[Ace]

Previously on Terra Firma:

1. The humans were created by god.
3. They rebelled.
4. They evolved.
5. ...and they have a plan...

jr2 has just confirmed that YECs are actually Cylons in disguise. Blow them out the airlock before it's too late!

[Kosh]

Is Jr2 trying to use the Bible as "scientific proof"?

[aldo_14]

Is Jr2 trying to use the Bible as "scientific proof"?

I would guess that perhaps he's trying to use the ole 'evolution is aetheism' arguement;  a tactic seen quite often by creationists / fundies who realise they can't portray a reasonable and irrefutable scientific arguement against evolutionary theory (etc), and thus resort to dirty tricks trying to slander scientists, etc, as being immoral, and sometimes even using the very odd tactic of moral blackmail via a God said people might not even believe in.

Certainly if the Vatican can manage to reconcile evolution with the Bible, I'm not sure how anyone could claim the bible offers any sort of unarguable contradiction (particularly as we know parts of the creation myth are, well, a myth and often inherited ala the Epic of Gilgamesh predating the Flood mythos).

[jr2]

One arguement...If we had been designed by a all powerful being, wouldn't we be instilled with the knowledge of it's existance at birth?

Heh, heh.  Ecclesiastes 3:11

Evolution is compatable with every single one of those tenets.

So, Evolution is compatible with death being a result of mankind's rebellion, not a vital part of the origin of species?

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but what exactly is wrong with there being no real meaning behind our existence? No real impact upon the greater universe as to how we conduct our short, boring lives? It may be hard for you to accept, or even consider, given your obviously religious mindset, but it's a very possible and very real situation that we are all in.

  No impact unless proven wrong, that is.  If Creation is true, then it has a rather serious impact.  Of course, if it's correct, then there's really no point and why is everyone so upset about it?  I'm not sure a true existentialist would even care about what anyone thinks, as it really doesn't matter what you believe anyways.  The only time it matters what you believe is if there is a God involved, or if those beliefs extend to your relationship with people around you (and then only sofar as they're concerned).

Wrong. There are plenty of religions where 'God' is not a creator.

  Ahh.  Many religions where there is no 'higher being' involved?  Many religions where we just, err, well, appeared?  Okay, forgive me, I'm going to crack a joke you will probably not find funny:  I can think of one such religion: Atheistic Evolutionism.  -  Hey, why aren't you laughing?  C'mon, it's funny!    Stop looking at me like that!

No, there are not 'plenty of scientists' who agree that intelligent design took place. If they do, they're not scientists or they're simply in an unrelated field and therefore cannot comment on the subject from a scientific standpoint. Scientists, or at least most of them, back up hypothesis with testable evidence. As the notion of an intelligent force does not have any evidence [and what little is lauded as evidence is complete bollocks as previously stated in this thread], no credible scientist would even consider intelligent design.

This is the reason some Evolutionists should have their beliefs classified as a religion: they refuse to examine any alternative.  You said it:

no credible scientist would even consider intelligent design.

So they are not real scientists.  You don't have to be an evolutionist to be credible.  You just have to show your work.  And I'm sure you mean evolutionary scientist, because, as has been pointed out, there are scientists who believe in ID, even YEC (although it's not such a stretch as you'd think); their field is just not in biology, which one might think was the only credible field of scientific study.  All of the scientific fields are interrelated and affect the others.

You've got to remember that life on this planet is not the only possible way life can exist.

Really.  That's interesting, given the total lack of evidence.  "Evolution happened here, so it could happen elsewhere with different circumstances.  Because Evolution can happen with different circumstances, we know it happened here because we are not the only way that life could have formed."  OK.  I'm trying to get the picture, but it's gone all circular on me.  (If I missed the point, tell me what the point was again.)

Think of it like this, when you absent-mindedly draw on a piece of paper, just doodle when you're bored in Maths class, is that doodle right or wrong?

Hmm.  Apparently you doodle in spelling class , but anyways...If I (sort of) intelligently doodle something, the doodle is the result of my doodling; you need to think of a better analogy, this one's not looking to good in my opinion.

So of course, it would stand to reason that life that developed in our planetary situation would obviously find it rather difficult developing in a completely different planetary situation.

Not completely different.  Even slightly different.

Before making more assertions, perhaps you could go back and answer most of the questions posited to you previously in the thread. Just out of politeness.

  OK, but you can't post anything 'till I come back!!  jk, but seriously, I am going to try to nail some of this stuff down.  It would help if I had a list... maybe I'll have to make one.

(if people want to teach ID in science classes, then why not teach aetheism in RE and point out all the little holes in the Bible et al?)

Since atheism is a religion, I would have absolutely no problem with that. 

(I kind of like the Buddhist philosophy over this; worrying about the afterlife is like being shot by an arrow and worrying about who made the arrow)

  Here's one for you:  Why don't you try and find out who made the arrow before whoever made it decides you're not listening?  This Buddhist philosophy takes the afterlife as inevitable; if death is part of evolution, and evolution is how we got here, then there is no afterlife, unless it conveniently evolved at about the same time as us.

I've never understood this arguement that God gave us this highly intelligent rational, logical brain.... and then punishes us for using it.  Apparently God is not only vengeful but irrational, egocentric and insecure.  (and whatever happened to non claiming to know the mind of God?)

No, no, no... for not using it.    Seriously, though, what do you mean?  (How does He supposedly punish us for using our brains? )

And not even a very good designer, too.

  It rather seems your brain functions are running rather smoothly, given the amount of comprehensible data you've just output.  That alone is (in my opinion) an evolutionary impossiblilty.

Um... you do realise that there are billions of stars in this universe, equally billions of planets, quite possibly billions or trillions of big-crunch-bang cycles, and even perhaps parallel universes (depending on your view of how time works)?  So even accepting those odds, it's not even all that unlikely.

From: Evolution Airlines
Let's assume that there was not just one earth positioned just the right distance from the sun, at just the right angle, spinning at just the right speed (without which, we'd either burn up, freeze, or fly off).  Let's also assume that all that nasty diluting ocean water was really an ENTIRE sea of already formed amino acids.  (There are 20 different kinds in life, and they must exist in the L-form for life, with rare exceptions.  In the lab, they occur in D-form 50% of the time, but they can't be used for life.  We'll also assume they're L!)  We'll further assume that the deadly U.V. light wasn't so bad.  Now, we'll really assume, and say that there were 1 MILLION earths rotating around EACH of the 10 to the 27th power stars in our universe.⁷  That's 1,000000000000000000000000000000000 earths.  Now we will assume that 10 to the 73rd power proteins were forming and breaking apart every second for the past 10 BILLION years.  The simplest, self-reproducing organism known today has around 600 specific sequenced proteins, but it is conceivable to have one with 124 proteins, each composed of 400 amino acids, of which there are 20 different types, all having to exist in the L-form.  What is the probability of just ONE simple cell arising by chance, even given those fantastic conditions? 
   Statistical evidence shows the chance to be 1 in 10 to the 78,436th power!⁸  That's one chance in 100000....followed by 75 PAGES of zeroes!  Which means the chances are, it did NOT happen that way.  How large is that number?  Well, there are only about 10 to the 80th power (80 zeroes) Atoms in the entire universe.  Statisticians tell us that if an event's probability of occurring is less than 1 in 10 to the 20th power, it will NEVER happen.⁹  Now if you knew that the chance of you getting across the street safely, or of flying across the ocean in a jet, was only 1 in 10 to the 78,436th power, (Meaning assured death!), would you go?

The article that I linked to has footnotes with source material.

I also suspect those odds are made up using the most exaggerated values possible to enlarge them....

*looks at the free passes given to evolution in referenced article*
* : *

Now, it kind of stands to reason that life developing on a planet will be life adapted for the environment, doesn't it?

But the chances even given that, as you have seen, are nil.  I have a new theory of evolution: President what's his name used his stolen Improbability Drive.

(any support for 'plenty of scientists'?...)

  I don't have the stats for scientists, but about 90% (I think more) of the general population in the US believes God had to be involved with the process at some point.  That's according to Gallup, I do believe.

(... Or context as to what that immeasurably vauge statement 'intelligent force' comprises?  Or is this one of those 'Ill try and get away with making stuff up' things we see so often from creationists?)

Intelligence is a most complex practical property of mind, integrating numerous mental abilities, such as the capacities to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn.

Although many generally regard the concept of intelligence as having a much broader scope, for example in cognitive science and computer science, in some schools of psychology, the study of intelligence generally regards this trait as distinct from creativity, personality, character, or wisdom.

Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL b : intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>
3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION

The Force is a binding, ubiquitous power that is the object of the Jedi and Sith monastic orders in the Star Wars universe.

Oops.  Wrong one.

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Vulgar Latin *fortia, from Latin fortis strong
1 a (1) : strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power <the forces of nature> <the motivating force in her life>

EDIT; wait a sec, why the **** are we even talking about this thing.  The religious angle is entirely irrelevant *snip*

Because, even though I don't think I even mentioned religion, you guys dragged it up, insisting that the Christian religion didn't have any problems coinciding with evolution.  (I will have to chack back to when it was first dug up.)  And, BTW, I do have a few responses I was going to post here, but I ran out of time, I saved them somewhere around here...I'll dig them up later, probably this weekend.

Is Jr2 trying to use the Bible as "scientific proof"?

See above.

Is Jr2 trying to use the Bible as "scientific proof"?

I would guess that perhaps he's trying to use the ole 'evolution is aetheism' arguement;  a tactic seen quite often by creationists / fundies who realise they can't portray a reasonable and irrefutable scientific arguement against evolutionary theory (etc), and thus resort to dirty tricks trying to slander scientists, etc, as being immoral, and sometimes even using the very odd tactic of moral blackmail via a God said people might not even believe in.

Certainly if the Vatican can manage to reconcile evolution with the Bible, I'm not sure how anyone could claim the bible offers any sort of unarguable contradiction (particularly as we know parts of the creation myth are, well, a myth and often inherited ala the Epic of Gilgamesh predating the Flood mythos).

See above.

[Kosh]

Since atheism is a religion

Since when?

[Colonol Dekker]

I'm an atheist,

Dictionary.com definition =One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

I suppose a belief or disbelief constitutes a religion. But this is a paradoxic situation, Which completely buggers my comprehensions of what i just said.........

[Mefustae]

Evolution is compatable with every single one of those tenets.

So, Evolution is compatible with death being a result of mankind's rebellion, not a vital part of the origin of species?

Can't really comment on the details, as I stopped being religious years ago. But I maintain that if the Catholic Church can accept evolution, then why can't you? I mean, it's all basically the same faith, is it not?

Wrong. There are plenty of religions where 'God' is not a creator.

  Ahh.  Many religions where there is no 'higher being' involved?  Many religions where we just, err, well, appeared?  Okay, forgive me, I'm going to crack a joke you will probably not find funny:  I can think of one such religion: Atheistic Evolutionism.  -  Hey, why aren't you laughing?  C'mon, it's funny!    Stop looking at me like that!

What are you on about? I was just calling you on a rather simplistic blanket statement. Case in point, Bhuddism has no creator gods, if I recall correctly, and it's the 4th-largest religion in the world.

Moreover, your assertion that 'atheistic evolutionism' is a religion is patently false. Primarily, 'atheist' means 'without religion', the 'absence of religion', so how can a philosophy revolving around the absence of religion be counted as religion? Furthermore, the theory of Evolution is no different than Newton's theory of Gravity, or Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Unless you're prepared to admit you're a member of multiple religions from the religion of Gravity, to the religion of Quatumn Mechanics, just stop acting like an ass in making silly, baseless assumptions that are obviously false.

One more thing, can you stop referring to the theory of Evolution as 'evolutionism' as if it is some sort of sinister, rival religion?

*Snip*

So they are not real scientists.  You don't have to be an evolutionist to be credible.  You just have to show your work.  And I'm sure you mean evolutionary scientist, because, as has been pointed out, there are scientists who believe in ID, even YEC (although it's not such a stretch as you'd think); their field is just not in biology, which one might think was the only credible field of scientific study.  All of the scientific fields are interrelated and affect the others.

Y'know, screw making a really long answer outlining what I mean. Show me a scientist that has conducted credible, peer-reviewed studies on the subject of Young-Earth Creationism. Then I will conceed that there are indeed scientists out there who not only believe YEC [who cares whether they do or not?], but can be cited as an authority on it.

You've got to remember that life on this planet is not the only possible way life can exist.

Really.  That's interesting, given the total lack of evidence.  "Evolution happened here, so it could happen elsewhere with different circumstances.  Because Evolution can happen with different circumstances, we know it happened here because we are not the only way that life could have formed."  OK.  I'm trying to get the picture, but it's gone all circular on me.  (If I missed the point, tell me what the point was again.)

Y'know, life on another planet is a hell of a lot more likely that what you're trying to argue. I was going to teach you all about extremophiles, strange organisms that grow around deep-sea vents in temperatures that would kill any other organism in seconds, or algal organisms that grow beneath the ice in the Antarctic to show you that organisms can grow in different environments and are thus fundamentally different, but **** it. To ****ing hell with defending Evolution. To ****ing hell with defending our position. This is just starting to piss me off.

Stop trying to find a hole in evolution and give us a reason to give Creationism or YEC a chance!

[aldo_14]

Since atheism is a religion, I would have absolutely no problem with that. 

It's not, though. 

Religion - theism - is predicated on the belief of a supernatural influence upon life, whereas aetheism does not accept that premise.  Moreso, theism / religion requires a 'framework' of belief, which aetheism doesn't (it's broader than that); to coin a phrase, it's essentially a criticism of the belief that life requires the supernatural.

(in any case, it still wouldn't change the fact that creationism / ID isn't science)

  Here's one for you:  Why don't you try and find out who made the arrow before whoever made it decides you're not listening?  This Buddhist philosophy takes the afterlife as inevitable; if death is part of evolution, and evolution is how we got here, then there is no afterlife, unless it conveniently evolved at about the same time as us.

The arrow analogy is from Buddha; specifically, that worrying about the afterlife is like worrying about the maker of the arrow rather than removing it.

No, no, no... for not using it.    Seriously, though, what do you mean?  (How does He supposedly punish us for using our brains?  )

Well, you're the one aiming to remove the results of millenia of rational investigation in favour of a story, by (trying to) contradicting a scientific, evidenced theory by half truth (at best; for example citing the 2nd law erroneously again).

  It rather seems your brain functions are running rather smoothly, given the amount of comprehensible data you've just output.  That alone is (in my opinion) an evolutionary impossiblilty.

Then you don't understand evolution well enough.  I'd suggest reading The Mating Mind by Geoffery Miller, which gives a very good account (and very well written) of the role of sexual selection in the brains cognitive evolution.

Plus, I'd like to know why I have a big wodge of entirely unnecessary lower intestine, which has no purpose or need except to facilitate flatulence.  For example.

The article that I linked to has footnotes with source material.

AAaaaaaaaah.

And to think I linked an abiogenesis article earlier explaining how wrong these types of 'one off' chance calculations are.  Ah well, last time I link this; I'll assume you missed it; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html (with sources)

(anyways, why the hell are you citing your pastor as evidence on abiogenesis theory?  Is he a retired biologist or something?)

Plus, when a footnote says;

Ibid, footnote 2, p. 437, first column, 4th full paragraph.  Dr. Coyne arrogantly states "Almost all scientists consider the theory of evolution to be a scientific fact."  This is irrelevant, even if true.  Almost all scientists once thought the tonsils were left over organs from when we were lower forms, or vestigial organs, but we now know that to be false. For information "vestigial organs" see "Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional" by CRS Press, PO Box 8263, St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263 The fact is tens of thousands of scientists absolutely reject evolution and many others would never call it a "fact".  The scientific evidence just doesn't support it. 

Then you know that the resulting (citing) text is pre-biased, unscientific and worthless as any sort of factual source - picking and choosing sources to support a pre-conclusion, the antithesis of science and rationality.

(sidenotes; protein/rna/dna evolution, sequential action of abiogenesis rather than spontaneous generation)

  I don't have the stats for scientists, but about 90% (I think more) of the general population in the US believes God had to be involved with the process at some point.  That's according to Gallup, I do believe.

At what point?  In what role?

Thanks for noting that God is as believable and well-evidenced as The Force, though.

Because, even though I don't think I even mentioned religion, you guys dragged it up, insisting that the Christian religion didn't have any problems coinciding with evolution.  (I will have to chack back to when it was first dug up.)  And, BTW, I do have a few responses I was going to post here, but I ran out of time, I saved them somewhere around here...I'll dig them up later, probably this weekend.

Well, we simply pointed out what the Vatican said, I believe in response to portraying evolution as some sort of side in a holy (unholy?) war, when it's simply a field of science, same as gravity, thermodynamics, geology.....etc.

[Edward Bradshaw]

Also, I didn't mention that, if evolution were true and God was not involved, and just kind of watched it happen, then he would be a liar, because the Bible states that He did indeed create everything.  Now, if He's lying about creating the Earth, then why would you trust Him to save you from your sins and bring you to Heaven when you die?  Why would you care about the said "sins" anyways?

The Bible doesnt say HOW god created, and it says that a day is a thosuand years. The story of Adam and Eve reads like a parable for the human condition, and Noahs ark is simply a mythologised local flood that took place in Mesopotamia at the time. Why does your Bible have to be 100% literal and 100% non-myth and non-legend to be true? Humans wrote the Bible, I know its hard for some fundamentalists to accept, but its true Im sorry.

Humans wrote it, fallible humans. Humans can be wrong, humans are flawed. To blindly believe on faith that the Bible is the ultimate authority over anything science can show is simply idolatory by definition, as you are worshipping the works of man t[the Bible] instead of the creator. After all, do you not believe God created the rocks? Did God not create the physical rules that goven the universe? Scientific analysis is the only objective way we can know anything, you want to replace that with unwielding absolute faith in a collection of books by largely unknown or obscure authors written thousands and thosuands of years ago.

Without God as the One to be responsible to because of His being your Creator, there is no 'wrong' or 'right', just whatever helps you to survive.   If God had nothing to do with Creation, then I'm sorry, but He has no say in what we do.

Already addressed this "morality" argument at length in post #670.

, unless they evolve the ability to evade that nasty second law of thermodynamics.

Nonsence. Either put up or shut up about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics being some kind of problem for evolution, its been addressed countless times on this thread but you keep using it as an argument.

Even AIG say its bad argument for gods sake, and when organisations like AIG say its a bad argument you gotta know its really stupid.

So, either we must get rid of the Christian (and Muslim and Jewish) religions, or at least relegate them to something you believe in for no particular reason.  Or, on the other hand...[/i] what if those Christians are right? 

You're using Pascals Wager? Seriously? 

  Not impressed.

But regardless, for any religion to be correct, God needs to be Creator. 

No, some religions do not have a god at all.

n figure out which one's correct by studying the religions after you figure out that a Deity was involved.)  So one would definitely hope that one could figure out whether or not God is Creator before one dies. 

Assuming there is one, it cant be tested by science and faith isnt going to allow you to "know" anything at all.

Faith is believing in something when you have no evidence for, or when there is evidence to the contrary. Its unverifiable gut feelings that unfortunatly for you people from all religions feel and feel strongly about for their particular beliefs, so this is no way to be able to test if your beliefs are accurate. 

Now there are plenty of scientists who would agree that some Intelligent force was involved with the creation of the world. 

Theres many! Thats correct, but they know how to sererate their religious faith from science. Real scientists know how to do that, and know how science works.

Also, the dreaded Intelligent Design factor:

Why dreaded? Its been debunked for years anyway, but finially completly obliterated at the Dover trial. The Discovery Institute are nothing but dishonest liars. They lied blatently about their religious agenda. They lied about their connection to Creationism (Their text book Pandas to People was simply a Creationist text book with "creator" replaced with "designer") Michael Behe admitted in the trial that his definition of science was so broad that it would also included astrology!  Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution" is one of their main arguments, which can be described as nothing better than a Creationist fraud they've gone on so long. They are a political group that want to side step the scientific process of experiments and peer review and go straight to the media, writing books and going to court to try and force it into public schools.

Also, here's an article that my pastor wrote a while back.  (I'm sure it's no shocker to you guys that I go to church!!) 

So, what do you think? 

I wonder what goes through Creationists minds when they make this mathematical argument for how improbable evolution is. Its the same as saying ice or salt crystals are near impossible to form because the probability of the molocules just happening to be in the right place at the right time to too great.

[Edward Bradshaw]

So, Evolution is compatible with death being a result of mankind's rebellion, not a vital part of the origin of species?

Sure, but science cant comment on such religious ideas.

Wrong. There are plenty of religions where 'God' is not a creator.

  Ahh.  Many religions where there is no 'higher being' involved?  Many religions where we just, err, well, appeared? 

How about Taoism , Zen or Buddism? None of these require gods.

Okay, forgive me, I'm going to crack a joke you will probably not find funny:  I can think of one such religion: Atheistic Evolutionism.  -  Hey, why aren't you laughing?  C'mon, it's funny!    Stop looking at me like that!

...Thats a joke? Even if I were a Creationist that would be lame. 

This is the reason some Evolutionists should have their beliefs classified as a religion: they refuse to examine any alternative. 

Of course they will, so long as its science. Intelligent Design isnt science.

You said it:

no credible scientist would even consider intelligent design.

So they are not real scientists.  You don't have to be an evolutionist to be credible.  You just have to show your work. 

He is right no scientist would consider Intelligent Design. Thats because Intelligent Design says its a scientific theory, but it isnt science. Science cant test the supernatural, but science will gladly give ID a chance if it ever came up with something that was testable and objective. IDs poster child of Irreducibly Complexity can be shown to be bad logic without even without turning to science. But the problem is guys in the Discovery Institute dont DO any science at all. They  spend all their time lobbying school boards, and making presentations to the media. Thats not how you do science!

And I'm sure you mean evolutionary scientist, because, as has been pointed out, there are scientists who believe in ID, even YEC (although it's not such a stretch as you'd think); their field is just not in biology, which one might think was the only credible field of scientific study.  All of the scientific fields are interrelated and affect the others.

I've been asking for an example of a credible Creationist source for years. Ive never been shown any Creationist that was either ignorent, misrepresented their qualifications and themselves as an authority, understood how science works, or that couldnt easily be shown to have misrepresented Evolution and/or the facts.

Really.  That's interesting, given the total lack of evidence.  "Evolution happened here, so it could happen elsewhere with different circumstances.  Because Evolution can happen with different circumstances, we know it happened here because we are not the only way that life could have formed."  OK.  I'm trying to get the picture, but it's gone all circular on me.  (If I missed the point, tell me what the point was again.)

You arent confusing abiogenesis with evolution again are you?

Since atheism is a religion, I would have absolutely no problem with that. 

Atheism is not a religion at all. How can it be, its simply defined as a nonbelief in god or gods. Materialist atheism is a much more specific form of atheism, which is also disbelief in the supernatural. None of these require faith, which I would have thought was a prerequisite of religion to be worthy of the name.

Here's one for you:  Why don't you try and find out who made the arrow before whoever made it decides you're not listening?  This Buddhist philosophy takes the afterlife as inevitable; if death is part of evolution, and evolution is how we got here, then there is no afterlife, unless it conveniently evolved at about the same time as us.

I dont believe in an afterlife, but most "evolutionists" are theists. Scientists and Christians like Ken Miller and the renouned palentologist and fiery Bible-believing pentacostol preacher Dr Rev Robbert Bakker have no problem with it either. The issue there is faith Jr.

That's one chance in 100000....followed by 75 PAGES of zeroes! 

Poor maths doesnt prove anything.

(any support for 'plenty of scientists'?...)

  I don't have the stats for scientists, but about 90% (I think more) of the general population in the US believes God had to be involved with the process at some point.  That's according to Gallup, I do believe.

Big deal, Americans arent so smart.

http://www.fugly.com/media/videodir1153787340/Funny/interview_about_world_affairs.wmv

And science isnt decided by popular vote of an ignorent impressionable populous, but that is what Creationists pander to.

The Force is a binding, ubiquitous power that is the object of the Jedi and Sith monastic orders in the Star Wars universe.

Oops.  Wrong one.

What do you mean "wrong"? The Force in Star Wars is based off Chi, the Taoist concept of mystical energy. (which like I said earlier is an atheistic religion)

[Apathy]

Stop trying to find a hole in evolution and give us a reason to give Creationism or YEC a chance!

hm yes that is the whole arguement in a nutshell; both appear to be "theories" to the opposite side, bearing no weight and are far too disgusting to even consider. While I am a Christian, I do believe in microevolution, and maybe even the big bang was God creating the universe, but I'm afraid that macroevolution doesn't bear enough weight yet for me to support.  As far as I can see, a lizard can evolve into another breed of lizard but its still a lizard, never changing to a bird etc.

All I can do to justify the claims of a God being up there to have created the universe, is that I look around and see how perfectly everything is shaped and formed to work in harmony - it has to have been designed, not randomized. Heck I bet has gotten annoyed/bored of us and has made loads of alien species, the universe is a pretty big pallet to draw on!

Well thats my opinion, nice to hear all of yours. 

[Edward Bradshaw]

While I am a Christian, I do believe in microevolution, ,

Macro evolution is simply speciation, when a two populations become so distinct they can no longer breed successfully. We've seen this happen both in the lab and in nature. Thats pretty much all there is too it.

but I'm afraid that macroevolution doesn't bear enough weight yet for me to support.  As far as I can see, a lizard can evolve into another breed of lizard but its still a lizard, never changing to a bird etc.

Of course it wouldnt, who told you that? Evolution never suggests it would ever do that, in fact if it did it would falsify commen decent not prove it.

Darwin proposed decent with modification, he never even suggested even at the time that any organism could change into something fundamentally different. Eveyrthing that has ever evolved has just been a modified version of whatever its ancesters were.  We are still Eukaryotes, we are still vertebrates, we are still mammals, we are still apes. At no time in the future will we be anything other than modified apes. In the same way a lizard will never evolve into a non-lizard, just a modified lizard.

Im afraid you've been lied to about what Evolution is, Creationists "macro evolution" misrepresentation is notorious.

All I can do to justify the claims of a God being up there to have created the universe, is that I look around and see how perfectly everything is shaped and formed to work in harmony - it has to have been designed, not randomized.

Evolution is hardly random at all.

[Kamikaze]

both appear to be "theories" to the opposite side

What the **** does that mean? A "theory"? What is this delusional definition of a "theory" you are touting? Argh! *pulls hair out*

[Lt.Cannonfodder]

but I'm afraid that macroevolution doesn't bear enough weight yet for me to support.  As far as I can see, a lizard can evolve into another breed of lizard but its still a lizard, never changing to a bird etc.

Of course it wouldnt, who told you that? Evolution never suggests it would ever do that, in fact if it did it would falsify commen decent not prove it.

I believe he means the whole dinosaur>bird thing. And don't ask me why they think there's no evidence for that.

[Mefustae]

And don't ask me why they think there's no evidence for that.

Most likely as their education into the matter stops at watching Jurassic Park.

[aldo_14]

hm yes that is the whole arguement in a nutshell; both appear to be "theories" to the opposite side, bearing no weight and are far too disgusting to even consider. While I am a Christian, I do believe in microevolution, and maybe even the big bang was God creating the universe, but I'm afraid that macroevolution doesn't bear enough weight yet for me to support.  As far as I can see, a lizard can evolve into another breed of lizard but its still a lizard, never changing to a bird etc.

All I can do to justify the claims of a God being up there to have created the universe, is that I look around and see how perfectly everything is shaped and formed to work in harmony - it has to have been designed, not randomized. Heck I bet has gotten annoyed/bored of us and has made loads of alien species, the universe is a pretty big pallet to draw on!

Well thats my opinion, nice to hear all of yours. 

29+ evidences for macroevolution

NB:  the reason things work in harmony is that we view them as working in harmony, because we could only develop to a stage of cogniscence by being 'in harmony' i.e. adapted to our environment.  It's like, if you pour water into an ice cube tray (actually, this is a really trivial example rather than intended as a direct analogy), the water changes to a 'cube' type physical layout.  Not because the water is a cube, and the tray was constructed to fit it, but because the water has to (or has the capacity to) 'adapt' to fit in that environment.  (like I said, very trivial example; basic point is, just because this universe is suitable for us to exist in does not mean it is designed for us to exist in, it means we are 'designed' - by evolution - to exist within the universe)



It's kind of like, also, how people can look in a Rorschach ink test and see a butterfly, or a persons face, etc.

[Edward Bradshaw]

but I'm afraid that macroevolution doesn't bear enough weight yet for me to support.  As far as I can see, a lizard can evolve into another breed of lizard but its still a lizard, never changing to a bird etc.

Of course it wouldnt, who told you that? Evolution never suggests it would ever do that, in fact if it did it would falsify commen decent not prove it.

I believe he means the whole dinosaur>bird thing. And don't ask me why they think there's no evidence for that.

Oh I see. Well Im sure thats what he meant anyway, thats how most professional Creationists (especially YECs) teach as what macro evolution is.

But back to the point, dinosaurs were not lizards. Richard Owen was the scientist who made up the name, "terrible lizards" because he didn't know the difference yet.  Like I said before, you cant evolve out of your ancestry. So whatever we evolve into in the future, will always be a modified ape (a "kind" of ape), or in the case of birds - modified dinosaurs.

[aldo_14]

I suppose it's worth doubly reinforcing that evolution is diverging, not converging.

[jr2]

Since atheism is a religion

Since when?

Since it requires faith 2b

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths  /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
synonym see BELIEF
- on faith : without question <took everything he said on faith>

and is defined by religion 1b(2) & 2

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

and religion 1b(2) & 2 combines religious 1 & faith 2b

Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French religius, from Latin religiosus, from religio
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
- re·li·gious·ly adverb
- re·li·gious·ness noun

You could say that the religion 1b(2) or 2 atheism is religious 1 faith 2b, as defined by atheism 2a or 2b:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

I'm an atheist,

Dictionary.com definition =One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

I suppose a belief or disbelief constitutes a religion. But this is a paradoxic situation, Which completely buggers my comprehensions of what i just said.........

See response to Kosh above.  Help any?

Moreover, your assertion that 'atheistic evolutionism' is a religion is patently false. Primarily, 'atheist' means 'without religion', the 'absence of religion', so how can a philosophy revolving around the absence of religion be counted as religion?

: See response to Kosh above.

One more thing, can you stop referring to the theory of Evolution as 'evolutionism' as if it is some sort of sinister, rival religion?

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
- evo·lu·tion·ari·ly  /-sh&-"ner-&-lE/ adverb
- evo·lu·tion·ary  /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
- evo·lu·tion·ism  /-sh&-"ni-z&m/ noun
- evo·lu·tion·ist  /-sh(&-)nist/ noun or adjective

Main Entry: ism
Pronunciation: 'i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: -ism
1 : a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
2 : an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief <we all have got to come to grips with our isms -- Jocelyn Elders>

Still got problems with my using the term [evolution 4b ism 1] (or 2 ... jk )?

Y'know, screw making a really long answer outlining what I mean. Show me a scientist that has conducted credible, peer-reviewed studies on the subject of Young-Earth Creationism. Then I will conceed that there are indeed scientists out there who not only believe YEC [who cares whether they do or not?], but can be cited as an authority on it.

...peer-reviewed by who?  Who are these mystical peers, and what did they do to become members of the "peer group" without whose approval all research is worthless?  I'm afraid that the Wright brothers ran afoul of the said group, as well as many others.  But anyways, how can you tell if a scientist's work is peer-reviewed?  He gets articles printed about him?  I mean, I'm sure there are different peer groups around.  Which one did you have in mind?  I think you mean that the scientist needs to have his work published in a scientific journal, and critiqued by other scientists in his field.  But if the bliddy journal won't publish it, then what?  (I mean, the scientist is attaching his name to his work and asking for comment... what could be the problem?)  Did you mean this group of peers & their publlications?     Obviously not, or you wouldn't have a problem.  Exactly which group of peers are you talking about here?

Stop trying to find a hole in evolution and give us a reason to give Creationism or YEC a chance!

OK, now calm down.  Take a deep breath.  Slowly count to ten.  Repeat this six times to yourself: YECs are friends, not fiends.    Seriously, don't blow your stack.  As previously stated, the universe is evidence of a creator, unless it formed itself, or perhaps was formed by beings from an alternate universe that formed itself whatever, Mefustae.  Let me rephrase my Challenge (Search for the words "there aren't any":

Challenge: come up with a theory besides A) "it was created" (by whatever means) or B) "it just happened" or "it just happened, and then it was created", which is the combination of A + B.    You can't, because there aren't any.

It's not, though. 

Religion - theism - is predicated on the belief of a supernatural influence upon life, whereas aetheism does not accept that premise.  Moreso, theism / religion requires a 'framework' of belief, which aetheism doesn't (it's broader than that); to coin a phrase, it's essentially a criticism of the belief that life requires the supernatural.

In light of my response to Kosh, do you have a rebuttal?

(in any case, it still wouldn't change the fact that creationism / ID isn't science)

A) It would be impossible for creationism to be science, as creationism is the belief in creation, not the theory itself.  ID, I believe, is the theory 5.  And anyways, I believe you do mean scientific or scientific theory, to be picky.

Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

Main Entry: sci·en·tif·ic
Pronunciation: "sI-&n-'ti-fik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin scientificus producing knowledge, from Latin scient-, sciens + -i- + -ficus -fic
: of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science

Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Science would have no problem with God creating the universe, but it would not be provable, ie, fact 3:

Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth

As the sample sentence in fact 3 states, the evidence (1a or 1b) gives proof to the fact.

Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: 'e-v&-d&n(t)s, -v&-"den(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
- in evidence
1 : to be seen : CONSPICUOUS <trim lawns...are everywhere in evidence -- American Guide Series: North Carolina>
2 : as evidence

The problem is, the evidence can be used to fit evolution or creation, depending on how you interpret it.  It just depends on who is interpreting the evidence correctly.

The arrow analogy is from Buddha; specifically, that worrying about the afterlife is like worrying about the maker of the arrow rather than removing it.

...And I was saying it would be better to get to know the maker of the arrow before He shot at you, if you get my drift.  I wasn't trying to use Buddha's analogy, I was making my own.

No, no, no... for not using it.    Seriously, though, what do you mean?  (How does He supposedly punish us for using our brains?  )

Well, you're the one aiming to remove the results of millenia of rational investigation in favour of a story, by (trying to) contradicting a scientific, evidenced theory by half truth (at best; for example citing the 2nd law erroneously again).

That answers my half-joke, half-point at the beginning of my serious question.  You really thought that the question was about God punishing you for using/not using your brains?  Are you going to answer the main thrust of my question now?

Seriously, though, what do you mean?  (How does He supposedly punish us for using our brains?)

Plus, I'd like to know why I have a big wodge of entirely unnecessary lower intestine, which has no purpose or need except to facilitate flatulence.  For example.

Is it just me, or did you just answer your own question ("...except to facilitate flatulence")?  Ever tried living without flatulating?  It gets pretty painful.

And to think I linked an abiogenesis article earlier explaining how wrong these types of 'one off' chance calculations are.  Ah well, last time I link this; I'll assume you missed it; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html (with sources)

You have to keep in mind that each time I check back here there's about 10 people who have responded, and their responses are about as long as mine.  I'll check it out.

Then you know that the resulting (citing) text is pre-biased, unscientific and worthless as any sort of factual source - picking and choosing sources to support a pre-conclusion, the antithesis of science and rationality.

I suppose you'd have us just look at the opposing theories and try to compromise them into the middle then?  Of course the text will support one side or the other.  You were expecting proof for evolution in that article?  You think that there is no proof for creation, and the only proof there is is that which supports evolution?  (And you're not biased?)  You've got to realize that as I've said, there's "proof" on both sides.  The truth depends on who's interpreting it correctly.

BTW picking and choosing sources to support a pre-conclusion... hmm.  You spend 10+ years of your life learning to become a scientist.  You are taught by evolutionary scientists, as you cannot even be an evolutionary scientist and point out flaws in the evolutionary theory, and expect to keep your job.  So you become an evolutionist.  Then, you are sent into the field to study said "evidence".  Gee, makes me wonder how you're gonna interpret it!  You could say the same for creationist scientists, but the thing is, to be unbiased you have to consider all possible theories that come up.  The creationist scientist already considers evolution, because that's usually his former viewpoint.  If he hasn't considered it already, he will find it in abundance in the scientific field.  The evolutionary scientist, on the other hand, would throw out the creation viewpoint as "discredited" without even considering it, as he thinks that his peers have already done all of the work for him in discrediting creationism.  That is, unless he realizes that of evidence is not even being dealt with, I guess because the evolutionary scientist don't think its worth their time.  ...Also, just when did the evolutionist camp decide they had enough evidence on their side to not consider ideas brought forth by their creationist colleagues?  And what did that evidence consist of?  I do wonder.

Well, we simply pointed out what the Vatican said, I believe in response to portraying evolution as some sort of side in a holy (unholy?) war, when it's simply a field of science, same as gravity, thermodynamics, geology.....etc.

I will have to look that up.  Darn.  Or you could look it up.  Never mind.  I think it was m.  (m?...)  BTW He's back now, I brought him back from camp yesterday.  Can't wait, heh, heh.  I do hope he'll find a terminal where he has time to think about the thoughts he's trying to outline, though.  Or we'll get more of this:

Sheesh.  You guys take up half a !!@#!! page with posts that consist of "You're wrong!  We have proved it!" and false assumptions.  ("The dating machine says that this artifact is 100,000 years old, so it must be!  That proves that creationists are wrong; therefore when they say our dating methods are inaccurate, they're wrong!")

and, of course, this:

Sheesh.  I take up half a !!@#!! page with posts that consist of "You're wrong!  We have proved it!" and false assumptions.

Fixed it for you.

It's funny ( ), but you can't really learn anything from it, except to be careful not to make mistakes when posting on a controversial topic.

The Bible doesnt say HOW god created, and it says that a day is a thosuand years.

Exodus 20:11  2 Peter 3:8-9 is talking about a day being a thousand years with the Lord, not in a chronological sense.  ie, one of two explanations (or both): Time doesn't bother God. (Which is likely, given context in verse 9) or If you are with God, time will not bother you.  The same verses in the King James Translation would probably help understanding, I think it's a bit clearer in this case.

Why does your Bible have to be 100% literal and 100% non-myth and non-legend to be true? Humans wrote the Bible, I know its hard for some fundamentalists to accept, but its true Im sorry.

2 Peter 1:20-21
OK, if the Bible is written by fallible man, then yes, none of it really matters, it's the thought that counts, you can pick and choose.

Scientific analysis is the only objective way we can know anything, you want to replace that with unwielding absolute faith *snip*

Nah.  Just don't exclude evidence based on your own prejudice as to how the world began and how we were formed.  Once someone sees the evidence (for both sides), they might decide to learn more and study the Bible or something.  You cannot say that creationism is unscientific just because it's not accepted by evolutionary peers.  Can those peers disprove the evidence?  Ignoring is not disproving.  I wonder how many people would watch a televised debate with credible scientist from both sides.  I think of people would, as long as the debaters didn't fall for hiding their arguments behind scientific lingo.  They would have to either explain what they were saying or have someone do it for them.

Already addressed this "morality" argument at length in post #670.

You could have given me a link.  I like being lazy.  http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.670.html  That easy.  Or even better, http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg833629.html#msg833629  saves me scrolling.  Wah, I have to find it?  Okay.

First of all you dont hear of many atheists that go killing raping and pillaging. I dont know why fundamentalists seem to be so oblivious to that fact when they sit down and type such nonsence.

Interesting.  I know that some Christians commit criminal acts, too, but do what do you really think the majority of "killers, rapists and thieves" are?  Nothing against the atheists, but their viewpoint does relieve them from accountability after they die, so if they can get away from the authorities down here, then why not?  Imagine this scenario: It is dusk, and you are taking a shortcut through a back alley in New York City when your car dies.  It won't start, and you forgot your cell phone.  You get out of the car and head towards the nearest busy street you can hear, which is still out of sight.  You hear a door opening, and look behind you to see three large males walking rapidly towards you, talking in undertones amongst themselves.  Would you be more comfortable to learn that A) They were Atheists.  B) They were Muslims.  C) They were Buddhists.  D)  They were Christians.

Interestingly, Confucious the Chinese atheist talked about loving your neighbour and treating others as you would like to be treated centuries before Jesus.

Really.  That's interesting.  BTW, what nationality was Jesus?  Oh, and I do believe he meant to continue loving your neighbor...Leviticus 19:9-18, emphasis on verse 18.

Buddism is probably they only religion I know of that doesnt have blood on its hands.

I do not have the sources to prove it, but I sincerely doubt that there is any religion that doesn't have murderers, rapists, or thieves that claim it as their own.  I'm sure you would agree.

Second, animals still manage to live with each other including insects like bees and ants where thousands of them spend their entire lives in service of one or two queens that will eventually mate.

That works equally well with evolution or creation.

No there are no absolute morals.

"No there are no absolute morals...in my opinion"

What we have is inbuilt desire to get along with our fellow human. If humans didnt get along we would have probably died out long ago because we couldnt get along.

Tell that to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Bashar Al-Assad.  (I included the last ones because of their human right records and/or their stated desire to drive Israel "into the sea"...which would be like us threatening to turn Iran into a "sea of glass".)  These folks certainly didn't/don't think that they were/are supposed to get along!  Don't forget all the serial killers, sleeping away their years in jail cells, and the rapists and thieves etc... is wrong with them?  How does evolution explain them?  Most of them didn't do what they did out of a need for survival!

Thirdly, I do love it when literalist Bible Believing Christians being bring this up. You guys try and lecture to us about morality when you believe in some of the most bloody and disgusting books ever written. Thats right Im talking about the Old Testament here. I know Christians get around having to perform the ridiculous laws of Leviticus, but these were still supposedly laws given by your God. And how many times did God have people killed? How many times did God order his chosen people to whipe out entire civilisations "without mercy", to pillage destroy and kill every living thing including animals. Sometimes the Bible God says its because they were wicked wicked people, another times he says its his chosen peoples "inheritance". The actions of his "chosen people" and their God, can only be accurately be described as a murdering horde of barbarians.

You pretty much answered your own question, although I should clarify; It's because they were wicked wicked people, and it's his chosen people's "inheritance".  I think that offering toddlers as live offerings to a god to bring good luck or what the heck ever would qualify you for the "wicked wicked" title.  (I'm not mentioning the other things they did...)  And, if you notice, in Genesis 15:16, God gives this "wicked wicked" society more time, because their sin had not yet reached its "full measure" - so God is patient, but has a limit.

The New Testament is admittedly much better, but still has some pretty stupid morals in places. This God has to kill his own son

That's a relational, not original (origin, or source) sense.  God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - the Son is Son in relation to the Father, and the Trinity is Three persons in One.  The Son "took on flesh" (put on a physical body) and came down to Terra to save us from our sins.

, but Christians tell us it was just him in in human form, for our sins. And why does he have to do that? Well Paul tells us, because without bloodshed there can be no forgiveness! The only reason I can see for this surpreme God killing himself is to make a point and then make us feel guilty for making him do it!

You fail to realize the full import of sin.  "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ."  We are eternal beings, we have a soul.  When we die, we do not cease to exist.  God is holy and must punish sin.  Therefore, if He carried out His law in regards to us, we would be doomed for all of eternity.  God provided a way out of this through His Son (second person of Trinity) Jesus, who He raised from the dead the third day after He was killed.  For an overview, look at Romans 9:6-10:13

What Creationists believe is worse still, that it was becuase of Adam and Eve that Jesus killed himself.

No, because of Adam and Eve and every single one of their descendants.  And Jesus didn't kill Himself, He allowed Himself to be killed.

That means we didnt have anything to do with this mess anyway.

Everyone is a sinner, by birth (Psalms 51:5) and by choice (Romans 3-4)

God as we can see from the OT in several place, passes down the punishment for generations.

Exodus 20 and Ezekiel 18 would appear to contradict each other, but they don't.  As this site explains, Exodus is talking about consequences, and Ezekiel about punishment.  (Read the links to Exodus & Ezekiel, it should make sense.)

I could go on and on about this,

I guess you'll have to now.

but I see theres more to cover.

Anyways, all of these points are moot and void if we're talking about a book made by man, based on a false story of how Terra came into being.  As I've said before, some attempts have been made to rationalize that God used evolution, but I don't see how that could reconcile with Romans 5:12.

Nonsence. Either put up or shut up about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics being some kind of problem for evolution, its been addressed countless times on this thread but you keep using it as an argument.

I do believe that law basically means that energy naturally cascades from more available to less available forms, correct?

You're using Pascals Wager? Seriously?

No.  You think I went through all of this just to explain something as simple as Pascal's Wager?!?   :

But regardless, for any religion to be correct, God needs to be Creator. 

No, some religions do not have a god at all.

*smacks self*
That's right, I forgot about atheism!! 
Seriously, though:

The Muslim religion I am less familiar with.  The Jewish religion is the same as the Christian, except they don't believe that God sent Jesus as Savior, they think He's still coming.

But regardless, for any religion to be correct, God needs to be Creator.

I just messed up and made a new paragraph where I shouldn't have.  I was talking the three big monotheistic religions (Christian, Jewish, Muslim).  As a broader statement, I don't think there's any religion except atheism that doesn't have a Higher Being involved (essentially, ID).

Assuming there is one, it cant be tested by science and faith isnt going to allow you to "know" anything at all.

Faith is believing in something when you have no evidence for, or when there is evidence to the contrary. Its unverifiable gut feelings that unfortunatly for you people from all religions feel and feel strongly about for their particular beliefs, so this is no way to be able to test if your beliefs are accurate. 

Wrong.  I believe you're talking Fideism, not faith.  I mean faith 2a(1) & (2), 2b(2) and 3:

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths  /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
synonym see BELIEF
- on faith : without question <took everything he said on faith>

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

I wonder what goes through Creationists minds when they make this mathematical argument for how improbable evolution is. Its the same as saying ice or salt crystals are near impossible to form because the probability of the molocules just happening to be in the right place at the right time to too great.

I do believe you should find that the chances of evolution happening aren't just minute, they're so small that the opposite must be true.  Your argument above sounds sort of like, "I think, therefore I am, I am, therefore I evolved!".

So, Evolution is compatible with death being a result of mankind's rebellion, not a vital part of the origin of species?

Sure, but science cant comment on such religious ideas.

So, mankind sinning before they evolved so that death could come into the world and make natural selection work is perfectly, scientifically, sound?

This is the reason some Evolutionists should have their beliefs classified as a religion: they refuse to examine any alternative.

Of course they will, so long as its science. Intelligent Design isnt science.

You'd say that theology isn't, either, but look at science 2a.  It's a scientific theory.

Science cant test the supernatural, but science will gladly give ID a chance if it ever came up with something that was testable and objective.

...Such as the fact that coding doesn't happen?  Of course, you couldn't test that, as it'd take a few million years.  Intelligent 1a -> Intelligence 2a or 2b.  Intelligent Design 1, 2a:

Main Entry: 1de·sign
Pronunciation: di-'zIn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, to outline, indicate, mean, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French designer to designate, from Medieval Latin designare, from Latin, to mark out, from de- + signare to mark -- more at SIGN
transitive verb
1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : DEVISE, CONTRIVE
2 a : to conceive and plan out in the mind <he designed the perfect crime> b : to have as a purpose : INTEND <she designed to excel in her studies> c : to devise for a specific function or end <a book designed primarily as a college textbook>
3 archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name
4 a : to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of b : to draw the plans for <design a building>
intransitive verb
1 : to conceive or execute a plan
2 : to draw, lay out, or prepare a design
- de·sign·ed·ly  /-'zI-n&d-lE/ adverb

So, an Intelligent being Designing the universe isn't scientific?  No, it's just not scientifically provable.  There's evidence, not proof for, both atheistic evolution and ID, again depending on how you interpret them.

[jr2]

He is right no scientist would consider Intelligent Design. Thats because Intelligent Design says its a scientific theory, but it isnt science. Science cant test the supernatural, but science will gladly give ID a chance if it ever came up with something that was testable and objective. IDs poster child of Irreducibly Complexity can be shown to be bad logic without even without turning to science. But the problem is guys in the Discovery Institute dont DO any science at all. They  spend all their time lobbying school boards, and making presentations to the media. Thats not how you do science!

How Discovery Institute Functions

Discovery Institute fellows submit their analyses and proposals for dialogue through seminars, conferences, and debates; they produce reports, articles, books, Congressional testimony, films and an interactive Internet website that helps spread the knowledge of the Institute's ideas. They also consult with elected and appointed officials, business people, academics, media and the general public to show how 21st century humanity can benefit from the principles, policies, and practices advocated by the Institute.

The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature; the principles of representative democracy and public service expounded by the American Founders; free market economics domestically and internationally; the social requirement to balance personal liberty with responsibility; the spirit of voluntarism crucial to civil society; the continuing validity of American international leadership; and the potential of science and technology to promote an improved future for individuals, families and communities.

Fellows, members, board, advisors and staff of Discovery constitute a distributive public policy community, connected through cyberspace, with headquarters in Seattle and an office in Washington, D.C. Fellows are multi-disciplinary in background and approach. A research and advocacy project is selected when it is in harmony with Discovery's mission, when the Institute can make an original and significant contribution to the issue's development and when it is within the Institute's resources. Most issues selected are of national or international scope and fall in the fields of science, technology, environment and economy, international affairs, culture, defense, legal reform, religion and public life, transportation, and institutions of representative democracy, as well as bi-national cooperation in the international Cascadia region.

Financially, the institute is a non-profit educational foundation funded by philanthropic foundation grants, corporate and individual contributions and the dues of Institute members.

Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:

• supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
• supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
• supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
• encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.

Discovery's Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, many of whom also have affiliations with colleges and universities.

The Center's Director is Dr. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University.

The Center's Associate Director is Dr. John G. West, who holds a Ph.D. in Government from Claremont Graduate University and a B.A. in Communications from the University of Washington.

Discovery Institute — Center for Science and Culture
1511 Third Ave., Suite 808 — Seattle, WA 98101
206-292-0401 phone — 206-682-5320 fax
email: [email protected]

Program Directors
Stephen C Meyer


Associate Directors
John G West


Senior Fellows
Michael J Behe
[url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=51&isFellow=true]David Berlinski
Paul Chien
William A Dembski
David DeWolf
Guillermo Gonzalez
Michael Newton Keas
Jay W Richards
Wesley J Smith
Jonathan Wells
Benjamin Wiker
Jonathan Witt


Fellows
Francis J Beckwith
Raymond Bohlin
Walter Bradley
J. Budziszewski
John Angus Campbell
Robert Lowry Clinton
Jack Collins
Robin Collins
William Lane Craig
Brian Frederick
Mark Hartwig
Kenneth Hermann
Cornelius G Hunter
Robert Kaita
Dean Kenyon
Robert C Koons
Forrest M Mims
Scott Minnich
J.P. Moreland
Paul Nelson
Nancy Pearcey
Joseph Poulshock
Pattle Pak-Toe Pun
John Mark Reynolds
Henry Schaefer
Wolfgang Smith
Charles Thaxton
Richard Weikart

You arent confusing abiogenesis with evolution again are you?

abiogenesis=The creation of the first life.  evolution=What that life had better have done in an awful big hurry if it hoped to survive past the first generation.  How many abiogenesis incidents did we need before we got one that evolved the ability to replicate itself?  Your slate is being wiped clean each time the original organism expires.  And, we'd better hope that it evolves the ability to replicate itself correctly!

Atheism is not a religion at all. How can it be, its simply defined as a nonbelief in god or gods. Materialist atheism is a much more specific form of atheism, which is also disbelief in the supernatural. None of these require faith, which I would have thought was a prerequisite of religion to be worthy of the name.

See response to Kosh at beginning of post.

I dont believe in an afterlife, but most "evolutionists" are theists. Scientists and Christians like Ken Miller and the renouned palentologist and fiery Bible-believing pentacostol preacher Dr Rev Robbert Bakker have no problem with it either. The issue there is faith Jr.

Erm, so they believe that God is, but that He is totaly inconsequential, because He had nothing to do with our being here?  Is that what you mean, Ed Broadshawl?  (Sorry, that was for "Jr." - jr2 doesn't stand for "Junior 2")  Or that he did have something to do with our being here, but there's no proof of that, and we should just take His word for it, because He said so, and God doesn't lie, except in places like Exodus 20:11?

Poor maths doesn't prove anything.

Neither does poor spelling x2.

Big deal, Americans arent so smart.

Funny how they've got all the tech, though.

http://www.fugly.com/videos/5807/interview_about_world_affairs.html

Funny.  In a canned sort of way.  You do know that those clips were canned, right?

And science isnt decided by popular vote of an ignorent impressionable populous, but that is what Creationists pander to.

Career advise: Don't ever run for public office, unless you lie about the people you want to vote for you.  But, on a more serious note, that's why we have three branches of government balancing each other.  That way we can't turn inside out with one fickle vote of the public.  It'd take about three or four votes in a row to get that started, and even then, it would be reversible.

What do you mean "wrong"? The Force in Star Wars is based off Chi, the Taoist concept of mystical energy. (which like I said earlier is an atheistic religion)

Is said force intelligent?

both appear to be "theories" to the opposite side

What the **** does that mean? A "theory"? What is this delusional definition of a "theory" you are touting? Argh! *pulls hair out*

*sigh*
theory 5:

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS

I believe he means the whole dinosaur>bird thing. And don't ask me why they think there's no evidence for that.

Because you can hardly have the darn things evolving for a million years without having a million remains showing all the various stages in-between, probably in the same place as others like it.  (And, if fossils are so hard to form, then how come the fossils we do find are all fully functioning kinds?  You would expect some in-between forms aka "missing links" to be found.)

Most likely as their education into the matter stops at watching Jurassic Park.

Not likely, given the fact that evolution is taught in 100% of public high schools and state universities.  Hey, if you're lucky you might hear about ID!

hm yes that is the whole arguement in a nutshell; both appear to be "theories" to the opposite side, bearing no weight and are far too disgusting to even consider. While I am a Christian, I do believe in microevolution, and maybe even the big bang was God creating the universe, but I'm afraid that macroevolution doesn't bear enough weight yet for me to support.  As far as I can see, a lizard can evolve into another breed of lizard but its still a lizard, never changing to a bird etc.

All I can do to justify the claims of a God being up there to have created the universe, is that I look around and see how perfectly everything is shaped and formed to work in harmony - it has to have been designed, not randomized. Heck I bet has gotten annoyed/bored of us and has made loads of alien species, the universe is a pretty big pallet to draw on!

Well thats my opinion, nice to hear all of yours. 

29+ evidences for macroevolution

NB:  the reason things work in harmony is that we view them as working in harmony, because we could only develop to a stage of cogniscence by being 'in harmony' i.e. adapted to our environment.  It's like, if you pour water into an ice cube tray (actually, this is a really trivial example rather than intended as a direct analogy), the water changes to a 'cube' type physical layout.  Not because the water is a cube, and the tray was constructed to fit it, but because the water has to (or has the capacity to) 'adapt' to fit in that environment.  (like I said, very trivial example; basic point is, just because this universe is suitable for us to exist in does not mean it is designed for us to exist in, it means we are 'designed' - by evolution - to exist within the universe)



It's kind of like, also, how people can look in a Rorschach ink test and see a butterfly, or a persons face, etc.

No, evolution does not "design" us to fit together in harmony; it only favors those that reproduce the most efficiently and manage to survive the best.  That could favor working together in harmony until you started running out of resources.  And if you did, you'd have to evolve into a predator awfully fast, before you starved.

but I'm afraid that macroevolution doesn't bear enough weight yet for me to support.  As far as I can see, a lizard can evolve into another breed of lizard but its still a lizard, never changing to a bird etc.

Of course it wouldnt, who told you that? Evolution never suggests it would ever do that, in fact if it did it would falsify commen decent not prove it.

I believe he means the whole dinosaur>bird thing. And don't ask me why they think there's no evidence for that.

Oh I see. Well Im sure thats what he meant anyway, thats how most professional Creationists (especially YECs) teach as what macro evolution is.

But back to the point, dinosaurs were not lizards. Richard Owen was the scientist who made up the name, "terrible lizards" because he didn't know the difference yet.  Like I said before, you cant evolve out of your ancestry. So whatever we evolve into in the future, will always be a modified ape (a "kind" of ape), or in the case of birds - modified dinosaurs.

Yes, I believe the word used before "dinosaurs" was probably "dragon" or "sea serpent" or the like.

Birds are modified dinosaurs?  How did they manage to evolve hollow bones at the same time as wings at the same time as stronger muscles to power those wings at the same time as larger lungs to give oxygen to said muscles at the same time as a set of legs that could take the landing?  Before you had anything close to a working product, you would have a liability that would be culled.

I suppose it's worth doubly reinforcing that evolution is diverging, not converging.

Diverging, as in separating out from a common source, vs converging, or merging to a common destination.  Ok, I must have missed it.  Who said that we were evolving to a common destination?

Anyways... I was kind of hoping to get back to some of the stuff I hadn't answered previously.  Oh, well, maybe next time.

Meanwhile, have a look at these:
Evolutionism: The New Intolerance
Scientific Intolerance
I have articles that have more to do with the thread topic, but I have to go through them.  Meanwhile, have a look.
PS The address given in those articles is outdated.  The e-mail still works, though.

EDIT: Darn 50,000 char limit.  Oh, well, I guess I'll just pull an Ed.