# The Dangers of Evolution



## grumpywolfman (Apr 8, 2013)

For those who actually believe that their great great great ancestors came from a bowl of soup that was runoff from a rock (evolution theory), you may find the true title of Darwin's book interesting. Darwin's book was originally titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin said that, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by the centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows." You can see why dictators like Hitler (who used Nazi propaganda to make Germans believe that he was a Christian), REALLY liked Darwin's philosophy; it enabled them to embrace racism, and indoctrinate the masses to view people of different "races" as of a lesser species which hasn't "evolved" to their level yet (ie. an animal). *The Theory of Evolution is a false religion that attempts to remove God from authority and puts man in his place.* MACRO-evolution does not happen. You didn't come from a bowl of soup, and the world is much younger than 'scientists' would have you to believe. Please watch the video below for a more in depth look at the dangers of the theory of evolution.


----------



## crushing (Apr 8, 2013)

Like the word "theory," "favoured races" does not mean what you think it means.  Darwin used the word race as a term for hereditary varieties.  At the time the word race didn't carry the modern understanding of human race.

Hopefully this passage from Darwin's work will help you understand-



> The most distinct breeds of pigeons, in countries most widely apart, present sub-varieties with reversed feathers on the head and feathers on the feet,&#8212;characters not possessed by the aboriginal rock-pigeon; these then are analogous variations in two or more distinct races.



If you are truly interested in Darwin's actual scientific research and not what some anti-science internet youtuber says about it, you can check it out online at http://darwin-online.org.uk/


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 8, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> For those who actually believe that their great great great ancestors came from a bowl of soup that was runoff from a rock (evolution theory), you may find the true title of Darwin's book interesting. Darwin's book was originally titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin said that, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by the centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows." You can see why dictators like Hitler (who used Nazi propaganda to make Germans believe that he was a Christian), REALLY liked Darwin's philosophy; it enabled them to embrace racism, and indoctrinate the masses to view people of different "races" as of a lesser species which hasn't "evolved" to their level yet (ie. an animal). *The Theory of Evolution is a false religion that attempts to remove God from authority and puts man in his place.* MACRO-evolution does not happen. You didn't come from a bowl of soup, and the world is much younger than 'scientists' would have you to believe. Please watch the video below for a more in depth look at the dangers of the theory of evolution.



Er.... no.

Is there a reason you're trying to evangelize and push your religious propaganda here? Just wondering, as I have no issue with your beliefs or you expressing them, just that you might have picked a rather inappropriate audience to aim at. Honestly, pretty much everything you've put up over the last two weeks or so have had me laughing at just how ludicrous it comes across (to me).


----------



## harlan (Apr 8, 2013)

Yes, well, throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't really a productive way to use scientific theory. Evolutionary thinking has gone on since Darwin's time; the language and context of the theory is in some sense limited by what was known at the time, and open to manipulation by those with various agendas. 

'Social Darwinism' is dead. Or if it isn't, it should be.

As for the 'primordial soup' theory, my friend Lynn Margulis would have a laugh at this. Get an education, please.




grumpywolfman said:


> For those who actually believe that their great great great ancestors came from a bowl of soup that was runoff from a rock (evolution theory), you may find the true title of Darwin's book interesting. Darwin's book was originally titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin said that, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by the centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows." You can see why dictators like Hitler (who used Nazi propaganda to make Germans believe that he was a Christian), REALLY liked Darwin's philosophy; it enabled them to embrace racism, and indoctrinate the masses to view people of different "races" as of a lesser species which hasn't "evolved" to their level yet (ie. an animal). *The Theory of Evolution is a false religion that attempts to remove God from authority and puts man in his place.* MACRO-evolution does not happen. You didn't come from a bowl of soup, and the world is much younger than 'scientists' would have you to believe. Please watch the video below for a more in depth look at the dangers of the theory of evolution.


----------



## Cirdan (Apr 8, 2013)

Of course we did not come from _soup_, we came from wood. Odin and his brothers Vili and Ve made the first man and woman, Ask and Embla, from a tree on the beach. They also made Midgard (earth) from the body of the slain giant Ymir, the sky from his skull and the nothern lights from his eyebrows. Soup really, that is just silly.


----------



## jezr74 (Apr 8, 2013)

View attachment $univ.jpg


----------



## The Last Legionary (Apr 8, 2013)

More agenda trolling.  Really, your SOP is "post radical jebusfreak video from unreliable source" then "complain no one watched 90 minute waste of time video that only a lobotomized retarded iguanna would believe" then move on to doing it again in a whole new thread, all the while pushing a POV that only raving nutters with a tentative grasp of reality would believe.

Seriously, when did I miss the rebranding of this site from "Martial" talk to "Radical Jebus Talk"?

This is spam.  When is the spammer going to be booted already?


----------



## The Last Legionary (Apr 8, 2013)

Kent Hovind is a quack, a fraud, a nutter, an all around *** hat.

Can you cite someone credible? Even the Creationist's thinks he's a quack. As to his doctorates, I have 12. Well, 11. #12 is still printing from my deskjet. But as a certified (soon as the ink dries) Doctor of CreationFreakology I can guarentee that he's nucking futts and my qualifications are just as valid as his are. I guarantee it. Except I'm not a tax cheat who's in jail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind



> Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis.





> He holds three degrees in Christian education (1974, 1988, 1991) from unaccredited institutions.





> From 1972 to 1974, Hovind attended the non-accredited Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education.[SUP][2][/SUP]





> In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado, which no longer offers this program).[SUP][9][/SUP]





> Other critics of Hovind have pointed out that Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme.[SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP] The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and even "Doctor of Ministry" degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $25 per month. Currently Patriot offers a monthly fee, unlike most universities, which only charge per-credit fees.[SUP][14][/SUP]





> *Criticism*
> 
> *From creationists*
> 
> ...


----------



## K-man (Apr 8, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> *The Theory of Evolution is a false religion that attempts to remove God from authority and puts man in his place.* MACRO-evolution does not happen. You didn't come from a bowl of soup, and the world is much younger than 'scientists' would have you to believe. Please watch the video below for a more in depth look at the dangers of the theory of evolution.


 Mmm!  And you think that science supports your ridiculous statements. I'm not sure what planet you are from but please keep taking the tablets, especially the little blue ones. Those delusional thoughts seem to be returning.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 8, 2013)

I would highly recommend reading, "The Beak of the Finch, A Story of Evolution in Our Time."  I was a biology and chemistry double major in college, and it was a book we had to read in our evolutionary biology class.  It was a great read, that was easy to follow, and it gave a great view of just how evolution can work on a short period of time (relatively).  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beak_of_the_Finch

http://www.amazon.com/The-Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution/dp/067973337X

**As a side note, I would like to point out that I went to West Virginia Wesleyan College, which is a Methodist College, and yet we still studied evolution.. .**


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 8, 2013)

Ok - The following is 20% trolling. So... theres that.

People are technically different races, which adapted to different environments, and have different physical characteristics as a result. By definition, those differences can allow people to be viewed as separate species, or subgroups of one overarching species which no longer has one single identity. You can thank climate, nature, and environmental factors (ala nature but in a different way) for that.


----------



## harlan (Apr 8, 2013)

Proof, please?



Cyriacus said:


> *People are technically different races*, which adapted to different environments, and have different physical characteristics as a result.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 8, 2013)

harlan said:


> Proof, please?



You can do your own research - Skin tincture is influenced by temperature, is a big one. Thats an evolutionary difference. An evolutionary difference is the difference between humans and koalas. Therefore, there are multiple different species of human.

Note that i dont look at it that way. Im presenting that point in retaliation to a few things the OP said.

EDIT: Slight correction to my logic - Temperature is a result. The cause is exposure to sunlight. Less sunlight and lower temperatures mean less exposure to the sun over a long period of time, and so on and so forth, whether from clouds, storms, or staying inside more because its cold outside and wearing more coverings.

EDIT 2: And this can affect day to day life.
Google the Fitspatrick Scale.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 8, 2013)

Okay........   Really?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 8, 2013)

:chuckles:  I don't think he needs prove that, Harlan, it is something of a given .  Different species now, that is harder to claim for the genetic diversity has not grown sufficiently for that. 

We nearly 'went out' as a species a while back (70,000 years ago) and dropped to a global population of about 10k individuals and that, it is thought in some quarters, is why we are still not very diverse considering the spread of environments we have adapted to.  It is also why we are all related to each other, so let's not squabble too harshly because we are all family at the end of the day.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 8, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> :chuckles:  I don't think he needs prove that, Harlan, it is something of a given .  Different species now, that is harder to claim for the genetic diversity has not grown sufficiently for that.
> 
> We nearly 'went out' as a species a while back (70,000 years ago) and dropped to a global population of about 10k individuals and that, it is thought in some quarters, is why we are still not very diverse considering the spread of environments we have adapted to.  It is also why we are all related to each other, so let's not squabble too harshly because we are all family at the end of the day.



Ah, and thats sorta what i was getting at. How you define races and species is colored by how you look at them. I mean, i could push the point and say that if our population went down to 10k, those 10k developed separately from one another. Separately, without the same influences and conditions and beliefs and educations. The further you take it the more i can argue that were all different species, especially if you go back even further still. The biggest thing we have in common is internal organs.


----------



## harlan (Apr 8, 2013)

Actually, I do (think that that he should support his statement). The INSTANT one uses the term 'race', it needs to be qualified. My understanding (and I openly admit I only have a Bachelor's in Anthropology, and on the fringe of evolutionary discussions due to the academic community that I live in), but 'race' is a discredited term.

BTW...I have a spare copy of 'The Mismeasure of Man' (Gould) if anyone needs to 'bone up' on race theory/social darwinism, etc.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 8, 2013)

harlan said:


> Actually, I do (think that that he should support his statement). The INSTANT one uses the term 'race', it needs to be qualified.


I did. I just couldnt be bothered listing off all the different effects geography has on evolution. Skin pigmentation is just the most visible. I couldnt begin to delve into facial characteristics. I dont have that much invested in the point - Optionally, i could ask you to prove otherwise, and prove that these differences are just random magic that happen to occur in specifically related parts of the world for magic reasons. Its all meant as a counterpoint, good sir.


----------



## harlan (Apr 8, 2013)

Yes, well saying I think the moon is made out of cheese because it's yellow isn't proof (as an analogy). 

To substantiate your statement, I would be interested in any links you may have to studies, abstracts, reviews, etc.



Cyriacus said:


> I did. I just couldnt be bothered listing off all the different effects geography has on evolution. Skin pigmentation is just the most visible. I couldnt begin to delve into facial characteristics. I dont have that much invested in the point - Optionally, i could ask you to prove otherwise, and prove that these differences are just random magic that happen to occur in specifically related parts of the world for magic reasons. Its all meant as a counterpoint, good sir.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 8, 2013)

harlan said:


> Yes, well saying I think the moon is made out of cheese because it's yellow isn't proof (as an analogy).
> 
> To substantiate your statement, I would be interested in any links you may have to studies, abstracts, reviews, etc.



Here you go mate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale
Skin color has an effect on your physiology.
Skin color is developed as a result of sun exposure over time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#Evolution_of_skin_color
If i wanted to be really mean, i could say that because "From ~1.2 million years ago to less than 100,000 years ago, the ancestors of all people alive were dark-skinned Africans.", then all white people are a more highly evolved form of man. Again: Its a vicious rabbit hole, and a perfect counterpoint to the OP. Also, i *think* the all-people-originating-from-africa thing was debunked.

You can find your own studies. Just google it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+of+skin+color+studies


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 8, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> For those who actually believe that their great great great ancestors came from a bowl of soup that was runoff from a rock (evolution theory), you may find the true title of Darwin's book interesting. Darwin's book was originally titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin said that, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by the centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows." You can see why dictators like Hitler (who used Nazi propaganda to make Germans believe that he was a Christian), REALLY liked Darwin's philosophy; it enabled them to embrace racism, and indoctrinate the masses to view people of different "races" as of a lesser species which hasn't "evolved" to their level yet (ie. an animal). *The Theory of Evolution is a false religion that attempts to remove God from authority and puts man in his place.* MACRO-evolution does not happen. You didn't come from a bowl of soup, and the world is much younger than 'scientists' would have you to believe. Please watch the video below for a more in depth look at the dangers of the theory of evolution.



I have no comment on the video or your thoughts on evolution and Darwin; I consider age of the earth arguments to be nothing more than a pointless rabbit trail and the debate of creationism (which is different than a general belief that the world was created) vs. Darwinism to be a distraction.  

At some point, somewhere along the line, some people made less than kind remarks about God and supported their remarks with Darwinism.  That seems to have caused some Christians to become preoccupied with a topic that is frankly meaningless.

Jesus focused on loving God, loving your neighbor, loving your enemies, being honest, being true to one's word, and rendering aid to others.  He also placed a lot of emphasis on the folly of pursuing the accumulation of wealth, responsible behavior (such as counting the costs of an enterprise before beginning it), and stewardship (many parables about that!).  

Personally, I feel that Christianity in general has really missed the boat.  Jesus said that Christians will be known for their love.  Instead, Christians are just as argumetnative, confrontational, hateful, spiteful, and dishonest as everyone else.  And while clergy and impassioned laity point fingers and look down their noses at the world around them, Christian divorce rates mirror those non-Christians, evangelists have made an art out of conning senior citizens out of their savings and social security checks and out of bilking the sick with false cures and fruadulent miracles while coopting new age thought to create a prosperity gospel that is so full of holes and bad advice that ought to be investigated by the FTC, and the most sweeping child sex abuse scandal in recorded history was perpetrated by a branch of the oldest Christian denomination in existence.

Not to mention that Evangelical Christians have overwhelmingly supported political platforms that reward the greedy and impose great hardship on the poor and needy (those people that Jesus was closest to) and have become pharisaical in their attitudes towards those different from themselves.

There is something _seriously_ wrong with this picture.  The apple has fallen very, very far from the tree.  So when you preach the evils of Darwinism and discuss how the secular world is attacking Christianity, you are engaging in the superfluous.  You should be looking at the decay and corruption within, for that is what is truly destructive to Christianity.  The state of Christianity today is perfectly reflected in *Luke 11:39*.  _Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness." _

So instead of setting up those who believe in evolution or Darwinism as ungodly, misinformed, duped, or otherwise posessing less wisdom than yourself (your first sentence is very condescending, though you may not have intended it to be) and creating a state of enmity, I would strongly recommend demonstrating love and compassion.  

Last year, I got caught up in a multi-thead argument in the taekwondo section.  While I stand by the accuracy of my statements, the fact is that I was not a peacemaker.  I could have been, and I could have made the exact same points while doing so.  But I didn't.  And belief in Jesus didn't magically make it so that I did.

We all fall short, giving us the opportunity to do better, not to mention giving us that taste of humility that we all need from time to time.  If we're imagining ourselves as being right and others as wrong and patting ourselves on the back for it as we critique and put down others, we end up being no different than the pharisee in *Luke 18:9-11*, who went to the temple thanking God that he was a righteous man while putting down the publican in the next pew who, unbenownst to the pharisee, actually had the ear of God.


----------



## harlan (Apr 8, 2013)

@ Cyr: 

I don't need to google, thank you. I have a Federal Repository at my fingertips, and some brilliant minds in this field available to me if need be. As for Wiki...considering issues of veracity, I wouldn't personally turn to that as my first reference.

You can be mean all you like, but if posting about skin color differences you are frankly dealing in devalued currency.

harlan...out


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 8, 2013)

harlan said:


> @ Cyr:
> 
> I don't need to google, thank you. I have a Federal Repository at my fingertips, and some brilliant minds in this field available to me if need be. As for Wiki...considering issues of veracity, I wouldn't personally turn to that as my first reference.
> 
> ...



You seem to be looking too far into this. Why do you think skin pigmentation is the way it is? Do you think its just coincidence that it coincides with climate? Go to the federal respository then. I dont have that here in the middle of the desert. Or ask the brilliant minds - I promise you they wont tell you that skin color and other characteristics which are a result of evolution didnt just happen for fun.

Read my points in relation to the OP, not like theyre an attack on human evolution. I did say that this isnt how i look at it.
Im awaiting information which disproves what ive been saying.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 8, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> For those who actually believe that their great great great ancestors came from a bowl of soup that was runoff from a rock (evolution theory), you may find the true title of Darwin's book interesting. Darwin's book was originally titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin said that, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by the centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows." You can see why dictators like Hitler (who used Nazi propaganda to make Germans believe that he was a Christian), REALLY liked Darwin's philosophy; it enabled them to embrace racism, and indoctrinate the masses to view people of different "races" as of a lesser species which hasn't "evolved" to their level yet (ie. an animal). *The Theory of Evolution is a false religion that attempts to remove God from authority and puts man in his place.* MACRO-evolution does not happen. You didn't come from a bowl of soup, and the world is much younger than 'scientists' would have you to believe. Please watch the video below for a more in depth look at the dangers of the theory of evolution.



Coming from a bowl of soup is abiogenesis, not evolution. Different theories.

Hitler was a Christian (Catholic) who also had other supernatural beliefs. He believed in the existence of the Christian god until the end. In any event, Hitler believing, or misusing, something doesn't make it false. He was working on an atomic weapon also. Atomic theory is valid even though he believed in it.

For your quote of Darwin, see this page on well-known misquotations of Darwin: 
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Notable_Charles_Darwin_misquotes

The world is probably not much younger than scientists believe it to be.

Even there were 'dangers of the theory of evolution' it wouldn't mean anything about its truth or falsehood.

Kent Hovind is a well-known pseudo-scientific crank with diploma mill degrees.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 8, 2013)

Cirdan said:


> Of course we did not come from _soup_, we came from wood. Odin and his brothers Vili and Ve made the first man and woman, Ask and Embla, from a tree on the beach.



Heretic! There is _no evidence_ to suggest that the tree was on a beach.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 8, 2013)

harlan said:


> The INSTANT one uses the term 'race'



It meant something different to Darwin, in his time, where he also spoke of the different races of cabbages, for example. The term is loaded now in a way it wasn't in the 1850s.


----------



## crushing (Apr 8, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Also, i *think* the all-people-originating-from-africa thing was debunked.



Presently it is understood that both Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam lived in Africa, although they may have lived up to 140,000 years apart.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 8, 2013)

arnisador said:


> It meant something different to Darwin, in his time, where he also spoke of the different races of cabbages, for example. *The term is loaded now *in a way it wasn't in the 1850s.



Words shift in their meaning as they cross borders and years.  Darwin was a ninteenth century Englishman, so his words are crossing both borders and years.  Many English words are used differently in England than they are in the United States.  While some people do not take that into account when they comment on Darwin's words, others actively use those shifts in meaning to support their own agendas.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 8, 2013)

Aye, from Harlan's reactions I was thinking that 'race', which is an innocuous word to me, denoting nothing more than a roughly 'continental' definition of different appearances of human being, meant something rather more emotive and sinister to him.  Words do have agreed meanings but those can vary from place to place and time period to time period so we have to tread carefully sometimes if we don't want to give true offence when no such thing is intended.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 8, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye, from Harlan's reactions I was thinking that 'race', which is an innocuous word to me, denoting nothing more than a roughly 'continental' definition of different appearances of human being, meant something rather more emotive and sinister to him.  Words do have agreed meanings but those can vary from place to place and time period to time period so we have to tread carefully sometimes if we don't want to give true offence when no such thing is intended.


In the United States, the term 'race' is very much a loaded word.  It has been less than a century since the Civil Rights movement and there are still people in the United States who believe that their skintone gives them more rights than those of a differing skintone.  Though not quite as much now, inter-racial couples still raise eyebrows with some people.  It shouldn't, but it does.  Some of it is also regional; certain attitudes are more prevalant in certain parts of the country than they are in others.  You frequently see a microcosm of this in the states, where parts of the state are more open and progressive and other parts are not.  

The debate about immigration is, to a great extent, impacted by it as well due to differences in skintone.  There are people in my family who assume that every Hispanic that they see is an illegal immigrant.  It is ignorant, but that attitude is not confined to just a few people.  If it were only a few crackpots who thought that way, it wouldn't be an issue.

But the fact is that in the United States, skintone is the basis for a* lot *of prejudice.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 8, 2013)

Sadly, with events of recent times, it's sliding back that way over here too .  

For a little while it looked like we were getting somewhere and that, whilst there would ever be those with racist attitudes amongst us, on the whole we were going to be just fine as a multi-ethnic country.  After all, we've been that way for a couple of thousand years really - time smoothed out the appearance differences and we were all 'British', whichever tribe our roots were originally in.

My own family is a good way of pointing out how we are all a mixed bag of genes.  I'm probably the most 'Celtic' or sort-of-Viking looking of the siblings, one of my sisters is very Nordic and my other sister could easily pass for Spanish.  Getting hung up on race is so silly it makes me grind my teeth but the extremist groups do like an obvious difference in appearance to point to .


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 8, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> i could say that because "From ~1.2 million years ago to less than 100,000 years ago, the ancestors of all people alive were dark-skinned Africans."



And then we "non-Africans" bred with Neanderthals, from the north.. . Producing "fair skinned half breeds".  Today, non-Africans contain 1-4% Neanderthal DNA.  

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-human-interbreed-dna.htm

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10
/neanderthal_and_denisovan_genetics_human_ancestors_interbred_with_extinct.html

http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.htm


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 8, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> My own family is a good way of pointing out how we are all a mixed bag of genes.  I'm probably the *most 'Celtic' or sort-of-Viking looking* of the siblings, one of my sisters is very Nordic and my other sister could easily pass for Spanish.



I bet you are closer to the 4% Neanderthal DNA.. . :bangahead:


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 8, 2013)

:nods:  Aye, I have heard that connection for us Western European types - tho' it was my understanding that the genetic link was stronger for blond hair and blue eyes?


----------



## elder999 (Apr 8, 2013)

So much to address here, and I'm stuck in class with only my phone.... :lfao: talk about torture!:lfao:......For starters, though, perhaps a biologist might point out the differences between macro and micro evolution, _if there is one...._ :lfao:


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 8, 2013)

:grins:  Be strong, mate - those walls will not always contain you and your erudition can burst free of it's iPhone chains .


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 8, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> it was my understanding that the genetic link was stronger for blond hair and blue eyes?



Yeah, I believe you are correct.  Wonder where that puts me as a red head?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 8, 2013)

elder999 said:


> For starters, though, perhaps a biologist might point out the differences between macro and micro evolution, _if there is one...._ :lfao:


At least in how the terms are popularly used, there is a difference. 

Macro evolution is evolution from one distinct species into another distinct species.  Therapod dinosaurs evolving into birds over millions of years would be macro evolution.  

Micro evolution is the evolution of traits within a species.  Humanity spreading to different parts of the world and evolving traits that enhance their living in those parts of the world (skintone, hair texture, etc.) nets different varieties of humans, but they're all still human.

We induce micro evolution by breeding dogs; I can mix labradors and poodles, pick out the ones that have the best traits of both and breed them as Labradoodles (which someone already has done).  While a Labradoodle is neither Labrador nor poodle, it is still a dog.

Again, to take it back to the OP, I don't really care if an evangelist can win a creation/evolution debate.  So at the end of the day the moderator declares him victorious.  So what?  First of all, it proves nothing except that his debating skills were better than his opponents.  But more importantly, in the time it took the evangelist to win his debate, hundreds of children died of starvation, and nobody is going to convert just because he won a debate anyway.

So instead of arguing with people about how old the earth is or digging up evolutionary conspiracy theories, if you really want to spread Christianity, go out and do charitable works.  Feed the hungry, cloth the naked, house the homeless.  _Faith without works is dead (_*James 2:17*), and arguing about the age of the Earth on the internet does not fall into the category of works as it relates to one having saving faith.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 8, 2013)

Time for some research I reckon, Dr. Rush .  It's one great thing, other than the delights that fora such as this can bring, that I think the Internet has really made easier - in 'ancient times' it could take me days and a fair bit of travel to find the books I needed to research something that wasn't covered well in the encyclopedias and other texts I physically owned.


----------



## harlan (Apr 8, 2013)

True, but if one can't convert them, one can kill them. At least, that seems to be an age-old tried and true method of 'winning'.

And while the internet is fluff, is it part of a serious 'war of words' going on by certain groups for idealogical supremacy/legitimacy. 



Daniel Sullivan said:


> At least in how the terms are popularly used, there is a difference.
> 
> Macro evolution is evolution from one distinct species into another distinct species. Therapod dinosaurs evolving into birds over millions of years would be macro evolution.
> 
> ...


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 8, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Time for some research I reckon, Dr. Rush .  It's one great thing, other than the delights that fora such as this can bring, that I think the Internet has really made easier - in 'ancient times' it could take me days and a fair bit of travel to find the books I needed to research something that wasn't covered well in the encyclopedias and other texts I physically owned.



Looks like I've probably got a good dose of caveman in me too.. . 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7062415.stm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025143311.htm


----------



## Drasken (Apr 8, 2013)

Cirdan said:


> Of course we did not come from _soup_, we came from wood. Odin and his brothers Vili and Ve made the first man and woman, Ask and Embla, from a tree on the beach. They also made Midgard (earth) from the body of the slain giant Ymir, the sky from his skull and the nothern lights from his eyebrows. Soup really, that is just silly.



Actually I believe it was TWO trees. The Ash and Elm if memory serves.

And it's funny, I've yet to meet an Asatruer that doesn't believe in evolution despite that story. Generally we can see the value of metephor and ancient attempts to explain things while embracing science instead of fighting it.

Good reply though.

I'm going to go drink some Mead.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 8, 2013)

harlan said:


> True, but if one can't convert them, one can kill them. At least, that seems to be an age-old tried and true method of 'winning'.


Sure is.  And virtually every cultural group, regardless of religion, has tried that method at some time or another.  



harlan said:


> And while the internet is fluff, is it part of a serious 'war of words' going on by certain groups for idealogical supremacy/legitimacy.


I'm not even sure that I'd call it a war.  Creation*ism *is based on pseudoscience, misunderstanding of actual science, bad etymologies, and an insistance upon a literal interpretation of the entire Bible coupled with belief in both the inerrency of scripture and belief that the Bible represents a contiguous continuity from Genesis through Revelation.  People outside of Evangeliclism (and probably some within) see it for what it is and generally don't support it.

On the other hand, accepted views of the age of the earth, origins of man, and evolution of life are accepted not only by atheists, but by most Christians as well.  Speaking for the US, at least. 


One of the reasons that I stopped listening to Christian radio was because the idea of a culture war was being constantly pushed.  The thing was though, the supposed enemy didn't seem all that interested in fighting.  In fact, I couldn't discern any real attacks; simply a lot of whining that Christianity had to share the spotlight with other religions, ideas and philosophies.  That doesn't constitute a culture war in my book; merely a religious temper tantrum.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 8, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> For those who actually believe that their great great great ancestors came from a bowl of soup that was runoff from a rock (evolution theory),


 This is abiogenesis, not evolution, as someone else pointed out.....you can certainly have one without the other. 





grumpywolfman said:


> MACRO-evolution does not happen. You didn't come from a bowl of soup, and the world is much younger than 'scientists' would have you to believe.


Sigh.  How much "younger?" Seriously, MACRO-evolution happens-the "creationism/intelligent design/anti-evolution" crowd hang their entire faulty thesis on "a lack of transitional fossils," when, in fact, there are entire lists of transitional fossils,  one of which , the feathered dinosaur,_Archaeopteryx_, is the original "early bird, " and the answer to that famous riddle, because, clearly, the *chicken* came before the egg.....:lol: In all seriousness, the convolutions needed to make a grotesquely medieval literal interpretation of the creation myth of Genesis fit with scientific fact never ceases to astound me-again, for the record, early Church fathers-and Jews-did not believe Genesis to be a literal history-they knew it to be allegorical, and Origen, Eusebius, Augustine and Maimonides all said as much......lastly, if we need evidence of human evolution, we need only look and see that humans-as in all of humanity-share 98% of their genetic material with chimpanzees. Additionally, we only need to look at lactase manufacture in the digestion of adult humans from certain geographical areas-and the lack of it in others, as well as the Tibetan populace's possession of allele's that allowed them to live at high altitude with lower pressure atmospheric O2 for more recent human evolution if you climb rocks, and your feet get callused, that's adaptation. If you climb rocks, your feet get callused, and your kid is born with calluses, _that's *evolution*_, and all the splitting hairs about "micro/macro" evolution (when they're really the same thing over different periods of time or geographies_ isn't going to change that....:lfao:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 8, 2013)

I still haven't, in over two decades of hearing arguments from Evangelicals for creationism, determined what the danger is.  

And the OP is not the first and certainly not the only person who characterizes it as dangerous.  According to Evangelical theology, faith in Jesus, and virtually nothing else, is the *only* thing that gets you into Heaven.

I don't personally care if a person believes in a literal six day creation and a six thousand year old earth.  I really don't.  Which is why I offered no counter argument to the OP regarding creation.  Holding such beliefs may be problematic for an aspiring geologist or paleontologist, but that between them and their career counselor.  

I do care if a person is an insufferable bully who imposes his or her will on others by bludgeoning them with their beliefs while demonizing the beliefs of others.  It shows a lack of respect and is discourteous.  And people who try to justify bad behavior by cherry picking NT verses are the absolute worst in this regard.


----------



## Steve (Apr 8, 2013)

harlan said:


> Yes, well saying I think the moon is made out of cheese because it's yellow isn't proof (as an analogy).


We all know that the moon's not made of cheese.  But what if it was made of BBQ spareribs.  Would you eat it then?  I sure would.  Heck, I'd have seconds and then I'd wash it down with a nice cold Budweiser.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 8, 2013)

SahBumNimRush said:


> And then we "non-Africans" bred with Neanderthals, from the north.. . Producing "fair skinned half breeds".  Today, non-Africans contain 1-4% Neanderthal DNA.
> 
> http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-human-interbreed-dna.htm
> 
> ...



*claps*


----------



## The Last Legionary (Apr 8, 2013)

Only a fool denies evolution!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 8, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> For those who actually believe that their great great great ancestors came from a bowl of soup that was runoff from a rock (evolution theory), you may find the true title of Darwin's book interesting. Darwin's book was originally titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin said that, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by the centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows." You can see why dictators like Hitler (who used Nazi propaganda to make Germans believe that he was a Christian), REALLY liked Darwin's philosophy; it enabled them to embrace racism, and indoctrinate the masses to view people of different "races" as of a lesser species which hasn't "evolved" to their level yet (ie. an animal). *The Theory of Evolution is a false religion that attempts to remove God from authority and puts man in his place.* MACRO-evolution does not happen. You didn't come from a bowl of soup, and the world is much younger than 'scientists' would have you to believe. Please watch the video below for a more in depth look at the dangers of the theory of evolution.



Why not try and contribute to he Martial Arts portion of this site? 

Also If you really want to have a yelling MATCH with caps and *BOLD *and what have you, and try to get your point across by being the last person standing, I suggest you go and search this site to find out how others have faired with such an attitude. 

Post. Make comments. Enjoy the site. 

Do not dictact religion to me. I grant everyone the path of Zen. I know their path will be unique from my own. I understand that. So walk you path, just do not insist that I walk your path as well.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 8, 2013)

The religious fascination with evolution confuses me--esp. since it's such a lost cause. We know less about how gravity works than we do about how evolution works. (Really, we do.) It's over! You might as well insist on geocentrism--and yes, I know that a few still do.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 9, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The religious fascination with evolution confuses me--esp. since it's such a lost cause. We know less about how gravity works than we do about how evolution works. (Really, we do.) It's over! You might as well insist on geocentrism--and yes, I know that a few still do.



Yeah, but the truth of the matter lies in egocentrism.  Everyone deep down knows the world revolves around ME! :flame:

Well that and the fat lady at Pizza Hut.. . I feel sorry for the poor kids that get sucked into her orbit.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 9, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The religious fascination with evolution confuses me--esp. since it's such a lost cause. We know less about how gravity works than we do about how evolution works. (Really, we do.) It's over! You might as well insist on geocentrism--and yes, I know that a few still do.


Geocentrism you won't see; the Bible doesn't give a detailed account of it.

Honestly, outside of Evangeliclism, you don't see a religious fascination with it.  Where does it come from?

The five solae (by scripture alone, by faith alone, by grace alone, by Christ alone, and glory to God alone), a doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture coupled with a literal interpretation of scripture is where it starts.  The Bible is viewed as a contiguous continuity, written by God as a complete book through a human agency.  So this eliminates the idea that multiple authors wrote the books and that the current form is a redacted and edited form.

So by scripture alone; no theological ideas that are not found in scripture are accepted.  Since scripture is being interpreted as literal, that means that you're starting with belief in a six day creation with every creature being a unique and special creation, humanity included.  

The age of the Earth is being determined by adding up the generations from Adam through Moses (or perhaps Adam through David) and coming up with a number of approximately 5700-5800 years.  This isn't all that hard to do, given that early generations lived for close to a milenium.  As the Bible is being interpreted literally, it assumes that all of the generations are included.  As the Bible is inerrant, this cannot be wrong.

Since the creation account and the time recorded in the genologies beginning with the first man on a five day old planet do not match scientific theories of creation nor estimates of the Earth's age, *and* since we're working from a literal interpretation of the Bible, you now have a circumstance where somebody must be wrong.  Since scripture is inerrant, scientists are not only wrong, but since they have the Bibilical account and choose evolution and a many millions of years old Earth instead, you now have in issue of denial of revealed truth.  

Since they believe that the Biblical account is actually a literal and technical account, they view an old Earth and evolution as being as ridiculous as a flat Earth and geocentrism is to you and I.  Since the Scopes monkey trial, there has been a public policy argument ever since.  Creationists want to see their "correct" views given the same regard in the school system as that scientific fiddle faddle.  The establishment clause mitigates against this, so other variations of Creationism that lack direct reference to a specific creator, like Intelligent Design, are tried instead with similar results.  

What you end up with is a group of people who feel that their views are marginalized.  Groups that feel marginalized tend to be combative, or at least frustrated and on the defensive.

Finally, there is 'Mr. Smith goes to Washington' dynamic at work.  The idea that a simple man with comparatively meager education is more noble than a highly educated entrenched man is an idea that is deeply ingrained in American society.  It is part of how Sarah Palin attained huge popularity in certain segments of the US population.  This dynamic is coupled with the American love of the underdog.  

Throw all of this together, along with a dash of conspiracy theorism and a dash of opportunistic frauds who are happy to sell books to people who will buy anything that supports their own view, and you have a self sustaining counter culture that subscribes to Creationsism.


----------



## harlan (Apr 9, 2013)

Don't leave out the most important part: they vote.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Throw all of this together, along with a dash of conspiracy theorism and a dash of opportunistic frauds who are happy to sell books to people who will buy anything that supports their own view, and you have a self sustaining counter culture that subscribes to Creationsism.


----------



## DennisBreene (Apr 9, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> You can do your own research - Skin tincture is influenced by temperature, is a big one. Thats an evolutionary difference. An evolutionary difference is the difference between humans and koalas. Therefore, there are multiple different species of human.
> 
> Note that i dont look at it that way. Im presenting that point in retaliation to a few things the OP said.
> 
> ...



All Homo sapiens are the same species. Google "human species" and go to the Smithsonian Institute web site.  Species is loosely defined as the level of inter-relatedness that permits interbreeding.  The term has had rather fuzzy issues with precise definition. Humans are all the same species. The only surviving species of the Genus Homo. Sub grouping within the human species is referred to as "populations". Populations are more or less defined by common characteristics found within a group of humans that vary from other groups of humans in varous locations and cultural isolation that result in definable morphologic grouping. Genetic mapping is adding another layer to the "lumping or splitting" of these populations into various subsets. All in all, it is frought with the difficulties of parsing any continuum into subsets. While there is variability in defining exact populations, there is no variability in defining all modern Homo sapiens humans as the same species.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 9, 2013)

harlan said:


> Don't leave out the most important part: they vote.


As well they should.  I laud them for that.

It is the duty of every US citizen to vote.  And to take the time to cast an informed vote (voting party line is almost as bad as not voting).  Knowing the issues and the candidates is the duty of every US citizen.  But largely, the people have abdicated their responsiblity and would rather their party, pastor, or pundit of choice tell them who to vote for instead.  And between non voting and uninformed voting, along with selfish voting, we have the governmental mess that we have today.

And our governmental mess is far more destructive to everyone, regardless of stance on evolution, because our governmental mess adversely affects every US citizen and virtually every culture around the globe.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 9, 2013)

SahBumNimRush said:


> Yeah, but the truth of the matter lies in egocentrism.  Everyone deep down knows the world revolves around ME!


While I have criticisms of Evangeliclism, this is not one of them.  In fact, one of the main criticisms that Evangelicals have of evolution is that it replaces God with man.  I disagree with this assessment and the logic that undergirds it, but in truth, Evangeliclism is a very ego-free belief system.  The believer has salvation through literally no means of his or her own.  Even the decision to believe is credited to the Holy Spirit, as Evangelicals believe that humanity is fallen and is incapable of choosing God without divine intervention. 

That isn't to say that it is the _only_ ego free belief system or that there aren't egotistical people who follow it; that is true of every belief system, as ego can infect the most noble of belief systems. 

Ultimately, Evangelicals want the world to revolve around God, specifically Jesus.  I don't criticize Evangeliclism itself.  While it isn't for me (lots of things aren't for me), it is a functional and viable religion.  It isn't until you mix it with politics and scientific debate that it tends to stumble.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 9, 2013)

It wasn't a stab at Evangelicals, just a poor joke, playing off of the geocentrism comment that Arni made.. .  I should definitely stick to my day job. :uhyeah:

But I agree, Evangelicalism at its heart is more Christcentric, for lack of a better term, than anything else. The quadilateral of priorities are traditionally conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 9, 2013)

SahBumNimRush said:


> It wasn't a stab at evangelicals, just a poor joke, playing off of the geocentrism comment that Arni made.. .  I should definitely stick to my day job. :uhyeah:
> 
> But I agree, Evangelism at its heart is more Christcentric, for lack of a better term, than anything else.


Personally, I think that the people who drive the creationism vs. evolution debate (the only ones who drive it are on the creationism side) _are_ egotistical.  They distract their flock from more important matters with an issue that is really a non issue.

Also, It is egotistical to think that a publicly funded school system is going to teach a belief that is not only scientifically unsound (saying that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old is scientifically unsound), but grounded in religion.  And there is no law requiring you to utilize the public schools to educate your children.  There are plenty of private religious schools and plenty of people who home school.  

The only concession that should be given is monetary: if you do not use the public schools, I do not believe that you should be taxed to fund them.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 9, 2013)

Hmm, not sure I agree with your very last there, Dan but I am of the opinion that anything infrastructural (which includes social infrastructure like schools as well civil infrastructure like roads to me) should be centrally funded.  So, even if you don't use one then your taxes should still be used to pay for the infrastructure for the good of everyone.  After all, there are roads in this country that I will never use but it would be silly to try to claim back tax for that .

Bit of a side step there tho' from the point you were trying to make.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 9, 2013)

Yes, technically there is a stark difference between Creationists (and fundamentalists in general) and Evangelicals.  I was raised in the Methodist Church, and went to a Methodist College, and the Methodists started the Evangelical movement in the 1700's.  The UMC's official stance is the following, "[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]We find that science&#8217;s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and  biological evolution are not in conflict with theology."  The Church also opposes introducing theories such as Creationism or  Intelligent Design into public school curriculum."

http://www.nhumc.info/faq.html


 
[/FONT]


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 9, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Hmm, not sure I agree with your very last there, Dan but I am of the opinion that anything infrastructural (which includes social infrastructure like schools as well civil infrastructure like roads to me) should be centrally funded.  So, even if you don't use one then your taxes should still be used to pay for the infrastructure for the good of everyone.  After all, there are roads in this country that I will never use but it would be silly to try to claim back tax for that .


Yes, and I consider that a valid argument to the contrary.  US law does not force me to drive or make use of the roads, and I benefit directly from them, as I do receive mail, UPS and FedEx.  

On the other hand, I am _required _by US law to school my children.  If I am obeying this law though another service provider, I do not wish to be charged for the privilege of using what I may consider an inferior product or a product that forces me to have my kids taught in a way that runs counter to my beliefs.

Having said that, I believe that religious establishments and organizations should be required to conform to the same standards as other non profits or be taxed, so it would all balance out.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 9, 2013)

I cannot help but notice that the OP has not responded once on this five page thread.  However, his posting has been a springboard for some interesting and fairly meaningful discussion, so I do thank him.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 9, 2013)

I was thinking much the same thing, my friend :nods:.  It was wonderful to see something constructive arise from it.


----------



## DennisBreene (Apr 9, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Personally, I think that the people who drive the creationism vs. evolution debate (the only ones who drive it are on the creationism side) _are_ egotistical.  They distract their flock from more important matters with an issue that is really a non issue.
> 
> Also, It is egotistical to think that a publicly funded school system is going to teach a belief that is not only scientifically unsound (saying that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old is scientifically unsound), but grounded in religion.  And there is no law requiring you to utilize the public schools to educate your children.  There are plenty of private religious schools and plenty of people who home school.
> 
> The only concession that should be given is monetary: if you do not use the public schools, I do not believe that you should be taxed to fund them.


I am aware of some municipalities that assist in transportation to the local private schools.  It was argued successfully that this was fair use of the tax contribution of parents who placed their students in private schools.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 9, 2013)

Macro-evolution is an important concept to make the Theory of Evolution work, because Darwinists believe that it is the mechanism for their idea that all life evolved from a common primordial ancestor (a rock *LOL*). Since micro-evolution is small-scale (&#8220;micro&#8221 biological change, and macro-evolution is large-scale (&#8220;macro&#8221 biological change, many Darwinists argue that macro-evolution is simply the accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes over time. Ostensibly, this is a reasonable extrapolation of micro-evolution. Darwinists, therefore, often cite evidence for micro-evolution as evidence for macro-evolution. However, because macro-evolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macro-evolution. In other words, no amount of micro-evolution will produce macro-evolution. Darwinists draw a false correlation between the two.


----------



## crushing (Apr 9, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Macro-evolution is an important concept to make the Theory of Evolution work, because Darwinists believe that it is the mechanism for their idea that all life evolved from a common primordial ancestor (a rock *LOL*). Since micro-evolution is small-scale (&#8220;micro&#8221 biological change, and macro-evolution is large-scale (&#8220;macro&#8221 biological change, many Darwinists argue that macro-evolution is simply the accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes over time. Ostensibly, this is a reasonable extrapolation of micro-evolution. Darwinists, therefore, often cite evidence for micro-evolution as evidence for macro-evolution. However, because macro-evolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macro-evolution. In other words, no amount of micro-evolution will produce macro-evolution. Darwinists draw a false correlation between the two.




I was trying to figure out where you were coming from with this and I think I found the answer here:  http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm



> When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons &#8212; this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 9, 2013)

crushing said:


> I was trying to figure out where you were coming from with this and I think I found the answer here:  http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm



Coming from the scientific truth that macro-evolution cannot be connected to micro-evolution; it's just the closet thing that could be used to make the deception sound even possible.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 9, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> I am aware of some municipalities that assist in transportation to the local private schools.  It was argued successfully that this was fair use of the tax contribution of parents who placed their students in private schools.


Yes, however, I do not believe that public school buses should be furnished to private schools unless it is done on a rental basis.

My only point was that if there is that great of a divide between people of certain religious denominations and everyone else regarding what it taught in publicly funded schools, the only reasonable request would be to opt out of funding, I suppose on religious grounds.  I'm not really a big fan of vouchers; I would rather spare a non user the tax than take the money and give it back to them (why handle it twice?).  

My opinion regarding people who do not have kids in public schools paying a school tax is not a particularly near and dear belief, but it also isn't a random thought.  It is part of other opinions that I hold regarding use of tax dollars and the extent to which citizens should be taxed, but that is outside of the scope of this thread.


----------



## crushing (Apr 9, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Coming from the scientific truth that macro-evolution cannot be connected to micro-evolution; it's just the closet thing that could be used to make the deception sound even possible.



How do you come to the conclusion that they cannot be connected?


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 9, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> However, because macro-evolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macro-evolution. In other words, no amount of micro-evolution will produce macro-evolution. Darwinists draw a false correlation between the two.



That's not entirely true.  Evolution, as we understand it, is a culmination of four significant processes: *mutation, *genetic drift, natural selection, and migration.  Mutation, by defintion, "new additional genetic information."  IF a mutation is seen as beneficial to the fitness of the species, there will be natural selection for this mutation, and given enough influence, genetic drift towards this mutation.


----------



## harlan (Apr 9, 2013)

Since I am unfamiliar with the correct (if any) usage of 'macro' and 'micro' evolution I will have to do some reading. However, I am a proponent of 'punctuated equilibrium'. 

On a side note, are there REALLY any 'Darwinists' out there (anymore)?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 9, 2013)

harlan said:


> Since I am unfamiliar with the correct (if any) usage of 'macro' and 'micro' evolution I will have to do some reading. However, I am a proponent of 'punctuated equilibrium'.


The short of it is that micro is changes within a species and macro is the transition from one species to another.

On a personal note, _*I*_ believe that without a creator, without a divine agency, nothing comes from nothing and life, the planets, the stars, the galaxy, and the universe, would not be possible.  

If* you (*the general you) believe differently, I respect that.  I do not consider this topic to have any bearing on what type of person you are.  I'm more concerned with how people treat one another than what creation account they subscribe to.  

It isn't a subject that generally comes up in my personal life, and on the rare occasion that it does, the conversations are friendly and respectful.

I also do not believe that it negatively impacts your standing with God.  God wants you to love your neighbor, to be kind to your family, and to have abundant life.  It is more important to have a loving heart than a brainy head, though I am very pleased that my girlfriend has both. 



harlan said:


> On a side note, are there REALLY any 'Darwinists' out there (anymore)?


Good question.  If so, they don't door knock.


----------



## Gnarlie (Apr 9, 2013)

I read this thread from start to finish earlier, and it was reminding me of something that I couldn't place for a while. I've got it now. It's part of the British sitcom Red Dwarf. 

The character Lister has awoken after 3 million years in suspended animation to find that a cat (Frankenstein) he smuggled onto the spaceship (Red Dwarf) was pregnant, and has evolved into an entire race of cat-men. He's asked the ship's computer, Holly, to translate the cat-people's holy book, which is written in smells, to determine the nature of their God, Cloister:

HOLLY: Morning, Dave.  I've finished your translation.
LISTER: Who's Cloister?  Is it me?
HOLLY: Yes, Dave.  The Cats have made you their God.
LISTER: Hey!  Working class kid makes good!
HOLLY: Your plan to buy a farm on Fiji and open up a hot dog and doughnut  diner has become their image of heaven.
LISTER: What?
HOLLY displays a picture from the Holy Book, showing the noble, biblical,sort-of-Lister standing on a mountaintop, reading a scroll to the blackcat.  
HOLLY reads from the book in voice-over.
HOLLY: "And Cloister spake, `Lo, I shall lead you to Fyushal, and there  we shall open a temple of food, wherein shall be sausages and doughnuts  and all manner of bountiful things.
The picture changes to one showing the pseudo-Lister standing in front ofa sausage and doughnut cart on a beach, with palm trees.
HOLLY: "`Yea, even individual sachets of mustard.  And those who serve  shall have hats of great majesty, yea, though they be made of coloured  cardboard and have humorous arrows through the top.'"
LISTER: Does it say what happened to the rest of the Cats?
HOLLY: Holy wars.  There were thousands of years of fighting, Dave,  between the two factions.
LISTER: What two factions?
HOLLY: Well, the ones who believed the hats should be red, and the ones  who believed the hats should be blue.
Another picture, showing the holy wars.  It looks like a scene from theBayeaux Tapestry.
LISTER: Do you mean they had a war over whether the doughnut diner hats  were red or blue?
HOLLY: Yeah.  Most of them were killed fighting about that.  It's daft  really, innit?
LISTER: You're not kidding.  They were supposed to be green.
11 Int. Corridor.
LISTER is walking along.
LISTER: Go on, Hol.
HOLLY: Well, finally they called a truce, and built two arks and left Red  Dwarf in search of Fyushal.
LISTER: But there's no such place as Fyushal.  It's Fiji.  I mean, how  are they supposed to find it?
HOLLY: "And Cloister gave to Frankenstein the sacred writing, saying,  `Those who have wisdom will know its meaning.' And it was written thus:  `Seven socks, one shirt--'"
LISTER: That's my laundry list!  I lined the cat's basket with me laundry  list!
HOLLY: The Blue Hats thought it was a star chart leading to the promised  land.
LISTER: Well it wasn't, it was my dirty washing.
12 Int. Sleeping quarters.
LISTER arrives in his quarters.
LISTER: What happened next, Hol?
HOLLY: "And the ark that left first followed the sacred signs, and lo,  they flew straight into an asteroid.
Another picture.  This one shows red Dwarf in space, with two arks (theylook like boats with rocket engines stuck on the back) leaving it indifferent directions.
HOLLY: "And the righteous in the second ark flew ever onward, knowing  they were indeed righteous."
LISTER: This is terrible.  Holy wars.  Killing.  They're just using  religion as an excuse to be extremely crappy to each other.
TOASTER: So, what else is new?

We're arguing about whether the hats are red or blue.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 9, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Coming from the scientific truth that macro-evolution cannot be connected to micro-evolution; it's just the closet thing that could be used to make the deception sound even possible.



Deception? So it _is _a conspiracy?


----------



## K-man (Apr 9, 2013)

I'm not convinced about this whole creation thing. I mean God was obviously stumbling around in space in the dark and he hit on the idea of putting together a big ball of water. That's pretty good because normally it would be ice as there was no heat.  Then God switched on the light so at least he could see what he had made. Before he got into real estate God was obviously a sparkie so he worked out how he could turn the light on and off. How cool was that? ... And that was all on the first day.

Next day, God gets up and turns on the light. He thinks for a while and decides that he can spend all day in the water so he makes heaven. That was a fair days work so he turns of the light to take a nap.

Then God had a real brainwave.  If he put some dirt in the water and built it up enough he could walk around without getting his feet wet. The dirt was pretty boring so God thought he would pretty it up, so he set about making seeds. There were black ones and white ones and ones with a bit of yellow. He spread them around and like magic, they sprouted into grass and they had the same seeds growing off them. God thought that was cool and went back to make some more seeds. This time he made them a bit bigger. Some were red, some green and some had spots on. He sprinkled them around and, <poof>, he had fruit trees all with fruit on them and seeds inside. God thought that was enough for one day so he turned off the light to take a rest. After three days, he was on time and on budget.

God woke up the next day with a problem. He had great looking plants all around the ground but nothing in the heaven. Back to the workshop and then he emerges with all this sparkly stuff that he shoots up towards heaven and he has stars!
And these are so we can differentiate days and years and seasons, but he hadn't worked years or seasons out yet. He rigged a device so when he turned the light of on Earth, the light came on in heaven and vice versa.

Now God reckoned that things were pretty good but they would be better if the light for daytime was a bit brighter so he made the Sun. That certainly brightened things up a bit but he was still a bit concerned about the night. Just in case he had to get up during the night for the normal reasons and so he didn't need to light up the sun, he thought he would ate a night light so he made the moon.  Then he made the stars. Hang about ... didn't he make some stars this morning? Oh well, he made some even brighter ones and sent them up to heaven as well. And it is still only the fourth day!

Next day arrives and God looks around wondering what he could do next. The place is a bit quiet so he thinks that if he made some little feathery things they could fly around in the air and some cold scaly things that could swim around in the sea. And God talked to these guys and said "Be fruitful and multiply". Not sure whether he meant them to eat the fruit and do the maths but they seem to know what he meant and they played around and had babies as they had been instructed. Not bad for day five.

Now it was time to make animals on the ground. He made beasts and cattle and things that creep and he liked what he saw and decided he would make another creature just like him.  (He must have got it wrong a few times because we ended up with a whole lot of gorillas and chimpanzees.)  Eventually he got the mix right and there standing in front of him in all his glory was Adam! Wow! Adam was a bit miffed. He liked God but he wanted someone a bit different for companionship so God created Eve.  God told them to go away, make babies and look after the place. 

That wasn't a bad effort. In just six days, starting with nothing we now have this fantastic place for Adam and Eve and their heirs and successors. And God rested.

If you want to check you will find this pretty much a paraphrase of Genesis, chapter 1.

If you really believe that this is what really happened .....


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 9, 2013)

K-man said:


> I'm not convinced about this whole creation thing. I mean God was obviously stumbling around in space in the dark and he hit on the idea of putting together a big ball of water. That's pretty good because normally it would be ice as there was no heat.  Then God switched on the light so at least he could see what he had made. Before he got into real estate God was obviously a sparkie so he worked out how he could turn the light on and off. How cool was that? ... And that was all on the first day.
> 
> Next day, God gets up and turns on the light. He thinks for a while and decides that he can spend all day in the water so he makes heaven. That was a fair days work so he turns of the light to take a nap.
> 
> ...



You may have made me spit out my water.


----------



## Carol (Apr 10, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> I am aware of some municipalities that assist in transportation to the local private schools.  It was argued successfully that this was fair use of the tax contribution of parents who placed their students in private schools.



Home schoolers also use public school resources such as tutorial/remedial work, after-school activities and sports.  My sister home schooled her biological kids through grade 8, had she done so all the way through grade 12 she would have had access to even more resources.


----------



## SahBumNimRush (Apr 10, 2013)

Scientists just discovered the first paired anal fin fish.  

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/fish-fossil-human-limbs-130409.htm


----------



## K-man (Apr 10, 2013)

SahBumNimRush said:


> Scientists just discovered the first paired anal fin fish.
> 
> http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/fish-fossil-human-limbs-130409.htm


They are probably the same species that evolved into humans who talk from the same part of the body!


----------



## crushing (Apr 10, 2013)

K-man said:


> They are probably the same species that evolved into humans who talk from the same part of the body!



They figure the fin became a mustache.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 10, 2013)

It was the beginning of symmetric limbs, they figure--pretty cool.  A classic "missing link" find.


----------



## DennisBreene (Apr 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> It was the beginning of symmetric limbs, they figure--pretty cool.  A classic "missing link" find.



Assuming that this isn't the first known example of what turns out to be multiple parallel evolutionary steps. Mutations occur constantly. Most impede survival. It seems possible that there will be several examples of paired appendage mutations that moved along the path to extiction until one finally won out (or more than one maybe).


----------



## arnisador (Apr 11, 2013)

Yeah, as with the eye developing repeatedly, independently--likely so.

Still waiting on the sharks with lasers thing.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 11, 2013)

K-man,

You never heard about Darwin's body snatchers?


----------



## K-man (Apr 11, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> K-man,
> 
> You never heard about Darwin's body snatchers?


Well yes and no!  And, any article that quotes itself as a reference is always a concern. 

However this is an emotive article that takes a little truth and it blows out to a totally distorted inaccurate piece of creationist propaganda.  Most body snatching was for medical purposes, not to prove or disprove evolution. Certainly Australian Aboriginal remains were in demand in earlier times as they were considered to be the most primitive people known at that time, and with about 40,000 years of continuous habitation without outside influence their culture was unlike most other civilisations on Earth.

Australia like America and many other countries have an unsavoury past when it comes to the treatment of indigenous people. I could not say that no Aboriginals were killed for their bodies as I just don't know the facts. But most Aboriginals were killed by settlers either trying to consolidate their selections or in retaliation for stealing or killing of stock.

All this has very to little to do with Evolution.  You have some strange ideas and you make preposterous statements to support your interpretation of your religeon.  It just so happens that your interpretation is one that might have had some credibility three or four thousand years ago when superstitious people provided stories to explain the known world. Since then science has progressed and our understanding is not the same as it was in Old Testament times. 

Now, I am not making any statements as to the existence or not of any deities but suffice to say that every civilisation has worship different gods since man has been around. Every one of them was convinced that their's was the one true God, although many had multiple Gods to cover all bases. You are no different and are entitled to your beliefs.  Why you have to come on MT and post videos created by questionable people and push your barrow I cannot fathom.  :asian:


----------



## crushing (Apr 11, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> K-man,
> 
> You never heard about Darwin's body snatchers?



If you want an account of the development of the science of evolutionary biology and the key scientists involved, I recommend The Violinist's Thumb.  It includes stories of scientists that had taken wrong turns or engaged in what we may consider today as unethical experiments.  The book doesn't not have a religious bias (other than some common cultural exclamations for effect), so it may not be available at your bookstore.


----------



## K-man (Apr 11, 2013)

crushing said:


> If you want an account of the development of the science of evolutionary biology and the key scientists involved, I recommend The Violinist's Thumb.  It includes stories of scientists that had taken wrong turns or engaged in what we may consider today as unethical experiments.  The book doesn't not have a religious bias (other than some common cultural exclamations for effect), so it may not be available at your bookstore.


And you really think he has an open mind to read about real science?  :sigh:


----------



## DennisBreene (Apr 11, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Yeah, as with the eye developing repeatedly, independently--likely so.
> 
> Still waiting on the sharks with lasers thing.



That requires unnatural selection and Dr. Evilopcorn:


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 11, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> That requires unnatural selection and Dr. Evilopcorn:



Or duct tape.


----------



## DennisBreene (Apr 11, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Or duct tape.



Ah yes! You are wise in the ways of modern science.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 11, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Yeah, as with the eye developing repeatedly, independently--likely so.
> 
> Still waiting on the sharks with lasers thing.



Well its true...I found pictures on the internet...and everything on the internet has to be true 












TOLD YA!!!!!


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 11, 2013)

K-man said:


> And you really think he has an open mind to read about real science?  :sigh:


None of us are as open minded as we like to think we are, and anytime someone doesn't want to listen to what we think is correct, we label them as being close minded.  

I'll say what I said over on the Sodom and Gomorah thread: this burst of posts about evolution, Noah's Arc, Sodom and Gomorah, etc. are really efforts at evangelization.  They're not very effective efforts because they never get past argument over the validity of the science or archaological methods used to make the points in the various videos.  

Attacking people's belief in evolution in an ineffective way of getting them to listen to what you have to say about Jesus.  Continuing to try to prove historicity of the OT is also an ineffective way of getting them to listen to what you have to say about Jesus.  Even if you can prove the existence of Ur, Sodom and Gomorah, the great flood, etc. you still don't have a compelling case for Christianity, or even Judaism; you simply proved that the various authors wrote about locals that were known to them when they wrote the naratives that would eventually become the Bible.

Also, much of the evangelization efforts that I have seen start from the premise that man is fallen and doomed to eternal damnation without Jesus, something that early church fathers weren't even in agreement about.  Competing views on the nature of man and salvation all had their basis in the Bible as well, and even the Catholic Church, whose doctrine does not require faith in Jesus for salvation, cites scripture for each and every doctrine that they have.

Jesus spoke a very powerful and compelling message.  And it was a near universal message.  Be loving to your family, friends, neighbors (regardless of their particular faith), and even your enemies, be honest, don't invest your life into the persuit of wealth, and do charitable works and make the world around you a better place.  Even the opening of the Gospel of John states that God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.  Paul states that God is not willing that any should perish.  This is fairly incongruent with the portrayal of God in the OT, incidentally, and completely unrelated to which creation account one holds to.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 11, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> Well its true...I found pictures on the internet...and everything on the internet has to be true
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doctor Evil is very happy.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 11, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> Ah yes! You are wise in the ways of modern science.


Id like to think so. Im pretty fantastic. I once tried to get a rock into space by taping a candle to it and throwing it at the sky! I called it, the Arm Strong. ...Imma leave the thread now.


----------



## DennisBreene (Apr 11, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> None of us are as open minded as we like to think we are, and anytime someone doesn't want to listen to what we think is correct, we label them as being close minded.
> 
> I'll say what I said over on the Sodom and Gomorah thread: this burst of posts about evolution, Noah's Arc, Sodom and Gomorah, etc. are really efforts at evangelization.  They're not very effective efforts because they never get past argument over the validity of the science or archaological methods used to make the points in the various videos.
> 
> ...



Very well put. In theory, science cannot disprove the existance of God. At most it provides a tested theory as to God's process of creation, assuming you believe in God.  I fail to understand how this threatens some peoples' core belief in God. It is easy to see how it threatens somone who's core belief is heavily invested in a particular "story" of faith rather than the faith itself.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 11, 2013)

Cyriacus said:


> Id like to think so. Im pretty fantastic. I once tried to get a rock into space by taping a candle to it and throwing it at the sky! I called it, the Arm Strong. ...Imma leave the thread now.


Perhaps you should request MT change your screen name to* Mr*. Fantastic.


----------



## DennisBreene (Apr 11, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Perhaps you should request MT change your screen name to* Mr*. Fantastic.



:bangahead:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Apr 11, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> Very well put. In theory, science cannot disprove the existance of God. At most it provides a tested theory as to God's process of creation, assuming you believe in God.  I fail to understand how this threatens some peoples' core belief in God.


Which brings me back to why I don't believe that there is any danger to the theory of evolution.  If someone holds it up and says, "See, there is no god," then they're simply being provocative.




DennisBreene said:


> It is easy to see how it threatens somone who's core belief is heavily invested in a particular "story" of faith rather than the faith itself.



The story of faith... well, that is (pardon the pun) another story.  Most Christians I know dislike the use of myth as it relates to Judeo Christian beliefs regarding creation and many of the accounts related in the Pentatuch.  But the term myth does not by necessity mean fictitious.  Cultural myths are constructed in such a way as to embody the beliefs of a particular cultural group, convey a sense of that group's journey from its initial establishment to its current state (at the time of the telling of the myth at least), and to convey the values of that group.  They may be religious in nature, but not automatically; it's only been two hundred and thirty eight years since our nation was founded in 1776 and we already have US mythology.  In fact the hard date of 1776 is a part of that mythology.

US mythology includes accounts of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree and being of such high moral character, not willing to lie about in spite of the likelihood of serious punishment.  So far as I know, this is purely myth.  There is no way to verify the story, so its veracity is questionable.  However, Washington really_ was _a man of great moral fiber, which the myth communicates very effectively.

Paul Revere's midnight ride is another part of US mythology.  In this case, he really did ride to warn of British troops, but he did not shout out, "The British are coming!" as the myth says.  He did, however, alert people along his ride from Charlestown to Lexington that the British were indeed coming, which the myth effectively conveys.

We even have WWII mythology, and that war occurred less than a century ago.

So in the case of the Genesis account, it reads that in the beginning there was nothing and that God created everything, all in a narative spanning a chronology of seven days.  All attempts to reconcile days with ages (day ages) fall flat, and saying that it was six literal days is counter argued by scientific evidence.  But what does it matter?  God created the universe from nothing.  That is what the myth communicates.  Poetic narative was meant to communicate that, not serve as a technical, blow by blow account.  

Look at the creation of man.  The animals (regardless of order) and plant life all come first.  Man comes last.  It also says that God "created them male and female," with the account of Adam in the garden being a separate myth.  The myth of Adam is the start of the formation of Jewish culture, culminating with the formation of the twelve tribes.  Myths tend not to be authored by a single person, but are the culmination of various elements, both historical, apocryphal, and alegorical.  Ancient accounts were transmitted orally, with the versions we read being the version that was most popular or most accepted at the time it was written down.

Looking at Jesus, you have in the Gospels four different accounts of a story that was told and retold probably many times oraly over a period of fifty years to a century prior to being commited to pen and paper.  Other gospels have also been found, but these are not accepted canon for a variety of reasons.  I find the fact that four Gospels that do not fully agree being considered cononical to be a fascinating example of the way myth can be adapted to communicate to different people at different times or in different places, and to emphasize particular values or themes.  They were each written to a different audience, with each one emphasizing different elements in order to commuicate to that audience.  Luke was written by a Greek Physician and was a letter to another Greek.  Mark was written to a Roman audience who valued chain of command and social status.  Thus Jesus was portrayed as saying 'follow me' and men would literally drop what they were doing and follow.  Matthew was written to a Jewish audience and emphasized things that were important to that audience.  John was written in an entirely different style, likely to a mixed audience and definitely to an audience that was under some degree of scruitiny by authorities who were not friendly to Christianity.  John also was writing from a prison island, so he wrote in code.  His audience knew exactly what he was saying, while anyone else would read his letters and scratch their heads.

My personal feeling is to look at the spirit of what the myth is communicating rather than getting bogged down in the details.  Because the details likely changed or were told differently more than a few times prior to the extant versions being handed down.


----------



## DennisBreene (Apr 11, 2013)

Well said Daniel.  Modern historical rigor is relatively new, with it's focus on chronology and source data.  Ancient writings were more accepted for the message they were relaying and there was less focus on such a rigorous analysis of the details in general. Add the aspect of putting long standing oral tradition to pen and it becomes unfair and problematic to try and view these documents as one would a modern historical account. They are products of their age, whenever that might have been, and reflect the trends of that time, not ours.


----------



## grumpywolfman (May 1, 2013)

K-man said:


> And you really think he has an open mind to read about real science?



As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."


----------



## grumpywolfman (May 1, 2013)

Dr Francis Collins (Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute) explains why he believes in a personal God and how his faith is compatible with science.

[video=youtube_share;Ml0FqyFYfrU]http://youtu.be/Ml0FqyFYfrU[/video]


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 1, 2013)

http://maryamrussel.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/evolution-theory.jpg


----------



## crushing (May 1, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."



Aunicornists are every bit as daring.

Rather than re-invent the wheel I will provide a link that provides a nice response to the myth in the Chesterton quote you provided.

http://atheism.about.com/od/fundamentalistatheists/a/AtheistDogmatic.htm


----------



## arnisador (May 1, 2013)

crushing said:


> Aunicornists are every bit as daring.



They always miss this point. (I often use a-vampirists.) But beyond that, the key difference is: I know what it would take to change my mind.


----------



## Cyriacus (May 1, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Perhaps you should request MT change your screen name to* Mr*. Fantastic.


I *did* PM Bob about it, but he never got back to me. Im not sure if he knew i wasnt kidding, or if i was meant to get in touch with someone else some other way :spock:


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."



How does this reinforce the notion of a literal six day creation (I don't believe in a literal six day creation, though I believe that God created the universe), the actual existence of God (which I do believe), or the need for Christ (a need that I see, though the need for Christ that_ I see _may be different from the need for Christ that _you see_)?


----------



## grumpywolfman (May 2, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> How does this reinforce the notion of a literal six day creation (I don't believe in a literal six day creation, though I believe that God created the universe), the actual existence of God (which I do believe), or the need for Christ (a need that I see, though the need for Christ that_ I see _may be different from the need for Christ that _you see_)?



It doesn't - it's a quote that reflects my personal opinion regarding Atheism which I posted it in response to a comment K-Man made (that's why I included his comment with my post). 



Creation Science:

Macro -evolution doesn't happen. The firmament would explain longer lifespans for all life on earth before the flood, and the hydro-plate theory seems pretty solid to me. The erosion and deposition caused by the events associated with and following the Mount St. Helens eruption of 1980 is a good example of the flaws that I see in the assumptions made by uniformitarianism. These theories are covered well in Dr. Hovind's lecture titled "The Hovind Theory." Here is a closer look at the hydro-plate theory:

[video=youtube_share;xb4s362Hcys]http://youtu.be/xb4s362Hcys[/video]

Biblical Archaeology:

Despite the controversy over Ron Wyatt's credibility, I feel that the evidence found and Biblical correlation of the Exodus/Red Sea Crossing in itself is very moving (there have been *follow up teams* as well). Biblical archaeology is worth looking into in my opinion, worth saying "I want to see it for myself and then decide." If God is real, then so are His Commandments, His Word, His Spirit, His Son, and His enemies. If there is a spiritual war going on, then wouldn't it make sense that God's enemies wouldn't want people to know the truth about Him? If God is real, then isn't it probable that His enemies would want to indoctrinate the masses with their beliefs in order to subdue them? 

Something to think about ...


----------



## Cyriacus (May 2, 2013)

Is anyone going around doing Qur'an archaeology as well, by some chance?


----------



## Sukerkin (May 2, 2013)

in case people get the wrong idea about Englishmen (and atheists), Chesterton is a distinguished Catholic author who lived and wrote in a time before we, as a nation, came to see the organisations of the 'great faiths' for the political animals they really are and, in general, shed our need to believe in a creator deity to deal with that which we don't yet understand.  It is little wonder that he had some bias to him on religious matters being a child of the late Victorian era and being a student of such things as Christian Apologetics (tho' he was also known as the Prince of Paradox ); remember, context is always important.

Atheism is, in the end, a simple, rational, decision to not take 'on faith' a fundamentally outrageous assertion that all the multiverse was the product of an entity whose postulated existence can never be more than a postulate.  I have often mused that if someone proposed the idea of a creator deity now, without there being prior traditions for such a thing, it would fail to obtain much traction.  It is only because we, as a species, have had a few tens of thousands of years of accumulated 'divine' explanations for things (that are now explicable) that the mythic and mystic persists.  They are rooted in our cultures and may, in fact, be with us always to some extent as the ability to 'have faith' in the unprovable is tied in with our ability to theorise about things we cannot see or which have not yet even existed.

The physics of life arise from the general physics of matter within the universe.  Supposing the existence of a Creator for life was a decent "It'll do for now" explanation for things when it was impossible to see another way for it to have happened.  But now, for "Meaning of Life stuff", there is a glimmer on the threshold of understanding that we might actually be able to explain it clearly without having to resort to unknowable, all-powerful, third-person actors.

Next stop, gravity and time .


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> It doesn't - it's a quote that reflects my personal opinion regarding Atheism which I posted it in response to a comment K-Man made (that's why I included his comment with my post).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I mean you no offense, but I am fairly well versed with creation science and I find it very unconvincing.  More to the point, it is a distraction.

The real issue is this: How does arguing creation science address humanity's need for Christ?


----------



## grumpywolfman (May 2, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I mean you no offense, but I am fairly well versed with creation science and I find it very unconvincing.  More to the point, it is a distraction.
> 
> The real issue is this: How does arguing creation science address humanity's need for Christ?




These are the common questions/objections that I come across in order:

*#1* - _"A divine creator is a myth, everybody knows evolution is a fact!"_

*#2* - _"I want evidence, give me some proof that your God exists."_

*#3* - _"If God really loved the people he created, then why do bad things happen?"_

*#4* - _"I want to live the way I want to live!"_


*#1* Some people will not want to listen of any need for Christ in their lives until their eyes are opened first to the lies of Evolution. *#4* Is the real reason in my opinion, that most people don't want God to exist; because, it would mean they would have to make some serious changes in the way they are living. A person must be willing to open their heart to God to receive His Holy Spirit, and accept the free gift of salvation sent to us through His Son. But it can be so difficult to try and tell people of the Gospel message, when people immediately refuse to listen and reject the possibility, because they have been misled to believe that God doesn't even exist in the first place.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> These are the common questions/objections that I come across in order:
> 
> *#1* - _"A divine creator is a myth, everybody knows evolution is a fact!"_
> 
> ...


People who believe that a divine creator is a myth are unlikely to be swayed by creation science, as it is based on a book they see as mythological and possibly fabricated.

Also, evolution is not an elaborately crafted pack of lies and has more to back it than creation science does.  In fact, I find that the grandeur of God is revealed in a much greater way through the factual evidence uncovered by science than in creations science.  Unless one holds to a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible, then creation science is unnecessary.

I don't hold to a 100% literal interpretation of scripture, so I don't need to do intellectual contortions to come up with a way to justify my own beliefs.

Also, I find that people who push creation science are usually trying harder to convince themselves.  Or they're selling a book.



grumpywolfman said:


> *#4* Is the real reason in my opinion, that most people don't want God to exist; because, it would mean they would have to make some serious changes in the way they are living. A person must be willing to open their heart to God to receive His Holy Spirit, and accept the free gift of salvation sent to us through His Son. But it can be so difficult to try and tell people of the Gospel message, when people immediately refuse to listen and reject the possibility, because they have been misled to believe that God doesn't even exist in the first place.


Sure.  I'm with you.  But as I said previously, either on this thread or one of your other threads, creation science is a very poor evangelistic tool.  If you wish to truly share the good news of Christ, you would do well to find a tool that is suited to the job.

Creation science is a knee jerk reaction to people using evolution to demonstrate that God doesn't exist/the Bible is false/whatever else.  The fact is that the rejection of Christianity is in great part due to the behavior of Christians.  I see a lot of people wielding the authority of the Bible that I want nothing whatsoever to do with.  They are vile, corrupt, and wicked people.  

Ever notice that it was not the people who wanted to live the way they wanted to live that Jesus was at odds with?  It was the religious leaders of his day that were his greatest foes.

Christians were once simple people who knew the grace of Christ and shared it with others, who found it refreshing and appealing, and they believed.  At some point, it changed into the same legalistic nonsense that Jesus preached *against*.  Then it became the state religion of Rome.  Then it was forced on people at swordpoint.  Then it was forced on them economically.  Then it was institutionalized.  And guess what?  And then it was no longer the way of Christ.  

Then it wasn't refreshing.  It wasn't appealing.  And it wasn't simple.  It became negative and dogmatic.  The very moment it became legalistic (thank you Paul), it ceased to be the way of Jesus.  Why?  Because the free gift was no longer free.

And no amount of pushing creationism (it really isn't science) is going to change that.


----------



## Cirdan (May 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> These are the common questions/objections that I come across in order:
> 
> *#1* - _"A divine creator is a myth, everybody knows evolution is a fact!"_
> 
> ...



Blahblahblah. Followers of the desert religions just whine and complain. Who would give up slaying giants and partying all night in Valhalla for that?


----------



## Sukerkin (May 2, 2013)

:chuckles:  A bit off-topic there, Cirdan.  Funny and it makes me want to post a 'poster' of Odin I saw on Facebook the other day (put up by you I suspect ) but, this being the Study, we do need to "stay on target" as much as we can.


----------



## arnisador (May 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> *#4* Is the real reason in my opinion, that most people don't want God to exist; because, it would mean they would have to make some serious changes in the way they are living.



About 99.25% of prisoners are religious. Over 90% of the National Academy of Science's members are not. Religiosity (as opposed to atheism) does not correlate with good behavior. It's the opposite.


----------



## Cyriacus (May 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> These are the common questions/objections that I come across in order:
> 
> *#1* - _"A divine creator is a myth, everybody knows evolution is a fact!"_
> 
> ...



#5: (The following is one of the less nice things ill have said on the forum, but i cant resist.)
If bad people go to hell to suffer and burn and Lucifer facilitates that, doesnt that make him a good guy, and a champion of justice and humanity who should be cherished and worshipped? By these standards, God and Christ are conspirators, hell (no pun intended) bent on destroying mankind, whilst deluding us into thinking that theyre the good guys.


----------



## Carol (May 2, 2013)

I'm still up for the tartare and mead.  Do they allow backpacks in Valhalla?


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 2, 2013)

You speak Tartar? :uhyeah:


----------



## Carol (May 2, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> You speak Tartar? :uhyeah:



Especially with a fish fry :lol:


----------



## K-man (May 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Dr Francis Collins (Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute) explains why he believes in a personal God and how his faith is compatible with science.
> 
> [video=youtube_share;Ml0FqyFYfrU]http://youtu.be/Ml0FqyFYfrU[/video]


Sorry, I must have missed that bit. Where, exactly, does he say that his faith is compatible with science? Or was that the part where he said because we can recognise right and wrong there must be a God?


----------



## K-man (May 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> It doesn't - it's a quote that reflects my personal opinion regarding Atheism which I posted it in response to a comment K-Man made (that's why I included his comment with my post).
> 
> Can't work out the relevance as I have made no comment for or against the existence of God, and have not commented on Atheism.
> 
> ...


Personally I find this a far more plausible explanation, and these guys have a track record going back over 40,000 years.



> A basic understanding of the concept of &#8220;the Dreamtime&#8221; or Creation period is an important part of recognizing the inextricable bond traditional Aborigines have for the land and their culture.
> 
> 
> Traditional Aborigines believe the earth, like the sky, always existed and was the home of supernatural beings.  At the beginning of time the earth looked like a featureless, desolate plain.  Nothing existed on the surface.  The earth was covered in eternal darkness as the sun and moon were still slumbering under the earth&#8217;s cold crust.  Only beneath the surface of the earth did life already exist in the form of thousands of supernatural beings which lay dormant, along with a vague form of human life that existed in the shape of semi-embryonic masses of half developed infants.
> http://www.upfromaustralia.com/dreamabstoro.html


----------



## Drasken (May 3, 2013)

My problem with creationism and literal interpritation of the bible, or any other holy book, is in translation. And the fact that I doubt literal meaning was ever the point.
On the bible specifically, a friend of mine who is very well an expert (He is a Kabbalistic Jew who is fluent in Hebrew and Greek, and has a Doctorate in religious studies) has said several times that the original text is much closer to God SEPERATED Heaven and Earth rather than CREATED it. And he also trusts in science. Religion was an attempt to explain WHY something happened while Science explains how. 

Just because we understand HOW something happened, or how it works makes it no less magical or wonderous. The fact that scientists have proven that various elements in the presence of the right amount of electricity can form the basic building blocks of life, doesn't mean it's not impressive, or less magical. It shows how it may have happened.

Intelligent people can still be religious and understand science. I have seen it all the time. I have also seen people believe in science and magic. Not to say we can throw fire or fly, but mysticism has nothing to do with that.

Just like you don't have to be religious to be moral. And morality is in no way proof of a Deity. The fact is that when you attack science to enforce or legitimize your religion it shows a lack of faith. You must attack proven fact, and the beliefs of others to make your own beliefs valid? Doesn't make sense to me. This is a flaw I see in people of all religions. Even Atheists are guilty of it.

I find it rather sad. Believe what you believe. I don't care if it is a God, or Gods and Godesses. Or the Force. Or the laws of the universe as understood by modern science. But trying to disprove the beliefs of others to me is just trying to make your beliefs real to yourself isn't it?

I myself am very spiritual. I follow the teachings of Christ because they were good teachings, that in general aren't followed even by his supposed followers today. Buddha is another good teacher. But I know that science is valid and real. And has provable examples. Denial doesn't change that.

On a very small scale we can see the evolution of favorable traits. We have even forced it. Look at dog breeds. Useful traits were bred, and others force bred out.
In nature it happens much slower and is about what is useful to survival. Sorry, but evolution is proven. Which doesn't mean there can be no God. It means a process was explained.


----------



## Drasken (May 3, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> . If there is a spiritual war going on, then wouldn't it make sense that God's enemies wouldn't want people to know the truth about Him? If God is real, then isn't it probable that His enemies would want to indoctrinate the masses with their beliefs in order to subdue them?
> 
> Something to think about ...



It's also probable that there are a large amount of people out there making claims for no other purpose than to make money off of people via books and DVDs to line their pockets. These people do more harm than good.

People like the crazy guy who just made millions pushing a claim that the Rapture was at hand and claiming he knew the exact date. Which came, and went with absolutely nothing happening. Other than many families who bought into it enough to donate their life savings to him in order to help spread the message losing absolutely everything. Much like the so called Mayan 2012 end of the world which was based off of a completely false understanding of the Mayan Calender and supposed prophecies. Which immoral people and a small number of misled people proffited from.

Beware false prophets.


----------



## Cirdan (May 3, 2013)

Carol said:


> I'm still up for the tartare and mead. Do they allow backpacks in Valhalla?



Of course, backpacks are needed to carry the heads of slain giants back to Vallhalla to be mounted on the walls. If you want to be a Valkyrie you will also be issued a winged horse. 

Now, to be less off topic giants represent the forses of chaos and "slaying giants and partying in Vallhalla" would mean living a good brave life without worrying about death and what other people think every minute. Unlike certain persons who spend their time telling people they are wrong and evil for not worshipping one particular perfect superbeing.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 3, 2013)

arnisador said:


> About 99.25% of prisoners are religious. Over 90% of the National Academy of Science's members are not. Religiosity (as opposed to atheism) does not correlate with good behavior. It's the opposite.


Yes, but 99.25% of people in general are 'religious.'  If 99.25% of people were atheists, then you would have similar results.  The biggest difference is not religion or the lack there of, but education and the lack there of. 

But let's go with 99.25% of people being "religious."  They ignore their professed religion 99.25% of the time too.  Being religious isn't a particular virtue.  Religion is simply a part of one's culture.  Different denominations of Christianity are a part of western culture.  Prior to Christianity, different 'pagan' religions (they didn't call themselves pagan) were part of western culture.  

Religious practices were part of community living.  One participated in the religious ceremonies of one's community because they were part of the community.  In fact, that is still how it is now.  You go to church because your family, friends, peers, and others in your community go to church.  Sunday service is an ingrained part of American culture.  There is no particular virtue in simply attending aside from contributing to a shared communal ritual.

Jesus was opposed by the religious.  Not just people who were simply religious, but the very religious leaders of his day.  Not all of them; the Gospel accounts are clear that the religious leaders were divided and that it was a pharisee who donated his tomb to Jesus (who rose from the dead, thus freeing up the tomb for him to again use at a future date.  Convenient.) and there are many points where the Gospels state that there was division between the clergy.

Being religious is no virtue in and of itself.  Any more than being non religious is a virtue.  Some people like to say that they're spiritual but not religious, so belief does not automatically equate to religious either.

As for prisoners who are religious, many are religious after the fact.  But their religious beliefs were likely very far from their minds when they committed the crimes that they were imprisoned for.

I've known a good number of atheists and agnostics over the years.  Some are good friends.  They have the same foibles as my religious friends, and their lack of belief doesn't somehow elevate them above the brainwashed masses.

The fact is that for the most part, the masses aren't brainwashed.  Religion is a social obligation for most.  It is also a part of their social identity.  "I am better than they are because I'm an American and I'm a Christian.  Now let's go drinking and raise some hell.'  Religion simply serves as another box to check off as to whether or not another is part of the clique.  Or, are they one of us?


----------



## arnisador (May 3, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Yes, but 99.25% of people in general are 'religious.'



Estimates vary for the U.S. (which is where this data is from) but the nonreligious are variously estimated at 5-20%. It depends a lot on how the questions is asked--and whether "no religion" means the same as "atheist" to people, some of whom might identify as "spiritual" in some sense.



> Religion is a social obligation for most.  It is also a part of their social identity.  "I am better than they are because I'm an American and I'm a Christian.  Now let's go drinking and raise some hell.'  Religion simply serves as another box to check off as to whether or not another is part of the clique.  Or, are they one of us?



Not long ago there were two unrelated surveys released in Britain--one showed that over 50% of the population said they didn't believe in god, and the other showed that over 60% said they were either Protestant or Catholic. (This is from memory--the numbers may be somewhat off.) They found an explanation: Many of those identifying as Protestant or Catholic also claimed to be irreligious. It was a social identity issue--they were socially and historically religious, much as I might say "I'm British" when I mean "I'm American but of largely British descent".


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 6, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Estimates vary for the U.S. (which is where this data is from) but the nonreligious are variously estimated at 5-20%. It depends a lot on how the questions is asked--and whether "no religion" means the same as "atheist" to people, some of whom might identify as "spiritual" in some sense.


Which means that 80-95% claim a religion.  No religion, in my opinion, doesn't mean much without qualification, as as you said, "spiritual" isn't a religion, but many people identify themselves as such.  



arnisador said:


> Not long ago there were two unrelated surveys released in Britain--one showed that over 50% of the population said they didn't believe in god, and the other showed that over 60% said they were either Protestant or Catholic. (This is from memory--the numbers may be somewhat off.) They found an explanation: *Many of those identifying as Protestant or Catholic also claimed to be irreligious. *It was a social identity issue--they were socially and historically religious, much as I might say "I'm British" when I mean "I'm American but of largely British descent".


Which underscores my point; being Protestant or Catholic is part of western culture.  When you get right down to it, most people enjoy the culture that they live in and strict religious observance would inhibit their ability to do so.


----------

