Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

A forum created specifically for polls.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

YZGI;1266050 wrote: It seems to fit. It probably defines my outlook as well as any other word.On second thought, I like combolutionist better.:)
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Nomad »

joey2000;1266040 wrote: Or improved understanding.




Genesis vs. 24 & 25

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The history of global biological diversity is best seen in the marine animals since the ocean is where life started, and marine animals are the best represented in the fossil record.

Multicellular animals first appeared about 600 million years ago in the early Paleozoic and there was a rapid rise in number of families during the Cambrian and Ordovician. Diversity remained relatively constant (perhaps even declining) up until about 200 million years ago and then it rose again to its current all-time high of close to 800 families.

Four eras are recognized, and are characterized by typical life forms:

1. Precambrian: The origin of life.

2. Paleozoic ("Ancient Life"): The origin of plants, most invertebrate types, the first vertebrates (back-boned animals, including fishes, amphibians, and reptiles).

3. Mesozoic (the "Age of Reptiles"): The origin of flowering plants, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals.

4. Cenozoic (the "Age of Mammals"): The diversification of flowering plants, insects, birds and mammals, and the appearance of humans.

The eras are divided into periods. Biological diversity was dramatically depleted by five mass extinction episodes at the ends of the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous Periods. At each of these times a large fraction of existing species was wiped out, leaving the survivors to repopulate the biological world. The most famous of these was the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous because this ended the age of dinosaurs and made possible the evolution and dominance of mammals. But it was not the most devastating of the mass extinctions.

After 3 billion years of very little change, all of a sudden during the Cambrian period, there was a frenzy of evolutionary innovation that generated just about all of the existing major types (phyla and classes) of marine invertebrates plus many others that no longer exist. Accurate dating methods used in 1993 (involving measurements of uranium and lead isotopes) indicate that the explosion happened during a very short period - from 533 to 525 million years ago. This is sometimes called the Cambrian explosion. What caused it is not known - one of the most plausible suggestions is that it followed shortly after marine animals evolved protective shells and cuticles that allowed them to exploit new ecological niches. Another possibility is that more complex body organization became possible after the atmospheric oxygen reached a certain threshold.

The origin of life: the Earth was formed about 5 billion years ago. A series of giant meteorites ("the late heavy bombardment") essentially sterilized the planet about 3.8 billion years ago. Rocks 3.5 billion years old contain microfossils of primitive one-celled organisms without a nucleus ("prokaryotes") resembling bacteria and blue-green algae, and carbon isotope ratios characteristic of biological materials, representing the earliest clear signs of life. The first cells with a nucleus ("eukaryotes") appeared 2 billion years ago, and the first organisms made up of many cells (multicellular algae) appeared about 1.8 billion years ago.





Clearly animals exist in different form today than they did yesterday due to the evolutionary process. It continues in the human evolutionary scale as well.



Human Evolution Example:

Human evolution is characterized by a number of important morphological, developmental, physiological and behavioural changes, which have taken place since the split between the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. The first major morphological change was the evolution of a bipedal locomotor adaptation from an arboreal or semi-arboreal one,[23] with all its attendant adaptations, such as a valgus knee, low intermembral index (long legs relative to the arms), and reduced upper-body strength.Later, ancestral humans developed a much larger brain – typically 1,400 cm³ in modern humans, over twice the size of that of a chimpanzee or gorilla. The pattern of human postnatal brain growth differs from that of other apes (heterochrony), and allows for extended periods of social learning and language acquisition in juvenile humans. Physical anthropologists argue that the differences between the structure of human brains and those of other apes are even more significant than their differences in size.

Other significant morphological changes included: the evolution of a power and precision grip;[24] a reduced masticatory system; a reduction of the canine tooth; and the descent of the larynx and hyoid bone, making speech possible. An important physiological change in humans was the evolution of hidden oestrus, or concealed ovulation, which may have coincided with the evolution of important behavioural changes, such as pair bonding. Another significant behavioural change was the development of material culture, with human-made objects becoming increasingly common and diversified over time. The relationship between all these changes is the subject of ongoing debate.[25][26]

The forces of natural selection have continued to operate on human populations, with evidence that certain regions of the genome display directional selection in the past 15,000 years.[27]
I AM AWESOME MAN
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

Thanks for the info, Nomad.

Do you think God removed himself from the process after verses 24&25 to permit life to take over from there?

Do you agree with Natural selection, Sexual selection and pangenisis?

And on a side note, would not God have known it was good even before he started the process?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Nomad »

Robert JThanks for the info, Nomad.



Do you think God removed himself from the process after verses 24&25 to permit life to take over from there?

In any viewable sense, yes he did. The last communication we appear to have directly or indirectly recieved from the heavens was more than 2000 years ago.

Do you agree with Natural selection, Sexual selection and pangenisis?



Yes I do believe in natural selection which leads to the process of evolution.

And on a side note, would not God have known it was good even before he started the process?



I dont attempt to speak for what God knows or doesnt know. That would be awfully presumptuous of me.

Getting back to what I posted concerning clear examples of ways human skeletal and muscles have evolved, how do you address that?
I AM AWESOME MAN
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

Nomad;1266066 wrote: Robert JThanks for the info, Nomad.



Do you think God removed himself from the process after verses 24&25 to permit life to take over from there?

In any viewable sense, yes he did. The last communication we appear to have directly or indirectly recieved from the heavens was more than 2000 years ago.

Do you agree with Natural selection, Sexual selection and pangenisis?



Yes I do believe in natural selection which leads to the process of evolution.

And on a side note, would not God have known it was good even before he started the process?



I dont attempt to speak for what God knows or doesnt know. That would be awfully presumptuous of me.

Getting back to what I posted concerning clear examples of ways human skeletal and muscles have evolved, how do you address that?I have no squabble with what you've posted there. Where the difficulty lies is in the meshing of the theological and evolutionary content.

I think for the purposes of this thread its fair to ask where if anyplace they fork in what you've posted.

Perhaps I misunderstood your intention. I thought by you posting the Biblical verses along with this, you were showing how creation and evolution are actually one in the same.

The last part of verse 25 says "and God saw it was good". That was the reason for my last question.

As we know then, cattle and four footed creatures came much later after God initial creation. So then we can say that the verses are factually incorrect. Do you agree?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Nomad »

Robert J;1266070 wrote: I have no squabble with what you've posted there. Where the difficulty lies is in the meshing of the theological and evolutionary content.



I think for the purposes of this thread its fair to ask where if anyplace they fork in what you've posted.



Perhaps I misunderstood your intention. I thought by you posting the Biblical verses along with this, you were showing how creation and evolution are actually one in the same.



The last part of verse 25 says "and God saw it was good". That was the reason for my last question.



As we know then, cattle and four footed creatures came much later after God initial creation. So then we can say that the verses are factually incorrect. Do you agree?


Thats where skepticism plays a role. You have to be willing to question the Bible. Many are simply unwilling or it causes them anxiety. The Bible is written in such a way that it begs to be questioned in my opinion. I do believe in a higher power but I havent found a mold I can quite fit myself into yet. Work in progress.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

Nomad;1266078 wrote: Thats where skepticism plays a role. You have to be willing to question the Bible. Many are simply unwilling or it causes them anxiety. The Bible is written in such a way that it begs to be questioned in my opinion. I do believe in a higher power but I havent found a mold I can quite fit myself into yet. Work in progress.Excellent point and thanks for bringing it up. I propose that it does not, would not and should not matter what ones theological preferences are. Its only when attempting to mix them in with a scientific theory that these unnecessary issues are borne and collide with one another.

If we remove the theology from the science, they don't contradict each other because they are different categories.

Many people have the need for rituals and beliefs which require no facts to exist. We are story tellers, us humans, and thats most likely due to the fact that we are social beings. However imagination and hard facts can coexist. One can be sitting on a chair and be imagining they are flying through space, but when the teacher calls on us and says "what are you doing right now?" Our perspective had most likely better be sitting in the chair paying attention to our surroundings. that does not make imagining wrong, just not the time and place. Same thing with theology and science.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by yaaarrrgg »

The real strength of evolution, even as a means of creation, is that it explains what could be seen as "unintelligent" design. Like why our mouths are too small to hold all our teeth, and we often have to get our wisdom teeth removed. (Our ancestors had longer snouts). Common flaws. like bad backs, are the result of something being recently re-purposed from an earlier function, and are half-baked solutions. If we don't see ourselves as works in progress, and instead as the final blueprint, who ever designed us must have been a bit inept, if not mad. :)
User avatar
Snowfire
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:34 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Snowfire »

yaaarrrgg;1266101 wrote: The real strength of evolution, even as a means of creation, is that it explains what could be seen as "unintelligent" design. Like why our mouths are too small to hold all our teeth, and we often have to get our wisdom teeth removed. (Our ancestors had longer snouts). Common flaws. like bad backs, are the result of something being recently re-purposed from an earlier function, and are half-baked solutions. If we don't see ourselves as works in progress, and instead as the final blueprint, who ever designed us must have been a bit inept, if not mad. :)


And why we breath and eat through the same hole. fraught with problems that one. Back to the drawing board eh ? Dolphins got that one slightly better

.

So yes I agree
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

Winston Churchill
joey2000
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:19 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by joey2000 »

Robert J;1266042 wrote: Ya know, I think Hoppy makes very good points regarding the Bible lately. He can correct me if I'm incorrect but I think what I see in his posts is the 'respect for' issue.

Are you asking for others to read the Bible in order to understand it better or are you saying understanding others preference for religion, in this case Christianity, is key?

On one hand the evolutionist's and creationist's are in agreement that the two just don't mix. I make the claim that one is theology and the other science...I won't speak for the creationist's here, they can clarify their opinions if they choose.

OTOH its the evolutionist's and combo people that are aligned in that there is movement and a suggestion that the two are at least in close enough proximity that the internal debate is in fact taking shape.
I'm not sure we have similar definitions of these terms so maybe I'm off.

My point or belief is simply that evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. God is the "who" or "why" and evolution is the "how."
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

I personally feel that evolution is a mixture between natural selection and adaptation. I suppose that wold be correct given the time frame from which I've been allowed to observe!:thinking:

Perhaps this is what brings "morality" into the fold and exactly why religions are so radical. Those that feel they can change their fate, for the better, are more likely to accept the notion of religion than one that is contempt in not degrading themselves.

What you get is the importance to teach a child their self worth as opposed to being of the mind:thinking: a child "needed" to learn something. All a child needs is love to learn
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

joey2000;1266304 wrote: I'm not sure we have similar definitions of these terms so maybe I'm off.

My point or belief is simply that evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. God is the "who" or "why" and evolution is the "how."


"why" negates the very need to conceive the notion "how". When "why" is known then "how" becomes equally as relevant as, what would then be defined as God and God's lack of desire to patronize the hell out of people! :yh_rotfl

Simple for me really. Truth is God. Evolution is truth. Therefore it must be correct the statement "God is evolution".
joey2000
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:19 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by joey2000 »

Sorry but none of this made any sense to me at all. Oh well
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

joey2000;1266311 wrote: Sorry but none of this made any sense to me at all. Oh well


If God were the "why" such would negate the need for us as humans to know "how". If we as humans knew the "why" then we could create our own "how".

This means that "God" would have to be both "why" and "how" without the need for the second after choosing the first.

It's why I've come to the conclusion that God is evolution.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

K.Snyder;1266314 wrote: If God were the "why" such would negate the need for us as humans to know "how". If we as humans knew the "why" then we could create our own "how".

This means that "God" would have to be both "why" and "how" without the need for the second after choosing the first.

It's why I've come to the conclusion that God is evolution.


I'd also said, quite subtly, that if God were a "why" separate from the "how" would patronize the :lips: out of us. Not a very nice "god"!
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by koan »

K.Snyder;1266306 wrote:

Simple for me really. Truth is God. Evolution is truth. Therefore it must be correct the statement "God is evolution".
Logical Fallacy

Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consider the following argument which claims to prove that pie is delicious:

Pie is food.

Food is delicious.

Therefore, pie is delicious.

This particular argument has the form of a categorical syllogism. In this case "Pie is food" and "Food is delicious" act as premises. The first assumption is almost true by definition: pie is a foodstuff edible by humans. The second assumption is less clear; it could mean any one of the following:
  • All food is delicious.

    One particular type of food is delicious.

    Most food is delicious.

    To me, all food is delicious.

    Some food is delicious.

    Anything not delicious can not be considered food.
    Only the first interpretation validates the second premise. If the interlocutor grants this interpretation then the argument is valid; the interlocutor is essentially conceding the point. However, the interlocutor is more likely to believe that some food is not delicious. In this case, the speaker must prove the assertion that pie is a unique type of universally delicious food. This is a disguised form of the original thesis. In this case, the speaker commits the logical fallacy of begging the question.
joey2000
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:19 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by joey2000 »

I didn't go through all that but I'll assume it's right. :) Or to boil it down so even a caveman like me can understand: if it rains and I get wet, that doesn't mean just because I'm wet that it's raining. Saying something "is" something else doesn't mean the 2 are interchangeable, eg in the example above, pie is food, but food isn't necessarily pie.



K.Snyder;1266314 wrote: If God were the "why" such would negate the need for us as humans to know "how".


? No it wouldn't. If I know we exist because God wanted it to be so, there's the why. That still doesn't explain how He did it. Did He just snap his fingers and *poof* there we were? Was it evolution? Something else?

If we as humans knew the "why" then we could create our own "how". This doesn't make any sense either. If something happened, you can't go back and "create" how it happened. Whether it was this reason or that, how it happened obviously can't change.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

koan;1266344 wrote: Logical Fallacy

Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consider the following argument which claims to prove that pie is delicious:

Pie is food.

Food is delicious.

Therefore, pie is delicious.

This particular argument has the form of a categorical syllogism. In this case "Pie is food" and "Food is delicious" act as premises. The first assumption is almost true by definition: pie is a foodstuff edible by humans. The second assumption is less clear; it could mean any one of the following:
  • All food is delicious.

    One particular type of food is delicious.

    Most food is delicious.

    To me, all food is delicious.

    Some food is delicious.

    Anything not delicious can not be considered food.
    Only the first interpretation validates the second premise. If the interlocutor grants this interpretation then the argument is valid; the interlocutor is essentially conceding the point. However, the interlocutor is more likely to believe that some food is not delicious. In this case, the speaker must prove the assertion that pie is a unique type of universally delicious food. This is a disguised form of the original thesis. In this case, the speaker commits the logical fallacy of begging the question.


    Well that's true for "pie" but not for God, truth, or evolution. Because God, truth, and evolution are all one entity.

    If "pie" was the only food source, that would mean "pie" would not only be delicious by all whom taste it, but would be essential to life. This would quintessentially mean that "pie" was not only "good" and "essential for life to evolve" but very true, lest ones innate desire was to die. Dying very definitively rules out any common sense involving evolution whatsoever.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

joey2000;1266346 wrote: I didn't go through all that but I'll assume it's right. :) Or to boil it down so even a caveman like me can understand: if it rains and I get wet, that doesn't mean just because I'm wet that it's raining. Saying something "is" something else doesn't mean the 2 are interchangeable, eg in the example above, pie is food, but food isn't necessarily pie.



? No it wouldn't. If I know we exist because God wanted it to be so, there's the why. That still doesn't explain how He did it. Did He just snap his fingers and *poof* there we were? Was it evolution? Something else?

This doesn't make any sense either. If something happened, you can't go back and "create" how it happened. Whether it was this reason or that, how it happened obviously can't change.


"I'd also said, quite subtly, that if God were a "why" separate from the "how" would patronize the :lips: out of us. Not a very nice "god"!"...

This means that if we knew any of the "why" or "how" would negate the need to know the second regardless of which you choose because they're both the same.

To know "why" everything began is to know "how" in the same way to know "how" everything began is to know "why"? One depending on the first very definitively defines the second as being wrong had the second preceded the first.

It's exactly why you get the question "Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?" from which anyone voting on the "other?" I'm very interested to know what entails your premises exactly.

If God created the universe you'd know how simply by discovering the fact you'd understand the beginning to not be scientific in the same way if evolution preceded phenomenon you'd have every reason to call, what would only be defined from that moment forward as a non existent "god" but alas people will still keep their "faith", from which would rightly be put in quotation marks because such would define the need to know of God/"god" at that point

Simple in my mind really! :thinking:

:wah: :yh_wink
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by koan »

K.Snyder;1266362 wrote: Simple in my mind really! :thinking:

:wah: :yh_wink


Yeah, but we just showed that your mind makes logical fallacies. ;)
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

koan;1266364 wrote: Yeah, but we just showed that your mind makes logical fallacies. ;)


:rolleyes:
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

joey2000;1266304 wrote: I'm not sure we have similar definitions of these terms so maybe I'm off.

My point or belief is simply that evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive. God is the "who" or "why" and evolution is the "how."Thats fine if how demands a who and or why I suppose.

I guess as long as ones concept of God remain flexible or interchangeable it can work. I've just never heard of, been told of or met that God.

So do you agree with Nomad's idea's on the subject or do you have a different concept. Of course applying any current religious doctrine doesn't seem to fit the ever unfolding story evolution has been telling us about life, unless I've missed it, which is quite possible.

As I pointed out to Nomad, at least the description of God's initial creation in the Christian Bible of which creatures he first placed on earth differs from what we know as scientific fact found through fossil evidence.

Perhaps the particulars are not worth bickering over?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

Robert J;1266366 wrote: So do you agree with Nomad's idea's on the subject or do you have a different concept. Of course applying any current religious doctrine doesn't seem to fit the ever unfolding story evolution has been telling us about life, unless I've missed it, which is quite possible. I think the real question is why do they have to be mutually exclusive beyond a certain point within the time line of evolution? Why can't we accept that God is the beginning and evolution is apart of that beginning? Why can't there be the idea that God made blue-green algae, for instance, and we've evolved from that?

Robert J;1266366 wrote:

As I pointed out to Nomad, at least the description of God's initial creation in the Christian Bible of which creatures he first placed on earth differs from what we know as scientific fact found through fossil evidence.


And what does that tell you? :wah:
joey2000
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:19 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by joey2000 »

Robert J;1266366 wrote: Thats fine if how demands a who and or why I suppose.

That's subjective on this particular topic I guess, but (ironically) it is science which demands a why for everything else; in fact, science's very purpose is to explain the why.......eg why is the sky blue, well it's the prism effect etc, or why does water bubble when it gets hot enough, well it's the movement of the water molecules...so on and so on. Yet on this "ultimate why," science just sort of looks the other way and whistles.



I guess as long as ones concept of God remain flexible or interchangeable it can work. ? Not sure what that has do with it-?

I've just never heard of, been told of or met that God. :rolleyes: Obviously you have heard of and told about Him - I'll take your word that you never met him. :cool: So you're saying if you've never met someone, you don't believe they exist? Wow. I hope you're not a census tabulator. ;)

So do you agree with Nomad's idea's on the subject Guess it depends which part you mean.

Again maybe a clarification of "creationist" is in order. From what I understand, that means a literal interpretation of the Bible, which generally includes the "young Earth" theory. I don't believe in either of those things.

Perhaps the particulars are not worth bickering over? Generally, I agree 110%. In fact that is often the "mantra" I trot out when the inevitable bickering about religion/Christianity begins - what's important are the messages God is trying to convey. I personally don't care much whether Lot's wife literally turned into a pillar of salt or not and can't imagine why anyone else (outside of Lot) does.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

joey2000;1266407 wrote: That's subjective on this particular topic I guess, but (ironically) it is science which demands a why for everything else; in fact, science's very purpose is to explain the why.......eg why is the sky blue, well it's the prism effect etc, or why does water bubble when it gets hot enough, well it's the movement of the water molecules...so on and so on. Yet on this "ultimate why," science just sort of looks the other way and whistles.Pose the question and lets see if it gets answered.



joey2000;1266407 wrote: ? Not sure what that has do with it-?

:rolleyes: Obviously you have heard of and told about Him - I'll take your word that you never met him. :cool: So you're saying if you've never met someone, you don't believe they exist? Wow. I hope you're not a census tabulator. ;) You broke my statement up. Although I formed it in two sentences, it's one thought. But to your reply: I've heard of the God of the Christian Bible of course and I'm guessing thats the one you refer to. However, that description of God collides with science here, which is fine, as my point is they don't mix well really. Perhaps rereading my post will clarify my thoughts.

Personally, no, I'm not a believer in any living God, and unless I want GMC all over my ass, I'm no longer calling myself an atheist. I simply don't belong to any group regarding religious references.



joey2000;1266407 wrote: Guess it depends which part you mean.Well break it up and respond accordingly as you do in replying to posts. that should be easy enough.

joey2000;1266407 wrote: Again maybe a clarification of "creationist" is in order. From what I understand, that means a literal interpretation of the Bible, which generally includes the "young Earth" theory. I don't believe in either of those things.Great! why don't you explain what it is you are advocating?

joey2000;1266407 wrote: Generally, I agree 110%. In fact that is often the "mantra" I trot out when the inevitable bickering about religion/Christianity begins - what's important are the messages God is trying to convey. I personally don't care much whether Lot's wife literally turned into a pillar of salt or not and can't imagine why anyone else (outside of Lot) does.We're not talking about religion/Christianity exclusively as you seem to be steering the conversation. This is a thread to compare the likes and differences of what the title reflects.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
joey2000
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:19 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by joey2000 »

Robert J;1266411 wrote: Pose the question and lets see if it gets answered.
Why do we (or the universe, for that matter) exist? The answer isn't the "big bang," that's the how. Or perhaps to narrow it down: why did the big bang happen?

See that's the thing: any "why" you pose to science it may have an answer for, but if you ask a why about THAT answer......ultimately it breaks down more and more (ie heirarchically) until science simply has no answer. That's not a criticism, btw, just an observation. To me that long and winding road ultimately points to God.

I've heard of the God of the Christian Bible of course and I'm guessing thats the one you refer to. I said nor implied any such thing. I just said God. Supreme Being. (Whatever term you care to use)

However, that description of God collides with science here, Only if you're a Fundamentalist, which I - along with the majority of Christians btw - am not.



Personally, no, I'm not a believer in any living God, and unless I want GMC all over my ass, I'm no longer calling myself an atheist. I simply don't belong to any group regarding religious references. ha - np



Well break it up and respond accordingly as you do in replying to posts. that should be easy enough.Well since you're the one who asked about me agreeing with him, how about you point to which part you mean and I'll tell you if I agree or not.

Great! why don't you explain what it is you are advocating?? Not advocating anything and think I expressed my basic beliefs on this topic already...

We're not talking about religion/Christianity exclusively as you seem to be steering the conversation. Nope. I was just mentioning how this mostly comes up in religion forums tied to Christianity, likely due to the literal Bible interpretations which conflict with evolution, so it's very much on topic.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

joey2000;1266419 wrote: Why do we (or the universe, for that matter) exist? The answer isn't the "big bang," that's the how. Or perhaps to narrow it down: why did the big bang happen?If you'd like to talk about cosmology or astronomy I suggest you initiate a thread on them. I haven't learned much much about that, but would be interested to learn as we converse.

As for why life exists or how it began: it began naturally via the elements.



joey2000;1266419 wrote: See that's the thing: any "why" you pose to science it may have an answer for, but if you ask a why about THAT answer......ultimately it breaks down more and more (ie heirarchically) until science simply has no answer. That's not a criticism, btw, just an observation. To me that long and winding road ultimately points to God.Fine, I would not dare tell you not to believe, I'm only making the point that your confusion stems from your insistence to mix theology with science. Separating the two clears things up nicely.

Science is an investigation of things. CH gave a pretty good definition in the evolution thread. Science does not seek to answer spiritual questions, rather it seeks to investigate why things are and how things work

joey2000;1266419 wrote: I said nor implied any such thing. I just said God. Supreme Being. (Whatever term you care to use)You certainly implied it by saying you are a Christian. See Below

joey2000;1266419 wrote:

Only if you're a Fundamentalist, which I - along with the majority of Christians btw - am not.


joey2000;1266419 wrote: Well since you're the one who asked about me agreeing with him, how about you point to which part you mean and I'll tell you if I agree or not.You're sounding a little evasive, but perhaps that's just me. i asked you if you agree with Namad's post in general, to which you replied that depended on which part and I then extended an invitation for you to tell me which parts you were referring to. to now tell me that I need to brake it down line by line and ask you which line you agree or disagree with would be and overwhelming task, and I think you know that.

joey2000;1266419 wrote: ? Not advocating anything and think I expressed my basic beliefs on this topic already...Fine

joey2000;1266419 wrote: Nope. I was just mentioning how this mostly comes up in religion forums tied to Christianity, likely due to the literal Bible interpretations which conflict with evolution, so it's very much on topic.Do you spend a lot of time on religious forums tied to Christianity? Sounds like you want to continue to associate religion with science for arguments sake, but maybe thats just the way I'm reading you.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
joey2000
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:19 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by joey2000 »

Robert J;1266429 wrote: If you'd like to talk about cosmology or astronomy I suggest you initiate a thread on them. I haven't learned much much about that, but would be interested to learn as we converse.

As for why life exists or how it began: it began naturally via the elements.


You keep confusing "how" and "why" (as KS did). They are not the same thing at all. For example, if I eat lunch, the "how" is by putting the food in my mouth, chewing and swallowing etc. The "why" is because I was hungry, I enjoy it, survival instincts, that kind of thing. No science can explain WHY we came into being ("we" ie the universe, or existance itself perhaps).

Fine, I would not dare tell you not to believe, I'm only making the point that you're confusion stems from your insistence to mix theology with science. Separating the two clears things up nicely.Thanks but no, I am not confusing them in the least. I am pointing out that they are not mutually exclusive. Again, you're confusing the how with the why. And keep in mind the topic: evolution vs creationism. By definition this includes discussion of science and religious beliefs (the driver behind creationist beliefs).

You certainly implied it by saying you are a Christian. See BelowNo I didn't. I'm not sure if you're just playing word games or unintentionally tangled up, frankly, and no offense, but I'm not going to go on and on w/this, it's pointless. I was referring to creationists and simply pointing out that most Christians are not creationists (a ridiculously common claim or belief by many non-Christians). Feel free to add any other religion, but almost always when creationists are discussed, it refers to to fundamentalist Christians. What other fundamentalists are there, ie who believe that God just sort of snapped his fingers and poof, there was the Earth, mankind etc? (Honest question, not sure offhand) Anyway, I don't want to get farther down this track either, so let's just move on.....

You're sounding a little evasive, but perhaps that's just me. I think it's you. :cool: You asked if I agree w/him, which was vague as he said a lot of things, and frankly I'm not into going back and replying to every single thing he said. If you can recap the gist of it, glad to respond.

to now tell me that I need to brake it down line by line and ask you which line you agree or disagree with would be and overwhelming task, and I think you know that.Exactly, and that's my point above.

Do you spend a lot of time on religious forums tied to Christianity? I don't spend a lot of time on religious forums, period. But over the years I have done my share (as I find it interesting), as I have on msg boards on a wide variety of other topics.

Sounds like you want to continue to associate religion with science for arguments sake, but maybe thats just the way I'm reading you.

Again keep in mind the topic here. Discussion of creationism by definition has religious aspects to it.



I feel like we're starting to go in circles; we should probably just move on. :cool:
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

joey2000;1266454 wrote: You keep confusing "how" and "why" (as KS did).


I hadn't confused the "how" and "why". To know the "how" tells the story of the "why". Otherwise you have a misinterpretation of the "how". It's impossible to not know the "how" upon the discovering that the "why" exists.

It's very simple
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

koan;1266344 wrote: Logical Fallacy

Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consider the following argument which claims to prove that pie is delicious:

Pie is food.

Food is delicious.

Therefore, pie is delicious.

This particular argument has the form of a categorical syllogism. In this case "Pie is food" and "Food is delicious" act as premises. The first assumption is almost true by definition: pie is a foodstuff edible by humans. The second assumption is less clear; it could mean any one of the following:
  • All food is delicious.

    One particular type of food is delicious.

    Most food is delicious.

    To me, all food is delicious.

    Some food is delicious.

    Anything not delicious can not be considered food.
    Only the first interpretation validates the second premise. If the interlocutor grants this interpretation then the argument is valid; the interlocutor is essentially conceding the point. However, the interlocutor is more likely to believe that some food is not delicious. In this case, the speaker must prove the assertion that pie is a unique type of universally delicious food. This is a disguised form of the original thesis. In this case, the speaker commits the logical fallacy of begging the question.


    You're using a word with multiple variations in place of my premises consisting of one entity. "pie" has a wide variety of differentiations whereas "truth", the word you'd replaced, is of one entity.

    It reads as follows...

    "pie" is good. Food is "pie". Therefor it must be true that food is good. It's as logically true as "Truth is God. Evolution is truth. Therefore it must be correct the statement "God is evolution".

    Oh, and a fallacy can never be logical. :wah: :yh_wink
User avatar
AussiePam
Posts: 9898
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:57 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by AussiePam »

I stand here in wonderment.

:-6
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"

User avatar
Snowfire
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:34 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Snowfire »

AussiePam;1266498 wrote: I stand here in wonderment.

:-6


I sit here occasionally bewildered :wah:
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

Winston Churchill
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by gmc »

K.Snyder;1266474 wrote: You're using a word with multiple variations in place of my premises consisting of one entity. "pie" has a wide variety of differentiations whereas "truth", the word you'd replaced, is of one entity.

It reads as follows...

"pie" is good. Food is "pie". Therefor it must be true that food is good. It's as logically true as "Truth is God. Evolution is truth. Therefore it must be correct the statement "God is evolution".

Oh, and a fallacy can never be logical. :wah: :yh_wink


A fallacy can be logical-for instance the belief that the sun revolves round the earth is a fallacy-we now know that and very few still believe the sun revolves around the earth but the reasons for believing it-based on daily observation are logical until you have the knowledge to investigate further and realise that what you believed to be true is actually false. Not believing the sun revolved around the earth and saying it out loud would have had the inquisition kicking down your door.

Galileo affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are a primitive man at the mercy of the forces of nature and don't know what thunder is or what the lights in the night sky or why you exist then it's logical to assume there is some force or being responsible for it all. Early gods like the greek ones or the one in the old testament are capricious and at times seem vindictive because life seemed fickle and bad things happened for no apparent reason. You could pray to the gods but they might not listen or pay any attention-but that was OK because they must still exist. Imagining how they made the earth and everything on it is also a logical thing to do. Every culture has a creation myth and the christian one is no better than anyone elses-it is not some great truth unless you decide it is and crate a religion and make it a very bad thing to do to question it. Just think of the power-these people do not believe this myth therefore it is their fault the harvests failed/we have disease/we are being attacked. within itself it's all perfectly logical. Become a priest or a shaman and bingo you have power even over those g-bigger and more powerful than you.

You have to believe in a religion like a child does-without question, start questioning and religion loses it's power. that what Martin Luther meant when he said when he said Reason is the enemy of faith.

A scientific theory is an explanation based on the infirmation you have at your disposal. as more information is obtained that throws new light on whatever it is then the theory will change. You might believe it to be true but that can change. it seems some religious people just cannot understand that belief that the theory of evolution is correct is not simply an alternative religious belief.

A religious belief is something you believe without any evidence to support it or indeed despite any concrete evidence that the belief is in fact true. It's like the evidence for miracles someone is cured at lourdes-supposedly and it's a miracle but give someone penicillin and it's not and yet three hundred years ago it would have been. It's just different perspectives on the same thing-someone being cured of a disease.

I'm not religious but I don't object to religious education so long as it is not instead of science. It's been too important in our history to ignore. Funny thing though-the more I studied the history of religion the less religious I became.

Why is a secular society seen as such a threat by the religious. In a secular society religions are free to worship as they wish yet they seem determined to destroy that freedom and take us back to the dark ages where questioning authority was a sin that us why religious people are dangerous to society-they want to shove it down everybody's throat-all for the sake of a god that probably doesn't exist. if you look at the tone of most of the religious threads they go very quickly from discussion to wanting to tear each other apart in no time at all. Believe as I do or else. Religious societies are the most oppressive to live in.

posted by robert J

Personally, no, I'm not a believer in any living God, and unless I want GMC all over my ass, I'm no longer calling myself an atheist. I simply don't belong to any group regarding religious references.


What have i done to deserve that?:-2 I'm 99.99% an atheist-not a 100% because after al I can't prove conclusively there is no god any more than someone can prove he does. -on balance of probability though I don't think there is.

Any of you guys read descartes?

DESCARTES' PROOF FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

or a potted version if you prefer

Descartes' Proof for the Existence of God

he's french so maybe not:sneaky:

You think therefore you exist and no it doesn't follow god exists unless you want to believe it in the first place. 42 is still the best answer to the question.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

gmc;1266539 wrote:

What have i done to deserve that?:-2 I'm 99.99% an atheist-not a 100% because after al I can't prove conclusively there is no god any more than someone can prove he does. -on balance of probability though I don't think there is. Just an endearing remark provoked by fond memories of conversations past. No offense intended.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

gmc;1266539 wrote: A fallacy can be logical-...


Oh yes, you are correct then aren't you?

I was using the definition of "acceptance" to define "logical". It's an easy mistake.
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by yaaarrrgg »

K, it sounds like your view is Pantheism ?
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

yaaarrrgg;1266600 wrote: K, it sounds like your view is Pantheism ?


Pantheism (Greek: πάν (pan) = all and θεός (theos) = God, literally "God is all" -ism) is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God and that the Universe (Nature) and God are equivalent. Pantheism promotes the idea that God is better understood as an abstract principle representing natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that was, is and shall be), rather than as an anthropomorphic entity.[1] Pantheists do not believe in a personal god; rather, they refer to nature or the universe as God.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

I would say it's similar but not quite. The differences being that I believe God is an omnipresent unrivaled truth. God is truth. Logically it's infallible. It's why people always raise the question "If "god" was good why the heart ache?" from which I have absolutely no use of it. God is truth and I accept all that is true. Not to be confused with knowing every truth. I like to know I'm quite comfortable with my intellect("Intelligence" is defined as being loving from which "loving" is defined as being "moral"-- The most intelligent person on the world is the most caring) so I don't want to imply I know everything. Some may differ but I could care less.

But I know God to be everything, including those that are wicked seeing my God as the devil. GOODNIGHT IRENE!

:wah:

This statement I consider true yes...

"Pantheism (Greek: πάν (pan) = all and θεός (theos) = God, literally "God is all" -ism) is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God and that the Universe (Nature) and God are equivalent." Just that God is much more than the universe
joey2000
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:19 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by joey2000 »

K.Snyder;1266468 wrote: I hadn't confused the "how" and "why". To know the "how" tells the story of the "why". Otherwise you have a misinterpretation of the "how". It's impossible to not know the "how" upon the discovering that the "why" exists.

It's very simple
No, sorry, this makes no sense at all.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

joey2000;1266641 wrote: No, sorry, this makes no sense at all.


Hypothetically speaking let's say that "God" made the universe.

On that, how do you prove that "God" made the universe?

...

Hypothetically speaking let's say that "god" did not create the universe.

Would scientific fact of in how the universe began completely rule out the notion that "God" created the universe?

Logically, God and evolution are either the same or they both do not exist.

I accept this as true
joey2000
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:19 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by joey2000 »

There's no point in me again saying this makes no sense and I suspect we are getting nowhere fast. :cool: Moving on........
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

joey2000;1266667 wrote: There's no point in me again saying this makes no sense and I suspect we are getting nowhere fast. :cool: Moving on........


:wah:

If the only "color" were "green" then we'd not only need to not have the definition for "color" but we wouldn't know what "green" was
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by yaaarrrgg »

K.Snyder;1266603 wrote:

I would say it's similar but not quite. The differences being that I believe God is an omnipresent unrivaled truth. God is truth. Logically it's infallible. It's why people always raise the question "If "god" was good why the heart ache?" from which I have absolutely no use of it. God is truth and I accept all that is true. Not to be confused with knowing every truth. I like to know I'm quite comfortable with my intellect("Intelligence" is defined as being loving from which "loving" is defined as being "moral"-- The most intelligent person on the world is the most caring) so I don't want to imply I know everything. Some may differ but I could care less.




That's a clever view. I can see how many traditional statements about God become tautologous under this definition.

I've often wondered if truth isn't created, at least in part, by humans.

For example, if a tree exists, we wouldn't say that "the tree is true" or "the tree is false." The tree is just a tree. We would say that *statements* about the tree are true or false.

In my view, truth isn't a direct property of reality, but measures the degree of correspondence between a packet of information, and the thing it's describing. That packet of information I think must be created by man, animal, or machine, with the intention of describing reality, or another packet of information.

"Truth" I interpret to mean the degree of correspondence that's assigned to a packet (say, a value ranging between 0 and 1). A phrase like "The Truth" I interpret to mean the set of all true statements (all packets of information assigned a value > .5).

Without someone or something to process these packets of information, and give them meaning, would this idea of God exist independently of the mind?
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by K.Snyder »

yaaarrrgg;1266743 wrote:

Without someone or something to process these packets of information, and give them meaning, would this idea of God exist independently of the mind?


That question is irrelevant in consideration to the fact we've already contemplated it. Because we've contemplated it means we give it's meaning. We know it to be true because it once was, therefore will always be. If we hadn't had a mind to begin with we wouldn't have asked the question, from which gives "truth" recognition as opposed to creating it.

If I hadn't existed personally I would be forced to accept the truth, as opposed to deciding to like it or not. It's how we define "free will".
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by gmc »

see what you think

YouTube - Why Evolution is True

Th thing that strikes me about this debate is one side is essentially saying put both sides and let people decide for themselves. The religious seem to want to deny people the choice and insist only the religious view is the one that should be allowed. It's about control, free speech so long as you say what is allowed.

We live in a broadly tolerant society yet we have Christians campaigning for intolerance and the denial of freedom while at the same time lamenting the breakdown of society's values. What they really mean they can't get people to do what they are told because they no longer have the sanctions to force them
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by Ahso! »

gmc;1268901 wrote: see what you think

YouTube - Why Evolution is True

Th thing that strikes me about this debate is one side is essentially saying put both sides and let people decide for themselves. The religious seem to want to deny people the choice and insist only the religious view is the one that should be allowed. It's about control, free speech so long as you say what is allowed.

We live in a broadly tolerant society yet we have Christians campaigning for intolerance and the denial of freedom while at the same time lamenting the breakdown of society's values. What they really mean they can't get people to do what they are told because they no longer have the sanctions to force themIt's group mentality I think, GMC. Its just crazy though because the two are so different. One is science and the other is theology. The way the atheists have handled it is really no better though.

I guess since evolution caused a person such as Darwin to challenge his personal beliefs and make adjustments others just don't want to face that prospect.

It's easy to maintain ones religious traditions and rituals and accept evolution.

I started watching the video and stopped. Not in the mood presently but I'll probably go back to it. Thanks for the link.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by gmc »

Ahso!;1268986 wrote: It's group mentality I think, GMC. Its just crazy though because the two are so different. One is science and the other is theology. The way the atheists have handled it is really no better though.

I guess since evolution caused a person such as Darwin to challenge his personal beliefs and make adjustments others just don't want to face that prospect.

It's easy to maintain ones religious traditions and rituals and accept evolution.

I started watching the video and stopped. Not in the mood presently but I'll probably go back to it. Thanks for the link.


Have a look at his website

YouTube - richarddawkinsdotnet's Channel

There are links in to debates with theologians and the like so you can hear both sides. Fundamentalist atheists are just as annoying as fundamentalist Christians though less likely to belt you one for disagreeing with them.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12434
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by LarsMac »

I have long thought that "evolution" seemed to be a pretty intelligent design.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by gmc »

LarsMac;1268998 wrote: I have long thought that "evolution" seemed to be a pretty intelligent design.


Who designed the designer? Don't tell me god always was and always shall be.

So why do you object to people being taught about evolution and being allowed to make up their own minds?

YouTube - 'Creationism: Still Crazy After All These Years' - Eugenie Scott, AAI 2009
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12434
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by LarsMac »

gmc;1270139 wrote: Who designed the designer? Don't tell me god always was and always shall be.

So why do you object to people being taught about evolution and being allowed to make up their own minds?

YouTube - 'Creationism: Still Crazy After All These Years' - Eugenie Scott, AAI 2009


Where did you get the idea that I object to people being taught about evolution?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
joey2000
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:19 pm

Evolutionist,Creationist or Other?

Post by joey2000 »

gmc;1270139 wrote: Who designed the designer? Don't tell me god always was and always shall be.
God always was and always shall be

Sorry. Truth hurts.

;)

j/k. I respect people's right to believe whatever they want, even if I - gasp - disagree with it, and acknowledge I don't have all the answers. I only ask the same respect and understanding from others. Sadly, far too many many people of all beliefs (including but certainly not limited to atheists) can't handle that.

Return to “Polls, Polls, and more Polls”