I've had some time to cogitate while coming to terms with my typing shortcomings.

Let me put this on the table for comment:

Why do people need to 'believe' that a great creator waved a wand and BOOM!. There it all was? The bible couldn't be used seriously to support this viewpoint. I don't think many Christians out there actually take Genesis seriously as being an accurate account of 'the Beginning'. I've heard Christians arguing amongst themselves over this one and the outcome has always been that Genesis should not be taken literally. So, why bother arguing for it? I hypothesise that the reason is that some people need the crutch of having this fatherly deity around is to give them comfort. We all deal with crap in our own ways. This is not a criticism. As a kid I probably cuddled a teddy bear or my dog when I was upset. It would have made me feel better.

I am also aware that there are others who have never been presented with an alternative - I don't think anyone here is in this group thanks to SQLServer and gang. Personally I have strong views that raising a kid not to question all around him/ her is a poor foundation to adulthood and most definitely child abuse. This is a debate for another forum perhaps..

Then there are religious extremists. What is an atheist/ humanist/ agnostic extremist? I certainly could think of no situation where I would kill because I don't have a deity that I feel the desire to worship. This doesn't quite work the other way round though. Read the bible

Then in the interests of fairness, why do the non-Believers need to attack the Believers for what they believe? What is so precious about evolution that stirs folks to go on the verbal offensive? I sincerely think this is a cultural question and has a geographical aspect too. Certainly I suspect that my main motive is that whenever I see people with strong religious views, not just Christians, then my ass starts twitching. It does this when I get worried. I see division, isolation, obedience, rage, an inability to compromise. All we have to do is look around us at the world and we see the divides caused by religion. Why do non-Believers get so het up over religion? My supposition is that this an attack at the root of the tree. The foundation. If non-Believers can open a crack in this then there is a chance that people might just question what and why they believe - and mellow out a bit! Could it be that they have few problems with belief as long as its a personal thing and doesn't pose a threat to them or theirs'? That would be my biggest concern. I understand that Tony Blair's last excuse for taking us into Iraq (I'm British) is that he had divine inspiration or something similar. He has now converted to Catholicism (as if I hadn't already decided he was a closet basher!) and shown his true colours. Bush is not exactly an example of good Christian values either. The problem is that I can't retreat into some non-Believer corner of my country and get away from this problem. It follows me wherever I go and i find that I have less and less to say on the matter under law. Religion and intolerance is enfused everywhere around me. The levels of self-imposed ignorance within these groups is absolutely shocking. Things were going well a few years back. Less and less people were attending church and life was getting simpler. Now with the rise of imported religions this harmony is dissolving into the dark ages again. We actually have 'shame killings' in the UK among one particular group! Also forced marriages. These aren't just cultural but are based on outdated male-oriented religious laws and codes that won't go away. I can't even speak my mind openly about certain religious groups in case I am physically attacked for having an opinion. These religious extremeists want me to shut up and that's what scares me. Anyone who tells someone to shut up has an agenda. I personally have no problem with those who want to believe in a God. I just need to know why you need the whole religious structure rather than just sitting quietly at home reciting your prayers? Why you need to convince yourselves that you need some book to tell you what is right and wrong and how to live your lives? Then there is the whole 2012 end of the world thing. You just know that some religious fanatic somewhere would happily press the button to end the world if they had access to it. How many mass suicides have taken place because folks 'believed' the end of the world was coming? At the other end of religion is a form of insanity and I doubt that anyone can challenge this. Moderates are fine but unfortunately there are looney-tunes in the background too hiding under the guise of being right and being on a mission from whatever God they follow.

I've kinda left myself open here guys. Be gentle. I haven't seen anyone explain why they are anti-religion yet, and thought it might help open up the debate a bit if you had an honest explanation from a non-Believer.

I'll hand it over....

Like what, Iams?

Good question Iams. Allow me to explain what sort of angle I'm going from here.
First of all, my biggest beef with Creationism as a whole is not that I think Creationism isn't consistent with the scientific information we have today, but rather that Creationists, specifically those behind the Wedge Strategy are trying to put Creationism, under the disguise of being I.D., into our schools. I say believe what you want to believe, thats not my business whatsoever. But doubtless, Iams, you would agree that you would not want your children to be exposed to Anti-Christian propaganda, in the same way Atheist parents would not want their children exposed to Anti-Atheism propaganda. While this is a rather strongly worded metaphor, in the same sense it can be applied to the Evolution/Creationism debate. Non-Christian parents don't want their children to be indoctrinated by ideas like creationism and I.D., which my Wedge Strategy link shows was a facade for the integration of creationism into the pubic school system. And Christian parents don't want their children to get the impression that they are just the products of a naturally occurring set of events, which they misunderstand to be evolution. So the best and most logical middle ground we can reach as a society is to keep certain subjects where they belong: Science in science classes, religion in religion classes/church, philosophy in a philosophy class. I.D. and Creationism simply aren't science. You don't have to believe in Evolution, its your choice, however the (already failing miserably) American public school system has a curriculum it has to follow, and in the name of a good education (which I will admit the American Public Schools don't often provide) you have to keep to that curriculum. Science classes are defined by what science is. If you don't teach science in a science class, then what the heck are you teaching?

That aside, responding to the rest: What would "prove" creation? I don't know Iams, I can honestly say I don't know. God and his creation are a matter of opinion. No matter what anyone says about God and creation, no one knows for sure if there actually is a God and if he actually created us, or at least started this whole thing rolling. I personally do believe in God, and I believe that my idea of this higher power of sorts was/is/perhaps had a hand in the initial creation of what we would call existence, but thats another story entirely. I do not, however, expect anyone to believe what I believe. They are my personal beliefs, just as yours are yours, and nobody else's. In that sense, why would we try to teach something that we have absolutely no real evidence for besides faith (which is all I cling to as well) in a classroom that relies almost exclusively on observation, evidence, and experiments? Evolution has a lot of evidence backing it up. Thats why its in a science classroom. Creationism? Not so much, I am afraid. Anyways Iams, thats my take on it.


Well, Iams, we do look at the data and we do interpret it, but it isn't a blind interpretation. Theres a lot of work that goes into how the evidence in interpreted. Now, certainly we don't know for 100% certain that this is exactly how it happened, but we have a lot of pieces to the puzzle, so its logical to assume that we have a pretty good idea of what happened.

Well, Iams, I will not argue much with you here. When it comes to Atheism, then yes, I would say that Dawkins has an agenda. Who doesn't when it comes to their personal religious beliefs? But when it comes to evolution I would hardly say that Dawkins has any more of an agenda than promoting science.

Do you mean the religion part? Or the supernatural part?

Ha ha ha, are you really that surprised Iams? I am, after all, a human being. I am fallible. While I am flattered that you seemed shocked by the fact that I am biased, it is important to keep my views in mind. Hell, I'll say it again. I'm biased towards my views. But I do think about what I believe before I believe it. I thought long and hard about Deism before I bought it, and I've carefully considered the evidence of evolution against the... er... lack there of for creationism.

I don't give scientists a license to lie to me. Before I believe what a scientist says it is important to check their credibility, their credentials, etc. etc. etc. I'm not going to lie to you Iams, some science is done poorly, but again, eventually those problems are weeded out. Science eventually self-corrects. There was a time and day when people believed in an abiogenesis much different from the ones scientists currently research. For instance, people used to believe that mice spawned from dirty hay and that crocodiles came from logs rotting on the bottoms of rivers. People used to believe that the earth was flat and that the sun rotated around it. All these misconceptions have been eventually corrected by good science. Interestingly enough, the strongest opponents to Galileo's theories were... the religious....... hmm....

You give me too much credit, Iams.

This may surprise you Iams, but I'm not exactly a huge fan of Dawkins when it come to theological issues. Evolution, I suppose so. Ultimately, however, I prefer to stick with people who are less... controversial.

While I was going to just put in a little winky avatar, I suppose I will expand.
What I meant by that comment was that for the most part, science does not have a specific agenda that it tries to prove. Instead it just takes the evidence and puts it together, unlike creationism, which has a set agenda they are trying to get all the facts to conform to. Its best explained by this little nugget of gold:
Click to view attachment

Well, creationism has yet to posit anything other than failed pot-shots at evolution... all of which have been reasonably and promptly explained away...

"I say believe what you want to believe, thats not my business whatsoever." your quote church yet at what point as a culture do we care about what we beleive???? I'm not buying it, what my kids beleive and how they arrive at these beleifs and what criteria they have in place to draw conclusions or arrive at certaintys, i think it matters very much....

I can't help but wonder why we want keep advocating dogma's by saying any ole baleif is as good as one that has been subject to critical analysis and rigorous evaluation not by one but a scientific community, why are diffenrces of opinons treated as unbridgeable???

my gosh to even determine the soundness of a theory one looks at the assumptions that underlie it, , one looks to the historical development of the field what ever it is we develop standards for appraising and explaining what will make them better etc etc....

Imo the great issues we have as a culture are lack of standards on what we do beleive or consider for belief....

since when is a system above any critical analysis just because its deemed sacred, how can this be????

Oh no, you've mistaken my quote Sheri. I meant that as in that I believe what I believe because I have evaluated the evidence and have deemed evolution to be the most logical option, unless of course anyone would like to suspend their judgment. I didn't go on that little tirade to say that religious beliefs are supposed to be immune from criticism because some people view them as "sacred". Quite the contrary, ma'am. What I ultimately meant however was a sort of polite "well, if you really want to believe that, thats fine but I'm telling you thats a load of nonsense". You know, that kind of thing.
Nothing but the rigorously tested theories of science belongs in a science classroom. I don't know why people can't seem to wrap their minds around that. If someone really wants ID and Creationism in a science classroom, then the best thing they can do is go on a hunt for some actual evidence. I suspect most don't because they realize that it would be an exercise in futility.

thankyou Church, i concur we have to have standards on what we are calling meritorious and valuable collectively.....I figured you were being gracious and respectful, i posit with resepctfulness and understanding myself, we get no where otherwise...

i guess i took it out of context and for once that is a good thing...lol


My 10 year old son asked me this very recently , why do we care about what we beleive and why does it matter....it got me thinking and your post reminded me of his inquiry..again thankyou for your very gracious reply.... .

Like the ongoing demand that everyone accept evolution IS absolute fact. Like the complete disregard for the fact that science has limitations, limitations which may prevent us from using it properly when it comes to determining origins, and that due to those same limitations science cannot interpret evidence to support a supernatural event.


Why did this become a tirade against what is taught in school?

And the way in which we insure that we stick exclusively to observation, evidence, and experiments is by as quickly as possible ridiculing anyone who dares to ask: "What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?"


And yet, we still rely on assumptions which CANNOT be proven.

I think both may fit.

See, again that bias, by the way you state that you make it seem that you weighed evidence and, therefore, see that creationism can't be true and those of us who do must not have. Maybe it makes it easier to dismiss things if you assume those who subscribe to them are somehow you're intellectual inferiors.

Please! We're trotting out Galileo? Actually, the strongest supporters of Galileo's theories were also the religious. The majority of the research he did was under the auspices and with the support of the religious.


Who said SCIENCE has an agenda? Science does not have an agenda anymore than RELIGION has an agenda, people with an agenda abuse the name of science to further their beliefs just as the name of religion is abused by people trying to legitimize their ideas.

Sure by discrediting any scientist who fails to toe the line as quickly as humanly possible.

Gotta love how you abandoned every point in your post except that one!
Two Points:
A. No. That is NOT how it works. That would be atheism, which requires a leap of faith.
Sorry if I was confusing, but:
SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF DO NOT SAY THERE ISN'T A GOD!
Get it? So, your analogy is useless. From a SCIENTIFIC perspective it would be:
-You have communicated with me, so I MOST LIKELY have some kind of brain.(useless I'm not human!)
-All humans you know have brains, and everyone has verified humans have brains, so I probably do.

THAT would be a scientific analysis of if I have a brain. Same goes for God:
-There is no solid evidence of God, so he probably does not exist.
-There is no evidence of Creationism, so it probably isn't correct.
-The guess work behind many of the "theories" of Creationism is seriously flawed, so it is probably not true.

Therefore, the standard position of science is, and should be:
Creationism and God are not the currently best explanations of our universe.

SCIENCE ISN'T SAYING THEY ARE WRONG, SIMPLY THAT WITH THE CURRENT INFORMATION THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE AND/OR are IMPROBABLE.


No. We have observed several instances of speciation, and macro and micro Evolution.
This has made biological evolution A FACT. The Theory is the 'how and why' behind the idea that organisms evolve.
Of course, the Evolution from 1 species to another is irrelevant; species are simply boundaries defined by man.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Examples of Observed Speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...peciation.shtml
http://northernlightsonline.blogspot.com/2...on-cichlid.html

Examples of observed beneficial mutation:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Beneficial_mutations
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalch.../selection.html
http://www.msu.edu/~sharrowr/naturalselection.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selec...otic_resistance
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/a...le/0_0_0/evo_26
*Note: The entire Berkeley site has several MORE examples.


No. Believe it or don't, even Dawkins was a Biological Scientist before a die-hard atheists.
The evil, godless atheists DO NOT ACTUALLY HAVE an agenda:
They are interested in the truth. No atheists are blind, or etc. Simply, NO ATHEIST has an agenda.
Atheists have NOTHING to gain from atheism, like Christians do from Christianity.
They have nothing to gain from 'converting' people to atheism, like a Christian is told to do so with their religion. The only gain would be an earnest want to free people from completely blind faith, and open their minds a little.


NO. An 'Evolution Believer' is simply someone who tries to defend WHERE THE EVIDENCE BEST POINTS.

Look: THERE ARE Atheists, or normal people, at least on this board, who would not convert if strong evidence was given against Evolution, or for Creationism.

Unfortunately, NONE HAS BEEN GIVEN.

So STOP telling us to 'open our minds'.
Our Minds are open:
Quite simply, there isn't much evidence to open them towards that doesn't point to Evolution. There's hardly any at all.

And I'm not atheist. Atheism requires the faith that there is no god, and agnosticism tells us all the truth: We don't know. I'm opposed to guessing on the existence of a God, so I don't. Nothing to gain from it, after all.

Look: I'm not one of 'them die-hard skeptics' either. I've acknowledged some Evidence points towards UFOs from other worlds, crazy deep sea creatures, Atlantis, lost cities, and more. Most of the time, it is a truthful: It is improbable to tell, so I can't tell you exactly.
However, the overwhelmingly large amount of evidence points towards Evolution, and a 13.7 billion year old universe.

Warning: I'm about to YELL!

GUESS WHAT, KIDS? NON-CREATION WACKOS HAVE NO 'BLIND FAITH' IN SCIENCE!!!!!!

Get it? I wanted to make sure the Creationists skimming my got it too.

If there is any good evidence pointing towards Creationism presented, I'll accept it with an open mind, and I believe every other oh-so-evil rational thinker here would, too.


I do not know if there is a god, YetiHunter does not, and nobody else does.
Guessing that there isn't a god is almost as big a leap of faith as guessing there is.

Cheers,
SQLserver

sql, go read "What Science is not" You really need to.

of course there is no proof of God nor Creationism. a logical point. there may never be proof. a good bet.

I believe in God and have no problem with the above. I just wonder why so many do. Lack of faith ?
faith is the belief in that that is unseen/unknowable. unprovable. It is not fact nor will it ever be . maybe it isn't supposed to be while human otherwise it could interfere with the experience of being human ... who knows. When you know the end of the movie before it starts the movie loses some of it's flavor. no one wants to really know the butler did it.

I figure faith in spiritual matters has no business in science. It's like oil and water. Science works off evidence , facts , theories , math , observation , reproduction , and evolves as evidence presents itself accordingly.

Faith , which is based on feelings , is not proof nor could it ever be so. it is personal. We can see chemical changes perhaps - brain activity - but that isn't proof of God. that's proof of brain activity. again , like chocolate , meditation , ect .........

so no .... no matter how much you wish it to be ,,,, there is no proof of Creationsim. ID .... anything of the sort.

Very true. Unfortunately, there are people who fail to realize that this is due to the limitations of science, not to the non-existence of God.

are you sure it's a limitation to science ? or that it's just science can't prove what isn't there ?

if God exists then as a claimant it is up to you to provide the proof. again , feelings and beliefs are not . nor is the bible for it is solely written by man. nature is not proof. the universe is not proof.

I can't prove God exists. this isn't science fault .... it's the fact there is no evidence to present.

I would like to restate the very important point made by SQL; as an athiest I don't give a hoot what people believe. Most athiests don't. All invisible creatures are the same to me; I'm an equal opportunity non-believer. The only time I get passionate about religion is when it affects children or when it is used as an excuse to do evil. Oh, and when I go into churches. I love curches.

Yes, it is a limitation of science. Science is, by design, incapable of dealing with anything outside of the natural universe. Does this inherent limitation in science impact the existence of the supernatural? No.

How are you construing this as a limitation of science? There is no evidence of anything 'outside of the natural universe' to deal with. The phrase itself is an umbrella that could hold so many terms that cannot be defined simply because they don't exist.



Science only has limitations when it conveniently happens to conflict with your belief system(Creationism). Only ignorant people try to dispute the fact of evolution, just as only ignorant people try to dispute the fact that certain cells undergo mitosis.

If people who oppose evolution want to look even remotely knowledgeable, learn to argue against how evolution occurs rather than whether or not evolution happens.

Not to be rude, but I do see at least a couple problems with your evidence. 1.) Citing creation itself isn't evidence. 2.) While I am a Roman Catholic and I do believe in what the bible teaches, one must remember that the bible cannot be taken as scientific evidence. 3.) As a historian with a minor in anthropology, I can tell you right now that there is actually a great deal of fossil evidence supporting evolution. Take Lucy (australopithecus aforensis I believe), australopithecus africanis, gigantopithecus, homoerectus and neanderthals for example. 4.) While the fossil record is obviously incomplete one has to remember the fossilization requires certain conditions to occur. Because of this, there's extinct species that we will never know existed. The same can be said for the theory of evolution. There may well be other humanoid species in the evolution between ape and man that we may never discover. For example, we only know of gigantopithecus from a handful of fossil teeth. So, like a million dollars, just because we haven't found evidence of the existence of other humanoid species that may fill in the gaps in the fossil record does NOT mean they never existed. 5.) As far as our dating methods go, some of them are surprisingly accurate. Carbon-14 dating, for example, is very accurate for going back millions of years. There are, however, other dating methods used to go back further, as in billions of years. 6.) This might just be my personal opinion, but I don't know how personal testimony can be cited as proof of creationism. It says in the bible how God created the world and created man, etc. But how do we know what actually happened when man wasn't actually there to witness the creation when he/she wasn't created yet?
7.) Again, this might be my personal opinion, but how do healings and prophecies relate to creationism?


As I said before, I and a Roman Catholic and, as such, I do believe in what the bible teaches. I believe that both the theory of evolution and the theory of creation could be true. Suppose, for example, that when God created man he created a primitive man. What if, for example, Adam and Eve were Australopithicus Afarensis? What if over time they then evolved into what we are today? While I have only read a few passages from the bible myself, I've never heard anything about the bible saying the Adam and Eve as God created them were homosapiens. This, of course, is only one of a million different possibilities. Having a minor in anthropology and having learned what I have about the theory of evolution and the different humanoid species, I want to believe in the theory of evolution, but being a Roman Catholic I want to believe in Creationism as well. But what says they both couldn't be true? Anyway, it's just an idea.

You might want to also kindly thank EvilBible.com for those contributions. Yes, you neatly sidestepped the plagiarism rule by only quoting the Bible and none of the extra commentary, but the headings you used are word-for-word. And then you spread it across six posts to make it look all special and neat, then claim that you did not plagiarise it. You may not have "plagiarised" it in the sense that they are quotes from the Bible, but it is (IMO) intellectually dishonest to take other people's research and quote it as if it were your own, with no reference to their work in getting the quotes.

Just a thought,

Nice catch PA! That was a heads up play. And to think I paid Mandrake a compliment....shame, shame - cause things sure went south from there.

Hehe...I guess after seeing the SAME CRAP posted a few thousand times, you begin to memorize the sources. What truly amazes me, is if a Christian quoted a source named "Happy-Bible.com" they would be accused of using biased material, and if they didn't name the source, they would be ROASTED on top of it. But it's OK for an Atheist to use evil-bible.com for their source material...
Maybe you should tell Mandrake this is NOT your first rodeo.

^ I sort of agree, but the problem is that there is little or no unbiased info. If you'd like to supply me to an unbiased Biblical interpretation website, I'd love to see it!

To me it makes more sense to go to a negatively critical website when looking at ANYTHING, that I think I'm in favor of or not. Because it's better to be skeptical of everything, in my opinion. If I want to know what people think of a specific roller coaster (for example, as that is my main hobby) It would be rather idiotic to go to a website made by fans of the amusement park it's at. Or even country specific websites. See what I mean?

When I find a quote and I want to know what other people think it means, I put it into google.

Nice post. I like the sound of all that.

Whilst I do not believe nor follow any of the Biblical text, I've been trying to explain what you just have to Yeti for weeks... He seems to just think that one or the other must be true.

I can't understand why.

Afternoons TH. I respectfully disagree that any statement I made disproved evolution in any way. I provided numerous sites and scientists--all highly respected--that thoroughly address the numerous points you have posted. That is all I can do. If you wish to ignore the overwhelming evidence for evolution ... you certainly have that right. During my fifteen year Christian walk, I could not.



I'm quite aware of the structure and canonization of the Tanakh. Snippets of it began to be written down cir. 1000 BCE; before that it was entirely in oral form for maybe another thousand years or so. It was during the Babylon Exile--mid to late 500’s BCE--that much of the Tanakh was put to parchment. It was not closed until 2-3 century[s]--although many Hebrew scholars believe this occurred in Jamnia cir. 90 CE. That said, even though the Tanakh is comprised of various books ... how does that invalidate criticism in any way?



Pure supposition. There are numerous holy texts making the same claim.



Again, I respectfully disagree. Using the Bible to prove its validity is Circular Reasoning.



And therein lies the problem ... However, and as I pointed out in my last reply, even Hebrew scholars agree that Genesis is not the literal account of creation.



Yes, TO was created to refute the claims of Creationists. Why? Because Creationism is a farce--not even demonstrable in the lab--has nothing to do with actual science, and is being pushed on the academic community.

TO is highly respected and provides information based on mainstream science--much of which is taught in college classrooms around the globe. And I never rely on just one site for critical information ... I use and supply numerous--solid!--sources. Of course, this is futile on my (or anybody's) behalf, for creationist will see any site that challenges their beliefs as biased and will be quickly dismissed.

MK,

Sean

So has anyone actually posted any scientific evidence for creationism?

Faith ... The belief in something that lacks material evidence.

Bible ... Hebrews 11 1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

No difference. Semantics.



Well said EB!!!! What a total load of BS!!!!!! Quoting from the Scriptures has been done a million times in these forums--including by you PA!!!!! All the sudden it's plagiarism?!?! That's a nasty charge to say the least!!! Quoting a passage[s] from the Bible, Koran et al is in no way plagiarism!!! And if one does quote material, as long as the source[s] is cited, it is not plagiarism!!!! I quote academic sources all the time, have been since my arrival here some two years ago, and have never been accused by the MODS/anybody of committing plagiarism--and that is because I cite my sources, just as I would if I was writing a research paper!

Sean

Good morning MS.



No ... and they never will. When you cannot even use it in the lab, show demonstrable results, there will be no evidence to support it--unlike TOE, which has been proven by countless experiments over a period of some 150 years!

Creationism is Sunday school material and a complete farce!

Most kindly,

Sean

That is what I figured.

Great post Leonardo!!!!

Page 18, post #262
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2282884

Most kindly,

Sean

Thanks for posting such a concrete example of what I've been talking about. If you read the lesson plan I posted on what science is not, the very first thing they mention is that science "is not properly equipped to handle the supernatural realm..." If you are incapable of perceiving anything in the world beyond what science can perceive that means you are also "not properly equipped" but that's all, it in no way means there is nothing outside of the natural world, just that you are incapable of perceiving it.



Interesting opinion... wrong but interesting, and very informative about your perception and limitations.

You mean learn more about what the theory says about how it occurs?

But that is because the supernatural realm is merely speculation.

I am curious, do you believe that is how evolution happens (that part there in bold)? I am by no means ridiculing, maybe I can help you out though if that is your understanding of evolution.

I find the part in bold rather worrying if that is how someone is basing their understanding of evolution.

I typed poorly when I said he quoted the law, but I will be curious to hear from you how God commanding that the Israelites kill not only the Midianite men, but the "non-virgin" women and the male children as well, and destroying their cities (which amounts to a full genocide of the Midianites, or at least this tribe of Midianites, as they were a nomadic people) can be considered "due punishment".

And, yes, I am aware that the Midianite women enticed some of the Israelite men to worship the Midianite idols. I don't see how killing ALL of the women is "due punishment", when I am pretty sure that not ALL of the women were involved in the turning of the Israelite men.

And I am certain that NONE of the male children had anything to do with the turning of the Israelite men, although I am assuming that the some of the "male children" were possibly the heirs/children of the turned Isrealite men. If this is the case, I don't see how killing innocent children who did nothing but having been born from the loins of ex-Israelites (something completely out of their control) is "due punishment"

No, I mean creationists or whoever else (for some reason or another) that opposes the fact of evolution, are ignorant. Why? Because they don't have any idea what they are trying to argue.

Lets take a creationists who says "the theory of evolution is wrong and doesn't happen".
This person is obviously either brainwashed, illinformed, ignorant towards science, or just plainly chooses not to accept evolution because he is mentally incapable of being able to (or not smart enough in the sciences to understand just what is going on).

Another creationist says "Evolution occurs, but I think we don't quite understand how much the mechanisms are involved in the evolutionary process and which of these mechanisms is most important"
This is obviously someone who has done their homework. They understand that evolution is a fact. They also understand that "how evolution occurs" is the theory of evolution. Whether evolution occurs or not isn't an issue, because it does. It is only an issue to brainwashed, illinformed, or ignorant people who for some reason or another cannot understand evolution and choose not too.

We understand the theory of evolution (how evolution occurs and the mechanisms involved)
What we want to know more about is which of these mechanisms (natural selection, mutation, genetic drift etc) plays a larger role in the scheme of things (neutralism or adaptationism)

Son, how can science reconstruct a universe and a diety that is imaginary???? ??? We use limits towards which we perpetually strive for in our thinking, "Limit' is not nessecarily a label for where
we happen to be at any given moment ....


Son the problem with your arguments are they are not represented in a form that the conclusion contains new information, reasoning with 'evidence' enables its readers to move from what is already known to some new position...denying the antecedent or affriming the consequent will not lead to a sound arguments.. You are using informal logic( which is very popular) granted this is how most argue in matters of uncertainties ....faith based claims only ask that you agree with the idea and in that you automatically reject the other.....It is not logical argumentation that is used in science..for very good reason hon.... .

I see what you're saying, Sean, but looking at the rest of Hebrews 11, it describes many of the Old Testament figures and how their Faith moved them. Noah, by Faith built an ark, despite not having any proof of rain. Abraham, by Faith, left his home, not knowing where he would end up. And these are just two examples - every single one of the people mentioned in Hebrews 11 are commended for acting on Faith to act upon something God compelled them to do. Never once are they commended something along the lines of "By Faith person x believed God existed". How can Noah and Abraham be acclaimed as having great Faith if both of them had conversed with God? Like them, my Faith is not in the existence of God (though as I said before, I cannot prove this to anyone, I just KNOW IT, completely and totally). To me, I know God exists. Like them, my Faith is in the promises God has laid out (Trust in their truthfulness), just as their Faith was in the promises that God laid out to them.

I see plenty difference, and more than semantics for certain. Just a thought,

I disagree with your statements; specifically that evolution is a fact and with your statements about creationists. Creationists vary in their opinions and stance on the theory of evolution that is sure; but your value judgement is a product of your own bias.

Evolution is a fact - no it is not. Your opinion is that evolution is a fact. Evolution is a theory that attempts to explain some facts. The fossil record is a fact. There are hundreds if not thousands of species that used to live on this planet that don't anymore. That is a fact proven by the fossile record. How those fossils came to be is what evolution attempts to explain. I think that it's an improper explanation because it's never been seen. For the theory of evolution to be a fact, we would have to be able to observe it happening. Namely an organism would have to mutate,
exceed it's natural state, and pass these beneficial mutations on to other individuals that eventually pass these traits on to a population that turns into a completely new species of animal. That's really what the theory claims happend. Advanced organisms like humans evolved from lower life forms. Please don't try to tell anyone that is false. That is what evolution claims.

Scientists see what they believe is evolution occuring in the micro sense of the word. Like resistent bacteria, and viruses, etc. One could interpret that data as adaptation, something that every living thing has the capacity to do. Until bacteria becomes resistent, and morphs into a separate species, a new animal more complex than bacteria, its' still adaptation in my opinion. And even if that opinion is incorrect, you are dealing with a simple organism, that might not even be considered a species. Show this on a complex or higher order animal with separate and interworking biological systems and then you may have something.

Erm have not seen the links to observed speciation I have previously posted? Not just in bacteria but in insects and we know about it from domestic mammals.
Evolution has been proven it is not opinion, you are just ignoring the vast amount of evidence that has been presented and you have yet to supply any evidence for creationism.
And Adaptation is part of evolution.

Maybe you should study biology before rejecting it.

Who are we, What are we, why are we here? Those are questions that every person asks at some time in their life.

Evolution
1. A person, an individual, a human being.
2. An animal, primate, homo sapiens; an advanced primate evolved from lower life forms through the process of evolution over millions or billions of years.
3. To thrive in our environments and reproduce.

Creationism
1. A person, an individual, a human being.
2. A person, a human being, created by God with many of his attributes - we are his children, we are different from animals.
3. To live, love, serve and make a decision whether or not we believe.

Of course these are my opinions and do not necessarily represent all creationists.

Did you know the hormone that causes love has been isolated?
You also forgot to add that evolution has plenty of evidence and creationism has none.

First, trash the numbers. I don't know of a single instance where an ancient book got the numbers right. That includes the Bible. "Twelve thousand warriors" was likely 50 to 100 people. This story may or may not even be true. And similar stories abound in other cultures, such as, the story of the Irish king giving wives of fallen soldiers to the Picts.
Doug

You and I differ; I believe love is thought, action, and force of will. You most likely believe that love is a feeling, or a state of attraction. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Love is an emotion which is caused by the hormone oxytocin.Love

But love as a mystic experience isnt an emotion but starts as an act of will and ends up as an experience of infinite bliss (properly followed through).

See post #'s 154, 155 on page 11.

That is mere speculation.

That is not scientific evidence for creation at all.
Can you show a real peer reviewed scientific paper showing evidence for creation?

To you it is but not to those who have directly experienced it. To them it is a clear experiential fact.

Nope, experience is subjective and commonly misinterpreted and misrepresented.

I think you're referring to physical attraction, love is more than just a feeling.

Stand corrected


fullywired

No this is maternal love as well.