Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Napoleon Ier]

Creation Conclusion:
- It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that enable adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins. The details of just how they do this remains to be elucidated. The results so far clearly suggest that these adaptations did not come about by chance mutations, but by some designed mechanism.
Hence Not Evolution!

TO ANSWER:
Your assumption is fundamentally flawed. That something is highly improbable does not in any way PROVE that it is impossible. The events you describe might be unlikely, but they are POSSIBLE.


However, I find it extremely strange that the definition of Creationism has recently changed from the idea that the Earth was created in 24 hours with an age of roughly 4000 years to suddenly include this idea called "Intelligent Design". Most of us who believe in both evolution and the Biblical creation have believed some variation of that theory .. and considered it evolution. To clarify, the vast majority believe that God created the Earth THROUGH evolution. Some believe that God is actually in there, more or less steering the whole process. Some believe that God set up the systems (predator/prey interactions, chemical process', mutation rates, etc. etc.) and then more or less "lets them be".

But individual thought aside, it is the nature of most scientists to question, reason and debate. The vast majority of individuals respect diversity of ideas. We welcome legitimate disagreement as a point of learning. Strangely, though the creationist debate too often seems to come down to points that simply cannot be argued or proved. They are, plain and simply, points of belief. The difficulty is that they are presented as fact... and with the idea that any disagreement is somehow against the Bible. This is simply not the truth. It is not that science is "out to get" or "opposed" to Creationist views, it is simply that these views lie outside the jurisdiction of science. Further, a very large number of those who believe in the Bible, do believe firmly in evolution -- including the Roman Catholic Church, most of the Main line Protestant churches ... and I believe many other churches of other types as well.

The real answer is to look for the "why" .. as in "why" was the context of this debate changed and "why is it being so strongly presented at this time?" I think you will find the answer lies well outside of religion.

Player speaks true.

Extremist atheist integrists like snorri seek to dissprove God based on the "Bible says God created us in 6 days and thats stoopid 'cos science says thats wrong", but however much Biological evidence seems to contradict Genesis, the simple fact is, Snorri and co. need to learn about poetic imagery, allegorical text and metaphorical uses of language.

[Guiscard]

Well, no, my judgements are based mainly on his philosophy,which is farcical, and holds only a populist legitimacy, and yes, is best described as tortuous sophistry.

Oh good. You admit that you don't know what you're talking about. If you haven't read his science, you can't say it's bad science.

One difference between Dawkins and Haggard: Dawkins isn't a hypocrite. Yes, Dawkins is passionate about his opinions. Who isn't?

Thanks, Frigidus, for explaining that statement for Napoleon.

I agree with get tonkaed as far as education goes. I didn't receive any sort of teaching of evolution until an AP Bio class my senior year. If I hadn't taken that class, who knows what might have happened...

No but a few people have told me his science is overrated. To be honest that's irrelevant.
His philosophy is objectionnable not because I disagree with it but because it simply consists of poorly crafted, demagogic sophistry, not reasoned, valid arguments.

What have you read of his?

Pre-God Delusion his philosophy has been seen as fairly well respected. I'm not sure it will be in light of current publicity, but when I was at college it was on the syllabus alongside people like Mackie and A J Ayer...

[unriggable]

Extremist atheist integrists like snorri seek to dissprove God based on the "Bible says God created us in 6 days and thats stoopid 'cos science says thats wrong", but however much Biological evidence seems to contradict Genesis, the simple fact is, Snorri and co. need to learn about poetic imagery, allegorical text and metaphorical uses of language.

That's the problem with you fuckers. As soon as it's disproved, 'Nope! It's a metaphor! Not true! However, here where it says that homosexuals should be stoned to death is completely true!'

Make up your fucking mind, if more and more of your infallible text is being disproved then maybe its time to wake up and realize you've been part of, quite literally, a cargo cult you're whole life and you've never thought to read between the lines.

What kind of God speaks in tongues anyways?

[Guiscard]

Extremist atheist integrists like snorri seek to dissprove God based on the "Bible says God created us in 6 days and thats stoopid 'cos science says thats wrong", but however much Biological evidence seems to contradict Genesis, the simple fact is, Snorri and co. need to learn about poetic imagery, allegorical text and metaphorical uses of language.

Ahh so genesis is metaphorical? That makes more sense...

Can you point me to the list of which parts of the bible are metaphorical and which are not? Was there an ecumenical council where the definitions were hashed out? Perhaps one of the church fathers published a treatise...

[Neoteny]

Well, no, my judgements are based mainly on his philosophy,which is farcical, and holds only a populist legitimacy, and yes, is best described as tortuous sophistry.

Oh good. You admit that you don't know what you're talking about. If you haven't read his science, you can't say it's bad science.

One difference between Dawkins and Haggard: Dawkins isn't a hypocrite. Yes, Dawkins is passionate about his opinions. Who isn't?

Thanks, Frigidus, for explaining that statement for Napoleon.

I agree with get tonkaed as far as education goes. I didn't receive any sort of teaching of evolution until an AP Bio class my senior year. If I hadn't taken that class, who knows what might have happened...

No but a few people have told me his science is overrated. To be honest that's irrelevant.
His philosophy is objectionnable not because I disagree with it but because it simply consists of poorly crafted, demagogic sophistry, not reasoned, valid arguments.

Overrated does not mean bad. And I'm not even sure that science can be overrated. His conclusions might be overrated, but I'm not going to let a creationist judge his science.

[got tonkaed]

I really was not looking to get into this side of the debate but you brought it up so….

First of all, you said that moral conscience changes over time but is not evolving. That is the definition everyone has been using for evolution in this thread: Small changes over time. So actually if the moral conscience is changing over time, it IS evolving.

And second, if the moral conscience is evolving, there is no foundation to which any morals can be based. The majority of the people determine the morals of the day.
I ask everyone this question, are you OK with that?

You might be able to say, sure that is fine, and the majority determines right and wrong. But what if the majority differs from your beliefs?

Let's say Hitler would have won WW2. Would he then be justified in his killing of innocent people? If moral conscience is ever evolving, then no one can say he was wrong.

I would like everyone to answer these questions in a post please.

1) If I walk up to you and hit you in the face (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?

2) If I kill your family (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?

3) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to hit you in the face (for no reason), is it ok? Why?

4) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to kill you (for no reason), is it OK? Why?

If you answer "It is wrong" to any of those questions, then that means you do not feel that there are evolving morals. You feel that there are things that are wrong (such as killing your for no reason) all the time. But if nothing is right or wrong, the majority is always justified in anything they do.

Can you agree to that? If you do agree that morals evolve, anytime someone does "wrong" to you, you have no basis to get angry or mad, because the ever evolving moral code might be changing.

SO please explain.

I didnt necessarily expect you to respond given some of the other issues going on but since you were kind enough to, ill be happy to as well.

I believe theres a bit of an error in understanding about changes in social understanding in right and wrong. As you suggested, these changes if they exist probably dont happen in the course of one night, nor does everyone have to agree they happen the same way. Frankly, id be of the opinion that social morality probably changes much slower than actual behavior does. This is in large part because i feel as social circumstances change, we quickly adapt to them as people, but we still do not change our norms. An ok example of this probably is the idea that when it became economically necessary for women to work, many of them started to as quickly as possible. However, you could argue to this very day that many people dont believe women should be in the work force or be paid equally. This is an example of cultural lag.

I equally disagree with the idea that there must be some kind of standard to base morality on, or there is necessarily nothing. There are a number of different ways to view this world, given the large numbers of religions, philsophies, and ethical teachings and many of them have some different opinions. Certainly there are some things that seem to often come up, as far as how we should treat other people, ie be nice to everyone or its negative form, bad things are gonna happen if you dont treat people nicely. I think for the most part this is because some elements of society dont change very much, ie the fact that we have to cohabitate with people who we may not like very much or may be competitive toward us. Most societies wouldnt survive, if everyone who didnt like each other went for the throat. Therefore most societies have simple rules which tell people to play nice.

In other threads i have suggested that the majority of people do not always determine what is right or wrong. Typically ive talked about marriage changing forms in the past few decades, to the point that the "normal marriage" is not the norm. However, people come together in a sense of collective conciousness and say this may be normal, even if its not the majority of people. There is an issue of individual thinking vs social conscious which is difficult to determine approximately. They are certainly interrelated, but not necessarily causal or mutual. In this way, a majority does not always equate to right or wrong, as your example of hitler's genocide would suggest. Likewise, outside interpretations can be tricky when you look at morals. For most of the world, female circumsion is seen as a pretty big no no. However, in some different tribes in the country of Chad, it is a very important part of their growing process. To us outsiders, we see this as abhorrent, but that does not mean they do as well. If you lived your entire life in that tribe, you would not think it was wrong either in all likelyhood. What does that suggest about an absolute sense of morality?

Although i feel i have answered the fundamentals behind your questions i will answer them anyway. They are all in my estimation No i would not view those as right actions. However, in your perhaps oversimplification of the point you miss some of the core idea behind differences in philosophy and in thinking. Because you have a belief system which clearly states these answers for you, i pose that you may not be critically looking at why other cultures and thinkers view things differently than you do. There seems to be a bit of a quest to state a case and although this is a noble effort (and in many ways an impressive one) you do not seem to understand the contradiction in others way of thinking.

[unriggable]

Morals evolve, look at the rise in anarchy and socialism compared to 1000 BC.

[got tonkaed]

as a response to players last paragraph....

i think we are seeing a return (or revert) to the notion of creation science as it is kind of a christian response to the disenchantment or demystification of the world that is a pretty normal process in modernity. For a long time we lived in a world where there were things we didnt know, and i think in some ways that can be a comfort to people. There are still things to discover and still things which can provide comfort and strength to people, when you suggest there is a being that does have the answers, even if you cant interact with him/her in some ways.

As we understand more and more of our world, we see some of these notions may not hold up. As far as well can tell, in the understanding of our bodies, there isnt a soul in there. For a long time, people believed there were actual substances in our bodies some of them called souls, some called humors some called other things. Theres a bit of a depressing quality to taking away some of the mystery to the world around you.

However, belief systems cannot die just because of this, too many people find too much strength in them. As a result, efforts are made to adapt a belief to a different world, than the one it was created in. Perhpas this is in some small part, why we have creation science and I.D.

[got tonkaed]

Morals evolve, look at the rise in anarchy and socialism compared to 1000 BC.

i wish i could post in one sentence and make an argument. Your a smarter man than i, one who does not rig things.

[unriggable]

Morals evolve, look at the rise in anarchy and socialism compared to 1000 BC.

i wish i could post in one sentence and make an argument. Your a smarter man than i, one who does not rig things.

Was that sarcasm or no?

[got tonkaed]

Morals evolve, look at the rise in anarchy and socialism compared to 1000 BC.

i wish i could post in one sentence and make an argument. Your a smarter man than i, one who does not rig things.

Was that sarcasm or no?

no, i wish i could be brief and think you probably are smarter than i am.

[unriggable]

Morals evolve, look at the rise in anarchy and socialism compared to 1000 BC.

i wish i could post in one sentence and make an argument. Your a smarter man than i, one who does not rig things.

Was that sarcasm or no?

no, i wish i could be brief and think you probably are smarter than i am.

Well I think your smarter than me since you can actually think through what you say and take the time to say it in an understanding manner. Something you don't see over here.

[PLAYER57832]

What this really shows is the very serious deficit in science education within this country .. and how seriously a very narrow group within Christianity has been in convincing unknowing individuals that the world does not work the way it really does.

Proof, you say? The proof is all around you that evolution exists. I grew up on a farm, studied biology and worked in the field for many years. Every day I saw both proof of evolution and the wonderful mysteries that make God's creation. There is proof in the way that various plants and animals develop resistance. Even this article to which you refer does nothing to dispute evolution. All it says is that the processes that would create evolution are very improbable. So? You leap from there to say it is "proof" that "something" is stearing this. The truth is that it is NEVER a completely random process because there are definit constraints upon how genes.mutations, recombination, etc. all work. These are constraints built into the system. You can attribute this system to God (I do), or you can attribute it to random chance. That is, however, a matter of belief and NOT proof.

Genesis was never intended to be taken as literally as you insist. Most of the concepts you use for proof did not even exist until very recently. How else would one describe a set period of time, but in a day. the word 'day" can be used in many contexts, not just to refer to the rotation of the earth on its axis -- an axis that did not even exist for most of the time. The point of Genesis is that God is powerful, created everything, is in control of everything. It also emphasises the importance of rest after a job well done. If you want to be literal, THAT is where you should draw your attention -- to the day of rest. It has all but been swept under the run in the hustle and bustle of modern world and yet, few things are as important to our well-being.

The Bible says that man came from "dust". Evolution says the same. The Bible actually gives order (actually 2, according to many) patterns of development -- interestingly this is the same order dictated by straight evolution. Neither says that we evolved from bacteria -- slime mold, yes, bacteria, no.

God made the universe, the earth and all they contain. He DID it using evolution. Evolution occurs, in part, through natural selection. Evolution is a theory and will probably always be a theory becuase no one can go back and actually visit, but if you wish to speak of improbabilities, why don't you speak to the improbability of the many fossil remains of dinosaurs and other pre-hisstoric creatures? Satan put them there, I suppose (that was one of the most prolific arguments in days past).

All of the "errors" to which you point are either misunderstandings of the principal, making leaps that are inappropriate (such as claiming that improbability of random creation means it MUST be designed -- by the way I agree that it IS designed, but it is a belief, not something proveable)
or referring to data/studies that are just plain inaccurate and invalid. Unfortunately, taking the time to go over each and every one would requires far more space than could b3e had here. It is also information you should have learned in school.

I will draw you an analogy. I have a six year old. When he asks where babies come from, I say "mom's belly". Is that actually 100% fully correct? sort of. Technically, it is not the belly, but another part. Do I, at age six go into the full detailed explanation of an egg and sperm? No. I do not lie, but I only give those details he can understand at that age. If he were to ask me specifically, I actually would answer. How would God make us know the story of creation when knowledge of genes and mutation don't exist? How do I explain to my six year old.

I now I am sounding condescending, but I am afraid I have little choice. The truth is that you refuse to learn basic details that disagree with your view. I have given you the most basic reasons why your argument in wrong. You reject them. Your arguments are like the many who try to say that the "dice" here are "not random". Okay, technically, there is no such thing as a 100% random algorythm. But mathematicians can come very, VERY close. Close enough for virtually all purposes. Close enough that other errors have a greater impact than any non-random effect.


You point to one study. I point to hundreds of studies and many observations that are now considered to obvious to make studies. Look at the increase of disease-resistant bacteria and other organisms. Bacteria are so plentiful and reproduce so rapidly that you can see evolutionary change within a few years. In the "higher" order animals, it would take centuries to see even a portion of this change. In fact, however we have seen evolutionary change even in humans -- more generally known as "inbreeding". There is an isolated tribe of people with feet that resemble Ostriches because they did not marry outside their clan. certain genetic diseases are more prevalent within certain isolated populations, such as the Amish or certain Orthodox Jews. These are examples of how evolution works. Of course, in human beings we have intelligence that will help us to find ways to reverse negative trends. There is, for example, a test now for Tay Sache's. That Ostrich-footed group now knows that they need to marry "outsiders".


Bottom line is that you don't really want open discourse. You have your mind made up and are unwilling to view evidence to the contrary -- and it most certainly exists! You point to a few isolated and largely refuted studies and ignore the PILES of evidence supporting evolution, natural selection, climate changes, etc. But, just like I cannot explain all of this to my six year old right now, I cannot explain it all to someone who doesn't have and, more to the point, doesn't WANT a basic science education.

Why am I so vocal about this? Because my son is not learning the science he should -- science that mostly has little to do with evolution -- because folsk like you insist on fighting school boards over each and every point they either don't understand or don't like. I don't ask that ANYONE "just trust" the scientists (or their pastor, by-the-way). I do ask that you at least make a real, concerted effort to truly UNDERSTAND the ideas you claim to refute.

Science is based on logic and truth. It is based on tests. Questioning is valid, always welcome. But, you want to subvert that. You take one understanding and then refuse to look around to see if there are any other possibilities. It is like you don't like the idea of gravity, so you tell your kids to go jump off a building. Maybe some might actually fly (might hit just the right updraft) .. but even that does not disprove gravity.

[Chris7He]

What this really shows is the very serious deficit in science education within this country .. and how seriously a very narrow group within Christianity has been in convincing unknowing individuals that the world does not work the way it really does.

Proof, you say? The proof is all around you that evolution exists. I grew up on a farm, studied biology and worked in the field for many years. Every day I saw both proof of evolution and the wonderful mysteries that make God's creation. There is proof in the way that various plants and animals develop resistance. Even this article to which you refer does nothing to dispute evolution. All it says is that the processes that would create evolution are very improbable. So? You leap from there to say it is "proof" that "something" is stearing this. The truth is that it is NEVER a completely random process because there are definit constraints upon how genes.mutations, recombination, etc. all work. These are constraints built into the system. You can attribute this system to God (I do), or you can attribute it to random chance. That is, however, a matter of belief and NOT proof.

The Bible says that man came from "dust". Evolution says the same. The Bible actually gives order (actually 2, according to many) patterns of development -- interestingly this is the same order dictated by straight evolution.

All of the "errors" to which you point are either misunderstandings of the principal, making leaps that are inappropriate (such as claiming that improbability of random creation means it MUST be designed -- by the way I agree that it IS designed, but it is a belief, not something proveable)
or referring to data/studies that are just plain inaccurate and invalid. Unfortunately, taking the time to go over each and every one would requires far more space than could b3e had here. It is also information you should have learned in school.

I will sraw you an analogy. I have a six year old. When he asks where plants come from, I say a seed. When he asks "how", I say God put it there. Is that the truth -- absolutely, but is it the WHOLE truth, NO! God did put the "magic" that makes a seed inside.... And he made the stoma, stamen, created the process of fertilization, etc, etc, etc.

He DID it using evolution. Evolution occurs, in part, through natural selection. Evolution is a theory and will probably always be a theory becuase no one can go back and actually visit, but if you wish to speak of improbabilities, why don't you speak to the improbability of the many fossil remains of dinosaurs and other pre-hisstoric creatures? Satan put them there, I suppose (that was one of the most prolific arguments in days past).

Bottom line is that you don't really want open discourse. You have your mind made up and are unwilling to view evidence to the contrary -- and it most certainly exists! You point to a few isolated and largely refuted studies and ignore the PILES of evidence supporting evolution, natural selection, climate changes, etc. But, just like I cannot explain all of this to my six year old right now, I cannot explain it all to someone who doesn't have and, more to the point, doesn't WANT a basic science education.

OH, and the agenda? If you look at the results of all these arguments what you find is a strong DISREGARD for the creation of God and the world around us. A complete dismissal of the changes man cause. In short, you are the dupe of some very large and powerful business desires. Go back 30-40 years and see where these "original" ideas began .. begin back there and you may begin to find who is really writing your studies and text. It IS NOT religious scholars!


Genesis was never intended to be taken as literally as you insist. Most of the concepts you use for proof did not even exist until very recently. How else would one describe a set period of time, but in a day. the word 'day" can be used in many contexts, not just to refer to the rotation of the earth on its axis -- an axis that did not even exist for most of the time. The point of Genesis is that God is powerful, created everything, is in control of everything. It also emphasises the importance of rest after a job well done. If you want to be literal, THAT is where you should draw your attention -- to the day of rest. It has all but been swept under the run in the hustle and bustle of modern world and yet, few things are as important to our well-being.

My God! Only eighty posts, yet he shows magnificent brilliance! Bravo!

[Frigidus]

What this really shows is the very serious deficit in science education within this country .. and how seriously a very narrow group within Christianity has been in convincing unknowing individuals that the world does not work the way it really does.

Proof, you say? The proof is all around you that evolution exists. I grew up on a farm, studied biology and worked in the field for many years. Every day I saw both proof of evolution and the wonderful mysteries that make God's creation. There is proof in the way that various plants and animals develop resistance. Even this article to which you refer does nothing to dispute evolution. All it says is that the processes that would create evolution are very improbable. So? You leap from there to say it is "proof" that "something" is stearing this. The truth is that it is NEVER a completely random process because there are definit constraints upon how genes.mutations, recombination, etc. all work. These are constraints built into the system. You can attribute this system to God (I do), or you can attribute it to random chance. That is, however, a matter of belief and NOT proof.

The Bible says that man came from "dust". Evolution says the same. The Bible actually gives order (actually 2, according to many) patterns of development -- interestingly this is the same order dictated by straight evolution.

All of the "errors" to which you point are either misunderstandings of the principal, making leaps that are inappropriate (such as claiming that improbability of random creation means it MUST be designed -- by the way I agree that it IS designed, but it is a belief, not something proveable)
or referring to data/studies that are just plain inaccurate and invalid. Unfortunately, taking the time to go over each and every one would requires far more space than could b3e had here. It is also information you should have learned in school.

I will sraw you an analogy. I have a six year old. When he asks where plants come from, I say a seed. When he asks "how", I say God put it there. Is that the truth -- absolutely, but is it the WHOLE truth, NO! God did put the "magic" that makes a seed inside.... And he made the stoma, stamen, created the process of fertilization, etc, etc, etc.

He DID it using evolution. Evolution occurs, in part, through natural selection. Evolution is a theory and will probably always be a theory becuase no one can go back and actually visit, but if you wish to speak of improbabilities, why don't you speak to the improbability of the many fossil remains of dinosaurs and other pre-hisstoric creatures? Satan put them there, I suppose (that was one of the most prolific arguments in days past).

Bottom line is that you don't really want open discourse. You have your mind made up and are unwilling to view evidence to the contrary -- and it most certainly exists! You point to a few isolated and largely refuted studies and ignore the PILES of evidence supporting evolution, natural selection, climate changes, etc. But, just like I cannot explain all of this to my six year old right now, I cannot explain it all to someone who doesn't have and, more to the point, doesn't WANT a basic science education.

OH, and the agenda? If you look at the results of all these arguments what you find is a strong DISREGARD for the creation of God and the world around us. A complete dismissal of the changes man cause. In short, you are the dupe of some very large and powerful business desires. Go back 30-40 years and see where these "original" ideas began .. begin back there and you may begin to find who is really writing your studies and text. It IS NOT religious scholars!


Genesis was never intended to be taken as literally as you insist. Most of the concepts you use for proof did not even exist until very recently. How else would one describe a set period of time, but in a day. the word 'day" can be used in many contexts, not just to refer to the rotation of the earth on its axis -- an axis that did not even exist for most of the time. The point of Genesis is that God is powerful, created everything, is in control of everything. It also emphasises the importance of rest after a job well done. If you want to be literal, THAT is where you should draw your attention -- to the day of rest. It has all but been swept under the run in the hustle and bustle of modern world and yet, few things are as important to our well-being.

My God! Only eighty posts, yet he shows magnificent brilliance! Bravo!

Agreed. You can't judge a man by his post count and this is proof of it.

[suggs]

Why is this not in the "Fantasy/Comedy" section?

[Snorri1234]

Player speaks true.

Extremist atheist integrists like snorri seek to dissprove God based on the "Bible says God created us in 6 days and thats stoopid 'cos science says thats wrong", but however much Biological evidence seems to contradict Genesis, the simple fact is, Snorri and co. need to learn about poetic imagery, allegorical text and metaphorical uses of language.

Uh no I don't. This whole thread is about how Genesis is not a metaphor.

[Backglass]

What this really shows is the very serious deficit in science education within this country .. and how seriously a very narrow group within Christianity has been in convincing unknowing individuals that the world does not work the way it really does.

Proof, you say? The proof is all around you that evolution exists. I grew up on a farm, studied biology and worked in the field for many years. Every day I saw both proof of evolution and the wonderful mysteries that make God's creation. There is proof in the way that various plants and animals develop resistance. Even this article to which you refer does nothing to dispute evolution. All it says is that the processes that would create evolution are very improbable. So? You leap from there to say it is "proof" that "something" is stearing this. The truth is that it is NEVER a completely random process because there are definit constraints upon how genes.mutations, recombination, etc. all work. These are constraints built into the system. You can attribute this system to God (I do), or you can attribute it to random chance. That is, however, a matter of belief and NOT proof.

Genesis was never intended to be taken as literally as you insist. Most of the concepts you use for proof did not even exist until very recently. How else would one describe a set period of time, but in a day. the word 'day" can be used in many contexts, not just to refer to the rotation of the earth on its axis -- an axis that did not even exist for most of the time. The point of Genesis is that God is powerful, created everything, is in control of everything. It also emphasises the importance of rest after a job well done. If you want to be literal, THAT is where you should draw your attention -- to the day of rest. It has all but been swept under the run in the hustle and bustle of modern world and yet, few things are as important to our well-being.

The Bible says that man came from "dust". Evolution says the same. The Bible actually gives order (actually 2, according to many) patterns of development -- interestingly this is the same order dictated by straight evolution. Neither says that we evolved from bacteria -- slime mold, yes, bacteria, no.

God made the universe, the earth and all they contain. He DID it using evolution. Evolution occurs, in part, through natural selection. Evolution is a theory and will probably always be a theory becuase no one can go back and actually visit, but if you wish to speak of improbabilities, why don't you speak to the improbability of the many fossil remains of dinosaurs and other pre-hisstoric creatures? Satan put them there, I suppose (that was one of the most prolific arguments in days past).

All of the "errors" to which you point are either misunderstandings of the principal, making leaps that are inappropriate (such as claiming that improbability of random creation means it MUST be designed -- by the way I agree that it IS designed, but it is a belief, not something proveable)
or referring to data/studies that are just plain inaccurate and invalid. Unfortunately, taking the time to go over each and every one would requires far more space than could b3e had here. It is also information you should have learned in school.

I will draw you an analogy. I have a six year old. When he asks where babies come from, I say "mom's belly". Is that actually 100% fully correct? sort of. Technically, it is not the belly, but another part. Do I, at age six go into the full detailed explanation of an egg and sperm? No. I do not lie, but I only give those details he can understand at that age. If he were to ask me specifically, I actually would answer. How would God make us know the story of creation when knowledge of genes and mutation don't exist? How do I explain to my six year old.

I now I am sounding condescending, but I am afraid I have little choice. The truth is that you refuse to learn basic details that disagree with your view. I have given you the most basic reasons why your argument in wrong. You reject them. Your arguments are like the many who try to say that the "dice" here are "not random". Okay, technically, there is no such thing as a 100% random algorythm. But mathematicians can come very, VERY close. Close enough for virtually all purposes. Close enough that other errors have a greater impact than any non-random effect.


You point to one study. I point to hundreds of studies and many observations that are now considered to obvious to make studies. Look at the increase of disease-resistant bacteria and other organisms. Bacteria are so plentiful and reproduce so rapidly that you can see evolutionary change within a few years. In the "higher" order animals, it would take centuries to see even a portion of this change. In fact, however we have seen evolutionary change even in humans -- more generally known as "inbreeding". There is an isolated tribe of people with feet that resemble Ostriches because they did not marry outside their clan. certain genetic diseases are more prevalent within certain isolated populations, such as the Amish or certain Orthodox Jews. These are examples of how evolution works. Of course, in human beings we have intelligence that will help us to find ways to reverse negative trends. There is, for example, a test now for Tay Sache's. That Ostrich-footed group now knows that they need to marry "outsiders".


Bottom line is that you don't really want open discourse. You have your mind made up and are unwilling to view evidence to the contrary -- and it most certainly exists! You point to a few isolated and largely refuted studies and ignore the PILES of evidence supporting evolution, natural selection, climate changes, etc. But, just like I cannot explain all of this to my six year old right now, I cannot explain it all to someone who doesn't have and, more to the point, doesn't WANT a basic science education.

Why am I so vocal about this? Because my son is not learning the science he should -- science that mostly has little to do with evolution -- because folsk like you insist on fighting school boards over each and every point they either don't understand or don't like. I don't ask that ANYONE "just trust" the scientists (or their pastor, by-the-way). I do ask that you at least make a real, concerted effort to truly UNDERSTAND the ideas you claim to refute.

Science is based on logic and truth. It is based on tests. Questioning is valid, always welcome. But, you want to subvert that. You take one understanding and then refuse to look around to see if there are any other possibilities. It is like you don't like the idea of gravity, so you tell your kids to go jump off a building. Maybe some might actually fly (might hit just the right updraft) .. but even that does not disprove gravity.

A voice of reason on the ship of fools. Bravo.

I am curious how you feel about the dinosaurs shrinking into gecko's and lizards?

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, no, my judgements are based mainly on his philosophy,which is farcical, and holds only a populist legitimacy, and yes, is best described as tortuous sophistry.

Oh good. You admit that you don't know what you're talking about. If you haven't read his science, you can't say it's bad science.

One difference between Dawkins and Haggard: Dawkins isn't a hypocrite. Yes, Dawkins is passionate about his opinions. Who isn't?

Thanks, Frigidus, for explaining that statement for Napoleon.

I agree with get tonkaed as far as education goes. I didn't receive any sort of teaching of evolution until an AP Bio class my senior year. If I hadn't taken that class, who knows what might have happened...

No but a few people have told me his science is overrated. To be honest that's irrelevant.
His philosophy is objectionnable not because I disagree with it but because it simply consists of poorly crafted, demagogic sophistry, not reasoned, valid arguments.

Overrated does not mean bad. And I'm not even sure that science can be overrated. His conclusions might be overrated, but I'm not going to let a creationist judge his science.[/quote

I think Creationism is retarded as well!

Im just saying, people have said he's not as good a scientist as he's cracked up to be...

[bob the pirate]

Go look at http://www.talkorigins.com, it's got a TON of stuff on this. Especially the page on 'jury-rigged design', where you have a bunch of animals that, if they had been designed, would have turned out a lot better. E.g. the african locust with wings on the thorax and wing nerves that originate in the abdomen.

Also, go search for "brent kaywood self defense" on youtube. It's not evolution related, but it's funny.

[Chris7He]

Go look at http://www.talkorigins.com, it's got a TON of stuff on this. Especially the page on 'jury-rigged design', where you have a bunch of animals that, if they had been designed, would have turned out a lot better. E.g. the african locust with wings on the thorax and wing nerves that originate in the abdomen.

Also, go search for "brent kaywood self defense" on youtube. It's not evolution related, but it's funny.

http://www.talkorigins.com has already been mentioned.

[Heimdall]

Question: Who or what created god?

[Chris7He]

Question: Who or what created god?

QFT

[WidowMakers]

I really was not looking to get into this side of the debate but you brought it up so….

First of all, you said that moral conscience changes over time but is not evolving. That is the definition everyone has been using for evolution in this thread: Small changes over time. So actually if the moral conscience is changing over time, it IS evolving.

And second, if the moral conscience is evolving, there is no foundation to which any morals can be based. The majority of the people determine the morals of the day.
I ask everyone this question, are you OK with that?

You might be able to say, sure that is fine, and the majority determines right and wrong. But what if the majority differs from your beliefs?

Let's say Hitler would have won WW2. Would he then be justified in his killing of innocent people? If moral conscience is ever evolving, then no one can say he was wrong.

I would like everyone to answer these questions in a post please.

1) If I walk up to you and hit you in the face (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?

2) If I kill your family (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?

3) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to hit you in the face (for no reason), is it ok? Why?

4) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to kill you (for no reason), is it OK? Why?

If you answer "It is wrong" to any of those questions, then that means you do not feel that there are evolving morals. You feel that there are things that are wrong (such as killing your for no reason) all the time. But if nothing is right or wrong, the majority is always justified in anything they do.

Can you agree to that? If you do agree that morals evolve, anytime someone does "wrong" to you, you have no basis to get angry or mad, because the ever evolving moral code might be changing.

SO please explain.

I didnt necessarily expect you to respond given some of the other issues going on but since you were kind enough to, ill be happy to as well.

I believe theres a bit of an error in understanding about changes in social understanding in right and wrong. As you suggested, these changes if they exist probably dont happen in the course of one night, nor does everyone have to agree they happen the same way. Frankly, id be of the opinion that social morality probably changes much slower than actual behavior does. This is in large part because i feel as social circumstances change, we quickly adapt to them as people, but we still do not change our norms. An ok example of this probably is the idea that when it became economically necessary for women to work, many of them started to as quickly as possible. However, you could argue to this very day that many people dont believe women should be in the work force or be paid equally. This is an example of cultural lag.

I equally disagree with the idea that there must be some kind of standard to base morality on, or there is necessarily nothing. There are a number of different ways to view this world, given the large numbers of religions, philsophies, and ethical teachings and many of them have some different opinions. Certainly there are some things that seem to often come up, as far as how we should treat other people, ie be nice to everyone or its negative form, bad things are gonna happen if you dont treat people nicely. I think for the most part this is because some elements of society dont change very much, ie the fact that we have to cohabitate with people who we may not like very much or may be competitive toward us. Most societies wouldnt survive, if everyone who didnt like each other went for the throat. Therefore most societies have simple rules which tell people to play nice.

In other threads i have suggested that the majority of people do not always determine what is right or wrong. Typically ive talked about marriage changing forms in the past few decades, to the point that the "normal marriage" is not the norm. However, people come together in a sense of collective conciousness and say this may be normal, even if its not the majority of people. There is an issue of individual thinking vs social conscious which is difficult to determine approximately. They are certainly interrelated, but not necessarily causal or mutual. In this way, a majority does not always equate to right or wrong, as your example of hitler's genocide would suggest. Likewise, outside interpretations can be tricky when you look at morals. For most of the world, female circumsion is seen as a pretty big no no. However, in some different tribes in the country of Chad, it is a very important part of their growing process. To us outsiders, we see this as abhorrent, but that does not mean they do as well. If you lived your entire life in that tribe, you would not think it was wrong either in all likelyhood. What does that suggest about an absolute sense of morality?

Although i feel i have answered the fundamentals behind your questions i will answer them anyway. They are all in my estimation No i would not view those as right actions. However, in your perhaps oversimplification of the point you miss some of the core idea behind differences in philosophy and in thinking. Because you have a belief system which clearly states these answers for you, i pose that you may not be critically looking at why other cultures and thinkers view things differently than you do. There seems to be a bit of a quest to state a case and although this is a noble effort (and in many ways an impressive one) you do not seem to understand the contradiction in others way of thinking.

You did not answer my question.

Please post a response to these questions.

1) If I walk up to you and hit you in the face (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?

2) If I kill your family (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?

3) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to hit you in the face (for no reason), is it ok? Why?

4) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to kill you (for no reason), is it OK? Why?

If you answer "It is wrong" to any of those questions, then that means you do not feel that there are evolving morals. You feel that there are things that are wrong (such as killing your for no reason) all the time. But if nothing is right or wrong, the majority is always justified in anything they do.

==================================================
AND THIS


Explain scientifically how stellar evolution is possible but refuting all of teh issues below scientifically.

1-A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe.
2-Nothingness cannot pack together
3-A vacuum has no density
4-There would be no ignition to explode nothingness
5-Nothingness cannot produce heat
6-The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter
7-There is no way to unite the particles
8-Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles
9-The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever
10-Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together
11-Gas clouds in outer space expand; they do not contract
12-The nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen or helium to change itself into any of the heavier elements
13-Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits
14-Solar collapse, not nuclear fusion has been found to be the cause of solar energy. But that would undercut the entire theory of the Big Bang
15-There is no known mechanical process that can accomplish a transfer of angular (turning, spinning, orbiting) momentum from the sun to its planets.

Any many more here: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... s_ev_2.htm

Again, you need a proved and good case for stellar evolution before biological evolution can take place.

Plus I am reading over the new post and will respond as I have time.

WM

[Frigidus]

You did not answer my question.

Please post a response to these questions.

1) If I walk up to you and hit you in the face (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?

2) If I kill your family (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?

3) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to hit you in the face (for no reason), is it ok? Why?

4) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to kill you (for no reason), is it OK? Why?

If you answer "It is wrong" to any of those questions, then that means you do not feel that there are evolving morals. You feel that there are things that are wrong (such as killing your for no reason) all the time. But if nothing is right or wrong, the majority is always justified in anything they do.

There is no universal set of morality, simply by looking at different cultures you can see vast differences. It is, for instance, an immoral and punishable crime for a woman to be alone with a man who isn't your husband or a relative. Western culture on the other hand find the lashings used as punishment for the crime as immoral. Why would there be these differences if morals had not steadily changed as isolated pockets (seperation) of the world developed their own particular cultures (outside influence) and responded in kind to them.

Again, you need a proved and good case for stellar evolution before biological evolution can take place.

How so? The idea of evolution (outside of biological evolution) is simply a metaphor (this includes the above idea of "evolving" morality).