dont bug Christians for doing something that you think we do

[spaminator101]

You think us Christians throw faith everywhere. well not everywhere just into God/Bible. Well you do the same thing you cant prove evolution and you cant prove the big bang and you cant prove theres not a God. can you?

so before you down Christians for haveing stupid or blind faith think about your beleifs.

spaminator

[BCPVP]

Especially your belief in the necessity of gov't...

[Bork]

Some things require more faith than others to believe.

Evolution can be proven just about as well as the fact that you have hands. You should doubt both or neither.

The story of Noah's Ark can only be believed based on faith. In fact, there are some good empirical reasons to think it did not happen. (gasp)


[ QUOTE ]
so before you down Christians for haveing stupid or blind faith think about your beleifs

[/ QUOTE ]

ironic quote there /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
...it's almost as difficult to tell if someone's serious in this forum as it is in beats brags & variance.


[/ QUOTE ]This quote is from another thread, but it could easily go here too.

[hmkpoker]

Get back in that hole of stupidity you crawled out of.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
You think us Christians throw faith everywhere. well not everywhere just into God/Bible. Well you do the same thing you cant prove evolution and you cant prove the big bang and you cant prove theres not a God. can you?

so before you down Christians for haveing stupid or blind faith think about your beleifs.

spaminator

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this argument is that the bible makes certain claims that humans have the ability to test. So while you cannot "prove" there is not a God, you can test the validity of the Christian God. If testing these claims gives evidence that they are false then continued belief in those claims is foolish "blind" faith.

Evolution on the other makes claims, but while some of those claims (like life arising from nonliving matter) are not falsifiable at this time (with this level of scientific achievement), (like trying to prove there is no general God), the other claims it makes are testable by direct measurement. Also, no one would believe in evolution if those directly testable claims are proven false.

Joseph

[NinjaMan]

[ QUOTE ]
You think us Christians throw faith everywhere. well not everywhere just into God/Bible. Well you do the same thing you cant prove evolution and you cant prove the big bang and you cant prove theres not a God. can you?

so before you down Christians for haveing stupid or blind faith think about your beleifs.

spaminator

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't be the voice for us. We can intelligently discuss theories, beliefs, etc. without you hindering us. Thanks and keep up the good work.

[einbert]

As a Christian, I find your argument very poor.

Evolution and the big bang are theories of science. While they are not proven, there is scientific evidence behind them. There is no scientific evidence that God exists. There is no scientific evidence that Jesus is the son of God. It is true that you can't be *certain* evolution happened, but I doubt many smart atheists are. Because usually atheists realize the uncertainty of ideas, and in fact this is one area of thought where their conclusion dominates the thinking processes of many Christians.

Don't try and put Christianity (or religion) and science into the same box. They will never fit.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
As a Christian, I find your argument very poor.

Evolution and the big bang are theories of science. While they are not proven, there is scientific evidence behind them. There is no scientific evidence that God exists. There is no scientific evidence that Jesus is the son of God. It is true that you can't be *certain* evolution happened, but I doubt many smart atheists are. Because usually atheists realize the uncertainty of ideas, and in fact this is one area of thought where their conclusion dominates the thinking processes of many Christians.

Don't try and put Christianity (or religion) and science into the same box. They will never fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen

[Lestat]

I'm really starting to gain healthy respect for some of the Christians who post here. I really thought most thought like this guy and godBoy, but clearly some of you have looked at the issue from both sides.

[hmkpoker]

You can't prove that 2+2=4

It's crap

You are blinded by your faith

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

you can test the validity of the Christian God. If testing these claims gives evidence that they are false then continued belief in those claims is foolish "blind" faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which claims? Are you saying that some claims have been proven false? Which ones?

[ QUOTE ]

the other claims it makes are testable by direct measurement


[/ QUOTE ]

What claims of evolution are testable by direct measurement aside from the trivial, such as black moths becoming white moths? The major claims of evolution that matter to Christians, besides abiogenisis, are one common ancestor and that mutation is by chance. Neither are testable or provable as far as I can see yet we are constantly bombarded with what amounts to a faith assertion that they are scientific fact.

[curious_george]

The word of God speaks loadly (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/fartingpreacher4.html)

[NotReady]

The intellectual level of this forum easily surpasses nursery school .... um, well, strike that.

Oh, by the way, what's the 3 year old's definition of "loadly"?

Never mind, found it:

[ QUOTE ]

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.

[/ QUOTE ]

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
The story of Noah's Ark can only be believed based on faith. In fact, there are some good empirical reasons to think it did not happen. (gasp)


[/ QUOTE ]

Extra extra

Two fossilised polar bears were found in the middle east, believed to be some 3500 years old, as there were no signs of a violent death, one can only assume they died of heat exhaustion.

In other news, scientists say the world is not flat, Catholics in outrage. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Mack

[godBoy]

Lestat.

I believe the big bang took place, I think that there is enough evidence to support a beginning from a singularity.

What has been proven in the area of evolutionary theory I believe in as well. I believe that mutations occur at the genetic level, however I don't believe in the claims that all living matter derived from a common ancestor.
I can't believe in a young-earth because of the proofs to the contrary.

I'm sure I have said all this before.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Lestat.

I believe the big bang took place, I think that there is enough evidence to support a beginning from a singularity.

What has been proven in the area of evolutionary theory I believe in as well. I believe that mutations occur at the genetic level, however I don't believe in the claims that all living matter derived from a common ancestor.
I can't believe in a young-earth because of the proofs to the contrary.

I'm sure I have said all this before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I apologize and stand corrected. Just out of curiousity, what "unproven" parts of evolution give you trouble? I don't recall, but were you the one that hand a problem with the Cambriage (sp?) explosion?

[godBoy]

I am yet to hear an explanation of the cambrian explosion that would support belief in the 'very slow' changes that come about from evoution. What has been found is fossil evidence showing a time when the complexity of animal life took a large leap forward.

Common ancestor, life self-forming from non-living matter.
These are the issues with evolutionary theory I have at the moment.

[godBoy]

This is such a common example used to describe the christian faith...

No one is trying to prove that 2+2=4. I completely agree with you, that is absolute crap.

[Lestat]

So you have no trouble believing God created man through an evolving ape, or do you?

Any belief in evolution would mean you also dismiss the Adam and Eve story (i.e. God created Eve from Adam's rib, etc), of the bible?

[godBoy]

I dont think God created man through an evolving ape...
I never said how far my beliefs stretched, I agree with the biblical account of creation. The evidences for a common ancestor are very theoretical, what's been the closest proof of this belief? Java man! how many bones did the artists take to 'create' this half man/half ape. Similarities in embryos do suggest a common ancestor, but it's not hard evidence. It is simply the best naturalistic explanation of life to date.

I'm not claiming to know the answers, simply stating that the evidence I have looked at doesn't support belief in this 'common ancestor'.

You can believe in evolution without believing in it's unfalsifiable/unprovable claims, this is where I find my self.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not claiming to know the answers, simply stating that the evidence I have looked at doesn't support belief in this 'common ancestor'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at more evidence. Duh!

[godBoy]

you could post some if you have found some.. I don't think there has been any found yet.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
So you have no trouble believing God created man through an evolving ape, or do you?

Any belief in evolution would mean you also dismiss the Adam and Eve story (i.e. God created Eve from Adam's rib, etc), of the bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

My (possibly heretical) position on this is that alot of the bible is allegorical, and that the literal truth is revealed to us when we are able to understand it.

So, no, I personally have no problem believing that God created the system which has resulted in the evolution of humans from a single cell, nor that evolution isn't "finished".

I would also like to add that IMO the idea of "species" is arbitrary. One can draw the lines between them wherever he likes.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
you could post some if you have found some.. I don't think there has been any found yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have looked at only the first return from a google search, and I doubt that even. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Having said that, if it was scientific rigour that caused your position, I would be impressed. Maybe you could apply the same rigour to a litteral understanding of the bible. There is no evidence at all of most pseudo scientific statements in the bible... so take them with an open mind if you can't have a doubting mind.

[godBoy]

Well, you did well at avoiding the question.

If anyone finds some evidences for these theories that are being taught, please post. The theories being - common ancestory and life forming from non-living matter.
MidGe assures me that I'm just not being thourough enough but doesn't care to enlighten me. Anyone?

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, if it was scientific rigour that caused your position, I would be impressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical.
Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66), there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene.
The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!
But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining non-harmful mutations of five related genes "fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the development of the entire organism." Davis, 68.
In addition to this, the structure resulting from the cluster of the five integrated genes must, in the words of Ambrose, "give some selective advantage, or else become scattered once more within the population at large, due to interbreeding." Bird, 1:87. Ambrose concludes that "it seems impossible to explain [the origin of increased complexity] in terms of random mutations alone." Bird, 1:87.
When one considers that a structure as "simple" as the wing on a fruit fly involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth. Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10300,000. Pitman, 68. If only more Christians had that kind of faith!
This probability problem is not the delusion of some radical scientific fringe. As stated by William Fix:

Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Fix, 196.

Renowned French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé has made no secret of his skepticism:

What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer's (Matt, I can't get the 'u' to go small for me there!) "Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. Grassé, 104.

In 1967 a group of internationally known biologists and mathematicians met to consider whether random mutations and natural selection could qualify as the mechanism of evolutionary change. The answer of the mathematicians was "No." Morris, 64-65; Sunderland, 128-36. Participants at the symposium, all evolutionists, recognized the need for some type of mechanism to reduce the odds against evolution. In the words of Dr. Murray Eden of M.I.T.:

What I am claiming is that without some constraint on the notion of random variation, in either the properties of the organism or the sequence of the DNA, there is no particular reason to expect that we could have gotten any kind of viable form other than nonsense. Sunderland, 138.

Summarizing his and Hoyle's analysis of the mechanism of evolution, Wickramasinghe states:

We found that there's just no way it could happen. If you start with a simple micro-organism, no matter how it arose on the earth, primordial soup or otherwise, then if you just have that single organizational, informational unit and you said that you copied this sequentially time and time again, the question is does that accumulate enough copying errors, enough mistakes in copying, and do these accumulations of copying errors lead to the diversity of living forms that one sees on the earth. That's the general, usual formulation of the theory of evolution.... We looked at this quite systematically, quite carefully, in numerical terms. Checking all the numbers, rates of mutation and so on, we decided that there is no way in which that could even marginally approach the truth. Varghese, 28.

Thus, several decades have only confirmed the observation of Gertrude Himmelfarb in her book Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (1959):

[i]t is now discovered that favorable mutations are not only small but exceedingly rare, and the fortuitous combination of favorable mutations such as would be required for the production of even a fruit fly, let alone a man, is so much rarer still that the odds against it would be expressed by a number containing as many noughts as there are letters in the average novel, "a number greater than that of all the electrons and protons in the visible universe" -- an improbability as great as that a monkey provided with a typewriter would by chance peck out the works of Shakespeare. Fix, 196.

*****************

References:

Bird, W.R., The Origin of Species Revisited (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library in 1987). Bird graduated summa cum laude from Vanderbilt University and has a J.D. degree from Yale Law School. He has published articles in numerous law journals and represented the State of Louisiana in the challenge to its "creation statute." Both volumes of this work are extensively documented with references to the pertinent scientific literature.
Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co. 1990). Davis has an M.A. degree from Columbia University and is a life science professor at Hillsborough Community College. Kenyon has a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford and is Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University. He is the co-author of Biochemical Predestination published by McGraw-Hill in 1969. The Academic Editor of Of Pandas and People was Charles B. Thaxton who has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Iowa State University and is the co-author of The Mystery of Life's Origin published by the Philosophical Library in 1984.
Fix, William R., The Bone Peddlers (New York: Macmillan PUblishing, 1984). Fix has an M.A. degree in behavioral science from Simon Fraser University (Canada) and is the author of several books.
Grassé, Pierre-P., Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977). Grassé is France's most distinguished zoologist. Dobzhansky has described his knowledge of the living world as "encyclopedic."
Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982). Morris has a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering from the University of Minnesota. Parker has a M.S. and Ed.D. in biology from Ball State University.
Pitman, Michael, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Co., 1984). Pitman has a B.A. degree in science from Open University (England), a M.A. degree in classics from Oxford, and teaches biology in Cambridge, England. The introduction is by Dr. Bernard Stonehouse, a scientist who has held academic posts at Oxford, Yale, and other prestigious universities.
Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 3d ed. (Santee, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1984). Sunderland had a B.S. from Penn. State University and worked as an aerospace engineer with General Electric specializing in automatic flight control systems (died 1987).
Varghese, Roy Abraham, ed., The Intellectuals Speak Out About God (Chicago: Regenery Gateway, 1984). Those quoted are Robert Jastrow and Chandra Wickramasinghe. ...Wickramisinghe is an internationally recognized authority on interstellar matter and is the head of the department of applied mathematics and astronomy at University College in Cardiff, Wales.
Wysong, Randy L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Midland, MI: Inquiry Press, 1976). Wysong has a B.S. and D.V.M. from Michigan State University

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you did well at avoiding the question.

If anyone finds some evidences for these theories that are being taught, please post. The theories being - common ancestory and life forming from non-living matter.
MidGe assures me that I'm just not being thourough enough but doesn't care to enlighten me. Anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't think the question was for real, and still don't think so. Nearly 100% of scientists accept evolution and you have some doubts? Wake up boy! LOL

Will you also not avail yourself of all advances in medecines that came about because of evolution theory, should they be neccesary for your own, or your family, well-being? LOL That's were the faith will stop imo.

I don't think I need justify what is accepted so widely. If you need to, I suggest you go back to school. At least any attempt of weakening evolution teaching, even thru the courts, is failing in public and private education, as it should be.

Besides that, do a search, unless you have something new to add. This topic has been discussed amazingly often on this forum alraedy, with nothing except a reference to "pandas" and the totally discredited Behe (LOL) from those trying to unseat the theory.

[TStoneMBD]

while your post sends out a good message, it isnt entirely accurate. there is definitely scientific evidence that god exists or that jesus is the son of god. there is just not proof. examples of such scientific evidence would be searching for dead sea scrolls, roman documentation not to mention of course the resurrection of jesus, him walking on water, him feeding the masses, him healing the blind, ressurecting his brother from the dead and so on. of course we dont have a first hand view of such events taking place, we can only believe them through word of mouth written in the bible. however, i assure you that many have taken a scientific approach to tracing back the legitimacy of these miraculous claims of jesus and have not been able to discredit them as bogus. that my friend, is scientific evidence.

ps, i am a theist.

[godBoy]

I think you'll have a hard time with that one.
Science by nature can't give evidence of the miraculous, like walking on water, healing, resurrection.

It's more the historical evidence that is in support of the events like the resurrection.

[MidGe]

miketurner,

lengthy post. A lot of references to very discredited scientists and also very old papers. The progresses and confirmations made in evolutionary theory over the last few years alone have been enourmous. There has been confirmations only. Not a single proof that the theory was not correct.

For a scientist even to reply to your post is to legitimise a position that has no place in science. I do it in the hope that others will come to realise that there is a really toxic aspect to your beliefs.

I am absolutely amazed at the level of ignorance displayed by a certain group of religious people.

I find it also amazing that you cannot accept scientific evidence , yet can accept the totally ludicrous concept of a god being responsible for the botch up. I don't see in any way how that could be as, let alone more, credible than evolution. I have still tp be made aware of the smallest evidence of god. He surely is not helping /images/graemlins/smile.gif , but given he is such an appaling designer, I understand.

I really think that a lot of christians, however well intentioned, thru ignorance, are doing their religion a lot of damage.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> My (possibly heretical) position on this is that alot of the bible is allegorical, and that the literal truth is revealed to us when we are able to understand it. </font>

I never truly understood this position. Why would an all-knowing God allow depiction of events that would one day sound absurd? In other words, why not just say, "and God gave life to the sea", instead of the impossible scenario of a man being present and walking on earth before a woman existed? To me, this is not allegory, it's downright misleading.



<font color="blue"> I would also like to add that IMO the idea of "species" is arbitrary. One can draw the lines between them wherever he likes. </font>

Are you saying it's possible that God puts man on an equal par with other animals? I thought the bible makes very clear that ALL things including other animals are given to man by God. This would necessitate a very definite distinction between species, no?

[Lestat]

I doubt there are many among us here with the credentials to explain the contradictions to evolution that you cite in this post. I certainly can't, but that's not important. What IS important is that almost without exception, every leading scientist in the world today fully accepts evolution. These are the people who COULD make sense of the content of your post and explain the discrepencies you cite.

Yes, there are still unanswered questions. No one claims to have ALL the answers, but are you saying you doubt evolution as a theory? That's ludricrous!

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of references to very discredited scientists

[/ QUOTE ]

You’ll have to forgive me for not taking your words at face value. You’re not the most credible poster here. Please provide links to back this statement up. If you do, I will apologize. If you don’t, it’s safe for us all to assume that you are being dishonest yet again.

[ QUOTE ]
For a scientist even to reply to your post is to legitimise a position that has no place in science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Challenging ideas has no place in science? You are all too transparent.

[ QUOTE ]
I do it in the hope that others will come to realise that there is a really toxic aspect to your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned nothing of my beliefs. Those were the beliefs of many scientists, along with their credentials.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> I would also like to add that IMO the idea of "species" is arbitrary. One can draw the lines between them wherever he likes. </font>

Are you saying it's possible that God puts man on an equal par with other animals? I thought the bible makes very clear that ALL things including other animals are given to man by God. This would necessitate a very definite distinction between species, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can’t speak for purnell, but what he might be referring to is that scientists have many definitions of what a species is. If I remember right, there are 4. They seem to use whichever definition that will make their case at the time. I will provide a link to that if you insist, but if you don’t I won’t bother looking for it.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
What IS important is that almost without exception, every leading scientist in the world today fully accepts evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I do think you are more credible than MidGe, I think this probably came from the top of your head. Gotta link? This is off the top of my head... I don’t think a high percentage of scientists specialize in this type of science. So, a scientists that has no expertise in this area is only slightly more credible than you or I. What are the percentages of the specialists?

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, there are still unanswered questions. No one claims to have ALL the answers, but are you saying you doubt evolution as a theory? That's ludricrous!

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn’t assume that you know what I believe about this subject. The truth is, the jury is still out, so to speak. I haven’t made up my mind, and really... it’s not of high importance to me. All I’m saying, is that you shouldn’t completely make up your mind yet either ( not talking about God here, just evolution as it stands in 2006) It leaves no room for growth, when you think you know everything already. You have just put your “faith” in some scientists and brushed off others. I think that was the OP’s stance, but he did a very poor job of expressing it.

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
so before you down Christians for haveing stupid or blind faith think about your beleifs.



[/ QUOTE ]

I have thought a lot about my beliefs - I believe that "God" as he is thought of in the traditional sense does not exist. I do not believe that there is one single supernatural supreme being who created earth in 7 days and who watches over us.

I believe that "God" was invented by well meaning people to try and get people to live "good" lives...

The earth has sustained human civilisation for much longer than oooh say 6000 years or so. This is easily provable by science today yet many people choose to ignore these facts.

I believe that the proof exists in the 3 great pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx. It has recently been conclusively proved that the Sphinx is vastly old - using the solid sound science of geology to decipher weathering patterns in the rock that the sphinx is carved out of. This is irrefutable - but because it clashes with the traditional "Ancient Egyptian" historical line it has been rejected. !!??!! The time frame suggest by the geology coincides with the original build time suggested for the pyramids which has been computed using Astronomy - and the relatively recent human discovery of celestial precession.

Also in documents like the Piri Reis Map c1513 which shows in remarkable detail the underlying surface of Antarctica. Details we have only recently been able to see using radar imaging. Antartica has been under an ice sheet for *thousands* of years - how is it possible that a map drawn in 1513 by a respected cartographer - who compiled his map from older source maps shows this?? Other very old(much older than a few centuries) maps exist which show precise Latitude AND longitude - which our civilisation couldn't work out properly despite figuring out the math in ~1715 until John Harrison built marine chronometer #4 and succesfully scooped a prize for accomplishing this feat in 1761.

Or accounts detailing the Viracochas.

Viracochas where supposedly white bearded men who had geat wisdom and knowledge and taught uncivilised people how to be civilised - and who also possesed great power and could work "miracles". Sound familiar??

I find it interesting that most old civilisations have their own myths and legends and stories - and almost all of these have the "flood story" as one of them. I don't believe that Noah built an Ark - although I do believe that at one time there was an Ark built and there was a great flood.

I believe that most Christians(insert preferred religion here - not just Christians) swallow what they get taught blindly - rarely question these beliefs - or investigate other possibilities - or try to come up with explanations for difficult questions - they fob everything off with the "faith" argument.

I also belive that religion has a lot to answer for.

If there was no religion there would be good people on earth and bad people on earth - The good people would do good things - and the bad people bad things.

To make good people do bad things - it takes religion.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> My (possibly heretical) position on this is that alot of the bible is allegorical, and that the literal truth is revealed to us when we are able to understand it. </font>

I never truly understood this position. Why would an all-knowing God allow depiction of events that would one day sound absurd? In other words, why not just say, "and God gave life to the sea", instead of the impossible scenario of a man being present and walking on earth before a woman existed? To me, this is not allegory, it's downright misleading.



<font color="blue"> I would also like to add that IMO the idea of "species" is arbitrary. One can draw the lines between them wherever he likes. </font>

Are you saying it's possible that God puts man on an equal par with other animals? I thought the bible makes very clear that ALL things including other animals are given to man by God. This would necessitate a very definite distinction between species, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I don't know- possibly because at the time the book of Genesis was put to paper, the idea of common descent would have seemed even more absurd?

2) As far as I can tell, that which believes it is a man, is a man. This is the distinction between man and the other animals.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said how far my beliefs stretched, I agree with the biblical account of creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Earth created in 7 days. Eve created from Adam's rib. A talking snake in a tree. Sounds totally plausible.

[Lestat]

I have no doubt that there is much more to be learned about evolution, but here's my main point...

The theory of evolution is not some sort of a guess or shot in the dark. It's a scientific THEORY! That's REAL strong. Theories can certainly be improved upon over time, but they are rarely ever shown to be flat out wrong. I think many people equate a theory with some kind of a guess. That's not at all the case. And I highly suspect you already know that.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
The theory of evolution is not some sort of a guess or shot in the dark. It's a scientific THEORY! That's REAL strong. Theories can certainly be improved upon over time, but they are rarely ever shown to be flat out wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many are the theories, if a lot of them are incompatible doesn't that mean that some must be wrong?

What makes something a scientific theory?

[miketurner]

You say that you are not able to explain the contradictions in my post. Yet, I know that you are smart enough to understand my post. Read it again &amp; put some thought into it (yes, I know it’s long /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) . Google these men. The question is, do you believe it? Obviously, you don’t. The question then is “Why?” I say it is because you have put your “faith” in the scientists who coincidently support your belief that there is no God, and you ignore their contradictions. You have no interest in finding out the answers to the contradictions in my post, because you have already made up your mind. I am simply saying that it is not wise to close your mind to the idea that these people could be wrong. (Note: I am not trying to convince you to believe in God here.) I am sure that the scientists themselves are very interested in these contradictions. I would at least hope so.

[CORed]

Great argument, aside from the fact that if you pull some different numbers out of your ass, it falls apart.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
Great argument, aside from the fact that if you pull some different numbers out of your ass, it falls apart.

[/ QUOTE ]

And your qualifications to make such a statement?

PS. Not my argument, or my numbers.

[godBoy]

I won't defend a young-earth because I don't believe in one.

[ QUOTE ]
To make good people do bad things - it takes religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, to make good people do bad things it takes change.
To make bad people do good things it takes change.
This is what I have found the church promotes - positive change.

I also belive that religion has a lot to answer for. But not Jesus.

[Mr_J]

[ QUOTE ]
No, to make good people do bad things it takes change.
To make bad people do good things it takes change.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why we are so [censored] up as a species. There is no 'good' or 'bad'.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why we are so [censored] up as a species. There is no 'good' or 'bad'.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an insane belief to hold. It makes rape, murder, theft ok, maybe not acceptable but still ok.
Your putting all actions on the same level.

There are things that people of every belief system can agree on - rape, murder, theft are all bad. There is such a thing as morality - knowledge of good and right - that is needed to ensure justice. Another 'good' thing.

If it made headlines "There is no 'good' or 'bad'" then we would indeed be very [censored] up as a species.

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
No, to make good people do bad things it takes change.
To make bad people do good things it takes change.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does change make a good person do a bad thing or vice versa??

Do you mean that to do bad things a good person must first change to a bad person?

The church promotes positive change this is true - at the same time it also promotes changing your belief system to the particular doctrine peddled by that particular church.
Obviously the church in question will argue that this is a positive change - an outsider with an open and unbiased mind might well argue that this is not a positive change.

[HedonismBot]

Evolution is a fact, it has been proven.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
How does change make a good person do a bad thing or vice versa??

Do you mean that to do bad things a good person must first change to a bad person?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but everyone is in this boat. Everyone has done bad things. The thing is... For people to do good it takes a choice and an understanding of good - this is where the church helps bad people make good choices.

[ QUOTE ]
The church promotes positive change this is true - at the same time it also promotes changing your belief system to the particular doctrine peddled by that particular church.
Obviously the church in question will argue that this is a positive change - an outsider with an open and unbiased mind might well argue that this is not a positive change.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that there is such a thing as good and evil, or positive and negative. People's beliefs of what is right and wrong is irrelevant to the facts of good and evil.
Saying that, if a belief that is being 'peddled' by a person doesn't match what you feel is right, it definately should be questioned and tested.

I don't think anyone has a truly unbiased mind, our beliefs are formed by our experiences, the moral decline of society is making the distinction of right/wrong more and more blurry. Even though people will argue that morality is subjective, history shows a consistency of 'evil' practices resulting in unpleasant results. This is evidence of a consistent good that people should be able to learn from.

[PastorDavidDD]

Evolution is a proven fact, correct. And that fact disproves nothing about God, the Bible or Christianity.

[PastorDavidDD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so before you down Christians for haveing stupid or blind faith think about your beleifs.



[/ QUOTE ]

I have thought a lot about my beliefs - I believe that "God" as he is thought of in the traditional sense does not exist. I do not believe that there is one single supernatural supreme being who created earth in 7 days and who watches over us.

I believe that "God" was invented by well meaning people to try and get people to live "good" lives...

The earth has sustained human civilisation for much longer than oooh say 6000 years or so. This is easily provable by science today yet many people choose to ignore these facts.

I believe that the proof exists in the 3 great pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx. It has recently been conclusively proved that the Sphinx is vastly old - using the solid sound science of geology to decipher weathering patterns in the rock that the sphinx is carved out of. This is irrefutable - but because it clashes with the traditional "Ancient Egyptian" historical line it has been rejected. !!??!! The time frame suggest by the geology coincides with the original build time suggested for the pyramids which has been computed using Astronomy - and the relatively recent human discovery of celestial precession.

Also in documents like the Piri Reis Map c1513 which shows in remarkable detail the underlying surface of Antarctica. Details we have only recently been able to see using radar imaging. Antartica has been under an ice sheet for *thousands* of years - how is it possible that a map drawn in 1513 by a respected cartographer - who compiled his map from older source maps shows this?? Other very old(much older than a few centuries) maps exist which show precise Latitude AND longitude - which our civilisation couldn't work out properly despite figuring out the math in ~1715 until John Harrison built marine chronometer #4 and succesfully scooped a prize for accomplishing this feat in 1761.

Or accounts detailing the Viracochas.

Viracochas where supposedly white bearded men who had geat wisdom and knowledge and taught uncivilised people how to be civilised - and who also possesed great power and could work "miracles". Sound familiar??

I find it interesting that most old civilisations have their own myths and legends and stories - and almost all of these have the "flood story" as one of them. I don't believe that Noah built an Ark - although I do believe that at one time there was an Ark built and there was a great flood.

I believe that most Christians(insert preferred religion here - not just Christians) swallow what they get taught blindly - rarely question these beliefs - or investigate other possibilities - or try to come up with explanations for difficult questions - they fob everything off with the "faith" argument.

I also belive that religion has a lot to answer for.

If there was no religion there would be good people on earth and bad people on earth - The good people would do good things - and the bad people bad things.

To make good people do bad things - it takes religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

We all have our God given free will to believe or disbelieve whatever we want.

Atheists are even allowed to twist around, misrepresent, or embellish what God has said and done, what the Bible says, what Christians believe, what science says, and what history has recorded any way they want to support their atheist beliefs. Christians are also allowed to twist around and misrepresent what atheists say and believe to support our Christian beliefs. For most of my 82 years, it has been my chosen intention to do neither. Hopefully, one day, you'll join me in that.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is a proven fact, correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been highly respected scientists who have made credible scientific arguments that evolution (as we most commonly speak of it) would be impossible. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4753006
Some people have misrepresented and embellished what science has proven about evolution and others (like MidGe - http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4753244 http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4759593 ) have just flat out lied so much that people have bought into it.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is a proven fact, correct. And that fact disproves nothing about God, the Bible or Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does it disprove nothing of the bible? It pretty much takes away the whole 7 day creation and Adam and Eve story, doesn' it?

[godBoy]

No, common decent and the story of life crawling from a primordial soup are inconsistent with the biblical account of creation. Neither of which are factual. The FACTS of evolutionary theory should be welcomed.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
No, common decent and the story of life crawling from a primordial soup are inconsistent with the biblical account of creation. Neither of which are factual. The FACTS of evolutionary theory should be welcomed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand. Evolutionary theory says that we are descendent from apes. The bible says man was created in one shot, THEN.... Woman was created in one shot.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
No, common decent and the story of life crawling from a primordial soup are inconsistent with the biblical account of creation. Neither of which are factual. The FACTS of evolutionary theory should be welcomed.

[/ QUOTE ]

So many facts are inconsistent with the biblical account, indeed it is full of inconsitences of itself, that I am amazed you would still refer to it, let alone as an authority... Boy, oh boy, so much darkeness and ignorance in this world... it is amazing.

[Lestat]

Wait a minute... I misunderstood! godBoy is referring to biblical accounts as being inconsistent? He must be changing his tune.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait a minute... I misunderstood! godBoy is referring to biblical accounts as being inconsistent? He must be changing his tune.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, not changing his tune. Sometimes the bible is to be taken litteraly, sometimes not. Godboy decides which is which... lol

[godBoy]

"No, common decent and the story of life crawling from a primordial soup are inconsistent with the biblical account of creation. Neither of which are factual. The FACTS of evolutionary theory should be welcomed. "

My 'neither' was referring to common decent and the primordial soup. Sorry for the poor sentence structure.

[godBoy]

The part of evolutionary theory that says we are descendent from apes is not factual at all. It is assuming a common ancestor with no solid evidence. As I said, The FACTS of evolutionary theory should be welcomed.

[godBoy]

I'm not smart enough to judge wrong from right that's why I need the bible as a benchmark. I'm sure I will be mocked for this but our understanding of right and wrong is far too subjective for me to rely on. What I have found in the bible is a plan for healthy living, a book of history, not a book of science.

[godBoy]

Do you care to give examples, it shouldn't be hard if it is indeed full of inconsitences...

Or again, I will assume another ignorant response.

[MidGe]

Just a quick one to satisfy your thirst for knowledge.

Bible Errancy (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_ball/bible.html) .

Then do a quick search on Google it will come back with 450,000+ references if you search for: "inconsistencies in the bible".

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not smart enough to judge wrong from right that's why I need the bible as a benchmark. I'm sure I will be mocked for this but our understanding of right and wrong is far too subjective for me to rely on. What I have found in the bible is a plan for healthy living, a book of history, not a book of science.

[/ QUOTE ]


"I'm not smart enough to judge wrong from right ". I accept that.

"a plan for healthy living"? Sounds like some new fad diet.

Where did you get the notion that the bible was the word of god, by the way? Don't tell me that it is written in the bible. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[godBoy]

The writer of Ecclesiastes said it best:

A right time for birth and another for death,
A right time to plant and another to reap,
A right time to kill and another to heal,
A right time to destroy and another to construct,
A right time to cry and another to laugh,
A right time to lament and another to cheer,
A right time to make love and another to abstain,
A right time to embrace and another to part,
A right time to search and another to count your losses,
A right time to hold on and another to let go,
A right time to rip out and another to mend,
A right time to shut up and another to speak up,
A right time to love and another time to hate,
A right time to wage war and another to make peace.

I think you can understand this scripture MidGe. The 'inconsistencies' cited are not insurmountable or even challenging of faith. It's good to have questions but do try to move forward, put your obvious hatred for christianity down a minute and look to see there may be some truth to it.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Where did you get the notion that the bible was the word of god, by the way? Don't tell me that it is written in the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a decision I made for myself when I was 17. I got the 'notion that the bible was the word of god' from people whose lives I respected, friends and family.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you can understand this scripture MidGe. The 'inconsistencies' cited are not insurmountable or even challenging of faith. It's good to have questions but do try to move forward, put your obvious hatred for christianity down a minute and look to see there may be some truth to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah a time to kill.. etc very xtian indeed.

I don't hate christians but I think that some concepts of fundamental and evangelical christianity manifested in some post of this forum I truly regard as abominable and uncivilized and indeed only one step away from suicide bombing.

[ QUOTE ]
It was a decision I made for myself when I was 17. I got the 'notion that the bible was the word of god' from people whose lives I respected, friends and family.

[/ QUOTE ]

There we have it, the ultimate authority is god"boy". You are the one that need open his mind a bit. Gee, my opinions of a lot of things have changed since I was 17. LOL. I call that experience, and it only happens if you open your mind. It seems you have already wilted and closed yours.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]


Then do a quick search on Google it will come back with 450,000+ references if you search for: "inconsistencies in the bible".


[/ QUOTE ]

Just Googled "errors in evolution".

Result:

23,700,000.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Then do a quick search on Google it will come back with 450,000+ references if you search for: "inconsistencies in the bible".


[/ QUOTE ]

Just Googled "errors in evolution".

Result:

23,700,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good one! Ratios: the bible = one book... / evolution = thousands if not tens of thousands books...


Obviously overall the books on evolution are more correct! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[godBoy]

The painful thing is you are worth the effort MidGe.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't hate christians but I think that some concepts of fundamental and evangelical christianity manifested in some post of this forum I truly regard as abominable and uncivilized and indeed only one step away from suicide bombing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would have to ignore the huge amount of writings on say... love.

[ QUOTE ]
There we have it, the ultimate authority is god"boy". You are the one that need open his mind a bit. Gee, my opinions of a lot of things have changed since I was 17. LOL. I call that experience, and it only happens if you open your mind. It seems you have already wilted and closed yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure your opinions of everything hasn't changed, I am the same.
Making a decision to trust the authority of the bible is not a decision to close your mind at all. I never claimed to be the ultimate authority.

Making the same puns like god "Boy" in every post.. Do you think you are strengthening your argument. An intelligent person seeking answers could care less if my name was 'DrX'.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You would have to ignore the huge amount of writings on say... love.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I do... I have absolutely nothing against that wherever it is to be found. You are again trying to deflect the unanswerable questions about the nagatives aspects of christianity, which really is my only reason to stand up against it. If it wasn't for those very negative aspects it would be an innocuous superstition from my view point.

[godBoy]

Give me examples of these negative examples in christianity in the new testament and I will answer as best I can.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Give me examples of these negative examples in christianity in the new testament and I will answer as best I can.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, are you somehow denying that the old testament is part of the bible and yhat it should therefore not be used as "your" guide to living? Or do you want your cake and eat it as well?

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
You are again trying to deflect the...

[/ QUOTE ]

...And you are trying to deflect the fact that you are a liar. Everything you say has to be fact checked and referenced by the rest of us because nothing you say can be taken at face value. You are simply not worth putting that much effort into. No matter what, you would just spew back more lies &amp; hatred. At least there has been evidence around here that the majority already discredits you anyway, so the damage you are able to do is minimal.

[MidGe]

What lies exactly?

As regard spewing hatred, I would say that is a feature of religion... Just look at history.

As I said before, but worth repeating, I am not against religion at all, as long is does not push ignorance or terrorism. Some of my friends are even religious, /images/graemlins/smile.gif but they are a bit more coherent than you /images/graemlins/smile.gif and are definitely not theological terrorists.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
What lies exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let’s start with these 3 &amp; we’ll move on from there.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4759593

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What lies exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let’s start with these 3 &amp; we’ll move on from there.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4759593

[/ QUOTE ]

1) No lies... If anything as has become very clearly apparent for all to see during the testimony of Behe the dishonnesty is entirely on the side of the ID supporters.

2) Your inference and distortion again: I am not objecting to challenge in science, as long as the challenges follow scientific method. ID has NOTHING to do with science. It has no legitimacy.

3) Those are the "beliefs" of an incredibly small minority of scientists that have been totally discredited and usually comment out of their respective fields. They have not advanced a single scientific theory regarding ID that has ever been published in any credible scientific journal. Get real.

Easier to say that I lie than address the real issues isn't it?

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What lies exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let’s start with these 3 &amp; we’ll move on from there.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4759593

[/ QUOTE ]

1) No lies... If anything as has become very clearly apparent for all to see during the testimony of Behe the dishonnesty is entirely on the side of the ID supporters.

2) Your inference and distortion again: I am not objecting to challenge in science, as long as the challenges follow scientific method. ID has NOTHING to do with science. It has no legitimacy.

3) Those are the "beliefs" of an incredibly small minority of scientists that have been totally discredited and usually comment out of their respective fields. They have not advanced a single scientific theory regarding ID that has ever been published in any credible scientific journal. Get real.

Easier to say that I lie than address the real issues isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

For those of you observing this, it stems from this post. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4753006) You can clearly see that the original post says nothing about ID. You should reread it if you have any doubts. In his most recent post here, MidGe tries to convince you that the whole post was about ID, because he is a liar.
He also once again claims that these scientists have been discredited, which is also a lie. I ask him to give sources to support his claims, and he instead just repeats the lie. To adamantly repeat his lies until you are convinced that they are truths seems to be a popular tactic with MidGe, as seen here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=scimathphil&amp;Number=465063 9&amp;page=0&amp;vc=1&amp;fpart=1) In fact, I’ve seen no other tactic at all from him, aside from the occasional straw man. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

[BCPVP]

Strawman arguments seem to be MidGe's M.O.

[MidGe]

Talking about strawman... What is your concept of god but a strawman?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Talking about strawman... What is your concept of god but a strawman?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you know what a strawman argument is? Judging by the number of them you used in the other thread and this post, I fear you have no clue.

[godBoy]

No I believe that the old testament was god-inspired also, Jesus believed this and studied it. It is part of the bible, the reason I asked for negative examples in the new testament is because that's what it is. God made a new covenant/promise with man. The old testament shows a lot of things about God, but I believe that in Jesus we can see the true character of God. If you want to discredit christianity then attempt to discredit Jesus.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know what a strawman argument is? Judging by the number of them you used in the other thread and this post, I fear you have no clue.

[/ QUOTE ]

A strawman argument is what you have been doing with all your replies to my questions stement.. displacing the argument and then knocking down the displaced argument trying to mislead the readers by giving the impression to answer.

A strawman, if just that, a thing portraying a man, but incapable of anything unless someone else moves it.

[PastorDavidDD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is a proven fact, correct. And that fact disproves nothing about God, the Bible or Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does it disprove nothing of the bible? It pretty much takes away the whole 7 day creation and Adam and Eve story, doesn' it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Evolution (The process of the development of living things.) is not the same as creation (God's bringing of the universe into existence.) The part of the Bible that was written by Moses doesn't say anything was created in 7 days. When the original creation took place there were no days.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great argument, aside from the fact that if you pull some different numbers out of your ass, it falls apart.

[/ QUOTE ]

And your qualifications to make such a statement?

PS. Not my argument, or my numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, BS in biology. I see a whole lot of numbers assumed regarding frequency of mutation, number of mutations required to cause a structural change, etc. with no indication of where these numbers came from. Since you are citing "Creation Science" texts, I strongly suspect that the problem was worked backwards, and the numbers chosen to "prove" the impossibliity of evolution. My point is that all of those numbers, are at best rough estimates, and at worst, outright fabrications, and if you massage those numbers a little differently you could easily prove the opposite of what that excercis sets out to prove. "Creation science" is not science at all. It starts fro mthe faith based assumption that the biblical story of creation is true and attempts to select and manipulate eveidence to prove it.

[MidGe]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, supported by 30 other scientific and educational organisations, adopted a declaration denouncing “anti-evolution” legislation that is pending in 14 states.

Only "fringe" scientists, a very small minirity, are giving any credence to "anti-evolution" pamphlets (since they are not scientific papers).

Does the truth hurt so much that you have to try to accuse me of lies.... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[miketurner]

All of what you say is speculation at best. Do you have any links to real scientists who have addressed this issue, or used different numbers?

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, supported by 30 other scientific and educational organisations, adopted a declaration denouncing “anti-evolution” legislation that is pending in 14 states.

Only "fringe" scientists, a very small minirity, are giving any credence to "anti-evolution" pamphlets (since they are not scientific papers).

Does the truth hurt so much that you have to try to accuse me of lies.... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Links are required for anyone to take you seriously. I have already wasted too much time researching claims of yours, only to find out that you just make stuff up. I am not wasting any more time disproving your lies. It is up to you to prove they are truths.
It should be easy to do... Your recent lie was "these scientists are discredited." Simple enough... Link please?

[MidGe]

How dinsingenuous of you.

It is head of the news today. I guess if you decide to live outside of the real world, you don't need to read the news. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Financial Times (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c91ff92a-a233-11da-9096-0000779e2340.html)

The independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article346711.ece)

And a further 69 references to it in todays Google news search Google News search (http://news.google.com/?ncl=http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article346711.ece&amp;hl=en).

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that all of those numbers, are at best rough estimates, and at worst, outright fabrications...

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW. I definitely acknowledge that this statement is possible. But I have no reason to believe that it is definitely true. We all have to choose what we believe about what others say. That was the whole point of the OP. You use “faith” to choose to believe that these scientists are wrong. I don’t know if they are right or wrong, but I need more than a guy on a message board to make me doubt their claims. This is not an attack on you... I hope you see that.
Again, I’m not necessarily arguing against evolution here... just that it is inconclusive as of now. There is no reason to swear by something as fact when it is inconclusive. I’m talking specifically here about the conclusions of the observed facts. Not the observations themselves. Do you know what I mean?

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
How dinsingenuous of you.

It is head of the news today. I guess if you decide to live outside of the real world, you don't need to read the news. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Financial Times (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c91ff92a-a233-11da-9096-0000779e2340.html)

The independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article346711.ece)

And a further 69 references to it in todays Google news search Google News search (http://news.google.com/?ncl=http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article346711.ece&amp;hl=en).

[/ QUOTE ]

That was an interesting article MidGe. It was enlightening and I really have nothing negative to say about it at this time.
It was still a strawman argument though. The statement you made was “references to very discredited scientists.” You were referring to Bird, W.R., Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon, Charles B. Thaxton, Fix, William R., Grassé, Pierre-P., Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, Pitman, Michael (the scientist, not the running back lol) Dr. Bernard Stonehouse, Sunderland, Luther D., Varghese, Roy Abraham, Robert Jastrow and Chandra Wickramasinghe, and Wysong, Randy L.


I would like to see any of these scientists being discredited by any of their peers. This was your claim. Back it up. BTW, you discrediting them does not count.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You were referring to Bird, W.R., Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon, Charles B. Thaxton, Fix, William R., Grassé, Pierre-P., Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, Pitman, Michael (the scientist, not the running back lol) Dr. Bernard Stonehouse, Sunderland, Luther D., Varghese, Roy Abraham, Robert Jastrow and Chandra Wickramasinghe, and Wysong, Randy L.

[/ QUOTE ]

You use again a strawman argument. I neverf mentionned any scientist in particular. That being said a scientist that speaks outside of his/her field does not speak as a scientist he may speak as a man of faith but that is neither
here nor there. At least it has nothing to do with science.

However any scientist that as a scientist denies or even attack evolution, if your read all of the AAAS material is WRONG and unscientific. That to me is being discredited as a scientist when it comes to evolution.

So you can apply this test, to find out which of the scientists you mentionned are discredited.

Let's hear your next strawman argument... watch the goal posts shifting again... LOL

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
I neverf mentionned any scientist in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]

I quoted these men. The statement you made was that I used “references to very discredited scientists.”
Ohh, I see. You are just trolling me. You have no intention of being credible. That’s cool. I will approach your posts with this in mind from now on.