Only in America...I would love to see stats from other countries. Europe must have articles entitled, "Stupid Americans don't know science." You can believe in God and understand the Jewish text Genesis is not literal. I find to sad/funny that Christians take the Jewish Torah, make it their own, then interpret that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

"Only in America": land of the stupid, narrow minded, Evangelical, Conservative right wing NUT!

Only in America... No scientific proof can be more valid than the ideas of cattle sacrificing primitives that believed the world was just a couple of generations old and that all animals lived within walking distance from Noah's house.

And we still wonder why we are 17th in Science Studies in the world?

As a former high school science teacher I can tell you that these closely-held creationist views are an impediment to the education system in this country. Whether in science, history, mathematics, or any of a number of other subjects we would like for students to be able to draw reasonable, correct, rational conclusions from facts and evidence (critical thinking) but are hampered by the religious indoctrination that teaches children that they are required to believe based only on faith and that facts and evidence contrary to their preconceived belief are wrong, and even blasphemous. In spite of the separation of church and state in the Constitution many so-called "science teachers" in this country teach creationism and many teachers could teach evolution only at the risk of their jobs.

Surprisingly, there were many fine fundamentalist Christian students in my earth science classes who willingly accepted the scientific geologic time line, including the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth and the evolution of life from single celled plants over the past 3.8 or so billion years. They also somehow simultaneously believed the creation version on weekends. I took that belief in two mutually exclusive ideas as a sign of hope.

Don,

As a child I went to church and believed the creation story, but, I also learned about evolution from my parents. When I was 10 I realized that the two were mutually exclusive and was so shocked that I was able to believe in both at the same time. I felt ridiculous. Glad to hear that older kids are caught in the same situation. I tossed out the creation myth.

Amazing....here we are in the 21st century and 40% of the people have the minds still stuck in the 1st century. We should be VERY VERY afraid that these people have any kind of influence on our society, businesses, schools and so forth. There is NO EXCUSE for that kind of IGNORANCE in this day and age.

Be afraid. They do have influence in the form of right wing fundamentalist Republicans and Tea Partiers.

Creation-ism is now a theme park in Kentucky!

That smells like fundamentalist thought making money behind the curtain of religion. Sounds like the Wizard, uh? And tax free? Doing everyone "a favor" while they stuff money in their pockets in the name of religion, creation-ism. So religion can now make money like the casino business, but with out paying taxes? And just where does all that money go? "Missions?" ....and I'll sell ya some beautiful land in South Louisiana on the water, great for retirement, for a steal!

Deceiving headline... I read the results as the mass majority of the people believe in Gods existence and influence while those that believe in creationism lead the pack of choices. Typical lame stream spin... sigh.

And 38 percent of Americans, the poll estimates, believe God guided the process

A great number of people held this belief at one point. The insistence of those who hold to the 10,000 year creation date and the fanatic attack they made on these people helped push them over the line - into a stance that denies even the existence of God. Religious fanatics are their own worst enemy. These same fanatics infect their children and send them to school to disrupt any intelligent discussion of creation in the Science Classroom.

I believe that we need to teach a high school level class dealing with creationist myths. If you ever bothered to learn where all of the Christian religious customs come from, you would see how primitive religion really is. People would also realize that it is man made.

Those 40 people in the room are republicans and tea partiers for sure.

The force with which an electron attracts a proton is measureable and is science.

The molecular structure of organic molecules can be measured consistently via Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. This is science.

The bending of light rays thru a gravitational field is measureable and is science.

The relativity of time is measurable from the known degradation of radioactive isotopes, and is science.

The rotational, translational, and vibrational energies associated with the double bond between carbon and oxygen is measureable, reproduceable, and is science.

Neither Creationist nor Evolutionist ideas are either measureable or reproduceable. Both are filled with logical flaws.

For example, a few flaws in the Creationist model are:

The English Bishop who "calculated" genesis to be about 6,000 - 10,000 years ago never looked at cabon dating which has an accuracy of about 24K years, or other radioactive decay methods that have accuracies that are much longer. He did not consider the evidence surrounding fossils, or magnetic pole deviations.

And, likewise, some flaws in the Evolutionist model are,

According to theory, biochemicals were originally formed in the oceans, or at least in a mostly aqueous solution of some sort. The only problem is that proteins, made up of amino acids, actually disassociate in an aqueous solution. It is impossible for them to form in such a manner, although this is continually taught at the high school level. Another serious problem is that in order to replicate DNA, an enzyme must initiate the process. Without this enzyme, DNA cannot be replicated. However, this very enzyme is actually formed by the unique nucleic acid sequence of a given DNA, and cannot be synthesized without the DNA in the first place. So in summary, DNA cannot exist without the enzyme that it produces, and the enzyme needed cannot be made with out the DNA. So we have a serious contradiction. A very famous Soviet biochemist who did quite a bit of research in chemical evolution, made the comment that because of this unsolveable contradiction, all of macro evolution is mere fantasy. Unfortunately, I cannot remember his name, but will try to google it if anyone is interested.

Those of you who think of yourselves as enlightened and think you are more intelligent than those who "believe" in creation because you "believe" in evolution are fooling yourselves to such an extent that you will never even know how much you don't understand. It is like explaining differential equations to a child learning fractions. And in this analogy, you are the child who is learning fractions. To give one relatively simple example of a scientific occurance that is measureable and reproduceable, consider a rubber ball with a given volume and given mass falling from a given height thru a medium of constant composition, temperature, and pressure - such as air at 760mm pressure and 30 degrees Celsius. The acceleration of this ball as it falls to the ground, due to gravity, will be the same (within a certain degree of accuracy) regardless of how many times you perform the experiment. Your result, which should come out to 32ft/sec squared, will be the same result each time you drop the ball. This is science.

Both evolution and creation are theories that belong in a humanities class, such as philosophy or religion, not a science class. (And by the way, it is "creation", not "creationism". Those who refer to this theory as "creationism" only display more of their ignorance.)

THANK YOU FDJ. People are way too full of themselves these days.

So if proteins disassociate in water then my soup is only amino acids. I thought there were proteins in it.

Don says the following: As a former high school science teacher I can tell you that these closely-held creationist views are an impediment to the education system in this country. Whether in science, history, mathematics, or any of a number of other subjects we would like for students to be able to draw reasonable, correct, rational conclusions from facts and evidence (critical thinking) but are hampered by the religious indoctrination that teaches children that they are required to believe based only on faith and that facts and evidence contrary to their preconceived belief are wrong, and even blasphemous.

Don - while you are entitled to your opinion, I need to let you know that your claims here are the same that are written in the Communist Manifesto.

It may be very well that you are not American. Trying to throw your ideas around are like picking up hundred pound balls of lead... very heavy and very difficult to adapt to.

You have shut out the potential for faith to work in your life. Your claims disallow you to accept faith as a tenant towards belief therefore I must conclude that you aren't much of a science teacher. I guess you forget how much theory there is in science.. and theory is????

The only thing I can say about your comments with any certainty is I am glad I wasn't one of your students. Reasonable, correct and rational conclusions are drawn from imperical data... There is no imperical data that contradicts faith. Every bit of scientific theory is faith. The only difference between religious faith and scientific faith is.... um.... there is no difference.

The Ultimate Evolutionist Contradiction:

Black Hole theory states that the larger the mass of a star, the more likely it is to collapse upon itself and become a black hole. For medium sized stars, such as our own sun, when the explosive nature of the star becomes less effective than the gravitational implosive nature of the star, then it will collapse upon its own mass and become a very dense "dead" star. But the important point here is that the larger the mass, the higher the probability of it becoming a black hole, or "point mass".

The problem here is that Black Hole theory directly contradicts the Big Bang Theory. According to the Big Bang Theory, all the mass in our known universe was at one time concentrated into one singulariy, where an explosion caused the mass to be blown apart, creating the galaxies that are clearly moving away from each other, much like watermelon seeds grow further and further apart as the watermelon grows in size. The contradiction is this: according to Black Hole theory, that singularity could never have exploded into the known Universe of today. It should have simply collapsed upon itself as one complete Singularity Point Mass, consisting of all the mass of all the galaxies, complete with all of their composite stars. So according to Black Hole theory, which makes quite a bit of sense, I might add, our Universe should not exist, because the Big Bang Theory makes no sense.

Those of you who "believe" in evolution are taking an awful lot of contradictory theory as fact. At least those who "believe" in creation admit to doing so based upon faith.

jimofthewoods:

There is a difference between the words "dissolve" and "disassociate". Dissolving proteins in water is simply a process of moving the molecules further apart from each other as they existed when in solid form. Disassociation is a chemical process of equiliibrium. Over time, something called hydrolysis occurs which actually produces a different chemical altogether.

Have you ever wondered what happens to the chlorine you put in a pool? A really good example of the difference between dissolution and disassociation is "dissolving" chlorine tablets in a swimming pool. After a while, the dissolved chlorine reacts with the water in a process called hydrolysis to form an entirely new chemical, so that if you test for chlorine in the water, it is no longer there.....at least not in the form it was orignally in when you "dissolved" it.

So don't worry. You're probably still eating proteins, not amino acids, in your soup. (unless you let the soup just sit there for many years allowing chemical equillibrium occur)

Those of you who "believe" in evolution are taking an awful lot of contradictory theory as fact. At least those who "believe" in creation admit to doing so based upon faith.

As dangerous as "religious" fanaticism can be, atheist/evolutionist can be just as dangerous and has resulted in the deaths of millions, possibly more than religion (since there were far less people alive a thousand years ago compared to recent history).

I believe tolerance is a two way street. Truth is, those in the ID camp have tremendous evidence to support some sort of "designer" versus random chance.

In any event, I find it intellectually dishonest to demonize anyone for believing in something that you may consider absurd, particularly when the all beliefs, for God or against can be used for great harm and crimes... and HAVE been.

singularity

Basically the scientific term for supernatural.

Mr. Rogers, religion is, has been and will continue to be the greatest threat to the survival of mankind since man created it. It is more dangerous than any disease or famine or flood or even a tsunami.

I am a Deist and in my experience atheists are by far "better" people than fundamentalists. You perceive the world as you wish it to be and ignore all facts because none back up your position. Hyperbole is just a fanciful lie, sir.

Yes, I was raised Christian, I learned.

God? Creation? Which God? Which Gods?

It's funny how in the history of man, there was a time when there were many Gods, and the masses believed what they were taught about those Gods for thousands of years.

But then, about 2000 years ago, it was decided there was a new God in town. All the other Gods that were the creators were now fictitious. So the billions of people who had faith and believed in any other Gods were just flat out wrong. And this is because the humans of 2000 years ago were so advanced (Please note sarcasm here).

So now, with all of our knowledge and understanding of reality, some still believe in a story which mostly doesn't make sense.

Of course we all believe there was an Ark, with 2 of each animal aboard when the world flooded. And of course we believe ,and know it to be possible that all of those animals sat and socialized and never, (Yeah, get this one...lol) ate or attacked their natural food source. I think the Lions were playing ball with the Zebras, and that is how the officials in the NFL got their uniforms. Yeah, that's it!

But I will agree with both sides here. Evolution and Creation (Creationism) are both theories. I agree with that statement. But, I'd have to point out that one is about 99.9% proven, (yeah, sorry, it's just not 100% proven), while the other (Creation) is using no actual scientific findings.

Now, I know I'm going to get some static here from the "Believers", but I'd have to ask you to do one thing. Sit down, and actually read your Bible. Then actually think about the scripts that were written, and see if they make any sense in today's world.

Now think of a Jules Verne, a man who had fantastic novels, who wrote of futuristic fictional books. Some of his writings actually came true, it was looking forward in time and science. Then think of the Bible, the fictional stuff that we know didn't exist, Dragons, etc..., and the violence, and punishments, the fear, the incest, while the list goes on. I personally don't see the attraction of following scriptures from men who saw no future, but dwelled on making people fear them.

And don't you think the "All mighty", the God that "inspired" the men who wrote the bible may have know some of the facts about the world he supposedly created?

The church has for the most part, been at odds with science each and every time something in the bible is proven incorrect. What do they call it? Blasphemy? One thing for certain, at least they can't torture and kill the non belivers anymore, you know, the way they used to. What a great group they were, huh?

Should I now ask why Christians think other religions that exist today are so wrong? How they easily mock a religion like Islam? Then are insulted when non believers mock them? And I only bring up Islam because approx. the same amount of people in the world believe in both Islam and Christianity, while they both seem to think each is the wrong religion.

Evolution or Creation or creation through evolution? I'm a Christian Democrat. Someone please give me the link to the scientist who made something living from something inert. Can't locate it. Does it even exist? No.....am sure not. We spent millions in building a structure to crash two atoms and see what happens. Since we "created" this perfect structure I'm not sure what the point of the science is however I am open to it. Any yet? Anything? The answer is still no. I have a four year education and am open to science but until someone creates life from nothing, I don't buy the evolution argument. We all evolve into our environment. We were created with that ability. God forbit we give credit for this wonderful thoughtful protection for our existance in a multitude of environments to God. Again, until something living is created by something inert....I am a Creationist. A Creationist who is all for funding of the science to learn more and more and more. However please quit throwing evolution in my face as fact. Even in all science classes it is called the "theory" of evolution and will be until proven a fact.

FDJ, you're about 25 years behind in your knowledge of biochemistry/abiogenesis. It is theorized that RNA was the first form of "life". RNA has the ability to perform enzymatic functions, can self-replicate, makes up the active site of the ribosome (which synthesizes amino acids into proteins), is a bridgeway between DNA and protein formation, RNA nucleotides have been found in meteors, and RNA nucleotide formation can be performed through naturally occurring processes.

Of course, this doesn't mean that life did form that way, only that life could have formed this way.

Oh Brianb, you never answered the following from another thread:

Brian, (and others)

You are correct, I am not a believer, nor do I feel the need to be, and that's my right. I lead a clean moral life, and know right from wrong.

I do however, (like many who have their beliefs) believe I have as much right to spout out my disbelief when provoked.

2 more muslims just found out....THERE ARE NO VIRGINS...and died FOOLS!!

I find the above comment both amusing, but also disrespectful towards about 1/3 of the worlds population.

Why is it when someone spouts out against another religion that they do not belong or believe in, it's OK? But when a non believer as myself spouts out against Christianity, I will rot in "your hell"?

When you are alone, facing God at the last judgment, tell Him how imaginary believing in Him was. I'm sure He'll understand. It's amazing how bold people can be when they have no understanding what's on the other side of the veil of death. There are no excuses at that point.

I wonder about the above statement, while also finding it humorous. Answer these questions.

About 1/3 of the world believes in christianity, what will happen to the other 2/3 when they die?

About 1/3 of the worlds population believes in Islam, why can't they be right? If they are, whose hell will a christian go?

And finally, in the history of man, there were many beliefs that lasted thousands of years, with many gods, that had many followers who knew these gods existed. These people were sure they existed, but you now know they didn't, nor believe in them. Why? How can you be so sure?

You are blind, and you can't choose, you have to be chosen.

AnaBanana-1782128 - Here's a link for you:

http://godisimaginary.com

There's an important aspect of a scientific theory that seems to be missing in the above discussion: its value for explaining observations we make of the past, and predicting what will happen in the future. Evolution has repeatedly been useful to explain and to predict, religion in general and creation(ism) in particular displays many flaws for explaining the past, and shows no value whatsoever for prediction -- which disqualifies both as something that you could call a "scientific theory" and teach in schools.

I don't "believe" in evolution, but I "trust the theory of evolution more than any competing theory as the best available predictor of how species have evolved, and will continue to evolve". I place no trust whatsoever in creationism, because a lot of physical evidence says the world is very old, and because it has shown no predictive value. "Belief" is something you do when you don't have any hard evidence.

"If you're in a room of 100 people, odds are likely about 40 think God created humans about 10,000 years ago" -- and if you're in a room with 100 people, half of them are below average in intelligence, in education, in income, in family size, in how many hours of TV they watch, how often they attend church, etc., etc. This article would make better reading if it told us how well any of those measures correlated with belief in creationism. I'd actually PAY to read that article.

AnaBanana - Here's a start for the link you asked for.

But I have to ask, when science does create what you ask, will you or the church try to find a way to block the truth out of your minds?

http://www.jcvi.org/cms/press/press-releases/full-text/article/first-self-replicating-synthetic-bacterial-cell-constructed-by-j-craig-venter-institute-researcher/

Ahhh Mark - I waited and waited for you to respond the other night. How convenient you went back to copy and paste my remarks. Now I get the chance to confront your remarks.

Why is it when someone spouts out against another religion that they do not belong or believe in, it's OK? But when a non believer as myself spouts out against Christianity, I will rot in "your hell"?

When you are alone, facing God at the last judgment, tell Him how imaginary believing in Him was. I'm sure He'll understand. It's amazing how bold people can be when they have no understanding what's on the other side of the veil of death. There are no excuses at that point.

I never claimed that you will rot in hell. I did claim that you don't know what is on the other side of death. A very acceptable book (most copies of a book ever sold lends to it's credibility) states that after death, comes the judgement. I didn't write it but I do believe it. For perfectly good reasons too. Just one reason out of thousands is our calander system is based upon the birth of a significant figure in that book, to a reasonable date variable.

I wonder about the above statement, while also finding it humorous. Answer these questions.

About 1/3 of the world believes in christianity, what will happen to the other 2/3 when they die?

I wonder too. But what will contort your mind even more is... that's only 1/3 today. How about all those that came before us through the generations? How many billions of people will this effect? Do you think I have the intelligence or the stamina to consider where their souls will go? That is only left to God to decide. I, for one am glad I don't have His job.

About 1/3 of the worlds population believes in Islam, why can't they be right? If they are, whose hell will a christian go?

It's not a question of right or wrong. It is and always has been a question of faith. Where in Islam is the person that was raised from the dead? That's the basis of salvation... not works.

And finally, in the history of man, there were many beliefs that lasted thousands of years, with many gods, that had many followers who knew these gods existed. These people were sure they existed, but you now know they didn't, nor believe in them. Why? How can you be so sure?

Actually this is a very good question. In all the other religions, not one person has ever been raised from the dead. All the other information, conjecture, events, and proposed history pales in comparison to the one man that was raised from the dead... he was dead for 3 days and according to what is written, he was witnessed by over 500 people to be living after his confirmed death.

Now Mark, you are completely on your own to believe what you will. If you will recall from the post the other day, I stated it's a decision, not a debate. You will decide to believe if Christ was raised from the dead or you will decide to believe he wasn't. The choice is completely up to you. For me, I choose to believe he was. Too much evidence points to it... call it imperical data.

Evolutionary processes are not readily observable or testable in the scientific sense, museums have manipulated/misrepresented archeological evidence for their monitary gain, and proponents of evolution have raised their beliefs to the level of a religion whose gods, Time and Nature, can evolve life from "lower" to "higher" forms and even create life from rock, water and electricty.

So, it's pointless to get into a religion vs science discussion, because evolution isn't a science.

Evolution is the new One World religion.

Believe it or be stupid.

We are so caught up in the either/or of this question. I'm learning that both/and works a whole lot better.

I taught elementary school (mostly 9-10-11 year-olds) for close to 40 years. I taught evolution as "Scientists tell us..." Since I was teaching science, it makes sense that we would be interested in what people who spend their lives studying this topic have to say about it. And those people say that life has evolved over millennia.

And when kids brought up the Bible, we did talk about that. I would not tell kids they were wrong -- I would just say that is another view that some people believe, and maybe they could find a way that both the scientists and the Bible are right.

(That is a tough one, particularly with 9 year olds -- their thinking tends to be black and white.)

For me, the incredible beauty of this world and the astonishing variety of creatures that live here speak of the divine. I do not believe that the Biblical story of creation is literal. But I also cannot conceive that God -- or the Great Spirit -- or the Creator -- or the Life Force -- is not somehow instrumental in this evolution. The fact of evolution does not negate the idea that God exists.

Brian,

I too don't claim to know what happens after death, but I have my suspicions, you die, and you're dead. This process has been happening for billions of years, long before man walked this planet.

Man is a relatively new species on this planet, while there were many more dominant species before us that had either died out or killed by natural disaster. This is where I have always made my decision.

If there were a divine Creator, using your theories, he would have also created the dinosaur (and all other before them), a creature that lived and roamed on the earth for about 200 million years, while modern man has only lived on earth but a fraction of that time.

Now, if there were a place for "all gods" creatures, then certainly there would be plenty of dinosaurs there, maybe it's gods plan that humans are snacks for these dinosaurs in heaven?

Man is a smart animal, my belief is that "we" are just smart enough to make up a place for our loved ones, a place that is a better answer than, "Look Buddy, he/she is dead, get over it". It sounds so much nicer that "He/She has gone to a better place", doesn't it?

As far as a man being raised from the dead, to me, it's a story. The same story you speak of, the bible story, was written many years after the supposed happening, by man. And we all know what happens when stories get passed around from mouth to mouth, things change, fish get bigger, and I'd assume after a hundred years, the story gets even more ridiculous, as there are no more actual eye witnesses.

Basically, I feel safe taking my chances, leading a mentally healthy life, knowing right from wrong, treating my fellow humans with the respect they deserve, and knowing my fate is the same as any other creature that has walked this earth for about 3.8 billion years.

@im-in-hell:

Please go look up "confirmation bias", and then think about who told you that "Evolutionary processes are not readily observable or testable in the scientific sense" and why you believed them. They did you a great disservice.

Of course evolution isn't a science, it's a theory, and of course it's testable -- it's tested all over the world by different kinds of scientists every day when they make predictions based on it. What it isn't is PROVEN, is that what you meant to say? Theories aren't facts, they're something that helps you interpret and predict. Anecdotes like lying museum directors don't make fossils all lies, and a theory about electricity etc. creating life is just that - a theory. Nobody asks you to believe it -- theories aren't about belief. They offer it as a possible explanation, and it'll either get proven or disproven, or more likely refined and improved, over time.

don: I hope you get to read this before the newsvine is closed.

I have no doubt about your teaching abilities, however I hope you didn't teach about the separation of church and state, which is not in the Constitution. Nor is it in any other Federal, State, County or City laws. You have allowed someone to talk you into believing that is true.

I challenge you to find the(separation of Church and State) in any legal document making it a law.

Mark... it's very simple... you've made your choice. It's your decision to bear. Good thing for you... you own all your decisions. I don't need to try to pursuade you.. I hope you live a long, long life.

Oh Mark... one other thing.. you are incorrect about the stories of Christ being passed around before they were written. Matthew wrote his account, Mark wrote his, Luke was a Doctor and wrote his... John wrote his. They are all different.. tell the same account and the syntax and writing styles are different. This has been proven over and over again through the years. Paul.. was a jewish convert... he wrote most of the New Testiment.. from a converts point of view.

If this was devinely inspired.. and I believe it was... it couldn't have been composed in a better fashion. So.. since you think it's all a story.. you have made your decision... Good luck to you..

Brian, it is also known to christian leaders that matthew and mark did not even meet Jesus. You should watch a documentary called "Who wrote the bible?". it is available for free on google video. It might enlighten you a lil bit.

FDJ, a note about dissociation of proteins. Proteins dissociate for a very good reason. If DNA polymerase clamps down on your DNA, it needs to eventually release the newly replicated strand and the template strand. To accomplish things like this, protein subunits form into their whole (like a fully formed DNA polymerase complex) and then dissociate when they are no longer needed. Equilibrium is nothing more than a statistical process. In aqueous solution some protein subunits get close enough to come together and having done so eventually dissociate. While these subunits dissociate, others form. This process is not guided; it's just a result of the fact that molecular bonds aren't infinitely strong. So, the fact that proteins dissociate in water is actually important to almost every single function your cell performs. In fact, if proteins were less likely to dissociate, your body wouldn't work because every cellular process would go to slowly.

Mr. Rogers, religion is, has been and will continue to be the greatest threat to the survival of mankind since man created it. It is more dangerous than any disease or famine or flood or even a tsunami.

Let's be clear. Governments... are responsible for more harm than religion and terrorism combined throughout the history of the world. In particular, governments influenced by extreme social Darwinism or other forms of humanism, have killed tens of millions...

Actually, social Darwinism was a purely Anglo-American conceit, used to justify predatory capitalism. It had nothing to do with government. You must be thinking of something else.

AstroPhys1:

Thank you for indirectly correcting my spelling of "dissociate". When I wrote, "disassociate", it didn't look right but I was too lazy to look it up for its correct spelling. So thank you for your indirect correction.

Yes, chemical equilibrium is certainly a statistical process, although I haven't looked at it that way in quite a while. And you are certainly correct in your statement,

So, the fact that proteins dissociate in water is actually important to almost every single function your cell performs. In fact, if proteins were less likely to dissociate, your body wouldn't work because every cellular process would go to slowly.

But the point is that nature favors dissociation, not molecular formation, especially in uncontrolled environments. And if we add entropy to this equation, then nature definitely favors the dissociated amino acids because they are certainly higher in entropy than they would be if they formed long chain proteins.

Science will prevail:

You said,

FDJ, you're about 25 years behind in your knowledge of biochemistry/abiogenesis. It is theorized that RNA was the first form of "life". RNA has the ability to perform enzymatic functions, can self-replicate, makes up the active site of the ribosome (which synthesizes amino acids into proteins), is a bridgeway between DNA and protein formation, RNA nucleotides have been found in meteors, and RNA nucleotide formation can be performed through naturally occurring processes.

You may be right, since my chemistry and physics degrees are about 20 years old. The Soviet biochemist I was quoting was Oparin (sp?), who was the foremost authority in chemical evolution quite a while ago. Although technology has certainly evolved since his time, many of his findings are still quoted my modern day chemical evolutionists.

I should say up front that I am a Christian and, based upon faith and faith alone, I am a Creationist. But I remember speaking to Dr. Sime, my Physical Chemistry instructor, on this topic. We were on the subject of entropy and I had what I thought was a brilliant idea. If we could calculate the various energies existing within a given protein, then could we not use molecular statistics to work backwards when the entropy of all constituents of that protein were theoretically at zero, or at least infinitesimally approached zero? I thought we could possibly convert that entropy to spacetime values to arrive at how long it would take the protein to have formed. His response was simply, "Who cares? We're here. No one will ever be able to prove how we got here." Remember, he was a very serious physical chemist with a mind similar to Linus Pauling, who was solidly grounded in scientific fact found thru reproduceable experimentation.

Would you not agree that evolutionary theory has itself evolved so that the supposed "facts" have been simply altered to fit the result? For example, since oxygen is harmful to the existence of amino acids, the theory incorporates the supposition that the early atmosphere had little to no oxygen. Or since amino acids consist of an ammonia group, that the "soup" must have had a certain composition of ammonia. In other words, the theory is built to support the end result.

Nucleic acids, such as RNA, are decomposed by UV light, which current evolutionary theory states could have been the energy source, along with electricity, that provided the synthesis of proteins and other biochemicals. How do you justify abiogenic syntheses when the molecules formed, if they are indeed fromed, are pretty much immediately destroyed by the very energy sources, i.e, heat, UV light, or electricity that made them in the first place?? As I am sur e you know, proteins and polynucleotides are thermodynamically unstable, as well as unstable due to hydrolysis and other simple organic reactions.

So although my degrees are about 20 years old, I think my thoughts and concerns are still valid. What do you think?

FDJLakers1

You are incorrect in saying that Black Hole theory contradicts the Big Bang theory. Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity implies a breakdown of general relativity, i.e. gravity. Therefore, the universe was able to very briefly overcome gravity and rapidly expand and start cooling. Approximately 10^-37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the Universe grew exponentially. The inflationary period of the big bang was over in about 10^-32 seconds. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang)

AstroPhys1 and Science will Prevail:

Neither of you commented on my description of how Black Hole theory contradicts Big Bang Theory. I would be interested in your thoughts on the apparent discrepancy. I have yet to speak with anyone who has been able to come up with a reasonable answer other than, "no theory is perfect, and the Big Bang theory needs some help."

Of course, my whole point in this little discourse is that neither Creation nor Evolution deserve to be labeled as "science". Yet people who are hardly versed in science will pridefully hold Evolutionist views and degrade those who hold Creationist views, when both views actually require a "faith" of some sort. As I said before, both should not be in a science class, but rather in a philosophy or religion class. I suppose their arrogant ignorance bothers me.

Check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

As you can read, a singularity is in some ways a mathematical construct. Take the Schwarzschild metric, which describes a blackhole. In a very straightforward coordinate system, one of the values is infinite at the event horizon. But, by appropriate coordinate transformation, the event horizon becomes nothing more than another point in your spacetime. Thus, objects can pass over the event horizon very easily. The only problem is that the event horizon separates the blackhole in a causal way from the rest of the universe. Now, contrast that with the case of 0 radius right at the center of the blackhole. This causes another infinity in the metric, which you can't get rid of with any coordinate transformations. This is a true singularity. However, as the wikipedia article states, singularities are not all the same. The singularity that spurred the Big Bang was different than the singularity at the center of a blackhole. Thus, they are not related in a way that would allow "Black Hole theory to contradict Big Bang Theory." I won't get into a debate about evolution and scientific/educational philosophy. However, what I have said about singularities isn't a debate, it's just math/physics.

Fordman97:

I disagree with you. By definition the only movement that can be determined is relativistic in nature. That is, we can detect a Red Shift in the movement of this galaxy or that galaxy relative to our own position in spacetime, but we can never pinpoint that position relative to anything absolute, for we do not have access to such a beast. Therefore, backward extrapolation has no meaning in the theory it dismantles if its "logical" conclusion is considered correct.

Even time itself is relative to the motion of two bodies, where we cannot tell which of those bodies is actually moving, and furthermore, which body is experiencing a slow down in time increments.

An very good example of what I am trying to convey is the answer to a puzzle that I will give you. Now remember: this is a puzzle so don't give the obvious answer.

Relativistic Puzzle:

Let's assume you were driving a car at 60 miles an hour on a very straight highway in the desert. You've been driving at this speed in the same direction for 3 hours without stopping. 90 minutes ago, you passed a Texaco station. An hour ago you passed a Shell gas Station. 30 minutes ago, you passed a Chevron Station. So these three gas stations are 90, 60, and 30 minutes behind you. Now, if you were to go back in time exactly one hour, where would you end up?

I'll wait for your answer.

When someone can come to me and show me unequivocally that the theory of evolution is proven, then I'll call it something else. Until then, there are many theories, one of which is creationism and I expect my children to be taught truth...not a theory that has not been proven but is being taught at solid truth.

Astrophys1:

Care to take a stab at the puzzle I posed above? I think you'd enjoy the answer.

By the way, I appreciate the fact that you don't want to comment on the evolution and scientific/educational philosophy debate. It only makes sense that a person versed in pure science, as you are, would want to stick with that which is proveable, mathematical, and truly scientific.

If I remember correctly FDJ (and no I'm not either of the two you posted the question to), I remember hearing this one before. You'd end up miles and miles out into space, because most people forget that the planet you're driving on is constantly moving too, and one hour ago, if you were to remain at the same exact place you are now (which you didn't mention movement through dimensional space, but only through time), the earth would be relativistically a couple thousand miles behind you. :P

At least, the number of Creationist "believers" is declining ;-)

The whole notion is absolutely hilarious, mind-numbing, and saddening.

How can 40% of Americans be that unrefudiatedly misunderedumacated?

Answer to Relativistic Puzzle:

Yes, it's kind of a fun puzzle to contemplate....

If the car was the only object moving, and YOU went back in time 60 minutes, then you would be at the Shell station, where you were 60 minutes ago but your car would remain where it was, since it DID NOT go back in time. However, the car is not the only object moving. The earth is rotating at about 1000 mph, and it is revolving around the sun at about 66,000 mph. In addition, the solar system, of which the earth is a part, is rotating about the center of the Milky Way galaxy at a few million miles per hour (a guess), and the Milky Way galaxy is moving thru space at quite a few million miles per hour. In addition, the group of galaxies, of which the Milky Way is a part is moving at probably a few light years per hour. And other groups that our galactic group is part of that we don't even know about is moving at untold speeds. And all of these speeds are in unknown directions to anything absolute. Therefore, if we were to go back in time 60 minutes after driving our car on that desert highway, we'd end up in space somewhere with the earth where ever it was an hour ago, which would be light years away from us. Without absolute spacetime coordinates, we could never go back in time to a place of our choosing. So even if time travel was possible, accurate spacetime travel is by definition impossible due to the relativistic nature of time, space, motion, and gravity. In like manner, FordMan97, backward extrapolation without absolute spacetime coordinates is equally impossible, with all due respect to the article you suggested.

I agree ignorance is extremel dangerous....I don't care if people are religious..matter of fact practice away...but do not opress, harm or endanger others in the process... You can keep that God I don't want no parts of him....

Once again we see the delusional attempting to promote mass delusion. While evolution requires a number of assumptions, based on established fact and scientific reason, thus making it a theory, creation is not even a theory. It is a fairy tale which requires the assumption of an omnipotent, magical being having a creative burst of energy just to begin it's irrational musings. As it's very foundation is based on faith, something that can neither be proven, quantified or observed, it should be relegated to it's proper position and if taught at all, it should be a literary course, as part of an overall investigation of the bibles literary properties, much like any religious work of fiction, not as science.

While there are inconsistencies in the theory of evolution, they do not detract from what can be observed and documented even today.

Ron in CT:

Your ignorance, prejudice, name-calling, and intolerance do not even deserve a real response.

Brandon:

So what exactly do "unrefudiatedly" and "misunderedumacated" mean? I've never heard of those words, and I think they have put Mr. Webster in a state of shock.

It's always amusing to read the post of one who puts down the intelligence and education of others, only to have his own words, i.e., his grammar or spelling, be the epitomy of uneducated and illiterate ignorance.

Excuse me, where did I call anyone a name, show prejudice or intolerance? As for ignorance, I am not the one placing faith over established science or reason. Your faith is yours and you are welcome to it, however, you do not get to make up fact to promote your belief. When you can prove the existence of any god, you can start to prove that creation is a viable theory, until then it is just someones belief and has no place being taught as anything else.

What I find sad/funny is that those that choose to believe in this fantasy feel they are being victimized, they are not. When they attempt to prove their point they revert to "god said" or "the bible says", both of which have no baring on the issue. Again, and slowly so you can understand, evolution is a scientific theory based on quantifiable fact, observation and critical thinking, the creation story doesn't use any of these as a basis for it's reasoning or lack there of. If you choose to believe in Santa, the Easter bunny or little green men, that is up to you, but don't presume to think that anyone else believes the same, nor should they. When these points are brought out and light is shed upon your beliefs, you immediately stoop to calling those with the light intolerant, prejudice and ignorant. Not very Christian of you, but about what one would expect of someone with no real basis for their opinion. Don't refute the fact, deflect and attack the one that can produce fact about the science. And christians wonder why so many are tired of listening to their BS, it's the mindless zealots that make their life miserable, not the disbelievers.

You called someone "delusional". That, sir, is name calling. Being wrong is one thing; being inaccurate in one's conclusions is still another; but to call someone "delusional" because they disagree with you is not only name calling, but it is intolerant as well. The prejudice in your statements is obvious. You have already labeled Creation as a fairy tale, and in your second post referred to being tired of listening to Christian BS. If that's not prejudice, I don't know what is, since you have labeled all Christian dialog as BS.

And the fact that your posts demonstrate that you know nothing of the "scientific" nature of Creation clearly shows ignorance on your part. Make no mistake, however, for I do not believe the "scientific" evidence for Creation is any more viable than the "scientific" evidence for Evolution. In fact, I don't think either one has enough reproduceable "fact" to even be denoted as theories. I think both of them should be demoted to mere hypotheses instead! My personal belief in Creation is based solely upon faith. And if a real debate were in progress, you would find that those who believe in Evolution must also have faith in some pretty wild assumptions that are no more valid than those who believe in a God who created the Universe.

So yes, your post was offensive, as are many of the posts on this thread. But that's okay. Such is life in the unaccountable world of annonymous posts.

If you tell a mental health professional that you are hearing voices telling you to do things or believe a certain way, he may not call you delusional but it will be written in his notes. To believe that some magical being created all life falls into that category.

As to the rest of your rantings:

Intolerance: refusal to accept differences: unwillingness or refusal to accept people who are different from you, or views, beliefs, or lifestyles that differ from your own.

While I do not accept your belief, I do not prohibit you from believing it, I just won't let you lie about it. As I have said, you can believe in anything you want, I accept that, you just can't pass off your beliefs as fact or something that all should share, that is called propaganda and brainwashing.

Prejudice:

1. opinion formed beforehand: a preformed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes

2. holding of ill-informed opinions: the holding of preformed opinions based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes

3. irrational dislike of somebody: an unfounded hatred, fear, or mistrust of a person or group, especially one of a particular religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexual preference, or social status

If you can note, prejudice implies a predisposition based on insufficient knowledge and unfounded mistrust etc. I am not pre disposed, I have spent too many years of my life listening and being indoctrinated in your belief system and all of the fairy tales that go with it, so I am not prejudiced, but educated and dismissive, a big difference.

Ron:

Okay. Let's both take a deep breath and start over. Obviously, you have had bad experiences with Christians, and I am sorry for that. (by the way, so have I)

Let's get back to evolution/creation. As one simple example of how the Evolutionist must have faith to believe in his "theory", let's consider the following:

The composition of the Earth's atmosphere and surface a million years ago is totally unknown. However it is defined such that it will fit the conclusion, not vice versa. In real science, we make observations, collect real data, and make a theory based upon this data as to the mechanism by which a result has occured. For example, do two objects of unequal mass fall at the same rate? Let's go to the Tower of Pisa and drop two objects, and then observe the results. Or better yet, let's go to the moon and drop a hammer and a feather and observe the results. From those observations and data collection, we make our conclusions and then form a "theory" of gravitation from those conclusions. I know this is a very basic example and leaves out a lot of what we now know of gravity, but the point is that observations and data is collected first, and the theory is proposed as a result of those observations.

The Theories of Evolution and Creation were and are formed in totally the opposite manner. First, the conclusion is made, and then "evidence" is searched for and/or altered so as to make the conclusion still valid.

Science: observe/collect data ----> make conclusion ----> test against data ----> adjust conclusion to fit new data ----> make new conclusion ----> establish theory.

Evolution and Creation: Establish a Theory ---> make conclusions ---> find data and observations to support the theory. When new data is found, then change the conclusions so that the theory is still in tact. That's not science, Ron.

So you see, both Evolution and Creation do the same thing: they take the scientific method and reverse it. Those who are Christian will believe in Creation, no matter what, and will look for evidence to support Creation. And those who are atheists will believe in Evolution, no matter what, and will look for evidence to support Evolution.

FDJLakers1

Your premise is wrong. Evolution is based entirely on facts and evidence. There is absolutely no evidence for Creation. None.

The Theory of Evolution is based entirely on evidence and, while the basic idea proposed by Charles Darwin approximately 150 years ago remains viable, the theory has been modified over the years. Some of those modifications have been based on the genetic research of Mendel, some has been based on the discovery of DNA. Both of these major scientific breakthroughs have supported and strengthened the Theory of Evolution.

The basis for the Christian creation belief is the Bible. The author of Genesis presents no evidence or facts. Fundamentalist Christians are asked, no required, to accept the word of a man or woman about whom we know nothing. We do not even know whether the author of Genesis intended to write fiction or nonfiction. We do not know how that person lived or why he wrote what he wrote. Amazingly, 4 of 10 Americans choose to accept the unknowable as absolute fact and continue to claim that evidence to the contrary is not only flawed ..... they refuse to even examine the evidence.

I am not an atheist because whether or not God exists is unknowable. I believe in many of the fundamental teachings of Christianity, but I am convinced that much of the Bible is not only untrue, but was intended as fiction when written. Both scientists and religious people need to be both skeptical and open-minded in their journey to discover the truth. Far too many on both sides fall short.

don97524:

I disagree with you. But you are certainly entitled to your own opinions.

FDJ

I'm really not sure why you disagree. Do you know something about the author of Genesis that I don't know? Is there some evidence for Creationism that I haven't learned? Is there an explanation other than indoctrination for faith?

If I were an innocent man on trial for a crime I would want a jury composed of rational thinkers because that jury would have the capacity of weigh evidence and arrive ant the correct verdict. If I were a guilty man on trial I would want a jury of uncurious, ignorant people who are easily lead by an argument that lacks evidence.

What I always find difficult to understand is that people seek to disprove science as if it somehow threatened the existence of a God. The problem is taking the bible too literally. If you can see past the bible as being literal and religious teachings as being establishment of scientific fact, it is perfectly reasonable to see God in science.

We know and have observed "evolution" in practice. What we don't know with assuredness is exactly how and when it started. We've got some pretty good ideas and we have theories, but we don't know for certain that "step 1" is exactly right. I don't see how that damns the "theory of evolution".

If I'm God, I start this process going, maybe with a big bang, and I let it develop. Over a very long time, could be just a handful of days depending on how you measure days, a lot of things begin to come together. When things look about right I decide that I want to start life, so I allow that to happen. You might say I even kick start it by bringing all the right conditions together. Then I let things "bake" for a while and evolve. At some point an interesting creature emerges and I decide it's special, so I choose to "enlighten" it. Among the attributes of enlightenment is the knowledge that I, as God, exist. This happens in a particular place and a particular time. Some might even refer to it later as the garden of Eden for lack of anything else that sounds good. The process will continue and because man has been "enlightened", he has abilities that will advance his evolution in different ways than the other creatures. He's been selected to be the caretaker of a particular small piece of my creation and he is capable of changing it's course. And there it is, we have God, we have man and we have everything else.

No, the bible doesn't say it that way, nor do religions teach it that way, but is it really that counter to the concept? Science and God are not in contradiction. They can co-exist. We will probably never be able to point to exactly where and when that moment of "enlightenment" occurred, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. Among the enlightenment abilities was probably an ability to pass things on to future generations in ways beyond genetics and "show and tell" education. Language is a key component, but so too is abstract thought and reasoning. Some other creatures may share some of these things at simpler levels but the species man is special and capable of developing beyond natural selection because of his mastery of these traits. It is probably that ability to deal in the abstract that make him most special. He can make observations and reach conclusions that run counter to them because he can think and weigh the observed facts along with his abstract concepts.

If you think about it, it is that very ability that even allows for the existence of God, even at it's most early forms. The sun rises and sets. This is observed by many of earth's creatures and it plays important roles in their lives, but how many of those can formulate that it just might not rise tomorrow? We are pretty certain that early pagan gods emerged around this very thought. Turns out that their questioning whether or not the sun might rise tomorrow was probably a valid question. It's just their interpretation of why, that we today view as a flawed theory.

Science is a lot about resolving uncertainty. God is a way of explaining uncertainty. Both are really dealing with the same thing and can co-exist comfortably with each other if you allow them to.

There are two main points in which evolution and creation differ. Both are extreme. 1) Evolution starts with the concept that things are how they are now and then peels back the layers to see how things were then. The premise being that everything is constantly changing/evolving, using scientific methods to include observation to determine what changes have happened and why. 2) While there is a great deal of speculation as to a number of the fine points, it, overall is an established science and can be observed happening today. Many animals and/or insects with short life cycles and high birth rates have been used to observe the evolutionary process.

As to creation: 1) instead of starting at what we know, creation starts with the premise that God created everything and then attempts to find science that will support that premise. While this is not an alien concept in science, it has long been used to try and discount theories, it is not a sustainable approach. Even when it has been used to further scientific knowledge, it has always been backed up by science that starts with the opposing position and the two are compared. There is not a comparative process with creation. It starts and ends with the premise that god created everything. 2) While evolution can be observed today, both in the laboratory and in nature, the creation of something from nothing is a one off concept that has never been repeated nor documented. This is the toughest point to overcome and any science that does not address this issue is not true science. While Big Bang theorists can mathematically calculate the big bang, the same cannot be said for creation, it requires a total leap of "faith" to accept as viable. Further, creation, by nature, dictates that all things were created and therefore unchanging. These are not scientific principles but spiritual and have no place in hard science.

BrianB,

These are your statements and responses to my earlier questions.

First you say:

I never claimed that you will rot in hell.

Then you end the conversation with:

Mark... it's very simple... you've made your choice. It's your decision to bear. Good thing for you... you own all your decisions. I don't need to try to pursuade you.. I hope you live a long, long life.

So basically you never said I will rot in hell, but I will suffer (bear my decision) the consequences by not believing in your god.

You condemn all who do not have your beliefs, you pretend to be civil and kind, but still in the back of your minds find the need to still push your agenda.

Honestly, I could care less that you think I will rot in "hell", or "bear" the consequences of my decision to not believe in your "god" or whatever.

Where I find the problem, it's that religious folks tend to condemn non-believers constantly without even realizing it, but when I defend myself and call you a bunch of Santa Claus believing lunatics, I'm a bad person?

So tell me, what's a more compassionate gesture? To call someone a name like "lunatic", or tell them they will rot in hell for all of time?

I think I'll stick to my beliefs, they tend to be much more compassionate.

FD: "The composition of the Earth's atmosphere and surface a million years ago is totally unknown."

It is not unknown to science; why is it unknown to you?

"The Theories of Evolution and Creation were and are formed in totally the opposite manner. First, the conclusion is made, and then "evidence" is searched for and/or altered so as to make the conclusion still valid."

That is true of Creationism, but you seem completely ignorant of the science behind evolution, or you wouldn't be saying such obvious falsehoods about it. Evolution is science. The theory was entirely based on observations, evidence and logic. That is what a Scientific Theory IS. The evidence and logic behind evolution is not only massive but is readily available to anyone who actually cares to learn. If you would rather just assume that the evidence doesn't exist, because it doesn't fit your "theory," then who is being un-scientific now?

FDJ, you've made quite a number of errors to this point. I will remedy a few.

Big bang theory, which you claim is in violation of black hole physics, is not at all any problem to any aspect of physics.

At the earliest times, there is no matter, and gravity is not a force that even has a role to play -- it's still wrapped with strong and weak forces, and matter is still in the form of energy.

If you are at position A 90 minutes ago, and position B 60 minutes ago, and position C 30 minutes ago, and are at position D now, then if you travel backwards in time by 60 minutes, you will be at position D, 60 minutes ago.

Gravity only self-isolates by the time the universe has expanded to well in excess of 6,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles.

With that size, and inertia/momentum, there's a huge number of forces preventing the possibility for collapse.

In response to FDJLakers comment #1.13:

Proteins do not all dissociate in aqueous environments, it depends on the protein. Some very simple proteins, which would have been the first ones, do not dissociate.

DNA and RNA do not always require protein enzymes to reproduce or splice. There are self splicing nucleic acids that have been discovered since the Soviet scientist made his observation. Even if this early observation were strictly true, it would in no way change the possibility of macro evolution occurring. It would simply mean we don't fully understand how life got its start.

Something to keep in mind when looking at the subject of evolution from chemicals is that just because things are a certain way in most known lifeforms today, does not mean they have always been that way. The first life would have been far simpler than what we see today. Every organism in existence is at the apex of its own evolutionary tree, and is the most advanced of its type in existence.

To everyone who takes science and religion as a mutually exclusive, either/or debate (seemingly a lot of people in this topic), I encourage you to read Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. I also encourage you to actually take the time to talk to some Christian scientists. There are a lot of us. The two ideas opposed here, Creationism and evolution, are not mutually exclusive. It is only those that seek to cause division and oppression, of either side, that tell us they are.

Here's a clue: Einstein showed, almost a century ago, how 6 days could be the exact same amount of time as 14 billion years. What one idea says happened in 6 days, from one perspective, the other says happened in about 14 billion years (estimates vary), as observed from another perspective. Still more perspectives would show that same process taking 2 months, 20 years, 5,000 years, 20 million years, 200 billion years, and more, but never less than 6 days, because there isn't enough mass-energy in the universe for that (we think).

And as for evolution, it has been disproved millions of times in research. And, like any good theory, it has since been revised with new theories to explain the new evidence, only to be tested some more, until another hole is shot in it, to be patched by new modifications of the theory. This is how science works. People don't argue that Newton's Theory of Gravity was flat out wrong just because Einstein blew it to pieces and made constellations out of it. There are a number of current holes in Evolution waiting to be patched, and no patches the right size have been found yet, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

It is truly appalling, though, the way Evolution is taught in schools today. We're still teaching the Moth study, which was proven to be a complete fraud more than 100 years ago!

CSmith -

Gee, why haven't we heard of Gerald Schroeder before? Oh yeah, he's a crackpot. His degrees are 45 to 50 years old and who knows how much he's kept up with current scientific papers and findings.

I tend to agree with the following:

http://creationistidiocy.blogspot.com/2008/09/moron-of-month-gerald-schroeder.html

Moron of the Month: Gerald Schroeder

Gerald Schroeder is "an MIT-trained scientist who has worked in both physics and biology", and now spends his time "melding" scientific theories with the Bible. Here he tries to reconcile the six literal 24-hour days of creation from Genesis with all that pesky scientific evidence showing that the universe is in fact billions of years old. He has a wacky theory involving general relativity and time-dilation effects that, according to him, proves both viewpoints are simultaneously true:

___Once you come from Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having children! Seth lives 105 years before having children, etc. From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human in concept. But prior to that time, it's an abstract concept: "Evening and morning." It's as if you're looking down on events from a viewpoint that is not intimately related to them.

Uh-huh...

Elsewhere, he states:

___As a nuclear physicist who has served on the staff of MIT and as a member of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, I have undertaken extensive research of the natural world in light of the Biblical account. My conclusion? I see no contradiction between them whatsoever.

It's amazing what lengths creationists will go to in order to reconcile scientific facts with what's written in their holy book. This guy is taking a fresh approach - just accept both sides of the argument and "meld" them together. I guess if you're going to believe all 1200 pages of nonsense in the Bible, a few extra pages of pseudo-scientific twaddle like that found on Gerald's website should be pretty easy to swallow.

Gee, C-Smith, what holes are there in evolution? Precisely -- give us any specifics.

I have to second Chirmly. Every "hole" I've ever seen put forth about evolution, geology, or radiometric dating is either a misunderstanding about what the theory(ies) actually says, is based on out of date science, or is a frank lie. I've never seen a "hole" that hasn't been filled.

I have quite a bit of experience reading literature on both sides of the issue as my Father-in-Law writes some of it. The misunderstandings are rampant in creationist literature, as is the out of date science. My Father-in-Law, though misunderstanding the science is an honest man, and does not benefit financially from his work. The same cannot be said for all creationists. For some of the biggest lies, look at the work of Kent Hovind, who is now serving time for tax evasion and made millions on his theme park.

I've never seen a "hole" that hasn't been filled.

NO! That's how the devil works his evil and tricks Mankind to follow him, he fills holes with the souls of the damned. just trust in the Bible.

Just playing devils advocate.

I guess we can add mine to the list... But I do know some people who think that way.

The truth is there is no debate about whether or not evolution exists within the scientific community. There is debate about specific mechanisms, but not about whether it happens.

The only debates on the subject are in the realm of philosophy, religion, and politics.

The Bible is a great collection of works. It contains much moral truth and a lot of great lessons. It throws in some real history to keep it interesting. The trouble with trusting it in a literal way, is that much of it, especially the earliest parts were oral traditions from a nomadic people seeking answers to the "why" questions. Humans don't have the best of memories for details. It's difficult to accept that even if Genesis started out as a revelation from God that we didn't corrupt it over time before it got written down. Then throw in a few more millenia of translations to our present day. The moral lessons may be intact, but dont take it too literally.

C Smith,

I'll agree that God and science need not be mutually exclusive, but Creationism and evolution can't co-exist. The problem with Schroeder's work is that he is trying to interpret science to say that the bible is correct. If he were to say that the bible was a story about God and man, it might be different, but he starts with the premise that the bible is an accurate accounting of how things happened. If you don't take the bible literally, you can pretty easily have God fit into what science tells us. It doesn't work the other way around. To accept that the bible can't be taken literally, does not diminish it as an important religious text. In fact it's value as a religious text increases if you view it as a collection of stories with important moral messages.

FDJ - I don't know if someone else has already addressed this, at work and don't have all day to read the thread.

But, it seems you are getting abiogenesis and evolution mixed up. Abiogenesis is not the same thing as Evolution.

Unfortunately, this is similar to many other polls that have been taken over the years. Americans really are this ignorant.

Jimmy - When they say 4 out of 10, it doesn't mean they only surveyed 10 people. :)

Actually they surveyed 1000 (read the article).... Which is approximately 1/350,000th of the population.

Which is like interviewing 10-15 people in NYC and saying your results are indicative of everyone in the city.

I agree with too small of a poll, and staying WAAAAAY out of the actual debate. The poll was probably also skewed, because "creationism" doesn't necessarily entail a believe that god created the earth 10,000 years ago. That's the "young earth" hypothesis, which is one of many different creationary theories. If the article and the survey are both THAT misleading, and the sample size is THAT small, someone's probably fishing for specific results.

Yeah, there's no way that 40% of America is really that stupid. I mean, I've been called a pessimist, but even I can't believe THAT many people are THAT stupid.

Believe it.

Ungh... fine...

I don't exactly proscribe to evolution as a be all end all theory. There's a lot of holes where it could be filled in better, such as the lack of gradual changes shown in a fossil record, and the unusual stop/start rapid changes that tend to take place (who knows, maybe some weird cosmic radiation event occurs that causes rapid changes in various species), and for the most part its humans who set the definitions as to what's a new species and what's not, not to mention that "survival of the fittest" doesn't seem to explain everything, with many dead ends. The best equivalent we have to mechanical evolution is when we set out a specific goal for a type of processor and it tries through trial and error till it best accomplishes that goal, which if is equivalent to biological evolution, would mean that there's a set goal things are meant to evolve to, which kind of means an exterior agent (which might mean that something is missing in the theory, not necessitating that the exterior agent is a "god").

All in all, I don't think evolution is the be all end all of the theory of how we got to be where we are (and especially has no place in determining how life itself began or why human beings do such things that have nothing to do with survival, can have a tendency to self annihilate, especially for abstract concepts, or even have abstract concepts, put it all in a neat little package).

Does this mean I'm a young earth creationist? NO! But I'm not a wholehearted evolutionary theorist either.

What holes? I mean, the fossil record is an immense collection illustrating gradual changes. And given the specific conditions required to make a fossil, we're lucky to have any at all, much less such a comprehensive collection.

Anyway, after reading your post, I think you might just be misinformed about the theory of evolution. There were some inaccuracies and misconceptions I noticed in your summarization.

Perhaps. Look, my point is I don't hold much care or belief that it matters much which theory is right or wrong. I prefer to just be relatively skeptic about both sides of the issue, and hold firmly to the belief that most people on both sides are wrong.

I remember reading a book published by Look Magazine back in 1965 (or thereabouts) about the religions in America. They went through each one, stated their main beliefs, statistical percentages, and gave a brief interview with a member of each faction. Nobody sounded as bat@!$%# crazy as people do now, (and that includes atheists). They even interviewed a scientist (physicist I believe) with christian beliefs (which today is virtually nonexistent because of the factionism and backroom exclusionary practices within the various academic scientific fields), whom could clearly state that even though science may contradict what is in his holy text, it did not mean that science was right and religion was wrong. He instead pointed out (as did albert einstein, sir issaac newton, and many others) that science was amazing in how it showed him the inner workings of god's world. He pointed out he had no problems in believing that science had better explanations than his holy text, but neither was perfect, and that really, he saw no reason in either to abandon the other. I think that people today as so polarized into thinking its one or the other that that sort of thinking is lost.

And science, unfortunately IS a religion. Does anyone read Hume anymore? Because his whole philosophy paved way to the scientific method, and quite frankly, his point was that even the results of deductive reasoning weren't certain, but only a highly likely rationale. He also stated that there's absolutely no correlation between statements about how something is and how something ought to be. In the end, reason is not the tool to make decisions, or to dictate laws, or to to shape certain aspects of our everyday life. Those things belong to our passions. Science ISN'T everything.

And people also abuse science, as useful as a tool as it is, it's still subject to bias, human error, and bad rationale. Yes, hopefully time will show where mistakes are made, but its not like there's some cosmic answer sheet telling us exactly where we were wrong and where we were right. We just feel out way out and are always utilizing what seems to work as a good enough explanation as to why something works. It's no different than when people might have banned a certain type of food that turned out to be poisonous as being "holy" or "unholy" and not to be eaten, because, well, the theory worked, and people who went against the theory died. We're all just groping in the dark, trying to figure out what the space we inhabit is like based on what our blind hands seem to touch.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I find it fascinating how the evolution of religious philosophy eventually morphed into the scientific method. But the most fascinating fact is that when it finally did so, it disproved virtually everything that built up to it.

If the study is done correctly, a sample of around 1200 people can provide a valid data set. From my experience, 40% of the population that I have known (most of my family) believe in creation. I grew up in the AG church. These people believe in the bizarre and exhibit bizarre behavior. They have become a dangerous element in US politics and were the primary support base for the Bush presidents. As a group they are known as the Beck-bots.

Toasty, the process isn't done, and never will though. So all our science today will vbe eventually replaced too. As our science has done to itself already, after it was finished disproving our religious rationale for the world. Also, religion is primarily told in parables. They're symbolic stories to explain certain cycles, or wisdom (and wisdom is different from scientific fact), through the medium of easily remembered stories. It's not MEANT to be taken literally, and the meanings of the stories are constantly changing dependent upon who is reading them and when. Just with certain types of science, a human observer can radically change the results.

Sounds more like sophistry using modern terms to avoid sounding like religion is more than just a fairy tale.

Everything's a fairytale. You can know lies and you can know truth, but you can't differentiate the truth from the lies.

But aside from that, even fairy tales have reason for existing. Take Aesop's fables for example. They're often stories about talking animals. Do animals talk? No! do you honestly believe the ancient greeks believed animals to talk? I highly doubt that. But the stories exist to demonstrate a point in a nutshell about how one should act and demonstrate the reasons why. Is that a sophistry designed to cover for the fact that it's a fairy tale that animals talk?

Hell! How is it that you can think? THOUGHTS?!?!?! why they have no basis in the material world!!! Abstract concepts like "freedom" and "peace" are LIES!!!! You obviously do not think nor do you believe in such things do you!?!?! After all, if you can't see it, touch it, or measure it in some way with you various calipers, it does not exist!!! To say otherwise is one step closer to believing in god.. ;)

Toasty, the biggest hole in evolution is that, by and large, the fossil record doesn't show gradual evolution. It shows a lot of sudden evolution, where a species exists more-or-less unchanged for millions of years before being completely replaced in the span of a few thousands of years, and less (though still a good amount of ) gradual evolution. This sudden evolution has caused a major problem in current evolutionary theory. Not the first, and it's likely to be resolved in time, but a big enough one that it may require major re-works of the theory to resolve.

For the more general discussion, the entire opposition of science and Creationism is a false dichotomy. If you really want to know why, read Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. Here's a hint: Einstein showed almost a century ago how 6 days could be the same amount of time as 14 billion years.

CSmith -

There aren't any "holes" in evolution, at least not the way you are implying (i.e. didn't happen).

From the National Academy of Sciences

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

Re: Gerald Schroeder, see my #1.71 post.

C-Smith, nice try. Evolution doesn't insist that the changes be gradual over a planet -- just that it's gradual over one population per generation.

Species remaining unchanged for a long time isn't even unusual.

Being replaced by another species in a few thousand years is something we even witness today. We can and have observed speciation events.

Sorry, that's a non-problem that you've raised there.

If a species is well adapted to its environment, and the environment remains consistent, very little change will occur.

the earth will indeed be improved when the last human breathes his last breath--man is indeed a mistake of the greatest proportion.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Humanity is like a malignant cancer on our planet. The sooner we kill ourselves off the better off the rest of the planet will be.

science is a belief for some people. They confuse why with how, and science does not answer whys, only hows. Science is also never complete, and only a working theory until proven wrong. Science is just as susceptible to societal and personal bias (hence why not too long ago, science held that blood moved through the body like the tides moved on earth... And even gone as far to have claimed to "witness" it.)

Science only explains the material world, and has no place when talking of abstractions and ideas that have no basis in material things. It's also pretty shoddy when explaining biological things, especially compared to its understanding of non-living entities. Every step it takes away from pure mathematics, its gets shoddier and shoddier.

Not saying science isn't a good thing, but it's just a tool for the humans who use it. Much like religion, art, and so on....

Took the words right out of my mouth. Humanity is like a malignant cancer on our planet. The sooner we kill ourselves off the better off the rest of the planet will be.

What a terribly biased and tainted viewpoint. Some people would consider diseases a marvel of nature... a wonder of the micro world.

But the poster above has it correct, science is terribly limited and some people expect too much from it.

you first!

wilcore

Nihilists!. kwl, granny22, and seds, do us all a favor and take upon yourselves the task of leading the way you propose. I'll be sure to take a different direction.

Bob, excellent explanation. Science is flawed man's best attempt at the moment at guessing how the universe works. There's still a lot that we haven't found working guesses for, and a lot of guesses have been tossed out because they were wrong, but all the guesses we're using now were pieced together over time as older guesses were proven wrong, re-worked, proven wrong again, re-worked again, etc. Science is a process of understanding, of learning, not the ultimate thing that is being understood. That's the universe, and even that is a limit of science. Science will never tell you why you like chocolate, only how you like it. Science will never tell you why you find flowers beautiful, only how you do so. Science explores mechanisms, hows, not purposes, whys. To even suggest there is a purpose behind nature is to move out of the realm of science altogether. Unfortunately, many scientists today have decided it is also to attack science. It is these people above all others who treat science like a religion, with nature as it's god and themselves as the high priests.

C. Smith and Bob:

I think you are both partially correct about theories being proven wrong. As an example, at one time it was thought that the earth was the center of the universe (And it was flat too).

But then, scientists started to do some experiments and observations, and somehow proved this to be wrong. These men were rewarded by the church at the time, I think it was torture and death (Yeah, the science didn't fit into the religious scriptures, so it must have been wrong).

Now I will admit, it only took the church a little over 200 years to do their own science and correct their theory, and admit the earth actually orbited the sun, and we weren't the "oh mighty" center of the universe.

But there's good news! It seems the church may one day catch up with science, in 1996, they got a message from "god" that Darwin might be right about evolution. God must still be pretty far away, it still took him over 150 years to send that message down.

On the bright side of it, the communication gap seems to be speeding up, as god is inventing better communication devices to speed the process up. Hey, maybe one day he will be able to get these slightly important messages to us in under 100 years, wouldn't that be great?

See, it must be that the church is just a little more thorough about it's science, and doesn't like to jump to any conclusions too quickly, right?

CSmith, actually, science does tell people why they like or dislike chocolate and find symmetries and colours and flower-like patterns appealing.

Why questions only relate to human perception, and we're learning a great deal about that.

Chirmly, that's a how. not a why.

Mark, most schools and indeed scientific learning itself, was endorsed by the churches. It's more because when Rome fell, culture fell with it, and through the dark ages and part of the time after, most scholars only had ancient greek texts to learn from. There's also a fair deal with Aquinas and a few other notables in the church system who tried to merge christian doctrine with platonist philosophies. I don't really want to get into it much here.

On the other hand, death and torture are human desires (sick as they are). Religion is just an excuse. So is the pursuit of a genetically pure race.

C. Smith and Bob,

Interesting point on the how vs why thing... but could you please explain a little bit more what that actually is supposed to mean?

As in, how we like chocolate vs why we like chocolate? What does that even mean?

Naturally, people would like tasty things (sugars) that make them feel good (endorphins).

As science spreads, people see their lives as pointless, more suicides occur, and etc, yes, the amount of Christians will dwindle, as it was prophesized.

But, you will ALWAYS have Christians, even when we become a minority. People will always find science and the world unsatisfying. People will always be tired of other people judging them and not having a way out.

religion

Religion will never be extinct... science is limited in that it is incapable of answering "why"... only "how". People will always wonder "why" and will find something to believe in.

Heck, even evolution spawned a mass of social Darwinist.. which many attribute a great many of deaths and wrongdoing towards.

And by the context of many posters here... it is evident that many people worship science.

AtrGhosh, that's a lie. Turning from Christianity does not depress people and lead to suicidal thoughts. You choose to believe that because it falls in with your hope of an Apocalypse when all us non-Christians will get the punishment you believe we deserve. Christianity was what depressed the heck out of me.

That article is so untrue. It's just more propaganda, designed to influence people to stop believing in God. Nothing new. But totally untrue. How many of you are seeing more and more people come to church? We are. Certainly doesn't seem like a lack of belief.

Religion will never be extinct... science is limited in that it is incapable of answering "why"... only "how". People will always wonder "why" and will find something to believe in.

Technically, religion can't answer "why" either. It speculates and makes predictions based on dogma and superstition. That's hardly what I'd call a solid answer.

science is limited in that it is incapable of answering "why"... only "how". People will always wonder "why" and will find something to believe in.

Mr. Rogers - I have to agree... The belief in evolution negates any possibility of a MEANING of LIFE. "You are just a random happenstance." A belief in God nurtures the belief in a meaning of life. "You were created because someone wanted you to be here." If one is okay with life having NO meaning whatsoever, then I suppose the theory of evolution could appeal to you. But many people have a deep seated need to have a purpose in life, a reason to live, a meaning. Without it, they DO tend to become suicidal, depressed, or at least apathetic. It's a pendulum swing. People who are apathetic Christians raise children who are atheists, who raise children who long for meaning, who raise children who find God, who raise children who follow God, and a handful of generations later, the pendulum swings again.

Turning from Christianity does not depress people and lead to suicidal thoughts. You choose to believe that because it falls in with your hope of an Apocalypse when all us non-Christians will get the punishment you believe we deserve. Christianity was what depressed the heck out of me.

Ann-Libertarian, I can see why Christianity depresses you. There are ChINO's - "Christians in name only", and then there are those who follow God and know the Truth. You seem to have fallen in with the former group. Please don't let them color your view of God. He isn't like that. Not all Christians are like those you have seen.

Those who know the truth do NOT look for an Apocalypse to punish anyone. The Apocalypse happened in 70 AD, and it punished people far more horrible than anyone alive today. The Kingdom is NOW, but it is spiritual, not physical. Most ChINO's think there is a physical "end of times" coming, but they're wrong. And they live wrongly, while they wait for it. But this isn't from God. God's Kingdom is His rule in your life, and that's ALL. It affects others ONLY for good. The only "punishment" is not getting to be in it, and not living in the glow of God's loving protection. For me, that would be a dire punishment indeed, but I have seen the "promised land" and would not give it up for anything.

If one is okay with life having NO meaning whatsoever, then I suppose the theory of evolution could appeal to you

The universe is as it is whether you believe it or not. Evolution is a fact. There is no argument in the scientific community about evolution. It happened - period. The fine details are the things that are still being debated and discovered.

Those who know the truth

So, what makes you the authority on "the truth"?

People who are apathetic Christians raise children who are atheists, who raise children who long for meaning, who raise children who find God, who raise children who follow God, and a handful of generations later, the pendulum swings again.

Interesting. So "belief" is a generational thing. According to your statement, a person can infer that only every other generation will be saved. I wonder why God only chooses to speak to every other generation? hmm

Eyes, I was with you until the second paragraph. I'm familiar with the belief, but that hardly makes those who don't share it ChINOs. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of ChINOs out there. We also call them Churchians, Sunday-Morning-Christians, and Pew Warmers. They're one of the worst bunches, the ones that treat the Church as nothing more than a social club.

There are also the fanatical hating loons, who are among the biggest hypocrites out there. They call for judgment and punishment on the masses, yet Christ told us to be the light (mercy) of the world, and to love our enemies. I can easily see how these hypocrites could depress someone, and they do more damage to Christianity than any other group of people in the world.

Ann, I don't hope for the Apocalypse because I want to see punishment. I hope for it because of what is on the other side. It's like hoping for the coldest part of night, because you know that once it's over, you'll get the morning and warmth. When the final judgment comes, I will mourn for those cast aside. I hope you aren't one of them.

In response to the idea that Darwinist thought is responsible for evil and death.... Social Darwinism has little to nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It is a sociopolitical attempt to justify supremacist ideas that have no justification. Organized religion has let to more bloodshed than any proponent of evolution. I give you the crusades, the Inquisition, the continuing problems with radical Islam.

I am in no way antireligious and go to church on a regular basis. I don't consider organized religion a bad thing, I just want to point out that secularist viewpoints do not necessarily lead to more bloodshed than do religious.

Social Darwinism was one of the base theories used to rationalize and establish the Superior Race meme of the Third Reich. Darwin had nothing to do with it.

I find that the mystery and glory of nature sans divinity is far more beautiful than "oh some guy with a beard did it."

Reality is awesome.

LOL yeah i was wondering where u were going with that first post.

Speak for yourself. I'm sorry you're that depressed.

Anther main difference:

Science "Here are the facts... What conclusion can we draw from them?"

Religion: "Here is the conclussion... Create some 'facts' to support it!"

Well said Ram, despite the spelling error. I am sure all the english majors on the vine will jump on this.

@ Paul in SC: burden of proof is on you for making the claim "evidence refutes Religious Explanation" ...Which "religious explanation" are you talking about? That's a broad statement and I agree that a lot of the evidence is against some of the "religious explanations" found in major religions such Islam and Mormonism (and others)... But, I have found that there is plenty of evidence supporting Christianity - if there wasn't I would drop my faith in a heartbeat. Have you truly looked at the evidence for yourself? Or are you just repeating something you heard from someone else? Could u back up your claim with proof?

joshua

What do you mean evidence supporting Christianity? There is not one shred of evidence supporting the idea that god impregnated a virgin and then gave birth to himself to then die to in some way absolve you of some imagined original sin.

Give me one piece of evidence. And don't give me the old "the universe is proof" line, that doesn't hold water.

But more curiously, it sounds like your belief in Christianity is not really faith if evidence will make you drop it.

Religious explanations cannot be tested or verified and are outside of the natural world of science. Religious explanations are supernatural explanations, whereas scientific explanations are natural explanations- HUGE difference

Joshua

Do you understand the concept of Carbon 14 dating? It is accurate back to 50-60,000 years ago--pre-dating the biblical explanation by, roughly, 50,000 years. And then there is the 65 million-year old dinosaur bones left as remnants of the Chicxulub asteroid impact, as witnessed by the K-T layer. Open your eyes and read a science book or two...

The meaning of faith is "to put your confidence or trust in a person or thing". If there is no evidence for God then there is no reason for anyone to put his/their trust in Him. If there was no evidence for God then He would be non-existent. If God didn't exist then it makes absolutely no sense to have faith on something non-existent. It would be like believing in a myth - like a unicorn. BUT, there is plenty of evidence.

So, since the universe is no proof for God you must believe the universe is infinite and you must believe that nothing created the universe. And well, that is just intellectually absurd. To believe that nothing created something is worst than magic - since at least in magic you have a magician performing the tricks.

Science shows that the universe began to exist. Since the universe exists then it has a cause. Because time and space began with universe whatever caused the universe must be beyond it. William Lane Craig puts it this way: "This being must be "uncaused, timeless, spaceless and be an immaterial being of unfathomable power - it must be personal. There are only two things that fit this description: abstract objects (like numbers) or else an intelligent unembodied mind (God). Abstract objects can't create anything therefore it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent personal mind - GOD."

Additionally, there really isn't any other option (at least no option with sufficient scientific support - for example string theory). Since to you the universe is infinite, then you are as advance in Cosmology as 1st century Greeks

You should look into the Moral Argument (look up C.S. Lewis), the Teleological Argument and The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (look up Greg Bahnsen vs Stein- The Great Debate). Since you don't accept the evidence presented for the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

For your statement concerning the virgin birth. It looks like you believe that unless you can test it scientifically (that is you believe in scientism) then nothing else exists apart from what can be scientifically tested. So, then this means you don't believe in anything that is not physical - like numbers, gravity, the mind, emotions, morality, etc.. And well that is just absurd. The question of the virgin birth is a historical question and not a scientific one. Absolutely, no one has proven (and no one can prove) the virgin birth. And of course no one has or can disprove it didn't happen either. We take the evidence found in history, in the manuscripts and the eyewitnesses.

Also, I can see that you don't have an understanding of the Doctrine of the Trinity (One God (same substance) as three personal distinctions - The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit). Jesus the second person of the trinity was born of the virgin mary (not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit). Jesus the second person of the trinity died for the sins of the world (including yours) on the cross - it wasn't God the Father or God the Holy Spirit that died on the cross.

I would challenge you to buy and read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. Or "More Than A Carpenter" by Josh McDowell.

It seems like you haven't done your homework on theology and science.

http://wn.com/Does_God_Exist__Christopher_Hitchens_vs_William_Lane_Craig_Part-5_of_14

joshua1, post#7.3: Would you share with me just a few of the religious explanations in Mormonism that are laking evidence? I would be interested in them.

Also may I ask what Christian faith you follow? Thank you.

joshua, through that whole wall of text you offered not one tangible shred of evidence that supports christianity, although you say there is "plenty" of it. What gives?

Religion exists because of humankinds fear of their personal annihilation and the meaninglessness of their lives. The religious pride themselves on their self-obsession with faith as the alpha and omega of their existance. Just have faith in god's plan you can win the prize of everlasting life in heaven and the joy of seeing your loved-ones again. Furthermore you can dismiss all the pain and suffering around you as the work of a fallen angel and those damned souls who refuse to believe. In their simplistic style natural disasters such as Katrina occur as punishment for sin. Their intentional and irrational delusion gives their lives meaning and comfort. A theory such as evolution or just about any scietific belief disrupts the comfort their happy delusion brings. By embracing religion they find they have comfort that comes from social interaction with other delusion people, whose beliefs reinforce their own. Religion is so EASY compared to science which demands repeatable experimentation and peer review of the results. Even as a child, listening to the constant threat of hellfire and damnation from the yammering preachers and evangelists, I realized what a marvelous lie religion was. I have faith, I have great faith, in science and the people who devote their lives, who find meaning for their lives, in the pursuit of truth. Evolution is truth, the survival of the fittest, natural selection, drives evolution from bacteria rapidly evolving resistance to antibiotics to whole ecosystems responding to climate change over millenium. "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according

So if there were a God with power over all mankind, you believe it would be impossible for him to have put a seed into a virgin? Have you looked at your own science? It's happened a few times...fooling around without actual penetration. Check it out for yourself.

But I happen to believe that God can do anything.

sprytling - You make God sound like a pervert. If you're correct, maybe he's responsible for all pregnancies. All along I thought I got my wife pregnant, but this changes things. And this would explain the rash of teen pregnancies as well. Now, before I get deleted, please understand that I am using this as an example of why religion is used to explain whatever we don't fully know. As long as we have a wizard out there who "can do anything", all is well.

Gregg

I hope you understand science better than you seem to understand statistics, but I am afraid that if you reject this survey based solely on these numbers you are probably a creationist. With this sample size the results are probably accurate within about four percentage points.

Great. They don't know science OR math. We are doomed.

You make statements you can't possibly believe. What you're trying to say is that you cannot be a Christian if you don't have a degree or two or three? I'm working on my doctorate at the moment. And I believe in God and freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It's in our laws. Try looking at those, and the history behind those as well. Ignorance is bliss, lib50. Try not making such generatlizations. You really come off as uneducated yourself.

It's just a poll. And it is as much about science and education as it is about religion.

And saying someone 'never" tells the truth is about as silly as saying someone is "always" right.

"...NEVER tell the truth about anything" - an outright lie (and I'm very conservative).

You read a report on a poll about creationism in America and immediately you take offense and decry left wing bias. Interesting.

The leftist media, who NEVER tells the truth about anything,

LIAR!

What do you mean by "especially at Christmas"? This is a key time of year to remind religious folks that celebrations have been held around the world for thousands of years to greet the winter solstice with a pagan feast.

Later, when controlling folks wanted to make up stories and rules to their religion, they just piggybacked onto days/holidays that people were already used to celebrating. That's why the Christian Christmas is on Dec. 25th, when scholars believe he was really born in September or October in 6BC to 4C.

There is no evidence that proves any supernatural or God-like involvement in Jesus's birth or life/death. He was just a man that later on people created a religion around tales of his life.

That puts God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in the same category as Santa Claus - a made up person and story to explain things in the world. So welcome Santa Claus, because he brings more happiness around the world than any religion ever did.

Simply because we Celebrate the birth of Christ on that date, doesn't mean that we aren't aware of how the dates were changed. I doesn't matter the date. What it matters is the reason he came...that's what we celebrate.

And isn't it odd when controlling liberals who have invaded our schools, undermined our families, and now want to disrupt our religion, and freedom of worship and speech, because it hurts their feelings, make accusations?

spry, so you know that "christmas" has its roots in paganism, yet you justify that it is still holy, because, well, it's the thought that counts?

Whatever.

Happy Solstice, by the way.

Cool. I haven't seen any leftist newspapers since the Sixties. You must have a great antiques collection.

Well said. I am an American Jew. But I don't believe in God, I do believe in my Jewish heritage and culture. I believe that man invented God when there was no science to explain why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west etc. Now that we have science and explanations, the creationist view goes down the tubes. Organized religion especially the Catholic church was created to control the people. It's amazing to me to think that in this day and age 90% of the wars in the world are over religion.

Except that all you have done is made science your "blanky". It's just turning science into a religion. Of course Athiests hate this claim. They say science is the opposite of religion. This is untrue, since it requires an inherent faith that science can explain everything and nothing in science supports such a view. Just like claiming science proves there is no God when, scientifically speaking, the most you can claim is that if there is a God science cannot detect Him.

I think it's somewhat arrogant to assume that
we're not in a cave of darkness anymore. I still haven't heard a valid scientific explanation of why there is something as opposed to nothing at all. Nor have do I think we have conclusive proof of what happens after death. I think science does an excellent job of explaining what is observable and testable, but I still think there are plenty of realms: philosophy, origins, that are just as valid to look at through a religious lens. Sure people use religion as a crutch, but like the guy above said, there's just as much faith in atheism/agnosticism. Search for what is true, not what is convenient.

Zorro - Surprisingly, I agree with you in part. I agree that 40% of us are still living in a cave of darkness, the same 40% referred to in this article.

@zorro and drakkonis:

If it's not observable, then you're pulling it out of your ass. The scientific method is the only legitimate method of explaining reality because it relies on facts, not the ramblings of drug-addled prophets.

Good God Helpmeunderstand! I finally meet the man who has total grasp of Science and has everything in life figured out. Why have you stayed hidden. I want benefit of your knowledge. I want your belief system. I want your lifestyle. I am in awe! Please write on. You've taken a petty board of posts and turned it into something that would even have Darwin bowing to your greater intelligence. To hell with art. To hell with the soul. Science is god!

to claim that athiests must believe in something is horse hockey. Science is theory, yes, and if/when new discoveries come along, they are studied and tested and if a theory needs revision, then that is what happens. There is no hope of redemption, salvation or revenge on the enemies of your faith. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. No faith there.

Also, let me make it clear that just because people have no religion or do not proclaim jesus as their savior does not make them any less spiritual in their being. Perhaps they identify with a certain universal sentience. However, the word "athiest" is exactly as it sounds. /a/(without) /theist/ ( the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation)

Thumpety, thump, thump, thumpety, thump, thump look at William go!

Sung to the tune of Frosty the Snowman. Instrument required - a bible!

William - First, thank you. Second, please be more specific. I seem to have touched a nerve.

"In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides."
— Heinrich Heine

Hopefully i won't meet you in hell. It must be sad to know that in 70-80 years or whatever you may make it to, you believe you will be no more than a dust pile because someone with a PHd fom some college says there is no God.

Go outside some night and look up and tll me this all just "happened"

Please wake up while you still can!

Hey Rick... It all "just happened". Watch Dsicovery channel sometime, lol. They have lots of shows these days that explain the formation of stars and planets over millions and billions of years.

Sheesh, stop being so narrow-minded. Being non-Christian doesn't mean non-spiritual. Learn something.

Yeah, pretty sure that was Hitchens. I find that one popping into my head ALL THE TIME. For some reason, quite a few people don't think it's as funny, or apt, as I do.

the bible says the whole world is in darkness..though you don't know it , you're still in that cave...Me ? Jesus is the light of life..and the Holy Spirit is his proof..since I have proof I don't have to sweat it..I just want some to be saved..since the bible tell me not all can b e saved...well i just find those who cry out the loudest and share Jesus with them.. like you...My word to you is ...

Jesus is...

Hey Help, whose reality? The Church of Science? The Christian Church? The Hindu's. Exactly whose reality is the one 'they' ignore? Because it's a very complex and interwoven world out there and I just need to know whose views are going to be dictated to me.

Honestly, I am totally favorable for the whole "God guided process of evolution." Why? Because there are just somethings that are unexplainable. Science can only explain so much, and the rest... is in a realm that is either unfathomable, or completely unknown. Such a realm is, in my opinion, God.

If that makes sense, great. If not, then don't mind me.

So our comfort has to go because you said so, and your comfort comes in the form of demanding that the government take care of you from womb to tomb, so you have no responsibility at all.

There are may different religious beliefs and everyone of them are beliefs that those people are entitled to. You don't have a right to dictate what they can and cannot believe.

not sure where you came up with your first sentence there, spry... but yes, ppl are entitled to their beliefs, no matter how asinine they may be. The other day a christian man said i should f@ck my mother beneath a christmas tree because he was offended that i did not say merry christmas. Instead i said happy holidays. apparently he believed he had the right to dictate to me what i should (or should not) say.

Your rights end where mine begins.

Dear Religionists,

Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean that god did it.

Sincerely,

A much more intelligent human being

Ignorance! That is one of the prime problems we see today not just in America, but in the whole world. Instead of people understanding the facts of science they remain unconvinced because they cannot change true science to suit their daily wishes. Although corporations do this daily!

Some are surely blinded by science......

Don't confuse the educated with the brain-washed. One group has obtained their beliefs through years of research and understanding... one by indoctrination since birth with the idea that even questioning those beliefs is a sin.

lonesomewolf,

Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean that god did it.

And just because we think we know how it was done doesn't mean God isn't responsible for it. Because objects fall in a gravity well doesn't mean God isn't the cause.

It could just as easily have been the Easter Bunny, Santa or little green men rather than a magical deity. However as rational, critical thinking adults we discount those make believe characters as well. Getting someone to believe in religion is kinda like domesticating dogs; you keep them in their puppy mentality for their entire life and make them dependent upon you for emotional and physical needs. This is what religion does to otherwise rational, self sufficient human beings; it keeps them at the belief in all things magical and supernatural stage of childhood, easily manipulated, devoid of natural curiosity and introspection.

And just because we think we know how it was done doesn't mean God isn't responsible for it. Because objects fall in a gravity well doesn't mean God isn't the cause.

Hmmmm..... sure. God mayhaps indirectly causes gravity through the cunning use of mass. But since we already know that gravity is causing it to fall, and we don't know if God is responsible for gravity, then why concern yourself with God in regard to a falling object?

i love coach mcguirk!!!! look alive out there!!!!

Hitchens is wrong Jesus is right! I will agree that many times many people deploy the good news of Jesus in the wrong form or way.

Why coach? Just because he has a glib tounge? Hitle had a glib tongue too.

Jack:

if you can't take the intellectual scientific and logical punches that Hitchens throws, maybe you should do what most believers do: retreat to repeating their same tired old mantras about faith and the mystery of God. If you haven't noticed, this world has entered a second dark ages. I am frankly tired of listening to the Pope, the jihadists and the fundamentalists battle in out while thousands are being slaughtered.

The Pope actually has been rather progressive in regard to evolution. John Paul II actually initiated the dialogue. The Catholic Church basically accepts evolution, but stated that God has a hand in regard to human evolution.

A decent compromise if you ask me, especially when you compare that to the nonsense of YEC's.

I'm non-religious, but my Great-Uncle is a Jesuit and teaches Biology at a Catholic university. He teaches evolution... fully and unbiased. When speaking of human evolution he only mentions the development of human rationality and mental capacities as 'guided by God.' He agrees with me that Young-Earth people gotta be nuts.

No that one is actually true, which is why men have a constant pain in their chests.

'No that one is actually true, which is why men have a constant pain in their chests.'

No that is because of all the crap we take from women :) But I think we wouldn't have it any other way.

Paul - That's what I was implying but didn't say it. You are a brave man. Also, nice recovery.

not women, one woman, Eve.

Nope, all women. Descended, not born directly from. Descended, proceeding by descent from an ancestor.

You rang?

Ah, the Church of Science. It's the new Catholic Church. If you don't agree with it you get excommunicated. It's happened. Back to the Dark Ages.

Corsair - You're yanking our chains, right?

Corsair likes to stir the pot and irritate people, like making fun of the dead korean kid that was reported by MSNBC yesterday. Ignore it.

OR they could be remains of long dead lifeforms.

Corsair calls it like I see it.

Yanking chains gets the bad dogs attention.

So possibly those seven days were, I dunno... 13.7 billion years?

Oh and Rose.

There are TWO Corsairs on the vine.

I said nothing about a dead Korean kid.

Holy crap, you're right. I thought you were the troll too. Sorry Corsair 977...

Tis otay Toasty, thanks.

You might want to consider getting a new screen name, though. He's got something of a reputation...

all apologies, Corsair. I stand corrected.

you don't have to explain the creation ...you wasn't there..The Holy Spirit has all the answers..and in due time he will reveal them to everyone...the main thing today is to do the things that will activate the Holy Spirit for your comfort,,,that is to exalt the name of the Lord Jesus..If you have been saved and experienced the presence of his Spirit, then you have the first building block of his foundation in you..increase that foundation through worship and praise and thanksgiving every day! ....Jesus will not let you down...

Mark,

There is far more proof of creation, than there is of evolution! Have you ever read the Bible? Please read Isaiah 40:22, Luke 17:34-36. Evolution cannot explain emotions. Which came first proteins or DNA? We will pray for you, as obvioulsy you need it!

Actually evolution does explain emotions. Through natural selection, those who had emotions were more likely to succeed. Thus pass on their genes, thus change the gene pool, thus create humans.

And citing the bible itself as evidence is very circular.

"We will pray for you" = "We will do nothing at all"

Got the Truth?

have you ever read greek mythology? it's PROOF that there are gods. and before gods there were titans. gods have affairs with humans, and humans compete with gods, and at the end of the day, we all go to hades. PROOF. and guaranteed you couldn't have emotions without the furies. WHATEVA. my father, zeus, says hi.

in all seriousness, read the bacchae by euripedes - proto-christianity. your religion is mythology.

Actually the bible makes it clear that the world is round. Psalm 103:12 "As far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us." On one who understands the world is round knows that if you go east you will never start going west unlike going north and south.

Evolution breaks the laws of physics (order never comes from chaos). God created the earth and all that is in it millions of years ago and created man thousands of years ago. Seven days to God is not Seven days to man.

Eratosthenes performed an experiment some time around 240 BC in Egypt in which he proved that the earth was round and also measured the circumference. Israel where the bible was written is a next door neighbor of Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

Most of the biblical stories are PARABLES. They aren't literal, AND they were written by MEN and translated many times over. They have also been altered over the years (Justinian took out all references to reincarnation).

One of the coolest greek names ever.

Progressive, you fail. People with emotions survive better and thus they are evolutionarily a benefit? First of all, you're trying to explain the nonphysical world with the a tool that is explicitly for the physical. Secondarily, in society, the best suited to survive are the psychopathic people who socialize well enough to fake emotions (enough to confuse the larger group with emotions) but are cold rational machines. Ever notice how those that succeed the best do so ruthlessly?

Fail.

Proof of creation? Mental sommersaults are not proof... Why should we believe that your creation myths are valid while the creation myths of hidus or zoroastrans are not?

Creation is greatest when the creator creates in spite of its handicap. The greatest handicap of all is non existence. god is the greatest creator, thus it has de greatest handicap, thus god is... (fill in the blank).

I read somewhere "And man said 'I create you god for I am fearful and superstitious'"

There is no proof of creation. Your proof is the bible. Circular logic only works in the world of the brainwashed.

Oh God, not another "Evolution breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" person. Do you even know what the Laws of Thermodynamics are, Truman James? In your view, water wouldn't be able to form from hydrogen and oxygen, would it? Please go back and repeat high school physics/chemistry.

The people who wrote the bible did not think the earth was flat...but rather revealed 600 years before Jesus that the earth is round..yes I was astonished 20 some years ago when I first saw it in Isaiah 40:22..." It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers..etc..

the only ancient text to have such documentation as that.. :)

The bible also taught us to wash our hands before eating or treating sick people. There are alot of scientific truths that your scientists are finding were already in the bible. The bible is a historical book, written by men inspired of God.

Mark: post#16: You don't know what you are saying. You said.....I have no problem with people who believe the Bible verbatim as long as they keep it to themselves and keep it out of the class rooms.

Christ said teach all nations, teach them to observe all things. (Gospel). The people can't do as Jesus said if you tell them to keep it to themselves and keep them out of the class rooms.

The (old testament) bible was written by man, inspired by their Egyptian neighbors. Get it right!

JMarks

A CIRCLE is FLAT. You are using the same mental sommersaults from ever.

The bible is NOT the word of some imaginary friend. it IS a collection of stories that are very amusing and instructional (if you want to see rape, incest. molestation, mass murder, genocide, etc., as such)

Dude, read the Eddas, specifically pages 567 and 1399. They are PROOF that if you die a warrior in battle you will go across the rainbow bridge to dine in the halls of Valhalla until the final battle. It's all right there, all the answers, right in the holy Eddas - clear definitive proof.

Also as clearly proven in the Eddas, the earth is a giant god's corpse. His hairs are the trees. His wrinkles the great canyons. CANT YOU READ ITS PROVEN!?!?? Find your foundation of faith in Odin through the blot, pour out some mead or suitable liquor on the ground and you WONT BE ABLE TO DENY the truth of his existence!!!

Reminds me of a history/discovery/PBS channel video that showed a paleoentologist visiting an archealogical site in western Turkey where Greek temples were being excavated. The Paleoentologist got very excited when he found dinasaur bones in the archealogists excavation refuse pile. The paleoentologist asked if these bones had been found in other archealogical sites and the answer was yes. Seems ancient traders plying their trade along ancient trade routes that were adjacent to known areas rich in dinasaur bones found them and brought them as gifts to the Greek gods. Because they did not know about dinasaurs, they thought they were the bones of deceased gods so they worshipped them just because they could not explain what they did not know about.

How can we explain an existence seperate from God? How can we explain the complexity of life? The intricacy of the human body? The human eye? How do you get something from nothing. That cannot happen seperate from God.

It is interesting looking at the findings of the article and those who were less educated believe more in God and the more educated believed in evolution. It seems to be that we start to think that we are "gods" because we "think" we are so smart. It is not a weakness for one to believe in a higher Power that we are held accountable to. A Power that only wants good for us and happiness.

Canwethink - Study evolution. You will understand how such complex being such as ourselves came to be. Considering it took billions of years, it's not so difficult to understand. I don't think those that study and try to understand science feel they are gods, rather they only take the evidence provided and try to make sense of it.

I haven't seen ONE poster even remotely imply that they thought they were a god. What they are implying, however, is that they do not believe in the notion that the entire universe, with billions of galaxies seperate than our own, was created by a bored immortal person with male genitalia, and in "his" infinite existence, actually cares that samantha had sex with joe without being married, and demands that we "praise" him to make him feel better about himself.

canwethink....you seriously need to change your username because apparently YOU can't. And seriously... who gives a rat's ass about "the meaning of life", how we got here , yada yada yada , blah blah blah. Those are questions of the FEARFUL and ignorant... not of the intelligent and logical.

Evolution gives someone who chooses not to believe in God an explanation of how they came into existence. I do agree that the world has not been shown a true example of what God is like. Those who claim to follow God need to actually follow what the Bible teaches, the whole Bible, not just parts.

Watch out......You are right, all religion & Christianity on THIS earth is almost over.......but when that does happen I'm not so sure you'll be too happy.........

you are free to evolve into the grave before you ..dust to dust and well, you've heard the rest. :)

taba, are you making a reference to armageddon? pffft

You can't study a theory. You can only attempt to prove or disprove it.

mark-1955285 - Very well said. Thank you

I should have added that science doesn't belong in a philosophy class either.

Science is a branch of philosophy. The scientific method, and inductive reasoning in general, are both very specific philosophies.

You're attempting to state that the theory of evolution has a set of known facts. It does not. It has a set of suppositions, or theories. At the very least, Creationism has the history of human knowledge passed down from one generation to the next. Both are unproven theories. I prefer mine and in the United States, I have that right and I will fight to keep it.

sprytling-

Fact- All molecular, morphological, and fossil evidence supports that organisms have a common ancestry.

Fact-Organisms inherit characteristics from their ancestors that shift in frequency in the population (allele frequencies change in populations through selective pressures and random drift with new alleles introduced through mutation). This has been observed in the lab and the field.

Evolution is a theory based on facts- it is a fact that some populations in both the lab and the field have evolved. The theory unifies all these facts- this way predictions can be made and tested- and predictions based on evolutionary theory have been shown to be correct- see the discovery of Tiktaalik by Neil Shubin- a major fossil of an early tetrapod likely to be closely related to, if not our fish ancestor that first walked on land-found in the exact strata predicted using evolutionary theory.

No one is saying you can't have your beliefs- just that they are kinda silly.

EMILY! YES! Finally, a succinct and accurate response to the many who don't know the definition of theory, of evolution, and conflate evolution with cosmology (the big bang) and abiogenesis (life from non life).

When I see someone write "I dont accept evolution", they are saying they do not accept that evolution is the foundation of modern biology, and they are completely unaware how "descent with modification" could possibly happen.

Thanks EmilyInIowa for a great post.

BTW, Tiktaalik is my favorite example of evolution in your face.

The absurdity of claiming Creation is a theory is overwhelming. It is a ruse perpetrated by the small minded to equate creation as a legitimate alternative to evolution. As such it is a supreme failure. Creation is a myth, founded in folk lore and has no standing in a scientific debate. To those that choose to believe it, that is your prerogative, however it is not your right to impose a religious folk lore upon the civilized world as a science. If you wish to remain in the dark ages, where magic, dragons and superstition rule, that is up to you, just quit trying to drag everyone else back there with you.

This article is not about denying that there could be a God, it is about people interpreting scripture literally and denying science. But thank you for asking your God to have mercy on me.

As long as your names not Job he'll have mercy. Otherwise he'll ruin your life to prove a point to the devil...really sounds like a great person that god is.

The evil in this world is because of the lack of conscience and respect in the hearts of man. No god needed for this.

Look at all these gangbangers on the streets in America today. They sell drugs, shoot people, do home invasions, etc. Then they get killed and they get the full christian service, and their mothers weep "he's with Jesus now". They were christians while they were shooting, robbing, and causing mayhem to innocent civilians.

Again, religion is not needed to make people "good" or "evil". It all lies in the heart of the individual.

Bellane, what god are your referring to? Jesus perhaps, or God that Jews believe in, or maybe Allah. How is it when the devout are so sure of their god that there are really so many of them? Not saying there is no god, but I sure would like to know which one is the right one, and what will happen to the followers of the other gods.

John... I expect you will enjoy this quote. It's my absolute FAVORITE when dealing w/"believers".

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Stephen Roberts

Progressive... Go back and look at Job. Where you see an insult and heaping misery just to win a bet with the devil, I see a huge compliment that God trusts Job enough to not curse Him. In the end, Job gets back twice as much as he had before. Sure, Job's heart is broken, but he never curses God. Look at all the suffering this world has to offer. God says everyone is going to go through it, but does promise that He's also overcome the world.

Religion is man's attempt to get to God by our own devices. In the end, it only leads to death and is altogether worthless. We are totally incapable of getting to Him, which is why He has come to us. It would be silly for the person who walks with a limp and needs a cane to walk to say that he doesn't need a crutch. Unfortunately, we don't recognize our own limp and need for that cane. You say you don't need a crutch, ok then.

One day every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. It's fine if you disagree. My prayers and my kindness will prove that God exists!

So, you think that if god takes everything away from you, you should still love him?

That's crazy.

So you think that just because you love somebody they should be nice to you and shower you with adoration because you simply have some sort of feelings for them???

I love you progressive!!!! Now start with the showering of gifts!!! ;)

Here are some facts. For the last 30 years, we have denigrated everything that Christianity held dear. The sanctity of life was one of those. Our children were taught what we didn't want taught. They were taught that their mothers had an absolute right to end their lives before they ever began. Our children were taught that they were not important and a problem from the moment of conception. They were taught that those who laid together and created them had no responsibility for them and didn't want them. They were encouraged to engage in adult behaviors, because gays were offended at our beliefs, because children will engage in sexual intercourse whether or not we taught them differently, and they were taught to see their parents as wrong and ignorant when we taught them about God. Liberal/dems did that. They entered the schools and have set up a fifedom in which it is difficult for any teacher of a conservative bent to even become employed.

Now our children believe you. They form gangs. They only believe each other. They know better than you do that children are special, and they want them, even if marriage is dead, as you've been teaching them. Now you're afraid of them. And you know what? You didn't respect their lives, and you taught them it was okay not to respect yours. You set it up, but interfering in a parent's God given obligation to teach their children right from wrong.

Don't blame us for what you've wrought. You want to know why less and less Christian children are coming to your schools? We're taking them out. We want our children to keep their sanity. They have to know how important they were to us and to our God. They weren't here by accident. They were meant to be. We want them educated, but with something other than bananas with condoms and offered abortions of our grandchildren. Do some thinking of your own. You've created the world that exists today. And I don't like the Musliims, but I honestly believe you are they ones they are trying to destroy, before you put your filthy hands into their societies and corrupt their children.

Whatever, spry. Yeah, its MY fault gangs exist. And public school teachers (who are all apparently dems and libs) taught your kids that they were mistakes and they could have been aborted on a whim. All the parents in America (other than YOU and your ilk) sat their children down and said, "we don't want you. You don't matter. Now go engage in adult behavior!"

And gang members know that children are special, and they want them? What?! Kids join gangs for notoriety and quick money, not so they have something to "believe in". They want that pair of $180 shoes. What a joke! And the secularists set this up, how? How does one interfere in another's parenting skills?

And your muslim remark, what a gem! Wasn't it Bush (a rep conservative) who said God told him to invade Iraq? The beef between the judeo-christians and muslims is all about religion. Don't try to pass that off on me. That's not my bag!

Gangs and their equivalents have existed since the dawn of mankind.

Don't be a fool and get suckered into the ridiculous "good 'ol days" syndrome. It is a totally egocentric viewpoint. It is basically akin to each generation's idiots who are totally convinced that THEIR generation will be the one that experiences the end-of-days, and that all the natural disasters and world problems of THEIR generation are far worse than those of the previous or future for that matter.

People have been screaming "THE SIGNS, THE PROPHECY!" long before written language.

Yes, that is correct. I made my peace with Jesus 20 years ago. I know that comment is going to ruffle some feathers, but who cares? I know the Truth and the Truth set me free and I know who the first person I see after I pass from this life will be Jesus.

They really need a button for DELUSIONAL on here.

If this is the same countrygirl i believe it is, she is a hardcore fundamental christian. Her posts are very annoying.

I'll take my chances with God. I have nothing to lose in my belief. I know science but i also have eyes enough to see everything we know is not an accident . There are much to many so called, accidents to account for in our world for me to just dismiss it. Even science can't explain why everything here came to be "just right" for life to exist. If you wish not to believe,that is your choice. I wish to do otherwise , and i am as intelligent as the non-believers. As far as religion being a destructive thing, it can be perverted just like anything else for the personal gain of evil people. There has been much of this through history and still goes on today. I don't think science will ever disprove the existence of God or completely prove evolution.

I'll take my chances with God. I have nothing to lose in my belief.

Sounds like a Pascal's Wager to me.

Even science can't explain why everything here came to be "just right" for life to exist.

Mathematical probability.

I don't think science will ever disprove the existence of God or completely prove evolution.

Of course science will no disprove god because you can't prove a negative. Besides, it's up to those making the claim for a god to prove it. So far, no one has.

I know the Truth and the Truth set me free and I know who the first person I see after I pass from this life will be Jesus.

Whatever helps you cope with reality I guess.

"One of the questions... on which our parties took different sides was on the improvability of the human mind in science, in ethics, in government, etc. Those who advocated reformation of institutions pari passu [at an equal rate or pace] with the progress of science maintained that no definite limits could be assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, [Loyalist/The Divine Right of Rule by Kings/conservatives] on the other hand, denied improvement and advocated steady adherence to the principles, practices and institutions of our [old world] fathers, which they represented as the consummation of wisdom and acme of excellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance... [They predicted that] freedom of inquiry... will produce nothing more worthy of transmission to posterity than the principles, institutions and systems of education received from their ancestors... [But we] possess... too much science [i.e. learning-knowledge] not to see how much is still ahead of [us], unexplained and unexplored. [Our] own consciousness must place [us] as far before our ancestors as in the rear of our posterity." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813.

this is what the apostle Paul said we who are weak, foolish, base, a thing of naught are the chosen..while not many wise, or prudent would choose or be chosen... the gospel of Christ is not really designed to the wise and prudent but for fools like me.. :)

I'm just glad to be who and what I AM ... :)

The bible also states that to those that are called, "nothing can snatch them from my hand." I was a DEVOUT christian for 27 years before my epiphany. So, I was in God's hands, yet was snatched, so to speak, by reason.

I am glad to be what I am :)~

Maybe the reason of a fool.....

JMarks,

this is what the apostle Paul said we who are weak, foolish, base, a thing of naught are the chosen..while not many wise, or prudent would choose or be chosen

So, god wants a bunch of mindless, spineless yes men? Nice...sounds like god has an inferiority problem.

If religion had it's way, there would be no science. It's only through the bravery of scientists to stand up to the Church that the world has advanced.

Thank you whatthedeuce you have made my highly spiritual "hic" shopping season so much brighter with your post.

Actually the Bible itself says that time can be different for God than for us. It says that with God "a thousand years is as a day and a day is as a thousend years".

"7 cats sitting on 7 hats"

I love it! So Dr. Seus! LOL

Actually the bible itself is a work of fiction so no matter WHAT it says...it's completely meaningless. DO NOT try to rationalize unless you're doing it with COLD HARD FACTS and/or EVIDENCE. I can't stand a circular argument/explaination. It's like spitting in the wind.

The bible has been taken from ancient texts several different times. Each time with more knowledge than before of the ancient writiings. In every case, the creation of earth has been interpreted as 7 days. I believe it was 7 days. I believe that perhaps 7 days was longer, originally than it is now. But 7 days was what it was created in. Perhaps he blew up another planet that had life on it and he took that life and fashioned animals and man from that. The bible says that Eve was fashioned from the rib of Adam. Men have an even number of ribs, so obviously he had an extra to begin with. We were created in the spiritual image of God...that has to be true, because didn't have a human image, he was spirit. Hence the idea that children don't just come from a seed, they were created and God breathed life into them.

It's as valid a theory as your theory of evolution...yet no one has taken the time to try and prove that. It's been dismissed out of hand and little by little, we're finding out that we already had alot of knowledge in the bible.

Pattyo...you must have had some great nuns. I too graduated from Catholic school in 1978, 30 yrs after you. It was understood that creationism was the rule and the Bible was to be taken literally.. They were stern, rigid and uncompromising in their beliefs . We were conditioned not to question God....or authority

I graduated from Catholic high school in 2000, and it was taken for granted that we understood the Bible as NOT something to take literally. If any of us had believed creationism over evolution, our Biology teachers' heads would have exploded.

i graduated in 1962 from an all girls catholic high school-the nuns were from italy and most entered the convent at the age of 9. every single subject from algebra to history was laced with religion--i was forced (rather they tried to force me ) to kiss a first class relic under glass (surrounded in gold) to stand up and pray when the bell rang (to a saint that eucummenical council later decided never existed)-i have the distinction of being the only girl never asked to enter their convent---i'm still proud of that! i attended 12 years of brain washing and i survived still in control of my faculties. we were not allowed to question anything regarding religious teachings. religion is about relinquishing reason and accepting that these chosen people know more than you do. i survived -not unscathed but i survived. scientists are seekers of truth--doesn't jive with religion-----

Catholic school here too. Bible as literal-nay. Evolution-aye

I should clarify that it was only grade 1-8 that had the rigid nuns.. I think they were Franciscan? Anyhow, in H.S. the nuns were a different order, and while I wouldn't exactly categorize them as liberals, or free thinkers, they did back down a bit.. we were told that creationism and evolution were not necessarily mutually exclusive.. and that God worked thru natural means... we still weren't encouraged to question the Bible or authority but it was a step in the right direction.

And your parents cared enough to send you there, to educate you, and to protect you. But it's not fashionable to be grateful to parents these days, or teachers. God Bless you and keep you.