The Bible is a book.

So anyone who disagrees with you is a troll? Whatever happened to passionate disagreement?


Which would be great, Wayfinder, except you go right on in the next statement and make this preposterous assertion:


And I responded because that is absolutely not true.

In order for your statement to be true, I.D. proponents would have to submit their theories to peer review in scientific journals (part of the science process for ALL other theoretical work, including that dealing with evolutionary theory). And yet the few attempts they've made have met with a veritable cuisinart of analytical criticism. Why? Because they cannot couch any such "theory" at all - I.D. is not a theory, it is a religious meme. Forcing it into science is pushing a round peg in a square hole. From that link:



From Talkorigins.org, possibly the best source of information anywhere on biology and the science of evolution:

So you may have read claims that I.D.'ers can prove their position, but what exactly are those claims? Specifics would be helpful, but nothing I have ever seen tells me I.D. proponents can "prove" there is an intelligent designer -- that's the whole crumbling fallacy underlying their position. It's not science. It's a religious meme and nothing more than a religious meme.

More from Talkorigins.org"


Perhaps you were reading Phillip Johnson or William Dembski, neither of whom has any scientific credibility. Johnson is a lawyer whose life work has been his attempts to bring Evolution to some "trial" (which isn't how science works). Dembski ... well, Dembski gets laughed at a lot. Neither of them are reliable sources for accurate facts.


And yet you actually believe I.D. has a scientific leg to stand on. Pot, meet kettle.

For your information, Way, I've spent the last 20 years of my life finding out for myself what the truth was regarding science and religion. I actually started out a devout Protestant, but the more I found out the less I was sold on the whole religion thing. It wasn't Evolution that changed my mind -- Evolution is neither pro nor anti-religion at all, it is a scientific theory that has been very profoundly supported by 100+ years of research since Darwin.

What changed me was the realization that religion repeatedly has rested its positions on shaky ground and invariably retreated before the advance of knowledge and enlightenment (Galileo as much as Darwin). I prefer not stake my ground on shifting sand, but that's just me. Others' mileage may vary, which is fine. I have no problem with that - up until the moment you start to post things that are patently untrue and try to pass them off as truth. That's when I will speak up, regardless of the names you call me.

So which Christians are the genitalia? The catholic priests? Or the ultra-conservative republican politicians who keep getting caught up in sex scandals?

talkorigins.org is an organization of atheists who came together to counter those who dare question the belief in macro-evolution. It's hardly an unbiased source.

Wow, some contribution to the discussion. I'm impressed.

Not even a clever bit of ad hominem, Kevn. Rather than rebutt the ideas they set forth, you name-call. Sweet. (And FYI, macro-evolution is nothing but a lot of micro-evolutions. You don't want to go there with me.)

I take it you have never read talkorigins at all, then -- my assumption being based on the fact that most contributors to that site are scientists, not "atheists" (your catch-all bogeymen) and they treat all ideas with the same rigorous analysis that they treat the Theory of Evolution -- maybe you're just pissed that religious nuts don't get a free pass with them?

From the talkorigins FAQ:


"Mainstream science", Kevn. That's hardly "atheism", but after having dealt with you this past week I think I understand why you're so easily confused.

Sorry, being a devout atheist, I'm not entirely familiar with this "religion" thing, so I was just curious

To your earlier statements - Governement should not make moral judgements , it should instead protect individual and communal rights. It should neither endorse or persecute any set of religious beliefs.

Currently there is legislated Morality of a Christain bent, that has been codified into law for many years. Some efforts to ease these laws (such as sodomy laws, laws against cohabitation) have been sucessful. Others (such as these bans on gay Marriage) have gone in the other direction.

The People should be pretoected from Moral based laws passed by the Majority. Indeed they were intended to be protected.

As to the Bill of rights - it exists PRIMARILY to protect the minority from the Majority , since the governement is run by the Majority (and special interests) in our system. Calling the officials in Washington a minority is not really accurate since they are all voted by a majority of voters in their districts. If the people were sufficeiently motivated they could within 6 years vote out all of Congress and the President.

Many states would not agree to ratify the Constitution without the promise that a Bill of Rights would be included out of fear of government oppression.

The History of the United States is of course riddled with examples of oppression of the minority at the guidance and/or consent of the Majority - For example Codified discriminaion agains black people. It is a constant struggle to maintain our system free from persecuation.

As i pointed out the Christains now who are demanding legislated morality that adheres to their beliefs might be the minority someday. They may need protected from the opression of a majority.

The system is intended to do that.

Cindy,

We have discussed evolution in this forum on several occasions. You might search the archives.

Before one begins with such a discussion one should understand the difference between micro and macro-evolution. I'd be happy to discuss it with you in another thread if I thought you would be willing to hear the other side. I won't return barbs for barbs in a discussion on evolution, because it only hardens the stance of both sides.

It's unlikely you will read what I post, your mind is set in this matter from years of indoctrination. We are all indoctrinated, so please don't take it as an ad hom. When I see quotes from talkorigins I smile, it's the website most who believe in macro-evolution use to argue their points.
If you want to discuss it rationally, start a thread about it and I'll join in.

Actually it means a huge amount to the Christains also.

That is what im trying to explain about this legislating Morality.

Religion is part of belief - and belief can be used for POWER

The history of the Catholic Church shows what that Power was used for. Its extremely important that today's Christains understand the temptations of that power.

Especially since they have an agenda - To ban gay marriage, to end abortion, to make vouchers for parachial schools, to have prayer in school, to allow the governement to display things like the 10 commandments and dipictions of the nativity, to teach Intelligent Design.

I have known several Christains who have gone as far to say the 1st ammendement guarantees freedom of religeon AS LONG AS YOU BELIEVE IN GOD.

Knowledge of the history of the Catholic Chirch and reformation can do much to educate people to the Danger of that attitude.

Becuase Tommorrow's Agenda is potentially worse.

I find this interesting...

I have yet to meet a christian who recognizes much of god's attitude problem in the old testiment. I mean... wow... talk about an angry guy!

Most "real" christians talk about the teachings of god's love... in fact... Kevn, doesn't your little forum tag refer to such? Have you read the old testiment? Or are you a new-age christian that seems to forget how god killed the first born of both man and beast in all of Egypyt, or perhaps the animal sacrifices?

Ooooh, and one of my favorite lines...

Genesis 35:5 And they journeyed: and the terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob.

The terror of god... hmmm... god is love alright.

I will fight any church that tries to take away my rights to believe as I will. No need to worry Christians want to give power to the Catholic Church. The Catholic church is shrinking, not growing. Christians are leaving organized religions in favor of small, home based churches.

At this time no Church is trying to gain control over our laws/rights. The fact most Americans reject several of your agenda issues is not a sign the USA is about to start the Church of America. When people in general warm up to your issues things will slowly change, but don't hold your breath waiting. Americans think marijuana laws are wasting our resources, but it's still illegal to smoke it.

The main thing to remember is everyone has an agenda, and pushing that agenda causes others with different agendas to take notice.

Your agenda is to see gay marriage legalized, make sure abortions are legal, make sure poor kids don't gain access to private schools, keep prayer from returning to school, making sure the 10 Commandments and nativity depictions are not on public property, and making sure kids don't get to hear both sides of the evolution debate.

It's OK to have such an agenda, but it's also OK to have an agenda that opposes your agenda. After all, this is America.

I understand God is much wiser than I am. We are locked in time and space, we have no idea of anything outside our realm. The idea of questioning Him makes me think of the red paint telling the artist where it should be placed on the canvas. God created us, and it's His right to do as He will with His property. When we are as knowledgeable as God we can debate it with Him.

I'll trust He is doing the right thing.

Ok... so it is your position that a baby killing god is a good and just god? And if what you say is true... then why do christian women feel they have the right to be teachers? Or speak in churche? Or fail to obey their husbands?

Genesis 3:16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

1 Corinthians 14:34-36 - Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22-24 - Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

1 Timothy 2:11-15 - Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.

So that means we can't discuss it again? I haven't participated in prior discussions. My viewpoint hasn't been added to the mix - I've been contributing it to other boards.


I hope you do. I happen to have a personal library of biology texts and books written by biologists (many of them concidentally Christian) to rely upon. I think I know the difference, and don't need you to explain it to me.


I would be happy to discuss it if I thought you wouldn't trot out empty rhetoric disguised as "scientific rebuttal". So far, in every single discussion I've had on the topic over the last 10 years, regardless of the board, the Christian apologists have failed to even comprehend the requirements and methods of science - how can you hope to have a discussion on science if you don't grasp the basics? I don't have much hope that you'll break the trend, but I'm willing to give you the opportunity.


I'm not "indoctrinated" - I'm educated. And still educating myself. If you can demonstrate to me even one point where Intelligent Design makes a falsifiable, testable statement, we might have something to discuss. "God did it" is magical thinking, not science.


Your comment was ad hominem because you attacked the source rather than what it said. Nowhere have you addressed the individual points it raised. And I'm supposed to hope you can have a reasonable discussion?


1. Macro-evolution is not a "belief". It has a wealth of evidence to back it up.
2. Talkorgins is a collection of writings submitted by professional scientists, most of them working biologists, which approach the topic with unemotional objectivity and logic. Which is a lot more than I can say for the crap promulgated by answersingenesis.org.


You're on.

This is exactly right. If something has ever been discussed, you may never, ever bring it up. The matter was concluded very nicely and all parties came to agreement. I don't recall what that agreement was but I think it involved a sack full of monkeys wearing episcopal mitres and a very large kalinda stick.

But what if there was "new evidence?" OK, so maybe it's just a big stick to stir things up, but what then??

Totally! Religion is punishment!!!

God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).

God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).

He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6).

In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife.

In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven: "For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12)

Gotta love God - what a joker.




.

Or else!

See, there ya go. You have your own twist on Christianity.

Briana Dawson

*vomits*

Yes, because I see things from the perspective of the part I am.

Remember the joke about all the body parts arguing over which one is most important. The eye thought it was the most important, then the feet, hands etc. Each part went on strike to make their point. In the end the part that won was the butt-hole. Maybe I'm that part.

btw, vomit is nothing compared to the crap I see... lol

That's a fascinating link, Joy. I don't see how it rebuts Evolutionary Theory at all, but it's still interesting as heck.

What biologists use as a yardstick for speciation is that point where two variations of a species can no longer mate and produce viable offspring. If man and ape continued to successfully mate (a big "if" barring additional evidence), then it actually supports Darwin's suggestion that man and ape had a common ancestor. Up until the point where allele frequency distribution changes too radically to produce those viable genetic offpsring, mating would probably continue to occur.

I wasn't posting it to rebut evolution at all (I just really wanted somewhere to post that link to see if any heads would explode from it )

HEY!!! God takes prosac now, so give him a break!

You disturber of the peace

Oh, wait, what peace?