By Geaorge Mantrax, PhD.

According to Gallup, only one-third of Americans actually believe that evolution is a cogent scientific theory backed by evidence. That means two-thirds of the greatest country in America doens't live in the Reality-Based Community.

The Red Staters are supposed to be the people close to the earth, who love farming and family and the like. The problem is none of these people farm anymore, but live in cities and towns where the main employer is Wal*Mart or Target and all their food is obtained from a prepackaged freezer box.

If they were involved with farming, they would have a basic knowledge of animal husbandry and have evidence for evolution of their own. In order to engage in breeding animals you have to believe that they change over time. If you have a great race horse, you put it out to stud after a few years so it can pass on its great genes.

Now, imagine if we killed or gelded every slow or incompetent race horse before they were allowed to procreate, and only bred the fast race horses. In just 25 or 30 years we would have a higher percentage of fast, strong horses than we had before. Evolution in action!

The same goes for breeding good hunting dogs, chickens that lay more eggs, mules that are strong enough to pull a plow, hogs that are fatter and give more bacon, cows that produce more mile, corn that grows more ears per stalk, marijuana (yes, Red Staters smoke dope) that has a bigger kick, etc. The "evidence" of evolution is right in front of their faces and they refuse to believe it.

The theory of evolution doesn't deny God's existence. Many people -- scientists, in fact -- view the complexities of the world such as evolution as proof that there must be a Creator God because there is no way such delicate and balanced perfection could exist without one.

But the Red State Right Wingers insist on portraying people who believe in evolution as anti-Christian, secular humanists who hate church-going folk. It is a sinful, vicious and willful effort by the religious right to divide the country and make it easier to keep control of their "people".

It's been done before, and it led to the dark ages. The Catholic Church was so dominant in Europe that it refused to accept that any of its teachings were wrong, and folks like Galileo were imprisoned for life for the crime of believing evidence instead of Bishops.

This and other corruptions led to a schism in the Church that created the Protestant churches of Martin Luther and John Calvin, churches that eventually led to the Puritan movement. It was called the Puritan movement because its goal was to purify the Church of England of everything Catholic and to create a more just church based on community, family and local control of the church.

You remember the Puritans. They came to America to avoid religious persecution, and eventually helped found the United States of America based on freedom, local control and religious tolerance.

But now the religious right is trying to become the old Catholic Church, dictating public policy and personal beliefs onto the people with no evidence or rational backing to their decrees.

I am a Christian, I believe in evolution, I am a liberal, and I believe as the founding Puritans did that religion is best handled locally and not by external powers or a centralized government.

Echo, you have probably been on the forum long enought to realize that I do not think much of mans established religions.
There may be evolution. I still have not seen enough logical information to be convinced that man is evolved from a monkey-thingy. Where we originated I do not know any more than any one else. This is the reason for the continuing scientific search.
I believe, as your post describes, that most religions should not fight with evolution until more facts are found. The Christian religion uses the "from clay" theory but let us also remember that we are carbon based units. So this may not be far from the truth.
The methods are the only thing in dispute.
Sure you can breed existing animal for certain traits to be predominate but you are still working with basically the same animal. Naturalists refer to this natural process as thining the herd. The weak die from the elements and the strong live to carry on the species with strength and resistance. Like in the Black Plague years of Europe.

Originally posted by Echo2
That means two-thirds of the greatest country in America doens't live in the Reality-Based Community.

Two thirds of the people in America subscribe to superstitious nonsense instead of science??

Gasp!! I'm SO surprised.


Originally posted by Echo2
I am a Christian, I believe in evolution,

IOW, you are a Christian who recognizes that the Bible is WRONG on the subject of how homo sapiens came to exist.

If you are fully aware that the Bible is WRONG on that point, then why the steafast belief in the REST of its irrational dogma, falsehoods, half-truths and ridiculous myths???!?!

Originally posted by Freethinker
If you are fully aware that the Bible is WRONG on that point, then why the steafast belief in the REST of its irrational dogma, falsehoods, half-truths and ridiculous myths???!?!

That was my first thought when I read this.

evolution is happening just look at humans, look back in time and see how races for the most part stayed seperate. Now with modern times we are becomming more inner mixed, white, black, asian etc... we are slowly becomming mutts{or the new race}. How many on this board can say they are just one type? We have changed dogs, cats, horses, etc... to meet our needs. Once we loose the original copy we will not get it back, it will have evolved into the next type. We are also doing this with plants, the elm tree comes to mind, most of them died off because of disease but with research we came up with a certain type of elm that will not get the disease. So we have caused a push in evolution to help a tree that possibly could have disapeared forever.

Well, this thread is inappropriately named, since evolution has not been proven, so we cannot definitively call it the "truth".

None of the examples given by the good doctor give any evidence of inter-species evolution anyway, so his arguments are spurious.

So, basically we are left with the fact that 2/3 of Americans question established scientific theory. They are not blind robots dutifully swallowing whatever the public schools and PBS are feeding them. They are thinking for themselves.

Law, hypothesis and theory....
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientists. Pay special attention to what the term "theory" means in science. Not what your sunday school teacher told you it means.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis:This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.


__________________

Since you didn't source your material (imagine that:rolleyes: ) I can't comment on your definition of theory.

Houghton Mifflin defines it thusly:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

In other words, the dictionary definition supports what I wrote in my last post.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
So, basically we are left with the fact that 2/3 of Americans question established scientific theory. They are not blind robots dutifully swallowing whatever the public schools and PBS are feeding them. They are thinking for themselves.
This statement is so fucking backwards, it's unbelievable. First off, questioning scientific theories is about the stupidest thing you can do. As Echo pointed out, theories, to become theories, are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is entirely irrefutable that living creatures evolve. Praising people for being blind is a very bad thing.

Ironically, most creationists I see are dutifully swallowing what their pastors tell them. I, for one, have seen the evidence for evolution and acknowledge that while we don't know everything about the theory, it's miles better than anything else we have.

And if 2/3 of America is Creationist...fuck, I want the hell out of this country.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
And if 2/3 of America is Creationist...fuck, I want the hell out of this country. Then leave. Im pretty sure this country will survive without you.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Since you didn't source your material (imagine that:rolleyes: ) I can't comment on your definition of theory.

Houghton Mifflin defines it thusly:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

In other words, the dictionary definition supports what I wrote in my last post.
Often the statement "Well, it's just a theory," is used to dismiss controversial theories such as evolution, but this is largely due to confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e. it

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and
5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.

This is true of such established theories as evolution, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, etc.

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

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Since you didn't source your material (imagine that:rolleyes: ) I can't comment on your definition of theory.


http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

In addition, you can ask anyone that has an advanced degree in science. The common use for the word theory is much different than how it is used in scientific circles. Your source gives you the common use of the word.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
This statement is so fucking backwards, it's unbelievable. First off, questioning scientific theories is about the stupidest thing you can do. As Echo pointed out, theories, to become theories, are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is entirely irrefutable that living creatures evolve. Praising people for being blind is a very bad thing.

Ironically, most creationists I see are dutifully swallowing what their pastors tell them. I, for one, have seen the evidence for evolution and acknowledge that while we don't know everything about the theory, it's miles better than anything else we have.

And if 2/3 of America is Creationist...fuck, I want the hell out of this country.

First off Borg, you made the mistake of accepting Echo's statistics. 2/3 of Americans aren't creationists in the Biblical sense. Most of them believe in evolution, they just believe that God is guiding the process.

Second of all you make my point. Far from being "the stupidest thing you can do", questioning of scientific theories is essential to advancing science. I fear for the future of this country if everyone is just going to blindly follow what they see on TV or read on the internet.

I know you may disagree with this, but, sometimes, scientists are wrong!:eek:

(Even some High School science teachers that echo uses for "expert" definitions)

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Second of all you make my point. Far from being "the stupidest thing you can do", questioning of scientific theories is essential to advancing science. I fear for the future of this country if everyone is just going to blindly follow what they see on TV or read on the internet.
Scientific theories have a wealth of evidence for them. The only way they would be considered wrong is if they are superceded by other evidence. I see no evidence to the contrary for the basic theory of evolution, so, there is nothing wrong with it.
I know you may disagree with this, but, sometimes, scientists are wrong!:eek:
For the whole scientific community, which tests and re-tests theories over and over again, to be wrong on such a fundamental level is utterly inconceivable.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Scientific theories have a wealth of evidence for them. The only way they would be considered wrong is if they are superceded by other evidence.
I never said otherwise. I merely said that macroevolution is unproven.

I see no evidence to the contrary for the basic theory of evolution, so, there is nothing wrong with it.
Ohh Omniscient, omnipresent BorgHunter, as a mere mortal, I had no idea that you had entered this judgment by which we are all to humbly bow and live. I stand corrected and thank you for descending from your pinnacle of knowledge to converse with such a worm as I.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Havok
Then leave. Im pretty sure this country will survive without you.:eek: How could you say this about the Almighty? How could the nation possibly continue without the ex cathedra utterances of Borg?

Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It's also a theory with a lot of holes in it. Evolution within a species thru natural selection is a stronger theory certainly, but evolution of one species to another has no proven facts behind it.

There is no fossil evidence to back up evolution as a theory.

Plus - how would an eyeball evolve?

Just because a person doesn't buy into evolution doesn't make them a creationist. The 7 days stuff in Genesis is a joke if taken literally.

I'm in the "I haven't got a clue" camp - No idea how we got here and doubt I ever will know. I don't feel the need to buy into something just for the sake of it.

Everyone believes that you can breed desired traits in animals and people but that is micro-evolution which is changes within a specific animal species. When you breed the race horse and keep breeding it for those desired traits does it ever become a new animal or species NO....Everyone know that micro-evoulution is true but that doen't explain how everything got here to start. That theory is macro-evolution which is where there was just some soupy water and things started to form together to make life, and then as that life evolved it turned in to animals and people from an original ancestor, that has been proven to be completely wrong and impossible. Material can not give way to information. Do you know that the human brain has four working systems in it that if any single one stopped the rest would be useless, so according to evolution we slowly evolved over time a little here little there these four thing could not have evolved together, there is data and scientific proof of this you just have to look for it. Do you know they asked one of the leading evolutionist in the world Proffesor Hawkings do describe just one time that you can see proof of macro-evolution and he sat dumbfounded, he could not answer because no one has ever seen it, because it is not possible.....

Originally posted by DrewM
There is no fossil evidence to back up evolution as a theory.
Yes there is. There are numerous fossils of different hominid species -- Australopithecus, Homo habilis, homo erectus, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon -- the evidence is overwhelming.
Plus - how would an eyeball evolve?
http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html
Do you know they asked one of the leading evolutionist in the world Proffesor Hawkings do describe just one time that you can see proof of macro-evolution and he sat dumbfounded, he could not answer because no one has ever seen it, because it is not possible.....
Stephen Hawking is a physicist, not a biologist.

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

I have seen it myself and have it on DVD. There is no evidence for macro-evoulution, no one can prove changing one species into another or nothing into us...

Originally posted by minister
I have seen it myself and have it on DVD. There is no evidence for macro-evoulution, no one can prove changing one species into another or nothing into us...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Read. Open your mind. Don't immediately discount this because you "saw something on DVD". The evidence is there.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Open your mind. Don't immediately discount this because you "saw something on DVD". The evidence is there.

Yeah, minister, you can't trust DVD's these days. They're unreliable. All the true information is on the internet:rolleyes:

Originally posted by minister
Everyone believes that you can breed desired traits in animals and people but that is micro-evolution which is changes within a specific animal species. When you breed the race horse and keep breeding it for those desired traits does it ever become a new animal or species NO....

Ah but you are leaving out the most important fact involving species change. We know for a fact that we can create an entire new species by interbreading other species. Donkeys and hourses make mules. Lions and tigers make ligers. There are many, many examples of this in animal husbundry and interestingly enough they are not all sterile like the mule.

We know for a fact that there were other huminoid species on this planet in the past. (fosils, etc) It is not beyond the realm of reasoning to consider any one of these huminoid species interbreading with another and forming a new species. Posibly even forming the human species.

Use you brain, think logically and stop closing your mind to alternate posibilities.

For my own personal research: Does anyone have documentation of the species that have interbred and produced fertile offspring, in effect creating a new species?

by Frank R. Zindler, PhD.
The Probing Mind, October, 1987

Because any intelligible use of the term creation must imply the existence of a creator, and because the creator of all of nature must be, quite literally, super-natural, we see that the fundamental force operating in "creation science" is a super-natural force - which is a polite term for magic. Science, however, involves the study of natural forces only, and ceases to be science when it attempts to explain phenomena by means of super-natural forces.

Creationism, far from being a science, is actually a special department of fundamentalist apologetics. Its commission is to defend the biblical book of Genesis, which posits the magical and sudden creation of all forms of life on the planet just a few thousand years ago [1], teaches that all human beings are descended from one pair of white people, and claims that all but one boat-load of the living things on this planet perished in a world-wide flood in the year 2,348 B.C.E. (Before the Common Era). As believers in the literal truth of Genesis, creationists attack any discipline which, in its discovery of truth, exposes the absurdity of the biblical mythology. Despite the camouflage of speciously scientific terminology, the real raison d'être of "creation science" apologetics is the defense of the fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis. Creationism exists for religious, not scientific, reasons.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that creationists do almost nothing at all that even imitates scientific research [2]. Almost all their "research" is done in libraries, not laboratories, and all their "evidence" for creation is really nothing more than intentionally or unintentionally garbled evidence against evolution - as if they could prove the Genesis mythology by disproving Darwin!

As a matter of fact, most creationists are so devoid of any understanding of logic that it is not at all rare to hear one claim, "If I can disprove Darwin's theory of natural selection, the only thing left is the biblical theory."

At least three things are wrong with this statement:

(1) It confuses the question, "Has evolution occurred?" with the question, "What is the mechanism of evolutionary change?" Darwin's theory concerning how evolution takes place is but one of several attempts to account in natural terms for evolutionary change (descent with modification). Disproof of Darwin's theory, which identifies natural selection as the mechanism of evolutionary change would still leave other naturalistic (i.e., scientific) theories, such as the theory of genetic drift. It would also leave certain almost-scientific explanations, such as theistic evolution, which accepts the fact of evolutionary change but posits divine acts of alteration as its motive force. Of course, even if one could show that all available explanations for how evolutionary change occurs were incorrect, the evidences showing that evolution has occurred would remain.

(2) It falsely presumes that the Genesis creation myths (there are two!) are the only existing supernatural accounts of origins, and ignores the contradictions between these two accounts. Of course, every primitive culture in the world has produced its own account of human origins, and creationists are obliged, after they "disprove" naturalistic, evolutionary theories, to show that their own mythology is true. They must produce evidence that green plants existed before the sun was "created," and that all life and all of nature came into existence in six days. [3] They should show the superiority of their myth to the Native American story about Old Man Coyote and the Chinese myth of the cosmic egg. If they wish us to accept the notion that any type of supernatural account is to be taken seriously, they must be willing to show how the Jewish "theory" is superior to the Egyptian "theory" that the world began with masturbatory activity on the part of the sun god. Indeed, once they abandon the canons of proof standard in the natural sciences and allow the possibility of supernatural shenanigans, it would seem that they are obligated to show that all other mythologies known are false. However the logicians may come down on this question, the fact remains that the creation myths recorded in the first and second chapters of Genesis are but two of a myriad of such myths, and creationists must find evidence to support one or the other of the mutually exclusive biblical accounts. The burden of proof now rests with the creationists.

(3) It misuses the term theory. Creationists either use the term pejoratively ("evolution is only a theory"), or they misapply the term to creationism. In scientific usage, a theory is the highest form of scientific understanding. A theory is an explanatory hypothesis which has passed test after test, and is still the best available explanation of the facts in question. In the case of creationism, however, those components of the apology which can be tested (e.g., the idea that the earth is only six thousand years old and was covered by a shell of water in the year 2,348 B.C.E.) have been tested and found to be demonstrably false - showing that creationism is not a viable theory, because viable theories have to pass tests. On the other hand, those components of creationism which involve certain types of magical events (e.g., the divine creation of a young universe with all of its components bearing the false imprint of great age) make the claims of creationism untestable - making creationism not a theory at all, because theories must be testable!

We have pointed out that creationists confuse the question "Has evolution occurred?" with the question "What is the cause of evolution?" The scientific answer to the first question is, of course, "yes," and the answer to the second question (at least in part) is "natural selection." What logic and evidence leads scientists - and Atheists - to these answers?

The Logic Of Evolution
The conclusion that evolution has occurred is drawn from two simple observations:

Observation 1: Living things come only from living things. Spontaneous generation is not possible when living things are already in existence [4].

Observation 2: Fossil remains show that living things in the remote past were very different from living things today.

THEREFORE:

Conclusion: Life has changed through time (evolved).

A dramatic proof of the thesis that life has changed through time is seen in the fossil record of the vertebrates, animals having a segmented backbone. At the beginning of the Cambrian Period (570-500 million years ago), there were no vertebrates at all. Later in the Cambrian, problematic forms appeared which seem to have been related to the vertebrates, but showed distant affinities with the echinoderms as well. (Echinoderms today are represented by starfish, sea lilies, sea cucumbers, etc.; embryologically they appear to compose the phylum most closely related to the Chordata, the phylum to which vertebrates belong.) Toward the end of the Cambrian Period, the first vertebrates appeared: the ostracoderms, jawless fishes possessed of a bony armor plate and having flattened bodies apparently adapted to a bottom-feeding way of life.

According to the fossil record, vertebrates went without jaws for many millions of years. Finally, at the beginning of the Devonian Period (395-345 million years ago), the first fish with jaws entered their remains into the record in the rocks. At the very end of the Devonian or the beginning of the Carboniferous Period (345-280 million years ago), the first primitive amphibians arose. These fish-like animals differed from their air-breathing fish ancestors mostly in their elaboration of the bony structure of the paired appendages - converting fins into hands and feet - and in reinforcement of the structures attaching the paired appendages to the spinal column. The first reptiles did not appear until the last half of the Carboniferous Period.

To give the lie to creationist claims that there are no connecting-link fossils to join the vertebrate classes, the Permian Period (280-225 million years ago) saw the appearance of an entire order of animals, the mammal-like reptiles (Therapsida), which can be seen to change with time from typical, primitive reptiles, into primitive mammals. It was not until late in the Triassic Period (225-190 million years ago) that the therapsid-mammal transmutation was complete. Contrary to the first chapter of Genesis, which claims that the first mammals appeared on the earth a mere twenty-four hours after the first fish, the first mammals did not appear on earth until more than 300 million years of fish evolution had transpired!

Birds, which, according to both creation myths in Genesis, were created on the same day as fish, do not enter the fossil record until the Jurassic Period (190-136 million years ago). Representing an ultimate variation on the dinosaur theme, birds trace their descent from reptiles quite different from those ancestral to the mammals. Contrary to the claims of some creationists, evolutionists do not claim that reptiles evolved into birds, and birds evolved into mammals!

Even though the first mammals appeared in the Triassic Period, forms for which the English language has names would not appear until the late Cretaceous (136-65 million years ago), when opossum-like forms appeared, the Eocene Epoch (60-40 million years ago), when primitive whales originated, and the Oligocene Epoch (40-25 million years ago), when apes, monkeys, and primitive grazing mammals appeared.

The record in the rocks, thus, is evidence either for fishes evolving into birds and mammals, or it is evidence of thousands of successive "special creations" - magical replacements of successive faunas by slightly different ones. Curiously, the latter interpretation is as unbiblical as it is unscientific.

If either of the biblical myths were true, all types of vertebrates - living types of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes - would be found along with bacteria and trilobites at the very beginning of the fossil record and would be extractable from all rock layers of later ages. But of course, nothing could be farther from reality. The infamous "gaps in the fossil record," adduced by creationists as evidence against evolution, are actually a devastating refutation of the idea that all forms of life were miraculously zapped onto the earth at the same time!

The Logic Of Natural Selection
Since creationists in their attacks of evolution in general, and of natural selection in particular, usually obfuscate the scientific principles involved and generally substitute a straw man which is easier to ridicule, it is important that we state clearly just what it is that science has to say on the topic of how new species come to be. The modern ("synthetic") theory of natural selection consists of a tightly interwoven fabric of observations and logical conclusions drawn from them. In a nutshell, the structure of the theory is the following:

Observation 1: All living things tend to reproduce in geometric progression, so that if all offspring survived, the entire earth would be overrun by them.

Observation 2: In fact, however, the earth is NOT so overrun. The populations of various species remain approximately constant in size from century to century, due to the finite resources of the environment.

THEREFORE:

Conclusion A: There must be a competition for the available resources of the environment, a "struggle for existence."

Observation 3: Heritable variations (mutations) are observed to occur spontaneously, from time to time, in populations of all species.

Observation 4: In a given environment, some of these variations are helpful in the struggle for existence, and others are harmful or neutral.

THEREFORE:

Conclusion B: A natural selection of individuals will result. Those with helpful mutations will survive and expand in numbers, and those with harmful mutations will tend to perish and be reduced in numbers.

Observation 5: The source of inheritable changes is either (1) change in the sequence of chemical "bases" in the DNA molecules making up an organism's genes, (2) rearrangement of genes on chromosomes, or (3) multiplication or deletion of genes or chromosomes.

Observation 6: Physically and chemically speaking, there is no limit to the amount of base changing possible in DNA or the amount of gene rearrangement which can take place.

THEREFORE:

Conclusion C: There will be no limit to the amount of variation possible in any given species. Given enough time, and changing environmental conditions [5], mutation will add to mutation, and any species will gradually change into one or more new species. As mutations cause greater and greater cumulative change, and as sexual recombination assembles novel hereditary ensembles, species will turn into new genera, genera into new families, etc.

With the exception of the observations concerning changes in DNA and chromosomes as the source of evolutionary variation, the theory above was discovered by Charles Darwin in the middle of the last century. Darwin came to his theory grudgingly - he had originally been a creationist himself. But the facts of nature which he uncovered in his trip around the world on H.M.S. Beagle forced him to give up the Genesis mythology in favor of evolutionary science, and made him formulate the theory of natural selection.

It is not often remembered that Darwin was not the only person to discover the principle of natural selection. At the same time that Darwin was formulating his theory, Alfred Russell Wallace - completely independent of Darwin, and half a world away - was forced by his study of the plants and animals of the Malay Archipelago to conclude that evolution had occurred, and that natural selection was the motive force!

The lesson to be learned from this is that the facts of nature compel unbiased minds to conclude that evolution has occurred, and that natural selection is at least a part of the cause of evolutionary change. (Population size and genetic isolation of populations are also important factors affecting the degree to which evolutionary change will occur.)

As we examine the bizarre details of the Genesis creation myth, however, we must ask: Is it conceivable that any person not already aware of the first Genesis myth could go out into the world of nature and conclude that green plants came into existence before the sun? That birds existed before reptiles? Without knowledge of the second Genesis myth, who would come up with the idea that man is older than both plants and animals, but that woman did not come into existence until the last animal species had appeared? Without being brainwashed by the Noah's Ark tale, what geologist would conclude that the whole planet was covered by a shell of water 4,334 years ago? What independent observer would conclude that the kiwi, which can neither swim nor fly, came to New Zealand from Mt. Ararat in Turkey, but couldn't make it to Greece or Australia? Could anyone conclude that there was once a "firmament" in the sky -- with windows in it, and water above it?

Of course not. But we can be quite sure that even if the creationist legions of darkness should succeed in eradicating all knowledge of Darwin's theory, honest men and women of the future studying the facts of nature would discover it anew. This is because evolutionary science is science, and is true in the sense that it is testable and accords with the facts of nature. The creationist dogmas, however, are not science and - to the extent that they are testable - are contradicted by the testimony of nature.

Theistic Evolution
While it is nothing less than scandalous that creationist beliefs have survived into the Twentieth Century, we must also express our embarrassment at the fact that there are many people who, despite the fact that they are relatively well schooled in evolutionary science, believe in something known as theistic evolution. This is the view that evolution has, in fact, occurred, but it has been directed by a supernatural power. The long road from jawless fishes, to fishes with jaws, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammal-like reptiles, to mammals, to Adolf Hitler or the Ayatollah Khomeini was, they must avow, all the unfolding of a divinely guided plan. Theists must accept the plagues produced by evolution as part of their god's plan. Not only can such a view be a bar to progress, it can be a direct road to madness of the type exemplified by the case of Simon "Stylites," the quintessential "saint" who lived atop a pillar until he developed maggoty, purulent wounds in his flesh. When a maggot got pushed out of one of the pullulating wounds in his body, he put it back into the wound and preached it a sermon. God had given the "worm" his flesh to eat, he admonished, and the creature should not be ungrateful!

The best thing that can be said about the theistic evolution idea is that it is not contradicted by the facts of nature. But of course, it could not be contradicted by any facts, if all the facts of nature are precisely what a god has ordained. Alas for the theistic evolutionists, this places the "theory" outside the realm of science, since scientific statements must be testable.

The idea of theistic evolution suffers from still another serious defect: it violates Ockham's Razor. This is the principle in logic that basic assumptions should not be multiplied beyond necessity. If natural forces alone are adequate to account for the course of evolution, why posit additional supernatural forces? Such forces are superfluous. It is simpler to stick with the observable, measurable forces of nature.

The idea of theistic evolution is associated, it would appear, with an emotional immaturity that makes men and women unable to accept the fact that they are probably alone in the universe, that they must find meaning and fulfillment among the comrades - both human and nonhuman - with whom they share the planet. Mature personalities can accept the world for what it is: uncreated and unconscious. Constrained only by the limits of the laws of nature, the mature mind may do all in its power "To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire," and then "remold it nearer to the heart's desire" [6]. Atheists know that cancer and tapeworms are not parts of a divine plan. Atheists are completely free to do something about such plagues - and they are doing it!

Footnotes on next post...

NOTES

[1] According to Bishop Ussher's chronology, often printed in the margins of King James Bibles, this occurred in the year 4,004 BC. Recently, however, Ussher's chronology has been corrected by Eugene Faulstich, a creationist at the "Chronology-History Research Institute," in Spencer, Iowa. Using a computer, and ignoring various contradictory dates found in his bible, Faulstich has computed that the world began on a Sunday, 18/19 March, 4001 B.C.E.!

[2] Practically the only known apparent exception to this has been the ridiculous attempts of creationists to find fossil human footprints in the Cretaceous rocks of the Paluxy Creek-Glen Rose region of Texas. This work has been of such embarrassingly low quality that even the creationist leaders have been forced to admit that no human tracks have been recovered, despite the enormous numbers of bible-believers who have swarmed over the countryside, destroying scientifically valuable dinosaur trails in their quest for antediluvian traces of Homo Sapiens.

[3] Or in one day, if the second creation story in Genesis (Chapter 2, verse 4 et seq.) be the one believed.

[4] Life cannot originate spontaneously now for at least two reasons: (1) The oxidizing atmosphere rapidly degrades any organic compounds before they can aggregate to form prebiotic complexes with life-like properties. (2) Existing microbes and other life-forms consume as food any prebiotic molecules starting out on the long biochemical pathway leading to truly living systems. Neither of these roadblocks to spontaneous generation existed before life had formed. The oxygen in our atmosphere is placed there by photosynthetic organisms such as plants and algae, so the primordial terrestrial atmosphere was almost completely devoid of oxygen until these types of organisms arose.

[5] Without changing conditions, the rate of evolutionary change is likely to be slow and the extent of change small. This is because helpful mutations will often tend to be disbursed in large populations and because natural selection will tend to produce organisms optimally adapted - or nearly so - to particular conditions. In such circumstances, further changes arising will tend to be maladaptive, and evolutionary stasis (stagnation) will result. Only when circumstances change, and new "job openings" appear, will natural selection proceed rapidly to produce significant changes. The theory of "Punctuated Equilibria," an updated version of Darwin's theory universally misunderstood and misrepresented by creationists, holds that natural selection does not proceed at a slow, uniform rate. Rather, evolution involves long periods of little or no measurable change (stasis) "punctuated" by brief periods of intense changes - guided, of course, by natural selection.

I'm not sure if that was an attempt to answer my last post, but I wasn't looking for an unsupported, emotions-based anti-Christian polemic by an atheistic zealot (read more about Dr. Zindler on the hate-sites atheists.org and infidels.org).

I was looking for specific examples of species which have interbred to produce fertile offspring. I'd like to know when and where these species were bred and under what conditions, and who bred the species.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
I was looking for specific examples of species which have interbred to produce fertile offspring. I'd like to know when and where these species were bred and under what conditions, and who bred the species.
Who said the driving force behind evolution is interbreeding of different species? It isn't. Natural selection is the process which drives evolution. All members of a certain species lacking a certain trait required for survival and/or reproduction, perhaps now required for survival due to a change in the environment, will be unfavored and will die off while the members of the species with the favorable trait will survive and pass the trait on to their offspring. That is evolution; no inter-species breeding involved at all.

I was just trying to open his mind to other posibilities. I think however that even if we showed him absolute , unmistakable proof that creationism is wrong he would still argue that god created us.

There is no proof you will ever have to refute creation by God, because you can not prove God's word wrong, it is truth. Man will never turn me away from god's will, I just pray more people wake up...

Originally posted by minister
There is no proof you will ever have to refute creation by God, because you can not prove God's word wrong, it is truth. Man will never turn me away from god's will, I just pray more people wake up...
Perhaps I can't prove the Bible wrong, but I challenge you to provide evidence that it is right.

Originally posted by minister
There is no proof you will ever have to refute creation by God, because you can not prove God's word wrong, it is truth. Man will never turn me away from god's will, I just pray more people wake up...

Keep drinking that koolaid and thumpin' your bible. It is too bad that when you die you will be gone, nothing. I would love to see the look on your face when you find out how brainwashed you've been.

Don't bother to deny being brainwahed. To be brainwashed, one must not be able to recignize that they are.

Originally posted by Echo2
It is too bad that when you die you will be gone, nothing.
While we're on the subject, Echo, I don't believe you know that more than anyone else here. I find it odd that you decry minister's steadfast belief in his faith, but you say things that you have no possible way of knowing with all the confidence he has. How do you know what happens to us when we die? I don't; I've never died. I have a guess, which is the same as yours, but it's quite possible that I'm wrong.

I have no proof of what happens after one dies. But I have my logic to balance the different ideas against and I have a very powerfull "gut feeling" that I have only this life.

I will not waste my life worshipping an invisable sky fairy or golden calf or cola can or tree stump.

It's not about worshiping some superstition. It is about being the best human I can and connecting with the other lifes on this planet. It's about always striving to learn more be better and helping the world be a better place.


Religion has its roots in mans fear of death.

There has been and continue to be proof of God every where, people choose to remain blind to it. Since you discount the Bible so quickly, are there any history books you trust, since you couldn't be there to witness any of it. How would they keep record of events to tell other generations, they might write it down in books, huh, sounds like people did that and we put these books together and then you have the bible. Just because the books are old makes them no less valid and true...

Originally posted by minister
There has been and continue to be proof of God every where, people choose to remain blind to it. Since you discount the Bible so quickly, are there any history books you trust, since you couldn't be there to witness any of it. How would they keep record of events to tell other generations, they might write it down in books, huh, sounds like people did that and we put these books together and then you have the bible. Just because the books are old makes them no less valid and true...
Pay attention to what I am about to say, okay? GIVE ME EVIDENCE. You say "it's everywhere", blah blah blah, but you haven't given me a shred of evidence of the existence of a deity or the truth of the Bible.

You pass up proof all the time and you continue to do so, have you ever read the bible and not just sounded out the words, heard the message. How about all The ancient biblical prophecies fulfilled and bore witness to. I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth." John 3:16. Therefore, God exists. You can't explain people any other way then a designer. We have a design and work like a complicated giant computer, To be a design we have to have a designer.

A new "proof" of God's existence?
This outlines a simple logical proof for the existence of God, an accomplishment made possible by reexamining a classic proof of God offered by the great Muslim philosopher Avicenna (ibn Sina, 980-1037) and applying to it some new logical tools derived from recent developments in mathematics.


"Up until the modern period, the logic that was used in philosophy was Aristotelean logic, which is the logic of attributes," "In the late 19th century, however, there was an explosion of logical and mathematical ideas and discoveries." Among these new ideas is the logic of relationships.

"The use of Aristotelean logic in the many previous proofs of God is a major limitation," he said. "You can't really prove God logically with just the logic of attributes. If you try, you end up with the ontological proof, which is not really convincing."

"The logic of relations, I feel, is the single greatest intellectual advance in the history of humankind,". "To give an example: the whole field of computers is based on the logic of relationships."

By applying the logic of relations you can update Avicenna's proof, which is in some ways itself based on Aristole's "first cause" argument. The updated proof is now something a modern logician would find incontrovertibly true, given its three assumptions, which are:


1) Everything in the universe is either preceded by a cause or else contains within itself a sufficient reason for its existence.

2) For every system or composite phenomenon, any cause for the system is also a cause for every part of the system. (Every material thing, except possibly the elementary particles of quantum physics, is composite.)

3) The existence of a whole system cannot precede the existence of its components (or, he writes, "the constitution of a whole obviously supposes and depends upon the prior or simultaneous existence of its components.")

I can agree with your points 1,2 and 3.

I see evidence personal to me, in my life that 1,2,3 fit with.

But your points 1,2,3 do not mean without doubt what you believe is correct.

you are right, nice that we did agree on something. So there is proof for God, just not enough for the biblical sence of it for you.

I don't think 1,2,3 means there is a proof of God.

Believing in a God is one thing. There is plenty in life to lead one to accept that a God exists.

Turning that into "believe exactly what I believe or you will fry in hell" is pure dogma and I cannot see any connection between that and a sense of God.

There are brainwashed people like you all over the world - many believe different things - but every single one has things absolutely identical in common no matter what the belief.

- They all believe they are exclusively right
- They all believe that "non believers" are doomed
- None of them have any doubt
- None can concieve that they have been brainwashed.

You fit into this group like a hand in a glove and you will never see it because you are too far gone.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Who said the driving force behind evolution is interbreeding of different species?

Echo did. She said that there are many examples of species interbreeding and creating new species, and that not all of them are sterile. If this is true, it would be significant evidence in support of evolution and I would like some examples of it.

She then claimed that she was just trying to open my mind to new possibilities. Well, I'm open to new possibilities if they can be supported.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
I wasn't looking for an unsupported, emotions-based anti-Christian polemic ....

Right.

The scientific Theory of Evolution is "unsupported".

In seeeking a cogent explanation for how homo sapiens came to exist, it is more reasonable and logical to simply accept at face value the writings of a band of superstitious, nomadic desert tribesmen from 6000 years ago.

Right.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Freethinker
Right.

The scientific Theory of Evolution is "unsupported".

Where did you get that idea? I certainly didn't say that. Perhaps you should actually read these threads before responding.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Where did you get that idea? I certainly didn't say that. Perhaps you should actually read these threads before responding.

You specifically referenced the writing by Dr Zindler.

The focus of that piece of writing was a detailed explantion of evolutionionary theory, and why it is more logical than the notion of *creationsim*.

It seems clear to me that the unmistakeable and direct implication you made was against Dr Zinser's writings on evolutionary theory....you specifically called it --- ""an unsupported, emotions-based anti-Christian polemic by an atheistic zealot (Dr. Zindler ) ""

Originally posted by Freethinker
You specifically referenced the writing by Dr Zindler.

The focus of that piece of writing was a detailed explantion of evolutionionary theory, and why it is more logical than the notion of *creationsim*.

It seems clear to me that the unmistakeable and direct implication you made was against Dr Zinser's writings on evolutionary theory....you specifically called it --- ""an unsupported, emotions-based anti-Christian polemic by an atheistic zealot (Dr. Zindler ) ""

UNSUPPORTED-while some of what he says can indeed be supported (and some cannot), it wasn't. He made no reference to anyone but himself.

EMOTIONS BASED ANTI-CHRISTIAN POLEMIC-Although the piece did provide an explanation of evolutionary theory, it was really an apologetic for atheism and an expression of hatred towards those (namely Christians) who would dare disagree. One could defend evolutionary theory quite well without all of the arrogant hot air.

ATHEISTIC ZEALOT-Zindler has preached more of this garbage to the choir of frothing-at-the-mouth haters at the sites I mentioned before.

It's a shame, really. First off you have Echo making wild claims which are untrue, and unsupported. Then you have her posting articles which supposedly provide a detailed explanation of evolution. Only problem is, you have to wade through a sea of hateful rhetoric to find it. Then you come along and try to defend this garbage.

I'll tell you, if the theory of evolution has more defenders like you guys, creationism will be around for a long, long time.

That scream you heard was the ghost of Darwin yelling "Shut up, you guys!"

Originally posted by DrewM
I don't think 1,2,3 means there is a proof of God.

Believing in a God is one thing. There is plenty in life to lead one to accept that a God exists.

Turning that into "believe exactly what I believe or you will fry in hell" is pure dogma and I cannot see any connection between that and a sense of God.

There are brainwashed people like you all over the world - many believe different things - but every single one has things absolutely identical in common no matter what the belief.

- They all believe they are exclusively right
- They all believe that "non believers" are doomed
- None of them have any doubt
- None can concieve that they have been brainwashed.

You fit into this group like a hand in a glove and you will never see it because you are too far gone.

An interesting question...

Do you think theres any chance you have been brainwashed TO NOT accept Christ?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
An interesting question...

Do you think theres any chance you have been brainwashed TO NOT accept Christ?
I obviously can't speak for Drew, but I came to be an atheist of my own accord. No one else told me anything; I didn't read a bunch of essays by atheists or anything. I just suddenly thought to myself "The idea of a higher being just doesn't make much sense" and that was that. Prior to that point, I was a Christian.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
An interesting question...

Do you think theres any chance you have been brainwashed TO NOT accept Christ?

What does accept christ even mean?

Then....even if you dont believe it....you could admit in a chance that the Devil "brainwashed" you. You say that you were a Christian but that something made you think that it wasn't right.....so by chance it could have been the devil, correct?

Originally posted by DrewM
What does accept christ even mean?

To accept Christ as your personal savior. (In the sense that I was asking)

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Then....even if you dont believe it....you could admit in a chance that the Devil "brainwashed" you. You say that you were a Christian but that something made you think that it wasn't right.....so by chance it could have been the devil, correct?
Anything is possible, I suppose, but I seriously, seriously doubt any guy in a red suit with a pitchfork planted any thoughts in my...::in raspy voice:: JERE...YOU MUST WORSHIP SATAN...COME TO THE DARK SIDE...::end raspy voice::...head.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Anything is possible, I suppose, but I seriously, seriously doubt any guy in a red suit with a pitchfork planted any thoughts in my...::in raspy voice:: JERE...YOU MUST WORSHIP SATAN...COME TO THE DARK SIDE...::end raspy voice::...head.

LOL. Very funny:p

I also doubt that it was a red man with a pitchfork....but our views of his apperance aside....atleast you can see the chance in it.

Originally posted by DrewM

There are brainwashed people like you all over the world - many believe different things - but every single one has things absolutely identical in common no matter what the belief.

- They all believe they are exclusively right
- They all believe that "non believers" are doomed
- None of them have any doubt
- None can concieve that they have been brainwashed.

You fit into this group like a hand in a glove and you will never see it because you are too far gone.

This exactly describes the atheists in this forum.

You guys seem to think we are brainwashed or ignorant because we don't believe in god. Well, I don't believe in Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, peter pan, magic talismen or bad luck coming from black cats either.

If your beliefs had one sparkling of logic to them it would help. But they are nothing but superstitios nonsense propetuated because thousands of years ago a bunch of people put them all together in one book. Then they were translated a couple hundred times by others with an agenda.

I do not believe the red sea parted and people walked across the bottom to the other side.

I do not believe that blindness can be cured with the wave of a hand.

I do not believe that the first woman was made from a mans rib. Or far that matter that some great entity waved it's hand and "poof" man existed.

I do not believe that a snake talked some woman into eating an apple.

I do not believe that two of every creature on earth got cramed into a boat while the world was flooded with rain. Just for yuks, how would noah get kangaroos and panda's and polar bears and virus's and ants, etc. onto that thing? Two of every single species of animals from around the world? And what about the floura? My guess is that 95% of the floura on this planet would have died from being under water for 40 days.

It is a fairy tale that needy people have made into a religion.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
This exactly describes the atheists in this forum.
Maybe Freethinker. I believe that the rest of us who generally refer to ourselves as "atheists" are willing to admit that there's a distinct possibility that we're wrong.

Originally posted by Echo2
You guys seem to think we are brainwashed or ignorant because we don't believe in god. Well, I don't believe in Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, peter pan, magic talismen or bad luck coming from black cats either.


We're not saying that you are brainwashed...just saying that there is a chance. (lol, atleast thats what IM saying.)

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Maybe Freethinker. I believe that the rest of us who generally refer to ourselves as "atheists" are willing to admit that there's a distinct possibility that we're wrong.

Point well taken, although I'd also include Echo.

BTW I never know whether you are agnostic or atheist, since you've claimed both.

I am sure many people have...

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
This exactly describes the atheists in this forum.

I agree with you. For anybody to say with certainty that God does not exist puts them in the exact same boat as those that say God absolutely does exist.

But, the existance of God was not specifically what my post was addressing. One can have a healthy sense that a creator or greater force exists, but I think the problem starts when people start saying things with absolute certainty when it comes to the fine details. Experience of God is a personal thing.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
To accept Christ as your personal savior. (In the sense that I was asking)

Which means what? You just re-worded your statement - you didn't answer it.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Point well taken, although I'd also include Echo.

BTW I never know whether you are agnostic or atheist, since you've claimed both.
atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism]
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

I go by definition two, and there is indeed a subtle difference between the two. Definition one is what you are describing: The firm, unyielding belief that God does not exist. Definition two is merely a complete lack of belief regarding the subject. I don't really believe anything regarding a higher being, because I regard it as something impossible for us to figure out, prove, or even comprehend. That would make me both agnostic and atheist. Thus, your confusion. I hope this clarifies matters.

Thanks for that clarification Borg. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic (by minister's response I get the feeling that he, at least, thought I was). I honestly wanted you to clarify your position, which you did.:cool:

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Then....even if you dont believe it....you could admit in a chance that the Devil "brainwashed" you. You say that you were a Christian but that something made you think that it wasn't right.....so by chance it could have been the devil, correct?
---------------------------------

Jere, while we are talking about the Devil......Am I not correct that the Bible says he has power over the earth. The Bible says he is the great deceiver.
What if he invented this Jesus story in the New Testament knowing that it would take people down the wrong path to know God. I have been told by ministers that the Devil will do good works to deceive. To lead to a great lie.
If nothing was to be added to or taken away from the Bible why was the New Testament added?
I hope you see my point that if the Devil is the great deceiver, nothing can be trusted that man has put his hands on!
Everything must be questioned.
Blind acceptance of any religion(which are all man made) come into question, for religions are merely man's method of worship.

Could be that religions are the greatest deception of the great deceiver.

What if this is the truth that is denied?

What if the devil has been fooling you all for thousands of years. Teaching you to worship him when in reality god is something else intirely. When you put together all the stuff in the various scriptures and all the horendous things that have been done in the name if religion it is not inconcievable that you are all being tricked.

I have suggested before that satan has pulled off a huge practical joke on all these people who think they are worshipping an entity that is good and loving.

The religious entity that is called god/allah/jevovah is not loving or good and certainly doesn’t deserve to be worshiped. It should be hated and feared. The various scriptures are wrapped up pretty in some good and basic values that make them atractive but when you get down to the details of religion it is all about bringing more people under its influence and keeping them there. Also consider all the horendous things that religion has caused to happen in this world. Crusades, wars, genocide, discrimination, burning of "witches", the list goes on and on.

It wraps itself up in words of love and aceptance but what it actually does is devide people, divide nations, promote discrimination and hatred, and encourage religious wars.

I believe organized religion is evil. Whether it is a man made evil or the work of the devil himself, organized religion is at the heart of a large percentage of the worlds problems.

Consider this...Would a kind and loving god says "worship me or burn in hell for eternity". Sounds more like the work of evil to me.

The Supreme Being that I know would punish no one.
He is the natural order of things.
There is no good and evil. Shit happens.
People have mental disorders and do wrong to others.
Tsunamis happen, earthquakes happen, people get sick, people get well, people die, people are born.
Miracles happen, some good some bad.
The order of the universe continues.

I am a speck of dust, on a speck of dust, floating in a galaxie in the middle of nowhere.

I live, I die, I try to do no wrong to others and help others when I can.
I have laughed, I have cried. I have told the truth, I have lied.
I am just a man.
When I die I will re-join all that is. I will know no boundries.
My spirit will need no "streets of gold" nor will it need an approving God. For I need no approval to have lived as a man.
My collected experiences will make my spirit stronger and wiser.
I will be as much a god as any god. For my spirit will be unfeted and free.

To live as I live, to think as I think, already makes me part of the Supreme being that has shown me many things. For we are truely Gods of our own right now and forever!

Most minds are clouded to the truth, by the words of uninformed men.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
---------------------------------

Jere, while we are talking about the Devil......Am I not correct that the Bible says he has power over the earth. The Bible says he is the great deceiver.
What if he invented this Jesus story in the New Testament knowing that it would take people down the wrong path to know God. I have been told by ministers that the Devil will do good works to deceive. To lead to a great lie.
If nothing was to be added to or taken away from the Bible why was the New Testament added?
I hope you see my point that if the Devil is the great deceiver, nothing can be trusted that man has put his hands on!
Everything must be questioned.
Blind acceptance of any religion(which are all man made) come into question, for religions are merely man's method of worship.

Could be that religions are the greatest deception of the great deceiver.

What if this is the truth that is denied?
Wow. Dan, you have a great argument there. Excellent, excellent post.

Originally posted by DrewM
Which means what? You just re-worded your statement - you didn't answer it.

You know as good as I do what it means to take Christ as your savior.

It means to ask him into your heart. Ask him to forgive you of your sins. Lead a life of obediance, service, and gratitude toward him.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
---------------------------------

Jere, while we are talking about the Devil......Am I not correct that the Bible says he has power over the earth. The Bible says he is the great deceiver.

You would be correct.


Originally posted by Dan Fussell
---------------------------------What if he invented this Jesus story in the New Testament knowing that it would take people down the wrong path to know God. I have been told by ministers that the Devil will do good works to deceive. To lead to a great lie.
If nothing was to be added to or taken away from the Bible why was the New Testament added?

The coming of Chirst was predicted numerous times in the Old Testament as well. Oh, and about the nothing being added nor taken away....that command came to us in Revelation. The last book of the New Testament.


Originally posted by Dan Fussell
---------------------------------I hope you see my point that if the Devil is the great deceiver, nothing can be trusted that man has put his hands on!
Everything must be questioned.
Blind acceptance of any religion(which are all man made) come into question, for religions are merely man's method of worship.

I agree with you Dan. I don't believe in just choosing a religion based on nothing.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
---------------------------------Could be that religions are the greatest deception of the great deceiver.

What if this is the truth that is denied?

While the bible says that Satan has power over the Earth, it also reminds us that God has power over he. Although, I am an admitter that anything could be possible....I believe that God wouldnt let the Devil do such a thing.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
The coming of Chirst was predicted numerous times in the Old Testament as well. Oh, and about the nothing being added nor taken away....that command came to us in Revelation. The last book of the New Testament.
But why couldn't Satan have planted those "predictions" in the minds of the Old Testament writers?
I believe that God wouldnt let the Devil do such a thing.
Why would God let Satan lead me astray, then, since you believe he did?

How do any of us know that we aren't being deceived?

Maybe the God haters that say Christians are "denying the truth" are the ones being deceived. Perhaps it is the Christians who are being deceived.

Is it possible to know if you are being deceived? If not, wouldn't it be better to be humble about your position rather than to lash out at and bash Christians? (I know this works both ways, but in this particular thread, it is the anti-Christians that are doing all the bashing.)

I, like millions of others, am not a God hater. I merely do not agree with religions.
I have said many times,I believe in a Supreme Being.
I just do not need any of the hundreds of religions.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Is it possible to know if you are being deceived? If not, wouldn't it be better to be humble about your position rather than to lash out at and bash Christians? (I know this works both ways, but in this particular thread, it is the anti-Christians that are doing all the bashing.)
I have been told numerous times by Mr. Jere that he thinks that Satan may have deceived me into becoming an atheist, or more generally, a non-Christian. I can't suggest that the reverse could conceivably be true?

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
I, like millions of others, am not a God hater.
I know that and I was not thinking of you when I used that term.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I have been told numerous times by Mr. Jere that he thinks that Satan may have deceived me into becoming an atheist, or more generally, a non-Christian. I can't suggest that the reverse could conceivably be true?
You most certainly can, and I thought you made a very good point that should cause all of us to think. However you recently saw fit to call a Christain a "twit" and stated dogmatically that the writers of the Bible weren't inspired by God, as if you could know this for sure.

And my previous comment was more directly addressed to those who would say that Christians were "denying the truth" (hence the name of this thread) as if she knew for sure her version of reality was the right one, to the exclusion of all others. Then, she would post a rant by a guy who won't even accept any possibility of theistic evolution. Echo, Freethinker and Dr. Zinder are certainly entitled to their opinions, but it is inappropriate to use them as a platform to disseminate hate, IMHO.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
However you recently saw fit to call a Christain a "twit" and stated dogmatically that the writers of the Bible weren't inspired by God, as if you could know this for sure.
Minister is indeed a twit. I only say this because I have asked the guy about twenty times to provide some evidence to back up his points, and he just dances around the issue saying that I need to study the Bible then subsequently saying that no non-believer can understand it.

As for my saying that the Bible is not inspired by God...I find that case (that it is) to be extraordinarily unlikely. But, as you suggest, possible.

What is the big deal with you christians. Why can't you just practice your religion and leave the rest of us alone. Why do you insist on spewing you rhetoric out to us. Why do you insist on putting your religious beliefs into law. Your book of superstitions may tell you to proseletize but I doubt that meant harrass and control by law. Just leave us the heck alone and we'll leave you alone. Religion should be a private thing. If you want to brag to about your re-birth into jesus land do it to people that want to hear it, other christians. They are the ones that would be inpressed by it, not us.

Originally posted by Echo2
What is the big deal with you christians. Why can't you just practice your religion and leave the rest of us alone. Why do you insist on spewing you rhetoric out to us. Why do you insist on putting your religious beliefs into law. Your book of superstitions may tell you to proseletize but I doubt that meant harrass and control by law. Just leave us the heck alone and we'll leave you alone. Religion should be a private thing. If you want to brag to about your re-birth into jesus land do it to people that want to hear it, other christians. They are the ones that would be inpressed by it, not us.

Yes, but this is a discussion forum - any christian has the right to promote their views here. It's not like they are stopping you on the street. Although the point you raise about the law I fully agree with.

I actually enjoy reading what they write here :)

I like the discussions. I do not expect to change anyone's mind about their religion. I merely like, to see and provide, new trains of thought.
Heck, if everyone thought alike there would not be much to talk about.

Sharing God's word with others is not done to impress anyone, but to lead people to God. There are a lot of people who become saved after hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The reason it is not just shared with Christians, and all others left out, is because that would go against the teachings of Jesus. You are suppose to share the Gospel in an attempt to lead people down the right path.

As for your proof, there is no proof I can give you that would satisfy you. I would love to show you video of Jesus being ressurected and say there you go. The bible says that even in Jesus's day, he did many miracles and still there were lots of people who would not believe......

As for your proof, there is no proof I can give you that would satisfy you
Then... shut the fuck up.

sorry my friend that i can not do.....What language, is that really needed......Sounds like you need the word of God as much as anybody...

Originally posted by Blibblob
As for your proof, there is no proof I can give you that would satisfy you
Then... shut the fuck up.

Blibblob - he may have no proof, but he doesn't have to shut up.

Now we see the real agenda of the haters: censorship of people that don't buy into their narrow-mindedness.

I think maybe you have it mixed up who is narrow minded.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Now we see the real agenda of the haters: censorship of people that don't buy into their narrow-mindedness.
I honestly don't think Blib is trying to censor anyone...::sigh::

Science is not opposed to Religion.

The Bible says God created the Universe in a flash by saying "let there be light". The scientests say the Universe began with a Big Bang.

The Bible says God made man out of clay. The scientests say there was only dirt and water on Earth at first.

None of this is contraditory. The guy who wrote "let there be light" might well have been describing the Big Bang. After we re-interpret it into different languages for a few thousand years it comes out as what's in the King James version of the Bible.

Try to realize the point: The Universe was empty, then it willed itself into existence. The same will made the dirt walk. The Universe has a organizing force.

Originally posted by Blibblob
As for your proof, there is no proof I can give you that would satisfy you
Then... shut the fuck up.

Oh, Give me a break!

Grow up! If all your here to do is be vicious with your vulgar cussing because youre too stubborn to look at his words, then you listen to youre on advice!

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Maybe Freethinker. I believe that the rest of us who generally refer to ourselves as "atheists" are willing to admit that there's a distinct possibility that we're wrong.

Your fucking smarmy little jibe at me as being the most uncompromising and recalcitrant of the assembled atheists notwithstanding, unlike what religionists do, I have never claimed to be the sole possessor of the one true, "perfect and immutable" version of the truth.

I may well be wrong on the subject of gods.

There may be fifty of the feathery winged omnipotent beings flitting about my head this very instant......there may be none.

All i'm saying is that as of this date I personally have not encountered the slightest bit of evidence for the existence of said beings.........and as far as i'm aware, no religionist has ever provided any person on the planet with said evidence.