What a ridiculous thing to say. Essentially, you're saying if your career of choice was at odds with your personal religious beliefs, you'd change your beliefs? Where is the strength in your religious convictions, then?

"No way man, I evolved from an ape. Snake said so."

Yeah, because snakes tell me to do shit all the time.  Mouthy little bastards, that they are.  Talk, talk, talk that's all they do.  Or maybe I was just reading another fairy tale where animals talk.

Zoo, first you may have already noticed but you can’t argue with lula. She’s a young earth fundamentalist and there is no logical or scientific argument that she will acknowledge that doesn’t support the biblical version of creation. She also won’t read anything you link so don’t bother.

I know...it's like throwing logic eggs at a fundamentalist brick wall.  Nothing's getting through.  Here I have a mountain of thoroughly researched evidence and all I get is, "You're wrong, lalalalalalala I can't hear you!"

And that's one of the reason why one species cannot evolve into a completely different one----why macro-Evolution doesn't/can't work.

No, that's why evolution makes sense.  These two similar things are now dissimilar.  In the case of lions and tigers there was some catlike thing, some of those catlike things wondered off into Asia, some into Africa and thus begat offspring in different environments where they were selected for different traits.

Seriously though, the number of people who agree on something doesn't make something true. It just makes it popular.

It's popular for a reason...it...you know, makes sense and all that jazz.

~Zoo

Lula posts:

When I say that Catholics can believe in small e evolution, I mean by evolution of and acorn into an oak tree for it is an unfoldment of design.




Doc,

The Church is still awaiting clarifications on Origins...and until further pronouncements come, we have to go with what we have already. The Chruch is highly unlikely to enter into and make pronouncements on matters which belong only in empirical science, but where empirical science and theology overlap, the Chruch is entitled to and has officially declared on matters which affect the salvation of souls. Catholics don't fear the discoveries of science, whatever they may be. We do however, fear it being misunderstood.

Yes, the Chruch allows us to examine all possiblities, but did you know the Chruch has officially forbid the teaching of Evolution as though it was already a scientifically demonstrated proven fact? Catholic teachings insist that man is something more than a physical body, he is a living rational soul, a direct creation of God. To the Catholic, God can never be dislodged as Creator of life, of animals, of man, and of the Natural Law written upon our hearts.



Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini in 1940 taught that human evolution (apes to man), is irrconcilible with Catholic doctrine, as established from the Holy Bible and Tradition and what God has revealed about the beginning of the world and the Origin of mankind...basically that the character of man centers upon his soul (which cannot evolve). He noted back then that the science of genetics gives no support to Evolution and that the ever-elusive mechanism of Evolution is missing. Today, the study of Genetics bears the Cardinal out and the missing link is still missing.

The CC has prohibited belief in Godless origins and Godless evolutionism becasue the teaching on ORiginal Sin can never change without undermining the mystery of Christ. The CC cannot overturn one doctrine that has been defined ex cathedra as true otherwise she would cease to be the Catholic Chruch.

Many paragraphs in the Catechism of the CC relate to the Origins theme..including the existence of God can be known by reason, the Holy Bible, including Genesis, is totally free from error, That God cannot deceive or be deceived, and the point of Creation of the Universe was to create human beings...

The Earth being flat made sense. Oh look out the window, it's flat, therefore the Earth is flat. Very popular for a while. Doesn't make it good science, though. Like it's been said, the weight of the arguments are what should be worried about - not who is making it, or how many people are making it.

"What a ridiculous thing to say. Essentially, you're saying if your career of choice was at odds with your personal religious beliefs, you'd change your beliefs? Where is the strength in your religious convictions, then?"

No. I would change what I do. But if you have no belief one way or the other, and evolution is getting you money, why not endorse it, or at least study it?

The Catholic church says lots of crap, so does the Bible...I don't have the meticulous attention span to sift through what may or may not be true. However, if evidence is presented before my eyes, I have no choice but to agree.

Show me something that didn't exist yesterday, but God has decided that it must exist today. Show me where we miraculously poofed into existence on earth. Show me something, anything that backs up these fairy tale claims, because unless you have hard evidence, then that's all it is- a fanciful story. No scientific backing whatsoever. If I wanted to, I could write a book about a purple dragon that shits burritos and one day decided to make people from boogers. It would be just as valid as creationism because I can't prove it.

~Zoo

While I understand the point you're trying to make, it is in no way comparable to the amount of study and the amount of scientific evidence collected to support evolution thus far. Science has come a heck of a long way since then. Why is it you don't take the word of scientists who have dedicated their lives to this study over the mostly myth-like passages of a single book?

"It comes, I'm sorry to say, from religion. And from bad religion. You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Britain, but in the United States."

-- Richard Dawkins

Oddly enough the Creationists simply ignore whatever evidence you throw at them, although they ask the questions.

If they read the Bible with the same attention span, it's no wonder they misunderstand everything.

Also remarkable is their inability to answer questions. They keep telling us that "macro-evolution" doesn't happen, in spite of evidence to the contrary, and they won't tell us how evolution "knows" when it becomes "macro" so it can stop in time for it not to happen.

Creation is not proof for Creationism for the same reason that the Big Bang is not proof for evolution. And anybody who believes in a god who creates imperfect people subject to diseases and hunger, believes in a false god. Such a god might exist, but it is not the god of Abraham.

Thank you.

So we meet again... but this time we appear to be on the same side.

 

Oddly enough the Creationists simply ignore whatever evidence you throw at them,

Sad really.  I hope I never become a suspect, go to court and have a judge like this.  Convicts you because he believes you did it, despite the evidence not pointing to you at all.

So we meet again... but this time we appear to be on the same side.

I consider this a good thing.

~Zoo

The crime was committed. That proves that you committed it.

The crime was committed. That proves that you committed it.

Ah, of course.  There's no other logical explanation.  Since I exist and a crime was committed, I must have done it.  No one else could have, obviously.

~Zoo

"Sad really. I hope I never become a suspect, go to court and have a judge like this. Convicts you because he believes you did it, despite the evidence not pointing to you at all."

That would be the jury. And they do. Judges just sue the pants off you.

I don't think there is anything that can explain humanity as evolution. Every other being that evolved adapted to the environment, whereas human beings adapt the environment to us. If we followed the evolutionary path, we would be suited to the environment or we would have died out.

Darwinism/evolution VS. Creationism/divine creation.

first off let me remind you that Darwinism is a theory and as such is conceptually based on taking various facts that seem to correlate a singular idea and fitting them together to create a Theory.
An Educated Guess if you will..

Creationism is based on the Biblical story tellings of man's of past events and while this is IMO stronger, being based on witnessing events and tabulating them. We must also remember that man is inaccurate in his remembering's and his tellings often reflect a tainted or altered view to paint a picture more to his liking. so not every thing read will be 100% accurate. we must extract our own truths from it.

I think both walk hand in hand and are both of the same making but as always man has tried to separate science from religion stating they only base science on fact but as you see Darwinism is a theory as well is the big bang theory. as we all know, theory is nothing more than an educated guess... in effect I see the sciences proving the bible correct in many aspects as well as confirms the two happenings.

Remember the bible was written 1000+ ? years before Darwin and the other scientifically devised explanations of the worlds creation/evolution.




The beginning of the galaxy it is said that it all started with a big bang and took millions of years of years..it is said that God created the World and the heavens in 7 days. Many wannabe scientists jumped all over this as proof that god was nonexistent ,as millions of years is much more vast than 7 days. but it also says that "to god a thousand years is but the blink of an eye.

IMO science has also proved the bible correct in the fact that heavens and earth were created before life, which science's own theory deems true. It also states that dinosaurs roamed the planet and were destroyed. which the bible said god tried many times in creating creatures he liked (many were destroyed and he started over) before he created man.Remember this was written long before the discovery of dinosaur bones...

It is also said that Adam and Eve. were expelled from the garden of eden and could no longer Talk with the animals. here is my theory on that. remember, they ate from the tree of knowledge and became aware of their own nakedness.
What if their eating from the tree. was actually tapping in to reaches of the mind not explored. and the punishment was merely blocking Adam and eve from the part of the mind which their current reality resided. thus the fact that man only is able to tap about 10% of the minds full resources and is still unmapped in its full potential.. maybe we are in eden but our perception of such has been altered. not really a part of creationism VS bible but hey its food for thought.

Through out the Bible and Science you will find many correlating events. Mostly of which, science seems to prove the existence of God or at the least, proves the truths contained within the bible. this is but a few excerpts from my thesis, as I have opted to keep it within the reasonable scope of light reading..


Take from it what you wish

Please do not "remind" us of things that are wrong. Keep your reminding to things you know about.

Scientific theories are NOT "based on semi fact".

Also, you don't know whether the Bible is based on witnessing. You just know that other people told you that it is a very old book indeed. That is NOT stronger than the scientific theory of evolution, which you can observe and verify in experiments.

Science did NOT prove the existence of G-d. It would be impossible to do so, because

a) G-d is not subject to the laws of His creation and science only works within those laws.

According to the Bible one must not test G-d.

Science says absolutely nothing what G-d did, only about what He didn't do.

The only major truth contained within the Bible that science has proven (i.e. currently supports with a theory) is the first sentence: B'reshit bara Elohim et haShamayim v'et haAretz. The world had indeed a beginning and is not eternal.



Don't worry about it. We are fairly bright here, some of us. If I can translate Genesis I can probably understand your thesis as well. I do consider myself well-read in both scripture and biology and have some minor academic credentials in both.

(Ironically most of my ancestors were clerics and biologists, so this subject is well suited for me, perhaps.)

let me rephrase that as I already had before you posted..as I figured it would be misunderstood

a theory and as such is conceptually based on taking various facts that seem to correlate a singular idea and fitting them together to create a Theory. Part fact/part guess






Like I said each must extract their own truths from it

As long as those truths don't contradict what we can observe in the real world AND are not forced on those who believe in different truths, I don't see a problem with that.

I have no problem with people believing what they wish.. as none of the truths we believe will be confirmed until the day of our demise.


I force my thoughts on no one.. but i will defend my freedom to believe as I wish.. and you yours


Mine by the way follow's the correlating of Biblical word with scientifically theorized explanations

Ironically my ancestors were Writers and philosophers. So I too may be well suited for the task.

This discussion has nothing to do with your freedom to believe as you wish. You are free to believe whatever nonsense you like. Nobody is stopping you.

However, if you make your beliefs known, others are just as free to point out the possibly idiocy of or inconsistencies in your beliefs.

My remark about ancestry was a joke. My ancestors were indeed biologists and clerics (sometimes both) for generations, but that is not relevant here.

If you are comfortable with proclaiming that you believe in something despite all evidence speaking against it, that is your right. But I ask you to realise the danger it represents if people are made to believe that such an attitude is better than reason.

There are rights and responsibilities. Creationists have the _right_ to believe in Smurfs or whatever, but they also have the _responsibility_ not to teach their beliefs as if they were proven facts or scientific theory.

There is nothing to disprove my belief that both are correlated. It is my conjecture

Just like A theory is not absolution.. It is a strongly supported idea of what a group of Facts Could mean.. not Specifically the one and only meaning..

I have yet to see any scientific Fact that disproves any thing I have said..or what I believe...In fact what I posted was that I believe science seems to substantiate certain excerpts from the Bible .. nothing more



A few seem to think science has proved the nonexistence of a Soul or higher being..It has not, it has only theorized that man evolves...and that is "popular belief".. not proof positive.

Reason is subject to perception, what is reasonable to you.. is not to another...



Theory's can change as new evidence is found support or disprove the idea..so they are no more concrete than any other belief ..


It should also be the Evolutionary Separatists responsibility to Teach that their theory's are Educated guesses/Beliefs of what a group of supporting facts could mean.. not that they are 100% proof positive.

Some seem to take Theory's as gospel truth. because they seem to believe a Theory is a fact. Hmm a Religion of non religion?


But it is funny that some want to force out ID religion for their "religion" of Scientific theory. but they don't want ID Religious fanatics forcing their beliefs on them....


Ironic huh?

There are no facts that disprove the existence of invisible omnipotent smurfs either, but I would say it is pretty silly to count them in.

Either way, whatever G-d's hand in this is, if you cannot experiment with it and predict anything, it's useless; and there is no need to teach it.



I don't see the irony. Religion should not be taught as science, it's very simple. But evolution is not a religion, it's a scientific theory. You can verify it by experiment. You cannot verify the "designer" or "creator". And that is what is being taught.

Not enough, apparently...

"Design" doesn't explain anything, it merely shifts the question to the next level. How was the designer "designed"? If it was a god, how did he come about? If it was space aliens, how did they come about?

Evolution explains how complexity is created out of simpler forms. "Intelligent design" simply says that complexity was created by something more complex. But who or what created that entity? Evolution?

I guess Philosophy goes out the window?
or the ability to see/realize art and beauty?

thought's/feelings are not tangible but they are very real

If there were no visionaries of the latter centuries.. where would we be today?

While Science is the explanation to "our best Knowledge" the happenings of the universe.It's not the most important thing our kids need to learn...


Not to steal, not to kill each other ,morality,etc IMO are a little higher up the ladder.

While I do not believe any one religion should be taught or forced on others.. I don't think any one should have the ability to Deny what I wish to learn or what I wish to teach my children, or to persecute me because of what I believe... no more than I would persecute those who believe evolution disproves a divine creator...


As with all similar questions how did we get here,who created whom,if at all. will probably never be 100% answered by mankind as we cant travel back in time to see the beginnings. we can theorize all we want.

If man had spent as much time trying to cure disease as they have trying to prove/disprove the existence of god through science. maybe we would be in proverbial Eden.







And heres food for thought... the bible is supposed to be written accounts and tales of happenings of the times..we cant be sure. But apparently they were so much believed that they held up for 1000's of years...

now any body here do the experiments supporting the theory? or just relating what they read and or was told?
While you could do the experiments and see the results first hand most here are just simply going on a belief of what they are told.


If tomorrow all that was left was human kind with the second hand accounts of the Evolutionary theory but no ability to recreate the experiments, in 2000 years would it too fall prey to being an unproved religion?

So let me get this right, some would rather believe we are the cause of a huge cosmic accident, that we started off crawling out of some cosmic slime that became a sea all by itself, soon we became air breathers all by our self, miraculously we grew an opposing thumb and stood upright all by our self, we gained the ability to string together thoughts and convey those thought through sounds which became speech all by our self, we evolved over the course of time, some of the mistakes of evolution like cro magnon died out all by them selves, soon this small puny animal conquered the entire planet to become the masters of it all by them self. No help, no design.

or we believe we were created by G-D and he had a plan for us, his plan is at work now and has been working for millions of years.

either one is as believable as the other IMO.

I believe a little of both...

I'm afraid your summary is completely wrong.

Nobody _wants_ to believe in evolution. It's a rather nasty business and I would much rather believe in Creationism. But since I am not gullible enough simply to believe some interpretation of an ancient text, I will have to face the facts.

And the facts point to evolution. It can be observed, it can be tested, it can be done in the laboratory.

OTOH I don't think the idea of a god who has a plan for us that includes Malaria and imperfect design of bodies, organic pain collectors, basically, is very comforting at all; or probable.

G-d cannot be both perfect and a bad designer, both loving and allowing for diseases to exist, both omnipotent and unable to stop parts of His creation from hurting other parts of His creation. It's impossible.

Science cannot disprove the existence of G-d, but logic can disprove the existence of a god both omnipotent and unable to design a decent eye for his supreme creation.

And there is the term "accident" again. Again, somebody resorts to the idea of chance having anything to do with evolution. It does not.

However, it seems to me that the existence of a supreme being that designs a world would require quite a high improbability level.

What sounds more probable: small changes accumulating over a very long time, a process which can actually be observed faster in a lab; or the sudden coming into existence of a very complex entity like a Creator who then goes on to create lifeforms that eat each other and die of horrible diseases he also created?

What you are describing is not evolution, but a game of chance; and not G-d but a disgruntled teenager.

I will add IMO any scientist who discounts Divine intervention. Is not a true scientist, as a true scientist would never discredit any explanation that has not been 100% Disproved. True Science is based on fact, Not on the religious or non religious beliefs of scientists..