Creationism vs. Evolution

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic

Why doesn't it make sense?  It doesn't have to be based on a committee. quote>

But it is based on a political committee.  The Council of Nicea in 325, to be specific.   That group of politicians decided what would be in the bible. 

It doesn't have to be based on anything that anyone here is comfortable with.  Obviously, it's not.  People go thorough things they don't choose.  My aunt just got cancer for the 3rd time as well.  And it's not saying that a committee decided it was that way.   Apparently God did.  quote>

No, God did not decide that.  I can tell you why my mom has cancer; it was a combination of factors.  Specifically, she has a genetic predisposition:  both of her grandmothers died from cancer.  Additionally, she took medication in mid 70s that has since been linked to certain forms of cancer.   That medicine did not come from God.  It came from a group of well intentioned medical researchers who did not realize would the results of their actions would be.

Originally posted by: chocolatemax285

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god? Epicurus. 33 A.D.

That's the quote I keep coming back to when I think about god.quote>

I keep coming back to that quote too. 

In terms of the actions / consequences pertaining to any given individual, I believe it is a form of "tough love".   We get to experience the consequences of our actions whether we want to or not.  and we get to keep experiencing them until we learn whatever lesson we need to learn. (How, when, and where we experience them is obviously an issue that is up for debate.)

 

In terms of the basic dysfunctionality of humans and the human body in general, I believe that God has left us to evolve on our own.   I really do not understand the concept that God and evolution are an either / or thing.

Originally posted by: sam

What I also don't get particularly from the point of view of the above is that this is supposed to be a religion that gives hope, yet some creationists claim that evolution denies hope. Saying that you are bad and you deserve to suffer and thats that, is not a message of hope. quote>

Agreed.

I don't mean to sound proseletysing (sp?) but to me evolution itself is a source of hope. It says we don't have to sit back and take the rubbish life (or our ancestry) gives to us. We have the power to change it. It tells us we can save lives, cure diseases, prevent suffering, feed the hungry, save species from extinction, and watch new species emerge. Contrast that to a god who would throw us all into hell forever and ever to suffer for all eternity for our arbitrary "sins".quote>

Agreed.  

I've always wondered about the assertion that God will throw someone in to hell just because that person has never heard of Him. 

  I think we have not only the capacity but the responsibility.  quote>

Agreed.

[fukuda 351]

Depends on which God you speak of. The one discussed in the bible teaches that sin is what corrupted the world, and everything in it, including menopause, cancer, etc. All that stuff.quote>

I always wondered why living beings had to pay for human sins and have the same weaknesses and diseases.

life was once perfect and then humans decided to sinquote>

If life was perfect, those perfect living beings didn't look at all like actual humans

Part of what makes life hard is that often the truth really has no concern for your feelings. If a meteor is going to smash the Earth, well, it's not going to check and see if you're okay with that.quote>

There's just a little problem there. Unlike asteroids, the truth doesn't exist out of our minds.

, most would be in trouble if they fell to numbers well above what Noah reportedly took onto the Ark. Seven pairs (or 3 pair plus one or two of a kind) wouldn't have cut it from the point of view of survival for most species.quote>

Especially humans, that have a very limited gene pool to begin with.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Patricius Maximus 236]

The theology behind things here is that originally, within the Garden of Eden, humans were immortal and lived forever, never growing old. The introduction of sin then poisoned this and slowly each progressive generation had a shorter and shorter typical lifespan until it settled out to what it is now... such that characters from Genesis such as Abraham and Noah lived several hundred years.quote>

I am aware of the theology. That's why I asked for an explanation "without invoking a supernatural decline". 

Just so you know, there is a theory floating around out there that the earth at one time had a double atmosphere, and that the majority of the water in the Flood came from that atmosphere completely raining itself out. quote>

Yes, but how was the "other atmosphere" completely segregated from the "normal" atmosphere. Gases invariably diffuse when in contact with each other.

Also, it says that water came up from the deep, presumably the earth itself. quote>

Ah, yes, but what would have triggered such an outburst of only water? It also assumes that Earth had a lot of water inside of it, such as a Pluto-like world covered in ice that migrated into the habitable zone (like the "hot jupiter" planets), and the ices melted, creating a planet composed mostly of water. 

While it would make good science fiction, it is implausible for the Earth, the evidence against it being the Earth's structure (if the water was removed from such a waterworld, the mantle would be porous), and the absence of any close-in gas giant planets in our system.

Personally, I think that people are limiting themselves when they base their religious belief solely on evolution.quote>

Evolution is not a religion.

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god? Epicurus. 33 A.D. quote>

That question is a good one to ask, and is one that haunted my grandmother since 1945 (when the Holocaust was first discovered). 

I've always wondered about the assertion that God will throw someone in to hell just because that person has never heard of Him.quote>

This is, at least for me, the ultimate logic that discredits many concpets in the Christian religon (or at least some sects).

Let's assume that there have been 100 billion people that have lived on Earth ('people' meaning Homo sapiens). Let us also assume that 2 billion of them were Christians.

Assuming the concept that God sends Christians to Heaven, and all other unbelievers are sent to Hell. This means that 98 percent of humans are in Hell, and 2 percent are in Heaven, when probably 90 percent have never heard of Christianity. These people who have never heard "the word of god" are sent to Hell anyway, with God saying to them, in effect, "too bad".

There are four conclusions you can draw from this:

1) God is a sadistic deity. Therefore, he does not deserve to be worshipped, even if he does exist.

2) God is a sadistic deity, but he must be worshipped anyway, since we don't want to end up in Hell.

3) God is not sadistic, as he not only rewards Christians, but all good people.

Options 1 and 2 ignore all the rhetoric of a loving and compassionate God that is so often heard of. Option 3 is a more moderate view, and is endorsed by some Christian sects.

A simpler solution is that the Christian God does not exist.

If life was perfect, those perfect living beings didn't look at all like actual humans quote>

Agreed. If I met a life-form that lived for thousands ofd years, I'd really doubt if it was a member of the Homo sapiens species.

Taking a different tack, one could also say that if life was perfect, there would have never been a decision to sin.quote>

Precisely. Another logical flaw in the Judeo-Christian religion. If Adam and Eve were perfect beings created by God, then why did they eat the fruit?

Yet another flaw is the idea that the first two humans were forbidden to eat the fruit of knowledge (or whatever you wish to call it). If the fruit was not eaten, all humans would be in an ignorant bliss living in a garden in the Middle East forever until the end of the world. I, for one, do not wish to be in that state. So, in effect, eating the fruit was a good thing, which would validate the Satanist logic, and in my opinion makes a little more sense than the ignorance-loving concepts.

Again, a simpler solution is the atheist one -- God does not exist.

Sorry for going off on the existence of god, but I had to state some logic.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I've always wondered about the assertion that God will throw someone in to hell just because that person has never heard of Him.quote>

This is, at least for me, the ultimate logic that discredits many concpets in the Christian religon (or at least some sects).quote>

Can't speak for other denominations, but I can say that the Catholic teaching on the matter is that everyone, when they die, has Jesus revealed to them and is given the option to accept or reject him. Only those who reject him then go to hell. Anyone who accepts him then, regardless of what they knew or believed in life, goes to purgatory to atone for their sins and subsequently to heaven.

[TwelveToneMusic 0]

Ugh, I spent a bunch of time quoting things and replying to specifics, but I accidentally hit command Q during a quote and quit my browser. So I'll just respond vaguely.

I never stated that evolution is a religion.

Consider that without the possibility of evil, love cannot exist. Imagine you have a child, and it loves you because there is no other possibility. That love means nothing without a choice.

The bible absolutely does not teach that people who have never heard the gospel will go to hell.

Yet another flaw is the idea that the first two humans were forbidden to eat the fruit of knowledge (or whatever you wish to call it). If the fruit was not eaten, all humans would be in an ignorant bliss living in a garden in the Middle East forever until the end of the world. I, for one, do not wish to be in that state.quote>

It never states that they lived in an ignorant bliss. It states that they had a perfect relationship with the father, and were intimate with him. You are the one that suggested that was the state of things, not the bible.

Sorry for going off on the existence of god, but I had to state some logic.

quote>

Ok.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

The bible absolutely does not teach that people who have never heard the gospel will go to hell.quote>

As far as I know it does not. Nevertheless, I have met some people who do believe that.

Yet another flaw is the idea that the first two humans were forbidden to eat the fruit of knowledge (or whatever you wish to call it). If the fruit was not eaten, all humans would be in an ignorant bliss living in a garden in the Middle East forever until the end of the world. I, for one, do not wish to be in that state.quote>

It never states that they lived in an ignorant bliss. It states that they had a perfect relationship with the father, and were intimate with him. You are the one that suggested that was the state of things, not the bible. quote>

The opposite of knowledge is ignorance. If when they ate the fruit they obtained knowledge, then logically they must have been unknowledged (or ignorant) beforehand, therefore, if they had not eaten the fruit, they would be ignorant.

It is not stated in the Bible that they "lived in an ignorant bliss", but it sure looks like that they gained knowledge. I will quote Genesis 3:4-6.

From the New International Version:

"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.quote>

From the King James Version:

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.quote>

It will state something close to that in every translation. The Bible states that the fruit made them "gain wisdom" and "know good and evil". That sounds like knowledge to me. Seeing as they lacked that beforehand, they lacked knowledge, and were thus ignorant. You cannot escape logic.

Can't speak for other denominations, but I can say that the Catholic teaching on the matter is that everyone, when they die, has Jesus revealed to them and is given the option to accept or reject him. Only those who reject him then go to hell. Anyone who accepts him then, regardless of what they knew or believed in life, goes to purgatory to atone for their sins and subsequently to heaven. quote>

That is their theology. As I cannot speak for every church I said "or at least in some sects".

I never stated that evolution is a religion.quote>

You never did, but you said:

Personally, I think that people are limiting themselves when they base their religious belief solely on evolution.quote>

If someone bases their religion solely on evolution, then they are making a religion out of evolution, and therefore turning evolution into religion.

However, you did not say that, and your statement was misinterpreted. I thought you meant religious beliefs as in an organized belief in supernatural entities, not the denial or belief in a deity.

Consider that without the possibility of evil, love cannot exist. Imagine you have a child, and it loves you because there is no other possibility. That love means nothing without a choice. quote>

Emotions are naturally compared to other emotions to discern what that emotion is. Without any other emotion to compare it with (i.e. love being the sole emotional state), then there is no method to recognize it as love, so your statement is irrelevant.

However, in the context of a loving god, it would certainly be recognized as love since humans display other emotions than love, so if a supernatural (or pseudosupernatural) entity were to show up and display an emotion, we would be able to tell whether it was love or something else.

[TwelveToneMusic 0]

The opposite of knowledge is ignorance. If when they ate the fruit they obtained knowledge, then logically they must have been unknowledged (or ignorant) beforehand, therefore, if they had not eaten the fruit, they would be ignorant.quote>

It says they ate the fruit of knowledge, and I believe many specify, the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.  Neither says they didn't have knowledge prior.

And your quote is coming from the serpent.  It's a lie.  The following sentence is showing that she was deceived. 

If someone bases their religion solely on evolution, then they are making a religion out of evolution, and therefore turning evolution into religion.quote>

I understand your point.  This is a semantics issue.  I'm saying if people use the theory of evolution to make their religious decisions for them they are missing out, because it's not even close to the and all be all.

Emotions are naturally compared to other emotions to discern what that emotion is.quote>

I don't believe love is a mere emotion.  Emotions are related to it, but they don't sum it up.

However, in the context of a loving god, it would certainly be recognized as love since humans display other emotions than lovequote>

But assuming 'the fall' changed everything, we can't determine what emotions humans displayed before it.  I any case, it was different, and we don't know how different, that's my point. 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[TwelveToneMusic 0]

Love is a spiritual connection between people.  That connection is affected and has weight upon various emotions regarding the relationship of those involved in that connection.  I don't know what else to tell you if you don't believe in spirituality.  Some things defy, and quite honestly, don't even need scientific reasoning to exist.

[fukuda 351]

Some things defy, and quite honestly, don't even need scientific reasoning to exist. quote>

Yup, neither does the FSM

[TwelveToneMusic 0]

lol

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Patricius Maximus 236]

It says they ate the fruit of knowledge, and I believe many specify, the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.  Neither says they didn't have knowledge prior.quote>

Ah, yes, but if they had knowledge of good and evil beforehand, they would not have been enticed to eat the fruit that gave it to them. Logicially, they would not have had knowledge of good and evil before they obtained it.

And your quote is coming from the serpent.  It's a lie.  The following sentence is showing that she was deceived.quote>

I am aware of that. However, if the fruit did not contain something of the nature the serpent described, then why (in the continuity of the Bible) would God have prescribed such harsh penalties for eating it? That reasoning only makes the Christian God more sadistic.

Love is a spiritual connection between people.  That connection is affected and has weight upon various emotions regarding the relationship of those involved in that connection.quote>

Humbug. Love is an emotion, that may manifest itself in different forms, but at the core, it is an emotion. Otherwise, as Barbarossa pointed out, what is it?

I don't know what else to tell you if you don't believe in spirituality.  Some things defy, and quite honestly, don't even need scientific reasoning to exist.quote>

I'll tell you a scientific reasoning for the emotion of love -- reproduction. If early humans did not have the capacity to love each other (including one of the opposite sex) they would not have been attracted to each other to produce offspring, and thus the human species would have gone extinct. Whereas those who would produce offspring would transmit the capacity to love to their offspring. It is a product of natural selection, however spiritual it may seem.

[TwelveToneMusic 0]

Ah, yes, but if they had knowledge of good and evil beforehand, they would not have been enticed to eat the fruit that gave it to them. Logicially, they would not have had knowledge of good and evil before they obtained it.quote>

Logically...

We're discussing the supernatural here in a logical sense, and NOT including that they were tempted by a fallen angel.  Lol.  Logic would take into consideration that had this not occurred, an event which corrupted the nature of everything, that they might not have been enticed to eat the fruit.  They were deceived by something that was already fallen, and not of the nature they were created in. 

I am aware of that. However, if the fruit did not contain something of the nature the serpent described, then why (in the continuity of the Bible) would God have prescribed such harsh penalties for eating it? That reasoning only makes the Christian God more sadistic.quote>

It doesn't make God sadistic, it makes God holy.  Holiness cannot subject itself to compromise, otherwise it would cease to be holy.  Holiness is without blame.  God was not to blame in this case, we were.  For God to 'let it slide' would be in conflict with the nature of His holiness. 

Humbug. Love is an emotion, that may manifest itself in different forms, but at the core, it is an emotion. Otherwise, as Barbarossa pointed out, what is it?quote>

This doesn't prove anything.  And you can't disprove the existence of a spiritual connection through a scientific argument anyway (one of its greatest limitations), and in fact it is contradictory TO the nature of science to argue the non-, or existence of supernatural things from this viewpoint.  You can never backup a position on spirituality with a scientific reason because science will never address this, and for the same reason I cannot also support the existence of a spiritual existence with a scientific explanation, and I for one am glad the separation exists, it needs to.  People need to humble themselves, they need to experience things in the truth, not through someone else's opinion.

I'll tell you a scientific reasoning for the emotion of love -- reproduction. If early humans did not have the capacity to love each other (including one of the opposite sex) they would not have been attracted to each other to produce offspring, and thus the human species would have gone extinct. Whereas those who would produce offspring would transmit the capacity to love to their offspring. It is a product of natural selection, however spiritual it may seem.quote>

Again, you're trying to argue where science cannot argue.  This is opinion based upon a theory.  It's also a theory which does not, which cannot allow room for supernatural invention.  It can't.  It doesn't omit that because it concludes there is no such thing, it simply cannot observe it through the processes by which it determines and observes things.  Evolution is the 'best' theory we can come up with which cannot include the supernatural.  Until there is a way to scientifically observe the supernatural, you have nothing more than theory, and stating it as truth is opinion, another area where science does not go. 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

I'll tell you a scientific reasoning for the emotion of love -- reproduction. If early humans did not have the capacity to love each other (including one of the opposite sex) they would not have been attracted to each other to produce offspring, and thus the human species would have gone extinct. Whereas those who would produce offspring would transmit the capacity to love to their offspring. It is a product of natural selection, however spiritual it may seem.quote>

Flaw with this idea: with the possible exception of a few higher primates, humans are the only animals that really feel "love". And yet, we are far from being the only animals that reproduce. That's not love, that's instinct.

But in any case, you're confusing words. TwelveToneMusic was speaking about a reasoning behind it, not a reason for it (subtle difference in wording but big difference in meaning).

He was speaking of what it is and how it works, not why it exists.

For that... well, not everything needs a particular reason to exist. Some things are the way they are because that's just how the dice landed.

As for what love is... well, yeah, I'd describe it as an emotion. A complex and sophisticated emotion, certainly, but an emotion nonetheless.

An emotion is what people feel. If, when you love someone, you feel a "spiritual connection" (whatever that means) to them... well, that's still what you feel, and it's still emotional. Nothing supernatural about it.

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic

People need to humble themselves, they need to experience things in the truth, not through someone else's opinion.quote>

And you propose they do this how, exactly? Things which are impossible to quantify, such as people's emotions, cannot be described without opinion.

Evolution is the 'best' theory we can come up with which cannot include the supernatural.  Until there is a way to scientifically observe the supernatural, you have nothing more than theory, and stating it as truth is opinion, another area where science does not go. quote>

It's only stated as truth because it's unopposed. If there were other theories out there, people would talk about them, too. But there aren't.

And no, "intelligent design" doesn't count, seeing as it's unscientific.

[TwelveToneMusic 0]

Lol. Unopposed? Wow. Okay, I'm done with this discussion. A bunch of 'science proves everything' guys who don't know how science even works to explain things, and who say that evolution is unopposed. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while. Right, there's absolutely no opposition to evolution, never has been, because it's so sound and so complete. Too funny.

And intelligent design, non-scientific? Lol. May I recommend a few videos to you... "The Privileged Planet", "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life", and "Icons of Evolution". You may not agree with everything they're arguing, but you'll be a little more informed about the error in your assessment regarding intelligent design as unscientific. There is not a single mention of religious advocation in any of those videos, just straight scientific opposition to scientific theories.

Good luck to you. I don't have time to waste on people who mock others' beliefs while not even understanding where theirs comes from. If this is supposed to be a respectful and intelligent discussion area why bring up FSM or IPU which absolutely mock and degrade any sort of belief other than atheism... WITH links? Typical ego-based behavior, which is why I say that the separation between spiritual and physical is a good thing. People who are led by their egos are the least likely to open themselves up to learning or to spiritual truths and, are the most likely to deny moral obligation and responsibility in their spiritual selves. Egos and the truth don't mix. Egos and humbleness do not mix.

"He who thinks he knows does not yet know as he ought to know."

The person led by their ego never stops to consider the truth in this statement.

Good day to you.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Ah, yes, but if they had knowledge of good and evil beforehand, they would not have been enticed to eat the fruit that gave it to them. Logicially, they would not have had knowledge of good and evil before they obtained it.quote>

Logically...

We're discussing the supernatural here in a logical sense, and NOT including that they were tempted by a fallen angel.  Lol.  Logic would take into consideration that had this not occurred, an event which corrupted the nature of everything, that they might not have been enticed to eat the fruit.  They were deceived by something that was already fallen, and not of the nature they were created in.  quote>

Your scenario creates a logical paradox, the predestination paradox, and thus your logical solution is illogical. That interpretation of the Bible presents even more continuity errors than there are already.

I am aware of that. However, if the fruit did not contain something of the nature the serpent described, then why (in the continuity of the Bible) would God have prescribed such harsh penalties for eating it? That reasoning only makes the Christian God more sadistic.quote>

It doesn't make God sadistic, it makes God holy.  Holiness cannot subject itself to compromise, otherwise it would cease to be holy.  Holiness is without blame.  God was not to blame in this case, we were.  For God to 'let it slide' would be in conflict with the nature of His holiness.quote>

Well, first of all I do not believe that anything is "sacred" or "holy", or whatever you wish to call it. Also, your answer sidesteps the original point -- why would God have prescribed such harsh penalties for eating a fruit that was no more dangerous than any of the others (assuming everything the Serpent said was a lie), without being a sadist in the first place.

It may be "holy" of him to carry out his promises, but why did he give the order originally? That is what I want you to answer.

This doesn't prove anything.  And you can't disprove the existence of a spiritual connection through a scientific argument anyway (one of its greatest limitations), and in fact it is contradictory TO the nature of science to argue the non-, or existence of supernatural things from this viewpoint.  You can never backup a position on spirituality with a scientific reason because science will never address this, and for the same reason I cannot also support the existence of a spiritual existence with a scientific explanation, and I for one am glad the separation exists, it needs to.  People need to humble themselves, they need to experience things in the truth, not through someone else's opinion.

quote>

First of all, I do not believe that the quote you responded to in that paragraph was an actual scientific argument. Nevertheless, I will respond to it.

And you can't disprove the existence of a spiritual connection through a scientific argument anywayquote>

That is true. However, can you scientifically validate the existence of a deity or spirits or a spiritual connection? It is irrelevant to science if it cannot be proven or disproven.

in fact it is contradictory TO the nature of science to argue the non-, or existence of supernatural things from this viewpoint.quote>

No, it is not. You could say, for instance, that one of the Norse gods creates lightning at random. If this is true, then lightning should show up at random parts of the world, unconnected to any other phonomena. Since it is always and consistently connected to electrically charged clouds, that disproves the idea that a Norse god causes lightning at random.

The only thing that is contradictory to the nature of science (in this context) is to try to put forth untestable hypotheses and masquerade them as science.

for the same reason I cannot also support the existence of a spiritual existence with a scientific explanation, and I for one am glad the separation exists, it needs to.  People need to humble themselves, they need to experience things in the truth, not through someone else's opinion.quote>

First of all, if you wish it to be accepted by science you better have a way of testing whether or not there is a spiritual existence (which I have no idea how you would do this).

Secondly, I believe that empirical evidence is a better judge of the truth than blind faith. Which is better anywhere? Subjective or Objective findings? The answer is obvious to me.

I'll tell you a scientific reasoning for the emotion of love -- reproduction. If early humans did not have the capacity to love each other (including one of the opposite sex) they would not have been attracted to each other to produce offspring, and thus the human species would have gone extinct. Whereas those who would produce offspring would transmit the capacity to love to their offspring. It is a product of natural selection, however spiritual it may seem.quote>

...This is opinion based upon a theory.quote>

No, that opinion is based upon an observed fact -- natural selection. Natural selection has been observed in every species that has been observed, even indirectly in humans, so natural selection acts upon humans just as it does upon all organisms.

The theory that you mention is the Theory of Evolution, which is based upon these facts. 

It's also a theory which does not, which cannot allow room for supernatural invention.  It can't.quote>

Well, if there is a supernatural entity that exists, then it would certainly be within its power to alter or change the course of evolution. This is detectable, however it cannot be determined if it was natural or supernatural. The point is that Evolution does not disallow supernatural invention, but it is not required for its functioning.

Evolution is the 'best' theory we can come up with which cannot include the supernatural.  Until there is a way to scientifically observe the supernatural, you have nothing more than theoryquote>

No, if there is a way to observe the supernatural, then it would be possible (at least logically) of constructing a theory of its operation. And theory has evidence behind it to back it up, so it is not just slightly better than nothing.

Evolution is also the best theory we have based on the evidence observed.

stating it as truth is opinion, another area where science does not go.quote>

The only truth is fact, and I based that opinion on a fact, natural selection, thus the opinion is based on a true phonomenon, but may not be true itself.

As for what love is... well, yeah, I'd describe it as an emotion. A complex and sophisticated emotion, certainly, but an emotion nonetheless.

An emotion is what people feel. If, when you love someone, you feel a "spiritual connection" (whatever that means) to them... well, that's still what you feel, and it's still emotional. Nothing supernatural about it.quote>

Ah, a good and concise explanation of my point.

Lol. Unopposed? Wow. Okay, I'm done with this discussion. A bunch of 'science proves everything' guys who don't know how science even works to explain things, and who say that evolution is unopposed. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while.quote>

The scientific method can be used to prove or disprove anything as long as it is specific enough to be proven or disproven. And I would like to hear from you how you think science works.

Evolution is not unopposed -- just look at Creationism. It there was no Creationists trying to replace science with blind faith then this thread would not be here. Why Duke said Evolution was unopposed was meaning that there is no competing idea with evidence to back it up, like Evolution.

And intelligent design, non-scientific? Lol. May I recommend a few videos to you... "The Privileged Planet", "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life", and "Icons of Evolution". You may not agree with everything they're arguing, but you'll be a little more informed about the error in your assessment regarding intelligent design as unscientific. There is not a single mention of religious advocation in any of those videos, just straight scientific opposition to scientific theories. quote>

Are you not uninformed as to how references to Creationism were systematically replaced with intelligent design in Of Pandas and People? Intelligent Design is simply a rebranding of Creationism.

And Intelligent Design is not scientific, because it is not testable, and there is no evidence to back it up like Evolution has. As I said before, an untestable hypothesis is not scientific, as it is irrelevant to Science.

While I do concede that sapient alien life-forms could influence Evolution on a planet, there is no such evidence on Earth, therefore it probably did not happen. If an intelligent creator designed every life-form on Earth and deposited them on it at some geological instance, then there would be all present life-forms at one layer of rock, with the same ones repeating all the way to the top. That is not what has been observed.

I don't have time to waste on people who mock others' beliefs while not even understanding where theirs comes from. quote>

That is fine with me. However, I will gladly state what facts my beliefs are based on, if you wish.

If this is supposed to be a respectful and intelligent discussion area why bring up FSM or IPU which absolutely mock and degrade any sort of belief other than atheism... WITH links? quote>

This is supposed to be a civil discussion area (which includes basic respect). There is no guarantee of intelligence, as enforcement of this would be subjectivist draconianism.

Also, the FSM and IPU are designed to degrade illogic, not necessarily theism.

People who are led by their egos are the least likely to open themselves up to learning or to spiritual truthsquote>

I agree about the learning part, otherwise I disagree. They (atheists, atheistic agonostics) do not believe in a spiritual component of themselves based upon blind faith and illogic. 

and, are the most likely to deny moral obligation and responsibility in their spiritual selves.quote>

Atheists, at least anecdotally, often do more that Christians approve of than the Christians do themselves. They do not believe that they have a supernatural moral responsibility punishable by eternal punishment, and they have many moral beliefs.

Egos and the truth don't mix. quote>

If the ego acknowledges the facts (truth) then ego and truth can, but sometimes does not, mix.

Egos and humbleness do not mix.quote>

It is a spectrum, with the two things you mentioned at opposite ends.

Good day to you.quote>

I plan on having a good day. There's nothing like posting a response to supernatural arguments at 3:30 in the morning. I hope you have a good day as well.

Flaw with this idea: with the possible exception of a few higher primates, humans are the only animals that really feel "love". And yet, we are far from being the only animals that reproduce. That's not love, that's instinct.quote>

 

Hmm, that is a flaw. However, I posted it as a possible reason for it. As you pointed out, it could be due to the "roll of the dice" or it could be natural selection. Human children (naturally, not in modern societies) would have spent about 10-15 years with their parents. That is a longer time than any other animal, so that may have been a force that made love a positive, selection wise.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

It's only stated as truth because it's unopposed. If there were other theories out there, people would talk about them, too. But there aren't.

And no, "intelligent design" doesn't count, seeing as it's unscientific.quote>

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic

Lol. Unopposed? Wow. Okay, I'm done with this discussion. A bunch of 'science proves everything' guys who don't know how science even works to explain things, and who say that evolution is unopposed. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while. Right, there's absolutely no opposition to evolution, never has been, because it's so sound and so complete. Too funny.quote>

 

Okay, I'm going to take a shot at what I think Duke meant.   If I'm off the mark here, Duke, please say so.    Duke said:

If there were other theories out there, people would talk about them, too. quote>

His statement would have been clearer had he said:

If there were other scientific theories out there, people would talk about them, too. quote>

However, his statement, as written, still expresses what he meant to say because theories can be scientific;  beliefs can not.   Evolution is a theory.  Creationism is a belief.

 

How's that, Duke?

 

 

[TwelveToneMusic 0]

That interpretation of the Bible presents even more continuity errors than there are already.quote>

Someone who doesn't believe in holiness thinks they understand how to interpret the bible. 

Well, first of all I do not believe that anything is "sacred" or "holy", or whatever you wish to call it. Also, your answer sidesteps the original point -- why would God have prescribed such harsh penalties for eating a fruit that was no more dangerous than any of the others (assuming everything the Serpent said was a lie), without being a sadist in the first place.quote>

No, it addresses the situation firsthand.  Before Adam and Eve, there was no sin on earth.  They could eat other fruit because it was not deemed sinful to do so.  They ate the fruit which was deemed sinful, and therefore were subject to the consequences of their actions, which were weighed against  righteousness and holiness.  They corrupted the nature of everything.  You act as if this was a small thing which happened.  You also act as if the bible does not say that all sin is punishable by death, it does.  For someone who doesn't believe in holiness, I'm sure you have a problem with this. 

It may be "holy" of him to carry out his promises, but why did he give the order originally? That is what I want you to answer.quote>

What order did he give?  Carry out his promises?  It wasn't about carrying out promises as much as judging with absolute truth, no compromises.  This isn't court where jurors have to decide what they believe about OJ based on the evidence they have.  God has all the evidence, and he judged in holiness.  Promises had nothing to do with it.

That is true. However, can you scientifically validate the existence of a deity or spirits or a spiritual connection? It is irrelevant to science if it cannot be proven or disproven.quote>

I said this very thing, which is an incredibly limiting aspect of a view of life based upon scientific observation alone if in fact there are spiritual things that exist.  It is not irrelevant to science because they do not exist, it is simply too limited to observe them.

First of all, if you wish it to be accepted by science...quote>

You make it sound like a club, where all the people who know everything get to hang out.  Let me respond by saying that if you are ever going to be able to experience the unadulterated truth, you have to be willing to the possibility that there is much more to the truth than scientific matters.  

Secondly, I believe that empirical evidence is a better judge of the truth than blind faith. Which is better anywhere? Subjective or Objective findings? The answer is obvious to me.quote>

It's about time we got to the cliche 'blind faith'.  Most people make this assumption based on their outside look at Christianity, which is corrupted.  For one, there should be no denominations, no separation in the church.  Second, there are radicals.  People who claim Christianity and act out of violence, sexual immorality, extreme behavior, etc. are not representing the truth of what Christianity is.  They are representing the truth of their own weaknesses and struggles, which in fact IS part of what it's about, coming to God in your weaknesses.  But ultimately the bible never teaches hate, sexual immorality, etc.  Those things come out of people's OWN beings, and their own personal struggles with morality. 

But blind faith?  A person who makes this statement has never seen the testable side of Christianity.  You can test it like any other science, but that will never happen if you do not open a bible and read what it is about, and I don't mean picking out verses you don't like here and there, and stopping there to form an uneducated opinion.  You can't test any scientific data on a subject without testing all matters pertaining to the true understanding of it.  Christianity is no different.  Read the whole of what the bible says, what it says about God, about the character of god, and observe the countless repeated test results: radically changed lives, opened eyes.  These things occur from within oneself if they are true, not from some 'beating down' of personal ideas in a church.  For one, those who believe in the bible's teachings will not stand for that because it is in conflict of what it says.  If it is being allowed, the truth is being oppressed, not taught.

Does it say that people won't fail?  Never.  It says the contrary.  Just because some preacher commits a shameful sin, or any other believer does, that does nothing to affect the truth of who God is and the nature of what the bible says.  Its like saying that because a prominent scientist taught something inappropriate, out of his own intentions, not that of science, or thus behaved inappropriately, that science itself is wrong or inaccurate.   You wouldn't intelligently assess the validity of science through an outside perspective such as this.  Yet, this is what people base their views of Christianity on every day. 

Intelligent Design is simply a rebranding of Creationism.quote>

Intelligent design is a a postulation based upon scientific observation, in and of itself.  If someone corrupts that, sorry.  Creationism and Intelligent Design are radically different.  Creationism is commonly associated with the biblical teaching of creation, Intelligent Design is not a Christian belief.  Many non-believers subscribe to Intelligent Design and not Creationism.  

What you said about "Of Pandas and People"... a perfect example of discarding the truth of something by wrapping it up in a tangential matter for convenience.   That was one book, by two authors Davis, and Kenyon.  If they corrupted their book by imposing their personal views, so be it.  They don't embody the theory of Intelligent Design or change the fact that it is based on science just because they acted the way they did.  

And Intelligent Design is not scientific, because it is not testable, and there is no evidence to back it up like Evolution has. As I said before, an untestable hypothesis is not scientific, as it is irrelevant to Science.quote>

Watch the 3 videos I suggested.  There are NO religious references in those movies.  NOT ONE.  3 DVDs of scientific evidence, with questions associated with them.  You are incorrect in believing that Intelligent Design does not base itself upon scientific information. 

Atheists, at least anecdotally, often do more that Christians approve of than the Christians do themselves. They do not believe that they have a supernatural moral responsibility punishable by eternal punishment, and they have many moral beliefs.quote>

A classic example of ignorance about what it teaches.  Christians do not believe that they will receive eternal punishment for not upholding supernatural moral responsibility.  The bible does not teach this.   The bible NEVER says that you go to heaven based on 'being good'.  Never.

[fukuda 351]

guys who don't know how science even works to explain thingsquote>

Of course we don't 

Lol. May I recommend a few videos to you... "The Privileged Planet", "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life", and "Icons of Evolution". You may not agree with everything they're arguing, but you'll be a little more informed about the error in your assessment regarding intelligent design as unscientific.quote>

Sorry, but I don't want crappy videos. I want peer-reviewed scientific books and articles that I could find in my faculty library. You can find whatever possible without any background in the net.

why bring up FSM or IPU which absolutely mock and degrade any sort of belief other than atheism...quote>

Oh, I use the SubGenius for that task, they are more... literal

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[TwelveToneMusic 0]

Who do you think you are that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?quote>

I never said it was complete, but I have studied many biblical scholars and theologians. This isn't crap I just made up to make it up. It comes from studying the minds of great thinkers who have met these tough questions face to face.

I would also comment that I do have a problem with the idea of all sin being punishable by death... that is quite an awful concept and hardly something I would associate with holiness.quote>

That's because you have an incorrect understanding of what holiness is. I suggest you read some R.C. Sproul.

ID is not based on scientific observation if the final result says "some things are just too complex to have developed on their own, so there must be a primal cause". That is opinion, not fact and not testable.quote>

Now THIS is hilarious. Science never does this, right? What about dark matter? Lol.

You mean I should just accept the implausible beliefs of a person because they read it in a book written by a bunch of old men who had a very limited view of the world, disregarding all the other implausible beliefs of other religions that also have ideas of their own about the world and the supernatural?

quote>

Your understanding of the bible is clearly skewed. A bunch of old men... lol. Again, you're speaking in typical generalized misconception based on lack of information, yet like always you claim to know things about which you propose false assumptions. Old men... consider that the first Christian church was started in reaction to the reappearance of Jesus, at a time when saying that you followed him was an offense punishable by death. Yet for some unknown reason ordinary people suddenly became radical advocates of the religion, with all of the disciples suffering deaths of intense torture after boldly setting out and preaching in dangerous cities, etc., Paul even asking to be crucified upside down, not worthy of the same death as his master. That means nothing to you, right? This is historical.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

How's that, Duke? quote>

Yeah, that's it.

I think I was just being a bit too nerdy and not thinking of general audiences there.

In my mind, saying "scientific theory" is like saying "wet water". Completely redundant. If it's not scientific, it's not really a "theory".

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic

And intelligent design, non-scientific? Lol. May I recommend a few videos to you... "The Privileged Planet", "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life", and "Icons of Evolution". quote>

Think that's funny, eh?

Well, let me recommend the National Center for Science Education's take on the matter to you.

If scientists with Ph.Ds say it's not scientific, than it's not scientific.

Or, in a bit of an alternate way:

Followers of science don't go around telling followers of religion what is or isn't religious. We aren't experts on the matter and can't claim to be able to make an informed judgment on such things.

Similarly, followers of relgion are not experts on science and can't claim to be able to make an informed judgment as to what is or isn't scientific. Why then, do so many of them insist on trying to go around telling followers of science what is or isn't scientific?

I'll leave the answer to that question up to the reader to think about.

You may not agree with everything they're arguing, but you'll be a little more informed about the error in your assessment regarding intelligent design as unscientific. There is not a single mention of religious advocation in any of those videos, just straight scientific opposition to scientific theories.quote>

Except that it's not just my assessment. It's the assessment of every freaking scientist on the face of the Earth.

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic

You make it sound like a club, where all the people who know everything get to hang out.quote>

And you'd rather it be the case that the views of uneducated an uniformed people are given equal weight to those of experts on the subject?

Let me respond by saying that if you are ever going to be able to experience the unadulterated truth, you have to be willing to the possibility that there is much more to the truth than scientific matters. quote>

And that's just fine and dandy, but it doesn't mean we can go and start taking things which are beyond science and mixing them in with it. If it's beyond science, it's beyond science... and has no place in science or scientific matters.

But blind faith?  A person who makes this statement has never seen the testable side of Christianity. You can test it like any other science,quote>

*anime fall on the floor*

Christianity. Testable. Yeah. First it's beyond science, and now all of a sudden it's scientifically testable? Which is it?

but that will never happen if you do not open a bible and read what it is about, and I don't mean picking out verses you don't like here and there, and stopping there to form an uneducated opinion. quote>

Believe it or not, I have studied the Bible in the past. I see a book full of stories which are meant to have a sort of moral to them, to be used as a guide for life. And that's all well and good, but the whole "god" thing is very hard to swallow. The Bible isn't a bad book, but you really have to look at it as a work of fiction/historical fiction - take it figuratively, not literally. There are some great stories in there, but they are just stories, not actual accounts of history. It's the message that you need to look at, not the exact wording.

And, most importantly, you have to be willing to disagree with it. Because if you automatically treat it as the infallible word of god, then you're introducing a bias to it and, guess what, that isn't looking at it even objectively, let alone scientifically.

You can't test any scientific data on a subject without testing all matters pertaining to the true understanding of it.quote>

This is true.

Christianity is no different.  Read the whole of what the bible says, what it says about God, about the character of god, and observe the countless repeated test results: radically changed lives, opened eyes. quote>

But herein lies the problem: those are not scientific results at all. They're circumstantial evidence at best. Has anyone ever attempted a study where they took two groups of random people, had one group pray to god regularly and the other act as though god didn't exist, and compare how well they fared? I doubt it, since it would be very hard to quantify and measure such things, making objective results near impossible to come by.

Besides, there's this thing called the placebo effect. You pray to got for strength to get through something, and you find the strength to get through it not because some almighty god granted it to you but because you expected to get it.

Religion can have deep psychological impacts on people, but that doesn't mean that there's necessarily anything divine about it.

And in my experience religion taken in too large a dose tends to close eyes, not open them.

It's a powerful force, and it takes an exceptionally wise, strong-willed, and dare I say "enlightened" person to practice it devoutly without having it consume them and take them over.

Intelligent design is a a postulation based upon scientific observation, in and of itself. If someone corrupts that, sorry. quote>

Based on observation, sure. But scientific? Ehhhh.... no.

For one thing, scientific theories are arived at by considering evidence and searching for an explanation for it to draw a conclusion with. Intelligent Design came about by starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence to support it. Science doesn't work that way, that's not objective.

Really, what it boils down to is this: many devout Christians wanted creationism to be taught alongside evolution in schools as an equally scientifically valid idea, but got denied because creationism is unscientific. So, they cooked up this "Intelligent Design" thing to try and disguise it as something scientific. It's a Trojan Horse to force Christian views on kids and brainwash them into growing up to be proper puppets of the church educate them to be good Christians to save their souls.

If someone consideres the idea in a different context, they're decorrupting it.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are radically different.  Creationism is commonly associated with the biblical teaching of creation, Intelligent Design is not a Christian belief. quote>

Creationism isn't a strictly Christian belief, either. Pretty much every religion, large and small, has its own story of how Earth and everything on it came to be, most involve some sort of divine creation. People just tend to focus on the Christian version since Christianity is the most common religion in our part of the world.

Many non-believers subscribe to Intelligent Design and not Creationism. quote>

"Non-believers" in what sense, though? Non-Christians? Yeah, see above. Areligious people? Most would beg to differ with the idea of "Intelligent Design", I assure you.

Christians do not believe that they will receive eternal punishment for not upholding supernatural moral responsibility.  The bible does not teach this.   The bible NEVER says that you go to heaven based on 'being good'.  Never.quote>

Well, that depends on the Christian, I daresay. Some believe in predestination. Others believe admission to paradise is through faith and belief in Jesus. Others believe it is through good deeds. Still others beieve it's through a combination of those last two.

A lot of things are very subject to personal opinion and can have many different interpretations.

I may have said this here before, so forgive me if I'm repeating myself, but...

Religion is like a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. There's no wrong way to eat it.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic

Your understanding of the bible is clearly skewed. A bunch of old men... lol. Again, you're speaking in typical generalized misconception based on lack of information, yet like always you claim to know things about which you propose false assumptions.quote>

Claiming to know things without having evidence you say?

Old men... consider that the first Christian church was started in reaction to the reappearance of Jesus,  at a time when saying that you followed him was an offense punishable by death.quote>

No, that is severly overstating the reaction to the early Christian movements. There were certainly sporadic persecutions until Constantine became emperor, but not like you describe.

 

Yet for some unknown reason ordinary people suddenly became radical advocates of the religion,quote>

What do you mean unknown reason? Religious cults and movements were all over the place in antiquity, certainly not exclusive to early Christian followers.

with all of the disciples suffering deaths of intense torture after boldly setting out and preaching in dangerous cities, etc., Paul even asking to be crucified upside down, not worthy of the same death as his master. That means nothing to you, right?quote>

According to tradition. Stories about saint's lives tend to be in line with the Hollywood school of writing when it comes to sticking to the facts: they make for great stories, but lousy documentaries.

Peter was the one who was crucified upside down (which is why the inverted cross in Catholic tradition is called Peter's cross), Paul was supposedly beheaded.

This is historical.quote>

A whole lot of it is legend and tradition. It's hardly set in stone historical.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic

Who do you think you are that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?quote>

I never said it was complete, but I have studied many biblical scholars and theologians. This isn't crap I just made up to make it up. It comes from studying the minds of great thinkers who have met these tough questions face to face.quote>

Well, then.  Now we have it.  If your interpretation of the Bible is incomplete, then it is in your best interest to not post.  I thought you were done with this discussion anyway?  Was that a lie?  Uh oh, you sinned... Guess what that means...quote>

Or he could have changed his mind.  Either way, that comment can be taken as petty arrogance.

Interesting.  So you actually think that a thief deserves death for stealing a Milky Way bar at the local convenience store?  An adulterer, as sleazy as they are, should be killed?  This says quite a lot about your psychology and your value for human life.quote>

He's free to correct me if he wants, but I don't think that's what he meant.  I think it has something to do with a second way of looking at the nature of sin.

Scratch that, he posted his explanation.

[Blazerhawk 162]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic

And intelligent design, non-scientific? Lol. May I recommend a few videos to you... "The Privileged Planet", "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life", and "Icons of Evolution". quote>

Think that's funny, eh?

Well, let me recommend the National Center for Science Education's take on the matter to you.

If scientists with Ph.Ds say it's not scientific, than it's not scientific.quote>

Whoa, hold that thought just a minute.  That statement is very absloute and should not be used that way. That type of thinking entails the idea that if the Ph.Ds of the world said that jumping from an airplane at altitude without a parachute you won't die, then that becomes true. 

Originally posted by: Duke87

Or, in a bit of an alternate way:

Followers of science don't go around telling followers of religion what is or isn't religious. We aren't experts on the matter and can't claim to be able to make an informed judgment on such things.

Similarly, followers of relgion are not experts on science and can't claim to be able to make an informed judgment as to what is or isn't scientific. Why then, do so many of them insist on trying to go around telling followers of science what is or isn't scientific?

I'll leave the answer to that question up to the reader to think about. quote>

Are you then suggesting that all religious people remove themselves to... I don't know... Tibet ... because religious people don't accept some parts of science and cannot advance science? There exists the possibility of being an expert in two fields at once.

Originally posted by: Duke87

You may not agree with everything they're arguing, but you'll be a little more informed about the error in your assessment regarding intelligent design as unscientific. There is not a single mention of religious advocation in any of those videos, just straight scientific opposition to scientific theories.quote>

Except that it's not just my assessment. It's the assessment of every freaking scientist on the face of the Earth.quote>

Wrong. The Instiute for Creation Research is one organization of guys with Ph.Ds in science that try to find proof of creation.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: TwelveToneMusic

You make it sound like a club, where all the people who know everything get to hang out.quote>

And you'd rather it be the case that the views of uneducated an uniformed people are given equal weight to those of experts on the subject?quote>

Watch it. That is almost as bad as calling all religious people uninformed. You can't just disregard the existence of an idea because experts disagree with it. After all, the experts said that the Titanic was unsinkable. 

Originally posted by: Duke87

Let me respond by saying that if you are ever going to be able to experience the unadulterated truth, you have to be willing to the possibility that there is much more to the truth than scientific matters. quote>

And that's just fine and dandy, but it doesn't mean we can go and start taking things which are beyond science and mixing them in with it. If it's beyond science, it's beyond science... and has no place in science or scientific matters.quote>

Agreed. The ideas are not both scientific. Though since no one can prove how the universe came about, and the universe must exist before life within it, then in my book both are unscientific since evolution completely lacks any "point of origin" or "universe starting" idea.

Originally posted by: Duke87

but that will never happen if you do not open a bible and read what it is about, and I don't mean picking out verses you don't like here and there, and stopping there to form an uneducated opinion. quote>

Believe it or not, I have studied the Bible in the past. I see a book full of stories which are meant to have a sort of moral to them, to be used as a guide for life. And that's all well and good, but the whole "god" thing is very hard to swallow. The Bible isn't a bad book, but you really have to look at it as a work of fiction/historical fiction - take it figuratively, not literally. There are some great stories in there, but they are just stories, not actual accounts of history. It's the message that you need to look at, not the exact wording.

And, most importantly, you have to be willing to disagree with it. Because if you automatically treat it as the infallible word of god, then you're introducing a bias to it and, guess what, that isn't looking at it even objectively, let alone scientifically. quote>

1) Muslims (I think) actually claim Abraham as the father of their nations.

2) There are some scientific principles in the Bible that weren't scientifically discovered until centuries later.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Christianity is no different.  Read the whole of what the bible says, what it says about God, about the character of god, and observe the countless repeated test results: radically changed lives, opened eyes. quote>

But herein lies the problem: those are not scientific results at all. They're circumstantial evidence at best. Has anyone ever attempted a study where they took two groups of random people, had one group pray to god regularly and the other act as though god didn't exist, and compare how well they fared? I doubt it, since it would be very hard to quantify and measure such things, making objective results near impossible to come by.quote>

Actually a study was done of two men's descendants. One of the men was Dwight L. Moody, a well known preacher of the 1800s. The other man was a fairly famous contemporary of Moody's, but he was a criminal. Of Moody's descendants about 300 were involved in some area of work that one would consider "good" (missionary, doctor, teacher, etc.). Of the criminal's descendants (I don't know the name of the criminal), about  100 had spent time in jail.

 

Originally posted by: Duke87

Besides, there's this thing called the placebo effect. You pray to got for strength to get through something, and you find the strength to get through it not because some almighty god granted it to you but because you expected to get it.

Religion can have deep psychological impacts on people, but that doesn't mean that there's necessarily anything divine about it.

And in my experience religion taken in too large a dose tends to close eyes, not open them.

It's a powerful force, and it takes an exceptionally wise, strong-willed, and dare I say "enlightened" person to practice it devoutly without having it consume them and take them over.quote>

And does evolution not tend to close people's eyes toward religious matters?

[TwelveToneMusic 0]

Christianity. Testable. Yeah. First it's beyond science, and now all of a sudden it's scientifically testable? Which is it? quote>

Testable as in questioning its validity, testing that validity through true faith, and seeing results i.e. countless changed lives.

Well, that depends on the Christian, I daresay. Some believe in predestination. Others believe admission to paradise is through faith and belief in Jesus. Others believe it is through good deeds. Still others beieve it's through a combination of those last two.quote>

It might vary from person to person, but the bible clearly states one way that you get into heaven, which is not by works.

If your interpretation of the Bible is incomplete, then it is in your best interest to not post.quote>

Coming from someone with an incomplete understanding of all that science knows. I guess you shouldn't be here either.

Interesting. So you actually think that a thief deserves death for stealing a Milky Way bar at the local convenience store? An adulterer, as sleazy as they are, should be killed? This says quite a lot about your psychology and your value for human life.quote>

I believe that all sin is punishable by death, and the fact that we're all sinners, and the fact that Jesus took the punishment for all that we deserve is proof that God is not malicious, proof that he demonstrated what the meaning of love is, without compromising his holiness. If someone steals a Milky Way, do I think they should be shot on site, no. There's a difference. For one I don't decide judgment for sin, God does, and two he already has, and three I can't 'cast the first stone' in that respect. You've lowered yourself to cheap shots now.

Like always? Fact is, you do not know me, nor do you know anything about me, so do not make assumptions, okay? Good, let's get that out of the way immediately.

quote>

And you also do not know me, yet you seem to be able to weigh how I value human life. I mean 'you' as in you are behaving and responding in the typical way that most people do to this situation who believe Christianity is a waste of time. You have no true desire to truthfully understand the Christian belief and make an honest decision about it. What you have to say about it is always cast with some sort of sarcasm and mockery.

Such as this, not about Christianity specifically per se, but nonetheless

That does not mean we automatically say "ugh, it is too complex... must be that god-thingy".

quote>

For one, this isn't addressing the situation. That's not what ID says. This is just a sarcastic statement that says you don't agree with them. It's not a real description of ID. What ID says is similar, but is not the result of being confounded by complexity. The complexity issue is brought up in direct correlation with the organizational and informational structures in life, which it states are too complex for *natural selection* to derive. It states that life is too complex for natural selection to have gotten us here. ID does not say that they simply can't understand the complexity. There are equally gifted scientific minds working with ID as with evolution.

And if you want to think Freud set things in stone go right ahead.

[Meg 368]

okay, let's all . . .

-  take a time out

-  take a breath, and

-  remember the goal is to discuss the issues not each other.