atheism doubled since 2001
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#417 Jan 1, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Virtually all modern scientists in the biological field and closely related fields that have to do with evolution, ACCEPT evolution basically as Darwin laid it out, i.e. descent with gene modification (through mutation, genetic drift and sexual recombination) PLUS the filtering action of natural selection.
This idea has become the backbone of all the modern life sciences for the past 150 years.
There is no doubt among scientists (who are not Christian evangelicals wanting to work a religious agenda here) that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.
There have always been disputes and discussion with the walls of science about the various MECHANISMS of evolution, i.e. HOW it takes place. Is it all gradual, slow development? Or does it go by fits and starts depending on the environment (i.e. pressure from asteroid or volcanic catastrophes, etc.)?
Or is it a combination of both the above? That is the general consensus among scientists.
What Christians trying to work an agenda here have done over the years (starting with the Jehovah's Witnesses) is creatively cut and snip quotes from scientific papers and books that make it SEEM as if established evolutionary scientists don't actually "believe in evolution" at all. Or that they really reject it.
Very dishonest on the part of these religious folks. They do not cover themselves with glory on this score.

And why should the religion they profess be believed or given any credence at all if they cannot even understand the science they oppose or be bothered to get it right -- or worse yet, deliberately misrepresent it?
1. It sounds to me as if you're mainly referring to "non-scientist creationists", as opposed to actual 'scientists'. To claim that "Creation scientists" are deliberately misrepresenting themselves is no different than me claiming a "conspiracy theory" that evolution scientists are out to deceive everyone. Whoever you're getting this info from is merely projecting propaganda.

Your average American probably does 'not' receive most of their info on evolution from scientists, but from general media.

What science (collectively) is doing now is not working in America. We (the U.S.) fall to number 17 as far as nations academically in the study of science. And it's not because of 'Creationism'(that little monkey trial didn't happen yesterday). More than likely, it's due to a lack of interest as opposed to lack of intellect. It's very obvious that many Americans embrace evolution because it's the thing to believe. Let the big dogs do the research for them.

When people are intimidated into believing evolution, there's a serious problem. All I have to do is tell 'you' I believe in evolution (macro), and unless I tell you 1 + 2 = 5, I'll be intellectually 'okay' in your book.

As an example, I didn't see this myself, but I heard about a stand-up comic actually say on stage (paraphrasing) "How can those religious folk (or nuts) not believe in evolution (or young earth)? We have "carbon dating" that proves how old the earth is". And as far as I know, everyone 'laughed'(with him, not at him). If referred to comedian said this in a club within a 40 mile radius of a university (as is fairly common), he should have been arrested by the university police, taken to that nearest university, and flogged in the science department synagogue.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that 'evolution' is 'fact'. Maybe it's time to put away egomaniacal comments like "creation science is not science", " creationists are morons", etc., and bring both to the educational table and let people decide for themselves. Maybe this 'monopoly' has allowed for lackluster interest in science, to where people just assume evo is fact....

continued....
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#419 Jan 1, 2013
continued....

Maybe evo 'needs' creationism. Rather than try to eliminate it, maybe it needs to embrace it. I think it's time for the evos to get a grip, realize that they can't 'undo' hundreds of years of Biblical teaching; and since they can't prove that God doesn't exist, they really can't prove that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. Maybe it's time to drop 'ego', and allow for 'both' to be placed on the educational table.

As I said, people are intimidated into believing evolution. And when that happens, we shouldn't expect science academics to rise. I can give you an example.

I heard a creationist debate on a non-creationist. Both of them were 'not' professional scientists. The 'creationist'(the one who held a view of creationism) knew more about science than the non-creationist. She laughed at the creationist when he said he believed in a young earth. But when the creationist called her on it, she couldn't respond. Her fall back was (paraphrasing), "I wish an evolutionist was here who could properly answer you". It reminded me of a kid saying, "if my big brother was here, he would beat you up".

And this, I would say, represents the average American 'evo', who merely stands behind the big dogs of evolution theory.

If this continues on, your average evo is going to get stunned when confronting a 'real' scientist who believes in Creationism. And can only get reassurance when going back to the words of an evo 'scientist' to give them their comfort zone back.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#420 Jan 1, 2013
Job wrote:
Maybe evo 'needs' creationism. Rather than try to eliminate it, maybe it needs to embrace it. I think it's time for the evos to get a grip, realize that they can't 'undo' hundreds of years of Biblical teaching; and since they can't prove that God doesn't exist, they really can't prove that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. Maybe it's time to drop 'ego', and allow for 'both' to be placed on the educational table.
As I said, people are intimidated into believing evolution. And when that happens, we shouldn't expect science academics to rise. I can give you an example.
You continue to ignore the fact that science is not based on “belief”. Science is based on evidence. When Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection there was an uproar in the scientific community (scientists require evidence not “divine proclamations”). However as Thomas Dixon “member of the International Society for Science and Religion said…

“By the end of the 19th century, there was no serious scientific opposition to the basic evolutionary tenets of descent with modification and the common ancestry of all forms of life.”

The evidence supporting Darwin's theory was forthcoming and overwhelming. Darwin never asked anyone to “believe” his theory on the basis of a divine revelation or that read about it in a “holy book”. Darwin's theory was accepted on the basis of evidence.

The National Academy of Sciences says…

"...Scientific creationism," "intelligent design," and other terms have been offered as alternative explanations for past and present biological processes… They ignore the empirical data around us and fail to provide a testable hypothesis.”

The only thing “creation scientists” do is criticize the vast amount of empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection. They provide no empirical evidence to support their conclusions, just as the religous people of Galileo's day critcized his conclusions but while providing no evidence (other than the bible)to support theirs. The truth of the matter is as the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology puts it…

"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time..."

unequivocally - allowing for no doubt or misinterpretation
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#421 Jan 2, 2013
Bollocks.

Since gravitation is also "only" a Theory, why don't you and the other time wasters just float the f**k off?
Job wrote:
continued....
Maybe evo 'needs' creationism.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#422 Jan 2, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
"believe in evolution" at all. Or that they really reject it.
Very dishonest on the part of these religious folks. They do not cover themselves with glory on this score. And why should the religion they profess be believed or given any credence at all if they cannot even understand the science they oppose or be bothered to get it right -- or worse yet, deliberately misrepresent it?
Quite frankly, we have this same problem of 'honest' when it comes to evo scientists. If they can't be completely honest, why should I give 'them' credence?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#423 Jan 2, 2013
The scientific method.
Science, unlike religion, is continually peer reviewed.
Science, unlike religion, is not scared to question itself.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite frankly, we have this same problem of 'honest' when it comes to evo scientists. If they can't be completely honest, why should I give 'them' credence?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#424 Jan 2, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to ignore the fact that science is not based on “belief”. Science is based on evidence. When Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection there was an uproar in the scientific community (scientists require evidence not “divine proclamations”). However as Thomas Dixon “member of the International Society for Science and Religion said…
“By the end of the 19th century, there was no serious scientific opposition to the basic evolutionary tenets of descent with modification and the common ancestry of all forms of life.”
The evidence supporting Darwin's theory was forthcoming and overwhelming. Darwin never asked anyone to “believe” his theory on the basis of a divine revelation or that read about it in a “holy book”. Darwin's theory was accepted on the basis of evidence.
The National Academy of Sciences says…
"...Scientific creationism," "intelligent design," and other terms have been offered as alternative explanations for past and present biological processes… They ignore the empirical data around us and fail to provide a testable hypothesis.”
The only thing “creation scientists” do is criticize the vast amount of empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection. They provide no empirical evidence to support their conclusions, just as the religous people of Galileo's day critcized his conclusions but while providing no evidence (other than the bible)to support theirs. The truth of the matter is as the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology puts it…
"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time..."
unequivocally - allowing for no doubt or misinterpretation
Science may theoretically not be based on belief, but that doesn't mean it (belief) is not practiced among evolutionary scientists.

As I mentioned earlier, not all creation scientists embraced creationism 'because' of scriptural belief. There are those that embraced creationism because as scientists, they had a problem with the theory of evolution.

Now it's true that as they've thus considered creation over evolution (I'm speculating here) they then 'matched' scientific possibilities with scripture, and found Genesis to be a 'viable' rendition of our beginning. So yes, in that sense 'belief' steps in. But that in itself does not disqualify 'Genesis' as being an accurate account of our creation.

Even if evolutionary scientists based their view on a percentage of 'probability', a 1,0000 to one or what have you, that one percent should trouble them to know end. The fact that we've never 'seen' a living entity evolve 'outside' of it's own kind should be troubling enough.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#425 Jan 2, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Science may theoretically not be based on belief, but that doesn't mean it (belief) is not practiced among evolutionary scientists.
As I mentioned earlier, not all creation scientists embraced creationism 'because' of scriptural belief. There are those that embraced creationism because as scientists, they had a problem with the theory of evolution.
Now it's true that as they've thus considered creation over evolution (I'm speculating here) they then 'matched' scientific possibilities with scripture, and found Genesis to be a 'viable' rendition of our beginning. So yes, in that sense 'belief' steps in. But that in itself does not disqualify 'Genesis' as being an accurate account of our creation.
Even if evolutionary scientists based their view on a percentage of 'probability', a 1,0000 to one or what have you, that one percent should trouble them to know end. The fact that we've never 'seen' a living entity evolve 'outside' of it's own kind should be troubling enough.
That's one tenth of one percent. How does that one tenth of one percent probability prove to you beyond a shadow of doubt that Biblegod did it all?

You really don't know anything at all about science in general nor evolution in particular.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#426 Jan 2, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Science may theoretically not be based on belief, but that doesn't mean it (belief) is not practiced among evolutionary scientists.
As I mentioned earlier, not all creation scientists embraced creationism 'because' of scriptural belief. There are those that embraced creationism because as scientists, they had a problem with the theory of evolution.
“Creation scientists” present no evidence (other than the bible) to support their various positions. All they do is criticize the evidence presented. Scientists from many different fields provide empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection. Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence and the changes in species through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species.

“Evolution is an undisputed fact within the scientific community and in academia, where the level of support for evolution is essentially universal.”- National Science Teachers Association (2007), AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006)
Job wrote:
Now it's true that as they've thus considered creation over evolution (I'm speculating here) they then 'matched' scientific possibilities with scripture, and found Genesis to be a 'viable' rendition of our beginning. So yes, in that sense 'belief' steps in. But that in itself does not disqualify 'Genesis' as being an accurate account of our creation.
"...Scientific creationism," "intelligent design," and other terms have been offered as alternative explanations for past and present biological processes. However…no testable explanation for biological history has been provided by these alternative views, they cannot be considered scientific theories…”– National Academy of Sciences
Job wrote:
Even if evolutionary scientists based their view on a percentage of 'probability', a 1,0000 to one or what have you, that one percent should trouble them to know end. The fact that we've never 'seen' a living entity evolve 'outside' of it's own kind should be troubling enough.
Evolution takes a long time.

“The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of jaw articulation to hearing bones.”—Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#427 Jan 2, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
“Creation scientists” present no evidence (other than the bible) to support their various positions. All they do is criticize the evidence presented. Scientists from many different fields provide empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection. Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence and the changes in species through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species.
“Evolution is an undisputed fact within the scientific community and in academia, where the level of support for evolution is essentially universal.”- National Science Teachers Association (2007), AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006)
<quoted text>
"...Scientific creationism," "intelligent design," and other terms have been offered as alternative explanations for past and present biological processes. However…no testable explanation for biological history has been provided by these alternative views, they cannot be considered scientific theories…”– National Academy of Sciences
<quoted text>
Evolution takes a long time.
“The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of jaw articulation to hearing bones.”—Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science.
Evolution would certainly have to take a long time in order for macro-evolution to happen. This is where Creation scientists would maintain 'speculation' sets in concerning the age of the Earth.

To get very basic here (at the risk of sounding non-scientific), you and I are probably not ever going to dispute gravity. If you take a rock, toss it in the air, we both 'know' that rock is coming down. We don't need anyone to tell us it's coming down. We know from 'experience', what we've visually witnessed, that the rock 'will' come back down.

However, if you tell me that rock is a million plus years old (this happened to me once), we've got a problem. We cannot 'visually' tell the age of that rock. We can do this with humans to a degree ("So and so says they are only 25? Now way!"). But if I tell you the rock doesn't look a day over a thousand, it's not going to mean much to you.

So in that sense, you do have to place faith in the scientists, and the dating methods, for something we can't really know for certain. Certainly not by looking at it.

As far as ID, technically it doesn't have to specifically involve the God of the Bible. It's only speculated that it's some sort of covert operation to push evangelical Christianity. Or to replace Creationism with evolution. In terms of semantics, Creation Science may not fit certain requirements concerning unbiased research. But I'm not convinced that evo does either. And it's also assuming that issues concerning something like 'morality' shouldn't be taken into consideration.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#428 Jan 2, 2013
You say the rock comes down but forget that the Earth also moves up to meet it.

It's that lack of detail that is present in so many proponents of ID.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution would certainly have to take a long time in order for macro-evolution to happen. This is where Creation scientists would maintain 'speculation' sets in concerning the age of the Earth.
To get very basic here (at the risk of sounding non-scientific), you and I are probably not ever going to dispute gravity. If you take a rock, toss it in the air, we both 'know' that rock is coming down. We don't need anyone to tell us it's coming down. We know from 'experience', what we've visually witnessed, that the rock 'will' come back down.
However, if you tell me that rock is a million plus years old (this happened to me once), we've got a problem. We cannot 'visually' tell the age of that rock. We can do this with humans to a degree ("So and so says they are only 25? Now way!"). But if I tell you the rock doesn't look a day over a thousand, it's not going to mean much to you.
So in that sense, you do have to place faith in the scientists, and the dating methods, for something we can't really know for certain. Certainly not by looking at it.
As far as ID, technically it doesn't have to specifically involve the God of the Bible. It's only speculated that it's some sort of covert operation to push evangelical Christianity. Or to replace Creationism with evolution. In terms of semantics, Creation Science may not fit certain requirements concerning unbiased research. But I'm not convinced that evo does either. And it's also assuming that issues concerning something like 'morality' shouldn't be taken into consideration.

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

UK

#429 Jan 2, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think they don't do the research?
Their writing apologetics and pseudo science on creationist websites.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as "peer review", not all credible works were subject to peer review, or some even initially rejected.
1) Do you have some specific examples?
2) How does one test credibility without peer-review ?
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think that there's never bias among
editors of journals who have the final say in what eventually gets published? The editors don't 'always' agree with the 'reviewers'.
Of course there is going to be bias. Unlike Christianity, science does not claim to be perfect or infallible. BTW, one can always use an online system like the one below.

"Too often a journal's decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/s think is interesting and will gain greater readership — both of which are subjective judgments and lead to decisions which are frustrating and delay the publication of your work. PLOS ONE will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them)."

http://www.plosone.org/static/information.act...
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#430 Jan 2, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution would certainly have to take a long time in order for macro-evolution to happen. This is where Creation scientists would maintain 'speculation' sets in concerning the age of the Earth.
To get very basic here (at the risk of sounding non-scientific), you and I are probably not ever going to dispute gravity. If you take a rock, toss it in the air, we both 'know' that rock is coming down. We don't need anyone to tell us it's coming down. We know from 'experience', what we've visually witnessed, that the rock 'will' come back down.
However, if you tell me that rock is a million plus years old (this happened to me once), we've got a problem. We cannot 'visually' tell the age of that rock. We can do this with humans to a degree ("So and so says they are only 25? Now way!"). But if I tell you the rock doesn't look a day over a thousand, it's not going to mean much to you.
So in that sense, you do have to place faith in the scientists, and the dating methods, for something we can't really know for certain. Certainly not by looking at it.
So you completely dismiss the entire science of geology?

“Development of the geologic time scale and dating of formations and rocks relies upon two fundamentally different ways of telling time: relative and absolute.… The most basic concept used in relative dating is the law of superposition. Simply stated, each bed in a sequence of sedimentary rocks (or layered volcanic rocks) is younger than the bed below it and older than the bed above it.…The nuclear decay of radioactive isotopes is a process that behaves in a clock-like fashion and is thus a useful tool for determining the absolute age of rocks.…Rates of radioactive decay are constant…”– Utah Geological Survey

Geologists use “observations of real world phenomena” to date rocks not divine revelation from a “holy book”. That’s how science operates. Radiometric dating has been proved accurate.
Job wrote:
As far as ID, technically it doesn't have to specifically involve the God of the Bible. It's only speculated that it's some sort of covert operation to push evangelical Christianity. Or to replace Creationism with evolution. In terms of semantics, Creation Science may not fit certain requirements concerning unbiased research. But I'm not convinced that evo does either. And it's also assuming that issues concerning something like 'morality' shouldn't be taken into consideration.
“Scientific claims must be testable; we must, in principal, be able to envision a set of observations that would render them false.”—Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science.

[Creation science is] an attempt to give credibility to Hebrew mythology by making people believe that the world's foremost biologists, paleontologists, and geologists are a bunch of incompetent nincompoops.~Ron Peterson
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#431 Jan 2, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution would certainly have to take a long time in order for macro-evolution to happen. This is where Creation scientists would maintain 'speculation' sets in concerning the age of the Earth.
To get very basic here (at the risk of sounding non-scientific), you and I are probably not ever going to dispute gravity. If you take a rock, toss it in the air, we both 'know' that rock is coming down. We don't need anyone to tell us it's coming down. We know from 'experience', what we've visually witnessed, that the rock 'will' come back down.
However, if you tell me that rock is a million plus years old (this happened to me once), we've got a problem. We cannot 'visually' tell the age of that rock. We can do this with humans to a degree ("So and so says they are only 25? Now way!"). But if

I tell you the rock doesn't look a day over a thousand, it's not going to mean much to you.
So in that sense, you do have to place faith in the scientists, and the dating methods, for something we can't really know for certain. Certainly not by looking at it.

As far as ID, technically it doesn't have to specifically involve the God of the Bible. It's only speculated that it's some sort of covert operation to push evangelical Christianity. Or to replace Creationism with evolution. In terms of semantics, Creation Science may not fit certain requirements concerning unbiased research. But I'm not convinced that evo does either. And it's also assuming that issues concerning something like 'morality' shouldn't be taken into consideration.
Only speculated? Are you kidding? As I currently forget the Guy and the name of his enterprise behind the Creation and ID ...is it the Intelligent Design Institute?- anyway - He made it really clear at the outset of his "mission" that it was all about Xtianity and promoting it as the correct explanation of...well of everything! He has never been shy about it!

Job, these examples are so bad they dont help your cause at all. You cant compare an old rock to an old human! Its simply a ridiculous comparison! We've all experienced what Old human looks like in some form - exceptions always for the truly young in looks - but most of us (random sampling) have not had an in depth course in geology much less the lab work done to analyze geologic formations!

This is getting ridiculous at this point. You will fight and argue every thing you dont like simply because it might only nominally conflict with your Religious Faith - and will keep drawing another line of "Yeah, but what if?- Yeah, but what if?" It never ends with you folks.

100,000's of people if not more dedicating their lives to making sure Science, and their work/field, gets things as correct as is possible - day after day, year after year...and while some stinkers get thru, and some mistakes are made, or some reclassification takes place (like Pluto) you all want to make it out like the Entire world of science is circumspect and not to be trusted at all - by making a major deal out of the ridiculous.(like Pluto's reclassification)

And worse by questioning things that YOU really are not informed enough on (I include myself) to even question properly, much less caste suspicions on - all because it might, might conflict with certain details of stories written before anyone even understood the Earth revolved around the Sun and not vice versa...!

All you and others do is caste aspersions on people and their careers and the dedication that they and thousands and thousands of others work diligently at each day to improve upon. All because Modern American Xtians are devoted not to the spiritual Work of their chosen Religion and Faith - but in defending a BOOK of stories written before 85%+ of the planet had even been known to exist to these people!


All that Xtians like do is try desperately to keep Reality stuck in the mud of 2K years ago!(Reality isnt even the right term...)
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#432 Jan 2, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution would certainly have to take a long time in order for macro-evolution to happen. This is where Creation scientists would maintain 'speculation' sets in concerning the age of the Earth.
To get very basic here (at the risk of sounding non-scientific), you and I are probably not ever going to dispute gravity. If you take a rock, toss it in the air, we both 'know' that rock is coming down. We don't need anyone to tell us it's coming down. We know from 'experience', what we've visually witnessed, that the rock 'will' come back down.
However, if you tell me that rock is a million plus years old (this happened to me once), we've got a problem. We cannot 'visually' tell the age of that rock. We can do this with humans to a degree ("So and so says they are only 25? Now way!"). But if I tell you the rock doesn't look a day over a thousand, it's not going to mean much to you.
So in that sense, you do have to place faith in the scientists, and the dating methods, for something we can't really know for certain. Certainly not by looking at it.
As far as ID, technically it doesn't have to specifically involve the God of the Bible. It's only speculated that it's some sort of covert operation to push evangelical Christianity. Or to replace Creationism with evolution. In terms of semantics, Creation Science may not fit certain requirements concerning unbiased research. But I'm not convinced that evo does either. And it's also assuming that issues concerning something like 'morality' shouldn't be taken into consideration.
Only speculated? Are you kidding? As I currently forget the Guy and the name of his enterprise behind the Creation and ID ...is it the Intelligent Design Institute?- anyway - He made it really clear at the outset of his "mission" that it was all about Xtianity and promoting it as the correct explanation of...well of everything! He has never been shy about it!

Job, these examples are so bad they dont help your cause at all. You cant compare an old rock to an old human! Its simply a ridiculous comparison! We've all experienced what Old human looks like in some form - exceptions always for the truly young in looks - but most of us (random sampling) have not had an in depth course in geology much less the lab work done to analyze geologic formations!

This is getting ridiculous at this point. You will fight and argue every thing you dont like simply because it might only nominally conflict with your Religious Faith - and will keep drawing another line of "Yeah, but what if?- Yeah, but what if?" It never ends with you folks.

100,000's of people if not more dedicating their lives to making sure Science, and their work/field, gets things as correct as is possible - day after day, year after year...and while some stinkers get thru, and some mistakes are made, or some reclassification takes place (like Pluto) you all want to make it out like the Entire world of science is circumspect and not to be trusted at all - by making a major deal out of the ridiculous.(like Pluto's reclassification)

And worse by questioning things that YOU really are not informed enough on (I include myself) to even question properly, much less caste suspicions on - all because it might, might conflict with certain details of stories written before anyone even understood the Earth revolved around the Sun and not vice versa...!

All you and others do is caste aspersions on people and their careers and the dedication that they and thousands and thousands of others work diligently at each day to improve upon. All because Modern American Xtians are devoted not to the spiritual Work of their chosen Religion and Faith - but in defending a BOOK of stories written before 85%+ of the planet had even been known to exist to these people!

All that Xtians like You do is try desperately to keep Reality stuck in the mud of 2K years ago!(Reality isnt even the right term...)
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#433 Jan 2, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>

[Creation science is] an attempt to give credibility to Hebrew mythology by making people believe that the world's foremost biologists, paleontologists, and geologists are a bunch of incompetent nincompoops.~Ron Peterson
Great quote.

And "they" go about this by fixating on the ridiculous and in most cases things that are truly unimportant. Like the reclassification of Pluto! Can you, anyone think of a more absurd thing for ID'ers, and Bible thumpers to fixate on as that!?! And then try and extend this inconsequential "insider" move to make all of the many diverse science disciplines suspect and react like, "Oh my God they might say Earth is not a planet tomorrow and that Humans are really fish!" (yeah we share stuff with fish.)

And nearly all the things they argue about are inconsequential to their Religion and Faith.

Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#434 Jan 2, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus often quoted scripture, and John was instructed by God to write down the words written in the book of Revelation (I seem to recall this already being mentioned by another poster).

While Jesus didn't directly state that a Bible will be mass produced, again I would say there is 'logic' involved. If one comes into a firm belief in Jesus Christ, why 'shouldn't' they believe the Bible to be the entire Word of God?

The Bible really doesn't favor religious institutions any way. If the Bible 'could' have been changed by religious leaders further on down the road, I think it would have been. And it would have been changed in such a way to give religious piety a greater advantage. And I would say this is why the Bible was actually kept away from commoners in Europe. They couldn't read it (many not understanding Latin), so they didn't realize how the Bible 'doesn't' favor piety.
Jesus quoted Jewish scripture. Not the Bible! He never mentions a future with a BOOK that would be in charge all things related to Him and his Religion.

Sorry , but the Book of Rev is never a good argument to make. It was highly suspect at the time and it barely made it into the Canon. Just because a compromise was struck doesnt make it the Word of Jesus, much less the God...

Could have been changed? Isn't having a few differing Canons being changed...?

The only logic involved is what YOU/others wish to nail to the Bible and the discussion. I see it completely the other way. Its written by Men, was compiled by Men, was in some instances altered by men (adding pieces, terms, etc) and has been widely interpreted by Men to mean many things over time...so with those facts actually considered (IMO most xtians ignore those realities) IT being the absolute and inerrant word of this God is ridiculous!

There is so much Human "DNA" all over the damn thing its ridiculous that it was ever deemed so perfect and divine in the first place. The presumption of Divine inspiration to a Committee/Council forced to convene, by an Emperor whose true faith is questionable, forced to force a Canon out of their deliberations - or die trying (I assume it was do or die sort of situation)- its absurd to me that anyone would look at that historical moment and decree it Divinely Inspired thru and thru. Also considering how much murder and mayhem preceded the events...!

The Bible was kept out the hands of the commoners for control purposes. Much like any other Religion that sequestered/isolated their temples, their soothsayers, their "dreamers", their Shamans, etc, etc...

You let people in and you lose control.

There's an expression from one of the early European vernacular Bible printers (name escapes me right now) who said, "Reading the Bible is a good thing, reading it too much will be a bad thing for the Religion." Even then it was understood that letting the Book out and into the hands of everyone would breed all sorts of troubles. And it did.

But back to the Bible. Since its always claimed that IF its not in the Bible its not to be part of the Worship, etc...

Whats not in the Bible is Jesus - or anyone - ever mentioning it, or saying that in the future, a book, a scroll, etc would be the absolute and final word of Me, Jesus. There is nothing even hinting at a NEW addition and edition to Jewish scriptures (no Jewish canon existed when Jesus was around) that would be the forever guide for thousands of generations, or "till I return"...(which was of course supposed to be a few hundred years prior to the Bible's compilation)

Strangely, this God, Jesus, didnt inspire that declarative and
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#435 Jan 2, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW- that quote was not dishonest. I have no reason to think he did not say that and we know a lot of assumptions are made about evolution that are never demonstrate or proven.
I'll grant that maybe YOU are not being deliberately dishonest in this particular case. You are just being STUPID, as per the usual and copy/pasting stuff from agenda-driven Christian websites that attack the science.

This Shapiro quote came up in a discussion forum. Note the response by a scientist:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism...

If you don't know that molecule-by-molecule evolutionary pathways are virtually impossible to reverse-engineer, and if you don't know that, even where we can identify possible pathways, we can't compare them to the original events, then you are bound to see such statements as far more problematic than they really are.

An essential point you seem to miss is that these gentlemen are not speaking to creationists. They are not admitting to some fundamental weakness in evolutionary science that threatens to topple the entire edifice. They do not doubt common ancestry or suspect supernatural involvement because of fuzziness at the molecular level (a discipline that, incidentally, is in its infancy).

You're just frantically looking for god-sized gaps wherever you can find them. Same as always.

>>>Gillette again

Check out James Shapiro's bio and tell me if you really think he is, in ANY way, an anti-evolutionst? Or are you and your dishonest Christian websites just quote-mining him out of context to twist his words to your ends?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Shapiro
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#436 Jan 2, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
It's very obvious that many Americans embrace evolution because it's the thing to believe. Let the big dogs do the research for them.
No, they been shown the evidence in HS and college bio classes or read books or watched PBS science shows EXPLAINING evolution and how it works. Why shouldn't we look to the research of the "big dogs' in biochemistry, biology and paleontology? Is the average person qualified or knowledgeable enough to do this research? Or often to understand the raw form of it?
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
When people are intimidated into believing evolution, there's a serious problem.
Evolution is taught in science classes as "what science knows and HAS KNOWN for 150 years about the development of species on earth." Is that "intimidating people into believing evolution"? Why is it a serious problem that science presents science in science classes?
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's say for the sake of argument, that 'evolution' is 'fact'. Maybe it's time to put away egomaniacal comments like "creation science is not science", " creationists are morons", etc., and bring both to the educational table and let people decide for themselves.
Why should science classes teach religious apologetics disguised as science? is there even TIME for that? Leave that to the churches, no?

As as for "creationism is not science," check out the Statement of Faith page of one of the leading creationist organizations:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

Scroll all the way to the bottom to the last point:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

You CANNOT be doing science if you say, a priori, that the scriptural record (apparently interpreted literally) trumps any and all scientific evidence that contradicts it.

They are doing religious apologetics dishonestly coated with sciencey words.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#437 Jan 3, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus often quoted scripture, and John was instructed by God to write down the words written in the book of Revelation (I seem to recall this already being mentioned by another poster).
While Jesus didn't directly state that a Bible will be mass produced, again I would say there is 'logic' involved. If one comes into a firm belief in Jesus Christ, why 'shouldn't' they believe the Bible to be the entire Word of God?
The Bible really doesn't favor religious institutions any way. If the Bible 'could' have been changed by religious leaders further on down the road, I think it would have been. And it would have been changed in such a way to give religious piety a greater advantage. And I would say this is why the Bible was actually kept away from commoners in Europe. They couldn't read it (many not understanding Latin), so they didn't realize how the Bible 'doesn't' favor piety.
The printing press wasn’t invented until the 15th century. Before that all bibles were hand copied and therefore very scarce and valuable. Only wealthy people could own one. Bibles were simply not available to commoners and most commoners couldn’t read or write their spoken language let alone Latin.

The Two oldest known complete copies of the New Testament are not identical and neither is identical to any of the bibles available today. Strangely enough both of the oldest bibles date to the 4th century when belief in Christianity as defined by the First Council of Nicaea became the law of the Roman Empire.

“Nowhere does the Bible claim to be inerrant. At no place in its more than 30,000 verses does the Bible claim that it is factually accurate in terms of history, science, geography and all other matters (the technical definition of inerrancy). "Inerrant" itself is not a word found in the Bible or even known to Christian theologians for most of history. Rather, the word was coined in the middle of the 19th century...”- David Lose, Director of the Center for Biblical Preaching at Luther Seminary

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why did Christ come to Earth? 15 min Seentheotherside 652
Intelligent People Question Everything 21 min little lamb 847
Bible Interpretation 26 min little lamb 1,555
Poll The Greatest Threat to America's Security (Sep '15) 30 min Gary Coaldigger 4,803
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 38 min Sanctified 20,818
Just A Talk With You Christians. 44 min little lamb 446
False beliefs: 54 min Seentheotherside 126
More from around the web