Link Stats
Added By: Wendy
Added on: 11/16/2007 @ 3:37:51 PM
Link View Count: 555
Politics
Politics
Rate this Link
Yours:

Rated 0 times.

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Anti-religion or actually a religion?
View External Link [www.cnn.com]
Back to Link List
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
11/16/2007 @ 04:13:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, as the article brings up, how do you define religion? I'm sure there are exceptions to every generality but to me a key part of what makes a religion is a plan for what happens once we're dead. True there are people as fanatically anti-religion as there are religious people, but I don't think we need to say anything you believe in strongly, or participate in regularly, makes it a religion.

Not to mention there are people out there who believe in God who can still recognize the the teaching that God created the world in a public school would indeed make as much sense as teaching that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did.

Also, God isn't really a symbol, God is God, the FSM just represents the fact that if we are going to open up public school science curriculum to possibilities instead of plausibilities it may as well be anything we're talking about. "Believing in" the two of them doesn't really mean the same thing, and they aren't really the opposites either.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 11/16/2007 4:29:02 pm
2887.gifAlex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so!
11/16/2007 @ 06:49:44 PM
 Quote this comment
I agree with your general sentiment, but evolution really isn't plausible either. So maybe schools should just say nothing about the whole situation.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
11/16/2007 @ 08:03:43 PM
 Quote this comment
evolution isn't plausible? are you blind, or just being comical?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/16/2007 @ 10:38:23 PM
 Quote this comment
Evolution is the most plausible theory given the empirical data we as a species have assembled so far. If we limited the science curriculum only to things that have been unequivocally proven it would be a pretty short lesson. Science can not, and will never, prove evolution, science just doesn't work that way. Likewise science can never disprove religion, but then again no one can disprove that Jesus was the son of the FSM either.

We have no idea what gravity is, there are various theories but no one really knows, that doesn't mean we should stop teaching gravity.

Science really can't "prove" anything that complex. It can't prove the earth goes around the sun, that it's round, or, for that matter, that it exists. That doesn't mean it can't offer up all the tested hypothesis' in the world that are able to be recreated with predicable results that, more likely than not, demonstrate what's going on.

With all the crazy stuff going on in the scientific world it strikes me as odd that evolution is the thing so often argued against. It's complex, but at the same time beautiful in its simplicity. Two black seals in the arctic region have a baby, through some genetic mix up, the kind of which we see all the time, the baby seal is white. Due to it's natural ability to camouflage itself it lives twice as long as the average seal and gives birth to twice the offspring a "normal" seal does, each one of the offspring having a pretty good shot at picking up the "all white" gene. Before long all the seals in the arctic are white and there are basically two species of seals. An animal is born that's a little bigger than average, due it's larger cranium it has a bigger brain, as such it's a bit more clever, survives longer (or uses it's cleverness to attract more mates), and so on. (Einstein's brain was missing an area most people have linked with speech, which allowed the region of the brain associated with mathematics to be 15% larger. He was notably lacking with his language skills, and often said he "thought in images." This really has nothing to do with anything, other than I guess the fact that "size does matter" when it comes to brains, I just think it's a cool little fact.)

Though evolution explains the progression well it doesn't, however, yet explain how everything got started, which is why I find it so humorous that it's argued against. Evolution is an empirically gathered, scientifically sound, argument that all life began, and all life stems from this one creation.

The Church argued long and hard that the sun went around the earth, it was blasphemous to think otherwise. Through centuries of evidence gathering later scientists tracked the whole universe down to one point. The big bang, is the widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe. It in no way, shape, or form explains where that infinitely dense spec of all matter came from, or what was there before it.

So, in other words our best two theories on the topics to date have shown that the universe itself inexplicably blinked itself into existence from nothingness and that life on earth is traceable back to one "event" we have yet to begin to understand. I find it hard to believe that these two thoeries are really so incompatible with religion and why, if anything, they aren't used as a scientific argument FOR a creator.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 6 times, last at 11/16/2007 10:56:12 pm
matt.jpgMatt - 3354 Posts
11/17/2007 @ 12:58:37 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 11/16/2007 @ 10:38:23 PM
We have no idea what gravity is, there are various theories but no one really knows, that doesn't mean we should stop teaching gravity.


Not that I'm disagreeing with you overall, but while they teach the "force" of gravity, I don't think they really teach the different theories behind it (at least not until you get deep into a physics major or something). Your analogy, then, doesn't hold up as well, as it would be like schools teaching about life, but holding off on how we all got here, which was Alex's point.

Jeremy Wrote - 11/16/2007 @ 10:38:23 PM
I find it hard to believe that these two thoeries are really so incompatible with religion and why, if anything, they aren't used as a scientific argument FOR a creator.


I think one of the reasons that there is pushback on this is because many people do use the theory to "disprove" religion and it sometimes comes off as patronizing, and whether it is God-given or evolved behavior, people tend to fight back when their beliefs are attacked. This, of course, can go both ways too.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Ombudsman
11/17/2007 @ 01:06:34 AM
 Quote this comment
I don't really pay much attention to these arguments, so I'm not sure of what at what age students are first taught evolution, but I think there is something to be said for making sure it's not too early. Like Jeremy said, the theory is sort of simple once you get it, but the details are complex. If you introduce it and don't follow through, or the students are too young to understand it, then there isn't a point in bringing it up in the first place, because the kids are going to come out of it with the wrong impression of what the theory of evolution really is.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/17/2007 @ 01:39:12 AM
 Quote this comment
I think it's in high school that you really get into it. And contrary to the "opponents" belief you are well aware of the scientific method and what it means to be a theory by then.

My point about Gravity (Why can't we seem to keep it together?) was not so much aimed at Alex, and really wasn't meant to be an analogy at all. There are many people out there who argue we shouldn't teach a theory until every tiny detail about it is fleshed out, which just isn't realistic. Science is evolving itself, and one part of a larger theory being wrong doesn't mean the whole theory is worthless.

Edit: And I have a question for Alex and any one else who isn't down with the whole evolution trip, and honestly I'm not trying to start something, or belittle, this is an honest question, don't read into it. If you don't think that they are our predecessors/offshoots, what do you think all the bones we're digging up are? Just extinct animals?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 11/17/2007 2:02:42 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
11/17/2007 @ 02:11:10 AM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - 11/17/2007 @ 12:58:37 AM
I think one of the reasons that there is pushback on this is because many people do use the theory to "disprove" religion and it sometimes comes off as patronizing, and whether it is God-given or evolved behavior, people tend to fight back when their beliefs are attacked. This, of course, can go both ways too.


Indeed. Though I think a big part of the "patronizing" is spawned from people trying to make religion scientific. It is, of course, possible God created us all, but there's also as much evidence that the FSM did it. It's possible Aliens put us here, it's possible we're all in a simulation somewhere, it's possible the entirety of all existence is in my head and none of you, and nothing else, really exists at all. I mean really, how can we prove we really even exist? Some people have taken the FSM and used it to belittle other peoples beliefs outright, in any context. However, the FSM began as nothing more than pointing out that if science classes have to teach creationism, "Then why not this too?", it was never meant to be the "Man, you suckers will believe anything" symbol it has turned into.

I for one have no problem with believing whatever you want. (to a point, we don't have to respect bat-shit-insane-misogynistic-radical religious views just because "That's just the way they to do things"/"Who are you to judge?" (I'm looking at you, Middle East.)) I would even be perfectly fine with discussing it in philosophy class, or discussed in it's own class, I'd even be fine with an elective course that turned it up a notch past "discussion" with class prayer and the whole 9 yards. It just isn't science, so stop trying to make it so. If you don't want you precious little snowflake corrupted by the secular world, then there are lots of different places you can send them, or you can tell them what you believe, and why the theory of evolution is crap.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 4 times, last at 11/17/2007 2:21:22 am
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
11/17/2007 @ 07:13:24 AM
 Quote this comment
For the record, I sat in on a "creationist" lecture one time, and I have to say it was every bit as scientific as anything. They followed the scientific method, had evidential proof to backup their claims, and did all of this without once opening up the Bible. Also the guy talking had once been a hard core "evolutionist", or so he claimed.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
11/17/2007 @ 11:41:58 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, though I have no idea what they talked about I can assure you they did not use the scientific method. Scientists form a hypothesis and perform test to validate, or invalidate that position, adjust their hypothesis if need be and go again.

They don't take something that absolutely has to be true and cherry pick evidence for it. If you looked long and hard enough you could probably find some evidence for pretty much any position.

I've looked to try and find the facts Creation Scientists put out there but it all seems to stop at statements like. "Computers are complex, and didn't just come from nowhere, we designed them, therefor, since we're way more complex than a computer, we must have been made too."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
11/17/2007 @ 11:57:09 AM
 Quote this comment
At the very least it is a valid point they make.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
11/17/2007 @ 02:47:31 PM
 Quote this comment
A couple quick thoughts, I'll respond to the other things later.

"The Church" as you put it was obviously wrong, but I'm not Catholic and if you want to pile on the Catholic church I certainly won't stop you. They have added in and made up a whole bunch of things like this that aren't in the Bible which is the basis for disagreement with other Christian religions.

Jeremy Wrote - 11/17/2007 @ 11:41:58 AM
If you looked long and hard enough you could probably find some evidence for pretty much any position.


You realize that this applies to evolution too? It's not like there was some data gathering and observation and then an objective group of scientists sat down and evolution was the best idea they could come up. One guy came up with a theory and people have been looking high and low to find any evidence to back it up ever since then. What tests have been done to prove evolution?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
11/17/2007 @ 04:07:02 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 11/17/2007 @ 02:47:31 PM
You realize that this applies to evolution too? It's not like there was some data gathering and observation and then an objective group of scientists sat down and evolution was the best idea they could come up. One guy came up with a theory and people have been looking high and low to find any evidence to back it up ever since then. What tests have been done to prove evolution?


My experience with so-called "evolutionists" is that the theory is right and everything else is wrong, no questions about it. (which I guess can be said about the other side.) The difference between these two is that those that believe in creationism are generally mocked as simple yokels and evolutionists are the intellectual realists. Give me one example of someone speaking about evolution in the public square (this should be easy) and then find one example of someone speaking about creationism in the public square (will be much harder to find), and tell me who is given more respect, regardless of their credentials.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/17/2007 @ 05:09:42 PM
 Quote this comment
The Bible doesn't say that evolution didn't happen either.

As for the "public square" argument. If I wear my Vikings sweatshirt around town here in Wisconsin people make comments all the time. I would prefer it didn't happen, but it just goes with the territory of me "voicing my opinion" where it isn't popular. Biologists don't go into the churches and make their way up to the pulpit to get "their time" in, so I don't see why anything less that total acceptance is expected if a Creationist were to come to say, a college campus. Ridiculing someone for their belief isn't cool, but if you're coming into a public forum, especially to argue a controversial topic, then you're sort of opening up yourself to whatever comes your way.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 11/17/2007 5:31:20 pm
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
11/17/2007 @ 05:21:47 PM
 Quote this comment
Thats will put Jeremy. Personally, be it my defeatist attitude or what not, I am so sick of saturation. At this point I don't even care. I am pretty certain some day I will die. Knowing this, when I do, I will either just go blank, or head out to the eternal paradise of(insert preferred religion here). Both of the aforementioned endings sound just fine with me.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
11/17/2007 @ 07:17:40 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 11/17/2007 @ 07:13:24 AM
For the record, I sat in on a "creationist" lecture one time, and I have to say it was every bit as scientific as anything. They followed the scientific method, had evidential proof to backup their claims, and did all of this without once opening up the Bible. Also the guy talking had once been a hard core "evolutionist", or so he claimed.


I don't know much about the specific dogma of Creationism, other than its basis in Christian religion.
If the idea of creationism is that God once waved his magic wand, and in seven days created the world, how do believers respond to the relics and evidence found all over the world, that the world - and mankind - is much much much older than the Bible calculates it to be?
(I'm not being a smart-ass, I'm really asking)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
wendy.gifWendy
11/17/2007 @ 07:19:56 PM
 Quote this comment
And for the record, I adore the creativity behind FSM as a way to make their point heard, instead of the bitter arguing that often comes when people disagree on a subject as contentious as religion.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so!
11/18/2007 @ 03:33:09 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 11/17/2007 @ 05:09:42 PM
The Bible doesn't say that evolution didn't happen either.


"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.
"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day" Exodus 20:11.
"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible" Colossians 1:16.

Genesis 20-25 seems to make it pretty clear:
20 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
11/18/2007 @ 03:45:53 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 11/17/2007 @ 01:39:12 AM
Edit: And I have a question for Alex and any one else who isn't down with the whole evolution trip, and honestly I'm not trying to start something, or belittle, this is an honest question, don't read into it. If you don't think that they are our predecessors/offshoots, what do you think all the bones we're digging up are? Just extinct animals?


I think the ones that look like ape bones are probably ape bones and the ones that look like human bones are probably human bones.

There's some variation between all the humans in the world today. Combine that with thousands of years of potential decay [Edit: of bones of people who died back then] and it's not suprising to find some strange looking bones. Also strange mutations in humans occur today, isn't it possible that old bones could be from one "normal" human's defective bone growth?

We know that some species have gone extinct maybe there was once a different type of ape that had a more human-like bone structure. That doesn't really tell you anything about where such a species originated from.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Alex screwed with this at 11/18/2007 3:48:18 pm
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
11/18/2007 @ 04:04:33 PM
 Quote this comment
Wendy Wrote - 11/17/2007 @ 07:17:40 PM
I don't know much about the specific dogma of Creationism, other than its basis in Christian religion. If the idea of creationism is that God once waved his magic wand, and in seven days created the world, how do believers respond to the relics and evidence found all over the world, that the world - and mankind - is much much much older than the Bible calculates it to be? (I'm not being a smart-ass, I'm really asking)


The easiest response is that since God created the things that mankind are measuring (and the "laws" of science that are being used to do the measuring) and if you believe that it follows that God could have created the world to look X number of years old. If God created everything, then he wasn't bound by the same laws of science that we can observe today. Also, if you believe the miracles of the Bible it is clear that God was never and still is not bound by any of these laws.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel
11/18/2007 @ 04:12:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Here are a few articles for further thought. If you're allergic to reading or in a hurry I put them in order of relevance to the discussion here so I suggest starting with the top one.

The "theory" aspect
Cause and Effect
Mutations
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
11/18/2007 @ 11:34:45 PM
 Quote this comment
Wendy Wrote - 11/17/2007 @ 07:17:40 PM
I don't know much about the specific dogma of Creationism, other than its basis in Christian religion. If the idea of creationism is that God once waved his magic wand, and in seven days created the world, how do believers respond to the relics and evidence found all over the world, that the world - and mankind - is much much much older than the Bible calculates it to be? (I'm not being a smart-ass, I'm really asking)


I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but, if I'm being honest, I have to say that your comment of "I'm not being a smart-ass, I'm really asking" seems a bit at odds with other parts of your statement. To me, at least. If not, my apologies. And, for good measure, a tip: Try to not use phrases like "waved his magic wand" if you're trying to not sound belittling. Again, I don't know your intentions, but I know that phrases like that tend to carry certain connotations with them.

Again, if this isn't the case, my mistake. And despite the full paragraph I've spent on it, I'm not really hung up on this or anything.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon screwed with this at 11/18/2007 11:36:56 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/18/2007 @ 11:54:21 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 11/18/2007 @ 03:45:53 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 11/17/2007 @ 01:39:12 AM
Edit: And I have a question for Alex and any one else who isn't down with the whole evolution trip, and honestly I'm not trying to start something, or belittle, this is an honest question, don't read into it. If you don't think that they are our predecessors/offshoots, what do you think all the bones we're digging up are? Just extinct animals?


I think the ones that look like ape bones are probably ape bones and the ones that look like human bones are probably human bones.

There's some variation between all the humans in the world today. Combine that with thousands of years of potential decay [Edit: of bones of people who died back then] and it's not suprising to find some strange looking bones. Also strange mutations in humans occur today, isn't it possible that old bones could be from one "normal" human's defective bone growth?

We know that some species have gone extinct maybe there was once a different type of ape that had a more human-like bone structure. That doesn't really tell you anything about where such a species originated from.


It's possible they are from deformed humans, sure. However things don't get bigger as they "Decay" (they actually fossilize, fyi) We aren't talking like we're digging up 10,000 normal humans, and finding 10 deformed ones and going "Wow, these must have been our predecessors!" We find one set of bones with say a large jaw and small cranial cavity which dates to a long time ago, then another pack of animals with a smaller jaw/larger cranium that dates more recently, then we find a pack of creatures with features in between and low and behold it dates in between. The simplest, (i.e., most probable) solution is one being became the next, which became the next, and so on, rather than all being simultaneous and identical genetic elephant men-esq off shoots of one static entity (homo sapien) which has never been found chronologically along side of them, despite the fact that if they were indeed all just humans they should have been living physically close together. It's just more probable that evolution, for which we see testable evidence of going on in our observable world today, was also going on then. It's Occam's Razor.

Besides which, none of these arguments changes the fact that evolution is the best* scientific explanation. The argument "Well it might not be right, therefor you can't claim it as anymore factual than any other theory people could come up with" is illogical hogwash.

Touching on a few key points earlier regarding the fact that evolutionists are as "religious" with their view as the creationists are with there's I'll say this. The difference between the groups is that the people who read the Bible literally defend it so fervently because if any part about it is wrong, it's all wrong. If evolution was scientifically proven wrong tomorrow it would be considered a banner day for science. Science is never wrong. Scientists are wrong, theories are wrong, ect, but they are all ultimately proven wrong by more science. Science!!! Now if you wanted to argue the laws of science are flawed because God wouldn't be bound by them then fine, but you can't honestly say that that is a scientific opinion or that science class should open with a long explanation of how science is irrelevant. (And most creationists argument trickles down at one point to another to "Well, God can do anything" which is perfectly fine to believe, but not a scientific position.)

Also I would avoid "magic wand" if you're not trying to belittle people. However, religious people have to look at it like this. You are trying to find proof on, and bring into scientific debate, something that comes from a book. However high in esteem that book is to be held is open for debate, but it is, none the less, a book. If a 25 year old wants to believe in Santa Claus that's one thing. He should expect a few eye rolls and snickers when he shows up a lecture hall do demonstrate that, using Einsteins principals of relativity traveling close to the speed of light would both slow down time enough to allow Santa to visit every home, and since he would be moving so fast relative to us, allow him to do so undetected. The science can be sound as can be, some things are just not meant to be explained by science and should rather be accepted on faith alone. (Which, I think, is the whole idea. If God wanted you to be able to prove he did everything he would have proved it by now.)

*Best does NOT have to mean 100% undebatable fact of life for which it is inconceivable that no better explanation will ever be found. It goes back to my original statement. If we only taught science in schools that was 100% fleshed out in every undeniable detail, science courses would be a week long. So even if I conceded evolution is flawed, unlikely, or whatever (which I'm not) that still doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught as the best option and it certainly doesn't mean "It could be wrong, so let's teach everything!" Best just has to mean better/more-likely than the alternative.

(5 nuts to the person who can prove to me Santa Claus isn't, in fact, responsible for mankind's existance.)

Also here's a related yet completely unrelated question: How do you explain Pangaea?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy edited this 8 times, last at 11/19/2007 10:26:48 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
11/19/2007 @ 09:08:47 AM
 Quote this comment
Also, just for the record, I'm not comparing the belief in God to the belief in Santa, it was just an analogy. I know those don't work on the internet because analogy == direct comparison in every debate ever waged on the internet. (Although, you'd have to concede to a non-believer you may as well be trying to prove Santa.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
11/19/2007 @ 09:23:07 AM
 Quote this comment
Also, I think we need to put into context that is isn't like high school science classes are 4 years of learning about evolution. It's one section one semester which half the class is sleeping through, just like every other part of the lesson plan.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - Since 1980!
11/19/2007 @ 10:32:45 AM
 Quote this comment
These have probably all been addressed, but here goes anyway.

Young earth creationalism gives earth an age of 6-10k years old, although the originators of this theory seem to have never agreed on this. Well known and extensively used processes of argon-potassium and argon-argon dating give earth an age of appx 45.4 BILLION years old. This is a big difference- and only one can be PROVEN.

Taking Jeremy's question about Pangea, you see it every day. We just saw one in Chile last week (earthquake), and continue to detect it in California (San Andreas Fault line shift). The earth moves, changes, mutates, evolves right before our eyes, and can be scientifically proven. The plates are moving, and we are reminded at least a dozen times each year. How do you explain the fact that different animals live on different continents that are not currently connected- some without significant specie differences? How about all of the information Darwin came back with?

Changes in humans are also very evident- we are evolving into taller, stronger, smarter forms of what we were 250 years ago. Our early ancestors (DNA confirmation link would be appreciated) were short, maybe 3 feet tall in some cases. 300 years ago men averaged 5’6” – now we’re closer to 6’.

Darwinism, Evolution, Tectonic Plate movement (Pangea), and such are in stark contradiction to Creationalism, but can be scientifically proven (and just make sense- to me). While these things can be proven by man, I understand that Creationalism is a matter of faith, and “blessed are those who have not seen, yet still believe,” yet… My next statement is not made in jest or of or as insult to ANY religion- yet I make it anyway. The Bible was written thousands of years ago in reference to times long past by people who had different views, and were their personal interpretations. While I can stand by many of the Christian Bible’s many ideals, I still see it as a lesson in a (my) religion’s history, and a basic guideline. I do not see it as a literal play by play way to live my life, and it effects what I do only in ideological ways, except in some very specific cases. Please understand that this is a personal explanation, and not an attempt to steer anyone else’s spiritual ship.

It is possible to believe in intelligent design, and not have it be a compromise. Faith is a matter of the spirit, and you can definitely tell for yourself what is right and what is not. Facts pile up and pile up, and learned people keep learning, based on sciences advances. True facts are barely disputable when all the evidence is there.

I guess my response to this whole post is that there is no fine line between science and faith. Please remember that the simple rising of the sun required daily bloodletting rituals by the indigenous peoples of America. The sun also revolved around the earth, the brain was once considered an worthless organ, and the magic smoke that just came out of my monitor was the soul of the pixels.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec messed with this at 11/19/2007 10:46:03 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/19/2007 @ 10:56:12 AM
 Quote this comment
You could call into question the validity of carbon dating, as it pertains to valid dates, which some people do. What no one seems to talk about though is that even if the dates are inaccurate we can still place stuff in a time line reletive to other things whose positions were determined using the same process. Someone would have to contend that not only is carbon dating inaccurate, but that it's more or less a "random age" generator in order to call into question the validity of the fossil record.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - Knuckle Sammich
11/19/2007 @ 11:01:43 AM
 Quote this comment
dating processes can be questioned, and are- as you say. But to date they are the most accurate way of measuring things in a reliable, quantifiable way.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Pie Racist
11/19/2007 @ 11:55:52 AM
 Quote this comment
Agreed, but what I meant was lets say we date object one as 2 billion years old and object 2 as 1 billion year old. Then we find out those dates are off by 500 million years, a significant amount, but all we care about for this "argument" is which object is older than the other. It doesn't matter if the dates are off or not because they are going to be off the same amount.

Also I didn't bring up Pangaea because it contradicts anything, it's just another clue that the Earth is really old. The Bible doesn't say anything about the techtonic plates not moving.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
11/19/2007 @ 12:37:26 PM
 Quote this comment
Right- and I added to the Pangea idea to push the concept that the world is changing, and it can be measured, just as evolution can be.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated
11/19/2007 @ 01:24:41 PM
 Quote this comment
Here's a simple question that I don't think has been addressed yet. If you believe in evolution, where did the universe come from? If you believe that a single cell amoeba eventually morphed into a complex human being through billions of years of chance mutations, where did the first amoeba come from?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Refactor Mercilessly
11/19/2007 @ 01:31:51 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 11:55:52 AM
Agreed, but what I meant was lets say we date object one as 2 billion years old and object 2 as 1 billion year old. Then we find out those dates are off by 500 million years, a significant amount, but all we care about for this "argument" is which object is older than the other. It doesn't matter if the dates are off or not because they are going to be off the same amount. Also I didn't bring up Pangaea because it contradicts anything, it's just another clue that the Earth is really old. The Bible doesn't say anything about the techtonic plates not moving.


Well, if they were both off 500 million years the margin of error would make them statiscally identical. And I'm kinding being a smarty-pants here. Regardless, the life-span of humans is so short that you can never figure out if these estimates are correct or not anyway.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/19/2007 @ 01:41:17 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 01:24:41 PM
Here's a simple question that I don't think has been addressed yet. If you believe in evolution, where did the universe come from? If you believe that a single cell amoeba eventually morphed into a complex human being through billions of years of chance mutations, where did the first amoeba come from?


I've already said, quite eloquently, those are open ended questions. They really have nothing to do with the evolution process itself though.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 11/19/2007 1:45:51 pm
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
11/19/2007 @ 02:03:06 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 01:24:41 PM
Here's a simple question that I don't think has been addressed yet. If you believe in evolution, where did the universe come from? If you believe that a single cell amoeba eventually morphed into a complex human being through billions of years of chance mutations, where did the first amoeba come from?


I'll answer it simply- God did it.

I believe in a version of Intelligent Design: Carlos2.04
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this 2 times, last at 11/19/2007 8:13:49 pm
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
11/19/2007 @ 07:48:41 PM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - 11/18/2007 @ 11:34:45 PM
Wendy Wrote - 11/17/2007 @ 07:17:40 PM
I don't know much about the specific dogma of Creationism, other than its basis in Christian religion. If the idea of creationism is that God once waved his magic wand, and in seven days created the world, how do believers respond to the relics and evidence found all over the world, that the world - and mankind - is much much much older than the Bible calculates it to be? (I'm not being a smart-ass, I'm really asking)
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but, if I'm being honest, I have to say that your comment of "I'm not being a smart-ass, I'm really asking" seems a bit at odds with other parts of your statement. To me, at least. If not, my apologies. And, for good measure, a tip: Try to not use phrases like "waved his magic wand" if you're trying to not sound belittling. Again, I don't know your intentions, but I know that phrases like that tend to carry certain connotations with them. Again, if this isn't the case, my mistake. And despite the full paragraph I've spent on it, I'm not really hung up on this or anything.


Honestly, I was just trying to add a little literary imagery. Wouldn't it be fun to imagine God with a wand and a top hat?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
wendy.gifWendy
11/19/2007 @ 07:50:32 PM
 Quote this comment
Here's one:
What if, there is a God. And he did create the Universe. But some guy wrote the Bible, just some guy.

Can you be Christian and still believe in Evolution?
Or does that make you a miscellaneous God-believer if you don't agree with 100% of the Bible's arguments?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so!
11/19/2007 @ 08:03:15 PM
 Quote this comment
So you find it easier to have no answer as to where the universe came from and believe that somehow it "started" for lack of a better word and at the same time or some point thereafter the first living organism appeared and then through billions of bacteria turning into fish turning into mice turning into cats turning into apes turning into humans somehow lead to the world we observe today, as opposed to believing that God created everything? Despite the fact humans have observed species going extinct and the universe is generally decaying as opposed to new species popping up and life appearing in places it wasn't before? If you want to grossly extrapolate observable phenomena you can just as easily argue against evolution as you can for it.

Science (which you have pointed out is fallible anyway) cannot prove creation and it cannot prove evolution. So either way it really boils down to a belief.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
11/19/2007 @ 08:17:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Wendy Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 07:50:32 PM
Here's one: What if, there is a God. And he did create the Universe. But some guy wrote the Bible, just some guy. [quote]

This is a point I tried to make before- but condensed (thanks!)

Also, to make the 66 book bible (I'm Lutheran by upbringing) they CHOSE which books to include- just a bunch of people in a castle somewhere applepicking a book that would influence the political world for the next 15, 1600 years.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec screwed with this 2 times, last at 11/19/2007 9:28:47 pm
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
11/19/2007 @ 08:22:50 PM
 Quote this comment
I guess my point was that despite the number of very opinionated people writing on this forum, I have a feeling many more people in this world are actually open to a number of possiblities -- beliefs, if you will -- when it comes to the origin and maturation of the world, plus countless other parts of life.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
11/19/2007 @ 08:26:36 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 08:17:10 PM
Wendy Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 07:50:32 PM
Here's one: What if, there is a God. And he did create the Universe. But some guy wrote the Bible, just some guy. quote] This is a point I tried to make before- but condensed (thanks!) Also, to make the 66 book bible (I'm Lutheran by upbringing) they CHOSE which books to include- just a bunch of people in a castle somewhere applepicking a book that would influence the political world for the next 15, 1600 years.


a) I'm here to help!
b) My point exactly!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
11/19/2007 @ 09:36:50 PM
 Quote this comment
Just a question- what the hell is up with the quote function? First it messed up my point, now it makes fun of Wendy's point...?!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/19/2007 @ 10:43:01 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 09:36:50 PM
Just a question- what the hell is up with the quote function? First it messed up my point, now it makes fun of Wendy's point...?!


Don't be a moron and it works fine.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
11/19/2007 @ 10:58:20 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 08:03:15 PM
So you find it easier to have no answer as to where the universe came from and believe that somehow it "started" for lack of a better word and at the same time or some point thereafter the first living organism appeared and then through billions of bacteria turning into fish turning into mice turning into cats turning into apes turning into humans somehow lead to the world we observe today, as opposed to believing that God created everything? Despite the fact humans have observed species going extinct and the universe is generally decaying as opposed to new species popping up and life appearing in places it wasn't before? If you want to grossly extrapolate observable phenomena you can just as easily argue against evolution as you can for it.

Science (which you have pointed out is fallible anyway) cannot prove creation and it cannot prove evolution. So either way it really boils down to a belief.


Well, first off I never really said how I feel. Secondly, as I said before, the explanation of how it started is completely independent of the fairly evident process of where it went from there. The implication that since there is no scientific consensus on how it began means that a) god did it or b) at the very least the notion that God did it is as plausible is silly. That being said God and evolution aren't mutually exclusive either. Science has indeed proven evolution as much as it can be proven within the realm of what science has defined as what it takes for something to be proved. There are lot of things that aren't "proven."

We find new species of animals all the time, who's to say they aren't a result of new species evolving.

There's a difference in accepting something based on faith alone and accepting something that while there's a small chance it might not turn out to be right, is based on things you can literally touch, measure, and collect.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - As Seen On The Internet
11/19/2007 @ 11:14:02 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 11/18/2007 @ 03:33:09 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 11/17/2007 @ 05:09:42 PM
The Bible doesn't say that evolution didn't happen either.


"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1.
"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day" Exodus 20:11.
"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible" Colossians 1:16.

Genesis 20-25 seems to make it pretty clear:
20 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.


Sure, but who said God works on the 24 hour Earth day? Seems sort of arbitrary for God to operate in the time frame defined by the Earth's rotation on it's axis, doesn't it? Also it says he made birds but it doesn't say he didn't take the frame work for the lizards and start tweaking from there. Just because he created them doesn't mean they all have to poof out of thin air without any relationship to other things.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
11/20/2007 @ 08:04:03 AM
 Quote this comment
Wendy Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 07:50:32 PM
Here's one: What if, there is a God. And he did create the Universe. But some guy wrote the Bible, just some guy.


This is a point I tried to make before- but condensed (thanks!)

Also, to make the 66 book bible (I'm Lutheran by upbringing) they CHOSE which books to include- just a bunch of people in a castle somewhere applepicking a book that would influence the political world for the next 15, 1600 years.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - Tater Salad?
11/20/2007 @ 08:05:59 AM
 Quote this comment
Sure, it works now!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
11/20/2007 @ 01:21:15 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 11:14:02 PM
Alex Wrote - 11/18/2007 @ 03:33:09 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 11/17/2007 @ 05:09:42 PM
The Bible doesn't say that evolution didn't happen either.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Genesis 1:1. "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day" Exodus 20:11. "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible" Colossians 1:16. Genesis 20-25 seems to make it pretty clear: 20 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Sure, but who said God works on the 24 hour Earth day? Seems sort of arbitrary for God to operate in the time frame defined by the Earth's rotation on it's axis, doesn't it? Also it says he made birds but it doesn't say he didn't take the frame work for the lizards and start tweaking from there. Just because he created them doesn't mean they all have to poof out of thin air without any relationship to other things.


23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Lots of animals do share similar structures, so maybe He did use a lizard framework to make birds. The point is He made them all in a day, they didn't evolve.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
11/20/2007 @ 01:29:54 PM
 Quote this comment
Wendy Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 07:50:32 PM
Here's one: What if, there is a God. And he did create the Universe. But some guy wrote the Bible, just some guy. Can you be Christian and still believe in Evolution? Or does that make you a miscellaneous God-believer if you don't agree with 100% of the Bible's arguments?


If some guy made up the Bible, why believe any of it? If you do agree 100% with the Bible you really can't also believe in evolution, because they clearly contradict each other.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
11/20/2007 @ 01:34:53 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 10:58:20 PM
Alex Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 08:03:15 PM
So you find it easier to have no answer as to where the universe came from and believe that somehow it "started" for lack of a better word and at the same time or some point thereafter the first living organism appeared and then through billions of bacteria turning into fish turning into mice turning into cats turning into apes turning into humans somehow lead to the world we observe today, as opposed to believing that God created everything? Despite the fact humans have observed species going extinct and the universe is generally decaying as opposed to new species popping up and life appearing in places it wasn't before? If you want to grossly extrapolate observable phenomena you can just as easily argue against evolution as you can for it. Science (which you have pointed out is fallible anyway) cannot prove creation and it cannot prove evolution. So either way it really boils down to a belief.
Well, first off I never really said how I feel. Secondly, as I said before, the explanation of how it started is completely independent of the fairly evident process of where it went from there. The implication that since there is no scientific consensus on how it began means that a) god did it or b) at the very least the notion that God did it is as plausible is silly. That being said God and evolution aren't mutually exclusive either. Science has indeed proven evolution as much as it can be proven within the realm of what science has defined as what it takes for something to be proved. There are lot of things that aren't "proven." We find new species of animals all the time, who's to say they aren't a result of new species evolving. There's a difference in accepting something based on faith alone and accepting something that while there's a small chance it might not turn out to be right, is based on things you can literally touch, measure, and collect.


I missed out on public high school. Where exactly is all this proof you keep talking about? Finding new species deep in the rain forest or at the bottom of the ocean is not the same as observing a giving birth to a , which for evolution to be true must have happened at least as many times as the number of currently known species plus some X number of intermediate non-survivors. You'd think if it had to happen that often there would at least be one such event recorded in human history.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
11/20/2007 @ 03:28:06 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 11/20/2007 @ 01:34:53 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 10:58:20 PM
Alex Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 08:03:15 PM
So you find it easier to have no answer as to where the universe came from and believe that somehow it "started" for lack of a better word and at the same time or some point thereafter the first living organism appeared and then through billions of bacteria turning into fish turning into mice turning into cats turning into apes turning into humans somehow lead to the world we observe today, as opposed to believing that God created everything? Despite the fact humans have observed species going extinct and the universe is generally decaying as opposed to new species popping up and life appearing in places it wasn't before? If you want to grossly extrapolate observable phenomena you can just as easily argue against evolution as you can for it. Science (which you have pointed out is fallible anyway) cannot prove creation and it cannot prove evolution. So either way it really boils down to a belief.
Well, first off I never really said how I feel. Secondly, as I said before, the explanation of how it started is completely independent of the fairly evident process of where it went from there. The implication that since there is no scientific consensus on how it began means that a) god did it or b) at the very least the notion that God did it is as plausible is silly. That being said God and evolution aren't mutually exclusive either. Science has indeed proven evolution as much as it can be proven within the realm of what science has defined as what it takes for something to be proved. There are lot of things that aren't "proven." We find new species of animals all the time, who's to say they aren't a result of new species evolving. There's a difference in accepting something based on faith alone and accepting something that while there's a small chance it might not turn out to be right, is based on things you can literally touch, measure, and collect.


I missed out on public high school. Where exactly is all this proof you keep talking about? Finding new species deep in the rain forest or at the bottom of the ocean is not the same as observing a [certain species] giving birth to a [different species], which for evolution to be true must have happened at least as many times as the number of currently known species plus some X number of intermediate non-survivors. You'd think if it had to happen that often there would at least be one such event recorded in human history.


You're talking about something that would have taken place slowly over the course of like umpteen billion years taking place in front of someone who knew what they were seeing and have the ability to document it well enough to count as evidence. Plus it's not like we're talking about a mouse giving birth to a cat, we're talking about a mouse giving birth to a mouse that is a tiny bit different, perhaps only at the cellular level. So you're asking people to capture an event that happens over the course of a billion years over the course of a few and just happen to be in a lab with the animals when it happens and happen to catch that ever so subtle change between the two where you could say "This is a new species" vs "This mouse just has a longer tail"

Plus, like that would change the opinion of anyone who doesn't buy evolution anyway.

We see evolution ALL THE TIME, tall smart people have tall, smart, kids, stupid short people have stupid short kids. If none of them ever "crossed over" the human race would look very different in 1000 years. Luckily for us we do cross over since humans have more reasons to hook up than "hey you look like me" and physical location isn't a problem. Unluckily for us the people contributing the least to society are cranking out kids like it's going out of style and smart people are having kids less and less.

If you haven't seen Idiocracy it's worth a watch, it's pretty funny. (Though I think has gotten a bit more hype than it deserves, it's hardly the funniest movie of all time)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 11/20/2007 3:33:22 pm
wendy.gifWendy - 163 Posts
11/20/2007 @ 05:57:38 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 11/20/2007 @ 01:29:54 PM
Wendy Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 07:50:32 PM
Here's one: What if, there is a God. And he did create the Universe. But some guy wrote the Bible, just some guy. Can you be Christian and still believe in Evolution? Or does that make you a miscellaneous God-believer if you don't agree with 100% of the Bible's arguments?
If some guy made up the Bible, why believe any of it? If you do agree 100% with the Bible you really can't also believe in evolution, because they clearly contradict each other.


That wasn't my question.
My question was, if you are "Christian" in whatever sense of the word, strict or loose definition, do you have to believe in the Bible and therefore not believe in evolution, to believe in God? Or does that make you a non-specific "God-Believer" who isn't Christian?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
11/22/2007 @ 05:41:50 AM
 Quote this comment
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

A documentary on the trial in Dover, Pennsylvania. Both sides present their best arguments.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel
11/22/2007 @ 11:27:12 PM
 Quote this comment
Wendy Wrote - 11/20/2007 @ 05:57:38 PM
Alex Wrote - 11/20/2007 @ 01:29:54 PM
Wendy Wrote - 11/19/2007 @ 07:50:32 PM
Here's one: What if, there is a God. And he did create the Universe. But some guy wrote the Bible, just some guy. Can you be Christian and still believe in Evolution? Or does that make you a miscellaneous God-believer if you don't agree with 100% of the Bible's arguments?
If some guy made up the Bible, why believe any of it? If you do agree 100% with the Bible you really can't also believe in evolution, because they clearly contradict each other.
That wasn't my question. My question was, if you are "Christian" in whatever sense of the word, strict or loose definition, do you have to believe in the Bible and therefore not believe in evolution, to believe in God? Or does that make you a non-specific "God-Believer" who isn't Christian?


Then you're discussing the meaning of calling one's self a "Christian", which there's not really a word police to say exactly what that word has to mean. But generally speaking, if you're a Christian I would think you'd have to believe in the Bible as God's true Word and consequently not believe in evolution. More than likely there are people that do call themselves Christian though that don't have the slightest clue what the Bible says and also believe in evolution. So...I'm still not sure if that answers the question.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
11/22/2007 @ 11:45:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 11/20/2007 @ 03:28:06 PM
You're talking about something that would have taken place slowly over the course of like umpteen billion years taking place in front of someone who knew what they were seeing and have the ability to document it well enough to count as evidence. Plus it's not like we're talking about a mouse giving birth to a cat, we're talking about a mouse giving birth to a mouse that is a tiny bit different, perhaps only at the cellular level. So you're asking people to capture an event that happens over the course of a billion years over the course of a few and just happen to be in a lab with the animals when it happens and happen to catch that ever so subtle change between the two where you could say "This is a new species" vs "This mouse just has a longer tail" Plus, like that would change the opinion of anyone who doesn't buy evolution anyway. We see evolution ALL THE TIME, tall smart people have tall, smart, kids, stupid short people have stupid short kids. If none of them ever "crossed over" the human race would look very different in 1000 years. Luckily for us we do cross over since humans have more reasons to hook up than "hey you look like me" and physical location isn't a problem. Unluckily for us the people contributing the least to society are cranking out kids like it's going out of style and smart people are having kids less and less. If you haven't seen Idiocracy it's worth a watch, it's pretty funny. (Though I think has gotten a bit more hype than it deserves, it's hardly the funniest movie of all time)


I guess maybe we've been meaning 2 different things with the word evolution. Humans reproducing and giving birth to more humans is not what I thought was up for debate. Clearly children are not exact clones of their parents (which would be weird considering their are 2 parents), there is room for variation. But that has nothing to do with one species spawning off an entirely new species.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
11/23/2007 @ 11:12:10 AM
 Quote this comment
You can believe in a creator and not be Cristian, or any other religion, in my opinion, if that's what Wendy was asking.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 11/23/2007 11:17:24 am
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3354 Posts
11/23/2007 @ 04:31:06 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 11/23/2007 @ 11:12:10 AM
You can believe in a creator and not be Cristian, or any other religion, in my opinion, if that's what Wendy was asking.


I guess if Brett Favre doesn't need the second t, Christ doesn't need the h.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
11/23/2007 @ 10:46:26 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - 11/20/2007 @ 01:29:54 PM
If you do agree 100% with the Bible you really can't also believe in evolution, because they clearly contradict each other.


In my opinion this comment is just plain wrong. No real proof of this has been shown to me. Of course, you can interpret the current Bible translation however you wish. Or you could learn the several ancient (and in some cases extinct) languages and interpret them yourself. Either way, it's all interpretation unless the Man himself is telling you how it happened or you have the Flux Capacitor attached to your Delorean.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this at 11/23/2007 10:50:15 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/23/2007 @ 11:38:09 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - 11/23/2007 @ 04:31:06 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 11/23/2007 @ 11:12:10 AM
You can believe in a creator and not be Cristian, or any other religion, in my opinion, if that's what Wendy was asking.


I guess if Brett Favre doesn't need the second t, Christ doesn't need the h.


Cristian passes firefox's spell check, so I didn't catch the typo.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
11/24/2007 @ 12:17:51 AM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - 11/23/2007 @ 10:46:26 PM
Alex Wrote - 11/20/2007 @ 01:29:54 PM
If you do agree 100% with the Bible you really can't also believe in evolution, because they clearly contradict each other.


In my opinion this comment is just plain wrong. No real proof of this has been shown to me. Of course, you can interpret the current Bible translation however you wish. Or you could learn the several ancient (and in some cases extinct) languages and interpret them yourself. Either way, it's all interpretation unless the Man himself is telling you how it happened or you have the Flux Capacitor attached to your Delorean.


Agreed. As far as I know the Bible doesn't go into detail of the process by which God does bring things into existence, so even if you were to read the bible literally there seems to be room for interpretation. On top of which it's sort of dangerous to literally interpret something that is 2-3 languages and 4-5 degrees of "telephone" away from God's mouth at this point. Especially if it was never meant to be read that way in the first place.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
11/24/2007 @ 12:06:29 PM
 Quote this comment
To be more concise, there are things I do take literally from the Bible, but most of the Old Testament is not included.

Contrary to my reputation and some of my actions, I am quite religious, following a loose personal interpretation of Lutheranism. I feel that God is quite the libertarian, and will accept me as long as I follow a few tenants of Christianity which are NOT open for interpretation and quite black and white.

I also want to say to Alex- Although a verbal conversation on this topic between you and I would be quite an heated and possibly quite loud, I respect your views and interpretations and the conviction in which you voice it. What I don't like about discussing topics such as these with someone who is of strong religious nature is that no matter the point, no matter facts, feelings, or proof that you are never to be right (correct) if your point is even slightly askew to their religious beliefs. Whether debating dogmatic Christian theories or resolute Muslim doctrine... even 4000 year old Jewish rules, people of strong religious background will never allow you to say that you believe differently. They all (my mom and her family included) refuse to allow your points to stick, and argue your points from THEIR standpoint. You can never argue your points on a universally neutral battle ground. An atheist arguing a Mormon? You're fighting in Missouri. Want to debate a person with strong religious beliefs, be prepared to do it on their grounds, their terms. This is most frustrating.

I'm going to go back to watching my program on where science says the universe came from. I can do this with the belief that God set these things in motion and not compromise with myself, or the TV.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated
11/24/2007 @ 01:22:40 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - 11/24/2007 @ 12:17:51 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - 11/23/2007 @ 10:46:26 PM
Alex Wrote - 11/20/2007 @ 01:29:54 PM
If you do agree 100% with the Bible you really can't also believe in evolution, because they clearly contradict each other.
In my opinion this comment is just plain wrong. No real proof of this has been shown to me. Of course, you can interpret the current Bible translation however you wish. Or you could learn the several ancient (and in some cases extinct) languages and interpret them yourself. Either way, it's all interpretation unless the Man himself is telling you how it happened or you have the Flux Capacitor attached to your Delorean.
Agreed. As far as I know the Bible doesn't go into detail of the process by which God does bring things into existence, so even if you were to read the bible literally there seems to be room for interpretation. On top of which it's sort of dangerous to literally interpret something that is 2-3 languages and 4-5 degrees of "telephone" away from God's mouth at this point. Especially if it was never meant to be read that way in the first place.


I don't see how the first chapter of Genesis is not detailed enough. It says God created everything in 6 days. There is nothing vague about that. If you don't believe it then you don't believe it, but that's what it says.

I know people that know Hebrew and Greek so I'm confident in translations that they recommend and if I really question something I can get down to one degree by asking them. And the original writers were inspired by God to write what they did, so the Man is telling it from His own mouth.

Anyway it looks like it's time to agree to disagree. After one more thing. I enjoy science as much as anyone. I would've pretty much exclusively taken math and science classes in college if I didn't need all that other generals jibber-jabber. With all the technological advancements in the last 100 years, there is no doubt that science is useful. But, I would caution against putting faith in human reason as the be all end all capable of explaining everything.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.