Why I believe God exists......

[Jinnah]

I am typing slowly as I am sure you can't read very fast...

 

The answer is....

 

WE DON"T KNOW YET.

 

Shocked?

 

What I don't get is people who are so desperate for answers they accept "answers" that are really no answer at all.

 

If I had to answer the question as to where matter came from, I would say leprechauns. Prove me wrong. There is just as much evidence for leprechauns as there is your god, by the way. Have fun!

 

 

 

I for one have no god, since there is no such thing.

 

Where did god come from? If you can accept that god always existed, why can't you accept that the Universe probably always existed?

 

Well, I guess I better type even slower. Your answer is even more ridiculous than I expected it to be!

 

If some "particles" can exist, why can't God? One reason to believe, would be that Jesus actually lived... do not insult me for being a Christian... sounds like I have more "proof" than you do (not that I need it). Wow, I can't stand to hear anymore of this so say what you want... but it's just going to fall on deaf ears as I cannot stand ridiculous conversation that serves no purpose... this is just all hog wash. Sorry.

[Jinnah]

Trimmer, you totally missed my point.

 

Good luck JamesM.

[Trimmer]

Your original comment to which I was responding:

This is what I don't get: if you don't believe in God, why would you even think there were just loose atoms and molecules floating around... where did those come from? What were those even doing "there"? What was "there" and how did it get there? It seems like that would make even less sense. Sounds like these atoms and particles are your "god".

Then a response from me, explaining that my acceptance of the presence of matter in the universe is consistent with scientific observations, while granting that its origin is, indeed, a mystery that we are continuing to experiment, observe, and speculate about, and one that I don't pretend to have the answers for. Further comment from me that accepting - without yet knowing its origin - the the existence of matter in the universe (with compelling evidence as to it's time of origin and its physical behavior since then, if not its precise source) is no more fantastic than acceptance of an infinitely complex being - God - without origin, without creator, and without evidence.

 

I took your point to be that belief in the existence of the universe (a mystery, the awe of which is something I believe we may have in common...) requires belief in a creator, who, from your other posts, I know you belive to be God: infinitely complex, powerful, etc. My response - I believe directly to your point - is that I feel that belief in such an inexplicable god who we cannot see is no less fantastic than belief in the presence of our inexplicable universe.

Trimmer, you totally missed my point.

 

Good luck JamesM.

So I missed your point - and not just missed it, but "totally" missed it? I feel a little insulted, but then again, if I so totally missed the point, then I wouldn't know any better, would I? Are you sure we don't just "totally" disagree?

 

Well, it sounds like you are stepping out, so if you don't have the time or energy to illuminate your point any further, or you are convinced that I'm not worth it, then I will have to live with that as just one more of our universe's inexplicable mysteries.

[Jinnah]

Your original comment to which I was responding:

 

Then a response from me, explaining that my acceptance of the presence of matter in the universe is consistent with scientific observations, while granting that its origin is, indeed, a mystery that we are continuing to experiment, observe, and speculate about, and one that I don't pretend to have the answers for. Further comment from me that accepting - without yet knowing its origin - the the existence of matter in the universe (with compelling evidence as to it's time of origin and its physical behavior since then, if not its precise source) is no more fantastic than acceptance of an infinitely complex being - God - without origin, without creator, and without evidence.

 

I took your point to be that belief in the existence of the universe (a mystery, the awe of which is something I believe we may have in common...) requires belief in a creator, who, from your other posts, I know you belive to be God: infinitely complex, powerful, etc. My response - I believe directly to your point - is that I feel that belief in such an inexplicable god who we cannot see is no less fantastic than belief in the presence of our inexplicable universe.

 

So I missed your point - and not just missed it, but "totally" missed it? I feel a little insulted, but then again, if I so totally missed the point, then I wouldn't know any better, would I? Are you sure we don't just "totally" disagree?

 

Well, it sounds like you are stepping out, so if you don't have the time or energy to illuminate your point any further, or you are convinced that I'm not worth it, then I will have to live with that as just one more of our universe's inexplicable mysteries.

 

Lol, Trimmer... I knew I shouldn't have even read this response. I will say once again, that Jesus was here, and yet you still do not believe. I'm almost convinced that NOTHING will convince you.

[Moai]

Well, I guess I better type even slower. Your answer is even more ridiculous than I expected it to be!

 

If some "particles" can exist, why can't God? One reason to believe, would be that Jesus actually lived... do not insult me for being a Christian... sounds like I have more "proof" than you do (not that I need it). Wow, I can't stand to hear anymore of this so say what you want... but it's just going to fall on deaf ears as I cannot stand ridiculous conversation that serves no purpose... this is just all hog wash. Sorry.

 

Sure god could exist. God just doesn't.

 

You don't have any proof, and we both know it. Post some, prove me wrong.

 

This conversation would indeed be ridiculous, except for the fact that you make claims about morailty and reality here that effect other people. Stop doing that, and there is nothing of import to discuss.

[Moai]

Lol, Trimmer... I knew I shouldn't have even read this response. I will say once again, that Jesus was here, and yet you still do not believe. I'm almost convinced that NOTHING will convince you.

 

Why Jesus? Why not Vishnu or Allah?

[JamesM]

Uh-huh. Hawking is pretty smart. That doesn't address my point, though. Also, as Steven Weinberg suggests, we cannot hope to know what was before our Universe began, so it is possible that there has always been something. But we can't know that, so why postulate about it?

 

Actually it address part of it very well. You used the comparison of the universe as possibly being eternal to God being eternal. You say that God does not exist, so I know how you feel about that. And I pointed out that a very well educated naturalist scientist has shown that the universe cannot be eternal.

 

Now you answered the part about God....so I will state it again. "we cannot hope to know what was before our Universe began, so it is possible that there has always been something. But we can't know that, so why postulate about it?"

 

There have been a number of explanations given and I could link you to them, but guess what? These people and well educated scientists and I might respected in their field of work, have postulated how God can be the Creator and be eternal. But why bother? I can quote what you will say....

And all Creationists, every single one, is a liar. And they don't even call each other out on it.

 

Yep. The human and chimpanee genome are HUGE. You can have large chunks and still get a small percentage of the overall genome.

 

Bonobos are a subspecies of chimpanzees. They are the only ape besides us that recognie themselves in the mirror and exhibit facial expression. They are our closest living cousin.

 

Correct, and they are not found in North America. BUT..the point of this article is to show that there is a greater difference between human and monkey DNA than previously thought. For decades, scientists have quoted the 98.5%, but now they are finding that the percentage is not so great. Just a note to you so that you can update your number.

 

I didn't say it was everything, but it a whole damn lot. And it fits perfectly within the evolutionary model we now have.

 

Yes, it does, but maybe that model needs some modifying?

 

Yes, I did choose to answer your post. It isn't that I don't like it when you comine the two, they are two seperate subjects in biology.

 

I apologize for offending you. I am not sure why you answered my post. I am willing to guess that if you go to many websites THAT ARE NOT CREATIONIST, you will find this term used interchangeable for both. In fact, we call them evolutionary biologists. But I will use the term "naturalists" if that is more appropriate.

 

They don't make that distinction because there isn't one. If you cannot provide a mechanism for something that you assert is happening--micro versus macro--then what are you even talking about?

 

I must have misunderstood. You had earlier wanted me to provide a mechanism for something that isn't happening. I do not assert that it IS happening.

 

You sure do. I am not even sure what you are talking about.

 

Theories about how what can happen? Transitions between species? Already covered. Look it up.

 

I think if you scroll up you will see that this is in reference for your request for me to find a reference for what is not happening...macro to micro.

 

Ok, so we should take someone seriously who thinks that the Earth is flat, or that the Sun orbits the Earth....no, sorry. You are free to believe whatever you want, and people who actually understand these things are free to think that you are at best misinformed and at worst an idiot. Right?

 

Love it...the old "compare creationism to flat earth" argument. Thanks for not disappointing me. And yes, interestingly enough, here in America, we DO have the freedom to believe what we want to believe....even when someone else thinks we are stuopid.

 

No time for more. I will get back later

[Moai]

Actually it address part of it very well. You used the comparison of the universe as possibly being eternal to God being eternal. You say that God does not exist, so I know how you feel about that. And I pointed out that a very well educated naturalist scientist has shown that the universe cannot be eternal.

 

Super. Then god can'tbe either, which was my point.

 

Now you answered the part about God....so I will state it again. "we cannot hope to know what was before our Universe began, so it is possible that there has always been something. But we can't know that, so why postulate about it?"

 

There have been a number of explanations given and I could link you to them, but guess what? These people and well educated scientists and I might respected in their field of work, have postulated how God can be the Creator and be eternal. But why bother? I can quote what you will say....

 

Clearly you are filled with the Holy Spirit, as he has given youthe power to read minds. Praise be to Jesus!

 

There are certainly scientists who believe in god. That doesn't mena that there is one, or that they are doing science when they make such a claim. 97% of Nobel Prie winning scientists are atheists. That doesn'tmean all,but it means more than "most." And even then, that doesn't mean atheism is true. It just means that of the people on this planet who understand reality the best, 97% don't believe in god.

 

 

Correct, and they are not found in North America. BUT..the point of this article is to show that there is a greater difference between human and monkey DNA than previously thought. For decades, scientists have quoted the 98.5%, but now they are finding that the percentage is not so great. Just a note to you so that you can update your number.

 

I was talking about bonobos, not rhesus monkeys. I said so. Rhesus monkeys were not germane to the topic at hand. You tried to score cheap rhetorical points, and you got caught. But, please yourself. Why don't you link to a dragonfly website so I can "update my number"?

 

Not only that, monkeys and apes are not the same. Again, do even read what you quote? Do even know what an ape is? In an earlier post you looked up ape-human divergence. Did you happen to look up the difference between apes and monkeys? I'll give you a hint: MONKEYS HAVE TAILS AND APES DON'T.

 

Yes, it does, but maybe that model needs some modifying?

 

I am sure it deoes, but I doubt those doing the modifying will be checking with you first.

 

I apologize for offending you. I am not sure why you answered my post. I am willing to guess that if you go to many websites THAT ARE NOT CREATIONIST, you will find this term used interchangeable for both. In fact, we call them evolutionary biologists. But I will use the term "naturalists" if that is more appropriate.

 

Then reference one. I am sure "Bob's Evolution Website!" may mix the two, but I am not aware of ONE that mixes them and uses the terms that you do. Link one, I'd love to read it.

 

I must have misunderstood. You had earlier wanted me to provide a mechanism for something that isn't happening. I do not assert that it IS happening.

 

So why use the term then?

 

I think if you scroll up you will see that this is in reference for your request for me to find a reference for what is not happening...macro to micro.

 

Ok, their is just evolution, not "micro" and "macro". If you claim that there is a difference, provide a mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating. That you cannot do, of course, so now you claim that you were talking about the process we see, and claiming it isn't happening.

 

No offense, but are you ADD? Or maybe it is me. If you are going to reference a part of evolutionary theory in the middle of the thread, you should say so. If you are going to claim a positon opposite of what it has been, you should say so.

 

Love it...the old "compare creationism to flat earth" argument. Thanks for not disappointing me. And yes, interestingly enough, here in America, we DO have the freedom to believe what we want to believe....even when someone else thinks we are stuopid.

 

It is one of my favorites. I could have used Creationism and astrology, or alchemy, or dowsing, or any other mutty belief, but I chose a flat-Earth. And yes, you can believe anything that you want. The sad thing is, it holds everyone else back, and is leading us toward doom.

 

No time for more. I will get back later

 

Live and be well until then....

[disgracian]

This is what I don't get: if you don't believe in God, why would you even think there were just loose atoms and molecules floating around... where did those come from?

Until you can answer where your god came from, this is not a meaningful question. Your will of course answer that god always existed, and there you have your answer. Matter and energy has always existed, it just takes on different forms from time to time, like clouds, people, cocker spaniels, planets, oceans, et al.

 

If you're not comfortable with the idea of the universe always existing, then you have some internal conflicts to resolve.

 

Cheers,

D.

[JamesM]

No, but you aren't disgareeing with his position on punctuated equliibrium, you are disagreeing with his description of evolution being a theory and a fact. Nobody in biology disagress with him about that.

 

That is not true, but then they are either creationists are something similar. Oh, and if that is the case refer to rule number one...all creationists are liars. So yes, there are PhD biologists that disagree with him.

 

So you doubt gravity then?

 

No.

 

Evolution is a fact. We have a theory that explains the fat we see. We could come up with a new theory tomorrow and it wouldn't make evolution any less of a fact.

 

I assume that your C is not working again. I thought we "solved" this one. Evolution is a fact and has been observed within species...no argument. This fact has been used in the theory of evolution (along with fossils) to postulate that all species have a common ancestor. So, no we do not argue about the fact....we argue about the theory. And this evolutionary fact may prove not to fit into the theory in the future.Then a new theory would be needed. And no, this would not change the fact that fruit flies can mutate from generation to generation.

 

So, do you really have an open mind, or do you really reject reality in favor of your superstitions?

 

And you are the one who has the open mind? God does not exist..period. All creationists are liars. And yes, religion is only superstition.

 

I do not reject reality in favor of superstitions. Do you have an open mind for the possibility of God? I am going to start a thread and I hope you contribute....what would it take for you to believe in God? Think about it...just for the fun of it.

 

I am open to evidence for god, but there isn't any so far, so I am not holding my breath. The probablity of a god is so near zero I am not worried at all.

 

Why would you worry?

 

You obfuscate the issue, and then blame me for the mistake. Sorry, won't wash.

 

This is referring to the Endosymbiotic Theory. If you go back to that post, you will see that I quoted Dutchboy. In his quote of his, he used this name. I then followed this quote with my comments. I did not think this was so hard to follow. Feel free to look at it again. I apologize if it was too hard for you to follow.

 

And scientists pointed out that Piltdown Man was a fraud

 

A fraud is a fraud. But yes, other scientists did discover it. And yes, there are more examples of "mistakes" made. But no, it does not mean that all scientists who are evolutionist/naturalists are liars.

 

And all Creationists, every single one, is a liar. And they don't even call each other out on it.

 

Based on your examples, there must be only four creationists plus a school board. And the "lies" they allegedly made...only one is related to creationism.

 

Oooooh, spooky. Golly, I hope not!!!! What if you're wrong, and when you die you don't have a sword in your hand? No Valhalla for you. I would tremble at my core if I were you.

 

Touche.

[JamesM]

Live and be well until then....

 

Thanks...I had supper and did some "parenting."

 

Super. Then god can'tbe either, which was my point.

 

Yes, I knew that. But one proven does not equal another. And besides, it the Universe is not eternal, what existed prior to the universe? God can be eternal. God can exist out of time.

 

Clearly you are filled with the Holy Spirit, as he has given youthe power to read minds. Praise be to Jesus

 

You are finally seeing the light!

 

It just means that of the people on this planet who understand reality the best, 97% don't believe in god.

 

They call that...let me look it up a minute...the argument ad populum. Google it for a definition. Sorry, I could resist some levity.

 

I was talking about bonobos, not rhesus monkeys. I said so. Rhesus monkeys were not germane to the topic at hand. You tried to score cheap rhetorical points, and you got caught. But, please yourself. Why don't you link to a dragonfly website so I can "update my number"?

 

You are right. The first link was more applicable. However, when I read that article, it states that the rhesus monkey is very similar to humans and used for research because it is genetically so close. The first link I gave you stated that the 98.5 was not as accurate as first believed for apes. Hey, I was just helping!

 

I am sure it deoes, but I doubt those doing the modifying will be checking with you first.

 

Ya think not? I have no clue why.

 

It is one of my favorites. I could have used Creationism and astrology, or alchemy, or dowsing, or any other mutty belief, but I chose a flat-Earth.

 

Now we are mutts?

 

Hmmm....

[Moai]

That is not true, but then they are either creationists are something similar. Oh, and if that is the case refer to rule number one...all creationists are liars. So yes, there are PhD biologists that disagree with him.

 

I only gave a few examples. There are literally hundreds. Every prominent Creationist I know of has either been indicted or has been caught lying---and then they go on and REPEAT the lie to others. Why does god need people to lie for him?

 

Or they are misinformed. Michael Behe, the ID poster child, has claimed that the human immune system is irreducibly complex. Yet, under oath when he was asked if he had read any papers about immunology or any books on the subject, he answerd, "No." What that means is that Behe asserts things with no evidence at best, or is lying and doesn't admit it at worst.

 

Read the details here (it has a pitcure of some of the science he says deosn't exist): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

 

Here is the sign you see when walking into the biology department at LeHigh University:

 

"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

 

Ouch.

 

No.

 

Good for you.

 

I assume that your C is not working again.

 

It's true! My "z" is giving out also.

 

I thought we "solved" this one. Evolution is a fact and has been observed within species...no argument. This fact has been used in the theory of evolution (along with fossils) to postulate that all species have a common ancestor. So, no we do not argue about the fact....we argue about the theory. And this evolutionary fact may prove not to fit into the theory in the future.Then a new theory would be needed. And no, this would not change the fact that fruit flies can mutate from generation to generation.

 

I am glad that you can go that far, but perhaps you should read more about transitionals:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

 

There's pictures too!

 

And you are the one who has the open mind? God does not exist..period. All creationists are liars. And yes, religion is only superstition.

 

I am still open to evidence. Yet, in the entire time humans have walked the Earth nobody has been able to produce a shred of it. How long should I wait--given that Christians are the most patient people EVER.

 

And yes, all prominent Creationists are liars, and yes, religion is organized superstition.

 

I do not reject reality in favor of superstitions. Do you have an open mind for the possibility of God? I am going to start a thread and I hope you contribute....what would it take for you to believe in God? Think about it...just for the fun of it.

 

I can think of lots of things that would make me beleive in god.

 

Why would you worry?

 

Because most of these superstitious beliefs suggest that when one doesn't accept them there is some sort of punishment at all. And I am not worried.

 

This is referring to the Endosymbiotic Theory. If you go back to that post, you will see that I quoted Dutchboy. In his quote of his, he used this name. I then followed this quote with my comments. I did not think this was so hard to follow. Feel free to look at it again. I apologize if it was too hard for you to follow.

 

Hey, I can certainly make a mistake. I'll check it again, but I missed it. Mea Culpa again.

 

A fraud is a fraud. But yes, other scientists did discover it. And yes, there are more examples of "mistakes" made. But no, it does not mean that all scientists who are evolutionist/naturalists are liars.

 

Creationists would do better if they actually researched something and posted evidene, but they don't. Their whole position is based on a lie, so it follows that such an endeavor would attract that type.

 

Based on your examples, there must be only four creationists plus a school board. And the "lies" they allegedly made...only one is related to creationism.

 

Duane Gish was caught lying about frog evolution at a debate in Australia. the information is in his pamphlet. During the debate, he admits that he made the information in question up. Two years later, at another debate, he was still handing out that pamphlet and the information was still on his website. Why would that be?

 

The DIscovery Institute has something called the Wedge Strategy (taken from the Wege Document), and wrote a letter describing it. In said letter, they recommend down-playing the god angle, until such a time that they could destroy scientific materialism once and for all.

 

ANd they don't even deny it. They are so obtuse that they don't see that hiding your true intentions is a form of lying. The judge in the Dover case found them to be lying. You should read the transcripts. You can get them here:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html

 

 

Touche.

[Jinnah]

Until you can answer where your god came from, this is not a meaningful question. Your will of course answer that god always existed, and there you have your answer. Matter and energy has always existed, it just takes on different forms from time to time, like clouds, people, cocker spaniels, planets, oceans, et al.

 

If you're not comfortable with the idea of the universe always existing, then you have some internal conflicts to resolve.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Well, now you just made yourself a hypocrite. How then did matter and energy always exist? How's they get there? That's all I was pointing out and if you are so stuck on proving yourself (even when you can't) then I am honestly not interested in having a conversation at this point. I prove my theory in God by saying that Jesus was here and yet you still do not believe, so I cannot help you. Just realize that you cannot proves yours. I am ducking out of the conversation not, as you are probably going to argue, because I don't have anything to back up what I'm saying (I just did), but because anything anyone says seems to just fall on deaf ears, even when it's a valid point. You might say that I am doing the same, but no I read your "points" but just realized that even though you might think so, they are not real points.

[disgracian]

How then did matter and energy always exist? How's they get there?

You're asking how something that has always existed came into existence? Epic logic fail.

I prove my theory in God by saying that Jesus was here and yet you still do not believe, so I cannot help you.

Buddha was also here, as was Mohammad, Krishna, Bill Hicks...even L Ron Hubbard "was here".

Just realize that you cannot proves yours.

Matter and energy is here, and always was. There, I've proved my point with exactly the same intellectual rigour that you have.

I am ducking out of the conversation not, as you are probably going to argue, because I don't have anything to back up what I'm saying...

That is exactly why you are ducking out of this conversation, and firing off as many parting insults as you can to cover your retreat. So long, you won't be missed.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Jinnah]

So long, you won't be missed.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Your name says it all.

 

Whatever dud, er uh, dude.

 

[ftheunion]

How can you assert anything Moose? Socrates argued in the Apology that he knew nothing, but he was the only one who was willing to admit it.

 

You sound like those creationists.

[JamesM]

You sound like those creationists.

 

What an awful name to be called!

[JamesM]

I only gave a few examples. There are literally hundreds. Every prominent Creationist I know of has either been indicted or has been caught lying---and then they go on and REPEAT the lie to others. Why does god need people to lie for him?

 

Let’s see…we have been told by you that creation is a lie. So, then of course by that definition….all creationists have been caught lying because creation is a lie. And since we all keep repeating that lie, we are lying for God? This is circular reasoning.

 

“Every prominent Creationist I know…” And that would be how many? I know as many evolutionists as well since I have familiarized myself with them through books and websites.

 

Or they are misinformed. Michael Behe, the ID poster child, has claimed that the human immune system is irreducibly complex. Yet, under oath when he was asked if he had read any papers about immunology or any books on the subject, he answerd, "No." What that means is that Behe asserts things with no evidence at best, or is lying and doesn't admit it at worst.

 

Again by your definition of creationism, it is based on lies and ignorance. So, based on your logic, all creationists are either liars or misinformed. Until they have changed their viewpoint, they will always be ignorant.

 

Actually, he was asked if he had read the books placed in a stack before him. This proves only that he didn’t read those books or reports. They even show a picture of the books and reports he was asked about. This proves that he was not informed about those books. This is neutral about his credibility.

 

And BTW, not all atheists think banning ID books is a good idea. Read the link below, and you will find that this man doesn’t. Yes, he really says that banning ID books is censorship, and he is for the discussion of ideas that do not agree with his. This is being open-minded.

Here is a quote that you will find in the link….

 

“There are people right now in Dover, Pennsylvania fighting to ban a completely harmless book called Of Pandas And People from public school science classes, against the express wishes of a majority of the parents. Tap-dance around it all you want, that is an attempt to ban a book from the classroom and censor ideas. You can put all the lipstick you want on this pig, with armwaving generalizations about "separation of church and state," but the pig won't get any prettier. It is censorship that is being advocated here, period. It will belong right on the ALA's Banned books list, alongside The Catcher in the Rye and Huckleberry Finn. If the Stalinist ACLU and the self-proclaimed "defenders of science" have their way, anyhow.

And if they do get their wish and manage to get the book banned, the message will be loud and clear once again: believers in evolution are intellectual tyrants, and science teachers are liars who hide ideas from their students.”

 

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1130477912.shtml

 

Here is the sign you see when walking into the biology department at LeHigh University:

 

I don’t know if it is in the building, but it is on the website. What I find so fascinating…so many of his colleagues have to be doubly sure that their brother evolutionists know that they are not connected to this crackpot of a scientist. (Sarcasm intended). Even after having this on the main home page of the department, many have an additional disclaimer on their own page. Makes you kinda wonder why they are so worried that someone might get the wrong idea? Does wavering from the accepted philosophy in science mean that one is “wrong?” Oh, I know…evolution is proven to be the correct theory. So when things come up that do not fit the model, are they made to fit the model, discarded because they don’t fit the model, or is the model changed? I am guessing that if something of great importance came up that meant discarding the current accepted theory, it would be discarded.

 

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years.

 

unequivocal - admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion;

 

Doesn’t leave much room for being open-minded, does it?

 

So, if one looks at every bit of evidence with this mindset, do you think evolution or abiogenesis will be discredited? Nope. I am guessing that if the evidence doesn’t fit, you must acquit….err…throw it out.

 

It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

 

Let’ see…abiogenesis has been tested? Oh, but it will Brother James, we are getting real close to solving that! Of course, when it is solved, it will still be a man-made experiment…not some random thrown together prebiotic soup. I can see that…”Bert, have the elements in our prebiotic soup combined to make life yet?” “No, Joe, I have been looking at it for months now. No change.” “Do you think we should stir it or something?”

 

Ouch.

 

What did you do? Pinch your finger on the keyboard? I think you need a new one...keyboard that is. BTW, I saw a TV commercial again the other day and with some changes, it made me think of you….

 

New Computer Keyboard $20 Fixing Moai’s typos Priceless

 

Actually I enjoy your typos…turning fact into fat.

 

I am glad that you can go that far, but perhaps you should read more about transitionals:

 

I read about the transitionals, but my point here is that you have said that only creationists use the terms micro and macro evolution. I have to say that in many of the evolution sites I visited, I found those words often. I did not link them, but you could google them and see if I am right. I have one but as you know, I use it not because I agree with all of the content, but to show you that these terms are widely accepted. Since you seem to think that this site has all of the answers, I linked to it for you.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

 

I am still open to evidence. Yet, in the entire time humans have walked the Earth nobody has been able to produce a shred of it.

 

As you have said to me, perhaps we are closing our eyes to the obvious and pretending it is something else? This can be argued both ways. When you attempt to describe everything in naturalistic terms, you will eliminate any evidences that do not fit. If you close your eyes to the complexity of nature and simply say that it does not mean there is a Creator, I think you are in essence saying…”IS NOT, IS NOT, IS NOT.” I have yet to see an example of anything that is man-made that does not indicate the intelligence of the designer. The more complex the design, the more educated, technologically intelligent, or smarts we say the person is. We marvel at what man has created.

 

Yet when it comes to the miracles of nature we see around us, we simply say that all evidences point to a random mutation of nature. We sit back and remark how if we had made the world, we would not have included mosquitoes or something similar…meanwhile, we ignore the fact that each living organism is composed of multitudes of cells that in themselves are complex. We ignore the fact that all of the living organisms around us are more complex than anything man has yet created. And we can sit back and say, “Hmmmph, there is no God. So everything must have started through abiogenesis and evolved by random chance and natural selection.”

 

By saying that the world began without a Creator, we can simply ignore any evidence presented.

 

How long should I wait--given that Christians are the most patient people EVER.

 

You have only to wait until death…and yes, I am assuming sarcasm on yours and my part.

 

And yes, all prominent Creationists are liars, and yes, religion is organized superstition.

 

Well, at least, we have now only defined PROMINENT creationists as liars. But I still think that by your definition, all creationists will be liars. I won’t try to change your mind on that one.

 

BTW, the definition for religion is not an easy one. In fact, by some definitions, atheism is considered a religion. Certainly equating superstition with religion is not as easy as you may make it out to be. In your mind, that may be the case, but in objective minds it is not. Go to this link…

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

 

And you can note that the authors of this website are not just Christian. And as you may or may not have noticed, I use as many…if not all, websites that are not Christian because in your mind, this equates to bias. Yet it is not biased if I use one that agrees with your philosophy of life.

 

I can think of lots of things that would make me beleive in god.

 

And I thank you for posting your story of how you became an atheist. It was very interesting to me. I will have to look again to see if you included evidences that would make you believe in a God.

 

Because most of these superstitious beliefs suggest that when one doesn't accept them there is some sort of punishment at all. And I am not worried.

 

Let’s see…the first statement is in response to “Why worry?” Then you follow with “I am not worried.” Hmmm.

 

Hey, I can certainly make a mistake. I'll check it again, but I missed it. Mea Culpa again.

 

That’s okay. It doesn’t take away from your intelligence. And you can say that in English, it won’t hurt.

 

Creationists would do better if they actually researched something and posted evidene, but they don't. Their whole position is based on a lie, so it follows that such an endeavor would attract that type.

 

You again proved my point…”their whole position is based on a lie.” I can say that it is discouraging to see you lose your objectivity when regarding the opposition opinion.

 

I think the above statement is circular reasoning. It goes along with the line that “God does not exist, so creation could not have happened. Hence, Creationism is a lie. Therefore, creationists are liars. Problems solved.” No, I do not believe this, but any evidence that is posted will never be accepted simply because the premise that God does not exist will invalidate the evidence…based on your logic.

 

The DIscovery Institute has something called the Wedge Strategy (taken from the Wege Document), and wrote a letter describing it. In said letter, they recommend down-playing the god angle, until such a time that they could destroy scientific materialism once and for all.

 

Well, there are scare tactics out there using that letter, but it is actually an urban myth. The letter is real, but it is not a secret. Phillip Johnson actually published a book years before with much of that letter in it. No lies..simply straightforward truth. I think every institute has its goals. I can say when I read the so called letter (on a skeptics site I might add), I did not see where the idea that God will be kept secretive is indicated.

 

ANd they don't even deny it. They are so obtuse that they don't see that hiding your true intentions is a form of lying.

 

Why must you resort to name-calling again (ad hominems)? This does not reflect well on your intelligence.

 

As for true intentions and lying, evolutionists like to say that they are not trying to get rid of God. They like to say that God and Darwinism can coexist, but listen to a couple of comments from two…

 

“I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (Richard Dawkins)

 

And one you quoted earlier…which I think must mean that this is your feeling as well…

 

“I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment.” (Stan Weinberg)

 

So, it seems to me that you and I really are not having a dialogue in your mind. It must simply be your attempt at showing me what a liar I am.

[Moai]

Let’s see…we have been told by you that creation is a lie. So, then of course by that definition….all creationists have been caught lying because creation is a lie. And since we all keep repeating that lie, we are lying for God? This is circular reasoning.

 

No, the Creation story is a myth, not a lie. And not everyone is a liar who believes that, it just seems that those who are most vocal do happen to be liars.

 

Look at AIG's website for the arguments they admit are no longer valid. Other Creationist sites (and Creationists themselves) still use them. Are they lying? Maybe, maybe not.

 

But, when someone is shown that their conclusion is incorrect and not evidence for what they say it is, they admit it, and then continue to repeat it he or she is LYING.

 

Why did the Dover school board Creationists feel the need to lie about their intentions--even to the point of lying in court? That is a matter of public record.

 

Why does god need people to lie for him? If a Creator was so obvious and there was so much evidence, why would lies be remotely necessary?

 

“Every prominent Creationist I know…” And that would be how many? I know as many evolutionists as well since I have familiarized myself with them through books and websites.

 

I listed them.

 

Again by your definition of creationism, it is based on lies and ignorance. So, based on your logic, all creationists are either liars or misinformed. Until they have changed their viewpoint, they will always be ignorant.

 

Anyone who is a Creationist is ignorant, yes. They may or may not belying about it.

 

Prominent Creationists are liars. I am sorry if that fact is troubling for you, but it is, in fact, true. Why would someone take the time to pour over biology books to find quotes that make it seem as if the author admits that evolution is a guess unless he is trying to mislead people? This happens time and again, and even after the authors in question point out the reality of what they wrote (usually by providing the complete quote or the preceeding or following paragraph) the Creationists still put themin their quote book.

 

Isn't that lying? If not, what is it then?

 

Actually, he was asked if he had read the books placed in a stack before him. This proves only that he didn’t read those books or reports. They even show a picture of the books and reports he was asked about. This proves that he was not informed about those books. This is neutral about his credibility.

 

No, it proves that he isn't remotely aware of the work done about the human immune system, yet he made blanket assertions about it. The texts in question are the very basic ones, so anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the subject would have been familiar with them.

 

And the judge disagrees with you. Fine for you, but his opinion in this case is the one that mattered. ID bites the dust. Boo-hoo.

 

And BTW, not all atheists think banning ID books is a good idea. Read the link below, and you will find that this man doesn’t. Yes, he really says that banning ID books is censorship, and he is for the discussion of ideas that do not agree with his. This is being open-minded.

Here is a quote that you will find in the link….

 

Who said they should be banned? I don't think anything should be banned, I just don't think they have a place in a biology classroom. Get the difference?

 

And I am sure there are lots of things that I disagree with atheists about. We agree on the fact that there is no god, but it stops there. Atheism is not dogmatic.

 

“There are people right now in Dover, Pennsylvania fighting to ban a completely harmless book called Of Pandas And People from public school science classes, against the express wishes of a majority of the parents. Tap-dance around it all you want, that is an attempt to ban a book from the classroom and censor ideas. You can put all the lipstick you want on this pig, with armwaving generalizations about "separation of church and state," but the pig won't get any prettier. It is censorship that is being advocated here, period. It will belong right on the ALA's Banned books list, alongside The Catcher in the Rye and Huckleberry Finn. If the Stalinist ACLU and the self-proclaimed "defenders of science" have their way, anyhow.

And if they do get their wish and manage to get the book banned, the message will be loud and clear once again: believers in evolution are intellectual tyrants, and science teachers are liars who hide ideas from their students.”

 

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1130477912.shtml

 

That is stupid on so many levels I can't believe it. They aren't banning a book, they are removing a religious book from a science class. If the above is true, then we should teach "Hamlet" in chemistry class. They restate the case made by the IDers, and think it makes sense somehow. it doesn't, thinking people know that, and the citizens of Dover do, too, as none of the Creationists are on the board anymore. Obviously they don't want their children taught religion in science class.

 

I will familiarize myself with that website, but my initial impression is that they are morons. As a conservative I cringe when I read things like that.

 

I also did not get the impression that the author was/is an atheist.

 

I don’t know if it is in the building, but it is on the website. What I find so fascinating…so many of his colleagues have to be doubly sure that their brother evolutionists know that they are not connected to this crackpot of a scientist. (Sarcasm intended). Even after having this on the main home page of the department, many have an additional disclaimer on their own page. Makes you kinda wonder why they are so worried that someone might get the wrong idea? Does wavering from the accepted philosophy in science mean that one is “wrong?” Oh, I know…evolution is proven to be the correct theory. So when things come up that do not fit the model, are they made to fit the model, discarded because they don’t fit the model, or is the model changed? I am guessing that if something of great importance came up that meant discarding the current accepted theory, it would be discarded.

 

No, it's because Behe makes their biology department look substandard. They don't want anyone to think that they remotely agree with Behe. ANd I don't blame them.

 

Scientists have no problem changing theories in the face of new evidence. That is how science works. I amgetting the impression that you don't know that....

 

Also, the basics of the Theory of Evolution have been the same for 150 years or so. Just because crackpots don't know that or hate to admit it doesn't mean it isn't true. Since most people don't understand evolution or what a theory is, scientists have to be very clear about the reality of the matter.

 

unequivocal - admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion;

 

Doesn’t leave much room for being open-minded, does it?

 

Nope.

 

So, if one looks at every bit of evidence with this mindset, do you think evolution or abiogenesis will be discredited? Nope. I am guessing that if the evidence doesn’t fit, you must acquit….err…throw it out.

 

That is what Creationists do. Anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong or of Satan or something. God keeps getting smaller and smaller, but instead of realizing it, IDers and their ilk keep saying, "yeah, but..."

 

I will look at any evidencyou care to present. You haven't yet, but have a go.

 

Evolution cannot be discredited, as it is a fact. I am sure that the theory can be discredited (and might be someday), same goes for abiogenesis. I fail to see how this helps your position.

 

Let’ see…abiogenesis has been tested? Oh, but it will Brother James, we are getting real close to solving that! Of course, when it is solved, it will still be a man-made experiment…not some random thrown together prebiotic soup. I can see that…”Bert, have the elements in our prebiotic soup combined to make life yet?” “No, Joe, I have been looking at it for months now. No change.” “Do you think we should stir it or something?”

 

We do not have an accurate idea of what the prebiotic world looked like, but we can make educated guesses. And we have created self-replicating RNA in a lab. Yes, it was a man-made experiment. And we created life. That may not be how it happened billions of years ago, but it proves that it is possible for life to have appeared spontaneously. Sorry.

 

And man did that; sinful, imperfect man did that.

 

What did you do? Pinch your finger on the keyboard? I think you need a new one...keyboard that is. BTW, I saw a TV commercial again the other day and with some changes, it made me think of you….

 

New Computer Keyboard $20 Fixing Moai’s typos Priceless

 

Actually I enjoy your typos…turning fact into fat.

 

I have a laptop. Bummer. I tried to clean it and I screwed it up more. Such is life. Moose is getting me a new one anyway.

 

 

I read about the transitionals, but my point here is that you have said that only creationists use the terms micro and macro evolution. I have to say that in many of the evolution sites I visited, I found those words often. I did not link them, but you could google them and see if I am right. I have one but as you know, I use it not because I agree with all of the content, but to show you that these terms are widely accepted. Since you seem to think that this site has all of the answers, I linked to it for you.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

That would be the same as saying that I use them, since I have typed them on this thread. Refuting a concept is not the same as using it per se. And talkorigins is just a great, easy resource, especially for laypeople.

 

 

As you have said to me, perhaps we are closing our eyes to the obvious and pretending it is something else? This can be argued both ways. When you attempt to describe everything in naturalistic terms, you will eliminate any evidences that do not fit.

 

Example, please.

 

If you close your eyes to the complexity of nature and simply say that it does not mean there is a Creator, I think you are in essence saying…”IS NOT, IS NOT, IS NOT.” I have yet to see an example of anything that is man-made that does not indicate the intelligence of the designer. The more complex the design, the more educated, technologically intelligent, or smarts we say the person is. We marvel at what man has created.

 

Wrong. Complexity does not equal design, for one thing, and when you postulate design in Nature you assert INCOMPETENT DESIGN, not intelligent. Examples available on request, but I fear this response is too long already.

 

Yet when it comes to the miracles of nature we see around us, we simply say that all evidences point to a random mutation of nature. We sit back and remark how if we had made the world, we would not have included mosquitoes or something similar…meanwhile, we ignore the fact that each living organism is composed of multitudes of cells that in themselves are complex. We ignore the fact that all of the living organisms around us are more complex than anything man has yet created. And we can sit back and say, “Hmmmph, there is no God. So everything must have started through abiogenesis and evolved by random chance and natural selection.”

 

I am not going to give you a basic biology class, nor take the time to show you where your understanding is erroneous. If you want to find out, look it up. I can't keep trying to educate you and then have you constantly repeating the same mistakes. If you have toruble reading for meaning I'll try harder to be more clear, but this is beyond inane. Read a biology book. Or a few of them. Then come back.

 

By saying that the world began without a Creator, we can simply ignore any evidence presented.

 

PRESENT SOME.

 

You have only to wait until death…and yes, I am assuming sarcasm on yours and my part.

 

Same for you. You have angered Thor, and will be dealt with. Wouldn't want to be you upon death. DOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM.

 

Well, at least, we have now only defined PROMINENT creationists as liars. But I still think that by your definition, all creationists will be liars. I won’t try to change your mind on that one.

 

Lay people who believe in Creationism aren't "Creationists." They are just ignorant.

 

BTW, the definition for religion is not an easy one. In fact, by some definitions, atheism is considered a religion. Certainly equating superstition with religion is not as easy as you may make it out to be. In your mind, that may be the case, but in objective minds it is not. Go to this link…

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

 

And you can note that the authors of this website are not just Christian. And as you may or may not have noticed, I use as many…if not all, websites that are not Christian because in your mind, this equates to bias. Yet it is not biased if I use one that agrees with your philosophy of life.

 

Just because some guy says that atheism is a religion doesn't make it so. I looked at that site, and in their attempt at tolerance they cheapen what religion is. Go figure. Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of belief in a diety or the supernatural. That's it. It isn't not an organized system of beliefs at all.

 

And I thank you for posting your story of how you became an atheist. It was very interesting to me. I will have to look again to see if you included evidences that would make you believe in a God.

 

Haven't gotten to it yet.

 

I'll give you one right now: Zombies. I am not kidding.

 

Let’s see…the first statement is in response to “Why worry?” Then you follow with “I am not worried.” Hmmm.

 

You lost me.

 

That’s okay. It doesn’t take away from your intelligence. And you can say that in English, it won’t hurt.

 

You again proved my point…”their whole position is based on a lie.” I can say that it is discouraging to see you lose your objectivity when regarding the opposition opinion.

 

It isn't my fault that their position is a lie. I also fail to see why I should be open to it, since it is demonstrably false. This is not new, it goes back 100 years or so. SOme people just learn ,ore slowly, I guess.

 

I think the above statement is circular reasoning. It goes along with the line that “God does not exist, so creation could not have happened. Hence, Creationism is a lie. Therefore, creationists are liars. Problems solved.” No, I do not believe this, but any evidence that is posted will never be accepted simply because the premise that God does not exist will invalidate the evidence…based on your logic.

 

No, it is "Can what we see be explained through naturalistic processes. If yes, then god is unnecessary." Occam's Razor determines this to be the rational position. So far, we have explained so much using science, to assume that we cannot explain the origin of life would be folly.

 

Well, there are scare tactics out there using that letter, but it is actually an urban myth. The letter is real, but it is not a secret. Phillip Johnson actually published a book years before with much of that letter in it. No lies..simply straightforward truth. I think every institute has its goals. I can say when I read the so called letter (on a skeptics site I might add), I did not see where the idea that God will be kept secretive is indicated.

 

Well, the Dover folks followed it and they were found to be liars. Public record.

 

Why must you resort to name-calling again (ad hominems)? This does not reflect well on your intelligence.

 

It is not an ad hominem to call someone a liar when they are shown to be so. It is a statement of fact.

 

And by the way, the argument ad hominem goes like this:

 

Steve is ugly.

Therefore, Steve's position is false.

 

See the difference?

 

As for true intentions and lying, evolutionists like to say that they are not trying to get rid of God. They like to say that God and Darwinism can coexist, but listen to a couple of comments from two…

 

“I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (Richard Dawkins)

 

And one you quoted earlier…which I think must mean that this is your feeling as well…

 

“I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment.” (Stan Weinberg)

 

Not everyone who works in evolutionary biology or physics agrees with them. I do, of course. But others are wishy-washy and fear religious oppression or something. Who knows? Who cares?

 

So, it seems to me that you and I really are not having a dialogue in your mind. It must simply be your attempt at showing me what a liar I am.

 

I don't think you are a liar, and I am not calling you a liar. I do think that you listen to and give to much creedence to liars, though.

[DutchGuy]

In response to the original post (it could be that somebody already said so) the points you make are neutral in the evolution/creation debate.

Creation says: "God designed the environment to fit life".

Evolution says: "Life (as we know it) evolved to fit the environment".

 

Looking only to your arguments, there's no saying which one is right.

[nittygritty]

In response to the original post (it could be that somebody already said so) the points you make are neutral in the evolution/creation debate.

Creation says: "God designed the environment to fit life".

Evolution says: "Life (as we know it) evolved to fit the environment".

 

Looking only to your arguments, there's no saying which one is right.

 

Nor does one necessarily rule out the other.

 

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: and man became a living soul.

 

Previously in Genesis, God had made the ground to be capable of bearing seed. Living things could grow from the soil of the Earth.

 

God could have easily made the first human out of nothing but thats not the process that was written in the Bible. Nor am I saying that it says the first human was literally made of dirt. Figuratively, it says that God formed the first human from the soil of the ground of the earth that he had previously made with the capability of producing living things. (I know I said the same thing basically twice, I just find it all to be fascinating)

 

Everyone interprets what is written in the Bible differently. Some people try to interpret it from a literal standpoint while others from a figurative standpoint. From a figurative standpoint, God's creations evolve.

[Rooster_DAR]

Some things to ponder (how I see things):

 

Historically, religion has shunned anything other than traditional ideas about god and the universe. History has shown that much of what man thought was to be the truth, was fundamentally in error (Carl Sagan).

 

Darwin's tree of life has steadily had it's gaps closing since the his ideas were first introduced, contrary to what creationists claim they know.

 

Religion is trying to somehow mix god and evolution together so they can maintain/defend their beliefs, it's a "backed into a corner" stance.

 

Religion in general refuses to believe many of the findings of science, I often here them saying that scientists are telling lies, our textbooks are being re-written with lies, yada yada yada.

 

The earth and universe are far older than even Darwin thought they may be, many religions still only accept the earth is only a few thousand years old despite the evidence to support it.

 

I wonder when people will wakeup and finally realize that their an equally human, and equally compelling answer to our existence (CS). I don't think scientists are purposely trying to prove god wrong, they are just tracing the evidence which is pointing to the contrary. Religion and god are so sewn into our culture and social entities, that it may be very hard for most people to accept the possibility that every thing they have learned could be completely wrong. I don't know for a fact that god does not exist, I think eventually mankind will get to a point of understanding just who we are and where we come from.

 

Evolution to a certain point is a fact, but what we evolved from is still not completely filled in so nobody knows quite yet, although it would be easy to assume that we evolved from other ancestral species based on what science has uncovered so far.

 

Cheers,

[nittygritty]

Some things to ponder (how I see things):

 

Historically, religion has shunned anything other than traditional ideas about god and the universe. History has shown that much of what man thought was to be the truth, was fundamentally in error (Carl Sagan).

 

Darwin's tree of life has steadily had it's gaps closing since the his ideas were first introduced, contrary to what creationists claim they know.

 

Religion is trying to somehow mix god and evolution together so they can maintain/defend their beliefs, it's a "backed into a corner" stance.

 

Religion in general refuses to believe many of the findings of science, I often here them saying that scientists are telling lies, our textbooks are being re-written with lies, yada yada yada.

 

The earth and universe are far older than even Darwin thought they may be, many religions still only accept the earth is only a few thousand years old despite the evidence to support it.

 

I wonder when people will wakeup and finally realize that their an equally human, and equally compelling answer to our existence (CS). I don't think scientists are purposely trying to prove god wrong, they are just tracing the evidence which is pointing to the contrary. Religion and god are so sewn into our culture and social entities, that it may be very hard for most people to accept the possibility that every thing they have learned could be completely wrong. I don't know for a fact that god does not exist, I think eventually mankind will get to a point of understanding just who we are and where we come from.

 

Evolution to a certain point is a fact, but what we evolved from is still not completely filled in so nobody knows quite yet, although it would be easy to assume that we evolved from other ancestral species based on what science has uncovered so far.

 

Cheers,

 

 

I disagree, many religious practices are the origins for science. For instance the Jewish cleanliness laws and practices were the first established and applied medical sanitary laws and applications to prevent the spread of disease.

 

Jews were persecuted for the Bubonic plague because they weren't afflicted with the disease and presumed to be carriers. The reality was that they weren't afflicted with the disease because the Jewish cleanliness sanitary practices kept the disease carrying rats with fleas out of their living conditions.

 

Many biblical practices were the origin of the field of medical science. Quarantining those with skin infections and disease originated with Jewish laws.

 

Honestly, its been over 10 years since I attended a church regularly but the Methodist church that I did attend did not in any way, shape or form shun science.

 

There are many Jewish and Christian people working in the field of science. Many Scientists believe in God. IMO it is the Agnostic or Atheist Scientists with an agenda to disprove God and Religion. The ones that have lost their ability to be objective and whose arrogance and hatred for God and Religion have caused them to lose sight of the forest for the trees. They are the ones that are intentionally trying to put a slant on history, religion and science.

[disgracian]

Isn't it funny how both sides of a debate accuse the other of extreme bias and prejudice, while their own camp is perfectly objective and rational.

 

You gotta love that.

 

In response to nittygritty, however, it bears pointing out that the creationists are the more likely by far to be biased in their findings. Ignoring the litany of outright lies, hoaxes and dishonest quote-mining they engage in, their position necessitates it.

 

All good science works on drawing conclusions from evidence and observation. Creationism starts with the conclusion (the book of Genesis) and works backwards, seeking observations or evidence to support this preconceived involiable conclusion and dismisses everything else. It's the very opposite of science. Tell me where I'm wrong.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Rooster_DAR]

IMO it is the Agnostic or Atheist Scientists with an agenda to disprove God and Religion. The ones that have lost their ability to be objective and whose arrogance and hatred for God and Religion have caused them to lose sight of the forest for the trees.

 

Perhaps a small percentage of these types may have that agenda, but I assure you that for the most part you are incorrect. I have no interest in trying to disprove god because of hatred or some underlying cause, it's just that many of us are realizing these ancient traditions may be completely wrong. It's easier to take the side of religion because it's what many of us are brought up on, god and religion both have become an integral part of our lives.

 

We are all products of how we are raised, and changing our way of thinking is very hard to do. I agree many religious people are science driven, I think that is great. However; they keep trying to mesh religion with science which does not always work. Personally, I don't think people who believe in god(s) are invalid, I just think we have all been taught to believe something that may be fundamentally incorrect. It's part of our heritage to believe in something higher than us, nearly all races have some sort of god or spirit they turn to.

 

Honestly I wish god as we know it did exist, what a great universe it would be if all that was scripted was true. Just the way we look back on our ancestors for their archaic beliefs, I believe our descendants will look back on our beliefs and wonder what the hell we were thinking.

 

Cheers!