I made which was nothing more than accepted scientific theory as;

Really? Where do I attack scientists?


In type, you must be inferring that. Since in type all I can say is 2+2=4. And my information on the scientific process and in the case the current available evidence on Evolution and the attempts by Intelligent Design to prove their 'hypothesis', I am correct. It's documented. No less untrue than 2+2=4.

Presenting documented fact isn't 'egotistical'. It's third grade nanny-nanny mentality to think so. If you are saying that you should NEVER correct people so you don't hurt their feelings... then I can't disagree more.

It is how you present it. You have to be really careful when you are attempting to correct
people not to sound arrogant. You claim to want to “set the record strait� and keep speaking for the “entire scientific community�. Again- you have to be **** careful when
you attempt to publicly correct someone.

The nature in the way you come across so absolutely certain that you know and you have the facts is offensive to me. It just is.

Sorry if you think I am being unreasonable.

Why do you keep bringing up ID? You really seem to have something
against people who consider ID?

Skeptic Friends Network still kickin PCA's *** with 49 people on in march!
Look out Ferf!


Again- In closing- I am done with this- I am not arguing your Science or your facts-
I have tried to make that clear- what I am taking issue with is your absolute certainty.


Jack
(tired)

[mental-escher]

I do think it's good to remember that science can never be complete. There will always be room for mystery (or superstition, if you like). Still, biological evolution, which is what intelligent design is usually about, is an area where a lot of hard work has been done to discover the mechanisms that can be discovered, and it's nowhere near as mysterious as some people want everyone to think.

There has been a concerted campaign by certain factions, mainly in the US, to make it seem to the public at large that evolution is controversial. This is their goal. They have been working for years to establish the idea that evolution still under debate. The truth of the matter is that in scientific circles there is no controversy about evolution, especially the bits like common-descent, and yet every day I see news reports about some group or another "weighing in on the evolution controversy".

The controversy is not about science or evidence. It's about people not wanting to accept that maybe the universe is unfeeling and maybe it wasn't created to bring the glory that is humanity into being. They don't want nasty pieces of evidence calling their faith into doubt. I'm of the opinion that a faith that can't stand a little doubt is not much of a faith at all.


Pretty much sums it up I think

[Dr. Mabuse]

I have no problem with science being taught or evolution. I fear neither. I want science to continue so that one day they may come to the realization that there is a designer and a creator. I don't know how much more they will have to see to make that realization, but I pray that one day they will. The refusal to teach the ID theory in school doesn't come from the scientific community as much as it comes from the legal community as a separation of church and state.


The refusal to teach ID in school does come from the scientific community, and science teachers. It really originated there.

The problem is that school-boards like the one in Ohio and in Kansas are more concerned with politics and religion than science. The fact that they want to put ID in the schools is the most conclusive evidence that they don't know much about science, and they are therefore not really qualified to make the judgement. So when they insist in putting ID in science class, despite what the scientific community says, that's then people has to refer to the backup plan: legal suits.

It's less elegant, but it does work, thanks to the inherent flaws of the ID hypothesis.


I would personally like to see both theories taught so that the future of America has a choice about what to believe and that they understand both sides.

Yes.

Science and evolution in science class.
ID in the philosophy class.
Creationism in religion class.

It really is that simple.

She was mistaken, dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible.


During my 10 year tour in the Pentacostal Church in Sweden, I totally missed that one. I guess that should really be a topic for another thread, but I would like to know where in the bible I can read that.

[dcolanduno]

Skeptic Friends Network still kickin PCA's *** with 49 people on in march!
Look out Ferf!

The group is much, much, larger than the forums man. Skeptical and science forums don't get as much chatter as places like this. Keep that in mind.

We get about 25k - 30k downloads an episode, and only 170 people on our forums. It's a traditionally semi-quiet group when it comes to online bickering.

[spartacusroosevelt]

oops double

[spartacusroosevelt]

Well then that was a waste of time, because you only need to read one version... they all say the same thing.


Uhh...

What are those commandments (http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Bible%20Studies/10%20Commandments.htm) again?

[Kil]

I really don’t spend my time worrying about The Skeptic Friends Network’s numbers. I don’t care who has more numbers than we do. What I care about most is the quality of our site. I am extremely proud of what we have built at SFN. The regulars who post on our site constantly amaze me with the breadth of their knowledge and their ability to home in on the heart of whatever is being discussed and do that elegantly and without stooping to ad hominem attacks (most of the time). I absolutely believe that we live up to our mission statement, which reads:
The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.
We are widely recognized as one of the top skeptic sites on the Internet by skeptic and science organizations alike. As a group of skeptic populists without a whole lot of name recognition or a large or famous organization backing us up I think we have done all right. As one of the founders of The Skeptic Friends Network I can tell you that I am very happy with what we have accomplished so far. And we just keep growing.

Nuff said…

[dcolanduno]

I think we have done all right. As one of the founders of The Skeptic Friends Network I can tell you that I am very happy with what we have accomplished so far. And we just keep growing.

Nuff said…

I'll back that one up...

[dcolanduno]

Again... to lighten things up:

http://skepticality.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=559#559

[Hittman]

My question is why are we here? What's the purpose of living life on this earth?

THAT is the kind of question that religion can answer for some people. Science goes no where near it.

Of course, if you don't turn to religion, you get to pick your own answer, to decide for yourself why you are here, and what your purpose is. That that, my friend, is the most liberating thing in the world.

C.S. Lewis set out to do that very thing, when all the facts were in, and all the research had been done, he not only came to believe that there was a God, but that Jesus Christ was in fact His son. He went on to become the best selling Christian writer of all time. That honor may soon go to Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye if it hasn't already.

That doesn't say much for the taste, sophistication or intelligence of today's Christians. C. S. Lewis could write. Jenkins and LaHaye are simply horrible. They'd have to improve by about three thousand percent to rise to the level of "hack."

No, I have not read the Bible cover to cover.

I have. I was raised in a fundamentalist cult, and escaped when I was a young man. It is a book packed with contradictions, and contains advice like "beat your children," (Proverbs 13, 14) and treat women as subservient creatures, amongst other wonderful advice.

It's an interesting book (actually, books) and I do think everyone should be familiar with it, simply because it has shaped so much of our history and culture. But that doesn't mean it should be the center of one's life, and the sole source of guidance.

The refusal to teach the ID theory in school doesn't come from the scientific community as much as it comes from the legal community as a separation of church and state.

If it weren't for scientists vigorously fighting this ignorance, (including science teachers) ID would be the only thing taught in public schools. Let's not forget that the Republican Party is owned by the Christian Coalition, the group whose end goal is Theocracy.

So in this case, science has proven what the Bible says.

Really?

First God creates the earth.
Then he creates light.
Then he creates night and day.
Then he creates a seperation between the waters of the earth and the waters of the heavens.
Then he creates the land and the sea.
Then he creates vegitation.
Then creates the sun and the moon. Days have passed, he created light, then created night and day, and then built the sun and moon.

Hello? Science has confirmed this? When? Did I miss the headline? Please post a URL to it, so I can be enlightened.

I pray that you will read at least those 2 books out of a total of 66. Am I really asking that much?

I've read them all, more than once. Tried to believe in them, really truly tried. Alas, I was born with a fully functioning bullshit meter, and so had no choice but to reject them.

The whole flock of Seagulls = Tidal Wave thingy nobody can quite seem to get their heads around.

You will need to explain what you mean with that, because to me it doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting that the seemingly random behaviour in a flock of birds are just that: random?

The Flock of Seagulls = Tidal Wave "thingy" (everyone well versed in science uses the term "thingy" quite often) (as well as the phrase "tidal wave") goes like this:

If you walked along the avenue, saw a girl with auburn hair and tawny eyes, and ran, ran so far away, ran all night and day, you'd end up with a haircut that resembled a tidal wave.
http://www.oz.net/~davester/AFOS/Band/mikethen.JPG

[Zecryphon]

I probably have read more versions of the Bible than you have

Well then that was a waste of time, because you only need to read one version... they all say the same thing.

Whoa, you didn't just say that did you? There have been whole wars between different sects of Christianity over the differences between them.

http://www.bessel.org/bibles.htm

http://www.dtl.org/books/preview/dbbv.htm

What crappy links, but they still get the point across.


As for the person whose great-grandmother thought dinosaur bones were put here by Satan. She was mistaken, dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. So in this case, science has proven what the Bible says. The two can exist together. For one side to say the other side is wrong, just because of a personal opinion is just plain silly.

Unfortunately, that is a hotly debated topic, even in theology circles. A whole wild and fun discussion all to itself. It is a fun one though. The attempt to merge science with biblical message was always a interesting topic for me.

I pray that you will read at least those 2 books out of a total of 66. Am I really asking that much?

Depending on which version, could be 2 out of 81... or 2 out of 73... ;)

I was referring to the major translations such as the NIV, NLT, NASB, ESV, etc. While the wording is different depending on your personal reading level, they all say the same thing. One question that always comes up in my church is which version is correct, the above answer is what they are told. All the major translations say the same thing. Now, I realize that the KJV and the Catholic NAS have more books than the Protestant Bible of 66 books. But I have never really used the KJV as there are more accurate translations out there, and I have my own problems with the teachings of the Catholic church, and their need to add to what the scriptures say.

[Zecryphon]

I would personally like to see both theories taught so that the future of America has a choice about what to believe and that they understand both sides.

Yes.

Science and evolution in science class.
ID in the philosophy class.
Creationism in religion class.

It really is that simple.


When I refer to the term "school", I'm referring to elementary, middle, and high school. When I attended these institutions, we didn't have a philosophy class or a religion class in which to discuss philosophy or the major religions of the world and their explanations of how we got here. In fact I don't remember any intelilgent discussion being allowed in school. If I had a better way of doing something, for instance using the internet for research instead of the library and it's ridiculous Dewey Decimal system, I was penalized. But that's another issue altogether. ANyway, I didn't take philosophy or religion courses until I went to college. I've been out of high school for over 15 years now, maybe things have changed and those courses are being offered. It's news to me if that's the case.

She was mistaken, dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible.


During my 10 year tour in the Pentacostal Church in Sweden, I totally missed that one. I guess that should really be a topic for another thread, but I would like to know where in the bible I can read that.[/quote]

The version of the Bible I am looking at right now as I type this response is Zondervan's NIV Study Bible. If you look at Job 40:15-24, that is where dinosaurs are mentioned. Now, granted they're not called "dinosaurs" per se, I read the word "behemoth". When I look to the notes at the bottom of the page I am told the word behemoth is Hebrew and means "beast par excellence", which refers to a large land animal. The note goes on to say that much of the language used to describe him in verses 16-24 is highly poetic and hyperbolic. He is one of God's creatures, not a mythical being

Job 40-:15 says: "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. 40:16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! 40:17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. 40:18
His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. 40:19
He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword. 40:20 The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby. 40:21 Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh. 40:22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow, the poplars by the stream surround him. 40:23 When the river rages he is not alarmed; he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth. 40:24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, or trap him and pierce his nose?"

I also suggest that you read chapter 41 too. According to the study notes in my bible, the description of the leviathan in chapter 41 is even more terrifying than the behemoth of chapter 40.

Job 41:14 says of the leviathan "Who dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth. 41:15 "His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together, 41:16 each is so close to the next that no air can pass between. 41:17 They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted.

That sounds to me alot like a crocodile, doesn't it? And isn't a crocodile or an alligator basically a dinosaur?

[Zecryphon]

Well then that was a waste of time, because you only need to read one version... they all say the same thing.


Uhh...

What are those commandments (http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Bible%20Studies/10%20Commandments.htm) again?

I followed your link to the page that listed 3 versions of the ten commandments. Thank you for including that link, I found the page to be interesting. I didn't know that there were minor differences between the lists of commandments as recoreded by the Jewish, translated by the Catholics, and translated again by Martin Luther. However, other than the order of the commandments themselves, what is the real difference between them? Granted the first Jewish commandment is not listed by either Catholics or Protestants but we know that God through Moses led his people out of Egypt.

But getting back to the commandments do they not all say the same thing? Do not covet, Do not kill, You shall have no other God before me? They read the same way to me, but maybe I'm just ignorant. Remember, I'm not a professor of theology, or a minister, or a scholar of the bible. I'm just a born again Christian sharing my views, my faith and why I believe what I believe. I know I'll spend the rest of my days on earth reading the bible and still not understanding all of it.

But it sounds to me as if you're suggesting that since the order of the commandments between the 3 versions is not the same, that the commandments themselves somehow become invalid.

I see alot of this happening within the factions of Christianity too. People become so hung up on the minor differences between versions of the bible, that instead of looking for the common message or meaning between the two or three or whatever, they lose the central message. It's almost like it's too much work for someone to think about what they're reading. So, instead they opt to ignore it because that's just easier.

[Zecryphon]

[quote] My question is why are we here? What's the purpose of living life on this earth?

THAT is the kind of question that religion can answer for some people. Science goes no where near it.

Of course, if you don't turn to religion, you get to pick your own answer, to decide for yourself why you are here, and what your purpose is. That that, my friend, is the most liberating thing in the world.

C.S. Lewis set out to do that very thing, when all the facts were in, and all the research had been done, he not only came to believe that there was a God, but that Jesus Christ was in fact His son. He went on to become the best selling Christian writer of all time. That honor may soon go to Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye if it hasn't already.

That doesn't say much for the taste, sophistication or intelligence of today's Christians. C. S. Lewis could write. Jenkins and LaHaye are simply horrible. They'd have to improve by about three thousand percent to rise to the level of "hack."

No, I have not read the Bible cover to cover.

I have. I was raised in a fundamentalist cult, and escaped when I was a young man. It is a book packed with contradictions, and contains advice like "beat your children," (Proverbs 13, 14) and treat women as subservient creatures, amongst other wonderful advice.
It's an interesting book (actually, books) and I do think everyone should be familiar with it, simply because it has shaped so much of our history and culture. But that doesn't mean it should be the center of one's life, and the sole source of guidance.

The refusal to teach the ID theory in school doesn't come from the scientific community as much as it comes from the legal community as a separation of church and state.

If it weren't for scientists vigorously fighting this ignorance, (including science teachers) ID would be the only thing taught in public schools. Let's not forget that the Republican Party is owned by the Christian Coalition, the group whose end goal is Theocracy.

So in this case, science has proven what the Bible says.

Really?

First God creates the earth.
Then he creates light.
Then he creates night and day.
Then he creates a seperation between the waters of the earth and the waters of the heavens.
Then he creates the land and the sea.
Then he creates vegitation.
Then creates the sun and the moon. Days have passed, he created light, then created night and day, and then built the sun and moon.

Hello? Science has confirmed this? When? Did I miss the headline? Please post a URL to it, so I can be enlightened.

I pray that you will read at least those 2 books out of a total of 66. Am I really asking that much?

I've read them all, more than once. Tried to believe in them, really truly tried. Alas, I was born with a fully functioning bullshit meter, and so had no choice but to reject them.

When I said that science has proven what the bible says, I was talking about the existence of dinosaurs in the bible. The bible says dinosaurs existed and God (for whatever reason) wiped them out. Fast forward about 2000 years, and scientists start finding bones of a creature the bible says existed. Now I'm sure skeptics through the ages have asked about the behemoth and leviathans mentioned in Job chapters 40 and 41, and asked where is the evidence that any creature ever existed? Why, should we believe the bible, I see no hard physical evidence that such a creature ever existed! Well, archeologists dug up the bones of such creatures within the last 200 years or so. That is what I meant when I said science has proven what the bible says. I was talking about this one instance concerning dinosaur bones being placed here by Satan.

Now, I'm sorry that you were raised in a fundamentalist cult, and your views of what the bible says come from people who want to distort it to fit their own agenda. That is not my purpose here on this message board. I'm here to tell you what it says not to add anything to it or take anything away from it.

I suggest that you don't let the ignorance of some, keep you from a relationship with God and Jesus. I personally would disregard everything they told you, come to Him with a new open mind and heart, and let the words themselves speak to you. Try attending a non-denominational bible church, where the focus is on what the bible actually says, not what someone tells you it says. God is trying to reach you, please don't let the bad actions of others from your past, harden your heart against Him and His teachings.

As for the woman being submissive to the man. As I understand it, that is part of God's plan. It doesn't mean that women are slaves, have no rights, and must do whatever the man says. That to me sounds like a feminist's view on the teachings of the bible. I mean I can hear it now, when I think back to high school and college "You don't need a man telling you what to do and how to live your life! Do what you want, you're in control. Down with men!" The reason for a woman to be submissive to a man is probably to teach us all how to be submissive to God.

As far as the book of Proverbs telling you to beat your children. I just don't see it. Now, I'm gonna guess you're probably talking about Chapter 13 v 24 that says and I quote "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him." I don't take that to mean beat your kids. Discipline as I understand it, is a corrective tool, used to keep people from going down roads of behavior that will lead to self-destruction. Maybe your father or mother took this verse to mean they could beat you whenever the mood struck them. That is not what I personally get out of this verse. I now see discipline or spanking or grounding or whatever form you choose to use, as an act of love, to discipline your children, to teach them that there are consequences for doing wrong. I didn't see that at the time I was being punished however.

As for what I said about C.S. Lewis everyone seems to be missing the point that when he set out to prove God didn't exist, he was at that time an aetheist. The research he did was personal, I don't think he felt he had publish his findings for anyone else to read, he probably did it as to fend off anyone who used the word God in his presence. Ya know, like people like to do with Evangelicals today, ya know have a defense ready so they don't have to listen to what they consider to be non-sense.

As for Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins being hacks, that's a personal opinion of yours. I was talking about the sales of books and who the number one Christian writer of all time may be, not their writing abilities. I think it's great that Christians and non-Christians alike enjoy the Left Behind series of books. Just like I think it's awesome that kids and adults enjoy the Harry Potter series.

[Craig]

It is a book packed with contradictions, and contains advice like "beat your children," (Proverbs 13, 14) and treat women as subservient creatures, amongst other wonderful advice.
<sigh> To quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." By Proverbs 13 and 14 I assume you're referring to Proverbs 13:24 (NIV):

"He who spares the rod hates his son,
but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."

The NLT translation hits on the basic meaning of this verse:

"If you refuse to discipline your children, it proves you don't love them; if you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline them."

Any parent understands the truth of this, especially any parent who has tried to raise a child without discipline. And there is a huge difference between beating your child and disciplining them. (Something that, unfortunately, many parents fail to understand. If your parents were like that I'm deeply sorry.)

As for treating women as subservient creatures, you need to brush up on your history. Jesus gave women a freedom they never had prior to his teachings. He treated them as human beings where the culture at the time didn't. He spoke to them and ministered to their needs where doing so was a cultural taboo. Yes, the famous subservient verse, Ephesians 5:22 says:

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord."

Now let's put it in context. Ephesians 5:21, says:

"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."

That was unheard of in those days. So were Ephesians 5:25 and 5:28:

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ... In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies."

Seems to me that once again the problem isn't with what the Bible teaches but rather with the way people take things out of context and twist them around to serve their own needs and power trips. Which is why, as at least one other person here has suggested, it's worth reading the Bible on your own...at least the NT, Psalms, and Proverbs.
Craig

[kickasspodcast]

It is my understanding that the Gospels in the New Testament are the real "meat and potatoes" of the entire Bible.

The rest is just details that people usually go to war over.

Especially the book of Revelations- the book of revelations is as rediculous
a book as one could possibly dream up- regardless of self imposed itoxication or hallucination. The freaks who quote the Book of Revelations have no understanding of basic literature.

How many science books that were "full of facts" at their time, have come out to be revised, updated, or entirely corrected?

OK so they didn't have all the data at the time right? Still doesn't change the fact that they were entirely freakin wrong.

The bible is the most misunderstood book in all of human history.

People completely forget 3 things when they read it:

1. metaphor
2. simile
3. allegory

Read it all again but assume 90% falls into one of these 3 catagories-
may make some more sense.

The devil is in the details afterall.

Jack B.

***ADDED
I read and have the book Be Here Now by Ram Dass-
It makes WAY more sense than Revelation and its got funky script and sideways text even. Part of it is in languages that I can't even read!
It still Kicks ***
http://yogalifestyle.com/images/BeHereNowMD.jpg

[kickasspodcast]

From-
A Brief History of Time -Stephen W. Hawking


The Uncertainty Principle

Einstein never accepted that the universe was governed by chance; his feelings were summed up in his famous statement "God does not play dice."

It [quantum mechanics] governs the behavior of transistors and integrated circuits, which are essential components of electronic devices such as televisions and computers, and is also the basis of modern chemistry and biology. The only areas of physical science into which quantum mechanics has not yet been properly incorporated are gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe. 60


The rest is at this link:
http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.html

So is Biology a physical science?

Jack B.

[Zecryphon]

It is my understanding that the Gospels in the New Testament are the real "meat and potatoes" of the entire Bible.

The rest is just details that people usually go to war over.

You think no one has gone to war over what was written in the Old Testament? Seems to me Palestine has a little problem with Israel's claim that the land they occupy was given to them by God as stated in the Old Testament.

Especially the book of Revelations- the book of revelations is as rediculous
a book as one could possibly dream up- regardless of self imposed itoxication or hallucination. The freaks who quote the Book of Revelations have no understanding of basic literature.

First of all, it's the book of Revelation, no "s". Second, I understand the book of Revelation to be a revelation from God to John of how the end of the world will happen. It's an account of final judgement on mankind, and the glory of the thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. It details what will happen to all who don't believe, and how Satan is finally dealt with and the eternal reign of Christ and His followers. The book has a happy ending. How can anyone have a problem with the way the book ends. Seems like a pretty awesome way to spend eternity.

Many books have been written on the subject, but since those are written by mere men they of course have no validity, with anyone on this message board, right?

How many science books that were "full of facts" at their time, have come out to be revised, updated, or entirely corrected?

I'm not aware that the book of Revelation has undergone any major changes or updates to keep up with the times. It's a book of prophecy, which means it chronicles events that have yet to happen. History has already seen many prophecies of the bible fulfilled.

OK so they didn't have all the data at the time right? Still doesn't change the fact that they were entirely freakin wrong.

The bible is the most misunderstood book in all of human history.

People completely forget 3 things when they read it:

1. metaphor
2. simile
3. allegory

Read it all again but assume 90% falls into one of these 3 catagories-
may make some more sense.

The devil is in the details afterall.

Jack B.

***ADDED
I read and have the book Be Here Now by Ram Dass-
It makes WAY more sense than Revelation and its got funky script and sideways text even. Part of it is in languages that I can't even read!
It still Kicks ***
http://yogalifestyle.com/images/BeHereNowMD.jpg[/quote]

So I'm to understand that having a book contain languages you don't understand is preferable to having a book in plain English? Why? You can't understand Revelation written in plain English. How can you then understand a book written in languages you don't understand. This is a joke right? :)

[jimk]

Revelation = Allegory.

In fact, it's a history text written in code to avoid Roman prosecution.

That's what *I* believe, anyway. It makes logical, reasonable sense to me.

[kickasspodcast]

You think no one has gone to war over what was written in the Old Testament? Seems to me Palestine has a little problem with Israel's claim that the land they occupy was given to them by God as stated in the Old Testament.

<Blank Stare>
I said that the Gospels were the "meat and potatoes" everything else (meaning- but the gospels) seems to contain the kind of useless details people would go to war over. People have surely gone to war over their own ill-interpretations of the Gospels also- but if you read nothing else in the bible- you should definitely read the gospels.


First of all, it's the book of Revelation, no "s". Second, I understand the book of Revelation to be a revelation from God to John of how the end of the world will happen. It's an account of final judgement on mankind, and the glory of the thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. It details what will happen to all who don't believe, and how Satan is finally dealt with and the eternal reign of Christ and His followers. The book has a happy ending. How can anyone have a problem with the way the book ends. Seems like a pretty awesome way to spend eternity.

Many books have been written on the subject, but since those are written by mere men they of course have no validity, with anyone on this message board, right?


That is your individual interpretation. To me its more of a huge allegory, wrapped in metaphors, loaded with similes. Abused by men of power for centuries in order to scare people into submission.

The book has a happy ending. How can anyone have a problem with the way the book ends

Are you freakin kidding me? The ending is basically- If you do not do a very specific set of things that maybe geographically impossible- you will burn in hell for all eternity. What about the kids who grow up hindu and never leave their village? I bet they wouldn't like the Book of Revelations. ;)


I'm not aware that the book of Revelation has undergone any major changes or updates to keep up with the times. It's a book of prophecy, which means it chronicles events that have yet to happen. History has already seen many prophecies of the bible fulfilled.
Dude-
I am saying that the bible hasn't really changed-while countless scientific books always have to be revised, edited, changed to be corrected altogether. That is because what we know as fact now, may not at all be a fact in say 2000 years. Those things thought as "facts" even 100 years ago
have been entirely ruled out altogether. I don't know why you are going after me on this- I never said the bible changed much since the Council of Nicea.

As for the Revolations of Paul
Its not a book of prophecy- its a book of lunacy. Abused to scare people.
But as I said before- its all in the interpretation.


So I'm to understand that having a book contain languages you don't understand is preferable to having a book in plain English? Why? You can't understand Revelation written in plain English. How can you then understand a book written in languages you don't understand. This is a joke right?

No, I never said it was preferable- I just said that it makes way more sense, despite the fact that it contains languages and symbols that I cannot decipher. It is a futherance of the fact that the book of Revelation makes no sense despite the fact that its text is clear AND in my native language. Its pretty sad when you can't make any sense and use normal fonts and plain (albeit the kings') English.

I have read several versionals of the Bible, plus other "holy books" and text- I have also read Be Here Now- Have you read be Here Now? Trust me- if you read it, you might probably agree that it kicks ***. I have read it in all states of consciousness and I can tell you it simply is amazingly telling.
Give it a read!

Jack B.

[spartacusroosevelt]

Well then that was a waste of time, because you only need to read one version... they all say the same thing.


Uhh...

What are those commandments (http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Bible%20Studies/10%20Commandments.htm) again?

I followed your link to the page that listed 3 versions of the ten commandments. Thank you for including that link, I found the page to be interesting. I didn't know that there were minor differences between the lists of commandments as recoreded by the Jewish, translated by the Catholics, and translated again by Martin Luther. However, other than the order of the commandments themselves, what is the real difference between them? Granted the first Jewish commandment is not listed by either Catholics or Protestants but we know that God through Moses led his people out of Egypt.

But getting back to the commandments do they not all say the same thing? Do not covet, Do not kill, You shall have no other God before me? They read the same way to me, but maybe I'm just ignorant. Remember, I'm not a professor of theology, or a minister, or a scholar of the bible. I'm just a born again Christian sharing my views, my faith and why I believe what I believe. I know I'll spend the rest of my days on earth reading the bible and still not understanding all of it.

But it sounds to me as if you're suggesting that since the order of the commandments between the 3 versions is not the same, that the commandments themselves somehow become invalid.

I see alot of this happening within the factions of Christianity too. People become so hung up on the minor differences between versions of the bible, that instead of looking for the common message or meaning between the two or three or whatever, they lose the central message. It's almost like it's too much work for someone to think about what they're reading. So, instead they opt to ignore it because that's just easier.


All that and all I was doing is pointing out there are many variations so when you make a blanket statement that they all say the same thing, they don't.

But an interesting thought. Nine in the Catholic says don't "covet they neighbor's wife," how did that get there? Seems a little redundant with adultery a couple of pegs up. Maybe someone along the way had a cheating mother that brought him grief. So through insistance and force of will pushed into tradition, this translation of the decalogue became standard in a major branch of Christianity.

"Gee Brother Spartacus, I don't get it"

It's easy. Men can and do manipulate scripture to their liking. Emphasize one part and find reason to ignore others. Interpret it how you see fit. Add whole sections of other documents (is the Sermon on the Mount a traditional Essene text?). Unless you have Faith (belief without evidence) that the God in the book controlled every step of the way, it doesn't hold up.

You have the faith, good for you. I just wish the Xtian community would stop using groupthink to insist that believing in God with lack of evidence is the easiest thing in the world and we non-believers should just quit being bull headed.

[volwrath]

I subscribe to what JimK said earlier. Revelations is a history book for 70AD. Nero is the antichrist.

Of course I also disagree with much of what Zeph has said. How anyone (even Christians) can take the Bible as the inerrant word of God is beyond me. It was written by men and riddled with errors.

One such fallacy is as follows: 1 of the 10 commandments is Thou shall not steal, yet God told the Israelites to plunder Egypt before leaving. An obvious problem for a omniscient God.

There is as big a divide between liberal and fundalmentalist Christians as there are between atheist and fundamentalist Christians.

[Hittman]

The dinasours in the bible appears to be the result of an over active imagination, desperate to prove something. There is no indication that a "behemoth" was a dinasour. It could have been an elephant, a whale, or Michael Moore.

You still haven't addressed how god created light, night, day, etc, and then created the sun. Isn't that just a little backwards?

Now, I'm sorry that you were raised in a fundamentalist cult, and your views of what the bible says come from people who want to distort it to fit their own agenda.

That is what every fundamentalist cult says about every other fundamentalist cult.

I suggest that you don't let the ignorance of some, keep you from a relationship with God and Jesus. I personally would disregard everything they told you, come to Him with a new open mind and heart, and let the words themselves speak to you. Try attending a non-denominational bible church, where the focus is on what the bible actually says, not what someone tells you it says. God is trying to reach you, please don't let the bad actions of others from your past, harden your heart against Him and His teachings.

Sorry, I've pledged my allegiance to the Invisible Pink Unicorn, because there's just as much evidence for his existence as there is for your particular god. Although, if I really needed a god to get by, I'd probably go for the Greek or Norse ones. They had better stories and more interesting personalities.

As for the woman being submissive to the man. As I understand it, that is part of God's plan. It doesn't mean that women are slaves, have no rights, and must do whatever the man says.

I never said it did. But women are supposed to be "subject" to men. Subserviant to them. I treat my wife, daughters, and other women in my life as equals, and it works out pretty well. I don't have any intention of changing, and demanding that they change, because of something someone wrote two millennia ago. And if I did go to church, I wouldn't make them wear hats and shave their heads if they didn't want to.

There was a typo in my post re: the "Beat your children" verses in the bible. It should have been Proverbs 23:13,14 - "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

Note that this is not an option. That is a command to beat your children. Earlier, we're given the same advice with slightly different wording:

Proverbs 13: 24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

So if you don't beat your kids, you hate them. Right there in black and white. The word of God.

It's pretty specific there, Craig. Beat 'em. You're required to. It doesn't say "discipline them," which is one of the primary responsibilities of any parent. It doesn't say slap their wrist, or give them a pat on the behind. It says beat them. With a stick.

Yes, the famous subservient verse, Ephesians 5:22 says:

There's that Paul again, mucking up Christianity. I really do believe it would be a much more palatable religion if the Bible ended with the book of John. Paul was a dick.

[kickasspodcast]

Hittman

did you know about this?
Google Image + dave hitt -the 1st result you get!

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=dave+hitt&btnG=Search

Gross dude-


http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:wv1l6mM8GkAJ:http://www.davehitt.com/june99/badjob.jpg


<puke>

[jimk]

More personal attacks and insults from Jack.

Gee...what a surprise.

[Craig]

It's pretty specific there, Craig. Beat 'em. You're required to. It doesn't say "discipline them," which is one of the primary responsibilities of any parent. It doesn't say slap their wrist, or give them a pat on the behind. It says beat them. With a stick.
Give me a break, Dave. Read the rest of the Bible and it's quite clear that God wouldn't tell you to beat your child as you're using the term. So what's going on with this particular verse then? Either the word "beat" had a milder meaning when the translation you're reading from was written (in 1611) or the translator chose the word poorly. Here are two translations of the verse from modern versions:

"Don't fail to correct your children. They won't die if you spank them. Physical discipline may well save them from death." (NLT)

"Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death." (NIV)

Either way it's obviously referring to discipline, not a beating. As for the rod part of it, you'll find child psychologists today arguing that if you choose to spank it's better to do so with a ruler/wooden spoon (rod) than your hand.

Yes, the famous subservient verse, Ephesians 5:22 says:
There's that Paul again, mucking up Christianity.
No, there's you again taking one sentence I wrote out of context...within context it was obvious that I was being facetious since I was placing the verse in context showing that what Paul was saying actually empowered women within the culture.

Craig

[Illinoise]

Oh man, we are sooooo close to a Bible study. Whad'ya say? Cover one book a month, post a chapter or two each day, and then a wide-open, no-holds-barred discussion.

I think it's painfully obvious that most of us (present company included) have not read the thing and so anything we say or quote or exemplify is really just rhetoric we heard someone else use.

C'mon, brilliant minds of podcasting. Let's lay it out there, find out what all the hype is about and put this bad boy to rest (in our own minds) once and for all.

Are we supposed to beat our kids? Is Nero the anichrist? Is any of this consistent with the rest of the book? Are we scared of this book because it's so long?

I vote for Derek to lead this. He seems most level-headed.

Then we can move on to the Koran, Harry Potter, or any of Oprah's favorites. A podcasting book club?? I LIKE it.

[Dr. Mabuse]

From-
A Brief History of Time -Stephen W. Hawking


The Uncertainty Principle

Einstein never accepted that the universe was governed by chance; his feelings were summed up in his famous statement "God does not play dice."

It [quantum mechanics] governs the behavior of transistors and integrated circuits, which are essential components of electronic devices such as televisions and computers, and is also the basis of modern chemistry and biology. The only areas of physical science into which quantum mechanics has not yet been properly incorporated are gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe. 60


The rest is at this link:
http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/abhotswh.html

So is Biology a physical science?

Jack B.I would have said that biology is a natural science, but if Hawking thinks biology counts as a physical science, who am I to argure. I've read the Swedish translation of A Brief History of Time.

Now... Where is the paragraph where Hawking says that Quantum Mechanics is apramount to the interconnectivity of life?
If you recant your statement that Hawking said so, I'll grant you that it was an honest mistake on your behalf, and I'll not think less of you for it*. We can all make mistakes.

Quantum Mechanics describes radioactive decay, and if a DNA molecule contains a Carbon14 atom that decays, then we get a broken DNA strain, or a mutation. So stuff that happens on QM-levels do affect biological processes. But to go from there to say that QM is somehow interconnecting all life... there simply is no such behaviour in QM.

*However, your personal attacks and insults on the other hand puts you in very bad light. It makes it much harder for people to take you seriously, regardless of how well founded (or not) your arguments may be.

[kickasspodcast]

OK-

Hawking Never says that biology is a physical science- I asked if it was because it may be relevant to the underlined segment quoted. I don’t think I said that he said biology- but maybe I am wrong

Did you read the whole thing?
Or just that paragraph?

Read the whole thing like 5 times- then read his next book and then books by at least 2 other authors- then you will begin to see why some people who are "armchair quantum physicists" feel that it holds the secrets to how all life is connected- even if initially on a particle basis.

I didnt even say that Hawking says that Quantum Mechanics is "paramount" to the interconnectivity.

What I said way back on page 4.

Because you see, to Pysicists these are the same things
particle interaction = interconnectivity of life.

OK- so what I should have said is "...To SOME Physicists...."

I apologize if I wasn't clearer.

As far as personal attacks- whatever- When someone cries personal attack
its usually because they cannot just ignore it (like an adult) and continue with their debate. Its ultra politico to cry "Personal Attack" when you disagree with someone.

Some people here have whole websites devoted to attacking people personally- I don't care what they do, I just point out pertinant hypocricy.


Quantum Mechanics describes radioactive decay, and if a DNA molecule contains a Carbon14 atom that decays, then we get a broken DNA strain, or a mutation. So stuff that happens on QM-levels do affect biological processes. But to go from there to say that QM is somehow interconnecting all life... there simply is no such behaviour in QM.

How totally awesome is it that you can sum up all of what QM is and Isn't in 1 paragraph! I'd suggest you do a bit more reading- We were all talking about Quantum Physics anyways- not totally different- not exactly the same as the QM aspect. But its cool- none of us are perfect.

Hope this helps-

AND Jimk?

More personal attacks and insults from Jack.

Gee...what a surprise.


I wasn't personally attacking hittman- I just find it absolutely freakin hilarious that you google image his name and you see a picture of a naked starving boy sucking a camels ***.
I just find that **** funny.

Jack.

[dcolanduno]

Oh man, we are sooooo close to a Bible study. Whad'ya say? Cover one book a month, post a chapter or two each day, and then a wide-open, no-holds-barred discussion.

Oooo, this could be fun. We used to do this back in College in our Theology classes. Biblical debate is pretty neat stuff.


Are we supposed to beat our kids? Is Nero the anichrist? Is any of this consistent with the rest of the book? Are we scared of this book because it's so long?

A mix of 'long' and, like Shakespeare, a lot of people need help with translating how the wording is designed. Always makes for an under-read book/story. I've actually been surprised at the popularity of the HBO series Deadwood, since it is primarily in Iambic Pentameter... but that's another discussion.

I vote for Derek to lead this. He seems most level-headed.

Whoa, and after all this, I thought I lost my cool back there somewhere. Thanks for the vote of confidence though!

Then we can move on to the Koran, Harry Potter, or any of Oprah's favorites. A podcasting book club?? I LIKE it.

I really like it. Funny because there are a few of us podcasters putting together a 'group' of podcasts, each with different book topics. To do interviews with book authors and such, each of us covering a different topic. Kind of runs in the same vein as this in a twisted way.

There are some good ideas in there!

[Hittman]

Gross dude-


http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:wv1l6mM8GkAJ:http://www.davehitt.com/june99/badjob.jpg


<puke>

Dear Puke:

Sorry to embarrass you with one of your childhood pictures.

Regards,

Hittman

[Hittman]

It's pretty specific there, Craig. Beat 'em. You're required to. It doesn't say "discipline them," which is one of the primary responsibilities of any parent. It doesn't say slap their wrist, or give them a pat on the behind. It says beat them. With a stick.
Give me a break, Dave. Read the rest of the Bible and it's quite clear that God wouldn't tell you to beat your child as you're using the term. So what's going on with this particular verse then? Either the word "beat" had a milder meaning when the translation you're reading from was written (in 1611) or the translator chose the word poorly. Here are two translations of the verse from modern versions:

"Don't fail to correct your children. They won't die if you spank them. Physical discipline may well save them from death." (NLT)

"Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death." (NIV)

Either way it's obviously referring to discipline, not a beating. As for the rod part of it, you'll find child psychologists today arguing that if you choose to spank it's better to do so with a ruler/wooden spoon (rod) than your hand.

You can do this little dance all day Craig, and it doesn't change the fact that the bible COMMANDS parents, even in the watered down translations you're cherry picking from, to beat your kids. It doesn't say give him a time out. It doesn't say sit him down and have a stern conversation. It doesn't say take away his PS2 for a week. It says "Punish him with a rod." Unless that's referring to forcing him to listen to "The American Songbook Vol 1- 3," (which might be worse than beating them) the meaning is crystal clear.

Beat your children.

Yes, the famous subservient verse, Ephesians 5:22 says:
There's that Paul again, mucking up Christianity.
No, there's you again taking one sentence I wrote out of context...within context it was obvious that I was being facetious since I was placing the verse in context showing that what Paul was saying actually empowered women within the culture.

Craig

I've heard the same argument from Muslims – forcing women to cover themselves completely somehow empowers them. And I belive Orwell voiced a similar starment in Animal Farm: Freedom is Slavery.

[Zecryphon]

The book has a happy ending. How can anyone have a problem with the way the book ends

Are you freakin kidding me? The ending is basically- If you do not do a very specific set of things that maybe geographically impossible- you will burn in hell for all eternity. What about the kids who grow up hindu and never leave their village? I bet they wouldn't like the Book of Revelations. ;)

The scenario you're setting up, as I understand it is a little Hindu in a village in a remote part of India or wherever, lives his entire life in that village and never hears the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In this case, when he faces God for the judgement of his life, his life will be judged on his actions and the kind of person he was while on earth. It is not in God's nature to punish those who never heard the truth, who never had a chance to accept Jesus as their savior and accept the free gift of salvation from their sins. That's all anyone has to do to avoid going to Hell. Why would God punish someone for not believing in Jesus, when they never learned who Jesus is and what he's done for them?

Alot of people say, 'Christianity is too narrow minded, that Jesus being the only way to Heaven is too exclusive, either accept Jesus or burn in Hell... nice choice'. But the reality of it is, we accept everyone. You just have to admit you're a sinner, and that you want to accept Jesus' free gift of salvation, and you want to welcome him into your heart and your life. If you pray what is known as the sinner's prayer, in which you admit your sin, and your desire to be free from your sin, then that's all you have to do. You're in my friend, and the kicker is, that's ALL you have to do. He requires nothing else.

It comes down to doing versus done. Religions are about doing things to try and earn your way into Heaven. Doing good works, being kind, praying x amount of times throughout the day, helping those less fortunate than you. These are all good things and people should do these anyway, but these acts will not get you into Heaven. I've said before there is only one way, and it's available to everyone, regardless of what you've done in the past. Even Hitler and Judas could've gone to Heaven had they accepted the gift. So how much worse are you than those guys?

I would like to apologize to you as well, I clearly misunderstood what you said, earlier about science books and Revelation. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to "go after you'.

[Ricky]

Read the whole thing like 5 times- then read his next book and then books by at least 2 other authors- then you will begin to see why some people who are "armchair quantum physicists" feel that it holds the secrets to how all life is connected- even if initially on a particle basis.

You are joking, right? If you can't find a passage, or even chapter, which backs your statement that, "particle interaction = interconnectivity of life" then recant it.

As for the actual statement itself, I think it might just be a problem with language. When you say, "interconnectivity of life," what exactly do you mean? The first thing that comes to my mind is some metaphysics crap about how a life force that connects us all and to nature.

[dcolanduno]

Just something else that is topical, but lightens the mood:

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2&ref=myy

[Zecryphon]

The dinasours in the bible appears to be the result of an over active imagination, desperate to prove something. There is no indication that a "behemoth" was a dinasour. It could have been an elephant, a whale, or Michael Moore.

I wasn't aware that elephants or whales had arms. As for Michael Moore, I don't think there's any evidence that can explain away that one.

You still haven't addressed how god created light, night, day, etc, and then created the sun. Isn't that just a little backwards?

Genesis says, God created light, day and night by speaking the light into existence. There's your explanation for how it happened. Now, I don't have the mental capacity to understand how speaking something into existence works, so I'm not going to worry about it today. When I die, and I am with Jesus, I'll ask him. The way I understand it right now is that the light God spoke into existence in the earlier part of the chapter is what allows all of his creations to be seen. By this I don't just mean the things on this earth, but all the planets, celestial bodies and what not. He then created the sun, to give light to this planet and only this planet, and also to sustain vegetation and all forms of life, and also to mark time by, days, months, years. etc. But this is just my interpretation. The book of Genesis reads fine to me.

If you really have a problem with the way events happen in the bible, I suggest you get yourself a chronological bible that puts all the events in the bible in, you guessed it chronological order.

Your brother in Christ.

Zecryphon

[kickasspodcast]

On The Matter of Evolution as Proven Fact

In looking closely at this matter one would have to
consider at least a minimum set of assumptions.
These assumptions include:

Everything Evolves through Natural Selection over time into more evolved "life".

Species Evolve into More Evolved Species -Monkeys evolve into Men.

To prove something, you must have evidence for what you are considering as fact.

Take me to task if you think I have assumed incorrectly or please, seriously, let me know
what parameters you would like me to continue.

Let us 1st look at the Nautilis- One of the earths oldest Creatures. Billions of years
has this ocean dwelling little guy been around. Look at the Eye of the Nautilis. When you
examine the abilities of the Eye or the Nautilis you find that it has incredibly bad
vision, when compared to other creatures of its ancestry and environment, it has unusually,
unexplicably bad vision. A Blurry, cloudy, murky vision lense makes things much harder, it also is the only part of the nautilis that seems to "need" to evolve, and
there is absolutely no explanation for why this, one of the oldest of creatures has yet to even
slightly improve its Eye.

This alone proves nothing but its contributory to the rest.

If we can assume that everyone evolved from something else that came before it, can
we assume that everything dies and the bones and fossils are somewhere in the earth.
Some really old fossils are now fueling my Hyundai and Fosco's Saturn- but we aren't
looking at Dino bones right now.

Lets now look at perhaps the most common example of Evolution, if not the most controversial.
Monkeys Turning into Men.

If we are to assume that All Human Beings evolved from Monkeys, we also must accept that human beings (nor our possible Monkey Ancestors) are nowhere near old enough to have both fossilized and subsequently pressed into crude oil over time. We should be able to present fossil records
for each stage of the Evolutionary process that we are going to boldly consider to be "fact".

And not only for humans, had every species of every animal in the world supposedly evolved from something before it. If we are to believe this, knowing the abundance of animals pretty much everywhere on the globe- There would be massive fossil evidence that would clearly be physical
evidence of each stage of each animals evolutionary process. SURE some of the older, earlier stages would be older and in poor condition, but considering there are animals everywhere, there should be bones of all dead animals everywhere that dig long enough. We should have no
problem finding every fossil we need to conclude that each animal evolved into something eventually entirely different.

OK its easy to say hey- Monkeys Into Men- duh!

Its also really easy to note that a Giraffes Neck would make sense to get longer if it had to
eat off tall trees. That is surely proof of Natural Selection.

BUT- if we have Kangaroos, Aligators, Crabs, Birds, Dogs, Rhino's, Snakes, Lions, Penguins, Grizzly Bears, Centipedes etc...

There are billions of animals living today, countless dead animals beneath our feet. We shouldn't have any problem finding their fossils right? Well what was a Rhino before it was a rhino? What was a crab or a Lion before it was a Lion. Where are the fossils that are really old that actually show physical proof of each species evolution into an entirely different
animal. Or into some wierd mix of one animal about to turn into another.

OK so I can get how you say monkey turns into man- makes sense- walk alike, kinda look alike.

But how do you account for the variety of the earths animals, where are the fossil records that show the evolution of all creatures. We have plenty of money and places to look for the infinite dead bones of animals from millions and gillions of years ago.

What museum can I see the fossils showing each stage of the evolutionary process for each animal? Surely if the Fossils existed, there would be 100's of 1000's of examples of Snake -> Lizard -> Bird -> Penguin, I mean who knows right? Nobody has that kinda proof, in truth there are 1000's of "studies" and dozens of actual physical examples- most of which require alot of Faith to actually believe show proof of a much larger picture.

If everything evolved from something else before it, there would be bones of every stage to be found nearly everywhere that species lived and died.

Where is the fossil evidence.
How come all evolution does is point to about the same 10-20 examples. No species on the planet has a complete evolutionary chart, with physical evidence showing that species evolution from is beginng to its modern day equivilant.

I will in part give into the idea that as time progresses people will find more evidence. However, considering the technology and funding of today's science community, it is hard to believe that people aren't humble enough to see the overwhelming lack of actual physical evidence on a cross species level and still believe they have anything more than a Good Theory.

You have to fill in the gaps to make something turn from Theory to Fact-

The more gaps you fill in, the better your theory- BUT unless its a strait line
with all the dots connected, someone would only be arrogant to actually believe it to be 100% proven fact.

Just tell me what museums, where the fossils are that I have asked- I have tried to come at this on the Scientific Level- Like I said before, I am a strong believer Natural Selection, because I can see it- its real.

But considering how everything is supposedly evolved from something before it- we should have mountains of Physical evidence for all species. But we don't.

We simply do not have that evidence- we have some evidence- but not enough to be accepted as fact. That is why the still call it, And everyone calls it "The Theory of Evolution". Not all that different from Plate Tektonics- Its a great theory, with LOTS of evidence, but theres also alot that says, "well...wait a second."

I have talked with some good friends, people smarter than I- actually trying to learn more about this- even read a bit- YES I had the time in between production- but seriously- its a big issue that people should look at more slowely.

Am eagerly looking forward to replies.



"In an infinite universe, all things are not only possible, but probable."


Yes this thread is about religion- but people who argue about relgion are dumb.

Yes, they are dumb.


(everything above- IMHIO)

Jack B.

[Ricky]

Everything Evolves through Natural Selection over time into more evolved "life".

Not true. Everything doesn't have to evolve. Under these conditions, a life form evolves if and only if:

1.) It can reproduce
2.) It's offspring are not exactly like it

A possible third is that there are selective pressures, but that is natural selection and there are other ways to evolve such as genetic drift.

But the point is, not everything has to be able to evolve. It just turns out that all life (as we know it), does.

As for being more "evolved", all life forms are linked. And since all lifeforms came of the same first life, then all life forms have been evolving for the same about of time. That doesn't mean they have to become more complex. Whatever works, works.

Species Evolve into More Evolved Species -Monkeys evolve into Men.

What?!? How is this an assumption? We have seen it happen (not monkey to man though.... although... I guess we have). But again, not all species evolve into other species. If that were the case, then every species would only be alive for 1 generation...

To prove something, you must have evidence for what you are considering as fact.


Careful on your word choice. You don't prove things in science. You only give evidence for them.

Let us 1st look at the Nautilis- One of the earths oldest Creatures. Billions of years
has this ocean dwelling little guy been around. Look at the Eye of the Nautilis. When you
examine the abilities of the Eye or the Nautilis you find that it has incredibly bad
vision, when compared to other creatures of its ancestry and environment, it has unusually,
unexplicably bad vision. A Blurry, cloudy, murky vision lense makes things much harder, it also is the only part of the nautilis that seems to "need" to evolve, and
there is absolutely no explanation for why this, one of the oldest of creatures has yet to even
slightly improve its Eye.

If the Nautilis can survive for billions of years without evolving a better eye, then I don't think it "needs" to evolve one.

We can look at something and point out its worst part. For example, humans use the same tube for breathing and eating. This leads to choking. Dogs can only see light intensity, not color. But evolution can't.

There are weaknesses to every species. When the species can survive despite that weakness, no evolution is needed.



The remainder of your post can be refuted by this simple fact: Fossils are extremely rare.

When a creature dies, its body is normally eaten by scavengers. Even bones are cracked open to get to the marrow. Many pieces are spread, or possibly even eaten. Then comes rain and other weather elements. Finally, the remains, if you want to call them that because they rarely remain at this stage, are buried. They sit in the earth where they are subjected to plate shifts, volcanic activity, and other various geological phenomena (which I don't know much about).

It has to be almost perfect conditions for a fossil to be made, let alone an entire skeleton.

[Kil]

kickasspodcast:
And not only for humans, had every species of every animal in the world supposedly evolved from something before it. If we are to believe this, knowing the abundance of animals pretty much everywhere on the globe- There would be massive fossil evidence that would clearly be physical
evidence of each stage of each animals evolutionary process. SURE some of the older, earlier stages would be older and in poor condition, but considering there are animals everywhere, there should be bones of all dead animals everywhere that dig long enough. We should have no
problem finding every fossil we need to conclude that each animal evolved into something eventually entirely different.


Perhaps these links will help you to understand fossilization better…


http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/taphonomy.html

http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/courses/en570/papers_1998/spriggs.htm


I could supply more if you wish…

[Hittman]

The dinasours in the bible appears to be the result of an over active imagination, desperate to prove something. There is no indication that a "behemoth" was a dinasour. It could have been an elephant, a whale, or Michael Moore.

I wasn't aware that elephants or whales had arms. As for Michael Moore, I don't think there's any evidence that can explain away that one.

Then why doesn't it say Dinosaur, if that's what was meant.

Like I said, wishful thinking. And the idea that dinos and man walked the earth at the same time is just too goofy to even discuss.

You still haven't addressed how god created light, night, day, etc, and then created the sun. Isn't that just a little backwards?

Genesis says, God created light, day and night by speaking the light into existence. There's your explanation for how it happened. Now, I don't have the mental capacity to understand how speaking something into existence works, so I'm not going to worry about it today.

So you're copping out. No problem, I'm used to that from religious people. (See earlier in the thread, where Craig is trying to pretend that "beat him with a rod" means something other than "beat him with a rod.")

You claimed that science agreed with the bible. My specific question was how does science agree with the idea that light was created first, then night and day, then the sun. It's a simple question. And you can't provide a real answer.

See, that's why I trust science and distrust religion. Science really searches for the answers. Religion evades them.

That, and the fact that every time, every single time, that religion has condemned science, they've been proven wrong. Every time!

The book of Genesis reads fine to me.

It reads like nonsense to me.

Your brother in Christ.

Dude, you can be my brother in podcasting. You can be my brother in any number of things. But you can't be my brother in Christ, because I put that behind me when I grew up. I guess I took 1 Corinthians 13:11 too literally.

Kickass, remember, either in this thread or an earlier one, (I'm not sure which) I speculated that there may be things beyond man's understanding, just as 1+1=2 is beyond the understanding of even the most clever puppy? Well, Spunky, engaging in a conversation about science (or anything else for that matter) with you is like trying to discuss the Riemann hypothesis with that puppy. Your spewing of creationist pap further proves the point.

Have you figured out yet that Muslim isn't a race? Just wondering how long it will take for that little fact to sink in.

I do find it entertaining that you're spending so much time googleing me, though. If I had any respect for you, even the tiniest shred, your obsession with me wouldn't be quite so laughable. What are you trying to do, figure out who you want to imitate if you ever become a real boy? If you could only keep that nose from growing…

[Canis Lupus]

Some people seek truth through God. Some people seek God through truth.

The Big Bang Theory is something I completely believe. We are all made of "star stuff" as Carl Sagan said.

Evolution is a no-brainer, and anyone who believes otherwise is not seeking truth through God, but rather is seeking truth through man.

The big question is, "What's before the Big Bang?" Is it God? Possibly.

To have a conscience, and as such the ability to have critical conciousness, is uniquely human on this Earth. Was that part of God's plan? Maybe. But that plan didn't begin with Adam and Eve. It would have had to begin billions of years before that.

The Bible is a book written by men based upon their conscience at the time of the writings. So is every other religious work of note across the world.

Before man had the ability to use language in speech and writing, is it possible God resided in their conscience? Sure.

But what if God existed within every human, because we humans are not reflections of the image of God, but God is the reflection of the image of us humans?

My 2

[Hittman]

To have a conscience, and as such the ability to have critical conciousness, is uniquely human on this Earth.

I'm not so sure.

First off, having a conscience, and having critical conciseness, are two different things. My last dog had a conscience. She never got away with anything, because she'd slink around and look guilty when she knew she's done something wrong. Some animals will put themselves in danger to save humans. Is that having a conscience? If it isn't it's **** close.

I'm not entirely convinced that some of the larger ocean mammals aren't intelligent. I'm not convinced that they are, either, but I think the possibility is there.

But what if God existed within every human, because we humans are not reflections of the image of God, but God is the reflection of the image of us humans?


Archie: Well youse two may have come from monkeys and bamboons, but not me. The Lord God created me in his image.
Mike: You mean God looks like you?
Archie: I ain't saying you couldn't tell the two of us apart.

[Canis Lupus]

sorry hittman - i meant to link both conscience and critical conciousness as 2 separate things that, when united in one being, are unique to humans.

as a dog owner and lover, i know of what you speak, although i still think dogs, as closely as they're tied to humans (long before the Bible was written by the way), are still working on instinct. However, their instinct may appear much more like conscience or conscious thought because of their close relationship to man over many millenia, which of course - would be evolution.

[kickasspodcast]

Oh SNAP!

Now this is the kind of antagonism I expect from PCA forums! Where else can I get this kinda love.
First let me Bite my tongue at Hittman- Never fails to go without a superior comment trying to belittle me. Its ok- you have been ownd so many times its pretty much your only option. Anyways-


I said- Species Evolve into More Evolved Species -Monkeys evolve into Men.


What?!? How is this an assumption? We have seen it happen (not monkey to man though.... although... I guess we have). But again, not all species evolve into other species. If that were the case, then every species would only be alive for 1 generation...

I am sorry if I wasn't more clear. The 1st part was my assumption- the 2nd part was an example of that common assumption.
You have seen it happen? Really? Tell me more- but wait? You didn't -now I am confused. Slow down man- if all species eventually evolved into other species that would be... evolution! It wouldn't at all mean that every species would only live for 1 generation. I think what you mean is that if every member of each generation of species evolved into another species. And nobody, especially me said that. That is laughable. That is like saying if we evolved from monkeys then "WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS?" Doesn't prove anything if you study natural selection.

So where does the variety of all life come from? If man evolved from monkey- then other things had to come from other beings right? Where did they come from? Where are the fossils, I know sabertooth tiger and all of that- but there should be millions more. Nobody has any explanation for the diversity, sometimes needless diversity of the animal kingdom.

And...
Not true. Everything doesn't have to evolve. Under these conditions, a life form evolves if and only if:

1.) It can reproduce
2.) It's offspring are not exactly like it

A possible third is that there are selective pressures, but that is natural selection and there are other ways to evolve such as genetic drift.

So which is it? 2 or 3 conditions? Maybe more? Do you even know? What life forms cannot reproduce and what life forms produce exact clones of themselves? I am no biologist so I am seriously asking.


But the point is, not everything has to be able to evolve. It just turns out that all life (as we know it), does.
What the hell?

I am just talking about the life as we know it part. So if all life evolves then why did you say this?

If the Nautilis can survive for billions of years without evolving a better eye, then I don't think it "needs" to evolve one.

OK if all life evolves- show me the evolution of the Nautilis- then show me the fossils you have to prove it.


We can look at something and point out its worst part. For example, humans use the same tube for breathing and eating. This leads to choking. Dogs can only see light intensity, not color. But evolution can't.


You could just as easily say that the shape of the throat and neck has evolved to accomodate our modern lifestyle and foods. You could also say that over time dogs hearing got gradually better and because they didn't need to see color they slowly lost the ability to. But you'd have to find a ancient dog's eyeball to look at and know for sure.

But its interesting you say those are the "worst parts". That's not really scientific is it? I mean I think my dog Kodiak would rather have say.... thumbs than be able to see in color. And humans same tube issue is nothing compared to our lack of webbed feet or more dexterous digits.


There are weaknesses to every species. When the species can survive despite that weakness, no evolution is needed.

The heck?
You know what to evolve means? It doesn't mean just to survive. It means to gradually improve. To simply survive is to suffice- sometimes you need to gradually improve to suffice that's where natural selection comes into play.

Just because you can't find any proof doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. But it also doesn't mean that it does.

But wait you said-
The remainder of your post can be refuted by this simple fact: Fossils are extremely rare.

Dictionary.com
A remnant or trace of an organism of a past geologic age, such as a skeleton or leaf imprint, embedded and preserved in the earth's crust.

I am sure there are Millions of known fossils- making them Not anything close to rare. Probably Billions of fossils in known existance- Just not the ones that prove anything you believe. Again- SHOW me the museums that have part man part monkey- Where are the bones that are half Bird half something else or even 95% bird and 5% something else- You can't.
If you could- you would have linked to them. Instead of lecturing me about how science works and telling me that somethings evolve, somethings never will, some things don't need to.

There are millions of Fossils like I said before- maybe billions, I dunno-
this makes them entirely not rare at all
Not to mention there are over 1000 fossils on sale at ebay- so doesn't seem too rare to me. You just can't find the ones you want.
http://search.ebay.com/fossils_W0QQfromZR40QQfsooZ2QQfsopZ3QQsojsZ1
But you can buy dinosaur fossils for under a buck. Those are dino bones-
WAY older than any of the animals we are talking about here.

Not to mention that there are practically infinite species to have lived and
died- Are you implying that all of their bones "conveniently" dissapeared. They found a friggin ice-man from however many gajillion years ago- yet your telling me that they can't find any fossils for any species to prove anything you assume? There should be overwhelming evidence. But there is only a myth that fossils are rare- then you find out they aren't at all, hell you can buy them on Ebay for a dollar. But WAIT- its the fossils you don't have that are rare.
Oftly convenient.


When a creature dies, its body is normally eaten by scavengers. Even bones are cracked open to get to the marrow. Many pieces are spread, or possibly even eaten. Then comes rain and other weather elements.
Finally, the remains, if you want to call them that because they rarely remain at this stage, are buried. They sit in the earth where they are subjected to plate shifts, volcanic activity, and other various geological phenomena (which I don't know much about).

Plate shifts? Volcanic Activity? How many plates and volcanos are there Ricky? Don't you think there are some steps in between a dead corpse being rained on and "buried in the earth......subjected to plate shifts and volcanic activity". I mean maybe if you happen to die and fall down either a volcano or the San Andreas, but it seems like you are overlooking alot.


It has to be almost perfect conditions for a fossil to be made, let alone an entire skeleton.

Well it has to be Perfect conditions to make a Sacher Torte at your house- but people do it all the time. Perfect condition for diamonds, crude oil, gemstones- none of them rare- neither are fossils.

Lastly- for those of you who don't know it.

I am not at all preaching creationism.
What I believe doesn't matter- it is really nobody's business but mine.

But I can have a scientific discussion or a theological discussion.
TO some people- all they can discuss is what they believe- I think alot of people are like this. Especially about sensitive or controversial subjects.
Its really hard to look at things from all sides when you are convinced and have a horse in the race. To me its just as bad to see the Pope or
Mr. Science guy get up and act like they are the ones who know what is a fact and belittle and look down on nay-sayers. Or to be so shocked when people point out valid flaws in their reasoning.

Especially when Science bullies religion- as if either have anything to do with the other.
There is no reason for Science or Religion to f' with one another. Both prosper when left alone. Both prosper when each respects another.

Frankly there are times in life when Science can offer you nothing. And religion is there for the people who want it- It is their choice. They shouldn't be called ignorant or stupid or belittled by anyone.

>cracks knuckles<

@
Kil-

Here is a link from the 1st Science website you gave me:

"The Sexy mother-in-law to Be"
http://home.tiac.net/~cri/2005/hermother.html

The other one is just someone's homework for an entomology class.
Are you serious dude? Please come with something better than that.


Funny how all the Scientists are no where to be seen?

So where are the museums with the fossils that prove it all?
I belive it happend, but I am a man of Faith- I have no problem with it.


But what if God existed within every human, because we humans are not reflections of the image of God, but God is the reflection of the image of us humans?

I see a spaceship! What do you see charlie brown?
There is a word for people who think god is in every human. OR to see each man as his own god. I will go look for it, If anyone knows- thanks. I think you are just discussing the idea- but its still pretty cooky. The idea of God is an eternal thing. Humans are anything but enteral.
ITs fun to think about though... I can dig it.


Well thats almost it but...

Couldn't resist.

My last dog had a conscience.


Dictionary.com for Conscience:
The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong.

When you hear bullshit like this, however charismatic- You've been Smartenized!

I am sure your dog prefered to be rewarded instead of scolded and was conditioned to do so. But in case you are still confused my axe wielding friend, having a Conscience is considered having "Higher Thinking" skills. Neither your dog, nor my 3 dogs have anything close to a conscience. Hittman continues to misunderstand the world! Surpise, suprise.
I would suggest you read BF Skinner on that one- he was at IU in the 60s. Cool guy.

You need a more fully formed memory to have a Conscience. Dog's do not have this kind of ability. But its ok- I love dogs too! I think they are in most ways the most respecatable form of life on the planet. Seriously.

Jack B.

[Hittman]

Why do stupid people think dictionary arguments are so much fun? Why are they so trite, uncreative and predictable?

sorry hittman - i meant to link both conscience and critical conciousness as 2 separate things that, when united in one being, are unique to humans.

That's clearer. But does a dolphin, rescuing a drowning human, have both of those things too?

as a dog owner and lover, i know of what you speak, although i still think dogs, as closely as they're tied to humans (long before the Bible was written by the way), are still working on instinct. However, their instinct may appear much more like conscience or conscious thought because of their close relationship to man over many millenia, which of course - would be evolution.

I saw something a while back, I don't recall where, that hypothesized that the dog/man relationship pre-dated homo sapiens, and we both helped each other evolve. Interesting idea.

Do we work on instinct too? How much of our own personality, even likes and dislikes, maybe even tendencies toward specific beliefs, are hardwired?

Sexuality is mostly hardwired – if you're straight or bi or gay or a pedophile most of that is hardwired behavior. But how much of the rest of our personalities and preferences are also hardwired?

For instance, it's obvious that Kickass has the stupid gene on full time, and no amount of talking with him can help him grasp even the simplest concept. He is hardwired to be ignorant.

Likewise, I like to poking fun at ignorant people. It's a complete waste of time, it accomplishes nothing worthwhile, sometimes it makes me look bad, yet I often find the urge irresistible. Why is that? Could it be hardwired?

Addictions seem to run in families. How much of that is due to genetics?

Nobody knows for sure, yet, but I suspect, as we continue to map human genes and learn more and more about them, that we're going to find out we're a lot more hardwired than we'd like to admit.

[kickasspodcast]

Why do stupid people think dictionary arguments are so much fun? Why are they so trite, uncreative and predictable?


Dictionaries contain meaning for words that some people don't understand. The meaning given to those words is concrete. I thought we were trying to have a factual discussion? Why would anyone rule out the dictionary? Who is so arrogant as to rule out the meanings given to words? Seriously.

BTW-
Arrogant:
Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak.



I have asked several valid questions, even though I keep getting attacked, I have tried to step back and continue what is a very interesting subject on a more scientific level. Its ok if you cannot/do not what to. But you don't have to always try to personally attack me all the time.


But does a dolphin, rescuing a drowning human, have both of those things too?
That's what I call a miracle.

***ADDED

And for you to sit here and tell us that your dog had a conscience only makes you look entirely foolish. Seriously think about it. There is no way
your dog could have a conscience- its a dog. Why would you even go there?

Ancient wolves and hyenas evolving and helping primitive man evolve. Wow- that makes tons of sense. (not as if there were other dogs back then)

Jack

[Kil]

kickasspodcast:
Here is a link from the 1st Science website you gave me:

"The Sexy mother-in-law to Be"
http://home.tiac.net/~cri/2005/hermother.html
I posted this link:

http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/taphonomy.html

I went back to check it and it works. I have no idea why you were sent somewhere ells.

kickasspodcast:
The other one is just someone's homework for an entomology class.
Are you serious dude? Please come with something better than that.

Oh gee, I’m sorry. I thought the paper did a fine job of describing fossilizations and fossilization bias. I should have known that the paper was not up to your academic standards. Please excuse my carelessness. Let’s try again, shall we?

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/Fossilhow.html

http://anthro.palomar.edu/time/time_1.htm

I can get more of these if you need them.

[vox_monitor]

Is religion a crock of ****?

Usually.

Religion is a tool, like guns. And like guns, it is a tool that is very prone to misuse.

Used properly, it can do wonderful things. Like what? Well, like assist people in their development towards enlightenment.

However, the problem is that 99% of people have religion backwards.

The rules and stuff in religion are not INSTRUCTIONS. They are DESCRIPTIONS.

"Thou shalt not kill"

should be phrased...

"Fully acctualized, enlightened people almost never kill other humans. Emulating this restraint upon behavior is almost always a good idea as you persue your own acctualization."

When people understand this distinction between instructions and descriptions, then they are ready to use religion well. Until then, they're like mean rednecks with guns. In both situations, someone's likely to get shot. (Just ask G.W., god bless his forgiven, heaven-bound, christian soul.)

eric

p.s.

Warning: In case of rapture, I'll be doing rails off strippers' tits. Tell Jesus to come back in an hour.

[Zecryphon]

Like I said, wishful thinking. And the idea that dinos and man walked the earth at the same time is just too goofy to even discuss.

Where in my post did I say that dinosaurs and man walked the earth at the same time? The book that is referring to dinosaurs is the book of Job and I believe I quoted the passages very well if you care to go back and read them. Job was going being tested by God in a way no one on this earth should ever be tested. It's known among Christians as God's Refining Fire. It's where God takes everything you hold near and dear away from you. You're family, your job, your money, your health whatever it is that you treasure, will be gone. It's a test of your personal faith. No matter how much Job suffered with personal pain and loss, he never lost faith in God.

But you don't have to worry about that, because you can't lose something you don't have, which is faith in God.

So you're copping out. No problem, I'm used to that from religious people. (See earlier in the thread, where Craig is trying to pretend that "beat him with a rod" means something other than "beat him with a rod.")

How am I copping out? I gave you an answer, you're problem is you don't like the answer. And ya know what, that's fine with me. The point of this thread was as I understood it, to debate whether or not religion is a crock. I'm really gonna infuriate people on here now. Yes, it is. Religion is about doing, Christianity is about what's been done for us by God, to reconcile us to Him. Religion throughout the ages, has been a way for man to reach God. Jesus is God's way of reaching man.

This whole debate about is the biblical account of creation accurate is a non-issue for me. Where we came from doesn't matter. I'm not gonna risk my eternal future worrying about what happened billions of years ago. If God chose to use star dust (as Karl Sagan said) great. But God did it, it didn't just happen.

For me, it's about I'm going. You don't believe God created the universe, the planets, the sun, etc. So there's no way you believe in Jesus' divinity and His promise of eternal life with Him in Heaven. So, as far as I'm concerned you have a serious problem. But, then again this just my opinion.

Your biggest problem as I see it is this, you can't admit that there is anything bigger in this universe than you. You see the evidence of God's creation everyday, in your laboratories, under you microscopes, through your telescopes. But it's not enough for you. You still don't believe.

What does God have to do? Come down to a convention or some other scientific gathering, tell you how He did everything, and answer all your questions. Would you believe then? Would that constitute evidence for you? I'm gonna say no. You'd explain it away as a mass hallucination or some other physical or scientific phenomenon.

I don't need special tools to know that all of this wasn't an accident, that there is an order and design here. You have all these tools and you still refuse to believe.

You claimed that science agreed with the bible. My specific question was how does science agree with the idea that light was created first, then night and day, then the sun. It's a simple question. And you can't provide a real answer.

See, that's why I trust science and distrust religion. Science really searches for the answers. Religion evades them.

I wasn't aware science was even looking for those answers. In my opinion, it just makes sense that it would go in that order. The order is logical to me. The first thing I do when I start a project is to turn the lights on, so I can see what I'm doing. Then I would probably create a way of determining how long I've been working on the project, so yeah night and day seems a good way to do that. I'm sure there were more reasons behind night and day than that, but that's another thread altogether. And if I'm planning to create life, I'd need a way for that life to survive, so creating the sun, so they had light to see by, and heat to keep them warm, and light for the growing of vegetation etc, makes sense to me. Maybe all of that is illogical for you, because science fails to provide any answers to your question.

Just remember your precious science, is written by men, and further corrected by men, as you discover new evidence that refutes men's earlier claims. The bible however has no mistakes in it. Written by men from all different walks of life over a period of 6,000 years on three different continents and in three different languages, and not one error. That my friend is the work of God.

If you need further proof, look at the prophecies that were laid out in the OT and then fulfilled in the NT. You can look in the bible and find the plans for what is happening today in the world. The partnership between Russian and Iran, that's in there. The rebuilding of Babylon, that's in there too. Israel, becoming a soverign nation again, that's in the bible too. Armageddon, it's a real place, you can go visit it, and it's mentioned in the bible. So leave the lab once in awhile and take a look around. You just might discover something new.

That, and the fact that every time, every single time, that religion has condemned science, they've been proven wrong. Every time!

I don't condemn science, I think religion and science can work together. I see no problem with the two co-existing. Scientists have suffered for centuries under the rule of the church. But, the church doing all of the supressing is not the Christian church, but the Catholic. And yes there are major differences. The Catholic church was wrong for what it did to science. I want you guys to continue what you're doing, because for me it proves what I already believe. And one day, I hope it will bring you to a relationship with God and Jesus.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

P.S. this is how I usually sign all my posts. I'm sorry you're offended by it.

[Kil]

kickasspodcas:
but considering there are animals everywhere, there should be bones of all dead animals everywhere that dig long enough. We should have no problem finding every fossil

I think I will just address this particular misconception in my own words…

It takes very special circumstances for an animal or plant to be fossilized. That there are a lot of some kinds of fossil and none or few of others that we would like to see makes sense. Not all animals have lived where fossilization is likely to occur. In fact, most did not. Quick burial and mineralization must take place. This works best if the animal happened to live near and be covered by water and then silt at the time of death or very shortly after. That is why we see so many shellfish and aquatic vertebrates. They are already underwater. It is rare for land animals to be fossilized. Another thing is the fossil, if not broken or lost or crushed due to the movement or weight of the sediments around it must make its way to the surface again. Once it is exposed, again because water has washed away the layers hiding it, it must be found quickly or it will often break down.

So it comes down to this. Fossilization is a rare occurrence. Finding significant fossils is a rare occurrence because often the ones we are looking for did not live in areas conducive to fossilization. Whole time periods have low fossil yields because of the climate and other factors.
The notion that most or all animals that have ever lived should have some representation in the fossil record and should be found is ridiculous. It is unlikely that most species that have lived will ever be found. So a straight line of decent that would be represented by a fossil at every stage of that line is highly unlikely. That we have what we do have is amazing. And they tell us a lot about lines of decent. But direct lines are going to remain rare.

And I haven’t even touched on the problem of punctuated equilibrium or quick changes in environments that would cause the rapid rise of some species and the demise of others with only a short time (geologically speaking) for those fewer animals to die in a way convenient for fossilization…

[Zecryphon]

I subscribe to what JimK said earlier. Revelations is a history book for 70AD. Nero is the antichrist.

I'll have to read up on all of what Nero did, but I'm not aware that he had a specific mark that he made all those who were loyal to him bear. Also known as the mark of the beast, the Antichrist will do this. I don't know if Nero was assassinated or not. But if he was, did he rise from the dead three days later, mimicking the resurrection of Jesus? Antichrist will also do this. Who was Nero's false prophet? Like I said I have to read up on Nero. Maybe I'll do that this weekend.

Of course I also disagree with much of what Zeph has said. How anyone (even Christians) can take the Bible as the inerrant word of God is beyond me. It was written by men and riddled with errors.

One such fallacy is as follows: 1 of the 10 commandments is Thou shall not steal, yet God told the Israelites to plunder Egypt before leaving. An obvious problem for a omniscient God.

Well you have to keep in mind that Egypt was standing in opposition to God. They incurred His wrath by keeping the Israelites in bondage and slavery. So after Moses, with the powers God granted him to do miracles, freed the Israelites from their captors, God needed to punish them. God doesn't always have to smite people supernaturally, like he did with Sodom and Gomorrah, he can use people to carry out his punishments too. So by plundering Egypt and stealing their treasures, the Israelites took what would hurt the Egyptians most, their wealth and treasure. Or at least as much of it as they could carry. People refuse to understand that if you stand in opposition to God, there will be consequences. Egypt learned it, Adam and Eve learned it, Sodom and Gomorrah learned it.

And it's true to this day, if you break the law of your state, do they just let you go. No, they punish you. Why should it be any different with the law of God?

Your brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[kickasspodcast]

Without Physical evidence you cannot conclude with absolute certainty that you can fully understand the origin of all species.
Just show me the fossil records please- this is what scientists look at to
know for sure, everything else is just a guess. Everyone knows this is true.
You can't, nobody can, even in the matter of Evolution, faith is required to fill in the HUGE gaps in time and fossil records.

To explain it all away by saying that fossils are rare, and that the conditions has to be perfect, says nothing to the fact the fossils simply aren't available because we haven't found any. We have fossils of different shaped heads and such- and that gives you a good idea. But the fact remains; no physical evidence- no absolute certainty.

Funny how all the Scientists ran under a rock when I asked about fossil records.

All anyone can do is say "they are rare".

Hah- isn't that convenient.

If they are rare or do not exist then how can you be certain of each stage of each species evolution. The fact is you can't be as sure as some people have acted in this thread- its clear when you listen to those people that they must have alot of faith to fill in the huge gaps in their theory.

Weather or not I think evolution happened or not means nothing at all. I am not trying to tell anyone that i know the origin of all species- I am just poking holes in the theories that have been provided. Where are the fossils? Its called evidence, physical evidence- it simply does not exist in the world of evolution. Considering we are surrounded by organisms, we should have mountains of fossils- we don't. Most of the world is not sitting on a fault line or next to a volcano. Not to mention that I am not just asking for human fossils- any animal fossils at all will do- just show me the evidence and I will believe.

Why is this so hard?

Show me there is proof of God.
Show me the fossil records that difinitively prove evolution on a grand scale.

Neither can be produced. Both are only answered with excuses, or Faith.

@ Z-
you seem to be speaking for God. "God needed to..." etc.. REALLY dangerous stuff man, really dangerous.


Look- I said it time and again, I pesonally believe evolution happened, but without being able to connect enough dots- I won't go acting like a know-it-all preaching it as fact.

I also believe most religion usually is a crock of ****-

Jack B.

[Hittman]

Job was going being tested by God in a way no one on this earth should ever be tested. It's known among Christians as God's Refining Fire. It's where God takes everything you hold near and dear away from you. You're family, your job, your money, your health whatever it is that you treasure, will be gone. It's a test of your personal faith. No matter how much Job suffered with personal pain and loss, he never lost faith in God.

You've got the story wrong. God didn't take anything from Job. Satan did, with God's permission. Including killing his kids. Nice god you've got there.

But you don't have to worry about that, because you can't lose something you don't have, which is faith in God.

This is true. I had it once, but was always skeptical. When was able to make my own decisions and discoveries, I realized the evidence for his existence wasn't just scanty, it was non-existent.

How am I copping out? I gave you an answer, you're problem is you don't like the answer.

No, you didn't give me an answer. My question was very specific. You said science agrees with the bible. I asked how it agreed with God creating light, then night and day, then creating the sun. Your answer was that you didn't know, but would ask god when you died. That's not an answer. That's an evasion, one that can be used to deflect any difficult question. Whatever, I can see that this line if inquiry with you is a dead end.

Your biggest problem as I see it is this, you can't admit that there is anything bigger in this universe than you. You see the evidence of God's creation everyday, in your laboratories, under you microscopes, through your telescopes. But it's not enough for you. You still don't believe.

There are lots of things in the universe bigger than me. There are many things in the universe that are beyond my understanding. I don't have a problem with the idea that there are ethereal creatures that can squash me like a bug. I don't think it's likely, but it's possible. But there is no evidence that the god described in the bible exists. In fact, he couldn't exist, unless the bible is wrong. An omniscient, benevolent god would not be presiding over a world like ours. He could be omniscient. He could be benevolent. But he couldn't be both.

Let's step back to the story of Job. He stood back and let Satin torture the man. He even let him kill his children. All to test him. That's not a benevolent god. That's a god who is a real dick.

What does God have to do? Come down to a convention or some other scientific gathering, tell you how He did everything, and answer all your questions. Would you believe then? Would that constitute evidence for you? I'm gonna say no. You'd explain it away as a mass hallucination or some other physical or scientific phenomenon.

You're right. As A. C. Clark said, " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I love magic, especially if I can't figure out the trick, and in your scenario, I'd be awed by the trick.

There is, however, one thing that would convince me. I'll tell you what it is in a later post. First I'd like to see some guess from a the religious people in this thread, and what other skeptics in here would require as proof.

I don't need special tools to know that all of this wasn't an accident, that there is an order and design here. You have all these tools and you still refuse to believe.

I don't believe it was an accident either. That's a common misconception among religious people. The birth of the universe wasn't an accident. Evolution isn't accidental. In fact, once you really understand it, you'll know that it's inevitable.

I wasn't aware science was even looking for those answers. In my opinion, it just makes sense that it would go in that order. The order is logical to me. The first thing I do when I start a project is to turn the lights on, so I can see what I'm doing. Then I would probably create a way of determining how long I've been working on the project, so yeah night and day seems a good way to do that. I'm sure there were more reasons behind night and day than that, but that's another thread altogether. And if I'm planning to create life, I'd need a way for that life to survive, so creating the sun, so they had light to see by, and heat to keep them warm, and light for the growing of vegetation etc, makes sense to me. Maybe all of that is illogical for you, because science fails to provide any answers to your question.

So god flipped on a light? Then why bother with night and day until he was finished? And since he already created light, then why bother with the sun? Seems redundant.

Maybe all of that is illogical for you, because science fails to provide any answers to your question

Illogical is an understatement. And science doesn't answer that question for the same reason it doesn’t answer the question "where does Santa live." Science doesn't deal with nonsense.

Just remember your precious science, is written by men, and further corrected by men, as you discover new evidence that refutes men's earlier claims.

It seldom refutes them, more often it clarifies them. But personally, I think getting smarter over time is a good thing.

The bible however has no mistakes in it. Written by men from all different walks of life over a period of 6,000 years on three different continents and in three different languages, and not one error. That my friend is the work of God.

No mistakes? So then Pi really is exactly 3? (1 Kings 7:23)(BTW, I'm familiar with most of the silly justifications that try to get around this, (the flared rim argument, the variant in a cubit argument, etc) and refuting them is child's play, so please don't come back with the same 'ol same 'ol.)

How come 1 Kings, 8:9 and 2 Chronicles 5:10 says there was nothing in the ark of the covenant except the Moses' tablets, but Hebrews 9: 4 says it contained a pot of Manna and Aaron's budding rod (no dirty jokes, please) along with the tablets?

John 3:22 says Christ baptized people. Just one chapter later, in John 4:2, it says he didn't, only his disciples did.

John 3:13 says "No man hath ascended up to heaven." 2 Kings 2:11 says "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man" Gen.22:1 "God did tempt Abraham." And the Lord's prayer entreates God, "And lead us not into temptation."

Mathew says Judas threw his coins into the temple, then hung himself. Acts says he he bought a field with the money, then fell down and gutted himself.

There's more, but I think I made the point. It would appear that God's spokesmen did some really sloppy work.

P.S. this is how I usually sign all my posts. I'm sorry you're offended by it.

I'm not at all offended by it – sorry if I gave you that impression. I was just pointing out that it's inaccurate, when you're addressing me.

Your brother in podcating,

Dave

[Kil]

Kickasspodcast, I am just going to ignore the first part of your reply as one big “argument from ignorance.� If you just want to rant and indulge yourself in logical fallacies, far be it for me to stop you. Knock yourself out. I will try to explain how the fossil evidence supports evolution, however. Hopefully, this time, I will not be spitting into the wind…

kickasspodcast:
If they are rare or do not exist then how can you be certain of each stage of each species evolution. The fact is you can't be as sure as some people have acted in this thread- its clear when you listen to those people that they must have alot of faith to fill in the huge gaps in their theory.

Nope. It doesn’t take a lot of faith to fill the gaps. Filling each and every gap is not going to happen. In fact, each time a gap is filled, it creates two new gaps, one on either side of the new fossil that creationists and you demand to be filled. Also, many gaps are filled with possible dead end species. That is to say, species that we cannot be sure are in a direct line of ancestry to modern species. But these species may have features that suggest enough closeness to a lineage to count. For example archaeopteryx is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern birds. But the very fact that fossils of archaeopteryx exist tells us that there were birds that shared features we would expect to find in both birds and theropod dinosaurs which strongly suggests that birds did evolve from theropod dinosaurs. That is no leap of faith. The features are there. The theory of evolution predicts that these kinds of species existed. We may never really know which, or how many of the dino-birds are the exact ancestor of modern birds. But their very existence strongly demonstrates an intermediate stage of development toward modern birds even if these particular examples are dead ends. There is also fossil evidence of theropod dinosaurs with feathers. So how much of a leap of faith does it take to conclude that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Or that birds are dinosaurs?

Please let me know exactly what “huge gaps� in the fossil record you find troubling?

http://www.amnh.org/science/specials/dinobird.html

kickasspodcast:
Weather or not I think evolution happened or not means nothing at all. I am not trying to tell anyone that i know the origin of all species- I am just poking holes in the theories that have been provided. Where are the fossils? Its called evidence, physical evidence- it simply does not exist in the world of evolution.

There really are mountains of physical evidence supporting evolution. And though I would like to direct you to all of it, I just don’t have the time or inclination to do that. A good place to start educating yourself on the subject is Talk Origins. I suggest that you take the time to research those questions you might have about evolution (like the physical evidence) at that site. I do believe that they have the most comprehensive archive on the subject of evolution on the Internet.

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

kickasspodcast:
Considering we are surrounded by organisms, we should have mountains of fossils- we don't. Most of the world is not sitting on a fault line or next to a volcano. Not to mention that I am not just asking for human fossils- any animal fossils at all will do- just show me the evidence and I will believe.

Oh good grief!

Why is this so hard?

That’s a very good question. But not in the way that you meant it.

[Dr. Mabuse]

On The Matter of Evolution as Proven Fact

Take me to task if you think I have assumed incorrectly or please, seriously, let me know
what parameters you would like me to continue.

I'll have a look...

In looking closely at this matter one would have to
consider at least a minimum set of assumptions.
These assumptions include:

Everything Evolves through Natural Selection over time into more evolved "life".

That is not quite right, on two accounts.

First, Natural Selection is not the only process of evolution. Genetic Drift is another, but I'll grant Natural Selection is the most commonly known. And Natural Selection does not necessarily mean "survival of the fittest", sexual selection (how individuals select their mates) has produced the Peacock's fancy dress.

Second, species does not become "more evolved" in the sense that it's evolving toward a goal. Evolution is just simply a change in the genetic makeup. "more evolved" can only be used in the sense that as time goes by, more and more changes have occurred in the DNA.
If evolution had meant evolving toward more complex live, then E. Coli bacteria would not exist anymore.


Species Evolve into More Evolved Species -Monkeys evolve into Men.

That is also a misinterpretation of biological evolution.
Men did not evolve from Monkeys. Men and Monkeys evolved from a men-and-monkey ancestor. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it's really important, because it's the Creationist's favourite lie about evolution.
There was an ancestor from which monkeys and primates evolved. A primate ancestor produced an Orangutan-like species, and a chimp-and-man-like species. The chimp-and-manlike ancestor split into troglodyte- and homo- species.

To prove something, you must have evidence for what you are considering as fact.

Again, "proof" is unfortunately somewhat ambiguous. In science and skepticism all conclusions are tentative, however, depending on the amount of evidence, the conclusion is more or less firm.
If we can agree that "proof" is a tentative conclusion with an astounding amount of evidence as to make it held unquestionable by a qualified majority of experts in the field, then yes.


Let us 1st look at the Nautilis- One of the earths oldest Creatures. Billions of years
has this ocean dwelling little guy been around. Look at the Eye of the Nautilis. When you
examine the abilities of the Eye or the Nautilis you find that it has incredibly bad
vision, when compared to other creatures of its ancestry and environment, it has unusually,
unexplicably bad vision. A Blurry, cloudy, murky vision lense makes things much harder, it also is the only part of the nautilis that seems to "need" to evolve, and
there is absolutely no explanation for why this, one of the oldest of creatures has yet to even
slightly improve its Eye.
The Nautilus have adapted to its environment. A more efficient eye is not needed, thus it will not develop.
If there was an Intelligent Designer, how stupid/moronic/evil wouldn't that designer be when It equipped the Nautilus with inferior eyes? The theory of biological evolution have the answer, but ID does not.


This alone proves nothing but its contributory to the rest.

Creatures adapt when they are under pressure. Once the pressure has been neutralised by adaptations, the changes we slow down. The Nautilus have enough vision to get by, in complement to its tentacles.


If we can assume that everyone evolved from something else that came before it, can we assume that everything dies and the bones and fossils are somewhere in the earth.

Fossilisation is a rare process. Some skeletons get fossilised, but far from all.

Some really old fossils are now fueling my Hyundai and Fosco's Saturn- but we aren't looking at Dino bones right now.

Lets now look at perhaps the most common example of Evolution, if not the most controversial.
Monkeys Turning into Men.

If we are to assume that All Human Beings evolved from Monkeys, we also must accept that human beings (nor our possible Monkey Ancestors) are nowhere near old enough to have both fossilised and subsequently pressed into crude oil over time. We should be able to present fossil records
for each stage of the Evolutionary process that we are going to boldly consider to be "fact".

As fossilisation of bones and other tissue are rare events, there is no guarantee that we will find fossils from all stages of the continuous transition. But every now and then, new fossils do get discovered. Given enough time, we will probably find much more than we have today.

SURE some of the older, earlier stages would be older and in poor condition, but considering there are animals everywhere, there should be bones of all dead animals everywhere that dig long enough.

You're kidding right? Almost all skeletal fossils found are in very poor condition.

We should have no problem finding every fossil we need to conclude that each animal evolved into something eventually entirely different.

In some species, we have.


Where is the fossil evidence.
How come all evolution does is point to about the same 10-20 examples.


Perhaps because those examples are the best ones to make a point?

No species on the planet has a complete evolutionary chart, with physical evidence showing that species evolution from is beginning to its modern day equivilant.

The non-existence of evidence is not evidence of non-existence. That is a logical fallacy.

Since all species are connected in the "tree of life", any single species' chart will necessarily include all other species on Earth. Though I can't point to a specific species, there should charts of many species. Thanks to HERV we have a rather good grip on how Primates are related to each other.
I can't give you specifics though. I'm an electronics engineer, not a biologist.

I will in part give into the idea that as time progresses people will find more evidence. However, considering the technology and funding of today's science community, it is hard to believe that people aren't humble enough to see the overwhelming lack of actual physical evidence on a cross species level and still believe they have anything more than a Good Theory.


Biologists disagree with you, and they are experts in their field. I'm smart enough not to argue with them on that. I think that the people over at http://www.talkorigins.org/ have answers to that one.

The more gaps you fill in, the better your theory- BUT unless its a strait line with all the dots connected, someone would only be arrogant to actually believe it to be 100% proven fact.

Like Derek wrote earlier, you don't have to lay all pieces of the puzzle to see what the picture shows.
We're back again to that "proven" thing again. Scientists are still arguing finer points of evolution. That is how it should be. We will probably never get the 100% absolute proven fact. We don't need to.

When Newton was done defining the law of gravity, apples didn't fall upward just because he missed to include the Relativistic influences of large masses. His laws of motion wasn't 100% true but they explained very much of what could be observed anyway. For more than two hundred years his flawed and inaccurate law of motion was used, and worked, because it was the best explanation.

The theory of biological evolution is very much the same. It is hands down the best explanation of the diversity of life on Earth, with no competition worth mentioning.

[kickasspodcast]

Why are you so blatently blind in calling me a creationist?

I have said like a gillion times that I believe in evolution.

I have also said its a Theory. With alot of good evidence, but nonetheless STILL a theory. The very website you gave me says that clearly. It even says there are several theories, and scientists don't all agree.

But the very fact that fossils of archaeopteryx exist tells us that there were birds that shared features we would expect to find in both birds and theropod dinosaurs which strongly suggests that birds did evolve from theropod dinosaurs.

Maybe- or it could simply mean that there was an animal that happend to resemble 2 different animals and now that animal is extint. Do you have any fossils for what that dino-bird evolve into or what it evolved from? See my point? You have lots of little random bits of evidence that suggests that creatures change over time depending upon circumstance. Well no ****. I think we'd all agree with that on micro or macro levels. The problem is you don't have any birds that seem to resemble dinosaurs, nor do you have any other fossils that represent any other evolutionary stage of the dino bird.
You have one set of bones that looks like a cross between 2 animals.
I give you the Duck Billed Platypus. We don't have any fossils of the Platypus in any stages before or after the modern day animal we all know and love. But it still looks like some wierd transitional animal.

The features are there. The theory of evolution predicts that these kinds of species existed. We may never really know which, or how many of the dino-birds are the exact ancestor of modern birds.

Well if we will never know (as you just admitted) how can you call this a fact? The point is you MUST be able to take a bird and trace its lineage back and definitely show how it evolved (with fossiles- not drawings) over millions of years to be certain you know that particular birds evolutionary history. The simple fact that you believes "featrures" prove facts lets me know that you have quite alot of Faith in filling the increasing gaps (as you admitted) in evolution. I am again- not a creationist- nor am I one to say that evolution is fact and people who question it are uneducated or naive. (not that you said this to me directly)

But their very existence strongly demonstrates an intermediate stage of development toward modern birds even if these particular examples are dead ends. There is also fossil evidence of theropod dinosaurs with feathers. So how much of a leap of faith does it take to conclude that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Or that birds are dinosaurs?
A huge leap of faith. To go from 1 set of bones that only show that 1 species once looked like a dino-bird to saying that Birds are Dinosaurs? you know alot more about faith than I supposed.
<sigh>

No it doesn't. Look at the duck billed platypus. It is a monotreme. Another well known Monotreme is the Spiny Anteater. Aside from the fact that these two Monotremes couldn't much different from one another in apearance and lifestyle. Care to take a guess and tell me what their existance demonstrates? Would you say that it demonstrates an intermediate state of development towards ducks growing fur? Or Turtles growing fur and beaks?
Not to mention the Spiny Anteater- what does its existance demonstrate?

If you have an example that is a dead end- it neither proves anything nor does it really contribute. Yes, if you have faith in evolution- it will help motivate you to look for more. But not much more than that.

Most all the fossils that I looked at on the website are "stand alone"- they are isolated fossils that have different features. All widely different in time periods, geography and conditions. None of them even get close to being able to show a pattern of evolution, they use drawings to fill in the actual evidence they don't have. Sometimes like 4-6 stages in drawings and 2-3 fossils fragments shown. Really requiring ALOT of faith to say, yeah that's for sure how it happend.

Dinosaurs with feathers?
That again doesn't prove anything. A strange occurance of nature my friend.
Just like-
Mammals that Lay eggs
Carnivore Plants
Canibalistic Homo Sapiens
Lots of wierd things happen in nature- this is not new information.

Btw-
Did you know that elaphant's teeth can weigh as much as nine pounds each? Amazing!

Also-
Ever heard of a reptile called the Tuatara?

Been around since before the dinosaurs and suprise, suprise no signs of evolution. Its not as if its some big predator- it lives with birds and can be left alone with baby chicks- But its a Reptile! Another HUGE gap is that nobody can seem to explain- some animals living along side other animals from the same time periods show no signs of change and fossil records prove they haven't evolved one inch throughout millions and gajillions of years. Like the Nautilis or the Tuatara- their conditions have changed signifigantly over the course of their existance on this planet- yet the haven't evolved, nor do they show any tangible signs of natural selection.

This brings me to a brief aside- Part of the theory of evolution seems to suggest that organisms ultimately must evolve. This would seem to imply that everything eventually evolves or will adapt through evolution and natural selection. But this isn't the case. Science can not explain why some of the planets oldest creatures haven't changed a bit. So does every organism evolve? Is it supposed to? How do you know which will and which will not?

If you can see it (in your mind), if it makes sense, if you have evidence that makes you believe its true- None of these things actually mean that its true.

Like I have said a billion times- I am no creationist, in the sense that you mean it. In truth- I don't know, but I can admit that I don't know- and when any honest, open minded person looks at everything, they have to admit that its a Great Theory- but not a fact.

Not to mention-
all the evidence you are offering is ok, but hardly great. Still no museums with the actual fossils that show this into that, into that, etc..
I understand you don't have the time, nor do you care to waste the time etc.. but understand that you have only pointed me to a bunch of words written by people who believe in evolution. The reason its important to have physical evidence is because it then doesn't matter what you believe, it's right there staring at you in the face.

But I had to say that Religious folks offer their evidence of the divine all the time- it is usually summarily dismissed or explained away in scientific or pseudo-scientific terms. When it clearly takes faith to be either a Scientist or Clergy.

I reread your whole post back to me- basically you start to make some points and then we get into things like "dead end species" or "we may never know" and "each time a gap is filled, it creates 2 new gaps". Its just not what I consider to be a conclusive argument. If you are trying to prove something without a doubt- you need more than what you or Talk Origins has to offer.

Again- I am not a creationist- but I do want all the gaps filled in before I consider something as large as evolution to be a fact.
Every single last gap.

I could try to start convincing you there was a God, there would be lots of gaps. Would you honestly accept up with those gaps in my argument? Would it be reasonable of me to ask you to accept the gaps and still ask you to ultimately consider it proven. Why should I accept the gaps of someone elses argument. Especially when there are a helluva lotta gaps. Like- where did all species evolve from, not just the 30 or so fossils that "suggest" or "demonstrate"- give me a break with the acedemic spin.

Seriously- that is a reason for words like "Scientific Theory" because its pretty widely accepted, but not enough information to know for sure. Some theories have gone to **** in the past, this is why we don't rush into calling things facts when we know we could be wrong in the future.

Its pretty clear that you need faith anyway you look at it. If nothing else, faith in yourself, and the faith in the people you choose to surround yourself with. I appreciate all the points you've made. I am just a natural skeptic.

Its been fun though-
JacK B.

[kickasspodcast]

TO Dr. M-

OK- you are clearly a Man of Faith-

You say over an over again that it doesn't matter that you don't have the evidence to prove what you believe.

Thats the same thing as faith my friend.

Sorry- it doesn't make you any more correct than my mother who prays to Jesus.

Neither of you can fill in the gaps to say you know for sure, 100%.
But she is only dealing with 1 thing- the existance of God. You are even worse because there are millions species of organisms you pretend to be able to explain the origin of them all.


Like Derek wrote earlier, you don't have to lay all pieces of the puzzle to see what the picture shows.

Yeah- this is the arrogance that I spoke of before.
If the puzzle was an MC Escher original drawing I think you would need
to see the entire puzzle. If the puzzle was one of those pictures that you have look at for 5 min then it "pops out!" then I think you would need all the pieces guys.

You see- I respect the earth and its history enough to know that its both more beautiful, complex and more deceptive than any Escher original.

But I guess Art is not a Scientists field of study- its cool- just was a horrible example, and arrogant at that.

Still nothing but a website with drawings. Its seems like nobody wants to actually look at all the evidence as a skeptic. I guess its just me.
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

Jack B.
(you can write me at my newest gmail
skepticpodcaster@gmail.com)

Have a kickass night~

****Added
Only an arrogant person would actually believe they know what the picture is without all the pieces in place, or even with the limited pieces you may have. Not as if you have any corner pieces anyways. ;) The puzzle is way too big to assume you know the complete picture.

Evolve-
Biology. To develop or arise through evolutionary processes.

Develop-
Biology.
1. To progress from earlier to later stages of a life cycle: Caterpillars develop into butterflies.
2. To progress from earlier to later or from simpler to more complex stages of evolution.

Arise-
To get up, as from a sitting or prone position; rise.
To awaken and get up: arose at dawn.
To move upward; ascend.
To come into being; originate: hoped that a new spirit of freedom was arising.
To result, issue, or proceed: mistakes that arise from a basic misunderstanding.


Progress-
1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See Synonyms at development.
4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.

intr.v. pro·gress (pr-grs) pro·gressed, pro·gress·ing, pro·gress·es

1. To advance; proceed: Work on the new building progressed at a rapid rate.
2. To advance toward a higher or better stage; improve steadily: as medical technology progresses.




Do you realize what would happen if someone proved without a doubt ultimate proof of either God or Evolution? Could you image the influence that person would have? just a thought-

[dcolanduno]

Why are you so blatently blind in calling me a creationist?

I have said like a gillion times that I believe in evolution.

I have also said its a Theory. With alot of good evidence, but nonetheless STILL a theory. The very website you gave me says that clearly. It even says there are several theories, and scientists don't all agree.

Giant difference between the layman version of 'Theory' the way you are casually using it here, and the way Scientists look at it. What you are indicating about Evolution is much more a hypothesis and not a scientific theory.

When people either believe, or convince others that in any small way the general scientific community is arguing over the overall theory of evolution. It is just spreading the fuel that the con-men that perpetuate the Intelligent Design fictional tale use to power their deception.

The only 'disagreement' is in the details of the science, but not a single one of the issues that have been brought up here. There is no disagreement about the evolution of man, birds, etc, etc, in a general sense. The 'disagreement' is in smaller points, more to do with the stimuli of genetic drift and other issues such as that.

None of those are anything as broad as arguments with animals that you believe 'didn't' evolve. The act of not evolving is evidence for nothing whatsoever. It would indicate that species was adapted to its environment well, had few predators, resisted genetic drift and other anomalies, and wherever it lived, did not change too drastically across the span of time. Quite easy to imagine in underwater species especially.

You keep trying to show or state that there is even a 'small' dissension in the acceptance of Evolutionary Theory in the science community. But, there is none.

You see- I respect the earth and its history enough to know that its both more beautiful, complex and more deceptive than any Escher original.

But I guess Art is not a Scientists field of study- its cool- just was a horrible example, and arrogant at that.

You can keep calling a good argument 'arrogant', but we've shown that to be untrue already. Simple descriptions of fact, and educating someone when they are clearly wrong, or just don't know the details or general information on a topic isn't arrogance...

But, now the reason why people are 'arrogant' in this discussion is because we lack respect for art?

Seriously?

You are taking an analogy and making a literal interpretation out of it? Then using that to call people 'arrogant'. There is a gap somewhere in there that I think is fairly clear.

TO Dr. M-

OK- you are clearly a Man of Faith-

You say over an over again that it doesn't matter that you don't have the evidence to prove what you believe.

Thats the same thing as faith my friend

Faith has little if nothing to do with evidence or proof. It is the exact opposite. Faith is the belief in something, despite the fact or lack thereof.

Still nothing but a website with drawings, nobody wants to actually look at all the evidence as a skeptic. I guess its just me.

One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

There is a thick line between being a Devils Advocate, and a Skeptic. I think you are confusing the two, to an extremely great degree.

This brings me to a brief aside- Part of the theory of evolution seems to suggest that organisms ultimately must evolve.

No, it states that the 'do' evolve. It doesn't mean they all evolve at the same rate. And sometimes that might mean, they take so long that we haven't been able to observe a noticeable difference. I will point out, however, that in animals that you might not have seen visible evolution on, genetic analysis has shown that in many of these cases there has been evolution... we just don't see it in the manifest of physical appearance.

I appreciate all the points you've made. I am just a natural skeptic.

Again, I think you are confusing the role of skeptic, with the concept of Devils Advocate. Misinterpreted information, and arguing against something with half of the information. And then denying simple facts because you are blinded by your own apparent discomfort with learning about something to the point where you have to call people 'arrogant' for explaining the factual nature of a situation.

Or, using words like '<puke>' and so on... as the preface to half of your retorts during an argument.

Don't show skepticism...

I think it is odd that you have found a way to over-simplify all the evidence that has been presented to you, in a way that shows you didn't take the time to understand it.

Very much like a jury member in court boiling down DNA evidence to... "It was just a picture of two lines and some little squares... it doesn't prove anything." That is a statement that shows you have seen the information, but didn't take the time to understand it.

That is a good example a very important point I am going to have to stress. This is a perfect example of the very thing that proponents of concepts such as Intelligent Design use to lead people to believe something that has no connection to reality.

They often point at scientific evidence, attempt to over simplify it, and then people assume that that information is perfectly logical.

I have a very good example of this type of con;

http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/

We all know that information is completely untrue. But, watch it and pretend you didn't KNOW that we put men on the moon. You would think that there is some legitimacy to what it being said.

I'm sorry, but no matter how many weak attempts folks make at belittling folks like myself and Dr. M by name calling and using words like 'arrogance', we can't allow people to pull funny tricks, like the one in that video I posted, about something as important as the fundamental theory of evolution.

Allowing folks to present half of the information, and then dance around making statements about faith, and rants about philosophy that might sound wonderful, but lack half of the critical information... don't make a good argument, and truly don't make anyone close to a skeptic.

[kickasspodcast]

You realize you just spoke in general terms the entire time and then accused me of over simplifying the situation or the evidence.


Faith is the belief in something, despite the fact or lack thereof.

I doubt I will be looking to you to have faith defined. Seriously.

Also its funny how you say that calling somone arrogant is a way to belittle them. You articulate in an effective matter of fact sort of way. But refused to actually comment on any of the issues I raised that are fact based.

Devil's Advocate? Not at all- I am being a true skeptic here. You are the one who act's like you have to educate and talk down to me. Sorry you feel that way. I am questioning a mainstream ideology, with great consideration.

I also never said or implied that all organisms evolve at the same rate.

ITs really great to see another typical post by you. Its really short on commenting on the Scientific information I mentioned or requested- some of the valid points I made- completely ignored.
Thats the shame in forum debates- people can ignore what they can't disprove and keep on blathering.

You can keep talking as if you are the one setting the record strait- like I said that kind of attitude is just really arrogant to me. Maybe its not to the people who agree with you- but thats reasonable human behavior.

Still haven't had anyone bother to tell me what museums I can go to to see the Fossil records. Why? Because A: they don't exist. B: Nobody has them.

In my world when you don't have evidence to prove your theory- it stays a theory. I understand the Science world uses theory differently than the common usage. BUT there is a reason for this. And I mentioned that in my last post- and suprise, suprise- nobody wants to go there.

Its ok-

we don't need to chase our tails

Truthfully Dr. M and Kil did alot more to actually offer facts and continue a level discussion. All I got from you guys was superiority and condescension. Its cool- w/e I am sure you could give. My fav was when you, the Athiest starts telling me about Faith. ROFL


Jack B.



***ADDED
That chick in the Video is pretty Hot man.


:roll:

[Craig]

No mistakes? So then Pi really is exactly 3? (1 Kings 7:23)(BTW, I'm familiar with most of the silly justifications that try to get around this, (the flared rim argument, the variant in a cubit argument, etc) and refuting them is child's play
Just out of curiosity, would you mind refuting the rounding argument (10 being 9.67, 30 being 30.38 ), especially considering that the only fractions the Bible mentions concerning length are halves? Or the argument that it was impossible to make a bowl of such size to be a perfect circle back then? Or that maybe it just wasn't important for the size of the bowl to be that accurate. And for the record, this isn't a verse proclaiming to define pi...it's a verse describing an object.

As an aside, there's also a theory that the true measurement of the circumference, accurate to within .015", is hidden in the original Hebrew text of the verse:

http://www.ldolphin.org/pi

I don't know about this but it definitely makes for interesting reading!

There's more, but I think I made the point.
Sure, there are plenty more. In fact, you can find a fairly comprehensive list along with other criticisms of the Bible at www.skepticsannotatedbible.com. Do the research and you'll also find other sites by the hundreds (including www.skepticsannotatedbible.org amusingly enough) that will politely show you why these are not the contradictions/inaccuracies they appear to be. There are also books that do the same. Approach them with an open mind and you'll see their point. Approach them with your mind already made up and you'll respond with comments like, "I'm familiar with most of the silly justifications that try to get around this."

Somewhere else in this topic somebody mentioned that creationists always come up with some other minor point that needs to be proved every time evolutionists respond to one of their challenges. From my perspective these arguments about supposed inaccuracies in the Bible are the same kind of thing. For every hurdle I knock down you'll come up with another. And even if I were able to prove to you beyond any reasonable doubt the the Bible were completely accurate it wouldn't make any difference; you'd still reject its message just as most creationists would still reject evolution even if you showed them a complete fossil record.

When it comes right down to it, it's not about the evidence; it's about what you're willing to believe.

Craig

[kickasspodcast]

Somewhere else in this topic somebody mentioned that creationists always come up with some other minor point that needs to be proved every time evolutionists respond to one of their challenges. From my perspective these arguments about supposed inaccuracies in the Bible are the same kind of thing. For every hurdle I knock down you'll come up with another. And even if I were able to prove to you beyond any reasonable doubt the the Bible were completely accurate it wouldn't make any difference; you'd still reject its message just as most creationists would still reject evolution even if you showed them a complete fossil record.

When it comes right down to it, it's not about the evidence; it's about what you're willing to believe.

Craig

EXACTLY!

Because in truth- the evidence isn't there for either. Both require Faith.

[Kil]

kickasspodcast:
Why are you so blatently blind in calling me a creationist?
I never said you are a creationist. But you do use creationist arguments. The whole gap thing is a creationist argument.
kickasspodcast:
I have said like a gillion times that I believe in evolution.
Cool.
kickasspodcast:
I have also said its a Theory. With alot of good evidence, but nonetheless STILL a theory. The very website you gave me says that clearly. It even says there are several theories, and scientists don't all agree.
You are correct. It is a theory. And a theory has a very lofty position in science.
Me:
But the very fact that fossils of archaeopteryx exist tells us that there were birds that shared features we would expect to find in both birds and theropod dinosaurs which strongly suggests that birds did evolve from theropod dinosaurs.
kickasspodcast:
Maybe- or it could simply mean that there was an animal that happend to resemble 2 different animals and now that animal is extint. Do you have any fossils for what that dino-bird evolve into or what it evolved from? See my point? You have lots of little random bits of evidence that suggests that creatures change over time depending upon circumstance. Well no ****. I think we'd all agree with that on micro or macro levels. The problem is you don't have any birds that seem to resemble dinosaurs, nor do you have any other fossils that represent any other evolutionary stage of the dino bird.
You have one set of bones that looks like a cross between 2 animals.

There are many examples of dinobirds and bird like dinosaurs in the fossil record. I chose archaeopteryx as an example to make my point.

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

kickasspodcast:
I give you the Duck Billed Platypus. We don't have any fossils of the Platypus in any stages before or after the modern day animal we all know and love. But it still looks like some wierd transitional animal.
Wrong.

http://www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/platypus.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html

Me:
The features are there. The theory of evolution predicts that these kinds of species existed. We may never really know which, or how many of the dino-birds are the exact ancestor of modern birds.

kickasspodcast:
Well if we will never know (as you just admitted) how can you call this a fact?
I didn’t call it a fact. I said it “strongly suggests…�
kickasspodcast:
The point is you MUST be able to take a bird and trace its lineage back and definitely show how it evolved (with fossiles- not drawings) over millions of years to be certain you know that particular birds evolutionary history. The simple fact that you believes "featrures" prove facts lets me know that you have quite alot of Faith in filling the increasing gaps (as you admitted) in evolution. I am again- not a creationist- nor am I one to say that evolution is fact and people who question it are uneducated or naive. (not that you said this to me directly)
The features strongly suggest that theropod dinosaurs were direct ancestors to birds. Nothing in science is for certain. (Read my signature.)
Me:
But their very existence strongly demonstrates an intermediate stage of development toward modern birds even if these particular examples are dead ends. There is also fossil evidence of theropod dinosaurs with feathers. So how much of a leap of faith does it take to conclude that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Or that birds are dinosaurs?
kickasspodcast:
A huge leap of faith. To go from 1 set of bones that only show that 1 species once looked like a dino-bird to saying that Birds are Dinosaurs? you know alot more about faith than I supposed.
<sigh>
If you had done any research at all before posting your reply you would have learned that there are many examples of dinobirds in different stages of development on their way to becoming modern birds. <sigh>
kickasspodcast:
No it doesn't. Look at the duck billed platypus. It is a monotreme. Another well known Monotreme is the Spiny Anteater. Aside from the fact that these two Monotremes couldn't much different from one another in apearance and lifestyle. Care to take a guess and tell me what their existance demonstrates? Would you say that it demonstrates an intermediate state of development towards ducks growing fur? Or Turtles growing fur and beaks?
Not to mention the Spiny Anteater- what does its existance demonstrate?
Gee, I dunno. That evolution can sometimes produce weird animals?
kickasspodcast:
If you have an example that is a dead end- it neither proves anything nor does it really contribute. Yes, if you have faith in evolution- it will help motivate you to look for more. But not much more than that.
Neanderthal was a dead end. By your logic their existence says nothing about human evolution. Looking at the twigs of the branches of the tree actually says a lot about evolution. I’m sorry that you didn’t get the point of my last post to you. But oh well…
kickasspodcast:
Most all the fossils that I looked at on the website are "stand alone"- they are isolated fossils that have different features. All widely different in time periods, geography and conditions. None of them even get close to being able to show a pattern of evolution, they use drawings to fill in the actual evidence they don't have. Sometimes like 4-6 stages in drawings and 2-3 fossils fragments shown. Really requiring ALOT of faith to say, yeah that's for sure how it happend.
Nothing in science is for sure. All conclusions are tentative. But the evidence supporting evolution is so strong that it is considered the cornerstone of biology. Perhaps your argument is with biologists?
kickasspodcast:
Dinosaurs with feathers?
That again doesn't prove anything. A strange occurance of nature my friend.
Just like-
Mammals that Lay eggs
Carnivore Plants
Canibalistic Homo Sapiens
Lots of wierd things happen in nature- this is not new information.

Btw-
Did you know that elaphant's teeth can weigh as much as nine pounds each? Amazing!
Well, as long as you put it that way… On the other hand, it might just be that the mechanisms that drive evolution are the best way we have to describe the diversity of life on this planet.
kickasspodcast:
Also-
Ever heard of a reptile called the Tuatara?

Been around since before the dinosaurs and suprise, suprise no signs of evolution. Its not as if its some big predator- it lives with birds and can be left alone with baby chicks- But its a Reptile! Another HUGE gap is that nobody can seem to explain- some animals living along side other animals from the same time periods show no signs of change and fossil records prove they haven't evolved one inch throughout millions and gajillions of years. Like the Nautilis or the Tuatara- their conditions have changed signifigantly over the course of their existance on this planet- yet the haven't evolved, nor do they show any tangible signs of natural selection.
There often needs to be some environmental pressure for an animal to evolve. If the Tuatara has “found� a niche that works, for as long as it works that animal will not change. Also, some animals are very adaptive. Many species of cockroaches have not changed either. They will not change unless their survival is at stake and there is an open niche that requires a change in order to exploit it. (That does not mean all the cockroaches will change. Only those that are isolated and need to adapt to a different environment.) (Genetic drift is a none adaptive process that can also lead to speciation.)
kickasspodcast:
This brings me to a brief aside- Part of the theory of evolution seems to suggest that organisms ultimately must evolve. This would seem to imply that everything eventually evolves or will adapt through evolution and natural selection. But this isn't the case. Science can not explain why some of the planets oldest creatures haven't changed a bit. So does every organism evolve? Is it supposed to? How do you know which will and which will not?Organisms do not have to evolve. See above.
kickasspodcast:
If you can see it (in your mind), if it makes sense, if you have evidence that makes you believe its true- None of these things actually mean that its true.

Like I have said a billion times- I am no creationist, in the sense that you mean it. In truth- I don't know, but I can admit that I don't know- and when any honest, open minded person looks at everything, they have to admit that its a Great Theory- but not a fact.
Science is about great theories. You can set your watch by one theory. But it is still a theory…
kickasspodcast:
Not to mention-
all the evidence you are offering is ok, but hardly great. Still no museums with the actual fossils that show this into that, into that, etc..
I understand you don't have the time, nor do you care to waste the time etc.. but understand that you have only pointed me to a bunch of words written by people who believe in evolution. The reason its important to have physical evidence is because it then doesn't matter what you believe, it's right there staring at you in the face.
Yup! And it is right there staring you in the face.
kickasspodcast:
But I had to say that Religious folks offer their evidence of the divine all the time- it is usually summarily dismissed or explained away in scientific or pseudo-scientific terms. When it clearly takes faith to be either a Scientist or Clergy.
Science says nothing about religion. But I submit that most religious doctrine is not in the realm of the falsifiable. All scientific theories are. It is not an act of faith to believe that gravity happens. If you stop believing that gravity happens you will not fly off the earth. Evolution is one of the best-supported theories in science. All theories, including gravity and evolution are tentative…
kickasspodcast:
I reread your whole post back to me- basically you start to make some points and then we get into things like "dead end species" or "we may never know" and "each time a gap is filled, it creates 2 new gaps". Its just not what I consider to be a conclusive argument. If you are trying to prove something without a doubt- you need more than what you or Talk Origins has to offer.
I am not trying to prove anything without a doubt. I am suggesting that the arguments you have presented as a reason for doubting evolution are flawed.
kickasspodcast:
Again- I am not a creationist- but I do want all the gaps filled in before I consider something as large as evolution to be a fact.
Every single last gap.
You will have to wait a very long time for that to happen. Oh well.
kickasspodcast:
I could try to start convincing you there was a God, there would be lots of gaps. Would you honestly accept up with those gaps in my argument? Would it be reasonable of me to ask you to accept the gaps and still ask you to ultimately consider it proven. Why should I accept the gaps of someone elses argument. Especially when there are a helluva lotta gaps. Like- where did all species evolve from, not just the 30 or so fossils that "suggest" or "demonstrate"- give me a break with the acedemic spin.
Academic spin? LOL
kickasspodcast:
Seriously- that is a reason for words like "Scientific Theory" because its pretty widely accepted, but not enough information to know for sure. Some theories have gone to **** in the past, this is why we don't rush into calling things facts when we know we could be wrong in the future.
One hundred years of constant attack by you know who and it is still the best theory to describe the diversity of life on our planet.
kickasspodcast:
Its pretty clear that you need faith anyway you look at it. If nothing else, faith in yourself, and the faith in the people you choose to surround yourself with. I appreciate all the points you've made. I am just a natural skeptic.
Me too…

[kickasspodcast]

I think you did call me a creationist- but its cool. I do believe most things are created before they exist. ;) I also believe in evolution, I have faith- even though I know there is not enough evidence for me to pretend that I can tell someone its how it all went down.

You still are pointing out a few fossil records.

You still have no set of records that I am asking for
you have a couple of stages of animals that are extinct and similiar.

But none of the links you gave me actually show a progression.

Thats what I mean by gaps.

Not individual examples.

Like an actual change- something you can see.

Nothing you have to believe in- just something you can see.

You see a duck bill platypus like animal that is extinct- Its not the same species ok, its looks similiar and we know its older. But.

No fossils of the modern day version mixed with the extinct ones.

These are the gaps that cannot be filled in.
Yes there are lots of dino birds-
all completely different species, none of them showing progression, none of them with any fossil evidence either before or after that particular stage of evolution.

Yes it will take a long time to continue to fill in the ever increasing gaps in the Theory of Evolution. As I said before-

I have no problem with accepting the Theory. When people act as if they are the ones who know (not that you have) it makes me sick. People who act all high and mighty and look down on religion have way too much free time and need to pointing out of the gaps that skeptics like me enjoy pointing out. Its great to see you actualyl responding with real fossils. Predictable but still I commend you for trying. Theres alot of good ideas, lots of things are suggestive- but I still as a skeptic need more than to say - "yeah- I am sure." I am not saying you are saying you know 100% for sure.

Some people unfortunately are.

Yeah academic spin.

To use words like "suggests" and "demonstrates" when its not difinitive at all. I am sure you did it without thinking but it is unconcious spin. It not at all as saying this proves that.

Hey I commend you-
its a good thing I believe in my Maker and Evolution. I just think the former is responsible for the latter.


It all really does (for me) go back to Quantum Physics, time warps, black holes, the fabric of time and the infinite universe.

"In and infinite universe, all things are not only possible, but probable."

Jack B.


***added

this is from your link to talk origins.

This is not a problem for evolution, since it is clear that any bafflement is due mainly to a shortage of evidence.

That about sums this entire discussion up right?

[dcolanduno]

You realize you just spoke in general terms the entire time and then accused me of over simplifying the situation or the evidence.


Faith is the belief in something, despite the fact or lack thereof.

I doubt I will be looking to you to have faith defined. Seriously.



Yea, again with the nanny nanny, "I'm not going to listen to *you*", childish behaviour;

http://www.answers.com/topic/faith

That link and almost any definition of faith you find have NOTHING to do with having 'proof' of anything. It's hard for people to trust your argument when you keep dismissing simple facts so blatantly.


Also its funny how you say that calling somone arrogant is a way to belittle them. You articulate in an effective matter of fact sort of way. But refused to actually comment on any of the issues I raised that are fact based.

Actually I did, so have several others... but you haven't brought up anything 'fact' based. You've mentioned assumptions you made, or some of the arguments that aren't fact based and have been completely de-bunked that are typical of both Old-World Creationists and I.D. supporters.

That doesn't mean you support Creationism or I.D., might just mean you have read their B.S. and think that some of it is well founded. And THAT is the issue here.

Devil's Advocate? Not at all- I am being a true skeptic here. You are the one who act's like you have to educate and talk down to me. Sorry you feel that way. I am questioning a mainstream ideology, with great consideration.

No, not really. You keep bringing up arguments that are old-hat stuff that have been hashed out already, to the point of conclusion in the scientific community. Some research would have shown you that. There are people that keep posting the same crappy information over and over and hope that new folks will think these are still 'outstanding' issues.

Arguing that we didn't go to the moon would be "questioning mainstream", but the folks that have tried that have been destroyed when their arguments have been picked apart.

And, still... those people still bother to have websites about it, and new people see things like that video that don't take the time to research WHY it is just a big stinky slice of swiss cheese... they think there COULD be some truth to conclusions those folks are trying to monazite on.

It is "against the mainstream" to buy into conspiracy theories and believe that a UFO crashed at Roswell, etc, etc... But it's old hat stuff that has been shredded. And, still to this day, those folks find more and more new people to buy into their half-truth con-job.

Just going against the mainstream doesn't in the slightest make one 'skeptical'.

I also never said or implied that all organisms evolve at the same rate.

I think you did imply it when you mentioned that something had-not evolved for 'x' amount of time. The basic concept that something has not changed in a noticeable timeframe is an argument against Evolution. Requires there to be an accepted rate of Evolution, that if not met, shows in some way Evolution has a big hole in logic.

So, if you accept that not all organisms evolve at the same rate... then something that doesn't show visible evolution, even for 2 million years would be completely acceptable.


Thats the shame in forum debates- people can ignore what they can't disprove and keep on blathering.

I didn't ignore anything. There are a few of us 'disproving', not sure that is the correct word, several of your arguments. But, many of them, as Kil or Dr. M pointed out... are things that have been dealt with in the past. Lots of them are the typical 'Why Evolution is Possibly Wrong' information that is handed out by the OWC/ID crowd to anyone that will listen.

It's well written stuff, but lacks some base level information... therefore very misleading.

You can keep talking as if you are the one setting the record strait- like I said that kind of attitude is just really arrogant to me. Maybe its not to the people who agree with you- but thats reasonable human behavior.

I go back to... 2+2=4

Is arguing against that rational? And is it arrogant to point it out?

You are smarter than to believe that simply stating informational facts and pointing to well researched issue is 'arrogant'. It really does begin to look like you want to twist it up that way to make your argument stronger... It's an old fashioned debate trick, which doesn't ever work out in scientific or academic circles. Weakens your position quite a bit, especially when it is so blatantly untrue. But, I am sure you are going to go back on the heels of "But it's a *personal* feeling how can it be untrue?" Easy, your basis for saying that I, or anyone here could be arrogant is that we are pointing out information in a matter of fact, or knowledgeable manner.

How can that be 'arrogant'? In type, facts are just facts... should I dress it up in a 'happy' manner somehow? Since in type you don't have inflection or vocal tone to read from... I don't see how just stating information in a perfectly neutral manner is 'arrogant'.

Should I use some colorful dismissive language like "<puke>" and such to make my posts seem more like I respect your statements somehow?

Still haven't had anyone bother to tell me what museums I can go to to see the Fossil records. Why? Because A: they don't exist. B: Nobody has them.

Did you just type that? I'll let you take it back, it's late.

In my world when you don't have evidence to prove your theory- it stays a theory. I understand the Science world uses theory differently than the common usage. BUT there is a reason for this. And I mentioned that in my last post- and suprise, suprise- nobody wants to go there.

No one wants to go there, because it isn't the world we are in. Are you posting from a different planet? There is a ton of evidence. And Science didn't make up a different usage for the word 'theory' for some agenda, or other reason. It is just simply an accepted scientific term. You can't mix the casual use of theory with the scientific one in a serious discussion about scientific matters.

That, however, IS a common trick that folks use to wedge doubt into peoples minds about very established scientific theories.

Truthfully Dr. M and Kil did alot more to actually offer facts and continue a level discussion. All I got from you guys was superiority and condescension.

it's nice to see you still found a twisted way to try to make a personal attack. I went back, they are pointing out the same information, in the manner. You just attempted another debate trick that oft' backfires... try to look like you capitulate to one segment of your opposition to gain an illusion of 'higher' ground when you attack another.

Just because you choose to use 'casual' language and I don't in this matter. Doesn't make me arrogant, or condescending... I'm just stating my information in a non-emotional way on purpose. It's a serious issue, sorry I don't take spreading the arguments and half-truths of the wedge agenda lightly.

Its cool- w/e I am sure you could give. My fav was when you, the Athiest starts telling me about Faith. ROFL

First off, when did I state that I was an Atheist? I actually flat out said I wasn't in this very thread of posts.

Keep laughing...

That chick in the Video is pretty Hot man. :roll:

I think that was their intention at least. Hard for a woman to remain even 'cute' when they spew such terrible, incorrect, information in an attempt to make a buck.

Although, I hope you saw and realized how easy it is for people to spread information that sounds all scholarly and 'logical' but is just flat out laughable and unfounded.

[Hittman]

With alot of good evidence, but nonetheless STILL a theory.

Perhaps you should look up the word Theory, Mr. Dictionary Argument.

The reason people are calling you a creationist is that you're using creationist arguments. You pass the duck test.

No mistakes? So then Pi really is exactly 3? (1 Kings 7:23)(BTW, I'm familiar with most of the silly justifications that try to get around this, (the flared rim argument, the variant in a cubit argument, etc) and refuting them is child's play
Just out of curiosity, would you mind refuting the rounding argument (10 being 9.67, 30 being 30.38 ), especially considering that the only fractions the Bible mentions concerning length are halves?

To easy. Believers say the Bible is inerrant. It contains no errors. A rounding error is an error. Therefore a Bible containing a rounding error is not inerrant.

Or the argument that it was impossible to make a bowl of such size to be a perfect circle back then?

It is described as a circle. If it's not, that’s another error. Also, there's no evidence that the craftsman of the time were incompetent.

Or that maybe it just wasn't important for the size of the bowl to be that accurate.

That’s my favorite. It's not an error because it's trivial. Nope. It's an error. Therefore the bible is not inerrant.

And for the record, this isn't a verse proclaiming to define pi...it's a verse describing an object.

An object that couldn't exist as described.

As an aside, there's also a theory that the true measurement of the circumference, accurate to within .015", is hidden in the original Hebrew text of the verse:

http://www.ldolphin.org/pi

I don't know about this but it definitely makes for interesting reading!

Sounds pretty desperate to me. I rather liked this line, though:

"1) The Bible is reliable. The "errors" pointed out by skeptics usually derive from misunderstandings or trivial quibbles."

If someone claims that the Bible contains no errors, than no quibble is trivial. The slightest mistake requires discarding the entire thing.

If one takes the more reasonable stance that the Bible is a guide, an inspiration, an explanation, etc, but doesn’t take the stand that it is 100% without error, then many of the quibbles are trivial, and can be shrugged off. Insisting that every word of the bible is true makes you an easy target for Skeptics. Taking the more reasonable stance disarms us, at least partially. It takes away our pellet guns, (but we still have our bazookas).

<dave berry> I'd like to point out that Trivial Quibbles would be a great name for a rock band. </dave berry>

There's more, but I think I made the point.
Sure, there are plenty more. In fact, you can find a fairly comprehensive list along with other criticisms of the Bible at www.skepticsannotatedbible.com. Do the research and you'll also find other sites by the hundreds (including www.skepticsannotatedbible.org amusingly enough) that will politely show you why these are not the contradictions/inaccuracies they appear to be. There are also books that do the same. Approach them with an open mind and you'll see their point. Approach them with your mind already made up and you'll respond with comments like, "I'm familiar with most of the silly justifications that try to get around this."

Having been on both sides of the fence, I used to make those counter arguments myself, so I'm pretty familiar with a lot of them. Most are a combination of double talk, wishful thinking, assuming facts not in evidence, and failure to acknowledge what was actually said. The previous argument about "beat him with a rod" is, IMO, a perfect example. I think "beat him with a rod" is pretty clear. You don't. Frankly, I can't understand that point of view.

Somewhere else in this topic somebody mentioned that creationists always come up with some other minor point that needs to be proved every time evolutionists respond to one of their challenges. From my perspective these arguments about supposed inaccuracies in the Bible are the same kind of thing. For every hurdle I knock down you'll come up with another.

Why should I be able to do that? Why are there so many things I can bring up, if the Bible is really inerrant? There should be just a couple of things, and it should be easy to explain them.

And even if I were able to prove to you beyond any reasonable doubt the the Bible were completely accurate it wouldn't make any difference; you'd still reject its message just as most creationists would still reject evolution even if you showed them a complete fossil record.

But you couldn't, unless you were willing to admit that Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc, were impossible, and were, perhaps, parables. And if Adam and Eve is a parable, then there's no need for Christ's sacrifice, which in turn doesn't leave much reason for Christianity.

When it comes right down to it, it's not about the evidence; it's about what you're willing to believe.

We can agree on that. Faith, by definition, is believing in something without proof. Skepticism is demanding proof. The twain shall never meet.

Because in truth- the evidence isn't there for either. Both require Faith.

Wrong, as usual. The evidence is there, clear and easy to find. But it is beyond the comprehension of puppies.

I am just a natural skeptic.

Not even close. Being a skeptic requires an intellectual capacity and intellectual honesty you have never displayed.

I'm enjoying watching the other people in this forum pick you apart – with you unaware that it's happening. I'm finding it more entertaining to watch than participate in.

[Dr. Mabuse]

TO Dr. M-

OK- you are clearly a Man of Faith-

I am not. I was a Man of Faith once, when I attended Pentecostal Church.
If you believe that I take evolution on faith, then I suggest that you take mathematics on faith. You, sir is a man of faith if you believe that the solution of x^2+px+q=0 is:
x=-(p/2)+/-sqrt((p^2/4)-q)

I bet that you can't prove that this is the solution, but you can refer to all mathematicians that say so. Since I'm not a biologist, and I do definitely not research in biology, I have to rely on works written by authorities in their fields. Normally, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, but it is not a fallacy if the authority is an expert in the field, especially if their views are consistent with the qualified majority of the experts.

Neither you nor I can verify the theory of Relativity. Do you then have to rely on faith that the theory is accurate?
As a skeptic, one have to draw the line somewhere, or disbelieve EVERYTHING. Perhaps I should be skeptical about your existence?

You say over an over again that it doesn't matter that you don't have the evidence to prove what you believe.

I have enough evidence to make a tentative conclusion.

Sorry- it doesn't make you any more correct than my mother who prays to Jesus.

Now you're just being an ***-hole. And at the same time, I'm starting to see where you come from. The only way to resolve your problem with accepting the theory of biological evolution is to go back to school, and take a course in the scientific method, then biology classes and possibly paleontology.

Your mother can't produce Jesus' remains, nor any other evidence what-so-ever. The only thing she can really to is refer to the bible that says that the bible is the word of God. And all that the bible contains are anecdotes. Such are not considered evidence in the "court" of science.

Neither of you can fill in the gaps to say you know for sure, 100%.

There you go with absolutes again. Absolutes only exist in your mind (and in Swedish vodka-bottles). Science have a problem with absolutes. Tentative conclusion rocks.

But she is only dealing with 1 thing- the existence of God. You are even worse because there are millions species of organisms you pretend to be able to explain the origin of them all.

That's called predictive power, and is a vital part of a theory. The theory predicts that if a biotope (or ecological niche) is stable, there will be no need for an animal to evolve. Parts of New Zealand biotope hasn't changed much since Late Devonian(?), when some reptile families started to evolve to mammals. The platypus ancestor found a comfortable niche, and haven't had the need to evolve since then. That's why it's still a weird animal with a close resemblance to the earliest mammals.


Like Derek wrote earlier, you don't have to lay all pieces of the puzzle to see what the picture shows.

Yeah- this is the arrogance that I spoke of before.
If the puzzle was an MC Escher original drawing I think you would need
to see the entire puzzle. If the puzzle was one of those pictures that you have look at for 5 min then it "pops out!" then I think you would need all the pieces guys.

That's an argument from incredulity. Just because you think that Nature is too awesome for you to figure out, doesn't mean others can't. You need to study more biology.


Still nothing but a website with drawings. Its seems like nobody wants to actually look at all the evidence as a skeptic. I guess its just me.
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

It's a generally accepted conclusion that the sun rises every morning, but you're not skeptic enough to doubt that it will do so tomorrow.
It's a generally accepted conclusion that you'll get a dial-tone when you pick up the phone. You can't be sure, but you still pick it up when you want to call somebody. You are counting on the predictability of the phone working, but if you was a true skeptic, you shouldn't.

You can test the phone by picking it up and listen if there is a tone.
A paleontologist can discover a fossil (like the archaeopteryx), and see that it fits i the puzzle: yet another transition between dino and bird.

There is no museum displaying everything. There are literally tons of fossils, and museums don't have the space to display it all, only a few select pieces. There are better discussion forums than this to address your disbelief of the fossil record. Like I said before, I'm an electronics engineer, so my knowledge of biology and paleontology is a bit sketchy. But please come over to www.skepticfriends.org and make the statement there, where there are other members more into biology than me.

Only an arrogant person would actually believe they know what the picture is without all the pieces in place, or even with the limited pieces you may have. Not as if you have any corner pieces anyways. ;) The puzzle is way too big to assume you know the complete picture.

Only an arrogant person think they know more than experts, who devote their career studying the aspects of the puzzle you disbelieve.

And only an arrogant person posts dictionary-like descriptions of words without a reference to which dictionary it's taken from, and think people will take them at face value. Especially when the dictionary is written by people who obviously have no knowledge about what they are defining.
The Theory of Biological Evolution is far more complex than to be let defined by a single line like the one below. I think Kil can post a better one.


Evolve-
Biology. To develop or arise through evolutionary processes.

Develop-
Biology.
1. To progress from earlier to later stages of a life cycle: Caterpillars develop into butterflies.
2. To progress from earlier to later or from simpler to more complex stages of evolution.

Arise-
To get up, as from a sitting or prone position; rise.
To awaken and get up: arose at dawn.
To move upward; ascend.
To come into being; originate: hoped that a new spirit of freedom was arising.
To result, issue, or proceed: mistakes that arise from a basic misunderstanding.


Progress-
1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See Synonyms at development.
4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.

intr.v. pro·gress (pr-grs) pro·gressed, pro·gress·ing, pro·gress·es

1. To advance; proceed: Work on the new building progressed at a rapid rate.
2. To advance toward a higher or better stage; improve steadily: as medical technology progresses.

This all is an attempt by you (and probably involuntarily, the dictionary) to say that biological Evolution has a goal to produce more "evolved" species, more complex creatures. Evolution has no goal.
http://www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/platypus.htm
From the link above:

Studies of these fossils indicate that the one remaining living species of Platypus is more specialised than its predecessors. It is smaller, its functional teeth have been replaced by horny pads and other aspects of its anatomy appear simpler.

(Emphasis by Dr. Mabuse)



Do you realize what would happen if someone proved without a doubt ultimate proof of either God or Evolution? Could you image the influence that person would have? just a thought-

Absolutely. It will be a Nobel Prize candidate for certain. Scientific evidence of God would make me change my mind about God. Yet at the same time, evidence of God would not in itself invalidate evidence of evolution. Probably only the finer details, like how DNA mutates. Unless of course, God says that he created Earth in 144 hours, about 6000 years ago. In which case I would demand some pretty conclusive evidence for why geologists have been wrong all this time.

[Craig]

The slightest mistake requires discarding the entire thing.

On 8/13 in this topic you wrote:

Paul was the clown who ... used the phrase "born again" often enough to fuel the rise of the most ignorant form of the religion.
Since I already pointed out the that phrase "born again" is only used 3 times in the Bible and never by Paul, I am therefore discarding your entire argument. :wink:

I still maintain that the original manuscripts are inerrant and that any mistakes appearing in the major translations are insignificant to the core message of salvation. In addition, anyone who finds what appears to be a mistake and simply pulls it out of the Bible and runs with it instead of putting it into the context of the entire book, researching it's cultural context, and checking to make sure the translation was accurate is acting out of ignorance, acting out of fear, or acting out of ego. (There are plenty of examples of those who have taken the Bible out of context in a quest for power.)

Craig

[kickasspodcast]

Now you're just being an ***-hole.

I am out- no more scientific discussion with people calling me an *****le.

Bye-
Jack B.

[volwrath]

It's a generally accepted conclusion that the sun rises every morning, but you're not skeptic enough to doubt that it will do so tomorrow.

HUH?!?

[Kil]

kickasspodcast:
You still have no set of records that I am asking for
you have a couple of stages of animals that are extinct and similiar.

But none of the links you gave me actually show a progression.

Thats what I mean by gaps.

Not individual examples.

Like an actual change- something you can see.

Nothing you have to believe in- just something you can see.

The fossil record for Horse evolution is fairly complete.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

The second link provides “something you can see.� The first link is a description of what it is you are seeing.
kickasspodcast:
To use words like "suggests" and "demonstrates" when its not difinitive at all. I am sure you did it without thinking but it is unconcious spin. It not at all as saying this proves that.

Baloney. We use words like “suggests� and “demonstrates� because they precisely express the meaning that we are trying to convey. It is no spin to say that feathers on dinosaurs “suggest� that feathers first evolved on dinosaurs and “demonstrates� the likelihood that birds evolved from feathered theropod dinosaurs. Precise language is important in science. Proof is reserved for mathematics and claims to big T truths are reserved for philosophy and religion. Science is not dogma. But science is the best way we have of explaining physical facts that exist in the natural world. And while no method is perfect, the scientific method has shown itself time and time again to be the best game in town for explaining how our natural world works.

Just for clarification sake, I don’t believe in evolution. Evolution happens. Just as gravity happens. And unless someone comes up with better-supported theories, and I doubt that will happen, those are the conclusions that the evidence for each demands of me, even if those conclusions are tentative.

And with that I am bowing out of this discussion (I think.) My only hope is that Craig followed some of the links I provided that show obvious evidence for what he calls “macro evolution.�

[dcolanduno]

Now you're just being an ***-hole.

I am out- no more scientific discussion with people calling me an *****le.

Bye-
Jack B.

Why not, you have consistently called others names throughout this entire thread.

[Dr. Mabuse]

Now you're just being an ***-hole.

I am out- no more scientific discussion with people calling me an *****le.

Bye-
Jack B.Sorry. I should have said you're an ***. The hole-thing just slipped.

Equating my confidence in a scientific theory that is widely accepted, with a delusion about an imaginary friend, I find that very insulting. I was being nice to you in return.

If you want to bail out, be my guest. I can focus on worthier debaters.

[Dr. Mabuse]

It's a generally accepted conclusion that the sun rises every morning, but you're not skeptic enough to doubt that it will do so tomorrow.

HUH?!?

What I meant was that if you're skeptic enough to question the Theory of Evolution, you're close to being skeptical enough to doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Being a skeptic means that all conclusions are tentative (and may be subject to change should new and refuting evidence be found), but it also includes judgement on what is sufficient evidence. Practically all scientists working in the field of biology agrees that Evolution has evidence enough to reach the status of fact.

[Craig]

Because in truth- the evidence isn't there for either. Both require Faith.

Wrong, as usual. The evidence is there, clear and easy to find. But it is beyond the comprehension of puppies.

I am just a natural skeptic.

Not even close. Being a skeptic requires an intellectual capacity and intellectual honesty you have never displayed.

I'm enjoying watching the other people in this forum pick you apart – with you unaware that it's happening. I'm finding it more entertaining to watch than participate in.
If you change who you're quoting and responding to please indicate so as I've done above. (Although I assume you're directing the last comment at both of us.)

Craig

[Zecryphon]

@ Z-
you seem to be speaking for God. "God needed to..." etc.. REALLY dangerous stuff man, really dangerous.

When I said God needed to punish the Egyptians, I was making a conclusion based on what I read in the text. If it reads different to you, please tell me how. What conclusions do you draw from the texts? I did not intend to speak for God. Think about this though, which is more dangerous, speaking for God, or standing in opposition to Him by denying His existence?

Your brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[Zecryphon]

So you're copping out. No problem, I'm used to that from religious people. (See earlier in the thread, where Craig is trying to pretend that "beat him with a rod" means something other than "beat him with a rod.")

You claimed that science agreed with the bible. My specific question was how does science agree with the idea that light was created first, then night and day, then the sun. It's a simple question. And you can't provide a real answer.

I'm not copping out of anything, if you would read my replies carefully you would see that I never ever said anywhere in the post that science proved that God created the light, sun, day and night. I said that science had proved the existence of dinosaurs, and that dinosaurs were mentioned in the bible. The bible states that nothing that exists, exists independently of God. (this is a paraphrase eveyone)

The way God created in the beginning of Genesis is by speaking these things into existence. There's your answer. He spoke them into existence. The bible does not go on to say how that works, so I don't know. Do you?

Now I would like to ask you a question. What happened to you? Did God screw you over or was it perhaps that fundamentalist cult you were raised in didn't meet your expectations? They told you maybe something like "God will give you everything you want, your life will be filled with happines, if you just trust in Him now." The form of Christianity that is offered in alot of churches across this nation today, is a pre-packaged item, designed to be consumed in an hour or less. You know the routine, you go, you sing along with the choir as words are flashed up on a screen, you give them some money, and then you listen to some guy you don't really know at all tell you what God's word says for 30 minutes or so. That's not what it's about at all.

There is a podcast that would be great for you to listen to. Check out Stupid Church People or go to www.stupidchurchpeople.com I think you could benefit from it.

Your brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[Zecryphon]

You've got the story wrong. God didn't take anything from Job. Satan did, with God's permission. Including killing his kids. Nice god you've got there.

You are correct, I did indeed make a mistake in my retelling of the story of Job. God did not take those things, but Satan did. I haven't read that book in years, but next time I make a quote or retell a story I will make sure to have my facts in order.

Your brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[Zecryphon]

Let's step back to the story of Job. He stood back and let Satin torture the man. He even let him kill his children. All to test him. That's not a benevolent god. That's a god who is a real dick.

That's a God who knows that no matter what Satan threw at Job, that Job would remain faithful to God and not abandon his faith because things got really rough. Sounds like someone who can predict the future, or is all knowing.

I don't believe it was an accident either. That's a common misconception among religious people. The birth of the universe wasn't an accident. Evolution isn't accidental. In fact, once you really understand it, you'll know that it's inevitable.

From your above statement, I can conclude that you believe the universe had a beginning. Isn't it then logical to conclude that if it had a beginning, that it must have had a beginner? I don't see how you can have one without the other. And on a side note I am reading a book about religion and evolution at the moment. Maybe that will enlighten me some.

Your brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[Craig]

So you're copping out. No problem, I'm used to that from religious people. (See earlier in the thread, where Craig is trying to pretend that "beat him with a rod" means something other than "beat him with a rod.")
With respect to your reference to me here Dave, your definition of "copping out" seems to mean disagreeing with your perspective, and "pretending" means providing a reasoned response that doesn't mesh with your way of thinking. But then again, I'm used to that from skeptics.

Craig

[Dr. Mabuse]

Let's step back to the story of Job. He stood back and let Satin torture the man. He even let him kill his children. All to test him. That's not a benevolent god. That's a god who is a real dick.

That's a God who knows that no matter what Satan threw at Job, that Job would remain faithful to God and not abandon his faith because things got really rough. Sounds like someone who can predict the future, or is all knowing.

Sounds to me like a dick who sacrificed someone else's children to prove a point. Who knowingly said "go ahead, do it" when the most evil entity suggested killing off Job's children.

Unless of course, the story of Job is just a fictional story meant to relay religious and philosophical ideas like, no matter how much faith you have in God, sometimes **** does happen, don't blame God, but look at it as if it was a test of faith.

It's the literal reading of the Bible that really tend to **** people up. The compulsive need for absolutes is unhealthy, it creates rigid minds that can't handle the real world.

[volwrath]

It's a generally accepted conclusion that the sun rises every morning, but you're not skeptic enough to doubt that it will do so tomorrow.

HUH?!?

What I meant was that if you're skeptic enough to question the Theory of Evolution, you're close to being skeptical enough to doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow.



I was being a smart aleck and disagreeing with your post that the sun actually rises (since its a science vs religion debate). Sorry :roll:

[jimk]

The sun doesn't rise. It's carried across the sky in a fiery chariot.

I READ IT ON THE AL GORE INTERW3BS SO IT MUST BE TRUE. :D

[Craig]

The sun doesn't rise. It's carried across the sky in a fiery chariot.
Driven by Elvis. That part's the key to the whole thing.

Craig

[Hittman]

Since I already pointed out the that phrase "born again" is only used 3 times in the Bible and never by Paul, I am therefore discarding your entire argument.

But I am not claiming to be inerrant. I’ll admit that I make mistakes, often.

BTW, you transposed “the� and “that�, so you’re not inherent either. (Good thing neither of us claim to be.)

I am out- no more scientific discussion with people calling me an *****le.

Sorry, you were discussing science? I must have missed that.

If you change who you're quoting and responding to please indicate so as I've done above. (Although I assume you're directing the last comment at both of us.)

Sorry, Craig. I hate misquoting, and apologize for messing it up. And no, that last comment was only directed at Kickass. You and I will never agree, but you have my respect, something Kickass will never earn.

What happened to you?

You want a 50 year biography? For the purpose of this conversation, you only need to know about a few of those years.

I was raised in a fundy Christian cult. I always suspected it was bullshit, but really, really tired to believe. I wasn’t allowed to do much of anything in my childhood or teen years, there were rules against virtually anything that wasn’t directly related to the church.

When I went out on my own, I spent a year holed up in a ratty apartment, reading everything I could get my hands on, on every subject that interested me, including religion. I studied evolution, which I had been trained to believe was a lie, and the writings of great thinkers of all sorts. I spent a lot of time walking and thinking. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I was de-programming myself. And I came to the conclusion that nearly everything I had been taught growing up was complete, useless bullshit.

I emerged from that experience believing that religon was completely useless, and anyone who believed in god was an idiot. I very quickly changed my position on the latter – I knew too may smart theists for that to hold up - and slowly changed my mind on the former – it’s not completely useless, just mostly useless. And some people desperately need it to have any sense of self worth and/or morals, and I’m glad it’s there for them.

Let's step back to the story of Job. He stood back and let Satin torture the man. He even let him kill his children. All to test him. That's not a benevolent god. That's a god who is a real dick.

That's a God who knows that no matter what Satan threw at Job, that Job would remain faithful to God and not abandon his faith because things got really rough. Sounds like someone who can predict the future, or is all knowing.

Ok, I’ll concede that point for the sake of argument. He knew.

But that doesn’t make him any less of a dick. Letting someone’s kids get killed to prove a point is sick. At the very least, Jehovah is guilty of criminally negligent homicide.

I don't believe it was an accident either. That's a common misconception among religious people. The birth of the universe wasn't an accident. Evolution isn't accidental. In fact, once you really understand it, you'll know that it's inevitable.

From your above statement, I can conclude that you believe the universe had a beginning. Isn't it then logical to conclude that if it had a beginning, that it must have had a beginner?

Nope. It doesn’t do anything except push the question one step back. OK, so there was a god who created everything. Where did he come from? He was always there? Well then, why not just say the singularity that formed the universe was always there? It removes one layer from the question.

It's the literal reading of the Bible that really tend to **** people up. The compulsive need for absolutes is unhealthy, it creates rigid minds that can't handle the real world.

Not just the bible, but any dogma. Refer back to any conversation with a Big L Libertarian. The dogma must be followed exactly. Telling people they can't drive drunk or leave their garbage on thier sidewalk forever is a horrible, statist thing. ("Statist" is the worst insult one Lib can hurl at another. It's like calling a democrat a capatilist.)

Driven by Elvis. That part's the key to the whole thing.

Which is why, of course, he wore those sparkly suits. To give us the maximum sunlight.

And that’s not all he did for us:

"Elvis was a narc, in the rhinestones after dark.
He did his best to keep Memphis drug-free.
Every pill he'd eat, was one less on the street.
Elvis took them all for you and me."

- Pinkard and Bowden (noted historians)

[Ricky]

kickasspodcast, your standard for evidence is set way too high. You say you need all the gaps in evolution filled for it to be accepted without faith. I take it by gaps you mean fossil record.

The equivalent of this is saying that gravity must also have all the gaps filled. That is, to accept gravity (the attraction of two things with mass), you must show that every single particle with mass in the universe is attracted to every single other one. Otherwise, there are unknown parts of the theory, and we must accept gravity by means of faith.

But of course, you still don't accept the fact that fossils are few and far between. Until you understand this, your logic will always be flawed as your assumption (that there should be mountains of fossils) is flawed.

[Craig]

I was raised in a fundy Christian cult ... I wasn’t allowed to do much of anything in my childhood or teen years, there were rules against virtually anything that wasn’t directly related to the church.
I'm truly sorry to hear that.

Craig

[Dr. Mabuse]

kickasspodcast, your standard for evidence is set way too high. You say you need all the gaps in evolution filled for it to be accepted without faith. I take it by gaps you mean fossil record.

The equivalent of this is saying that gravity must also have all the gaps filled. That is, to accept gravity (the attraction of two things with mass), you must show that every single particle with mass in the universe is attracted to every single other one. Otherwise, there are unknown parts of the theory, and we must accept gravity by means of faith.

But of course, you still don't accept the fact that fossils are few and far between. Until you understand this, your logic will always be flawed as your assumption (that there should be mountains of fossils) is flawed.

There's no use Ricky.
I gave Kickasspodcast a lame excuse to bail on this debate, and he gladly took it. The fact that I got upset with him misrepresenting me is regrettable.

[Hittman]

I was raised in a fundy Christian cult ... I wasn’t allowed to do much of anything in my childhood or teen years, there were rules against virtually anything that wasn’t directly related to the church.
I'm truly sorry to hear that.

No need to be. Recovery was painful, but most worthwhile things are. It left me with an extreamly sensitive bullshit meter, and that has served me well.

I think most people’s teen years sucked. My sucked a bit more, and in a slightly different way, but I’m hardly unique. And the end result is that I make it a point to thoroughly have a great time every chance I get, so my life as a whole has been much richer for the experience.

[Zecryphon]

I'm gonna guess that this thread is now dead.

Your brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[Zecryphon]

I'm sorry but I just couldn't stand that the number of replies is 199, this will make it a nice round 200.

Your brother in Christ, who hates odd numbers,

Zecryphon

[Kil]

I'm sorry but I just couldn't stand that the number of replies is 199, this will make it a nice round 200.

Your brother in Christ, who hates odd numbers,

Zecryphon :wink:

[Ricky]

That was just mean. Evil Skeptic.

[dcolanduno]

That was just mean. Evil Skeptic.

Is that how he got the name? ;)

[Craig]

666 is even.

Craig

[notyourusualbollocks]

Anyone seen this?

http://www.venganza.org/

It's absolute genius.

MK

[Ricky]

FSM recently made it into a newspaper:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/rio_rancho_nm_u.html

[Ricky]

And even more:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/08/31/2003269851