RSS | 
Twitter
| 
Be a fan!
Science and God are not exclusive
The writer asserts that the Bible stories are just legends and children's fairy tales and states that the creation story cannot be believed because it is a "just so" story. Yet he tries to further discredit it by saying it contains two different versions of creation. If it is a "just so" story, why does it have a discrepancy ?
I say they are the same account of creation but with more detail explaining that man was created in a different manner from the other animals.
Taylor also implies that we cannot believe the Bible because we now know so much more about the universe than those who lived in ancient times. While it is true that we possess much more information about the universe, we also hold to certain beliefs that the universe was not created, but it evolved. Humans were not created, they evolved from simpler organisms.
Rate This Story:
1 the lowest - 5 the highest
Current rating:
We have a problem believing the Bible, but no problem at all believing we evolved from the ape or even a single-celled amoeba.
We have the fossil record but refuse to acknowledge it is filled with mistakes and sometimes outright fraud. We have carbon 14 dating which we contend is flawless but we ignore that this system of dating objects containing carbon is based upon the object having been in the same environment as ours for its entire existence. This ignores any discrepancies that could have been caused by a cataclysmic event such as the great flood described in the Bible.
We want to believe science because it can prove its claims. But many in science have used it to prove their predilection has been proven by the evidence, regardless of how much evidence has to be manufactured.
I believe science and God do not have to be mutually exclusive. Science is learning new things about God's creation all the time.
Bill Sickles
Washington
It's not a dream
but a nightmare
I went to sleep a few months ago living the American dream with all the freedoms our forefathers gave us in our Constitution. Since January I'm hoping it is all a dream but afraid it is a nightmare that is never ending.
Pre-January if you worked hard you enjoyed all the freedom this country had to offer. You purchased an American made car where free enterprise gave you choices. In this nightmare we have our government and foreign countries will be dictating the types of cars we will have to choose from. If you ran a business and it was making a profit, you expanded and grew. If you failed, you closed, realized your mistake, started over and tried to do better the next time. Now we have the government giving trillions of dollars to failures and telling us to "pay as you go." Maybe it should practice what it preaches. If you were able to save money for a down payment on a home you could afford, you didn't default on your mortgage and wait for the government to bail you out. Pre-January if there was a war to fight we fought it and many people gave their lives so the rest of us could enjoy our freedoms. Now we can't even call someone who wants us destroyed a terrorist or the war we are fighting the war on terror. Prisoners who want to kill us are treated a hundred times better than any of our prisoners were ever treated. Talk to a POW and see what it was like in their prisons and how they were interrogated. Now let's read our enemies their Miranda rights, give them a lawyer paid for by you and me and then send them to a tropical island so they can walk the streets and plot against us once more. Or give them a trial with all the rights of an American citizen paid for by our tax money.
I'm afraid we are not in Kansas any more, Toto. Someone please wake me up from this nightmare and put me back into the American dream.
Janice Gibbs
McDonald
Bill : 6/22/2009
What a coincidence my son and I where just discussion this. I believe in Genesis he believes in evolution. He says the bible is stories I say science even with the evidence is still some ones theory or conclusion based on the facts presented to them. So with science we are relying on someone else’s conclusions put on paper, a book. Science has been proven wrong through the years. I do not refute science nor do I believe the bible is just a story book. There is no doubt that scientific evidences exists, dino's etc but this world is old enough to include both science and the bible.
Janice Gibbs : 6/22/2009
But what's your point? Things were better before Christmas? I don't get it. Things are about the same to me as they were then.
Bill Sickles says: : 6/22/2009
“We have a problem believing the Bible, but no problem at all believing we evolved from the ape or even a single-celled amoeba.” It’s hard to “believe” that we evolved from an apelike common ancestor, and ultimately pre-cellular life and single-celled life (not an amoeba), but we don’t have to “believe” this because we KNOW it for a fact. All the evidence supports these facts, from geology, the fossil record, embryology and comparative anatomy, and most recently, advances in DNA testing. On the other hand, there is no evidence whatsoever that supports the biblical stories about creation and natural origins. None of us have ever seen the sun stop in its tracks or seas part at the wave of a wand or burning bushes that speak. Hence, the “problem” so many people have in “believing” the bible. It's just not very believable. On the other hand, DNA does not lie, either in the courtroom or in the biology lab.
I blame science teachers... : 6/23/2009
For doing a piss poor job at teaching kids what a scientific theory is... it would appear that a whole bunch of people think "theory" = "hypothesis"...
God and the Bible : 6/23/2009
God is not the Bible and Science helps define God and the universe He created. Man wrote the Bible God created the universe.
Science and bible literalism or inerrancy are 100% Mutually Exclusive : 6/23/2009
St Augustine (354-430 AD) was not a bible literalist. He preached that the bible should NOT be taken literally if it contradicted what we knew from our “God-given reasoning.” It is only since the end of the 19th century that a relative few, mostly American Protestant, fundamentalist sects have given up their “God- given reasoning” and proclaimed the biblical inerrancy position, which says Augustine was wrong and that biblical accounts of the natural world are literally true. For such literalists, including Bill Sickles, the bible and science are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE; there is absolutely no possibility of reconciling the two positions. Bill thinks he is rejecting only biology (evolution) and astrophysics (the Big Bang), but he is also rejecting all other physics, chemistry, astronomy, and all other sciences as well. If Bill really is consistent in his biblical literalism, then he believes that the sun revolves around the earth as taught in the bible. For most Christians, however, including all Roman Catholics, the bible and science are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. They believe that the bible was inspired by God, but written by fallible men. They do not see the bible as a “science” book but as a religious text. They look for metaphorical, philosophical and eternal truths about God and humans, not science factoids. This Christian position is bolstered by 1500+ years of Catholic and Protestant theology and teaching. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that evolution is true, and that God used evolution as a tool to create man, inserting his soul into the ape-evolved body at some point in time. This is a perfectly plausible religious take, and reconciles these religious believers with the undisputed scientific fact of evolution. It seems to me that people who “worship” the bible as “inerrant,” particularly the Old Testament creation myths, should not be called “Christians” at all, but something else. Any suggestions?
Bill Sickles says : 6/23/2009
“We have the fossil record but refuse to acknowledge it is filled with mistakes and sometimes outright fraud.” Scientists CHANGE THEIR VIEWPOINTS and SCIENTIC THEORIES on older evidence as NEW EVIDENCE emerges and is verified by other scientists. That is why the BEST scientific theories CHANGE. They are continually explaining more phenomena and gaining new predictive power based on new evidence and questions. That is why science is USEFUL. It learns from its “mistakes.” Creationists like Bill Sickles NEVER change their beliefs no matter what new evidence emerges. That is why their views on the natural world are USELESS, ie., have no practical value in the real world, cannot be used for any material benefit for humans, cannot be used to predict an eclipse or cure an illness or make a Boeing 747 fly. “outright fraud:” Yes, a couple of fraudulent fossil specimens were planted in the early 20th century by unknown parties. But it was scientists, not creationists, who eventually discovered these were frauds and rejected them. Science corrects its own mistakes, and advances. Biblical literalism, creationism never does.
Theory does = hypothesis, : 6/23/2009
at least it does in the encarta dictionary. Also: the Big Bang theory, which is now a scientific fact, states that in an instant, everything that is came into existence. What made everything come into existence all at once? We bible believers say it was God. Whom do you naysayers claim did this? (The Founding Fathers of this nation stated it was a Creator who did this, by the way)
About science and faith .... : 6/25/2009
Scientific theories are based on - at most - 5% empirical evidence. 5% or less is good enough for some, but not good enough for others who require much more. Are you calling yourself "silky" for a reason? Creationism puts forth that there was a beginning that started with a bang. Many scientists now believe this. Most scientists put forth that they know nothing and there fore that is their reasoning for constant RE-search to try to prove things. Anyone who thinks they know more than God has lost their reasoning. And what is faith? It is the gut belief that something is, even if you cannot see the evidence for it at the present time. Faith goes on each and every day in the lives of every human being, whether they believe in God or not. And that, my friend, is just common logic.
NS : 6/25/2009
Can you elaborate on your whole 5% thing? 5% of what? The general theory of relativity... is based on 5% of something? Where do you get your 5% figure and what does that 5% represent?
Let there be light: : 6/25/2009
Did you cross tab "theory" or "scientific theory"-- they are different. http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm
Let there be light is in error wrong : 6/25/2009
The encarta dictionary does not say “Theory does = hypothesis” Encarta defines hypothesis as QUOTE: “1. theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation 2. assumption: a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument” In other words, a hypothesis is TENTATIVE, a statement assumed to be true for the sake of argument, BUT NOT YET TESTED BY EXPERIMENT. Scientific hypotheses are usually phrased as predictions, and form the basis for experiments. On the other hand, a scientific theory “summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED WITH REPEATED TESTING.” One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis, one supported, not refuted, by many experiments and evidence, no longer tentative.
Let there be light makes an error about the bible: : 6/25/2009
“What made everything come into existence all at once? We bible believers say it was God.” Actually, bible believers believe it took God seven days, not all at once.
ns says: : 6/25/2009
“Most scientists put forth that they know nothing and there fore that is their reasoning for constant RE-search to try to prove things.” Silky says this is exactly the opposite of creationists, who claim to know everything and do nothing to prove anything. Why should they when they already KNOW? As I said in a previous post, their creationist beliefs are totally USELESS, ie., have no practical value in the real world, cannot be used for any material benefit for humans, cannot be used to predict an eclipse or cure an illness or make a Boeing 747 fly.
ns asks: : 6/25/2009
“And what is faith?” The dictionary says faith is unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence, unquestioning belief in God, religious belief or a religion. This definition is the EXACT OPPOSITE of science. Contrary to ns’s opinion, a scientific theory with 5% empirical evidence is a DEAD scientific theory, and a scientist who stubbornly clings to such a theory is an UNEMPLOYED scientist. On the other hand, 5% empirical evidence is 5% more than we have ever found for the existence of God ……
ns asserts: : 6/25/2009
“Creationism puts forth that there was a beginning that started with a bang. Many scientists now believe this.” Silky’s 10 minute websearch reveals that the scientific “big bang” theory is the work of Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest who was also an astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuvan. His mathematical-theoretical work integrated previous astronomical observations with Einstein’s equations of general relativity (published 1916). His theory was consistent with the idea of an expanding universe, explained the redshift among galaxies and concluded that the universe had a discrete beginning, after which it rapidly expanded. In 1927, Lemaître discussed his ideas with Albert Einstein who rejected them. However, Einstein came to accept and promote Lemaître’s theory after 1929, when American astronomer Edwin Hubble provided additional empirical evidence in the form of his observations of galaxies. Lemaître published his theory in 1931. The term “big bang” is credited to astronomer Fred Hoyle, who along with other scientists, advanced an alternative “steady state” theory of the universe in the late 1940s. Empirical evidence since 1950 supports Lemaître’s “big bang” rather than the “steady state” theory. None of these scientists were creationists, and none used the bible to provide evidence for their scientific work, nor can silky find Einstein’s equations, Lemaître’s theory, or Hubble’s empirical observations in the bible. Perhaps ns can cite the chapters and verses where they are to be found. If not, silky thinks that ns owes an apology to the memories of these brilliant men for disrespecting their immortal and towering achievements, which will never be matched or even remotely approached by silky or ns.
ellipses, : 6/26/2009
in your 6/23 post you said "it would appear that a whole bunch of people think "theory" = "hypothesis"... ". Therefore I looked up the wor "theory" in the encarta dictionary. One of the definitions was "hypothesis". Encarta thesaurus also listed "hypothesis" as a substitute for "theory".
silky has misread the bible, : 6/26/2009
and exposes his mistake for all to see. Genesis 1:1 say God created the heavens and the earth. Then all the animals, plants, and man came forth from the earth. First, all the raw material, then the reshaping of the material into whatever pleased Him.
silky conveniently leaves out the encarta entry for theory that proves I can read. : 6/26/2009
Here is the entry from encarta dictionary that anyone can access, if fact checking matters to them. Theory - 4. Hypothetical circumstances a set of circumstances or principles that is hypothetical •That’s the theory, but it may not work out in practice.
Let there be light: : 6/26/2009
And you are ignoring the fact that "theory" and "scientific theory" are different. Did you read the expose on scientific theory in that link that I posted?
ellipses, : 6/26/2009
not yet but I am interested in doing so. The fact remains however that you are changing your argument from what you originally proposed. Let me read the link and I will respond to your new argument.
ellipses, : 6/26/2009
apparently, scientists think they can use the same words we layman use but give them different meanings, so there is some validity to what you claim. However, how much validity is in question. Anne Helmenstine, Ph.D., is an author and consultant with a broad scientific and medical background. According to her, “A hypothesis is an educated guess… [that] can be disproven”. A theory “is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.” Forgive me for not placing as much weight on these nuances as you do.
That difference means everything! : 6/29/2009
As a layman, I can say that I have a theory as to why my pepper plants aren't growing well... but scientifically, my "theory" is not a "theory"... A scientific theory is a replicable set of inputs and outputs... it is not a hunch or an idea or a hypothesis... whether we have a lay-definition of the word or not, a theory is what a theory is.
ellipses, : 6/29/2009
tell me how the "theory of evolution" made it past step #3 of the scientific method. Please.
Let there be light. : 6/30/2009
I am glad to see you agree with the SCIENTIFIC-usage definitions put forth by Anne Helmenstine, Ph.D. I do too. Your quotations are accurate insofar as they go, but you left out the crucial differences. Here are the complete quotes: (1) “A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.” (2) “A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.” See: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
Let there be light : 6/30/2009
from the complete quotations this it is obvious that a scientific hypothesis is substantively DIFFERENT from a scientific theory: a hypothesis is an “educated guess” before the experiment or evidence is done. A scientific theory is one or more “hypotheses that have been SUPPORTED WITH REPEATED TESTING.” This difference is NOT merely a NUANCE, as your post concludes. It is the difference between observing that “my car won’t run” and making an educated guess about the problem and then buying and installing parts based on your guess VERSUS making an educated guess about the problem, then actually getting under the hood, confirming or disconfirming (testing) various guesses, and then acting on the best evidence.
Let there be light : 6/30/2009
You state that both hypotheses and scientific theories can be disproven, and that is exactly correct! But the fact that they are similar in one respect does not mean they are equivalent, or the same thing, as you have been trying to argue. Birds, airplanes and flies all have wings, but they are not the same in other respects. It is relatively easy to disprove a hypothesis, but a bigger task to disprove a scientific theory because you must disprove multiple pieces of prior evidence and/or make a better explanation that better explains all the old phenomena, as well as new the old evidence as well as explaining new. But is you are looking to say the scientific theory of evolution can be disproven, forget about it. It’s factual because it has been supported by 150 YEARS of evidence from many sciences, including biology, geology, paleontology, anatomy and embryology, biochemistry and most recently, GENETICS. Evolution has NEVER BEEN DISPROVEN in 150 years of testing. Instead, it keeps gathering more supportive evidence. It works.
Let there be light : 6/30/2009
Scientists have been experimentally testing (and supporting) evolution and natural selection in the lab since the 1920s, and in the field since the 1860s! Moreover, a scientific prediction or hypothesis can and often do PREDICT PAST events. I recommend you pick up a copy of Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish" to see how this works, or at least google it to see how the concepts works. If you show your good faith by being able to describe the process, I may answer more of your questions.
I assume you are referring to the experimental stage? : 6/30/2009
Do you have a dog? If you do, you possess the result of one of the most successful evolutionary experiements ever conducted. Every breed of dog, from the Dalmation to the Chihuahua are decendants of Canis Lupis, the wolf. Selective breeding of animals and selective procreation of plants ( Linnaeus) proves that physical traits can be developed over time and organisms can change drastically given certain conditions. These changes have been observed outside of selective domestication as well. Google the Peppered Moth of England and note how stark the difference is in the appearance of this insect pre and post- industrial revolution. There is also the Dallinger Incubation experiment... where bacteria that normally begin to die off at 73 degrees are cultivated over a period of years in an incubator that steadily increases the temperature until the resulting organisms are capable of surviving temperatures in excess of 158 degrees. We even have experimental evolution by accident! In the late nineties, disinfectant hand sanitizers became all the rage. They were touted as killing up to 99.9% of bacteria... which leaves .1% of the resistent bacteria unchallenged in their quest to reproduce and consume resources... thus ensuring that the resistent bacteria survive. Ted Garland developed a strain of highly aerobic mice by selectively breeding mice with the ability to run for longer periods of time. That experiment began in 1993 and is still in operation. Garland's mice today can run on a wheel 3 times as long as the mice he started with 16 years ago. Natural evolution takes millions of years, but by controlling environmental variables, we are able to replicate the process in much smaller chunks of time. Oh... one last one... corn-- "natural" corn looks much more like those little ears in your stir fry... those giant cobs we eat during the summer are a result of a millenium of evolutionary experimentation.
ellipses, : 6/30/2009
You have not demonstrated an example of evolution at all. You have demonstrated examples of horizontal variation, not vertical variation. Natural selection, when it acts upon the variational potential designed into the genetic code for each organism, is a powerful device for permitting horizontal variation. In other words, many of the various breeds of dogs in existence today didn’t exist in the 17th century. The extraordinarily rich gene pool inherent in those breeds that existed then were able to produce the diversity we enjoy today. (My dog is a mutant however.) We have dogs from dogs. The range of genetic diversity inherent within peppered moths allows the darker moths to survive over lighter moths but they are still peppered moths, not birds. Evolution alleges new species from old ones or vertical variation. Vertical variation by another name would be mutation. The theory of evolution claims that mutations are plentiful and beneficial. In reality, mutations are rare. Beneficial mutations are exceedingly rare. “But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences.” – H.J. Muller, “Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material”. Christopher Wills in “Genetic Load” said that “mutations introduce a “load”, or genetic burden, into the gene pool.” This downward trend is further confirmed by the laws of thermodynamics and the observances of mutations in nature. There is a complete lack of evidence that higher life forms can be generated by any kind of variation and natural selection. Hence evolution cannot be proved according to the third step of the scientific method. You yourself said “A scientific theory is a replicable set of inputs and outputs”, emphasis on replicable. Of course, creation cannot be proved according to the third step of the scientific method either. I find that all people who espouse evolution invariably give me an inadequate explanation of natural selection, as you did. Why don’t you tell me how the theory of evolution explains the origin of the universe, or cosmogony? Steady state vs. big bang? If you care to really impress me, explain through the theory of evolution how chaos became order, life came from non-life, or as in the law of gravity evolving from no law of gravity. Final thought, I find it comforting to believe that silky is a wonderful creature of God. According to you, silky is a mutant. Which is he, man or mutant?
Bill Sickles says: : 6/30/2009
“I think that to believe the big bang theory and Darwin's theory of evolution is tantamount to believing that an earthquake in a junkyard could produce a Boeing 747.” Darwin’s evolution through natural selection is not a random process. Only mutations of genetic material are random. Mutations that facilitate survival and reproduction in a particular place and time are likely to become more common in the population, prompting evolution. Mutations that are detrimental to survival and reproduction in a particular place and time are likely to die out of the population. Mutations that are neutral with respect to survival and reproduction in a particular place and time may or may not persist in the genetic pool, and the overwhelming majority of mutations are in fact neutral.) Fred Hoyle, an astronomer, not a biologist, calculated that the probability of life originating (abiogenesis, NOT evolution through natural selection once life had started) from chance alone was similar to a hurricane sweeping through a junkyard and randomly assembling a Boeing 747. Hoyle’s fallacy, as it has long been known, has been refuted by both biologists and statisticians, including Ian Musgrave in Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_Fallacy In his letter, Sickles not only used a long disproven fallacy, but he mis-applies it to evolution, not abiogenesis as Hoyle intended, thus further demonstrating his ignorance. Why creationists keep repeating this weak-as*** argument, disproven for decades, is a mystery to me.
Bill Sickles says: : 6/30/2009
“I emphasize the word "theory" because many in our modern culture have chosen to convert it from theory to fact.” Sickles confuses a scientific “theory” with the popular meaning of the word “theory.” Is it too much to ask creationists to pick up a dictionary? Why creationists keep making this mistake is a mystery to me. Maybe they would rather just repeat a lie. Or maybe they are too slow to comprehend that most other humans use the same word in different contexts, and understand the contextual meaning.
Let there be light complains on 6-26 to ellipses: : 6/30/2009
“apparently, scientists think they can use the same words we layman use but give them different meanings….” In fact, “let there be light,” nearly all professions and jobs have specialized languages and uses for words, from doctors and lawyers to ministers and theologians. Why should scientists be any different? For example, Christian theologians use “apologetics” or “apologies” in the original sense of the Greek root word mean “speaking in defense,” in their case, a defense of their religion. But the common usage of apology is to express regret for an offense committed, quite different from how the word’s use in theology. Yet a third use is “an inferior substitute.”
ellipses, : 6/30/2009
I thought your 6-30 post with its many valid examples of evolution was very good, but I did notice that “let there be light” responded with a word salad cobbled together from nonsense, misrepresentation and lies from the "Creation Evolution Encyclopedia" website. Visit it if you need a laugh. He dutifully repeats this blather as if he understands what he is writing. I knew it was coming after his earlier posts squirming around trying to re-define the difference between hypothesis and theory as equivalent, just to make his point. He obviously does not know the difference between simple evolution, evolution through natural selection (and its sub-class, evolution through human domestic animal and plant husbandry), or evolution through genetic drift. His statements about mutations are just wrong, as are his misrepresentations of Muller and Wills’ work. But since creationists never do any actual experimentation or research, leave it to them to lie about what honest scientists, both working on evolution by the way, found in 1950 and 1970 respectively. It was also funny when he told us about evolution in peppered moths, which is classic field evidence for natural selection, and then went on to deny natural selection. I nearly fell off my chair laughing. He really doesn’t comprehend what he is writing! Then he used the “laws of thermodynamics” argument against evolution! Even Answers in Genesis tells its creationist readers not to use that argument if they don’t want to be seen as ridiculous. I guess the creationists in Tennessee are even more backward then the ones in Kentucky. And he whines “Why don’t you tell me how the theory of evolution explains the origin of the universe, or cosmogony (sic)?” Conflating theories of biological evolution with theories about the evolution of the universe still seems mind numbingly dumb to me, despite theoretical physicist Lee Smolin’s 1997 multiverse ideas. He ends with pleas for you to “impress me” by explaining the secrets of the universe and biology to him, as if impressing him would somehow constitute self-validation for you. Pathetic. Anyway, there are a lot of good threads in the OR these days, although no one ever reaches the dead end true believers!
A couple of things... : 6/30/2009
First, variation among dogs is, in fact, horizontal... but the fact that dogs are genetically different from wolves, though are direct decendants of wolves, is vertical. Furthermore, we have only been modifying species for a few millenia, given enough time, a lizard can become a snake (as evidenced by vestigial legs on pythons). I cannot tell you how evolution explains the big bang nor how evolution describes gravity for the same reason that I can't explain the etymology of the word hippopotamus using the elasticity of demand... they are different disciplines. Evolution describes the development of biological organisms... the fact that those organisms are constrained by physics is incidental. PS- I don't know silky from a hole in the ground... he may very well be the second coming of christ... or he may be a ninja turtle. PSS- if you'd like to discuss the etymology of "hippopotamus", drop me an email at thegreatellipses@gmail.com... That word has a FANTASTIC lineage that ties together catholicism, greek mythology, and even Washington DC... seriously.
Laws of Thermodynamics : 7/1/2009
How should one go about unstirring the cream from his coffee? Ok... enough of being a COMPLETE nerd for me :-)
An observation : 7/1/2009
from an outsider reading through this thread - one can feel the animosity coming thru loud and clear from those supporting evolution. Those on the creationist side of the argument at least seem to be able to carry on the conversation in a civil tone. Ellipses disagrees but I will at least give him/her points for being civil about it. Why the hatred coming from the likes of silky and especially chris? It really makes one wonder why creationism bothers them so deeply…
ellipses, : 7/1/2009
and silky are respectable debaters. Chris, you are a mutant. I must say thanks however for the "Creation Evolution Encyclopedia" website info. I hadn't heard of it. Since you think so little of it, it must obviously be a very worthwhile source of information.
I wonder... : 7/1/2009
Would it bother you deeply if a significant percentage of the population refused to believe that the sun were the center of the solar system? I think a lot of people on my side of the aisle take a position of near-offense at creationism because it willfully ignores verifiable evidence as if accepting the reality of the physical and biological world invalidates their faith. The world is absolutely older than 6,000 years. Evolution absolutely does occur in nature. Neither of those even hints at contradicting the existence of God. I am sure we could go back and forth on whether God exists or not... and whether any of our contemporary religions adequately addresses the concept of God... but we don't have to reject the actual and tangible facts of the universe in order for God to exist. PS- Civil's what I do... thanks for noticing :-)
Let there be light : 7/1/2009
Yes, the Tennessee website “Creation Evolution Encyclopedia” is very worthwhile. It is at: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/ I also highly recommend the Kentucky website “Answers in Genesis” http://www.answersingenesis.org/ “Creation Evolution Headlines” at http://creationsafaris.com/crev200805.htm and “talkorigins index” at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html are also very good, I read them all regularly and I sincerely recommend them to everyone who is interested in what creationists are "thinking" these days, or to anyone wishing to become a creationist lackey.
silky says: : 7/2/2009
Personally, I would be happy to let creationism and its illegitimate spawn, intelligent design, die a natural death, if only creationists were not always making such a big deal about them, especially pushing them into public school science classrooms. Bill Sickles started this thread, and his letter made a whole lot of deceitful and ignorant claims, including one that implied that scientists were “manufacturing” evidence. A month ago, this same fellow was arguing that the bible should be read in kindergarten classes, along with the biblical teaching that homosexuals should be burned alive, ala the biblical tale Sodom and Gomorrah, and that god would be coming soon to do just that in the USA as “judgment.” People have a right to their opinions, and to express their opinions publicly, but all opinions are not equal. Some opinions are well informed, others are not well informed and are simply ignorant of facts. Creationists do not understand science or evolution theory, nor do they make any effort whatsoever to inform themselves of the facts. The posts of Bill, ns and Let there be Light are evidence of this. Unlike mainstream Christianity, there is no possible reconciliation between fundamentalist religious creationism and science. That is why creationists like Ken Ham and Phillip E. Johnson are forced to invent their own distorted, dishonest, and useless versions of science, which in fact is non-science. Their vision for the future is unrealistic and potentially destructive in a world in which our children and grandchildren will be competing against nations in modern Europe, China, and India.
: 7/3/2009
I read the original letter to the editor and was immediately concerned with the writer's apparent lack of understanding of the theory of evolution. I was raised in a religious household and have no qualms with those who choose to believe the theory of creation; however, I do take issue with those who attempt to justify their beliefs by quoting ideas that are way off base. The "Boeing" theory is incorrect on many levels. First, the process of evolution was not and is not an instantaneous process. Secondly, it is based on the idea that genetic mutations that result in favorable outcomes are kept while unfavorable mutations are discarded. The Boeing theory greatly oversimplifies the theory of evolution and is almost identical to the “Watchmaker Analogy” which was discredited almost as quickly as it was formed. As someone with a degree in biological sciences (which included a semester of Evolution, taught by a Yale-educated professor) I have come to the personal conclusion that evolution is the only possibility. I will concede that Jesus probably existed and, further than that, the man had some great moral philosophies, but I doubt he was a prophet. I also am certain that our wonderful world was produced over millions of years through the process of evolution and the two-thousand year old creation theory.
Science and God are not exclusive : 7/5/2009
Sily, you need to clam down. The fact remains, those of us who are intelligent know that everything on this Earth and in the Heavens, God created. Than, there are y'all who doubt this and believe you came from an ape. I know who created me, and all that I see. That is where faith comes in. I wish you would let go of your hatred for the Truth and see that God loves you before its too late.
the great blonde one, : 7/6/2009
You should at least read my posts and criticize me based on what I actually said, instead of putting your words in my mouth and criticizing me based on them. You bear false witness when you do that. I never said that science and God were mutually exclusive, and I never said, nor do I think, that humans “came from” apes.
Science or God : 7/7/2009
Who cares. Live and let live.
Live and let die : 7/9/2009
Personally, I would be happy to let creationism and its illegitimate spawn, intelligent design, die a natural death, if only creationists were not always making such a big deal about them, especially pushing them into public school science classrooms. Bill Sickles started this thread, and his letter made a whole lot of deceitful and ignorant claims, including one that implied that scientists were “manufacturing” evidence. A month ago, this same fellow was arguing that the bible should be read in kindergarten classes, along with the biblical teaching that homosexuals should be burned alive, ala the biblical tale Sodom and Gomorrah, and that god would be coming soon to do just that in the USA as “judgment.”
Live and let die : 7/11/2009
Personally, I would be happy to let creationism and its illegitimate spawn, intelligent design, die a natural death, if only creationists were not always making such a big deal about them, especially pushing them into public school science classrooms.
