Ben Stein's "Expelled"

[daroga]

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

A thread to discuss. Hits theaters this weekend.

[mykevermin]

ID isn't a scientific theory.

"Big science" is going to be the new strawman created by those who view intellect and academia as being fundamentally against them, rather than their ideas being absurd and shallow. It's like those folks who try to argue against scientific research by claiming (without any deeper examination than simply disagreeing with the studies' findings) that the funding is biased, the researchers biased, and the collective of researchers biased all in the direction of liberalism.

Bet they've never been in an economics or business dept. Ye gods.

I also bet (well, I *know*, but, y'know) you've never read any peer reviews I've read, written, or received. Trust me: academia is more intellectual masturbation than it is a circle jerk of like-minded folks. So much one-upsmanship and condescension of people towards those with similar research interests and like-minded hypotheses, that this "collusion" paranoia is clearly the result of people who have spent no time whatsoever in academia.

Remember: academicians egos are so frail that they often engage in zero-sum tactics: they better themselves by ferociously panning work that they get the opportunity to. And it's not done in terms of looking at the research findings first.

Again, ID is not a scientific theory, and thus has no place in science courses. Evolution can be empirically tested; ID can not.

If you can design a scientific test to find out if there is evidence of a "planner" or whatever phrase you want to use, then please do. By all means.

Until then (and I mean this directed towards anyone who believes in ID as "science," not those who believe in a creator), the phrase is quite simple: put up or shut the fuck up.

The ONLY, ONLY, ONLY positive thing about ID is that it invokes skepticism in what we are taught in school; I truly appreciate that. It's a shame that it's sent along in the same package as "you should be skeptical of things that you ideologically oppose, and wholly accept things that jive with your ideology."

[Msut77]

I have yet to see a case made for ID (or against evolution for that matter) that is not rooted in dishonesty or ignorance.

Expelled is no different.

[daroga]

Evolution on a micro scale can be empirically tested, and then extrapolated out to the macro level required for our current life diversity. I'm not sure that's real great footing to stand on, but moving on...

I think the case for this movie (if the 2 minute trailer is any indication) is not evolution at all, but the origin of life. I've yet to see that or the origin of matter explained scientifically using any plausible dose of evidence that we rely on so heavily. At some point the science of the survival of the fittest becomes the magic of the beginning of matter and life.

I'm sure the film's not going to come down exactly where I stand, and it really can't from a scientific point of view. But, as you said myke, I applaud the concept of skepticism. I think I'll be going to check this out this weekend not to say "HA! THIS PROVES CREATION!" but more out of curiosity to see where they end up and the real points they're trying to make.

I have yet to see a case made for ID (or against evolution for that matter) that is not rooted in dishonesty or ignorance.

Expelled is no different.You've seen it then, have you?

[Msut77]

You've seen it then, have you?

I have seen some of the original source material that the expelled crowd stole.

I have read several reviews/critiques of those who have seen it and some cases were featured in the movie.

[thrustbucket]

I was listening to an interview with Ben Stein this morning on the way to work. He was talking about when he got to interview Richard Dawkins and how excited he was to find out all the "real answers".

He said he was astonished when he asked Dawkins "how it all started" when he essentially said he doesn't know. He says Dawkins went on to say that it's possible alien beings created us or planted us here. Stein asked him if it were more likely that aliens put us here than God and of course he said "yes".

Of course, anyone that follows Richard Dawkins knows he's as much anti-religion as he is an evolutionist. He gives evolutionists a bad name, in that regard.

I agree with the above, proving ID is not going to be any easier than proving a creator exists. Evolution really only explains adaptation of species, it really doesn't explain how it all began and what drives it to continue, unless you want to teach students that incredibly remote statistical chances in chaos are all around us and far more common that is probable mathematically.

I see nothing wrong with teaching kids evolution, as it's observed in a lab and in nature, and leaving it at that. The rest, concerning distant past, is really just guesswork. And at that point you might as well include other guess-work theories as well.

[mykevermin]

I think the case for this movie (if the 2 minute trailer is any indication) is not evolution at all, but the origin of life. I've yet to see that or the origin of matter explained scientifically using any plausible dose of evidence that we rely on so heavily.

I can see that (and I'll simply assume you're being honest that there are few, if no, empirical tests of, say, the Big Bang theory or something similar).

I still don't think ID or any study that can *never* be empirically tested should be given any credence. For two reasons:
1) It's not science if it can't be tested or plotted
2) The problematic approach of "killing God" when a scientific explanation comes to fruition.

The second concern isn't a big deal, since the God concept has remained pretty durable despite advances in the causes of disease and illness and the recognition that criminals are not possessed by demons. The first is my sticking point; meanwhile, other theories are at least shown to be plausible in terms of mathematical demonstrations, so moving forward from that is fine as far as I'm concerned. At best, though, if you hit a point where it can't be tested, and just plotted, then I'll sour pretty quickly on the idea.

[Ikohn4ever]

I think this annoys me more than anything:

The movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, has been reviewed and reviewed and discussed.
But what hasn't been discussed as much is the fact that Yoko Ono either sold or gave the rights to "Imagine" to the producers of the film. In screenings around the country (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2400,Expelled-Overview,Josh-Timonen-RichardDawkinsnet), and in copies of the movie reviewed, everyone notes the odd inclusion of the song.

I guess that the $20 million plus the estate earns every year (http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/26/dead-celebrities-earnings_cx_pk_lh_deadceleb05_1027list_3.html) isn't enough for Yoko Ono, not only does she feel the need to license the song out, she probably held out for the highest bidder, in this case, the money behind the movie, Walt Ruloff, who made over one hundred million dollars selling his company to Microsoft. (Irony is that a company who makes computers, perhaps the ultimate daily example of the higher power of science in our lives, indirectly funded a movie that doesn't believe science should be taught in schools.)

[tokitoki50]

I can see that (and I'll simply assume you're being honest that there are few, if no, empirical tests of, say, the Big Bang theory or something similar).

I still don't think ID or any study that can *never* be empirically tested should be given any credence. For two reasons:
1) It's not science if it can't be tested or plotted
2) The problematic approach of "killing God" when a scientific explanation comes to fruition.

The second concern isn't a big deal, since the God concept has remained pretty durable despite advances in the causes of disease and illness and the recognition that criminals are not possessed by demons. The first is my sticking point; meanwhile, other theories are at least shown to be plausible in terms of mathematical demonstrations, so moving forward from that is fine as far as I'm concerned. At best, though, if you hit a point where it can't be tested, and just plotted, then I'll sour pretty quickly on the idea.


I don't want to make it sound like I'm against empiricism or for ID but I have to believe that there are some things that cannot be tested empirically, but can be logically deduced in noncontradictionary manner. Metaphysical (philosophical) topics such as possible worlds,
essential properties, and truth relativism all cannot be tested empirically, but with the use of logic and reason we can make conclusions about these topics.

There are even some really powerful arguments for the existence of god (which are still controversial, but none the less difficult to argue against). Anselm's ontological argument is a great example.

To stay on topic though, I really hope this film isn't all about ID. It's trying to marry philosophy of religion and science, which honestly does not work out even though the two aren't mutually exclusive.

[SpazX]

I actually thought that the intention of the movie was to try to show that ID proponents are removed from their jobs since they don't accept evolution. Hence "expelled". From what I know of the cases they mention those people either didn't lose their jobs, left for other reasons, or were fired for other reasons.

In any case the real point of the movie was to try to blindside some scientists to make them seem foolish to a target demographic of laymen and/or ID believers. Ben Stein has already shown his own ignorance about the science behind evolution (I believe I made a thread about it linked to a youtube video a while back) and I doubt that the other people behind the movie are any better versed in it.

The origin of life is a separate issue from evolution that is also obviously more complicated and will forever have little or no evidence left behind. Creationists often try to use the inherent and honest "I don't know" answers to the origin of life to try to wholesale dismiss naturalistic explanations of both the origin of life and evolution. They try to make the scientists look uncertain (as they should be) and therefore untrustworthy and therefore not a good authority on the subject. It mostly works for people who already believe, but I guess it can convince some others as well.

EDIT: Here's the NCSE's opposing website: http://www.expelledexposed.com/

[The Crotch]

Oh my. Oh my, oh my, oh my. Ben Stein...

Oh my. Woah my.

First off, thanks to Spaz for getting some of the more important points out there.

There are even some really powerful arguments for the existence of god (which are still controversial, but none the less difficult to argue against). Anselm's ontological argument is a great example.Don't want to derail this thread. Care to take that one to PMs? I've seen ontological arguments used before, and... well, I wasn't impressed. Could also make a new thread of it or put this in Friend of Sonic's thread.I was listening to an interview with Ben Stein this morning on the way to work. He was talking about when he got to interview Richard Dawkins and how excited he was to find out all the "real answers".Yeah, about that. Ever hear of P.Z. Myers? He's a "comrade" of Dawkins', and he also appeared in the film. Not that he knew it - he was actually told that the film would be something totally different (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php). You'll have to excuse me if I am skeptical about the portrayal of anyone this side of Kirk Cameron. I'm sure Stein was so excited to hear Dawkins' "real answers".

He said he was astonished when he asked Dawkins "how it all started" when he essentially said he doesn't know.Good on him. It would be wholly irresponsible for him to say, "it definitely happened this way." See what Spaz said.
He says Dawkins went on to say that it's possible alien beings created us or planted us here. Stein asked him if it were more likely that aliens put us here than God and of course he said "yes".It should be noted that this merely pushes things back one level, and isn't an actual answer to the question of the origin of life - merely a potential answer for the origin of life on Earth.

Of course, anyone that follows Richard Dawkins knows he's as much anti-religion as he is an evolutionist. He gives evolutionists a bad name, in that regard.Thanks for the concern trolling.

I agree with the above, proving ID is not going to be any easier than proving a creator exists. Evolution really only explains adaptation of species, it really doesn't explain how it all began and what drives it to continue, unless you want to teach students that incredibly remote statistical chances in chaos are all around us and far more common that is probable mathematically.
Take ten dice. Fuck that, take... 523. More the merrier. Roll them. See what you get. Do you know what the odds of ever getting those specific numbers are? I don't. But I betcha the odds are pretty fucking abysmal. And you want me to believe that you rolled those specific numbers! Hah! Fat fucking chance! You obviously moved them into place. Don't fucking lie to me - the odds are against you 523 times over. Don't make me get Ben Stein in here.

I see nothing wrong with teaching kids evolution, as it's observed in a lab and in nature, and leaving it at that. The rest, concerning distant past, is really just guesswork. And at that point you might as well include other guess-work theories as well.The important part of a theory - of a hypothesis - is that it is falsifiable. If you can't at least get that bit down, and the class you're in isn't called "Comparative Religion" or some-such noise, then get outta the school.

[daroga]

I'd certainly grant that ID cannot be "proven" (though I'd argue that baseline evolution can't either, because any argument given for it is easily adapted into a Creation belief; likewise most Creation-based arguments can be adapted into an evolution belief).

But, with that being the case, would you grant that the origins of matter and life have no scientifically-based explanation either? If yes, then what are your personal beliefs on the matters? If no, then what evidence is floating around for how those two things came to be?

[mykevermin]

Explain to me how evolution can be converted into a creationist idea and vice versa.

On the surface they seem wholly incompatible, whether it's the kind of 'long-term' evolutionary changes that most ID advocates posit as indicating evolution is wholly absurd (i.e., the "we didn't get to be humans from no damned tadpoles trillions of years ago" argument), or whether the sort of short term changes in mankind itself (what are the longer life expectancies, taller average heights, and greatly decreased infant mortality rates of humans if not evolution?).

[daroga]

I didn't say the theories were compatible, I said that arguments for it could be reversed easily. Creationists have an easy out. "This feature demands an earth of X billions of years old!" "Or, God created it that way."

I'm not overly familiar with the field of "Creation Science," but I'd have to imagine the same flip-flop from that camp would work toward evolution.

Care to weigh in on the origin of life and/or matter? I'm really curious to see what people think about that. :)

[mykevermin]

"God created it that way" can't stretch all that far, since it doesn't include evolution (for some, at any rate).

As for the origin of life, I'll give 'chance' and 'god' equal weight, just as a personal and completely unscientific opinion. Writing off chance because of a low probability when we are (mostly) unaware of the breadth and depth of the universe on the whole is wrong - and sometimes, it's damned hard to soak up the majesty of the world we live in and not think there's something that planned it this way.

[daroga]

"God created it that way" can't stretch all that far, since it doesn't include evolution (for some, at any rate).Is there something that it won't cover? Assuming a universe created with age, I'm not aware of a problem with the concept's wingspan.

As for the origin of life, I'll give 'chance' and 'god' equal weight, just as a personal and completely unscientific opinion. Writing off chance because of a low probability when we are (mostly) unaware of the breadth and depth of the universe on the whole is wrong - and sometimes, it's damned hard to soak up the majesty of the world we live in and not think there's something that planned it this way.Very interesting. I've been slammed for saying such things in the past, but I agree with you. Even apart from my faith, it's hard for me to look around (really look) at the complexity of life and the grandeur of our landscapes (take another watch of Planet Earth for instance) and even humor the idea of it being accident.

Any thoughts on the origin of matter? If I'm not mistaken, the Big Bang and similar theories account for the position and range of matter in the universe as it stands, but still presupposes the existence of that material before the explosion.

[Msut77]

I'd certainly grant that ID cannot be "proven"

What you do not seem to understand is that ID is the lipstick on the Creationist pig.

The funny thing about the film is that are not even really pretending otherwise any more.

[mykevermin]

Very interesting. I've been slammed for saying such things in the past, but I agree with you. Even apart from my faith, it's hard for me to look around (really look) at the complexity of life and the grandeur of our landscapes (take another watch of Planet Earth for instance) and even humor the idea of it being accident.

Heh. My wife and I debate on whether we want to have children or not (if we do, it will be at most one since we both believe the world is unsustainable with the population we already have, so we don't want to do anything to increase it) - and one of the more selfish reasons to not have children is so we can travel to far off and exotic places and do things like what you speak of. Of course, we could be talking over each other's heads: I mean traveling to natural places, parks, scenic points, mountains, and things like that; she probably means places to spend money and shop for exotic things.

Any thoughts on the origin of matter? If I'm not mistaken, the Big Bang and similar theories account for the position and range of matter in the universe as it stands, but still presupposes the existence of that material before the explosion.

Nope; for a change of pace, I have no thoughts whatsoever on this.

[daroga]

What you do not seem to understand is that ID is the lipstick on the Creationist pig.

The funny thing about the film is that are not even really pretending otherwise any more.What?

Of course, we could be talking over each other's heads: I mean traveling to natural places, parks, scenic points, mountains, and things like that; she probably means places to spend money and shop for exotic things.That's probably something good to clarify before you get into your airplane or hot-air balloon.

Nope; for a change of pace, I have no thoughts whatsoever on this.April 16 is circled on my calendar. ;)

[seanr1221]

I'm still not quite sure why religion and science try to mix together. Science explains how things work, and your spiritual beliefs can explain why things work (To that respective person of course).

[Msut77]

What?

ID is not and was never meant to be an actual scientific theory, it is an attempt to sneak creationism into schools.

Expelled hardly even pretends otherwise anymore.

[camoor]

I'm still not quite sure why religion and science try to mix together. Science explains how things work, and your spiritual beliefs can explain why things work (To that respective person of course).

Philosophers are the people who theorize on the answer to why.

Religions provide a set of answers and ask only for belief.

Therefore it makes sense to me why scientists and philosophers rarely feel as if their respective fields clash, but scientists and religious fundamentalists are often at odds.

Religion is like one of those old Ninty game and watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_&_Watch) handhelds that were preprogrammed to play one game only. Philosophy is like a Gameboy where you can plug multiple carts into the system and get several different outcomes.

[seanr1221]

Hmmm...what you say makes sense. I guess my problem is I mix philosophy and religion together :p

[fatherofcaitlyn]

(what are the longer life expectancies, taller average heights, and greatly decreased infant mortality rates of humans if not evolution?).

I don't believe in creationism, but the answer is better diets and better access to health care.

[mykevermin]

Which flies in the face of the ultimate anti-evolution argument from religious types: it doesn't jive with "God's perfect creation" claims. Perfect then or perfect now?

Don't get me wrong, I'm uninterested in parsing out God's perfection, and I'm also well aware why child mortality rates are down and nobody's afraid of measles or polio anymore. I'm just pointing out that evolution doesn't necessarily have to be this massive, or even visually noticeable change. It can just as easily be living longer.

[seanr1221]

Sickle Cell Anemia would be a simple example of evolution IMO.

[mykevermin]

Because of its higher occurrence among blacks? Or am I missing something?

[camoor]

Sickle Cell Anemia would be a simple example of evolution IMO.

Peppered Moth FTW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution)

[seanr1221]

Because it's a protection against Malaria.

[mykevermin]

ah. Pretty lousy protection. Like the Halliburton of the immune system.

[seanr1221]

:lol: still you see what I'm saying right?

[mykevermin]

Aye. To play devil's advocate, is it more "adaptation" than "evolution"?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Because it's a protection against Malaria.

Sickle cell anemia is caused by having total type S hemoglobin.

When infected with malaria, it takes a sickle shape.

If a person only has half type S hemoglobin, the growth of a malaria infection is slowed or halted when the type S cells are immobilized while regular hemoglobin remains uninfected and still providing oxygen to the body.

It is found more in black people because malaria was more prevalent in humid Africa than frozen Denmark.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Aye. To play devil's advocate, is it more "adaptation" than "evolution"?

Adaptation is putting on a heavy coat in a snowstorm.

Evolution is having large quantities of fat insulating you from the snowstorm.

[mykevermin]

Why can't adaptation be "those w/ sickle-cell anemia lived, and passed it on to more and more people, while those who did not have it died in larger numbers - the result being that people w/ SCA became a larger portion of the population than they were before due to others dying out"?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Why can't adaptation be "those w/ sickle-cell anemia lived, and passed it on to more and more people, while those who did not have it died in larger numbers - the result being that people w/ SCA became a larger portion of the population than they were before due to others dying out"?

You're mostly right.

The adaptation/evolution is that SCA carriers (1/2 type S hemoglobin) survive in better numbers in a malaria rich environment.

If they survive in better numbers, they produce more offspring.

However, 25% of the their offspring will have SCA (full type S hemoglobin).

Those with SCA and those without any type S hemoglobin are in for the same rough ride in a malaria rich environment.

EDIT: Adaptation and evolution can be used interchangeably.

[t0llenz]

I've seen micro-evolution, I've actually forced it to happen in laboratories time and again to get the cells I wanted back when I was pretending to be a biologist in undergrad/grad school, before I moved back into engineering. Macro-evolution is a pretty straightforward extrapolation. Yes, it's difficult to empirically test, but it's a logical assumption.

That said, evolution and the creation of the universe through any Biblical sense are not mutually exclusive. First, consider the fact that in the word "day" in Genesis may or may not have been translated correctly and that some current translations into Hebrew use a term meaning "indeterminable time unit." Secondly, consider the fact that as when you look at an overview...it's a gradual creation of all things with Man being the last to form after light, Earth, plants, and animals which is, to a certain degree, what evolution is -- a gradual formation of everything through evolutionary processes. What's so wrong about claiming that a greater power had some part in sparking the big bang and setting it all in motion?

Back to the actual film, it looks interesting. Obviously it's going to be ridiculously biased and, like all documentaries, will show only what it feels the urge to show in order to get it's point across. That's okay. It shows a different side and yes, some of its claims such as that Darwinism is partly responsible for the Holocaust despite Darwin's books being burned by the Nazi's, are outrageous. Take it for what it's worth -- Ben Stein trying to show people that dissent in the scientific community for a cause that he believes in isn't always acceptable. It's also a useful tool for those who don't believe in ID to be able to actually understand why people like Mike Huckabee and Ben Stein could begin to view it as an acceptable alternative to teach in the schools.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I've seen micro-evolution, I've actually forced it to happen in laboratories time and again to get the cells I wanted back when I was pretending to be a biologist in undergrad/grad school, before I moved back into engineering.

Amp+ plasmid FTW.

[daroga]

Which flies in the face of the ultimate anti-evolution argument from religious types: it doesn't jive with "God's perfect creation" claims. Perfect then or perfect now?Biblical Creation is "perfect then." At mankind's fall into sin, the whole creation was affected by that. Death came to creation (and eternal death in hell to mankind as punishment for sin).

Death wasn't part of the original creation. We're doing alright stretching out life-spans, but we're never going to be able to completely circumvent that great inevitability thanks to sin.

[thrustbucket]

"God created it that way" can't stretch all that far, since it doesn't include evolution (for some, at any rate).

I just felt the need to respond to this. I know a lot of people that believe in god, and they all believe in evolution.

Philosophers are the people who theorize on the answer to why.

Religions provide a set of answers and ask only for belief.

Therefore it makes sense to me why scientists and philosophers rarely feel as if their respective fields clash, but scientists and religious fundamentalists are often at odds.


Hmmm...what you say makes sense. I guess my problem is I mix philosophy and religion together :p

I agree with Seanr1221. For me, philosophy and religion are the same. I think most religions and most religious pepole have changed in the past 100 years to think of religion in more philosophical terms. I don't know very many religious people, or religions for that matter, that demand their members believe a religions answers and reasons for everything.

More and more religions are morphing into tools. Launching pads into a new realm of thought. And they encourage seeking out answers outside theirs.

[camoor]

I agree with Seanr1221. For me, philosophy and religion are the same. I think most religions and most religious pepole have changed in the past 100 years to think of religion in more philosophical terms. I don't know very many religious people, or religions for that matter, that demand their members believe a religions answers and reasons for everything.

More and more religions are morphing into tools. Launching pads into a new realm of thought. And they encourage seeking out answers outside theirs.

That's a very progressive attitude.

However it really doesn't explain why conservative Christians march in lock step on issues such as stem cells, abortion, and rights for homosexuals. Where is this rock solid voting bloc coming from if religous people are being encouraged to engage in critical thinking?

Moreover the current President of the United States is a fundamentalist. As in, he litereally believes everything written in the Christian Bible (even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff). Surely America couldn't elect such a dogmatic leader if that characteristic wasn't prevelent in a sizable portion of it's citizens.

[daroga]

Interesting, so can someone who's a critical thinker not have views different from yours on stem cells, abortion, and homosexuality?

[t0llenz]

Interesting, so can someone who's a critical thinker not have views different from yours on stem cells, abortion, and homosexuality?
Thank you, daroga. I was planning to say something similar.

They key word that you should notice, camoor, is the term conservative. I know plenty of non-religious conservatives who oppose embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and abortion. I know a number of Christians who attend church regularly who are middle of the road on abortion and in some cases even support wholeheartedly same-sex marriage. One can be a critical thinker even within their own religious views and come to a different conclusion than someone else. Religious people do critically think and it's not merely the religious that are part of the voting block that came out to vote for President Bush. Just because these "Evangelical voters" came out in 2000 and 2004 suddenly, doesn't mean that they're a huge portion of the voting population and the sole basis for the support of President Bush. He had united fiscal conservatives who cared little for his social issues and war hawks. These people who only cared about social issues because of their religious views are in the vast minority when compared to the larger voting public. Look at how the GOP primary played out and how the characters who only pushed forward these views (i.e. social conservatism as #1) failed to make enough traction to come close to winning, ex. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback. Heck, Huckabee still didn't have as many delegates as Romney until the last primary he competed in and still didn't have the number of actual votes Romney had when he dropped out...and say what you will about Romney, his candidacy wasn't a one-trick, social conservative pony like Huckabee.

Also, did President Bush bold-faced say that he believes in the Christian Bible verbatum with no leeway for symbolism, etc? I can't think of an actual quote where he's said that. He's a member of the United Methodist Church, which is the same church as John Edwards, Dick Cheney, and Hillary Rodham Clinton -- quite the varied background.

[pittpizza]

Biblical Creation is "perfect then." At mankind's fall into sin, the whole creation was affected by that. Death came to creation (and eternal death in hell to mankind as punishment for sin).

Death wasn't part of the original creation. We're doing alright stretching out life-spans, but we're never going to be able to completely circumvent that great inevitability thanks to sin.

So is it your position that "sin" is also responsible for aging? What about SIDS? Did G-d bring death on those sinful infants b/c of sins?


FWIW, I too think that philosophy and science are very similar. (I was a philosophy major in undergrad.) We basically both start with an assumption (hypothesis in science) and then sit around smoking herbs and try to poke holes in the outcome of what that assumption and reasoning (experiments in science) conclude.

Science is concerned about the answers, but equally concerned about how you get there.
Religion is concerned about the answers, but could care less about how you get there -->FAITH!
Philosphy is NOT concerned about the answers (well, almost entirely NOT), and ONLY cares about how you get there (good logical reasoning).

[thrustbucket]

Also, did President Bush bold-faced say that he believes in the Christian Bible verbatum with no leeway for symbolism, etc? I can't think of an actual quote where he's said that. He's a member of the United Methodist Church, which is the same church as John Edwards, Dick Cheney, and Hillary Rodham Clinton -- quite the varied background.

I've noticed a lot of people really believe Bush is a fundamentalist. The extreme left pushes this belief in order to justify what they say about him and vilify him further. (I am NOT saying Camoor is extreme left).

But I too, have never seen proof of it, which can really only be an admission stated somewhere.

Camoor, it would be silly for me to claim the issues you listed are not at least partially influenced by religion. But I don't see that as a bad thing. I think ultimately, with the issues you listed, people go by their gut feeling. Does it feel wrong or right? Most religious and non-religious people I know ultimately do that.

[Sleepkyng]

people seriously argue for ID still?
it's a joke, an embarassment of america.

http://www.venganza.org/

why would anyone try to explain science with faith?
no one tries to explain faith with science, so GTFO.

[daroga]

So is it your position that "sin" is also responsible for aging? What about SIDS? Did G-d bring death on those sinful infants b/c of sins?Aging in terms of just getting older? I don't think so. I'd have to imagine that had a child been born in Eden before the fall into sin, the child would've grown up from a baby as we know them now to an adult. Aging as far as complete deterioration of the body, then yes. As to whether or not there was an ideal peak that the human body would get to sans sin and then remain there, I don't know. Without sin there is no death, or sadness, or pain.

Do children die because of sin, both theirs and those of the world around them? Yes.

no one tries to explain faith with science, so GTFO.Actually people do attempt to do that. It's called "Creation Science." I, too, believe it's largely a silly and fruitless endevaor, but I'd have to imagine for the complete opposite reasons as you do.

[thrustbucket]

no one tries to explain faith with science, so GTFO.

Actually, a lot of people do.

If the truth were a rope, and science was one end of that rope, a lot of people believe that spirituality is simply the other end of the same rope.

One can only be experienced on a personal level, internally. While the other one only validates itself through proof to another persons five senses.

And not everyone believes only one end of the rope (method) should matter.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Aging in terms of just getting older? I don't think so. I'd have to imagine that had a child been born in Eden before the fall into sin, the child would've grown up from a baby as we know them now to an adult. Aging as far as complete deterioration of the body, then yes. As to whether or not there was an ideal peak that the human body would get to sans sin and then remain there, I don't know. Without sin there is no death, or sadness, or pain.


Did you write this with a straight face?

[SpazX]

I'm no expert, but there certainly are internally consistent and logical theories/hypotheses about the origin of life based on what evidence there is. There isn't nearly the amount of evidence that there is for evolution (since soft tissue doesn't usually fossilize and we're going back much farther in time), but from what scientists can figure out about the conditions on Earth in that time period, etc. they have come up with various theories/hypotheses. You can go to the wiki page on abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) to see many of the thoughts about the origins of life on Earth.

When you go into those theories you're getting into a very complicated and technical field though, which is hard to understand unless you've already studied it.

As far as the origin of matter you're going into physics and getting much more difficult. As you said the Big Bang isn't the origin of matter, but rather the expansion. There is good evidence for the Big Bang (most especially the background radiation from it) and the expansion of the universe is pretty well understood (though not really by me, of course), but in the past there have been ideas of big bang/big crunch and possible infinite expansion and contraction of the universe, but as of now (AFAIK) the expansion of the universe is accelerating so there isn't as much support for that anymore. Wiki page: Big Bang
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang)
All of this is far more abstract than the origin of life and infinitely more abstract than evolution itself. I reiterate that the ID movement doesn't talk about the origin of life or the origin of matter out of sincere curiosity they do it to show that scientists can't be entirely certain of it and they try to use that uncertainty to cast doubt on the more certain aspects of evolution. They've already made up their mind about the origin of matter, life, and humans and they're not out to gain any knowledge about it. This movie is a propaganda piece for the ID movement, not a scientific or religious discussion of the origins of matter, life, etc.

What's weird about this movie is that they are obviously attacking the political left, which is the side of the political spectrum that is in more support of evolution, etc. and has less conservative values. To do this, they try to connect evolution with the Nazis, etc. Social Darwinism is, of course, not a good thing, but the irony lies in the fact that the political leftists were not the supporters of Social Darwinism and Nazism. The Social Darwinists were uber-capitalists that tried to justify their desire for wealth and wanton disregard for others with evolution and of course the Nazis hated the communists. Socialism is the antithesis of Social Darwinism. There is nothing more unlike survival-of-the-fittest than a collective community that wants to make everyone equal.

The ID movement's point, as always, is to say that evolution destroys culture and a more traditional and Bible-based belief system is what's necessary to correct the horrible things happening in the world. Their entire purpose is to try to get ID into school so they can get more religion into school and make everything more Christian and acceptable to them, it's not and never has been to educate anyone about anything.

EDIT: daroga, evolution simply is not compatible with your beliefs about sin. Do you oppose it for this reason? The best evidence we have shows that organisms lived and suffered and died long before humans ever existed, so of course there was no possibility for them to have sinned to bring death and suffering into existence unless you're simply excluding humans and saying their sin brought their own death, but otherwise shit died anyway. Even then you'd have to tell me when humans became human and were capable of sin.

[pittpizza]

Aging in terms of just getting older? I don't think so. I'd have to imagine that had a child been born in Eden before the fall into sin, the child would've grown up from a baby as we know them now to an adult. Aging as far as complete deterioration of the body, then yes. As to whether or not there was an ideal peak that the human body would get to sans sin and then remain there, I don't know. Without sin there is no death, or sadness, or pain.

Do children die because of sin, both theirs and those of the world around them? Yes.


Okay, I understand you. So at what age then would aging stop? Could the inhabitants of eden choose thier age to stop aging? Could they go backwards as well? Or do they just go fowards up until a certain point and then stop? Do they get to choose at all? What if a 19 year old really wants to be 21, but stops aging at 19? On that note, what is the age that the human body starts to deteriorate?


I've got one more question about: "Without sin there is no death, or sadness, or pain." Every woman can tell you that child birth is really painful, so how would we reproduce in Eden? Would babies just flop out in a quick and painless motion? Angelic obstritricians armed with super-lube? How did this work?

I also never got how we could all be spawn of adam and eve. Wouldn't inbreeding become an issue with such a small genetic gene pool? On that note, how the fuck did Noah get all those animals on one boat, certainly many of the animals couldn't survive in the same climate, or did he have refrigerated compartments for the arctic species?

[thrustbucket]

Did you write this with a straight face?

He's merely stating what he believes. There is no reason to take the low road into religious intolerance here, even though it's clearly open season and very PC these days.

He is studying to be a priest, cut him some slack.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

He's merely stating what he believes. There is no reason to take the low road into religious intolerance here, even though it's clearly open season and very PC these days.

He is studying to be a priest, cut him some slack.

I understand he is becoming a priest. If he is referring to Eden as a theoretical ideal, no problem. If he is referring to Eden as a literal place that existed, I have to balk at it.

[Msut77]

Is thrust actually saying others are not playing fair because they say that magic is not a good enough answer, this thread is after all supposed to be about science.

[daroga]

Did you write this with a straight face?In that is was completely speculative and a somewhat vague question in the first place, yes, I think I managed to get through that with laughing too much.

EDIT: daroga, evolution simply is not compatible with your beliefs about sin. Do you oppose it for this reason? The best evidence we have shows that organisms lived and suffered and died long before humans ever existed, so of course there was no possibility for them to have sinned to bring death and suffering into existence unless you're simply excluding humans and saying their sin brought their own death, but otherwise shit died anyway. Even then you'd have to tell me when humans became human and were capable of sin.Spaz, thanks for the post and the links. Once this paper is done I think I'll do some reading only to be completely lost, but at least I'll feel smarter. ;)

My opposition towards evolution comes principally and overridingly (totally a word) from my faith, of which the sin concept is a key component. It's not so much that this one component of the faith can't coexist with the scientific theory, as much as the scientific theory completely run contrary to what God has said he did to create the world.

Along with that, there's nothing that Creation cannot explain. God's creating of the universe in 6 24-hour-days is pretty all encompassing. It might not make sense, but most supernatural things don't. Creation doesn't require mental gymnastics to explain the origin of matter, life, and the species assuming the presupposition of that the supernatural can and does happen. I have a feeling that my stance on creation would make even some ID-backing scientists a little wary, because while biblical Creation certainly falls under this category, it's only a component to the ID theories and ideas I've heard.

That's also not to say that evolution doesn't happen. God created an adaptable, mobile world. Some of Darwin's ideas are blatantly obvious. The weak and the frail get picked off by predators, thus the stronger of the herds' DNA is what gets passed down. The problems come in when you try to extrapolate that backwards. The mutations to the degree that they were necessary to have life evolve from single-celled organisms generally kill creatures today because they require more nutrients to stay alive or the creature isn't stable enough to survive. The fictional world gives us amphibian ninjas and superheroes, but that's not really the way those things work in real life.

This is rambling a tad so I'll cut it off. While I'm certain I won't walk out of the movie saying "HA! GREATEST THING EVER!" some of the questions he asks in the trailer are the things that start to probe the hidden wounds of the assumptions made by the theory of evolution. The term may not really be used to describe the origin of matter or of life, but it does depend on both of those.

[pittpizza]

And your responses to my questions, daroga?

[daroga]

Sorry, I missed your post above Pitt!

Okay, I understand you. So at what age then would aging stop? Could the inhabitants of eden choose thier age to stop aging? Could they go backwards as well? Or do they just go fowards up until a certain point and then stop? Do they get to choose at all? What if a 19 year old really wants to be 21, but stops aging at 19? On that note, what is the age that the human body starts to deteriorate?I think I answered that already. Since this was all speculative and Eden never got beyond 2 people and presumably a short period of time, "I don't know."

I've got one more question about: "Without sin there is no death, or sadness, or pain." Every woman can tell you that child birth is really painful, so how would we reproduce in Eden? Would babies just flop out in a quick and painless motion? Angelic obstritricians armed with super-lube? How did this work?One of the consequences of sin in the world was a wretchedly painful child-birthing process for women (see Genesis 3). As to how would it work without sin there? As it's speculative again, I don't know. I do know that it would not have been painful though.

I also never got how we could all be spawn of adam and eve. Wouldn't inbreeding become an issue with such a small genetic gene pool? On that note, how the fuck did Noah get all those animals on one boat, certainly many of the animals couldn't survive in the same climate, or did he have refrigerated compartments for the arctic species?The Bible doesn't really give details on these items. I could speculate and make crap up, but that wouldn't be all that productive.

See, now wasn't that informative? ;)

[fatherofcaitlyn]

The weakness with evolution starts from the point of nothing and ends with the first cellular organism.

The weakness with creationism starts from the first cellular organism and ends with the Sun expands into a red giant and incinerates the Earth.

...

The evolutionary explanation for aging is simple. Everything requires energy. An organism that doesn't age would have less available energy to mate, protect itself or obtain nutrients. If a competing organism doesn't expend as much energy to maintain itself but reproduces faster, it could overcome an immortal organism by sheer numbers. Then, the immortal organism starves to death.

...

Regarding creationism, why would a god create a planet and dump so many bones in the dirt? Is that god keen on red herrings?

[thrustbucket]

Regarding creationism, why would a god create a planet and dump so many bones in the dirt? Is that god keen on red herrings?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you insinuating that creationists don't/can't believe in the dinosaurs?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you insinuating that creationists don't/can't believe in the dinosaurs?

True creationism claims the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Fossil records say a few billion.

Now, are those fossils gussy-upped rocks or are geologists completely retarded in dating sediment and fossils?

[daroga]

When dating of sediment and fossils discounts a younger earth that was created with age and an event as catastrophic to the whole of the earth as the Flood, then, yeah, I'd say they're bound to make a few mistakes in dating things.

But I'm certainly not up on the methods and conclusions drawn in such fields to say anything authoritatively.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

What is the creationist view on carbon dating?

Does the rate of radioactive decay vary wildly for C14?

[JolietJake]

I think this annoys me more than anything:

The movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, has been reviewed and reviewed and discussed.
But what hasn't been discussed as much is the fact that Yoko Ono either sold or gave the rights to "Imagine" to the producers of the film. In screenings around the country (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2400,Expelled-Overview,Josh-Timonen-RichardDawkinsnet), and in copies of the movie reviewed, everyone notes the odd inclusion of the song.

I guess that the $20 million plus the estate earns every year (http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/26/dead-celebrities-earnings_cx_pk_lh_deadceleb05_1027list_3.html) isn't enough for Yoko Ono, not only does she feel the need to license the song out, she probably held out for the highest bidder, in this case, the money behind the movie, Walt Ruloff, who made over one hundred million dollars selling his company to Microsoft. (Irony is that a company who makes computers, perhaps the ultimate daily example of the higher power of science in our lives, indirectly funded a movie that doesn't believe science should be taught in schools.)Nobody seems to have noticed this, but i think thats a real shame, i've always loved that song. Especially the bit about "imagine no religion, it's easy if you try." Only, people won't try.

[The Crotch]

Spaz, have I told you how much I love you lately?
The weakness with evolution starts from the point of nothing and ends with the first cellular organism.

Not really. You're looking for abiogenesis. Go down that hallway there - third door on the left. Completely different topic, though the two are often confused. Don't go into the third door on the right - that's big bang theory. They get real testy when you mix the two up.

When dating of sediment and fossils discounts a younger earth that was created with age and an event as catastrophic to the whole of the earth as the Flood, then, yeah, I'd say they're bound to make a few mistakes in dating things.

But I'm certainly not up on the methods and conclusions drawn in such fields to say anything authoritatively.
C'mon, man. The problems with The Flood (curse you, capitalism) go a lot beyond mere sediments.

[daroga]

C'mon, man. The problems with The Flood (curse you, capitalism) go a lot beyond mere sediments.Sure, but I imagine you're referring to proof of it, not what it did to the earth, which is what I was referring to.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Not really. You're looking for abiogenesis. Go down that hallway there - third door on the left. Completely different topic, though the two are often confused. Don't go into the third door on the right - that's big bang theory. They get real testy when you mix the two up.

As of 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008), no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics.

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

If you can find a way to take Ammonia, Sulfur, Formaldehyde and Water and make something like E. Coli, you can crush Creationism more.

Evolution doesn't explain the drive for organic compounds to come together and form an organism ... yet.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Sure, but I imagine you're referring to proof of it, not what it did to the earth, which is what I was referring to.

Did the Biblical Flood scour the Earth down to the Mantle?

[thrustbucket]

True creationism claims the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Fossil records say a few billion.

Now, are those fossils gussy-upped rocks or are geologists completely retarded in dating sediment and fossils?

I've heard this from a few ashiest friends, which seems rather silly to me.

I know tons of people that believe in god. And they would say they believe god was behind all creation.

But I honestly don't know anyone that believes the earth is only a few thousand years old. Nor do I know any christian that takes the bible that literally.

So one of us has a rather antiquated definition of creationism. I've never heard the belief of the earth being that young being a requirement to be a creationist. I don't know any religious person that believes that.

[daroga]

If you can find a way to take Ammonia, Sulfur, Formaldehyde and Water and make something like E. Coli, you can crush Creationism more.Debatable. Even if they were to force such a thing to occur (I'm sure you won't blame me for not holding my breath), there'd still be the difficult process of proving that that's how it happened. Never mind a source of the Ammonia, Sulfur, Formaldehyde and Water.

Best of luck, though.

But I honestly don't know anyone that believes the earth is only a few thousand years old. Nor do I know any christian that takes the bible that literally.

So one of us has a rather antiquated definition of creationism. I've never heard the belief of the earth being that young being a requirement to be a creationist. I don't know any religious person that believes that.Hi Thrust! You do too know one! ;)

I don't think there's a real solid date established (the genealogies in the Bible don't necessarily form a complete A-to-B flow of the course of years and length of time as that wasn't their purpose), but any age much beyond 10,000 years would give me pause.

But, yeah, biblical Creation is 6 24-hour-days. If you're going to hold to an infallible Bible, theistic-evolution (is that a concept proposed by the ID camp?) doesn't jive with the rest of the Bible.

[SpazX]

Spaz, have I told you how much I love you lately?

You don't tell me enough :cry:

When dating of sediment and fossils discounts a younger earth that was created with age and an event as catastrophic to the whole of the earth as the Flood, then, yeah, I'd say they're bound to make a few mistakes in dating things.

But I'm certainly not up on the methods and conclusions drawn in such fields to say anything authoritatively.

I may only be slightly more versed in this sort of thing and I'm no expert, but the datings seem to correlate well between methods and with the strata. Hell, how about another wiki? :-P Radiometric dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating)

Even assuming that the dating is off, however, the order of fossils is still consistent and reliable. You don't have human bones mixed with dinosaur bones or mammals mixed with trilobites, etc. Even if the timescale was off by a factor of 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 the fossil record still shows organisms living, suffering, and dying before humans came about. And if it was the Flood that messed with the order then not only would the order not be so consistent, but the bones would have been thrown around haphazardly and sorted by density so you wouldn't have the fossils of an entire dinosaur lined up as if it had died there and fossilized or things like that.

[BigT]

Sickle cell anemia is caused by having total type S hemoglobin.

When infected with malaria, it takes a sickle shape.

If a person only has half type S hemoglobin, the growth of a malaria infection is slowed or halted when the type S cells are immobilized while regular hemoglobin remains uninfected and still providing oxygen to the body.

It is found more in black people because malaria was more prevalent in humid Africa than frozen Denmark.

To clarify, one must distinguish between sickle cell disease (SCD, aka sickle cell anemia) and sickle cell trait (SCT).

In SCD, people are homozygous for Hemoglobin S. This means that each red cell contains mostly HbS. This is a bad thing, because HbS tends to polymerize and these cells are very prone to sickling (forming the characteristic banana-like shape). This generally occurs during periods of dehydration, low pH, or deoxygenation. The sickled cells are rigid, sticky, and fragile. Thus, they clog up the circulation causing infarctions throughout and they fall apart leading to anemia. The consequences are terrible, and people usually die in adolescence without treatment (blood transfusions, hydroxyurea, good hydration/oxygenation).

In SCT, people are heterozygous for Hemoglobin S and Hemoglobin A. In general, they have no problems. Each cell has both HbS and HbA, but the concentration of HbS is not high enough to cause sickling. In the face of malaria infection (which is a red cell parasite), it is believed that sickling is increased... so the infected cells commit suicide as abnormal RBCs are picked up by the reticuloendothelial system as they pass though the spleen. There are probably other factors, but for some reason, the RBCs of these people are not a good environment for the malaria parasite.


Now to go back a step, we have to realize that SCD is caused by a substitution of one amino acid in the Hb tetramer (discovered in Linus Pauling's lab at Caltech). This brings about a point that small changes in DNA may have wide ranging effects (usually deleterious). It is still hard for me to reconcile how random mutations over the years would lead to the diversity of life that we see now... It would seem like an incredibly tedious and drawn out process, since most large DNA alterations would tend to result in spontaneous abortions or terrible maladaptive traits...

[The Crotch]

BigT, showing once again why he is my favourite conservative on this site.

Can you feel the love emanating from my general direction? Can you? Motherfuckers?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

It looks like Big T didn't skip his Genetics class as much as I did.

Let's see if he can figure this one out ...

Why is there no sickle cell anemia in Asian Indian or American Indian populations?

...

Also, I had a mad scientist experiment for Big T ...

What happens to the breathing ability of a person with cystic fibrosis degraded lungs after being placed in hyper oxygenated amniotic fluid for hours at a time over the course of several months and years?

[BigT]

It looks like Big T didn't skip his Genetics class as much as I did.

Let's see if he can figure this one out ...

Why is there no sickle cell anemia in Asian Indian or American Indian populations?

...

Also, I had a mad scientist experiment for Big T ...

What happens to the breathing ability of a person with cystic fibrosis degraded lungs after being placed in hyper oxygenated amniotic fluid for hours at a time over the course of several months and years?

India has its fair share of malaria and sickle cell disease, although I think another hemoglobinopathy that confers resistance to malaria may be more common in those parts of Asia: Thalassemia. Basically, hemoglobin is formed from different types of globin chains: usually 2 alpha and 2 beta globins. In thalassemia, either the alpha or beta chains are deficient... so, there is an excess of the other, which causes abnormal tetramers and unstable RBCs.

I'm not sure about American Indians? Did they have problems with malaria in the past?



I'm not sure what you're getting at with the CF question? Hyper-oxygenated amniotic fluid? Is that some new therapy I've never heard about? ;) I've heard of people using hypertonic saline solutions via nebulizer to try to clear out dried/thickened secretions... I guess amniotic fluid could be used in a pinch... :D

Their lungs are ravaged with with abnormal viscous secretions, chronic infections, and pus that leads parenchymal damage... they have bronchiectasis, obstructive lung disease, and large ventilation-perfusion mismatches. Since we don't have gene therapy, they will eventually need lung transplants (not fun, high mortality)

[JolietJake]

To clarify, one must distinguish between sickle cell disease (SCD, aka sickle cell anemia) and sickle cell trait (SCT).

In SCD, people are homozygous for Hemoglobin S. This means that each red cell contains mostly HbS. This is a bad thing, because HbS tends to polymerize and these cells are very prone to sickling (forming the characteristic banana-like shape). This generally occurs during periods of dehydration, low pH, or deoxygenation. The sickled cells are rigid, sticky, and fragile. Thus, they clog up the circulation causing infarctions throughout and they fall apart leading to anemia. The consequences are terrible, and people usually die in adolescence without treatment (blood transfusions, hydroxyurea, good hydration/oxygenation).

In SCT, people are heterozygous for Hemoglobin S and Hemoglobin A. In general, they have no problems. Each cell has both HbS and HbA, but the concentration of HbS is not high enough to cause sickling. In the face of malaria infection (which is a red cell parasite), it is believed that sickling is increased... so the infected cells commit suicide as abnormal RBCs are picked up by the reticuloendothelial system as they pass though the spleen. There are probably other factors, but for some reason, the RBCs of these people are not a good environment for the malaria parasite.


Now to go back a step, we have to realize that SCD is caused by a substitution of one amino acid in the Hb tetramer (discovered in Linus Pauling's lab at Caltech). This brings about a point that small changes in DNA may have wide ranging effects (usually deleterious). It is still hard for me to reconcile how random mutations over the years would lead to the diversity of life that we see now... It would seem like an incredibly tedious and drawn out process, since most large DNA alterations would tend to result in spontaneous abortions or terrible maladaptive traits...Well thats the point of natural selection, those maladaptive traits would have been bred out of the species. At least thats my understanding.

[StealthNinjaScyther]

Looking at evolution at the genetic level can be a bit confusing, but after studying it for some time I think I have a pretty decent grasp of it.

So, mutations can be extremely deleterious, so how can this process be of much help? The first problem seems to be a misunderstanding of the nature of mutations. You have to remember that most mutations are neutral. Secondly, deleterious mutations are weeded out fairly quickly, simple natural selection at work.

A point that helped me understand evolution much better is looking at genes are in a different way. All genes are essentially copies of another. It is these copies building up over time that allowed organisms to grow in complexity. Take one set of genes that code for a type of cell and then copy it so that it makes more cells exactly like it. Now over time mutations will change the coding so that two cells that were once the same start to differentiate. This is where we see specialization occur. One set of cells might continue to whatever it did while the differentiated cells can carry out new and separate tasks. So you can think of this such that all organisms are basically sets of repeated and differentiated structures. I hope this poor explanation makes some sense.

People tend to assume more randomness in evolution than there actually is. Mutations are simply building on what is already there. And whatever doesn't work is gone pretty quickly.

I also must take issue with the assertion that macroevolution is some sketchy extrapolation of microevolution. This isn't the case. The processes at work guarantee that evolutionary processes inevitably lead to changes that would be considered macro. There's simply no magical barrier that prevents a species from evolving past a certain point. I can get into this more later if anyone is interested.

[thrustbucket]

Hi Thrust! You do too know one! ;)

I don't think there's a real solid date established (the genealogies in the Bible don't necessarily form a complete A-to-B flow of the course of years and length of time as that wasn't their purpose), but any age much beyond 10,000 years would give me pause.

But, yeah, biblical Creation is 6 24-hour-days. If you're going to hold to an infallible Bible, theistic-evolution (is that a concept proposed by the ID camp?) doesn't jive with the rest of the Bible.

Ah, I see. Yeah, I certainly don't believe the bible is infallible. I believe it's true as far as it's translated correctly.... which is mostly up to an individual to discover.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I'm not sure about American Indians? Did they have problems with malaria in the past?


They found quinine.

[Msut77]

Nobody seems to have noticed this, but i think thats a real shame, i've always loved that song. Especially the bit about "imagine no religion, it's easy if you try." Only, people won't try.

Yoko Ono did not give them permission to use the song.

Apparently the producers have very sticky fingers and did not pay for any of the songs or videos they used.

[camoor]

Lot of good points here. When did CAG become Conservative Ass Gamer ;)

Interesting, so can someone who's a critical thinker not have views different from yours on stem cells, abortion, and homosexuality?

Absolutely not - in fact, I think it's the mark of critical thinking when a group of people come up with different viewpoints on the same issue. That's why I take issue with conservative Christians, it's too much of a coincidence to think that they all came to the exact same black-and-white viewpoint on stem cells, abortion, and homosexuality by critically evaluating the issues. I sincerely doubt this voting block performed a thorough reading and evaluation of moral philosophy and the teachings of several religions before making up their minds.

Thank you, daroga. I was planning to say something similar.

They key word that you should notice, camoor, is the term conservative. I know plenty of non-religious conservatives who oppose embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage, and abortion. I know a number of Christians who attend church regularly who are middle of the road on abortion and in some cases even support wholeheartedly same-sex marriage. One can be a critical thinker even within their own religious views and come to a different conclusion than someone else. Religious people do critically think and it's not merely the religious that are part of the voting block that came out to vote for President Bush. Just because these "Evangelical voters" came out in 2000 and 2004 suddenly, doesn't mean that they're a huge portion of the voting population and the sole basis for the support of President Bush. He had united fiscal conservatives who cared little for his social issues and war hawks. These people who only cared about social issues because of their religious views are in the vast minority when compared to the larger voting public. Look at how the GOP primary played out and how the characters who only pushed forward these views (i.e. social conservatism as #1) failed to make enough traction to come close to winning, ex. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback. Heck, Huckabee still didn't have as many delegates as Romney until the last primary he competed in and still didn't have the number of actual votes Romney had when he dropped out...and say what you will about Romney, his candidacy wasn't a one-trick, social conservative pony like Huckabee.

Yes, I have several friends who are both conservative and Christian as well - not them, I'm really talking about the people who mix the two to the point that they equate a disagreement with their policy opinions to an attack on their religion (the so-called "War on Christianity"). I believe there are many more of these people then your analysis would suggest, I believe religion plays a much larger role in contemporary American politics then you do. For example - I sincerely doubt fiscal conservatives were pulling for Bush the second time around. Besides - ask yourself if you honestly think a non-Christian could win the White House. Not likely.

Also, did President Bush bold-faced say that he believes in the Christian Bible verbatum with no leeway for symbolism, etc? I can't think of an actual quote where he's said that. He's a member of the United Methodist Church, which is the same church as John Edwards, Dick Cheney, and Hillary Rodham Clinton -- quite the varied background.

I believe God did create the world. And I think we're finding out more and more and more as to how it actually happened.
...
After all, religion has been around a lot longer than Darwinism.


So Bush believes the bible as far as ID vs. evolution is concerned. Bush W. also literally believes the the Christian God specifically told him to be President, told him to order the United States to invade the Middle East, etc. That's a pretty literal interpretation of the Christian God as presented in the OT, many of my other Christian friends don't think that God speaks specifically to them.

I've noticed a lot of people really believe Bush is a fundamentalist. The extreme left pushes this belief in order to justify what they say about him and vilify him further. (I am NOT saying Camoor is extreme left).

But I too, have never seen proof of it, which can really only be an admission stated somewhere.

Camoor, it would be silly for me to claim the issues you listed are not at least partially influenced by religion. But I don't see that as a bad thing. I think ultimately, with the issues you listed, people go by their gut feeling. Does it feel wrong or right? Most religious and non-religious people I know ultimately do that.

I believe a gut-feeling can be a legitimate component of one's decision making process. However IMO it must be accompanied by a rational evaluation of the situation. It's all too easy to judge everything anecdotally, it's much more challanging to judge issues based on an evaluation of all perspectives and the basic concept of fairness.

[pittpizza]

...See, now wasn't that informative? ;)

Three "I don't know"s!?

And people say that Religion has all the answers! Bah. But yes, it was informative, thanks for answering honestly.

I'm kind of surprised that the words "separation of church and state" haven't shown up in this thread yet, especially since, from a legalistic standpoint, it's the crux of the argument against allowing ID to be taught in schools.

ID is strictly a church/religious view. You can't even bring it up without bringing up G-d and Religion at the same time.

Those crazy assholes who wrote our constitution knew the pitfalls of having a religious state, and didn't want their country to be that way.

ITS UNFUCKINGCONSTITUTIONAL!!! End of story.

Keep religion out of our government, out of our laws, out of our courts, out of our executive branch, out of our police departments, schools, and anything else run by the government.

NO religion in the government people! Go to church or synagogue or mosque or anythign else for that. It does not belong in our state buildings.

Lemon test from Lemon v. Kurtzman
The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion). It consists of three prongs:

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.If any of these 3 prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause) of the First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment) to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution).

FYI, a government paid teacher teaching somethign is a "government action."

[bigdaddy]

ID is fine, if they go "God created the Big Bang" because we don't know what or how it was created.

However if ID goes "God made humans in 7 days", then fuck them.

[daroga]

ID is fine, if they go "God created the Big Bang" because we don't know what or how it was created.

However if ID goes "God made humans in 7 days", then fuck them.How is that any different? Isn't the issue not primarily the time frame of the existence and actions of God in shaping out world? You're conceding a lot more than you might think by allowing "God" to create the "big bang."

It's something called theistic evolution that tries to marry the Bible's creation account and science's guesses about the origins of the universe. The problem is that it's a horrible offense to both the Bible and science.

[camoor]

How is that any different? Isn't the issue not primarily the time frame of the existence and actions of God in shaping out world? You're conceding a lot more than you might think by allowing "God" to create the "big bang."

It's something called theistic evolution that tries to marry the Bible's creation account and science's guesses about the origins of the universe. The problem is that it's a horrible offense to both the Bible and science.

Daroga, you seem to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is fine.

My question is, do you want that taught in schools?

[daroga]

Daroga, you seem to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is fine.

My question is, do you want that taught in schools?Not at all. No more than I want prayer in school or other religious stuff to be commingled with our public school system. Let the churches deal with that.

What I would like to see is a little bit more honesty and transparency in things we're uncertain about. Present the layers of sediments, present the carbon datings, present goofy pictures of cells turning into apes, whatever. But be honest and don't lie to the kids like we've been lied to for years. The hubris of "This is absolutely the way it was no questions asked no other ideas are even remotely possible" needs to be toned down. Honesty such as "Based on what we can observe and extrapolate back, this is the best guess we've got."

Let's be honest about what a significant mutation usually means for the life of the organism. Let's be honest about how there's no inter-species breeding; and thus, how that brings to doubt the ability for significant mutations to be able to reproduce with those not mutated and thus having the mutation, even if it's viable on its own, dieing without passing on its genes. Let's be honest that we don't even know simple things like why cells stop dividing let alone creating a bacteria out of simple components. Let's be honest to say we don't have any idea where the matter in this universe came from save for an idea of eternal matter which has its own set of problems.

Even just a mention that some people find an answer to these problems in a supernatural creation by a force greater than ourselves would be kinda neat too. Like, maybe on paragraph at the end of a section of a text book. It needn't be specific to biblical Creation, but just a recognition that there are other beliefs out there.

I'd be thrilled to see any of that happen. I certainly never heard any of that in school. And I'm not that old!

[camoor]

Not at all. No more than I want prayer in school or other religious stuff to be commingled with our public school system. Let the churches deal with that.

What I would like to see is a little bit more honesty and transparency in things we're uncertain about. Present the layers of sediments, present the carbon datings, present goofy pictures of cells turning into apes, whatever. But be honest and don't lie to the kids like we've been lied to for years. The hubris of "This is absolutely the way it was no questions asked no other ideas are even remotely possible" needs to be toned down. Honesty such as "Based on what we can observe and extrapolate back, this is the best guess we've got."

Let's be honest about what a significant mutation usually means for the life of the organism. Let's be honest about how there's no inter-species breeding; and thus, how that brings to doubt the ability for significant mutations to be able to reproduce with those not mutated and thus having the mutation, even if it's viable on its own, dieing without passing on its genes. Let's be honest that we don't even know simple things like why cells stop dividing let alone creating a bacteria out of simple components. Let's be honest to say we don't have any idea where the matter in this universe came from save for an idea of eternal matter which has its own set of problems.

Even just a mention that some people find an answer to these problems in a supernatural creation by a force greater than ourselves would be kinda neat too. Like, maybe on paragraph at the end of a section of a text book. It needn't be specific to biblical Creation, but just a recognition that there are other beliefs out there.

I'd be thrilled to see any of that happen. I certainly never heard any of that in school. And I'm not that old!

The educational system could certainly use some cleaning up - more critical thinking and less memorization. It could also use some philosophy to round out the mathematics, science, and literature.

On the issue of evolution, which is already complex for a young mind, I think multiple theories can be a bit much to lay on them. To be sure, you have to explain what a scientific theory is (IE it's not an apriori fact). Yet I remember how confusing it was when my bio teacher (who was typically very scientific and thorough) quoted Crosby Stills Nash and Young on her final, asking us to explainWe are stardust, we are golden,
We are caught in the Devil's bargain,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.
in the context of evolution. You're getting into territory that a gifted HS sophmore is going to be grappling with, let alone the average student out there.

[Msut77]

Not at all. No more than I want prayer in school or other religious stuff to be commingled with our public school system. Let the churches deal with that.

What I would like to see is a little bit more honesty and transparency in things we're uncertain about. Present the layers of sediments, present the carbon datings, present goofy pictures of cells turning into apes, whatever. But be honest and don't lie to the kids like we've been lied to for years. The hubris of "This is absolutely the way it was no questions asked no other ideas are even remotely possible" needs to be toned down. Honesty such as "Based on what we can observe and extrapolate back, this is the best guess we've got."

Let's be honest about what a significant mutation usually means for the life of the organism. Let's be honest about how there's no inter-species breeding; and thus, how that brings to doubt the ability for significant mutations to be able to reproduce with those not mutated and thus having the mutation, even if it's viable on its own, dieing without passing on its genes. Let's be honest that we don't even know simple things like why cells stop dividing let alone creating a bacteria out of simple components. Let's be honest to say we don't have any idea where the matter in this universe came from save for an idea of eternal matter which has its own set of problems.

Even just a mention that some people find an answer to these problems in a supernatural creation by a force greater than ourselves would be kinda neat too. Like, maybe on paragraph at the end of a section of a text book. It needn't be specific to biblical Creation, but just a recognition that there are other beliefs out there.

I'd be thrilled to see any of that happen. I certainly never heard any of that in school. And I'm not that old!

Have you ever taken a biology course past the 10th grade level?

Is your college accredited?

There is really no way to even begin to respond to your post.

[daroga]

Have you ever taken a biology course past the 10th grade level?

Is your college accredited?Yes. And, yes. My sights were set more on lower strata of education, though.

There is really no way to even begin to respond to your post.You needn't try. I won't think any less of you for giving up.

[pittpizza]

Daroga, do you really beleive Noah fit two of every species on his ark?

[Fanboy]

Nobody seems to have noticed this, but i think thats a real shame, i've always loved that song. Especially the bit about "imagine no religion, it's easy if you try." Only, people won't try.

Now this is probably just an urban legend -- and I searched Snopes.com without success -- but I've heard that some American stations (and I've only heard this rumour about American stations) played a version with the lyrics changed to "imagine one religion, it's easy if you try".

If this is true, and while part of me dismisses this rumour out of hand, another part thinks this is all too possible, then maybe it's not that people haven't noticed, but that the people who should notice have never had the opportunity to.

[Msut77]

You needn't try. I won't think any less of you for giving up.

Considering you ignore about half the direct questions presented to you... never mind here goes.

...present goofy pictures of cells turning into apes, whatever.

We have a pretty decent fossil record all things considered and it is only getting better and more complete.

For example:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220220241.htm

The wiki is pretty thorough as well:

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


But be honest and don't lie to the kids like we've been lied to for years. The hubris of "This is absolutely the way it was no questions asked no other ideas are even remotely possible" needs to be toned down.

You described basically every religion ever. If you really mean what you are saying then perhaps the ID guys should come out with better arguments than those shown in "expelled" if they want to be taken seriously.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss


Let's be honest about what a significant mutation usually means for the life of the organism.

No matter how you define significant this is practically irrelevant, slowly but surely is the best way of summing it up, what you may have heard of punctuated equilibrium aside.

Let's be honest about how there's no inter-species breeding; and thus, how that brings to doubt the ability for significant mutations to be able to reproduce with those not mutated and thus having the mutation, even if it's viable on its own, dieing without passing on its genes.

The mutations (again slowly but surely) are only significant in hindsight over the course of thousands and thousands of years. Are you arguing that inter-species breeding is the most important source of mutation?

Let's be honest that we don't even know simple things like why cells stop dividing

Telomeres?

[thrustbucket]

ID is strictly a church/religious view. You can't even bring it up without bringing up G-d and Religion at the same time.



So then how do you classify those that believe people are the results of genetic tampering by an outside alien race?

How do you classify those people that believe life on earth was created by an alien race?

How do you define those that believe there is an underlying "force" behind all things and connecting all things, which also brings order out of chaos - but do not belong to a religion?

Most of those people (and I know many) feel their beliefs can be classified as ID. But they don't belong or adhere to any church or religion. I have been in many discussions with people like that who never brought up God, religion, or a church. So would that make it ok to at least "mention" it in schools?

[daroga]

Daroga, do you really beleive Noah fit two of every species on his ark?Sure. Although it doesn't specify if they were adult animals or young. There were obviously no aquatic animals and likely no amphibians on the ark. Hibernation has been theorized for feeding problems.

Remember, the Ark wasn't a fishing boat. The thing was enormous (over 500 of our standard railroad cars, over 2 million cubic feet if my quick Google is at all accurate). Assuming vertebrate animals, even allowing for some that may be extinct now, an estimate has been put for that between 1500 and 2400 animals were on board.

But I don't think that has a lot to do with our current topic.

[Msut77]

Sure. Although it doesn't specify if they were adult animals or young. There were obviously no aquatic animals and likely no amphibians on the ark. Hibernation has been theorized for feeding problems.

Remember, the Ark wasn't a fishing boat. The thing was enormous (over 500 of our standard railroad cars, over 2 million cubic feet if my quick Google is at all accurate). Assuming vertebrate animals, even allowing for some that may be extinct now, an estimate has been put for that between 1500 and 2400 animals were on board.

But I don't think that has a lot to do with our current topic.

So how do you think he gathered them up?

Surely the whale who swallowed Jonah could have helped gathering and transporting some of them correct?

[daroga]

Msut, you've missed a lot of my points I think. Most likely because I worded them poorly. Let me take another stab at 'em.

Mutations: Slow and sure works just fine for mild things, but eventually you need massive leaps in that chain. Take the heart for example. Things that are "slowly but surely" developing a 3 chambered heart from a 2 chambered heart will... die. There's gotta be a big jump there.

Likewise, at some point in macro evolution for it to truly become a new species it has to cross the line where it is no longer compatible with the old species. And you can say slow and steady all you want but we don't have any "in between" species that can breed with relatives on either side but the relatives can't breed to the best of my knowledge.

Thanks for the lesson on telomere. Learned a few things I'd not known or forgotten :) I misspoke a bit. My point was in that we don't know how to make cells not stop renewing themselves. At a certain age we begin to decline with no way to stop it. If I'm not mistaken all of our great promises of increasing our life span exponentially run into this wall and stop. It's not a big factor in this discussion, but more of just a reality check that we can't even manipulate existing cells in this way; we're much farther away from somehow being able to create out own cells out of base material than we might like to think.

As to our off-topic tangent and the animals and the ark, the Bible pretty clearly says that God brought the animals to Noah. It doesn't specific exactly how.

[JolietJake]

Yoko Ono did not give them permission to use the song.

Apparently the producers have very sticky fingers and did not pay for any of the songs or videos they used.Yeah, thats what i meant. It's a shame that they ripped lennon off. Not that yoko really needs the money....

[bigdaddy]

How is that any different?


Are you stupid?

One is that we don't know how everything started. i could say that an giant ant started the universe we live in, there is no way to prove or disprove it.

However saying that God created the Earth and only the Earth 8,000 years ago in seven days is teaching religion in school, and that is wrong.

[JolietJake]

So how do you think he gathered them up?

Surely the whale who swallowed Jonah could have helped gathering and transporting some of them correct?
I always figured the smaller animals road on the backs of the larger ones. Monkeys riding on elephants etc...

[daroga]

Are you stupid?

One is that we don't know how everything started. i could say that an giant ant started the universe we live in, there is no way to prove or disprove it.

However saying that God created the Earth and only the Earth 8,000 years ago in seven days is teaching religion in school, and that is wrong.Direct insults aren't welcome here. You get one pass.

And you also changed what you stated. You originally said "ID is fine, if they go 'God created the Big Bang'" which would be, by your definition, teaching religion in school and therefore be wrong.

I question the concept was just spouting off useless drivel simply because "we don't know." Is there anything productive to be gained from saying "a giant ant started the universe"? I think it would be far more reasonable, and far more academically appropriate, to simply put forth different views in the classroom. I'm not sure that ID demands that they be postulated as the right answer, but simply as an option. If you read above, you'd see I'd be more than happy with it as a footnote.

[evanft]

When dating of sediment and fossils discounts a younger earth that was created with age and an event as catastrophic to the whole of the earth as the Flood, then, yeah, I'd say they're bound to make a few mistakes in dating things.

But I'm certainly not up on the methods and conclusions drawn in such fields to say anything authoritatively.

....what? Either you're trying to say that the fact that scientific dating processes have proven the Earth to be more than 6,000 years old is wrong because the Flood happened and therefore altered the chemical makeup of the rocks and what not used in dating or that the mistakes made in dating somehow makes it so shaky as to warrant looking at it with a serious critical eye. I don't think there's a real solid date established (the genealogies in the Bible don't necessarily form a complete A-to-B flow of the course of years and length of time as that wasn't their purpose), but any age much beyond 10,000 years would give me pause.

So, in your older post, you seem to somewhat dismiss the use of scientific dating because of some error present in it, but then it appears that you use the bible as some sort of guide for the age of the Earth. This doesn't work, daroga. It's something called theistic evolution that tries to marry the Bible's creation account and science's guesses about the origins of the universe. The problem is that it's a horrible offense to both the Bible and science.

Not really. One is human discovery that has lead to a vast understanding about the world around us and has saved countless lives, while the other is a book of fairy tales.

Frankly, I'm getting really sick and tired of daroga. How can we possibly debate science with someone who takes children's stories seriously and expect valid, reasonable discussion? It would be like arguing with someone who still believes in Santa Clause that matter can't travel faster than the speed of light.

[StealthNinjaScyther]

Msut, you've missed a lot of my points I think. Most likely because I worded them poorly. Let me take another stab at 'em.

Mutations: Slow and sure works just fine for mild things, but eventually you need massive leaps in that chain. Take the heart for example. Things that are "slowly but surely" developing a 3 chambered heart from a 2 chambered heart will... die. There's gotta be a big jump there.

Likewise, at some point in macro evolution for it to truly become a new species it has to cross the line where it is no longer compatible with the old species. And you can say slow and steady all you want but we don't have any "in between" species that can breed with relatives on either side but the relatives can't breed to the best of my knowledge.


I'm sorry daroga, but you're clearly demonstrating that you do not understand evolution here.

Did a quick google search on the evolution of the heart and picked up several results. This is not my area of expertise, but I can see that there have been several papers written specifically on this subject. I can pretty much assure you the issue isn't a problem for evolution. This article looks to be a good start if you want to look into this more: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/53145.php

There is no line defining a species. Genetic change over time is inevitable. All alleles go to fixation or become extinct. Mutation maintains variation. But the point is that over time genes will change and without any mechanism to counteract this process speciation will occur. And have you really never heard of ring species? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

[Cheese]

Ben Stein's main beef seem to be that ID is just as creditable as evolution because, you'know, a lot of people like Jesus, and FREE SPEECH! Both are fine for dinner conversation, but for teaching science they are useless.

There is none, nada, zero, zilch, .00000%, no evidence that supports any single part of ID, while on the other hand, every piece of evidence we've ever found points to evolution, from DNA discovery and mapping to flagellum cilia. Now are there breaks in the discovery line? Yes, but to fill them in with JESUS POWER is ridiculous.

Stein's recent interviews have been TV-smashingly frustrating because his entire argument seems to start and end with Darwin, leaving out the last 150 years of biological research and advancement that all stem, in one for or another, from the basic precepts laid down by evolutionary biology. He is a hard right neo-fascist religious nut who was made famous by Richard Nixon and Ferris Bueller. As smart as he may be in legal and political matters (not that he's right in them, but 'learned' nonetheless) his proven scientific knowledge is on par with 1950's level grade school text books. For him to make a movie on a scientific topic is smear to everything humans have achieved in the last century and a half.

PS - Noah's arc, if it were the size mentioned, couldn't hold all the forms of insects on the planet, much less any mammals.

[pittpizza]

So then how do you classify those that believe people are the results of genetic tampering by an outside alien race?

How do you classify those people that believe life on earth was created by an alien race?

How do you define those that believe there is an underlying "force" behind all things and connecting all things, which also brings order out of chaos - but do not belong to a religion?

Most of those people (and I know many) feel their beliefs can be classified as ID. But they don't belong or adhere to any church or religion. I have been in many discussions with people like that who never brought up God, religion, or a church. So would that make it ok to at least "mention" it in schools?

Well I hate to classify, but if you insist:

The first I'd classify as: "People who beleive people are the results of genetic tampering by an outside alien race?"

The second I'd classify as: "People who believe life on earth was created by an alien race?

The third I'd classify as: "People who believe there is an underlying "force" behind all things and connecting all things, which also brings order out of chaos - but do not belong to a religion."

It is important to be as specific as possible so as not to be over or under-inclusive.

ID is defined on www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) as : The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.

Now what an individual refers to this "intelligent being" as is up to them, but to me and the majority of other people, they call it "G-d."

You take a crack at defining what is a religion, a belief in karma, an acknowledgement of mother earth, a cult, or just a whacko. I'm not gonna, and US Courts are hesistant to do it too.

There are cases that force them to though. Rastas wanna smoke weed (ha, reminds me of another active thread at the moment...coincidence?? Maybe?) and making that criminal, it can be argued, is infringing upon the free exercise of their religion.

Another example: Some guy doesn't wanna work on Wednesdays because he says it's against his religion to work any Wednesday. Should his employer be forced to make reasonable accomodations to allow him to work around Wednesdays? What if it's not just him, but an entire group of people? A community (maybe one in TEXAS thats practices polygamy??? Ring a bell?); how about a whole State? What about the majority of the people in a society? Ugh, I sure as fuck don't know what makes a religion a relgion, but IIRC, some factors that they consider are the amount of people that hold the belief/traditoin/practice, whether it is a sincerly held deep belief (or some language very close to that, I swear!) and other factors like the regularity of the practice, whether there is a formal place of worship, etc...

It's a tough call, deciding what is a religion and what isn't. I'm don't want to have to decide that, and it has been argued that even the Court deciding those things is violative of the Constitution and the First Amendment.

[BigT]

I'm sorry daroga, but you're clearly demonstrating that you do not understand evolution here.

Did a quick google search on the evolution of the heart and picked up several results. This is not my area of expertise, but I can see that there have been several papers written specifically on this subject. I can pretty much assure you the issue isn't a problem for evolution. This article looks to be a good start if you want to look into this more: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/53145.php

There is no line defining a species. Genetic change over time is inevitable. All alleles go to fixation or become extinct. Mutation maintains variation. But the point is that over time genes will change and without any mechanism to counteract this process speciation will occur. And have you really never heard of ring species? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

It seems like daroga is bringing up the question of how microevolution relates to macroevolution. Is macroevolution just the result of a series of small individual mutations or is there one big event, a hopeful monster, that develops and thrives?

When viewing parts of the body, it is important to look back to embryology and note how we all form into adults. The developing heart within a fetus is initially comprised of a primitive vascular tube that eventually forms the 4 chamber heart that we have as children and adults. In this way, it has been said that embryology retraces evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory) It is important to remember that small genetic or environmental changes may have profound effects on the final outcome with respect to an organ or organism. However, as a caveat, I would still imagine that most changes leading to a significant change would be more prone to be disasterous rather than beneficial. And, even though I'm supposed to know better, I still have difficulty imagining the exact mechanism of how new species may form over time without some more gradual steps (perhaps our concept of a species is not fully accurate and my ability to imagine an insanely large time scale is limited by my paltry 26 years on this earth).

[The Crotch]

Msut, you've missed a lot of my points I think. Most likely because I worded them poorly. Let me take another stab at 'em.

Mutations: Slow and sure works just fine for mild things, but eventually you need massive leaps in that chain. Take the heart for example. Things that are "slowly but surely" developing a 3 chambered heart from a 2 chambered heart will... die. There's gotta be a big jump there.

Likewise, at some point in macro evolution for it to truly become a new species it has to cross the line where it is no longer compatible with the old species. And you can say slow and steady all you want but we don't have any "in between" species that can breed with relatives on either side but the relatives can't breed to the best of my knowledge.
Ninja did a damn fine job, but I'd just like to talk a bit more (suprise) about this. What Daroga's more-or-less talking about here is Michael Behe's "Irreducible Complexity". Irreducibly complex organisms are those having parts so vital to their function that were they to be absent, the organism simply could not exist. And since they are so absolutely vital, they could not have been gradually added via our old friend evolution.

Take, for example, this bridge, shamelessly stolen from talkorigins.org (because, let's face it, they're fucking badass when it comes to this stuff): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/stone_bridge2.jpg

If it was missing any part, it would cease to function. It is irreducibly complex.

Sort of. The whole picture goes a little bit more like this...Step 1
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/stone_bridge0.jpg

Step 2
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/stone_bridge1.jpg

Step 3
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/stone_bridge2.jpg

Not all that irreducibly complex at all. At no point was the bridge nonfunctional, and it was all done one step at a time. Now, that's not the one way everything happened I guarantee. Merely an illustration of the flaws of IC.

Once again, many thanks to talkorigins. They explain shit far better than I ever would be able to. Those images were taken from this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html) piece on irreducible complexity (or "Mullerian interlocking complexity").


And just for the record, pointing out whatever flaws are involved in the whole Noah's Ark thing isn't exactly gonna get you anywhere. If you, for example, believe that modern dating techniques are entirely flawed because they show no record of any global flood, then my asking how all those animals fit on the ark or how fresh-water fish survived in the suddenly much more saline environment or where the hell all that water came from/went to won't make much of a difference. If God can make it rain for 40 days and 40 nights, he can probably handle the logistics of intercontinental penguin travel.

[StealthNinjaScyther]

It seems like daroga is bringing up the question of how microevolution relates to macroevolution. Is macroevolution just the result of a series of small individual mutations or is there one big event, a hopeful monster, that develops and thrives?

When viewing parts of the body, it is important to look back to embryology and note how we all form into adults. The developing heart within a fetus is initially comprised of a primitive vascular tube that eventually forms the 4 chamber heart that we have as children and adults. In this way, it has been said that embryology retraces evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory) It is important to remember that small genetic or environmental changes may have profound effects on the final outcome with respect to an organ or organism. However, as a caveat, I would still imagine that most changes leading to a significant change would be more prone to be disasterous rather than beneficial. And, even though I'm supposed to know better, I still have difficulty imagining the exact mechanism of how new species may form over time without some more gradual steps (perhaps our concept of a species is not fully accurate and my ability to imagine an insanely large time scale is limited by my paltry 26 years on this earth).

It doesn't help to think of microevolution and macroevolution as separate processes since the only real difference is time. The hopeful monster idea is a dead end. Big changes aren't really necessary for evolution to produce the variation we see today.

I think you might also be placing too much emphasis on mutation. Not that it isn't extremely important. Mutations with noticeable effects are still rather rare. Drift and selection are at work more than mutations are. It might also help to stop thinking of mutations in terms of being beneficial or detrimental. Really, a particular mutation doesn't have to be beneficial to stick around. It's the detrimental mutations that don't last. It took awhile for these ideas to click for me too, this is pretty heavy stuff after all.

[BigT]

It doesn't help to think of microevolution and macroevolution as separate processes since the only real difference is time. The hopeful monster idea is a dead end. Big changes aren't really necessary for evolution to produce the variation we see today.

I think you might also be placing too much emphasis on mutation. Not that it isn't extremely important. Mutations with noticeable effects are still rather rare. Drift and selection are at work more than mutations are. It might also help to stop thinking of mutations in terms of being beneficial or detrimental. Really, a particular mutation doesn't have to be beneficial to stick around. It's the detrimental mutations that don't last. It took awhile for these ideas to click for me too, this is pretty heavy stuff after all.

Sure, over time we have developed many benign polymorphisms...

I focused on mutations because one needs a mechanism for diversity. Genetic drift may account for a small population favoring certain alleles just by chance... but still, the development of a novel allele is necessary for significant change... and how can this happen, aside from a germline mutation?

Same idea for natural selection... we need diversity to select from. Of course, as I mentioned before, small genetic changes may cause a huge change in phenotype (just see what havoc accutane may wreck on facial development because of its effect on the expression of Hox regulatory genes).

[daroga]

Interesting stuff, guys. It's a bit early here to really digest it, so I might come back later when I'm... awake.

At first blush I'd just like to thank Ninja for more or less proving my point and showing some honesty on that matter. That heart example is exactly what I was talking about. If that's how it happened (a particular environmental cause causing havoc on the developing offspring), that's pretty much what I'd call a "big change." There's nothing slow and steady about Mom having a 1 chambered heart and Son having a 2 chambered heart. It also introduces a whole host of other questions in my mind, most of which are likely easily answered by someone who's been awake for more than 20 minutes.

The Ring Species thing is also interesting. I wonder if those guys scattered through the ring who can't mate--is it that they can't or they won't. Is it that they biologically can't make it work or due to their unfamiliarity with each other there's no natural instinct to mate. Could you forcibly get offspring from them even if they wouldn't do it on their own?

[mykevermin]

Haven't been following in a few days due to being generally busy (i.e., doing some writing as well as seriously wanting to finish Lost Odyssey before GTAIV comes out), but I thought I'd hop in with the NYT review. Evidently, only one person has been allegedly "expelled" as the title suggests, and there is debate over whether completing a research assistantship means the same thing as being expelled.

April 18, 2008
Resentment Over Darwin Evolves Into a Documentary

*
E-MAIL
* Print
* Save
* Share
o Digg
o Facebook
o Mixx
o Yahoo! Buzz
o Permalink

Article Tools Sponsored By
By JEANNETTE CATSOULIS
Published: April 18, 2008

One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.

Positing the theory of intelligent design as a valid scientific hypothesis, the film frames the refusal of “big science” to agree as nothing less than an assault on free speech. Interviewees, including the scientist Richard Sternberg, claim that questioning Darwinism led to their expulsion from the scientific fold (the film relies extensively on the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy — after this, therefore because of this), while our genial audience surrogate, the actor and multihyphenate Ben Stein, nods sympathetically. (Mr. Stein is also a freelance columnist who writes Everybody’s Business for The New York Times.)

Prominent evolutionary biologists, like the author and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins — accurately identified on screen as an “atheist” — are provided solely to construct, in cleverly edited slices, an inevitable connection between Darwinism and godlessness. Blithely ignoring the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism, the film links evolution theory to fascism (as well as abortion, euthanasia and eugenics), shamelessly invoking the Holocaust with black-and-white film of Nazi gas chambers and mass graves.

Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated — images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in “Planet of the Apes.” This is not argument, it’s circus, a distraction from the film’s contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method. The film suggests, for example, that Dr. Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination but neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term.

Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn “Expelled” is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.

“Expelled” is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). It has smoking guns and drunken logic.

EXPELLED

No Intelligence Allowed

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Nathan Frankowski; written by Kevin Miller and Ben Stein; narrated by Mr. Stein; director of photography, Mr. Frankowski; edited by Simon Tondeur; music by Andy Hunter and Robbie Bronnimann; produced by Logan Craft, Walt Ruloff and John Sullivan; released by Premise Media. Running time: 1 hour 30 minutes.


http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html?pagewanted=print

[camoor]

Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in “Planet of the Apes.”

They used the original "Planet of the Apes" in "Expelled"??!?

Have you forgotten your scripture, the thirteenth scroll? "And Proteus brought the upright beast into the garden and chained him to a tree and the children did make sport of him."
- Dr. Zaius

Part of the serious subtext of that movie was how destructive and backwards religious dogmatic thinking is. They specifically parodied the Scopes Monkey Trial. The ape tribe can't accept a talking human because it refutes everything in their religious mythos, therefore the human is an abomination that must be destroyed (via lobotomization). The true scientists among the ape tribe are the heroes of that movie.

It's a mad house! A mad house!

[daroga]

Part of the serious subtext of that movie was how destructive and backwards religious dogmatic thinking is. They specifically parodied the Scopes Monkey Trial. The ape tribe can't accept a talking human because it refutes everything in their religious mythos, therefore the human is an abomination that must be destroyed (via lobotomization). The true scientists among the ape tribe are the heroes of that movie.

It's a mad house! A mad house! There's only one suitable way to deal with this:

:whee:

[camoor]

There's only one suitable way to deal with this:

:whee:

K let me break it down for you this way:

You don't see Michael Moore using footage of "Gunsmoke" in "Bowling for Columbine"

[daroga]

K let me break it down for you this way:

You don't see Michael Moore using footage of "Gunsmoke" in "Bowling for Columbine"It was a joke, bud. :) I found the irony quite funny myself.

[pittpizza]

More darogatory remarks?

[camoor]

More darogatory remarks?

Darogatory? Hardy har har.

[pittpizza]

They can't all be winners.

[daroga]

Wow.

So are we done here then? ;)

[camoor]

It's the way the discussions about Evolution versus Creationism go. I've never seen anyone over 12 years old change their mind on the subject.

As a theory, evolution has made progress since the Scopes Monkey Trial days.

Still, 55% of Americans believe that God created human beings just like that (I interpret this as a belief in Creationism)

Strict evolutionists (IE belief in evolution without guidance by God) comprise only 13% of the population.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

[daroga]

Really? That number surprises me. I figured Creation still bested evolutionary ideas, but it surprises me that it's that skewed.

[JolietJake]

It's the way the discussions about Evolution versus Creationism go. I've never seen anyone over 12 years old change their mind on the subject.

As a theory, evolution has made progress since the Scopes Monkey Trial days.

Still, 55% of Americans believe that God created human beings just like that (I interpret this as a belief in Creationism)

Strict evolutionists (IE belief in evolution without guidance by God) comprise only 13% of the population.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

"Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education "

See, now that didn't surprise me at all. I've always thought that the strictest believers in religion seem to be the least educated. Not all, but many. That is especially true here in the south.

[pittpizza]

Yep, I totally agree. It's not even a generalization.

And Daroga, are you really that surprised? Most of America is very religious, especially in the middle.

[camoor]

Yep, I totally agree. It's not even a generalization.

And Daroga, are you really that surprised? Most of America is very religious, especially in the middle.

I was very surprised. Look at this "Expelled" movie - the way they pose it, the Creationist theory is the underdog in mainstream society. In fact the opposite is true, and those of us who believe in a strict interpretation of the theory of evolution (IE without God's influence) are the real contrarians.

[daroga]

Well, we went to see it tonight. A few thoughts.

The Nazi argument was a bit of a low-blow. It wasn't really a fair argument; there was no counterpoint given. It's not that those same poor arguments haven't been leveled against Christianity as well, but that doesn't make it fair. I think it really, really hurt their points as it evoked an emotional response (how could WWII and the Holocaust not?) rather than the rational argument they were trying to maintain.

It was actually more charitable to evolution than I thought it would, especially in light of some of those reviews.

I'd recommend all of you see it. It would be good to at least see what the other side says and a little bit about how they think rather than just hiding from it.

EDIT: Just a thought I had to give an indication of where the film comes from. I'm pretty sure not a person on that film would be a biblical, six-days Creationist. There's certainly a discussion about religion and talk in the loosest terms about Creation, but that's not the main point from which these men and women (or even Stein himself) are coming from. I think general impressions prior to this may have given a false idea of the tone of the documentary.

[camoor]

To be honest I've never understood the Creationist arguement, even from a cursory metaphysical glance.

I mean, does this world seem like the work of a focused, disciplined, perfect God? If anything, it's a design by committee (polytheism). Or maybe the Demiurge started his 7th grade HS science project late and what we got was a half-assed experiment called "Earth"

[XxFuRy2Xx]

I mean, does this world seem like the work of a focused, disciplined, perfect God? If anything, it's a design by committee (polytheism). Or maybe the Demiurge started his 7th grade HS science project late and what we got was a half-assed experiment called "Earth"You sure about that one camoor? To me the Earth and all of its systems are pretty damn amazing.

[daroga]

You sure about that one camoor? To me the Earth and all of its systems are pretty damn amazing.I agree. My gut reaction to the point was "How much of it have you studied in depth?"

The more we learn and study, the more complex and organized everything becomes. Even to the point of water molecules breaking the norms of chemistry so it has a freezing and boiling point in a region that would actually support life.

Like I said, camoor, give the documentary a watch. It's not going to change your mind, but I I think it does dispell some widely-held misconceptions about those who would seek to investigate ID. I'll give you a hint, they're not crazy "wackjobs" like myself that believe in Creation, nor is it people searching for anyway to get God back (was he ever there?) in the classroom.

[camoor]

You sure about that one camoor? To me the Earth and all of its systems are pretty damn amazing.

My post was definitely tongue-in-cheek.

However I don't think one can deny that there are things in this life that seem to be fundamentally unfair (such as children who develop cancer, innocent casualties of war, people born into abject poverty...)

If you take an exclusively human viewpoint and imagine a world created by several different gods with different abilities and objectives, IMO the end result of a world like ours makes more sense. That's why I'm always surprised by the adherents to Creationism.

Of course these are fanciful musings, ultimately I believe in the scientific theory of evolution.

[daroga]

Creationism brings with it the fall into sin in Genesis 3 as well, which accounts of all the messed up, unfair, crap that happens to you, me, and others in this world.

Its one of the reasons that Creation is not just a part of Christianity, it's an essential component of it. Without Creation, the whole thing falls to pieces (even apart from obvious contradictions it then adds to the Bible). One of the attractive qualities of evolution is that it works to get rid of the nagging moral accountability that we're all born with. If we're all animals and are just a rest stop on the evolutionary highway, we don't have to answer to anyone. Not God, not really the government, not even to our own consciences.

Biblically speaking, creation was perfect at first, but then sin entered in. Through sin we got physical and spiritual death. As a result we got diseases like cancer, parents losing their children to miscarriages and SIDS, hate, pain, anger, all the things that make this world generally unpleasant to live in. Enter God's plan to save us from our own stupidity and sin. Thus the plan of salvation through the promises of the Messiah and the realizing of those promises through Christ's death to pay for sin and his resurrection from the dead to prove that what he did "worked," that our sins have been paid for. As a result, those who rely on Christ for forgiveness rather than their own "good enough" lives will spend an everlasting life in perfection--in the "new heavens and new earth" as it is described often in the Bible.

Pulling the creation leg out from underneath that table very obviously destroys the whole of it. In the faith of evolution, there is no supreme being, no accountability, no sin, no results of sin, and nothing after this life. So you make the most of some 70 years in this overall pretty terrible existence and then you're done.

It's not an argument for creation or against evolution. Just wanted to point out both sides' accounting for the crap in this life, and what the end result of that is.

[Msut77]

Its one of the reasons that Creation is not just a part of Christianity. Without Creation, the whole thing falls to pieces (even apart from obvious contradictions it then adds to the Bible). One of the attractive qualities of evolution is that it works to get rid of the nagging moral accountability that we're all born with. If we're all animals and are just a rest stop on the evolutionary highway, we don't have to answer to anyone. Not God, not really the government, not even to our own consciences.

You are saying that if no one took the trouble to construct and indoctrinate people with creation myths most people yourself included would be out looting, raping and killing.

I have no idea what rests in the deepest parts of your psyche but I and others do not need stories to keep from being bad people.

In the faith of evolution, there is no supreme being, no accountability, no sin, no results of sin, and nothing after this life. So you make the most of some 70 years in this overall pretty terrible existence and then you're done.

I pity you.

[thrustbucket]

So you make the most of some 70 years in this overall pretty terrible existence and then you're done.



Daroga, I don't agree with you in literal translations of the bible (not sure how anyone could, once you study how the bible came to be and what was thrown out, and by who - but that's another discussion). But I do agree with you on many things, especially the above.

When I get in these types of discussions with people, I have realized there are essentially two brands of people:

1) The people that consider themselves very educated. They literally do not believe in anything that can't be reproduced, studied in a lab, and proven to anyone elses five senses easily. They do not believe anything outside of those requirements exists, or can exist. These are your die-hard evolutionists, typically. They acknowledge they do not have all the answers, but they have faith that through the scientific method, all answers can be found.

These people also typically have a very low tolerance for anyone that thinks differently. They think of anyone believing in a different approach to understanding the world around us as inferior, and mostly based in ignorance - Because they were taught in their many years of overpriced schooling that this is really the only way valid to approach understanding the universe. This makes them often come off as elitist. (this leads into another discussion about the true value/danger of modern education)

2)These folks generally believe there is far more to this world, the universe, and especially people than can ever be fully understood using just critical thinking, logic, labs and the scientific method. They accept the scientific method, and it's theories, as great tools. They feel the theory of evolution and Darwinism are great tools and starting points. But they do not believe that the universe, and all truths, can ever be understood by only adhering to them. They believe that there are valid experiences that can only be had on an individual level that can reveal truth just as valid as the scientist in his lab. These people generally have open minds to any theory. They don't need to see it reproduced in a lab to believe it all the time. When confronted with a wild claim based on someone's personal experience, they are skeptical, but refuse to outright dismiss it.

I have found, generally, almost everyone falls into one of the above categories. And it's not hard to see just about every poster in this thread fitting into one or the other (mostly one).

[camoor]

One of the attractive qualities of evolution is that it works to get rid of the nagging moral accountability that we're all born with. If we're all animals and are just a rest stop on the evolutionary highway, we don't have to answer to anyone. Not God, not really the government, not even to our own consciences.

I don't know that that's so attractive, most Americans would associate that with nihilism. IMO for the average man it's much more attractive to believe that if you follow the rules you get a heavenly reward after you die, no matter what your social position or material situation is in this life.

What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock or a painful embarrassment. And just that shall man be for the superman: a laughing-stock or a painful embarrassment.
- Nietzsche

Nietzsche was one of the few that reasoned an alternative to nihilism with his concept of the Superman - a man who is liberated from all values he doesn't deem worthy. A man whose values represent the strength and creativity that can only come from true freedom. A man whose will to power doesn't only apply to others, but to himself as well. This dovetails nicely with Eastern philosophies.

He who controls others may be powerful, but he who has mastered himself is mightier still.
- Lao-tzu

[SpazX]

One of the attractive qualities of evolution is that it works to get rid of the nagging moral accountability that we're all born with. If we're all animals and are just a rest stop on the evolutionary highway, we don't have to answer to anyone. Not God, not really the government, not even to our own consciences.

You're better than this.

In the faith of evolution, there is no supreme being, no accountability, no sin, no results of sin, and nothing after this life. So you make the most of some 70 years in this overall pretty terrible existence and then you're done.There is no "faith of evolution". There is atheism, if you'd consider that a faith, but that came before and has nothing to do with evolution. You've already given examples of how God could exist along with the concept of evolution and many people believe that.

It's not an argument for creation or against evolution. Just wanted to point out both sides' accounting for the crap in this life, and what the end result of that is.The end result is that for most of the history of the Earth, and most likely for the rest of the history of the Earth, most people have been religious and have maimed, killed, and destroyed for their religion and/or regardless of it. The idea of evolution didn't change any of that anymore than the teachings or death of Jesus did.

And if you think the ID movement has nothing to do with getting God into the classroom you haven't followed it very well. I don't blame you, it's not that interesting, but while the ID movement has attracted some people that just want "alternatives" or whatever the hell they think since they don't understand how science works, its creation and intent was to get more religion (specifically their version of Christianity) into school because they think that this evolution idea public schools started teaching less than 100 years ago is the cause of all the problems in the world and we need more Jesus to fix it.

[daroga]

You are saying that if no one took the trouble to construct and indoctrinate people with creation myths most people yourself included would be out looting, raping and killing.That is the end of the line in evolutionary thought. Maybe not looting, raping, and killing, but rather total self-preservation at all costs. Maybe largely based around a community (think of a pride of lions, the symbiotic relationships found in nature, etc.), but ultimately it is about looking out for number one.

Of course, that's not really what we see among humans most of the time. Most people have a moral compass. Most people care about other people in the abstract even if they've never met them. Morals, rational thought, societal progress. These a pretty fundamental differences between mankind and the rest of nature. It almost makes one wonder if there's something more distinguishing us from them than just our DNA...

I have no idea what rests in the deepest parts of your psyche but I and others do not need stories to keep from being bad people.No, you don't, because you have a moral code instilled in you from birth. Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, rape is wrong, lying is wrong. It's not something you had to learn, you've always known it; we all know it. Societies don't exist because of they made these rules; they exist because of these rules.

Along with that moral code is this feeling that the times we go against that and violate our conscience, we're going to have to answer to someone. That's the time the religion and/or philosophy steps in to try to answer some of those questions.

I pity you.And I, you, more than you would ever acknowledge or than I could ever really express to you. I don't sit here typing and reading to win an argument. I do it because I care for each one of you and am concerned about you and would like everyone to at least pause and think what their way of thinking has and might entail in the future.

There is no "faith of evolution". There is atheism, if you'd consider that a faith, but that came before and has nothing to do with evolution. You've already given examples of how God could exist along with the concept of evolution and many people believe that.I think camoor's quote above is dead on. He "believe[s] in the theory of evolution." As long as there are components that cannot be proven, it is faith. Faith != God. Faith = adherent trust in things that cannot be known.

The end result is that for most of the history of the Earth, and most likely for the rest of the history of the Earth, most people have been religious and have maimed, killed, and destroyed for their religion and/or regardless of it. The idea of evolution didn't change any of that anymore than the teachings or death of Jesus did.And you're better than this. There are always religious extremists. But to single out those who desire conversion at sword or gun point and define religion in that way isn't accurate. The crusades don't embody Christianity; those who speak the truth and leave it at that do. Religious people aren't immune from ignoring that baseline moral code. In fact, no one is or can be. It's called sin. It infects us all.

And if you think the ID movement has nothing to do with getting God into the classroom you haven't followed it very well. I don't blame you, it's not that interesting, but while the ID movement has attracted some people that just want "alternatives" or whatever the hell they think since they don't understand how science works, its creation and intent was to get more religion (specifically their version of Christianity) into school because they think that this evolution idea public schools started teaching less than 100 years ago is the cause of all the problems in the world and we need more Jesus to fix it.Yeah, I think I overstated that case. Let me put it this way, my desire and I think the desire of many people is not to get God into the classroom. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that people who want ID don't understand how science works. That makes you sound very close-minded with your fingers in your ears whenever anyone voices an idea that runs contrary to yours. Is it not possible that someone may understand every facet of evolution and find it lacking? Or the questions it leaves unanswered unacceptable?

[SpazX]

I think camoor's quote above is dead on. He "believe[s] in the theory of evolution." As long as there are components that cannot be proven, it is faith. Faith != God. Faith = adherent trust in things that cannot be known.

I don't know in what way camoor meant his belief comment, but a scientist accepts that which has the best evidence as being most likely to be true. All things require further examination, of course, but just because we don't know everything about gravity doesn't mean we shouldn't accept its existence.

And you're better than this. There are always religious extremists. But to single out those who desire conversion at sword or gun point and define religion in that way isn't accurate. The crusades don't embody Christianity; those who speak the truth and leave it at that do. Religious people aren't immune from ignoring that baseline moral code. In fact, no one is or can be. It's called sin. It infects us all.

I'm not talking about religious extremists I'm talking about almost every human who has lived. Almost every murderer, thief, rapist, and liar has been a person with a religious faith. Those who don't have any religion are few and far between. There are those extremists who do horrible things in the name of their religions and those who do horrible things for other reasons, but neither of those remove the fact that they had religious beliefs, were taught religious morals, probably went to a good number of religious services, etc. I know that religious people are no different from those who are not and that is why I said the end result isn't any different from your beliefs or from someone who accepts evolution as a scientific explanation of the origins of different species. Before Jesus and after Jesus, before evolution and after evolution, people have been the same.

Yeah, I think I overstated that case. Let me put it this way, my desire and I think the desire of many people is not to get God into the classroom. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that people who want ID don't understand how science works. That makes you sound very close-minded with your fingers in your ears whenever anyone voices an idea that runs contrary to yours. Is it not possible that someone may understand every facet of evolution and find it lacking? Or the questions it leaves unanswered unacceptable?

They don't understand science not because of their opinions but because their opinions don't have evidence. You can't just think up an alternative and say it should be taught because people believe it. If you do the science and evidence backs you up, then you present the alternative. The ID people want the alternative presented regardless of the fact that they don't have evidence for it and all the evidence from multiple scientific disciplines points towards evolution. A lack of complete knowledge about the workings of every living thing does not mean that you have alternative theory. You can't say "this doesn't explain this" and have a competing theory, you have to explain it first.

The workings of evolution are not fully understood and there have been modifications and even oppositions to Darwinian gradualism (punctuated equilibrium), but those are based on evidence and have explanatory power. The ID people are saying "this doesn't explain this and therefore the entire concept of evolution is destroyed" and that's just a ton of shit. There can be legitimate concerns and changes to the understanding of evolution, but frankly the concept of evolution is too well backed by evidence to be so easily dismantled. They have their religious beliefs and that's fine, but you can't base science on religious belief, that's not the point of science and that's why they don't understand it.

[JolietJake]

I've noticed something about religion and science and it always seems to prove true. With time, people slowly start to abandon religious explanations for things in favor of scientific ones. People used to think that natural disasters were controlled by the gods, the word "volcano" comes from the name of the roman god "Vulcan." Now of course, we know that is ridiculous, but is that really any different than some of the things in the Christian bible? If it's ridiculous that volcanoes are caused by Vulcan, why isn't it ridiculous that Jesus rose from the grave? They're equally ridiculous notions.

[camoor]

That is the end of the line in evolutionary thought. Maybe not looting, raping, and killing, but rather total self-preservation at all costs. Maybe largely based around a community (think of a pride of lions, the symbiotic relationships found in nature, etc.), but ultimately it is about looking out for number one.

Of course, that's not really what we see among humans most of the time. Most people have a moral compass. Most people care about other people in the abstract even if they've never met them. Morals, rational thought, societal progress. These a pretty fundamental differences between mankind and the rest of nature. It almost makes one wonder if there's something more distinguishing us from them than just our DNA...

No, you don't, because you have a moral code instilled in you from birth. Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, rape is wrong, lying is wrong. It's not something you had to learn, you've always known it; we all know it. Societies don't exist because of they made these rules; they exist because of these rules.

Along with that moral code is this feeling that the times we go against that and violate our conscience, we're going to have to answer to someone. That's the time the religion and/or philosophy steps in to try to answer some of those questions.

There is the theory that, on a macro scale, our nobler traits exist because they are useful in an evolutionary sense. For example - let's say that Tribe A is attacked by Tribe B. It's in the interest of Tribe A's men to defend their tribe's women and children, even though it may mean their death, because the victors will be able to pass on their DNA. If Tribe A's men run away their women will be stolen, their children may be killed, and their chance to spread DNA will be diminished.

It's said that one of disgraced Enron exec Jeff Skilling's favorite books was "The Selfish Gene". What I think strictly scientific minds routinely underestimate is the psychological impact of a Theory of Evolution without God. Adherents of this theory are set adrift, and there are necessarily going to lead to many spectacular failures before the next rung on the evolutionary ladder, the ubermensch, appears. Is it any wonder that, looking at these failures, people would rather believe in a paternalistic creator God?

I think camoor's quote above is dead on. He "believe[s] in the theory of evolution." As long as there are components that cannot be proven, it is faith. Faith != God. Faith = adherent trust in things that cannot be known.

I'm fine with the word belief, but faith is too far. There's nothing transcendent or fixed in my belief in the Theory of Evolution. In the future, if I judge there to be a better, more scientifically valid theory out there I will jump to it.

I'm not talking about religious extremists I'm talking about almost every human who has lived. Almost every murderer, thief, rapist, and liar has been a person with a religious faith.

Which faith did Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot belong to?

[SpazX]

Which faith did Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot belong to?

I dunno, I'll tell you when the word "almost" is redefined to include everyone :-P.

[The Crotch]

That is the end of the line in evolutionary thought. Maybe not looting, raping, and killing, but rather total self-preservation at all costs. Maybe largely based around a community (think of a pride of lions, the symbiotic relationships found in nature, etc.), but ultimately it is about looking out for number one.And that, my friend, is where we get the is-ought fallacy. Science describes things as they are, not as we should strive to make them be. Deriving your morality from natural selection makes about as much sense as deriving it from the principles of heat exchange.

Of course, that's not really what we see among humans most of the time. Most people have a moral compass. Most people care about other people in the abstract even if they've never met them. Morals, rational thought, societal progress. These a pretty fundamental differences between mankind and the rest of nature. It almost makes one wonder if there's something more distinguishing us from them than just our DNA...

No, you don't, because you have a moral code instilled in you from birth. Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, rape is wrong, lying is wrong. It's not something you had to learn, you've always known it; we all know it. Societies don't exist because of they made these rules; they exist because of these rules.

Along with that moral code is this feeling that the times we go against that and violate our conscience, we're going to have to answer to someone. That's the time the religion and/or philosophy steps in to try to answer some of those questions.Camoor beat me to this. Evolution can explain quite easily the existence of any sort of inborn moral code in our species.

I think camoor's quote above is dead on. He "believe[s] in the theory of evolution." As long as there are components that cannot be proven, it is faith. Faith != God. Faith = adherent trust in things that cannot be known.We've been over this before. I believe that Carey Price will rebound and my Habs will win their game tonight. I also believe that the sun will come up tomorrow.

Do you see the difference?


Which faith did Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot belong to?
What was the point of that question? Spaz is talking about groups, not individuals. He isn't saying "Barbarosa/Calvin/whoever was a really mean guy. He was also a Christian. Therefore, Christians are bad." He is simply saying that religion is not a buffer against "immorality".

[daroga]

There is the theory that, on a macro scale, our nobler traits exist because they are useful in an evolutionary sense. For example - let's say that Tribe A is attacked by Tribe B. It's in the interest of Tribe A's men to defend their tribe's women and children, even though it may mean their death, because the victors will be able to pass on their DNA. If Tribe A's men run away their women will be stolen, their children may be killed, and their chance to spread DNA will be diminished.How does that primitive man's attitude differ from any other animal in nature? How did we make the jump to the self-preservation of DNA to universal attitudes to all people?

Crotch, "believe" carries with it a notion of uncertainty or unprovability. You wouldn't say "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow." You say "I know the sun will rise tomorrow." If you guys want to express absolute certainty that you seem to have in these theorizes processes, avoid "believe." It casts a shade of doubt when you're trying to assert things you can supposedly prove.

We've been skirting around it for a bit, but I'm pretty sure we've reached our impasse that was inevitable. As always, aside from a few bad eggs now and then, it's was an informative and good discussion. I'll keep my eye on the thread in case someone thinks there's more things to discuss :)

[Msut77]

That is the end of the line in evolutionary thought. That is the end of the line in evolutionary thought.

Not at all, you seem to have "evolutionists" confused with Objectivist Randroids. Your view of others is either ignorant or you are being dishonest when you state what you think others believe. Some of the absolute worst people I have known in my life have been deeply religious, they seem to feel that their faith is a get out of jail free card for their rotten behavior.

No, you don't, because you have a moral code instilled in you from birth. Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, rape is wrong, lying is wrong. It's not something you had to learn, you've always known it; we all know it. Societies don't exist because of they made these rules; they exist because of these rules.

Along with that moral code is this feeling that the times we go against that and violate our conscience, we're going to have to answer to someone. That's the time the religion and/or philosophy steps in to try to answer some of those questions.

You do not need religion to have a moral code. Looking at the last part you seem to have acknowledged this, are you cutting and pasting your responses?

Is it not possible that someone may understand every facet of evolution and find it lacking? Or the questions it leaves unanswered unacceptable?

Considering that ID and well all anti-evolution arguments tend to fall into argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument from credulity when they are not being outright dishonest and the fact there is a very real correlation between education and rejection of creationism then no it is not really possible.

I do it because I care for each one of you and am concerned about you and would like everyone to at least pause and think what their way of thinking has and might entail in the future.

We, well I at least are not the ones in need of more self examination. People like the expelled crowd and its fans who are upset that their beliefs are not accepted unthinkingly are the real problem.

And I, you

I cannot imagine why. I am not the third rate sophist here, the idea that you are going to be given a flock
to instruct really sickens me.

[SpazX]

Crotch, "believe" carries with it a notion of uncertainty or unprovability. You wouldn't say "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow." You say "I know the sun will rise tomorrow." If you guys want to express absolute certainty that you seem to have in these theorizes processes, avoid "believe." It casts a shade of doubt when you're trying to assert things you can supposedly prove.

Nothing in science is proven, it's always tentative. Some things are just easier to accept than others. It's certainly possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow as the Earth for some reason could stop spinning or the sun itself could somehow vanish. There's just sufficient evidence that the sun will rise and none or very little to suggest that it will not. The convenience of that assertion would be that it could be accurately tested within 24 hours, and testing is normally the hard part.

[Msut77]

We've been skirting around it for a bit, but I'm pretty sure we've reached our impasse that was inevitable. As always, aside from a few bad eggs now and then, it's was an informative and good discussion.

Are you referring to thrusts impersonation of the leave Britney alone guy?

Because that was pretty pathetic.

[StealthNinjaScyther]

The more we learn and study, the more complex and organized everything becomes. Even to the point of water molecules breaking the norms of chemistry so it has a freezing and boiling point in a region that would actually support life.

Like I said, camoor, give the documentary a watch. It's not going to change your mind, but I I think it does dispell some widely-held misconceptions about those who would seek to investigate ID. I'll give you a hint, they're not crazy "wackjobs" like myself that believe in Creation, nor is it people searching for anyway to get God back (was he ever there?) in the classroom.

The more we learn and study, the more things make sense. Looking at evolutionary biology we no longer have to look at something and go "look, that's amazing, I wonder how it could have come to be." We can, and are, doing that right now. Is it really any coincidence that every structure proposed as being irreducibly complex has been shown not to be?

This documentary shows that these people are "wackjobs." The entire premise of the movie is that people are being expelled from the scientific establishment for their beliefs. This is not true. These people are trying put religion where it has no place. No matter what any of them claim, ID is creationism, there is nothing to investigate. These people are trying to undermine the foundation of science education in this country. I'm sorry, but that is fucking insane. These people are liars, plain and simple.

Why should anybody take the time to watch a documentary full of outright lies? What could we possibly gain?

[daroga]

Nothing in science is proven, it's always tentative. Some things are just easier to accept than others. It's certainly possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow as the Earth for some reason could stop spinning or the sun itself could somehow vanish. There's just sufficient evidence that the sun will rise and none or very little to suggest that it will not. The convenience of that assertion would be that it could be accurately tested within 24 hours, and testing is normally the hard part.That's fair enough. Of course that flies in the face of what a lot of science teachers say in their classes, and that what a lot of people have said in this very thread, the the theory, as it stands, is fact.

I have a feeling that for many of them, they mean exactly what you said, but simple don't word it properly. If you could give them a few language lessons, that'd be super. ;)

[thrustbucket]

I dunno, I'll tell you when the word "almost" is redefined to include everyone :-P.

You missed his point. Up until the last 120 years, all people were religious whether they knew they were or not, because science and religion were the same thing. So it's unfair to point out that mass murderers have all been doing it in the name of the religious.

But if you just go back in time since your "scientific" thought and total abandonment of religion for science has started to occur in recent history - you see as much, if not more, atheistic mass butchers.

I challenge you to start at about the mid 1800's, tally up all the dictators and geoniciders, total their death counts, and then sort them out according to religious or anti-religious.

[thrustbucket]

Why should anybody take the time to watch a documentary full of outright lies? What could we possibly gain?

Ask the people showing Al Gore's movie in schools ;).

[JolietJake]

You missed his point. Up until the last 120 years, all people were religious whether they knew they were or not, because science and religion were the same thing. So it's unfair to point out that mass murderers have all been doing it in the name of the religious.

But if you just go back in time since your "scientific" thought and total abandonment of religion for science has started to occur in recent history - you see as much, if not more, atheistic mass butchers.

I challenge you to start at about the mid 1800's, tally up all the dictators and geoniciders, total their death counts, and then sort them out according to religious or anti-religious.

I'm not going to say religious people or atheists commit fewer or more crimes, but to think that religious people have the high ground wouldn't be accurate.

[thrustbucket]

I'm not going to say religious people or atheists commit fewer or more crimes, but to think that religious people have the high ground wouldn't be accurate.

Oh I would never argue that either. I just get really sick of the "religion only has ever caused the world suffering" argument. It's really weak.

[The Crotch]

That's fair enough. Of course that flies in the face of what a lot of science teachers say in their classes, and that what a lot of people have said in this very thread, the the theory, as it stands, is fact.Earlier on in this thread, Dawkins was quoted as answering a question with an "I don't know." This was presented as a Very Bad Thing, as a scientist who admits that they don't know the answer to a question is obviously not a very good scientist.

Of course there is room for doubt, change, etc. - without falsifiability, you probably aren't doing science. The problem is that 1: most people don't really know a lot about science, and 2: a lot of people like to exploit this.

"You mean you're not 100% certain? Then why are you putting this in schools?"

"It's a theory! Theories aren't facts!"

"You don't know, Mr. Dawkins? So what you're saying is is that it's equally likely that we are right as it is that you are? Your theory is really no better than our theory, is it?"

Anything resembling uncertainty is pounced upon by certain "less-than-scrupulous" creationists and quote(mine)d for all its fucking worth. Qualifying every statement with "as far as we know" creates false skepticism among the general public.

And aside from that, as far as theories go, evolution is one of the - ah - more solid ones out there.
I have a feeling that for many of them, they mean exactly what you said, but simple don't word it properly. If you could give them a few language lessons, that'd be super. ;)To be fair, I've heard many "evolutionists" balk at using the word "believe". "Accept the evidence for" is more accurate, but that's some pretty frigging cumbersome phrasing right there, so don't expect that to catch on.

EDIT: Oh I would never argue that either. I just get really sick of the "religion only has ever caused the world suffering" argument. It's really weak.
I'll admit it - I skim from time to time. Where, when, and by whom was this argument brought up in this thread?

[Kayden]

Thats really a shame. If the educated spawned like your average bible thumping numbskull, the world might not be such a bad place.

Heh. My wife and I debate on whether we want to have children or not (if we do, it will be at most one since we both believe the world is unsustainable with the population we already have, so we don't want to do anything to increase it) - and one of the more selfish reasons to not have children is so we can travel to far off and exotic places and do things like what you speak of. Of course, we could be talking over each other's heads: I mean traveling to natural places, parks, scenic points, mountains, and things like that; she probably means places to spend money and shop for exotic things.



Nope; for a change of pace, I have no thoughts whatsoever on this.

[SpazX]

You missed his point. Up until the last 120 years, all people were religious whether they knew they were or not, because science and religion were the same thing. So it's unfair to point out that mass murderers have all been doing it in the name of the religious.

But if you just go back in time since your "scientific" thought and total abandonment of religion for science has started to occur in recent history - you see as much, if not more, atheistic mass butchers.

I challenge you to start at about the mid 1800's, tally up all the dictators and geoniciders, total their death counts, and then sort them out according to religious or anti-religious.

The distinction isn't between science and religion in the first place, there were nonbelievers before there was science. The point of what I said, which I said plainly at the end, was that religious and non-religious people are the same and so they are equally capable of good and evil acts. Science, nor evolution as an aspect of science, has caused the negatives that are associated with it in this movie and in the ID movement.

The only reason why more people have been killed recently is because of access to technology that makes it easier and the fact that there are more people available to kill, not because of religion or a lack of religion.

[Kayden]

How many inquisitions did the Buddhists start?

[camoor]

I'm not talking about religious extremists I'm talking about almost every human who has lived. Almost every murderer, thief, rapist, and liar has been a person with a religious faith. Those who don't have any religion are few and far between. There are those extremists who do horrible things in the name of their religions and those who do horrible things for other reasons, but neither of those remove the fact that they had religious beliefs, were taught religious morals, probably went to a good number of religious services, etc. I know that religious people are no different from those who are not and that is why I said the end result isn't any different from your beliefs or from someone who accepts evolution as a scientific explanation of the origins of different species. Before Jesus and after Jesus, before evolution and after evolution, people have been the same.

See - I just don't agree with what you said - by way of example - "Before Jesus and after Jesus, before evolution and after evolution, people have been the same."

Before Christianity took root, the Ancient Romans believed that mercy was a vice and life was essentially a perpetual struggle with the forces of chaos and disorder. At the same time, wars over religious issues were comparatively rare because the gods were many, and what did it matter adding a few to the Pantheon (however wars were waged against those who refused to recognize the divinity of Roman gods, especially the Emperor).

Monotheistic religion really did change all of this, after Christianity took root compassion and charity were honorable virtues. At the same time, conversion of non-believers became an objective and differences in religious identity (or even interpretation) became a reason to wage war.

[JolietJake]

Oh I would never argue that either. I just get really sick of the "religion only has ever caused the world suffering" argument. It's really weak.
I can handle that, i just hate it when people add on lines like "well ya know, i'm a Christian so..." to statements. I don't know what thats supposed to prove to me.

[thrustbucket]

EDIT:
I'll admit it - I skim from time to time. Where, when, and by whom was this argument brought up in this thread?

Spazx said some things that I initially took that way. But after his response, and re-reading his posts, I guess in a round-about way he wasn't saying that, he was saying evil people that do evil things have always existed, and will always exist, exclusive of religious beliefs. Which I agree with.

[Msut77]

Because you cannot spell Darwin without win.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p34/Msut77/dwinhn6.jpg

[pittpizza]

Ask the people showing Al Gore's movie in schools ;).

Okay I'll bite: show me one single piece of data or fact presented in An Inconvenient Truth, and I'll be impressed. Otherwise, you will have successfully been called out on your bullshit.

[camoor]

Did anyone see John Oliver's "Terrifying Times" on Comedy Central?

He has a hilarious bit about evolution/ID.

[SpazX]

Did anyone see John Oliver's "Terrifying Times" on Comedy Central?

He has a hilarious bit about evolution/ID.

Dammit, I meant to watch that, I'll have to see it on one of it's millions of repeats.

[camoor]

You know, after that Creationist stat I read, I was doing a little research into the issue.

Context: The congresswoman is having a debate with a self-avowed Athiest about spending 1 million in state taxes to save Baptist churches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=___yDV9K6uk&feature=related

I'm never going to the mid-west.

[The Crotch]

Yeah, I read about that a while ago. She later apologized. I don't remember if it was one of those "I'm sorry if anyone was upset by what I said" apologies or an actual apology - I'll look it up later.

[thrustbucket]

Okay I'll bite: show me one single piece of data or fact presented in An Inconvenient Truth, and I'll be impressed. Otherwise, you will have successfully been called out on your bullshit.

There likely isn't any, that's the point.

[JolietJake]

There likely isn't any, that's the point.The absence of proof is the point? Are you seriously that paranoid?

This is the internet, there are any number of places where everyone can post their findings on any subject they wish. You can't be the only person who doesn't believe in global warming, even some scientists don't, so if they really wanted to publish their proof, they could.

Yet like you said, there probably isn't any, not because some shadow society is keeping the proof down, but because there isn't any.

Now go back to tracking the illuminati or something and leave the real discussion to rational people.

[thrustbucket]

This is the internet, there are any number of places where everyone can post their findings on any subject they wish. You can't be the only person who doesn't believe in global warming, even some scientists don't, so if they really wanted to publish their proof, they could.



The issue with global warming isn't whether it's happening or not. It's whether it's mans fault or not. And there is a lot of debate on both sides. You should know this. Just because Al Gore says on 60 minutes that not believing man caused it s like believing the earth is flat, does not make it true. He's a man with a political agenda like all politicians.

Al Gore's movie mostly focused on man causing catastrophe for all. It's fear propaganda about things that likely can't be caused or reversed by man.

I'm only arguing that people that go watch Expelled are not "wasting time on lies", biased opinion, and propaganda any more than those that go watch Inconvenient Truth. And just because you believe one movie and not the other, doesn't mean otherwise.

[SteveDaWonder]

As a Christian I -do- believe that God created everything in seven days. Most all of you will disagree with me, and that's okay.

As for the movie? It didn't really do much for me. Kudos to Ben Stein for making a quality film on his opinion though.

[mykevermin]

As a Christian I -do- believe that God created everything in seven days. Most all of you will disagree with me, and that's okay.

As for the movie? It didn't really do much for me. Kudos to Ben Stein for making a quality film on his opinion though.

Well, you got that right.

What kind of Christian are you? I was raised Catholic, and was brought up to believe that the Genesis story was allegory, so I don't believe in any 7-days nonsense. Especially given several thousands of years, translations by people of varying education levels, and the contextual changes inherent in those translations. It's very probable that human error seriously fucked up the Bible over millenia like a childhood game of "telephone." So something so improbable, like this, or Job...I consider allegory.

Nevertheless, that isn't the issue. Now you can believe in 7-days of creation, but does that necessarily mean that every creature was (1) existing at this time and (2) perfect in the sense that it is identical to the way it is currently?

Otherwise, I've been led to believe that Boston Terriers have only been around since the early-20th century. Damned liars!

[thrustbucket]

Well, you got that right.

What kind of Christian are you? I was raised Catholic, and was brought up to believe that the Genesis story was allegory, so I don't believe in any 7-days nonsense. Especially given several thousands of years, translations by people of varying education levels, and the contextual changes inherent in those translations. It's very probable that human error seriously fucked up the Bible over millenia like a childhood game of "telephone." So something so improbable, like this, or Job...I consider allegory.

Nevertheless, that isn't the issue. Now you can believe in 7-days of creation, but does that necessarily mean that every creature was (1) existing at this time and (2) perfect in the sense that it is identical to the way it is currently?

Otherwise, I've been led to believe that Boston Terriers have only been around since the early-20th century. Damned liars!

I'm only responding to this because this is a rare occurrence of me agreeing with mykevermin.

The bible is fine. And I take no issue with those that find inspiration in it, or use it as a starting point for some history.

But man, if you do even a small study into the origins of how the bible was compiled, and by who, and why. And study what was thrown out, and why. It makes it very difficult to believe the Bible is anything but a small distorted shadow of a much larger record and block of work out there.

I mean, really.... The recent Naghamadi scrolls found predate any known original book of the bible, so shouldn't it's content replace the stories in the bible? For some reason the answer is no.... Which I don't understand.

[mykevermin]

Curse You First Council Of Nicea!

;)

[The Crotch]

Well, you got that right.
You sure? He did say quality in there. The bits linking evolution to the Holocaust don't exactly scream "a lot of careful planning and consideration went into this".

[mykevermin]

Alright, fair enough. Then again, the same can be said of the title, since the movie only brings up one person who was "expelled," and doesn't tell you that he wasn't expelled, his contract term as an unpaid research assistant ended and was not renewed.

:lol:

[daroga]

Steve: good to see another Christian weighing in here. :)

myke: just curious on what grounds Rome taught you that Genesis 1-3 was allegory. They've never been real great about using the Bible to back up their teachings, but I was just curious how that worked out, and how the explained all the other references in the Bible to a literal 6-day creation.

thrust: I've studied quite a bit about the compilation of the Bible. Insofar as they removed obvious forgeries that contradicted the doctrines contained universally accepted canon, I don't see a problem with that at all. Also, the biblical doctrine of inspiration weighs in here, which is, of course, a matter of faith. But a necessary belief if you're gonna gain much of anything from the Bible. The books of the Bible aren't true because Nicea declared them to be so. They're true of their own accord and content; Nicea simply officially recognized them as such.

Also, I'm not familiar with the Naghamadi scrolls, have a link on that? Note that age alone wouldn't be a real great recognition of what was legit and what isn't.

EDIT: Most of my questions are obviously off-topic from this thread. Feel free to PM me if you'd rather not derail this anymore. :)

[StealthNinjaScyther]

This is the only good thing to come out of Expelled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw

Credits here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUt7nZdUJIk

[camoor]

Steve: good to see another Christian weighing in here. :)

myke: just curious on what grounds Rome taught you that Genesis 1-3 was allegory. They've never been real great about using the Bible to back up their teachings, but I was just curious how that worked out, and how the explained all the other references in the Bible to a literal 6-day creation.

For part of my youth I was taught by the Jesuits. They have a historical perspective and a critical nature, so they're more interested in teaching you how to debate then cramming dogma down your neck.

[thrustbucket]

thrust: I've studied quite a bit about the compilation of the Bible. Insofar as they removed obvious forgeries that contradicted the doctrines contained universally accepted canon, I don't see a problem with that at all. Also, the biblical doctrine of inspiration weighs in here, which is, of course, a matter of faith. But a necessary belief if you're gonna gain much of anything from the Bible. The books of the Bible aren't true because Nicea declared them to be so. They're true of their own accord and content; Nicea simply officially recognized them as such.



I guess it all comes down to believing the people that compiled the Bible were inspired. And they were inspired in tracking down other scriptures, burning them, and destroying entire other Christian sects (gnostics etc) simply because there were too many. I guess you have to believe they picked all the "true" books of scripture and destroyed those that weren't. And I guess you'd have to believe they didn't change any of those scriptures to make the rest seem more consistent.

I believe the bible was created from inspired scripture, but it was done for reasons of control. There were so many different scriptures and sects popping up - that certain leaders felt that they had better solidify one Christian church before it was too late for control. Not to mention that much of the Old Testament is more and more clearly written as Jewish propaganda, based more on agenda than likely historical truth.

It's also hard for me to believe there was much "inspiration" behind Constantine, or the Nicean Council. Especially when it's widely believed that Constantine himself didn't renounce his pagan worship of Aura Mazda/Mithrism and get baptized into the religion he helped found, until his deathbed in 337.

You can find out more about the Nag Hammadi Library here (http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/nhl.html).


The Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of thirteen ancient codices containing over fifty texts, was discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. This immensely important discovery includes a large number of primary Gnostic scriptures -- texts once thought to have been entirely destroyed during the early Christian struggle to define "orthodoxy" -- scriptures such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth.

The Nag Hammadi Library is just one example of ancient scrolls that keep popping up, that predate the compilation of the bible, but contain the same books - with sometimes surprising variations. Older sources, typically > canon...... or should.

[daroga]

The people of Nicea weren't inspired; the people who wrote the books of the Bible were inspired so that the very words they wrote were from God (check Peter and Paul on the matter).

The Gnostics weren't persecuted because they were too numerous. Their writings and ideas were rejected because they contradicted the Word of God. And it wasn't a 2nd or 3rd century phenomenon. In the first decades after Christ's ascension you see proto-gnostic teachings being squashed by the apostles (especially John in the late 1st century).

The biblical books were completed before 100 AD (when John wrote Revelation). The Gnostic "scriptures" are later, contradictory books who sought to gain for themselves respect by claiming to be written by famous biblical figures (except, Thomas, Judas, et al. weren't alive in the 200 and 300s); they were rightly rejected. There's no hidden and secret knowledge to Christianity. It's all plain as day in the Bible. But it is offensive to the ear and heart, thus you have heresies like Arius and the Gnostics popping up to make things more palatable, or if nothing else, more mystical and cult-like to attract people that way.

I'd love to see some proof of the changing of the Bible to jive together more. Say what you will about the content of the Bible, but the text itself is rock-solid. The textual evidence we have is the best of any ancient document. The textual questions account for less than 1% of the entire text, and even those never effect a doctrine. When you know Greek and Hebrew and the way the scribe system worked in copying these books (meticulously), the little goofs here and there become vastly accounted for.

[trq]

How many inquisitions did the Buddhists start?

Depends on how you count them. How many do they need?

There's was Toyotomi Hideyoshi's Christian Expulsion Edict, where he waged war against the Christian Japanese clans in the West, after Oda Nobunga's death, and destroyed the church and Catholic school in Kyoto. Then Tokugawa Ieyasu started actually sticking priests on ships and deporting them out of the country. Of course, it was his grandson, Tokugawa Iemitsu, who really kicked it into high-gear, where the local constabulary and priests went door to door, and got the locals to stamp on metal plates bearing the image of Mary and Jesus. If they didn't, they were arrested and given the chance to convert back. If not, they were crucified. Never let it be said feudal Japanese warlords didn't have a sense of humor. So ... what, is that one? Two? Three?

Also consider Sri Lanka/Myanmar in the past two years, where militant Buddhists have been more than doing their share. (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm)

There's a pretty solid article about religious violence in general at: http://www.abpnews.com/3111.article (never mind that it's from the scary-sounding Associated Baptist Press).

And speaking of Jesuits (which I was, sorta)...

For part of my youth I was taught by the Jesuits. They have a historical perspective and a critical nature, so they're more interested in teaching you how to debate then cramming dogma down your neck.

Same here. I always thought it was interesting to note that many of the Jesuits I knew were disciplined, rigorous scientists -- absolutely *not* the type to go in for ID.

[lwelyk]

Otherwise, I've been led to believe that Boston Terriers have only been around since the early-20th century. Damned liars!If this explanation isn't enough tell me, I don't have time for a long post. The ark did not need millions of animals on it. Dogs through breeding and such got to the number they are today through breeding. It doesn't require evolution to get breeds of dogs and such. We fully accept that small changes are possible but we cross the line at animals becoming other KINDS of animals. It doesn't work that way.

[Msut77]

If this explanation isn't enough tell me, I don't have time for a long post. The ark did not need millions of animals on it. Dogs through breeding and such got to the number they are today through breeding. It doesn't require evolution to get breeds of dogs and such. We fully accept that small changes are possible but we cross the line at animals becoming other KINDS of animals. It doesn't work that way.

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

Come on now.

[camoor]

Depends on how you count them. How many do they need?

There's was Toyotomi Hideyoshi's Christian Expulsion Edict, where he waged war against the Christian Japanese clans in the West, after Oda Nobunga's death, and destroyed the church and Catholic school in Kyoto. Then Tokugawa Ieyasu started actually sticking priests on ships and deporting them out of the country. Of course, it was his grandson, Tokugawa Iemitsu, who really kicked it into high-gear, where the local constabulary and priests went door to door, and got the locals to stamp on metal plates bearing the image of Mary and Jesus. If they didn't, they were arrested and given the chance to convert back. If not, they were crucified. Never let it be said feudal Japanese warlords didn't have a sense of humor. So ... what, is that one? Two? Three?

Also consider Sri Lanka/Myanmar in the past two years, where militant Buddhists have been more than doing their share. (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/slrv.htm)

There's a pretty solid article about religious violence in general at: http://www.abpnews.com/3111.article (never mind that it's from the scary-sounding Associated Baptist Press).

The Japanese leaders you mention were as Shinto as they were Buddhist. The Japanese historical events you list were definitely protectionist, nationalist, and in the Shinto spirit (you can see the Shinto influence right up to WW2 - for example, Kamikaze is Japanese for "wind of the [Shinto] gods")

I don't doubt you can cite a few cases of Buddhists using religious differences as an excuse for violence.

But there's a reason that the Baptist article you quote uses guarded, qualified language when lumping Buddhism in with other religions, to wit:

“Religious extremist violence is a potential in all major religious faiths, including even Buddhism,” said Bruce Knauft, an anthropologist and director of Emory University’s Institute for Comparative and International Studies, which recently hosted some of the world’s top religion scholars for a conference on extremism.
But, Walker added: “Christian fundamentalists are not more prone to violence than other faiths. It is possible in any faith community.” He cited fundamentalist Hindu rioters in India who have killed Muslims in recent years and the quasi-Buddhist sect Aum Shinrikyo, an apocalyptic cult that committed the 1995 sarin gas attack in Tokyo’s subway that killed 12.

Including even? Quasi-Buddhist? And beyond that, does the violence done in the name of Quasi-Buddhism approach the violence done in the name of passages taken from canon, mainstream Abrahamic religious texts?

[camoor]

It's amazing that Jurassic Park did so well in the theaters. I mean, is that movie enjoyable if you don't believe in evolution? Doesn't it just become a dumb monster movie?

[mykevermin]

Including even? Quasi-Buddhist? And beyond that, does the violence done in the name of Quasi-Buddhism approach the violence done in the name of passages taken from canon, mainstream Abrahamic religious texts?

The "quasi" approach here is just imposing one standard on another.

I hate to say it, but Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church have as much claim to "Christianity" as I do. I don't think they're right at all, and I think they're terrible people. But the moment I claim to be more "Christian" than they are, I'm making a presumption about the objective foundation of religion that's totally false.

Of course, there are clear boundaries. Not believing in the divinity of Christ makes it impossible to call oneself "Christian." But amongst those with the basics down (Jesus is the son of God, born to earth to die for our sins, yadda yadda yadda), then the schisms ma be huge beyond that - but the foundation is the crucial part.

So, long story short, what makes Aum Shinrikyo "quasi-buddhist"?

It's amazing that Jurassic Park did so well in the theaters. I mean, is that movie enjoyable if you don't believe in evolution? Doesn't it just become a dumb monster movie?

Are you drunk?

[StealthNinjaScyther]

If this explanation isn't enough tell me, I don't have time for a long post. The ark did not need millions of animals on it. Dogs through breeding and such got to the number they are today through breeding. It doesn't require evolution to get breeds of dogs and such. We fully accept that small changes are possible but we cross the line at animals becoming other KINDS of animals. It doesn't work that way.

And where is this line. Genetics has found no evidence of such a line. No mechanism to prevent change from beyond a certain point. And while we're at it, dog breeds are a perfect example of many evolutionary mechanisms in action.

Good grief. Please, do try to do some minimal research on your claims about evolution. This stuff isn't exactly top secret.

[trq]

The Japanese leaders you mention were as Shinto as they were Buddhist.

Eh ... sorta. All those things were a factor, including the Shinto element. But to hide their religion, Japanese Christians disguised their statues of Mary as Kwannon, the Buddhist goddess of mercy. The Shogun's orders were to attend Buddhist temples, not Shinto shrines. And when they were given the chance to convert to save themselves from crucifixion, it wasn't to Shintosim -- it was to Buddhism.

I don't doubt you can cite a few cases of Buddhists using religious differences as an excuse for violence.

I should hope not -- I just did that, so doubting it would be kinda silly. ;)

But there's a reason that the Baptist article you quote uses guarded, qualified language when lumping Buddhism in with other religions, to wit:

Yes, and that's because the reality (Buddhists are no more and no less prone to violence than any other group of people) doesn't match the perception (Buddhists are all basically the Dalai Lama), and the article broaches that subject knowing full well what its audience's preconceptions will be.

And beyond that, does the violence done in the name of Quasi-Buddhism approach the violence done in the name of passages taken from canon, mainstream Abrahamic religious texts?

Sorry dude -- my point was just that there are such things as "positive sterotypes," but they're not any more true than the negative ones. There are no "good" religions and there are no "bad" religions, and thinking there are is foolish. Perhaps someone else will take you up on the pissing contest. Anyway, a cursory look at much of Asian history will answer your question for you -- the people who invented kung fu were Buddhists, and they sure as hell didn't make it because they believed in passive resistance.

/threadjack now, yes?

[daroga]

And where is this line. Genetics has found no evidence of such a line. No mechanism to prevent change from beyond a certain point. And while we're at it, dog breeds are a perfect example of many evolutionary mechanisms in action.

Good grief. Please, do try to do some minimal research on your claims about evolution. This stuff isn't exactly top secret.I think the burden of proof lies with you, actually. From our observable information (isn't that a vital part of science? Being able to test what you come up with?), species don't turn into other species. Dogs can mate with dogs regardless of breed (although, when there's a great size difference, that can be a trick!). But dogs don't mate with cats, nor are their mutations in a litter of puppies that turn one of them into some new creature.

His point was that there are small changes within species, evolution on a micro scale. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a real creationist that would deny that. It when we start saying that those tiny changes at one point were HUGE changes (without any way to test that theory) that people should be a bit more hesitant to swallow that dogmatic scientific pill.

[SpazX]

I think the burden of proof lies with you, actually. From our observable information (isn't that a vital part of science? Being able to test what you come up with?), species don't turn into other species. Dogs can mate with dogs regardless of breed (although, when there's a great size difference, that can be a trick!). But dogs don't mate with cats, nor are their mutations in a litter of puppies that turn one of them into some new creature.

His point was that there are small changes within species, evolution on a micro scale. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a real creationist that would deny that. It when we start saying that those tiny changes at one point were HUGE changes (without any way to test that theory) that people should be a bit more hesitant to swallow that dogmatic scientific pill.

Species are often defined as different because they can't mate, so of course they can't mate.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Plants and animals with short lifespans are the only way you're going to directly observe speciation. If you had to directly observe everything in science there wouldn't be much science about the past, you have to do the best you can with what's available, that doesn't make it invalid.

[Msut77]

I think the burden of proof lies with you, actually. From our observable information (isn't that a vital part of science? Being able to test what you come up with?), species don't turn into other species. Dogs can mate with dogs regardless of breed (although, when there's a great size difference, that can be a trick!). But dogs don't mate with cats, nor are their mutations in a litter of puppies that turn one of them into some new creature.

His point was that there are small changes within species, evolution on a micro scale. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a real creationist that would deny that. It when we start saying that those tiny changes at one point were HUGE changes (without any way to test that theory) that people should be a bit more hesitant to swallow that dogmatic scientific pill.

Did you read the link I provided? If you did were you capable of understanding it?

[daroga]

Plants and animals with short lifespans are the only way you're going to directly observe speciation. If you had to directly observe everything in science there wouldn't be much science about the past, you have to do the best you can with what's available, that doesn't make it invalid.No, it doesn't make it invalid, but it's also not a slam-dunk certainty either. It's far more speculation than science, if we're going define "science" as "able to use the scientific method," which these wild extrapolations are not able to do.

[Msut77]

No, it doesn't make it invalid, but it's also not a slam-dunk certainty either. It's far more speculation than science, if we're going define "science" as "able to use the scientific method," which these wild extrapolations are not able to do.

I think that calling you a third rate sophist was being far too kind on my part.

[pittpizza]

Thrust, I'm still waiting for you to disprove one single fact or piece of data presented in An Inconvenient Truth, are you still playing? If so, cough it up, otherwise you will have successfully been called out on your bullshit. The ball is (still) in your court champ.

Lets see these "lies."

[camoor]

The "quasi" approach here is just imposing one standard on another.

I hate to say it, but Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church have as much claim to "Christianity" as I do. I don't think they're right at all, and I think they're terrible people. But the moment I claim to be more "Christian" than they are, I'm making a presumption about the objective foundation of religion that's totally false.

Of course, there are clear boundaries. Not believing in the divinity of Christ makes it impossible to call oneself "Christian." But amongst those with the basics down (Jesus is the son of God, born to earth to die for our sins, yadda yadda yadda), then the schisms ma be huge beyond that - but the foundation is the crucial part.

So, long story short, what makes Aum Shinrikyo "quasi-buddhist"?

I was just quoting the article, but I would argue that Aum Shinrikyo is as Buddhist as Fred Phelps is Christian. Both are off the scales in how much their actions differ from the tenets set down by their respective religions, no matter how much they claim to believe the core principles.

I'm not really interested in the fringe whackos though, let's talk about the people with a real following (you know, the Pat Robertson types)

[camoor]

Eh ... sorta. All those things were a factor, including the Shinto element. But to hide their religion, Japanese Christians disguised their statues of Mary as Kwannon, the Buddhist goddess of mercy. The Shogun's orders were to attend Buddhist temples, not Shinto shrines. And when they were given the chance to convert to save themselves from crucifixion, it wasn't to Shintosim -- it was to Buddhism.

The secret Mary statues were not just Kwannon, they were also modeled after Shinto gods and goddesses. The Kakure Kirishitan (hidden Christians) modified their hymns to sound like both Buddhist and Shinto prayers.

In Japan, Shintoism is intertwined with Buddhism. Furthermore Shintoism is fiercely nationalistic and extremely political. It's almost impossible to objectively prove which religion was most likely the cause of the atrocities against Japanese Christians and missionaries, but my logical, cynical mind is forced to conclude that a nationalistic, political religion is more apt to be the culprit then a religion designed to lay out the path towards elimination of suffering.

Yes, and that's because the reality (Buddhists are no more and no less prone to violence than any other group of people) doesn't match the perception (Buddhists are all basically the Dalai Lama), and the article broaches that subject knowing full well what its audience's preconceptions will be.



Sorry dude -- my point was just that there are such things as "positive sterotypes," but they're not any more true than the negative ones. There are no "good" religions and there are no "bad" religions, and thinking there are is foolish. Perhaps someone else will take you up on the pissing contest. Anyway, a cursory look at much of Asian history will answer your question for you -- the people who invented kung fu were Buddhists, and they sure as hell didn't make it because they believed in passive resistance.

/threadjack now, yes?

You have a very morally relativistic viewpoint (IE all religions are the same in terms of goodness or badness and therefore cannot be judged) I don't share that viewpoint and I feel that world history is on my side.

As far as negative stereotypes - you're employing them when you talk about Kung Fu as the product of a violent mindset. If you believe Kung Fu is what you see in Jackie Chan movies or what the Wu Tang clan raps about then you should get educated.

It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory. ;)

[StealthNinjaScyther]

I think the burden of proof lies with you, actually. From our observable information (isn't that a vital part of science? Being able to test what you come up with?), species don't turn into other species. Dogs can mate with dogs regardless of breed (although, when there's a great size difference, that can be a trick!). But dogs don't mate with cats, nor are their mutations in a litter of puppies that turn one of them into some new creature.

His point was that there are small changes within species, evolution on a micro scale. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a real creationist that would deny that. It when we start saying that those tiny changes at one point were HUGE changes (without any way to test that theory) that people should be a bit more hesitant to swallow that dogmatic scientific pill.

How many times do people have to correct your misconceptions about evolution? Species do change over time. We have observed this. Over long periods these changes can be rather significant. The fossil record also confirms this. The burden of proof for this lies on your end. There is no evidence to suggest that the processes that produce the small changes we observe today are insufficient to produce the variation of species that have existed throughout time.

Again, the dog mating with cats thing. What does that have to do with evolution? Evolution does not state that mutations will turn one species "into some new creature." Please, do try to learn what evolution actually is. These straw-man arguments will get you nowhere.

There is nothing dogmatic behind the science of evolution. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. You need to remember that the theory of evolution is an explanation for an observed process. Do we really need to go over the scientific definition of a theory again?

[thrustbucket]

Doroga just needs to remember that all evolution does is explain that species can adapt and change over time. That's really it, not much more.

Evolutionists sometimes hypothesize (read:guess) that man "evolved" from apes based on similarity and a sketchy fossil record full of huge gaps. But that isn't proof.

And because of that, it's really not that contrary to creationism or ID.

[camoor]

How about that lion that mated with a tiger

http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainn ameatlonglast.com/Animals/liger.JPG

http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainn ameatlonglast.com/animals25.html

[daroga]

Doroga just needs to remember that all evolution does is explain that species can adapt and change over time. That's really it, not much more.

Evolutionists sometimes hypothesize (read:guess) that man "evolved" from apes based on similarity and a sketchy fossil record full of huge gaps. But that isn't proof.

And because of that, it's really not that contrary to creationism or ID.I'm not so sure that's true, thrust. I can see "evolution" excluding the origins of life and matter that science has no idea about, but I think "evolution" generally encompasses the ideas of single cell->mankind and everything in between.

Of course if it was defined as you stated, and thus if we stayed in the realm of the testable, observable stuff, that'd be awesome. You know, the scientific method. It's the speculation that runs rampant and is passed off as fact when it is, as you say, just guesses (and poorly contrived ones at that) that the problems come.

Creation and micro-evolution fit just fine together. I love studying it, as well, to get an idea of how awesomely God made this world and it's creatures to adapt and change as need be.

[SpazX]

No, it doesn't make it invalid, but it's also not a slam-dunk certainty either. It's far more speculation than science, if we're going define "science" as "able to use the scientific method," which these wild extrapolations are not able to do.

They're not wild extrapolations. There's no reason to believe that what works in plants and insects doesn't relate to what happens to larger animals with longer lifespans. There are millions (if not billions, hell if I know) of different species of insects with very little difference between them. Larger animal families are less varied because of their longer lifespans and fewer niches and these are the animals we see the most, making it less intuitive to think that there can be a build-up of little differences to make very different species.

You test a theory by testing its predictions. A theory is nothing if it doesn't predict things, that's the point of a theory (which is one reason why ID isn't one, it makes no testable predictions). Evolution makes specific predictions about what you would expect in genetics, physiology, fossils, etc. if evolution took place. The findings in those areas are what you would expect if evolution took place. That is how evolution is scientifically tested even though you cannot necessarily directly observe speciation happening in every modern species.

EDIT: To add to that, we cannot directly observe atoms, nor protons or electrons, or any other small particles such as that in physics. They are inferred by the effects that are observed that would be expected if they existed. Does that mean that it's not science? Afterall, we've made atomic bombs based on those theories, which worked as expected. People rarely contest this as ID contests evolution since they have no moral, emotional, religous, etc. investment in the existence of electrons.

[lwelyk]

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

Come on now.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/almostwhale.asp

Come on now, they made up far too much from far too little.

[trq]

Okay, /threadjack, sorry.

You have a very morally relativistic viewpoint (IE all religions are the same in terms of goodness or badness and therefore cannot be judged) I don't share that viewpoint and I feel that world history is on my side.

Actually, I'm anything but relativistic. I'm really just a stickler for consistency; in this case, viewing every religion with the same critical eye. From your desire to exonerate Buddhism of any history of violence, while not extending the same leniency to, say, Abrahamic religions, it's clear you're not willing to do that.

As far as negative stereotypes - you're employing them when you talk about Kung Fu as the product of a violent mindset. If you believe Kung Fu is what you see in Jackie Chan movies or what the Wu Tang clan raps about then you should get educated.

None of the kung fu instructors I know would even consider the idea that kung fu is meant for combat to be negative. So what, exactly, is kung fu intended for, if not fighting? Because I'm pretty sure most people would consider eye gouges, throat punches, and knee breaks "violent."

It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory. ;)

Heh. Great movie, though I prefer: "Why doesn't somebody pull out a .45 and -- bang -- settle it?" Bruce was eminently practical. :)

How about that lion that mated with a tiger

http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainn ameatlonglast.com/Animals/liger.JPG

http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainn ameatlonglast.com/animals25.html

Piffle. You don't need "evolution" for that. That's just some good, old-fashioned "begetting."

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Amanojaku/ligr1.jpg

And besides, I think you mean:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Amanojaku/liger.jpg

[Msut77]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/almostwhale.asp

Come on now, they made up far too much from far too little.

Is that the best you got? Even if it was "too little" (and it is not) you have literally nothing.

[thrustbucket]

Of course if it was defined as you stated, and thus if we stayed in the realm of the testable, observable stuff, that'd be awesome. You know, the scientific method. It's the speculation that runs rampant and is passed off as fact when it is, as you say, just guesses (and poorly contrived ones at that) that the problems come.



Well that's the problem then. Many people running around trying to pick a fight with ID's and Creationists using all their evolutionary weapons, are actually using speculation. Educated speculation, yes. But it's still speculation.

You and I know that Evolution exists as far as it defines adaptation and a species ability to change. That's all we need to know. Anyone that tries to use Evolution to argue AGAINST creationism or ID, is being speculative too.

[camoor]

Okay, /threadjack, sorry.



Actually, I'm anything but relativistic. I'm really just a stickler for consistency; in this case, viewing every religion with the same critical eye. From your desire to exonerate Buddhism of any history of violence, while not extending the same leniency to, say, Abrahamic religions, it's clear you're not willing to do that.

I'm not an absolutist. To say that people claiming to adhere to the Buddhist faith never committed acts of violence would be absurd. However it is my viewpoint that comparitively, between the mainstream religions, Buddhism has caused the least amount of violent religious strife (when measured on a per capita basis, no less)

None of the kung fu instructors I know would even consider the idea that kung fu is meant for combat to be negative. So what, exactly, is kung fu intended for, if not fighting? Because I'm pretty sure most people would consider eye gouges, throat punches, and knee breaks "violent."

Kung Fu may be used in military training (and against HS bullies in movies like "Karate Kid") but it's effectiveness is quite limited when compared to modern warfare tactics, such as shooting a gun (like Bruce Lee said :D).

From a Buddhist standpoint it was simply meditative movement, and Buddhist groups like the Shaolin Monks only used it as a fighting style when they were forced to defend their sacred monestary from roving bandits. On the rare occasions that the monks were physically defending themselves they used weapons like the staff that was also used in chores such as carrying buckets of water from the nearby well.

Piffle. You don't need "evolution" for that. That's just some good, old-fashioned "begetting."

And besides, I think you mean:


Poor tiger. I linked that site because it was so "Most Awesome Page in the Universe" funny. Between the photoshopped liger and the kooky advice, it's pretty sad that it's a top ten link for Liger on the Google.

If you encounter a Liger the best way to survive the encounter is to bark like a dog, Ligers seem to detest the noise and more often than not they retreat.

If you ask me, I think we need a little more "search page Darwinism" in the world.

[Kayden]

Daroga (or creationists in general), I think your biggest hurdle concerning evolution is the fact that you take the life span of the world to be only 6000 years old. Ancient Egypt is older than that!

Earth probably took more than 6000 years to cool down from a molten ball of iron. If you figure the the planet is 4.5 BILLION (4,500,000,000) years old, it doesn't seem all that unreasonable for a genetic change every few hundred/thousand generations to bring about a new life form thats nothing like its great^10 grandfather.

Even if you maintain that Earth is only ~6000 years old, what about the rest of the universe? Is it just as young? What about the speed of light? How can we be seeing a galaxy 100,000 light years away if the universe isn't atleast 100,000 years old? Is science wrong about how far other galaxies are or are the wrong about how fast light moves?

If the rest of the universe actually is 13+ billion years old, why would God just leave everything sitting around for 12.999994 billion years collecting dust? Is God a really bad procrastinator? Was he just sitting on his couch in Heaven with his wife nagging at him for a few billion years?
"You know, when we first got together, you were so ambitious. You started creation and made a whole universe. Now you just sit on your ass drinking beer. What happened to the all knowing, all powerful deity I married? If you don't start making changes... I'm going to my mothers!"
"Yea, yea honey, I'll build the Sol System tomorrow"
"Jesus Christ, you've been saying that for 13 billion years!"
"Hey, don't use my future son's name in vain!"

[The Crotch]

Busy right now, so I don't have time to read all this stuff. Just wanna say for now...Daroga (or creationists in general), I think your biggest hurdle concerning evolution is the fact that you take the life span of the world to be only 6000 years old. Ancient Egypt is older than that!Daroga has stated before that he does not necessarily believe that the planet is ~6000 years old. I believe he said that anything above 10000 years was stretching it.


Even if you maintain that Earth is only ~6000 years old, what about the rest of the universe? Is it just as young? What about the speed of light? How can we be seeing a galaxy 100,000 light years away if the universe isn't atleast 100,000 years old? Is science wrong about how far other galaxies are or are the wrong about how fast light moves?God created the universe looking older than it really is. He's tricky like that.

[daroga]

Pretty much what Crotch said, though without the implicit sarcasm. ;)

Trees in the Garden of Eden would've had rings if you cut them down. Light would be traversing through the universe as if it had been for years. Adam and Eve were adults, the chicken came first which then laid eggs, etc. But it all came into being over the course of 6 days.

On the one hand you say "That stupid!" or tricky or whatever. On the other, it's amazing to see God creating a world with such detail. He set the light in motion so that Adam and Eve would've had a starry sky to look at that first night. Things humans wouldn't be able to see for millenia were set in place at the beginning.

A universe created with age dispels the vast majority of our questions about why things look or act the way they do.

[crystalklear64]

It seriously saddens me to see such things.

[daroga]

It seriously saddens me to see such things.This is something I'd love to hear from everyone on. But, why is that? Is it simply the clinging to ignorance (from your perspective) that is upsetting? The stigma and concern about religious zealots that come along and start "holy wars" in the name of "God"? Just a general distaste for viewpoints different than your own?

Trying to put myself into one of your sets of shoes, I could see some frustration, but I don't see the point in even talking to someone like myself about it. Ultimately, if everything wrapped up in the Big Bang / Evolution is right, does it make any difference whatsoever is some people believe in a God who created it?

If someone is ignorant in math or reading/writing, they'll be a drain on society. But the dissenting opinion on the origins of the world doesn't seem to have much impact on anyone's day-to-day lives.

I'll stop speculating and let ya'll answer. :)

[crystalklear64]

No, I'm just jealous of how easy it is for you. I wish things really were that simple.

[thrustbucket]

No, I'm just jealous of how easy it is for you. I wish things really were that simple.

Some things might be that simple. Who knows. Our addiction to proof through the five senses to others through repeatable processes before we believe it probably complicates many things much more than need be.

[camoor]

If someone is ignorant in math or reading/writing, they'll be a drain on society. But the dissenting opinion on the origins of the world doesn't seem to have much impact on anyone's day-to-day lives.

I respectfully disagree.

Believing that life appeared on this world one billion years ago in a universe that is approximately 13.73 billion years old, and that we are potentially the only life forms in this universe, gives one an epic insight into the importance of intelligent life and a healthy sense of responsibility to preserve the delicate ecosystem we live in.

Evangelicals voted the current president into office not once, but twice. Believing that a God created this world with a snap (or 6 ;)) of his fingers only 6 to 10 thou years ago and will trash it once all his followers have escaped in the rapture makes for mediocre pop fiction but it obviously doesn't do much for the green movement.

[daroga]

I respectfully disagree.

Believing that life appeared on this world one billion years ago in a universe that is approximately 13.73 billion years old, and that we are potentially the only life forms in this universe, gives one an epic insight into the importance of intelligent life and a healthy sense of responsibility to preserve the delicate ecosystem we live in.

Evangelicals voted the current president into office not once, but twice. Believing that a God created this world with a snap (or 6 ;)) of his fingers only 6 to 10 thou years ago and will trash it once all his followers have escaped in the rapture makes for mediocre pop fiction but it obviously doesn't do much for the green movement.Can I disagree with you there. I guess I can't speak for the rapture crowd, but I doubt as many of them voted for Bush thought, "Yeah, this guy will let us trash the world and it'll be awesome!"

As a Christian I have just as much of a concern about taking care of our environment as anyone else. The world we live in is a gift from God. We already messed it up pretty throughly with sin, but that doesn't mean that we just run roughshod over it. It is here for our use, but not our abuse. Never mind the fact that while we believe the end of the world could be as early as right now, we still operate under the assumption that generations will follow us. So not only is trashing the earth spitting it God's face, but it's also spitting in our children's faces.

But, good try at forcing politics into the question ;)

[thrustbucket]

I respectfully disagree.

Believing that life appeared on this world one billion years ago in a universe that is approximately 13.73 billion years old, and that we are potentially the only life forms in this universe, gives one an epic insight into the importance of intelligent life and a healthy sense of responsibility to preserve the delicate ecosystem we live in.

Evangelicals voted the current president into office not once, but twice. Believing that a God created this world with a snap (or 6 ;)) of his fingers only 6 to 10 thou years ago and will trash it once all his followers have escaped in the rapture makes for mediocre pop fiction but it obviously doesn't do much for the green movement.



So you are saying that evangelicals are gaia's enemy because they are prone to think this planet isn't unique and everything that happens is obviously allowed to happen? So they don't mind being reckless savages?

That's quite a stretch.

I've never heard an ultra-religious person say anything like that.

[The Crotch]

This is something I'd love to hear from everyone on. But, why is that? Is it simply the clinging to ignorance (from your perspective) that is upsetting? The stigma and concern about religious zealots that come along and start "holy wars" in the name of "God"? Just a general distaste for viewpoints different than your own?

Trying to put myself into one of your sets of shoes, I could see some frustration, but I don't see the point in even talking to someone like myself about it. Ultimately, if everything wrapped up in the Big Bang / Evolution is right, does it make any difference whatsoever is some people believe in a God who created it?

If someone is ignorant in math or reading/writing, they'll be a drain on society. But the dissenting opinion on the origins of the world doesn't seem to have much impact on anyone's day-to-day lives.

I'll stop speculating and let ya'll answer. :)I'll bite.

First off, we have to differentiate between things like... well, like this and beliefs that actively harm others - say, the Jehova's Witnesses' historic refusal of blood transfusions and the myriad problems with the Christian Scientists (not to be confused with Christian scientists - my ongoing war against improper capitalization must be won). There are some pretty obvious reasons to be upset about those things.

But as for something like this? Well, I think XKCD explains it pretty damn well: you guys vote. And yes, even with this, that can be important from time to time (http://skepdic.com/lysenko.html).

Oh, yes. That's right. I just linked conservative Christianity with the Soviet Union. This is, like, a double-reverse infini-Godwin.

[trq]

I respectfully disagree.

Believing that life appeared on this world one billion years ago in a universe that is approximately 13.73 billion years old, and that we are potentially the only life forms in this universe, gives one an epic insight into the importance of intelligent life and a healthy sense of responsibility to preserve the delicate ecosystem we live in.

Evangelicals voted the current president into office not once, but twice. Believing that a God created this world with a snap (or 6 ;)) of his fingers only 6 to 10 thou years ago and will trash it once all his followers have escaped in the rapture makes for mediocre pop fiction but it obviously doesn't do much for the green movement.

I'd add to that the idea that a scientifically illiterate populace isn't going to produce enough competent doctors, scientists, and inventors to have a healthy stream of innovations, inventions, and break-throughs (not to mention the economic benefits of the industries that depend on them). Why do we try to educate people in general? Because society as a whole benefits. The geochemist who will one day figure out a practical carbon sequestering method is going to need to know that the facts don't support a 6,000 year old Earth, and the doctor who successfully creates a cancer-eating retrovirus is going to need to understand evolution better than a "Maybe it's ID" curriculum allows. So I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to pass up opportunities to make the world a better place just so some people can feel better about what they believe. They're still welcome to believe it, of course -- but not every belief has equal weight in every arena, and supernatural explanations to scientific inquiries aren't even a waste of time: they're downright regressive.

But hey, maybe that's the ultimate irony: the society that becomes ID-predominant doesn't produce enough medical breakthroughs to keep it healthy in the face of evolving diseases and lengthening lifespans among rivals who can and do keep up, and so slowly falls victim to its own dangerous meme. Survival of the fittest indeed.

[camoor]

Can I disagree with you there. I guess I can't speak for the rapture crowd, but I doubt as many of them voted for Bush thought, "Yeah, this guy will let us trash the world and it'll be awesome!"

As a Christian I have just as much of a concern about taking care of our environment as anyone else. The world we live in is a gift from God. We already messed it up pretty throughly with sin, but that doesn't mean that we just run roughshod over it. It is here for our use, but not our abuse. Never mind the fact that while we believe the end of the world could be as early as right now, we still operate under the assumption that generations will follow us. So not only is trashing the earth spitting it God's face, but it's also spitting in our children's faces.

But, good try at forcing politics into the question ;)

I'm glad to hear you say this, and that you support the green movement. However the facts are that many politicians given a 100% rating from Christian advocacy groups get a failing grade from environmental groups.

So you are saying that evangelicals are gaia's enemy because they are prone to think this planet isn't unique and everything that happens is obviously allowed to happen? So they don't mind being reckless savages?

That's quite a stretch.

I've never heard an ultra-religious person say anything like that.

No they are not "gaia's enemy". In my opinion they seem to care about adding people (through eliminating contraception and abortion) and keeping brain-dead human bodies in a technically "living" state more then they care about the myriad other forms of life on this planet. Culture of (human) life.

[daroga]

trq: keep in mind that Creation isn't anti-science. In fact, those who hold to a Creation belief can have a greater drive to understand what God has made and how it works and how to better use it than the evolutionist. A Christian can easily train to be a doctor, and a good one at that, because that's based around things we can work with, test, and observe. There's not a metric ton of speculation in medical science like there is with evolution. I have a good friend whose acing all of his biology courses as he's looking towards med school and loving every second of it. And yet, he holds to a 6 day Creation belief as well!

Your argument could be easily turned around: someone who holds to Creation (or perhaps to ID, but that's a far looser term that I'm not sure has a real definition) spends less time trying to figure out the origins of things in the past, and more time working with, experimenting, and testing his hypothesis to get the things in front of him to work properly. He or she just might be the one to crack that cancer case in the end.

A rejection of one thought-stream on the origins of things doesn't equate to an ignoring of those things that are in front of us to work with and make use of.

[trq]

So you are saying that evangelicals are gaia's enemy because they are prone to think this planet isn't unique and everything that happens is obviously allowed to happen? So they don't mind being reckless savages?

That's quite a stretch.

I've never heard an ultra-religious person say anything like that.

Oh, for fuck's ... haven't we established that there's a whole universe of stuff that Thrustbucket hasn't seen or heard, and yet might exist anyway? You keep using that line, and people keep providing the information you're blissfully unaware of, over and over again. Why persist? Are you just holding out for the one guy who finally says, "Oh, well, if Thrustbucket never came across it in his tenure as a Rhodes scholar, maybe I'm just making it up"?

So once more into the breach:

They're called "Wise Use" evangelicals. They believe humans are the rulers of the Earth; God put us in charge, so to speak, and he provides the resources He sees fit. Ergo, the rest of creation has no moral status, and cannot be sinned against, and is thus nothing more than resources to be used by us.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1998/PSCF3-98Ball.html

Need a specific example? Okay. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) quoted Romans' warning of those who worship "birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things" in an anti-environment speech to the Values Voter Summit in 2006.

Anything else I can dig up that you've never come across because you've never looked?

[trq]

trq: keep in mind that Creation isn't anti-science.

Well, I may be misremembering, but haven't you said otherwise, in discussions about reconciling science and religion? If science says one thing, and a literal interpretation of the bible says another ... which one wins out, would you say? Assuming I'm guessing your answer correctly (and let's face it: I am ;) ), wouldn't that make being a scientist in those areas particularly difficult?

tIn fact, those who hold to a Creation belief can have a greater drive to understand what God has made and how it works and how to better use it than the evolutionist. A Christian can easily train to be a doctor, and a good one at that, because that's based around things we can work with, test, and observe. There's not a metric ton of speculation in medical science like there is with evolution. I have a good friend whose acing all of his biology courses as he's looking towards med school and loving every second of it. And yet, he holds to a 6 day Creation belief as well!

I don't deny that there are some very good, very religious scientists out there. In fact, I know one professionally (he's also a Lutheran minister). So I'm sure your friend will be an excellent doctor, but he's going to be precisely the kind of guy I want patching me up after a car accident or performing orthoscopic surgery on my knee, not the kind of guy who develops that retrovirus, because he's either going to have to find a creative way to reconcile evolution with his religious views, or he's going to have to choose to stay away from the branches of medicine that require a full and total working knowledge of it.

Your argument could be easily turned around: someone who holds to Creation (or perhaps to ID, but that's a far looser term that I'm not sure has a real definition) spends less time trying to figure out the origins of things in the past, and more time working with, experimenting, and testing his hypothesis to get the things in front of him to work properly. He or she just might be the one to crack that cancer case in the end.

A rejection of one thought-stream on the origins of things doesn't equate to an ignoring of those things that are in front of us to work with and make use of.

The problem with that is easily summed up with an Isaac Newton quote: "If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." The things in the past and the theories relating to them are vital to our understanding of those things right in front of us. You just can't discard evolution or all the data on the age of the universe and expect to be much of a geneticist or a astrophysicist.

[daroga]

No doubt, being a Christian and a scientist in a lot of ways is difficult. Difficult, but certainly not impossible. In a spot where science and religion seem to differ, the Christian scientist would look for another answer.

Simply because origin assumptions made by evolution-believing predecessors are wrong, doesn't mean that their observations on how things effect us right now and how they work is useless and thrown out. You can stand on the giant's shoulders without agreeing with everything he's done. When the observations are testable, you go with it, even if the assumed path to those observations is erroneous. One is seeking to understand evolution, one God's creation, but both come to the same end result: the data and environment in front of them.

It wouldn't be the most pleasant experience (largely due to the professional environment), but the differing world views and presuppositions wouldn't prohibit a Christian from making great strides in research.

But I'm content to agree to disagree on this. :)

[tokitoki50]

I forgot about this thread. I've been trying to catch myself up and I have just a few comments.

I disagree that Creationism is compatible with any kind of science. Any creation story put forth by any religion can be refuted with obvious, repeatable observations in fields like geology and astrology. What the creationist is forced to do is ignore this evidence and play it off as part of the Grand design of god, which I'll admit I cannot prove it isn't. But I'll postulate that it's extremely counter-intuitive to deny seemingly overwhelming empirical data.

I'll admit that philosophy of religion isn't my forte. I'm much more interested in metaphysics honestly. That being said, I have a problem with the Christian creation story, so maybe you can explain it to me how it makes sense...

1) God is omnipotent. I don't think anybody who believes in God can deny that.

2) God creates the world/universe in 6-7 days. The time frame itself isn't important for this argument but it's important to realize that it happens in a given time.

3) Therefore, God is dictated by time because God creates the universe within a time frame, meaning that time either existed before God or coincides with God.

4) But God is omnipotent. How can time dictate god because god is all powerful?

To me, and I could be wrong because I don't know the story all that well, it seems contradictory to have an all powerful being dictated by time.

We can deny that time is real but that goes against all intuitive notions we have about change and reality. It just seems pretty devastating to me

[SpazX]

astronomy toki, astrology is....quite different :-P.

[thrustbucket]

No they are not "gaia's enemy". In my opinion they seem to care about adding people (through eliminating contraception and abortion) and keeping brain-dead human bodies in a technically "living" state more then they care about the myriad other forms of life on this planet. Culture of (human) life.

Fair enough.

But it could also be argued that the opposite extreme (and you are talking about an extreme) has started to measure human life in terms of carbon footprints. Which is equally as scary.

I think we can both agree that more middle of the road carefully studied action is desirable.

Oh, for fuck's ... haven't we established that there's a whole universe of stuff that Thrustbucket hasn't seen or heard, and yet might exist anyway? You keep using that line, and people keep providing the information you're blissfully unaware of, over and over again. Why persist? Are you just holding out for the one guy who finally says, "Oh, well, if Thrustbucket never came across it in his tenure as a Rhodes scholar, maybe I'm just making it up"?

Wow. Nice attitude. I hope you at least got an orgasm from whatever is jammed up your nethers....


They're called "Wise Use" evangelicals. They believe humans are the rulers of the Earth; God put us in charge, so to speak, and he provides the resources He sees fit. Ergo, the rest of creation has no moral status, and cannot be sinned against, and is thus nothing more than resources to be used by us.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1998/PSCF3-98Ball.html

Need a specific example? Okay. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) quoted Romans' warning of those who worship "birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things" in an anti-environment speech to the Values Voter Summit in 2006.

Hmmm. Ok.... Sooooooo...... You are arguing that what you just described is common or even prevalent? Do you really want to argue that these people are so numerous, rabid, and breeding out of control that they pose a danger to all you hold dear?

My point was to not tell you they must not exist. My point was to tell you that if they do exist, they aren't a major threat to your leftist agenda any more than al-queda is to your daily drive.

Anything else I can dig up that you've never come across because you've never looked?
Yes.
Respectful non-arrogant discussion from the far-left on this forum would be a good start. Let me know when you dig some of that up.

[The Crotch]

Ugh. I apologize to Daroga, Spaz, Camoor, TRQ, etc. for this, and I really hope it doesn't cause some sort of derail.
Yes.
Respectful non-arrogant discussion from the far-left on this forum would be a good start. Let me know when you dig some of that up.What the fuck? Considering that you're basically a right-wing, more verbose version of Msut, you sure have some thin damn skin. Like, monomolecular.

[/making things worse]

[Msut77]

Ugh. I apologize to Daroga, Spaz, Camoor, TRQ, etc. for this, and I really hope it doesn't cause some sort of derail.What the fuck? Considering that you're basically a right-wing, more verbose version of Msut, you sure have some thin damn skin. Like, monomolecular.

[/making things worse]

I admit I have a low tolerance for idiots and I enjoy taking the piss but other than that am I really that bad? Fuck give me a little credit.
Every single one of thrusts "arguments" are either based on who he may or may not know or insipid stoner style "how do we really like, know anything man".

[crystalklear64]

1) God is omnipotent. I don't think anybody who believes in God can deny that.

2) God creates the world/universe in 6-7 days. The time frame itself isn't important for this argument but it's important to realize that it happens in a given time.

3) Therefore, God is dictated by time because God creates the universe within a time frame, meaning that time either existed before God or coincides with God.

4) But God is omnipotent. How can time dictate god because god is all powerful?

To me, and I could be wrong because I don't know the story all that well, it seems contradictory to have an all powerful being dictated by time.

We can deny that time is real but that goes against all intuitive notions we have about change and reality. It just seems pretty devastating to me
The Bible had to be put into terms us mere mortals could understand. The easiest way for us to have even the smallest most childish understanding of creation according to the Bible, the story is put into human terms, aka. 7 units of time.

Also, 7 days could be 7 billion years etc.
--
DID I DO IT RIGHT!?!?!?

[trq]

In a spot where science and religion seem to differ, the Christian scientist would look for another answer.

That's all I was saying, really -- but that's enough to be problematic for science.

But I'm content to agree to disagree on this. :)

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I didn't really expect to sway you with that one. :)

Hmmm. Ok.... Sooooooo...... You are arguing that what you just described is common or even prevalent? Do you really want to argue that these people are so numerous, rabid, and breeding out of control that they pose a danger to all you hold dear?

My point was to not tell you they must not exist. My point was to tell you that if they do exist, they aren't a major threat to your leftist agenda any more than al-queda is to your daily drive.

"So you are saying that evangelicals are gaia's enemy because they are prone to think this planet isn't unique and everything that happens is obviously allowed to happen? So they don't mind being reckless savages? That's quite a stretch. I've never heard an ultra-religious person say anything like that." actually means "They're not a big deal"?

You know, moving the goal-posts only works when people can't go back and read what you've already written.

Anyway, I could also make a good case that Dominionism isn't especially prevalent either, but it doesn't have to be to be, when True Believers hold the highest offices in the land.

Respectful non-arrogant discussion from the far-left on this forum would be a good start. Let me know when you dig some of that up.

Considering the polygamy thread, The Crotch has a point about you of all people being sensitive ... but I *do* apologize for coming down a little hard. But seriously: the far-left? You need a major reality check if you think evolution is a far-left issue, or that Lefties even made it a political issue in the first place.

[daroga]

We can deny that time is real but that goes against all intuitive notions we have about change and reality. It just seems pretty devastating to meTime is certainly real (at least on a level of philosophy that I'm happy to talk about ;) ), but God governs time, not the other way around. On the first day, when God created light, there was evening and morning. The Bible bends over backwards to show that these are real days, not billions of years (sorry crystalklear). On the first day of Creation, God created time. Before that, God has existed in eternity and will continue to exist into eternity. He's the real definition of "eternal," without beginning or end. What we usually refer to as "eternal life" is probably better described as "everlasting life" because it had a beginning but will not have an end.

Peter says that for the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day. God created time for us, to govern our world with light and darkness, seasons, etc. But he operates above and beyond that time. You get to some mind-bending stuff when you start trying to comprehend God's eternal nature.

I will agree that astrology and the Bible are not compatible, though. ;)

Anyone else have a rationale for their being upset about people holding to a Creation belief? (Crotch, I've not had a chance to read your link yet. I'm excited to see how Christianity and the USSR dance together on the playground at recess though! ;) )

[camoor]

To me, and I could be wrong because I don't know the story all that well, it seems contradictory to have an all powerful being dictated by time.

We can deny that time is real but that goes against all intuitive notions we have about change and reality. It just seems pretty devastating to me

I think that's a pretty good point. To be honest, I don't know why Christians never took up the position that God setoff the "Big Bang" and ran with that. I suppose that's more of a Deist clockmaker God concept.

Now - I don't believe that either (I don't know what happened to kick off the Big Bang and what existed before - that's a real mystery to me and I wouldn't pretend to have the answer), but IMO it's a much more likely scenario then ID.

[Kayden]

Hmmm. Ok.... Sooooooo...... You are arguing that what you just described is common or even prevalent? Do you really want to argue that these people are so numerous, rabid, and breeding out of control that they pose a danger to all you hold dear?


I didn't see him say anything about Islam. :oops:



Time doesn't exist. It's merely a human made metric to allow us to measure consciousness.

[SpazX]

Anyone else have a rationale for their being upset about people holding to a Creation belief?

I don't think this thread is really about being upset about people being creationists (at least not most of it). I don't care if you're a creationist. The problems come when:

1. People say evolution isn't science or isn't backed by evidence.
2. People say ID is science or is backed by evidence.
3. People say that evolution shouldn't and/or ID should be taught in science classes.

And also for the special case of the expelled movie and similar people:

4. People say that if you accept evolution as a scientific theory you define morality by it and therefore it is the source of all evil in the world.

[trq]

I don't think this thread is really about being upset about people being creationists (at least not most of it). I don't care if you're a creationist. The problems come when:

1. People say evolution isn't science or isn't backed by evidence.
2. People say ID is science or is backed by evidence.
3. People say that evolution shouldn't and/or ID should be taught in science classes.

And also for the special case of the expelled movie and similar people:

4. People say that if you accept evolution as a scientific theory you define morality by it and therefore it is the source of all evil in the world.

Bingo.

[tokitoki50]

astronomy toki, astrology is....quite different :-P.

Good catch, needless to say it was kind of late.

Time certainly does exist Kayden, and I think any good philosopher would tell you the same. The only thing manmade about time are the units in which we measure time. That's like saying length doesn't exist because we measure it with inches and centimeters. Besides, it'd be impossible to "measure consciousness" by time.

Thank you for clearing up daroga that god does create time in the bible. But this does bring up some questions I have about the nature of god, specifically what it means to be "timeless." But I don't want to derail this thread.

I don't have problems with creationists generally. The only ones I have a problem with are those who believe in the rapture. It basically gives them a free pass to destroy nature and dominate the planet with reckless abandon because what's it matter? They'll all be teleported to heaven or whatever.

[camoor]

Good catch, needless to say it was kind of late.

Time certainly does exist Kayden, and I think any good philosopher would tell you the same. The only thing manmade about time are the units in which we measure time. That's like saying length doesn't exist because we measure it with inches and centimeters. Besides, it'd be impossible to "measure consciousness" by time.

Any "good" philosopher? Tell that to Leibniz or Kant.

IMO time is really just a system of measurement derived from an empirical experience that all (or almost all ;) ) humans share.

I can't hold time in my hand, study it in a microscope, or manipulate it to study it's properties. At this point in our understanding of the universe it's really more of an intellectual concept that we use to order our lives or plug into physics equations then anything else.

[thrustbucket]

I'm beginning to believe that we are just built to experience time in a very linear fashion in our current state.

A lot of the latest quantum science discoveries point to that. Time, much like gravity, is something we can experience the effects of, but know very little about.

[The Crotch]

(Crotch, I've not had a chance to read your link yet. I'm excited to see how Christianity and the USSR dance together on the playground at recess though! ;) )They didn't, really.

[tokitoki50]

Any "good" philosopher? Tell that to Leibniz or Kant.

IMO time is really just a system of measurement derived from an empirical experience that all (or almost all ;) ) humans share.

I can't hold time in my hand, study it in a microscope, or manipulate it to study it's properties. At this point in our understanding of the universe it's really more of an intellectual concept that we use to order our lives or plug into physics equations then anything else.

Leibniz was a supporter of monads, and while his principles on indenticals is for the most part widely accepted the philosophical world doesn't accept the ideas of monads, which states that not only time is unreal, but that all substance is an illusion. It's just stupid in my own opinion and counter-intuitive.

I don't like anything Kant really wrote either.

I said good philosophers not famous ones. :lol:

Personally I'm a big fan of A theories on time, primarily presentism. I only believe in the present. The past is as unreachable and as unreal as the future.

[daroga]

Ugh, Kant. Philosophy class and papers ruined him for me. Or, perhaps he ruined himself.

Presentism is kind of a wild concept. When I'm not learning how to become a violent person with video games or doing anything productive with my time, I like to think about things like, "Is the collection of memories that we have the primary agent in defining who we are?" If you gave a "blank slate" my collective set of memories, would they essentially be me? Is anything really happening or is it an ongoing revelation of these memories?

Of course, if you get too deep into that, you start writing another Matrix script, and we all know how well that worked.

[camoor]

Leibniz was a supporter of monads, and while his principles on indenticals is for the most part widely accepted the philosophical world doesn't accept the ideas of monads, which states that not only time is unreal, but that all substance is an illusion. It's just stupid in my own opinion and counter-intuitive.

I don't like anything Kant really wrote either.

I said good philosophers not famous ones. :lol:

Personally I'm a big fan of A theories on time, primarily presentism. I only believe in the present. The past is as unreachable and as unreal as the future.

It's all very theoretically interesting.

I admit to not knowing the advanced physics but I do believe time travel into the future would be possible if you did something funky like fly away from earth at the speed of light (or fill up a Delorean with liquid Plutonium).

[daroga]

I admit to not knowing the advanced physics but I do believe time travel into the future would be possible if you did something funky like fly away from earth at the speed of light (or fill up a Delorean with liquid Plutonium).Come on, man. It ain't that hard. You've got Mr. Fusion on your side! Or you will in... 7 years.

We've got a lot of catching up to do by 2015.

[thrustbucket]

It's all very theoretically interesting.

I admit to not knowing the advanced physics but I do believe time travel into the future would be possible if you did something funky like fly away from earth at the speed of light (or fill up a Delorean with liquid Plutonium).

Just can't stop chiming in on this subject, as it interests me a lot...

I think time travel in the past is just as possible. Especially since there is more and more evidence that there are multiple timeliness... possibly unlimited. Meaning that the old adage of going back in time and killing yourself would make you instantly cease to exist and/or cause a "paradox" is probably false. Were you able to really do that, nothing would likely happen.

[crystalklear64]

Try it.

[pittpizza]

I dare ya!

And daroga, I liked the matrix script!

[insertcleverthing]

If you guys keep going, you'll be claiming solipsism in between bong hits.

[daroga]

And daroga, I liked the matrix script!I really liked the first one, too. But, man, those second and third movies? Yuck.

[pittpizza]

I really liked the first one, too. But, man, those second and third movies? Yuck.

Yeah you got me there, but the first was badass.

[camoor]

I really liked the first one, too. But, man, those second and third movies? Yuck.

I actually liked the second one. There was alot of computer theory in it, which I could see turning ppl off. I thought the homage to cheesy horror movies was pretty cool though. And that fight scene in the courtyard was totally whoa.

The problem I have with 1 and 2 is the whole sleeping beauty subplot - IE the deus ex machina (pardon the pun) moments where characters are magically brought back to life with a romantic kiss.

Matrix Three was total crap - I couldn't believe how phony that movie was. Everyone was just phoning it in - even the stunt coordinators.

[daroga]

My issue was that one was novel and made you think, whereas 2 and 3 were mostly just sci-fi based action flicks. I was looking for more wild philosophy ideas, but I guess they were fresh out.

2 was a bit better than 3, but since they hang together so much, 3 drags 2 down to the depths with it.

[pittpizza]

I totally agree that 1>2>3, with the gap between 2 and 3 being the largest.

Screw the courtyard scene, how about that chase sceen w/the 18 wheelers and motorcycles and shit. That was awesome. It was also pretty cool how Merovingian could make a total stranger orgasm with mind bullets. (This was 2 right?)

[camoor]

My issue was that one was novel and made you think, whereas 2 and 3 were mostly just sci-fi based action flicks. I was looking for more wild philosophy ideas, but I guess they were fresh out.

2 was a bit better than 3, but since they hang together so much, 3 drags 2 down to the depths with it.

Yeah but in terms of philosophy 2 was infinitely better then most big budget sci-fi flicks. Watching I, Robot makes Matrix 2 seem like 2001.

BTW Daroga - have you seen "2001: A Space Odyssey", or better yet read the book? I'm interested in whether you enjoyed the "aliens guided human evolution" mythology of the films.

[SpazX]

I liked Matrix 1 and hated 2, so I never even saw 3.

[crystalklear64]

So we're in agreement that the Matrix is better than Expelled will be?