Do You Believe In Evolution?

May 8, 2007 Full story: Daily Kos 2,655

“President Bush's compassionate conservatism”

Sat May 05, 2007 at 05:16:04 AM PDT There are few areas of the culture wars that get rational people more upset than the idea that Intelligent Design is legitimate science . via Daily Kos

Full Story

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1688 Jun 10, 2007
Manny wrote:
If I'm right, which I believe I am, then Darwin is spending an eternity in Hell.
If I'm wrong, the I'm no worst off than you are.
If you are willing to gmble with your soul, that is your problem, but in eternity you will have wished that you at least kept an open mind about the matter instead of being so hard against it.
Manny,

Pascals Wager is considered bad theology by most theologians. You should also be aware that it is an argument from consequences, which is a logical fallacy.

Also, Manny, please answer this question. I have asked it many times, and never have I gotten a response...

If I don't believe in you god to begin with, how can I make myself believe in your god?

Since: Apr 07

United States

#1689 Jun 10, 2007
No one wants to convert anyone to atheism . That isn't the intent of this discussion and I can't figure for the life of me "why" christians automatically assume that because an athiest has a point of view it must be wicked or evil . Could that be part of the programmed cultish force of christianity ? That's how I see it because you are automatically characterizing a person who doesn't believe in a deity as evil and bad without even knowing that person but that's typical christian behavior because they have had to overcome mounds of discriminating behavior in the past . So I suppose they are facing the wall yet again.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1690 Jun 10, 2007
Manny wrote:
I understand the laws just fine. Science is science.
Judging by the nonsense you have posted, I doubt your understanding of science is as strong as you think. You have posted several things that you have called science, but have no scientific foundation at all.
Manny wrote:
Evolution is an interpretation of the scientific facts, so is creation.
Yes, evolution is the best explanation we have for a mountain of scientific facts.

Creationism, OTOH, explains nothing, at least in terms of science. "God did it" is not a scientific explanation.
Manny wrote:
If I told you that the grand canyon was a big hole in the ground, you would not argue with that scientific fact.
How it got there has two interpretations.
One says it took a lot of time, with a little bit of water, the other says a little time with a lot of water.
Anyone who knows much about geology knows the "little time with a lot of water" explanation is pure BS. The erosion that would show on the rocks would be very different from what is observed. What we see shows conclusively that the canyon was carved slowly over a long period.
Manny wrote:
It seems that, from a few of the people who are posting these comments, there are only a few adults. the language shown sounds like some teenagers calling people names.
An intelligent discussion does not need to involve name calling like "creos". I am a creationist.
If you really wish for me to take your comments on science seriously, then show me some science and stop acting like a teenager.
Well, you should consider then about referring to supporters of the theory of evolution as evolutionist or Darwinists. Those are words that do not appear outside the lexicon of creationists, and non-creationists find them offensive.
Manny wrote:
You can say I don't understand the laws, but you haven't shown me anything intelligent to show otherwise. I have studied numerous physics books and I am aware of the laws. I know what they say.
No matter what you say, you cannot create matter. You can only work with what you have. Only God can create something from nothing.
Well, from things you have said, you clearly do not understand the physics you are talking about.

First, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics clearly states it is about a closed thermodynamic system. It applies only to that situation. You are trying to apply it to open systems, where it does not apply.

Second, the Law of Conservation of Matter, which is more akin to what you are actually stating, is an old, 19th century view. It has been replace with "The sum of matter and energy remains constant." This has been realized since Einstein came up with E=Mc^2. This simple equation shows that matter and energy can be made into the other.

The Sun produces energy by destroying matter. Particle accelerators produce exotic matter from energy.

Finally, for an example of something from nothing, check out "vacuum fluctuations", where pairs of particles appear spontaneously from nothing.

“Transitional Molecular Fossils”

Since: Dec 06

Somewhere in Penn's Woods

#1691 Jun 10, 2007
my left foot wrote:
No one wants to convert anyone to atheism . That isn't the intent of this discussion and I can't figure for the life of me "why" christians automatically assume that because an athiest has a point of view it must be wicked or evil . Could that be part of the programmed cultish force of christianity ? That's how I see it because you are automatically characterizing a person who doesn't believe in a deity as evil and bad without even knowing that person but that's typical christian behavior because they have had to overcome mounds of discriminating behavior in the past . So I suppose they are facing the wall yet again.
First off, the Disco Institute wants Christians to believe that evolution=atheism. Both Dr. Ken Miller and Dr. Francis Collins have both stated that a person that embraces theistic evolution is an ID/Creationist's worst nightmare; it blows everything that they tell Christians right out of the water.

Second, militant atheists like Dawkins have led Christians to believe that evolution=atheism. Harvard Astronomer Owen Gingerich stated that, "By simultaneously advocating evolution and atheism,'Dr Dawkins probably single-handedly makes more converts to intelligent design than any of the leading intelligent design theorists".'

The philosopher of science Michael Ruse wrote:

“We who love science must realize that the enemy of our enemies is our friend. Too often evolutionists spend time insulting would-be allies. This is especially true of secular evolutionists. Atheists spend more time running down sympathetic Christians than they do countering creationists. When John Paul II wrote a letter endorsing Darwinism, Richard Dawkins's response was simply that the pope was a hypocrite, that he could not be genuine about science and that Dawkins himself simply preferred an honest fundamentalist.”

We all need to keep reitorating that there is no relationship between faith and science, religion and evolution. That science in general and evolution in particular has nothing whatsoever to say about the existence or non-existence of God.

“Rattling for Chemistry”

Since: Dec 06

Deep Swamps of Georgia

#1692 Jun 10, 2007
Manny wrote:
"1 - The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.
2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.
Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill."--The evolution cruncher, ch. 2
Gee.....Manny your education was spent in Basket Weaving? Using the Evolution Cruncher is the biggest joke that exists for creo's.....the writer Vance Ferrell is a fundie religious writer with ZERO science background.

Matt of Poofflingers Anonoymous has a great critique of each chapter of this joke for a book. The Crunch Squared Archives http://pooflingers.blogspot.com/2005/11/crunc...

My advice is to start learning about real science at a local college. Quit using creationist web sites and the silly creationist books written by religious fundies who have no ideal what they are writing about.

“I be me, and you are...”

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

#1693 Jun 10, 2007
I believe in both...

Since: Dec 06

NorCal

#1694 Jun 10, 2007
Katydid wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, the Disco Institute wants Christians to believe that evolution=atheism. Both Dr. Ken Miller and Dr. Francis Collins have both stated that a person that embraces theistic evolution is an ID/Creationist's worst nightmare; it blows everything that they tell Christians right out of the water.
Second, militant atheists like Dawkins have led Christians to believe that evolution=atheism. Harvard Astronomer Owen Gingerich stated that, "By simultaneously advocating evolution and atheism,'Dr Dawkins probably single-handedly makes more converts to intelligent design than any of the leading intelligent design theorists".'
The philosopher of science Michael Ruse wrote:
“We who love science must realize that the enemy of our enemies is our friend. Too often evolutionists spend time insulting would-be allies. This is especially true of secular evolutionists. Atheists spend more time running down sympathetic Christians than they do countering creationists. When John Paul II wrote a letter endorsing Darwinism, Richard Dawkins's response was simply that the pope was a hypocrite, that he could not be genuine about science and that Dawkins himself simply preferred an honest fundamentalist.”
We all need to keep reitorating that there is no relationship between faith and science, religion and evolution. That science in general and evolution in particular has nothing whatsoever to say about the existence or non-existence of God.
Great Post.

“Creation first, then evolution”

Since: Apr 07

San Francisco, CA

#1695 Jun 10, 2007
Hey everybody!

After some intense searching I have discovered that "Manny" brings to us more than what meets the eye or teases our intellectual prowess; and therefore so will I.

Many of us have a belief that we may not have realized.

Manny exposes a really good illustration of the Goau Retrogression Theorem, or simply "Goau Theorem."

But first I will explain the name "Manny."

The "Manny Attribute Belief" is the belief that you can know where something came from simply by knowing where it belongs.

Manny has illustrated this not so skillfully for us with only this one statement:
Manny wrote:
" //...
6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source...//


At least a few of us might agree that Manny must have came from "an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space" because that's where he belongs.

In my book, the word manny comes from the Engish words "manufacture" and "any." The usage of the word manufacture is "fabricate." The use of the word any is "whatever."

Now back to the Goau Theorem. The Goau Theorem applies to a creature with a predispostion of failure merely by having less than half of the sense it takes to survive.

The word "goau" comes from the English word ignoramus, of which, when it has less than half of it's letters, produces goau.

I mentioned that Manny exposes a really good illustration of the Goau Theorem.
Well it certainly wasn't me. I only just wrote the Goau Theorem tonight. Manny exposed himself.

“Peace ”

Since: Jun 07

Brooklyn

#1696 Jun 10, 2007
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Hunh???? Did you actually have a comment to make, or did you just cut-and-paste my words (withOUT citing the source, I note)?
Oh-- here among the last bit is words that _I_ didn't write... was that your comment?
And your ONLY justification for teaching the bible is BECAUSE IT'S WELL KNOWN?????
Why don't we teach Mine Kemp, then? THAT is well known.....
You're going to have to do better than that.
I gave you credit and answered your question and actually read replies and understand your lack of interest in reading from people that you believe are not as educated as you.
As for "Mine Kemp" by Hitler; and for that matter "The Communist Manifesto"by Lennon By God I had to read them in class also.
I'll still state that the compilation of books called the "Bible" introduces many scientific ideas that were expanded on since.
I would like to mention "Mine Kemp" and where it led and how mixed up the writing was seems all to similar to you implying that I did not read, study and was tested on the books I mentioned.
In the rights that resulted from respecting and knowing another's thoughts and ideas....Ed

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1697 Jun 11, 2007
Edape wrote:
I'll still state that the compilation of books called the "Bible" introduces many scientific ideas that were expanded on since.
Please, Edape, give examples of these scientific ideas introduced by the Bible.

“Peace ”

Since: Jun 07

Brooklyn

#1698 Jun 11, 2007
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, Edape, give examples of these scientific ideas introduced by the Bible.
The idea that something can be produced from nothing.
As illustrated by the vacuum being disturbed and producing the quirk particle hence we now have a beginning of something.
The idea that a mammal can talk/communicate. I already mentioned the complex communication of dolphins.
Something more intelligent in life. I already mentioned Angels.
We seek intelligent life every day at various radar posts around the world for any sign of intelligent signals in space and also look for anything that creepeth such as our mars rover on mars is looking for.
More on inventions to come but in Ezechiel it mentions a wheel within a wheel with living beings in them just to start.
Skeptic

London, UK

#1699 Jun 11, 2007
the quirk particle. hmm. yes. no.

The bible has nothing to do with science - its a bunch of stories.

“Peace ”

Since: Jun 07

Brooklyn

#1700 Jun 11, 2007
If you could give some thought to that the living are a continuum of life from the original life then we can argue other lives we took part in. Simple example is the sperm and egg that became you. But, you were both at the same time at one time as life went on to become you that already had an instruction set as to the make-up of the born you. The bible mentions we might have another life.
We now freeze sperm,eggs and can clone to some extent. And science and my beliefs can go on until science creates from nothing. I have to look up an Asimov book that we are really programed robots to make this interesting..........Ed

Since: Apr 07

United States

#1701 Jun 11, 2007
Edape wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you credit and answered your question and actually read replies and understand your lack of interest in reading from people that you believe are not as educated as you.
As for "Mine Kemp" by Hitler; and for that matter "The Communist Manifesto"by Lennon By God I had to read them in class also.
I'll still state that the compilation of books called the "Bible" introduces many scientific ideas that were expanded on since.
I would like to mention "Mine Kemp" and where it led and how mixed up the writing was seems all to similar to you implying that I did not read, study and was tested on the books I mentioned.
In the rights that resulted from respecting and knowing another's thoughts and ideas....Ed
It's Lenin not lennon and mien Lennon was a good guy and what's mine is mine

“Peace ”

Since: Jun 07

Brooklyn

#1702 Jun 11, 2007
my left foot wrote:
<quoted text>It's Lenin not lennon and mien Lennon was a good guy and what's mine is mine
Thanks I needed that!
I think my subconscious got the best of me but I did have to read those books in school. So, Why not the Bible?
I never won a spelling contest either to be fair.

Since: Apr 07

United States

#1703 Jun 11, 2007
kemf

Since: Dec 06

Saint Petersburg, FL

#1704 Jun 11, 2007
Kenhunt wrote:
<quoted text>Dennis, can you provide some scholarly reference that demonstrates "universal" energy? When I google nothing substantial comes up. Thanks.
Oh give me a break. I'm just talking generically about the energy in the universe. If your god can have always existed, so can the the energy of the universe.

Since: Dec 06

Saint Petersburg, FL

#1705 Jun 11, 2007
Manny wrote:
First of all I see that no one has answered my question concerning the 1st law. All the anti-christianity crowd does is ridicule christians and call us uneducated. I do have a tremendous amount of education and no, not all scientists believe in evolution.
This country was not founded on atheism, it was founded of biblical Christianity by people who loved God's Word. Public schools were made to teach children to read the Bible. The Ivy league schools were made to produce missionaries.
The truth is that both Evolution and creation are religious by nature because you have no proof of the origin if time, space and matter other than the Bible. You cannot read the Constitution, the Mayflower Compact or any other document for that matter concerning the founding of America that shows anything but having built this Country on God's Word and for His Glory. I challenge you to find it. You won't. If you do I woud like to see it.
I believe in creation. Jesus believed in the creation.
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Question, was Jesus smarter than us? I believe so. Did He not know about evolution? I would rather believe a sinless savior than a faulted scientist that changes his oppinions every year. Jesus is the one that created all things anyway.
Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
I Believe "IN THE BEGINNING GOD"
An evolutionist believes "IN THE BEGINNING DIRT"
Don't tell me mine is religious and evolution is not. They are both inherrently religious.
If I look at a complex machine like a car, I automatically know that it had a designer behind it. I don't say that a 2005 evolved from a 2004. That would be silly. Yet the evolutionist would turn right around and say that the universe, with all it's complexity and orgainization, did not have an organizer or designer behind it. The statistics on that are zero.
A car could not put itself together. That would be silly. You have to have a designer to design that machine.
If I told you that Mt. Rushmore evolved to look like the presidents you would tell me that I am out of my mind. Yet the evolutionist will turnright around and say that we evolved.....(edited for brevity)
For someone with an "enormous amount of education" you sure do make ridiculous arguments.
Let's see:
You again bring up thermodynamics. Problem is, nothing about thermodynamics negates evolution in any way. Ask a physicist (you know, the people that know).
You again conflate evolution with the formation of the universe and earth. Not related. Different theories in different sciences.
You refer to evolution as a religion, even though it in no way meets that definition, except when you reinvent it.
You use the Bible as support for your views, which is circular logic.
You use the outrageously stupid argument about cars, Mount Rushmore, etc. when it is in no way analogous to evolution. Evolution involves passing of traits through genetics, reproduction, and building upon past changes.
You make inference to Pascal's Wager, which is a ridiculous basis for belief. The "it's better to believe just in case" argument does not make logical sense. If you subscribe to that idea, then you are also at risk as you don't believe the other religions, which may be right...so what if you're wrong?
So, please take that "enormous" amount of education and try to learn about facts and logic.

Since: Dec 06

Saint Petersburg, FL

#1706 Jun 11, 2007
Manny wrote:
for gillette:
Did you know that the Word "Universe" means "A Single Spoken sentence"
Uni--Single
Verse--Spoken Sentence
The Bible clears that up:
Genesis 1:1 ¶In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
God literally spoke this world into existance about 6,000 years ago.
Concerning the word "creation", you can make something from something, but not from nothing. Only God could do that.
You could never tell me where all the raw materials came from without a God.
So what? That way back when they coined the phrase they used the creation idea as a basis means nothing. Your illogic is incredibly persistent!

Where did your god come from? If the universe can't just have always existed, then neither could your god.

Since: Dec 06

Saint Petersburg, FL

#1707 Jun 11, 2007
Manny wrote:
I understand the laws just fine. Science is science.
Evolution is an interpretation of the scientific facts, so is creation.
If I told you that the grand canyon was a big hole in the ground, you would not argue with that scientific fact.
How it got there has two interpretations.
One says it took a lot of time, with a little bit of water, the other says a little time with a lot of water.
It seems that, from a few of the people who are posting these comments, there are only a few adults. the language shown sounds like some teenagers calling people names.
An intelligent discussion does not need to involve name calling like "creos". I am a creationist.
If you really wish for me to take your comments on science seriously, then show me some science and stop acting like a teenager.
You can say I don't understand the laws, but you haven't shown me anything intelligent to show otherwise. I have studied numerous physics books and I am aware of the laws. I know what they say.
No matter what you say, you cannot create matter. You can only work with what you have. Only God can create something from nothing.
Yes, there are two interpretation about the Grand Canyon. One is right, one is wrong. Yours is wrong. All evidence points to long periods of erosion, and there is not a shred of evidence for a global flood. The science HAS been shown many times. Fossil Bob has explained the geology MANY times in this and other evolution threads.

So you've studied many physics books and know the laws? That makes you qualified to oppose what the physcisists themselves say? They don't have a problem with evolution, and know quite clearly that thermodynamics in no way counters evolution. BTW, the creation of matter has nothing to do with evolution. You should study some biology books too.

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.

US Senate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min USAsince1680 1,171,878
Body cameras for cops could be the biggest chan... 9 min Black Rhino 2,341
NYT Is Lost in Its Ukraine Propaganda 11 min Lukashenko is Dr ... 10
Sunday Talk Preview: Mideast Power Shift 15 min Le Duped 6
Why Christie Has a Better Shot Than Many Think 24 min Le Duped 13
Team Rubio message: Ready to run 26 min WeTheSheeple 6
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 46 min Rogue Scholar 05 184,278
More from around the web