Are you a Christian?

[Kitschiguy]

Oh i forgot to say. No, i would not define myself as being a Christian. Nor would i define myself as being a Buddhist, although it would be a more accurate description. Then again so would lots of other things..

[zeusbheld]

As far as Creationism is concerned. Well, i've often wondered what the fixation is with the 'beginning' anyway. I don't thing it makes any sense to say the was no beginning, but it makes no sense to say that there was. No matter how far you go back, there was always a time before it.

seems to be a trick of language doesn't it. we're set up to be predisposed to acquire language, and to see things the way we do. humans may even have a genetic predisposition toward religiousity.

Oh, and by the way (i'm not having a go here) with regards to the half man/monkey debate. Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Homo Erectus and Australopithecus are all currently residing in The Natural History Museum in London.

technically none of these are "missing links" but all are close relatives. cro-magnon is basically us, a little rough around the edges, and neanderthal may be a subspecies of homo sapiens.

scientific explanations tend to change and be refined; science by its nature involves constantly trying to disprove what we think we know and thereby look for better explanations that are harder to disprove.

from what i've seen (and i've been in the trenches on this one) it isn't much of a debate. the primary case against evolution is it can't be true because i dont want it to and the idea that we might be related to apes, chimps and yes, even bananas is repugnant because we're humans and i thought we were God's favorite."

the careful observer willl note that these people have no interest in explaining things like dandelions or peacock feathers, which the theory of evolution does nicely.

the careful observer will note also note that the best yeahbut they can come up with for actual 'missing links' like the apteryx or coelecanth is that the apteryx is faked and the coelecanth is ... well i haven't encountered a creationist who knew what a coelecanth is yet.

to anyone naive or stupid enough to believe they can cobble together a good argument for creationism: please feel free to start a new "evolution is a hoax" thread; i'm ready to pick your argument apart and make you look like a moron.

[farang_subson]

technically none of these are "missing links" but all are close relatives. cro-magnon is basically us, a little rough around the edges, and neanderthal may be a subspecies of homo sapiens.

It's unlikely that Neanderthals branched off from homo-sapiens, given recent (the last couple of years) DNA comparisons. They may have branched off as long ago as 500,000 years ago.

[Deester]

I am here reading quietly.

[Loburt]

to anyone naive or stupid enough to believe they can cobble together a good argument for creationism: please feel free to start a new "evolution is a hoax" thread

Do you really want to incur the "wrath of Mod"?

[jdv]

Hi Deester, and anyone else interested in reading more about this debate..

I can suggest one forum which is good for this type of discussion also - ilovephilosophy.com

One interesting take on the issue of how spirituality fits into a world without god - antitheism.org

It was recent decided in an American court that creationism is officially (legally speaking) NOT science and cannot be taught under a science program in American schools. Clearly some states will have different rules on this but eventually they will 'catch up', according to legal experts.

For the reasons why creationism is a really bad argument, you'll have to read some philosophy and have an understanding of basic logic. If you wanted to do that, you could read about Anselm and where creationism as an argument came from. You could also read how the argument was effectively destroyed thanks to Kant, a philosopher who desperately wanted it to be true and ironically managed to cripple it.

An easier path to take however is to learn fully about darwinian evolution. Richard Dawkins, a British Professor, has written extensively on this subject and is said to be easy to read despite writing about difficult subjects.

This link has alot of Dawkins' work in audio form, which is alot more fun than reading if you ask me.. anyway hope that helps. http://www.reitstoen.com/dawkins.php

[deathdealer]

www.fuckreligion.com - An actual website

I was raised christian, but i grew out of it at around the age of 6 or 7. So now my new religion is to dis-respect every other religion in the world, and it is a HELL of a lot of fun. I find islam is the best religion to poke fun at. Muslims tend to get upset the most.

[Squirreloncrack]

If evolution were true and we evolved from apes why is it than when you go to the museum you see dinosaur skeletons and no half man half monkey skeletons are they still frozen in the ice? im yet to see one.

congratulations on raising the single stupidest argument against evolution i've ever seen. i can't believe you can sit there and type that without anticipating being laughed at.

but feel free to spew nonsense about something you know nothing about and pull "facts" out of your ass, it's standard procedure here on TF. :roll:

This is not an argument against evolution. It?s obvious that evolution does exist my statement refers to the simplistic belief that many believe in one or the other.

You will find many truths and falsities in all religions. You will also find many inaccuracies in the way evolutionists derive dates and time of events. The bible has foretold many places and events before they were discovered. And no I am not saying the bible is gospel either! There must be a relationship with our divine creator and evolution as many scientists have discovered this world is just too amazing to have just happened!

[jdv]

That site is (unsurprisingly) blocked from within Thailand.. is it as moronic as the domain name suggests or worth using the proxies to check out?

Squirrel - The fact that many scientists (infact, a minority, largely American) have decided that the "design" (golden ratio, dna string etc) can only have come from a divine creator is no good argument for the actual existence of said divine creator. Many scientists also used to believe that the phase 2 birth control pill would not create genetic mutations in children yet, behold, it did. Et cetera. A scientist cannot accept proto-darwinian evolution without simultaneously rejecting a christian god, although I realise you deliberately did not mention christianity.

Also, evolution does not want to (or try to) explain how the world began, so evolution vs. creationism is not really an argument about the start of the world, but rather how humans came about. Don't confuse the two debates - it's just that the word 'creation' is in 'creationism' and I agree this is unhelpful and misleading. A creationist will say most things come from divine intervention of some sort or another, initially, and can then accept a particular form of evolution (that in itself was the product of divine will). However the evolution vs. creationism debate is not about the start of the world but the 'results' of the world.

[Squirreloncrack]

Squirrel - The fact that many scientists (infact, a minority, largely American) have decided that the "design" (golden ratio, dna string etc) can only have come from a divine creator is no good argument for the actual existence of said divine creator. Many scientists also used to believe that the phase 2 birth control pill would not create genetic mutations in children yet, behold, it did. Et cetera. A scientist cannot accept proto-darwinian evolution without simultaneously rejecting a christian god, although I realise you deliberately did not mention christianity.

I should have explained myself better. There are many organizations teaching in parallel exactly that.

There was in particular but I can?t remember its name but there are many reasons why this was formed? One is a new way of teaching evolutionary science to children with religion for the majority of fellow Americans. This is backed by the US government not minority at all.

Maybe you should read this http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/CASP/Hokaj_T.html

I try to keep my posts simple for the majority of the people on this site without using technical jargon! I guess because of this I?m misunderstood.

I did not say we came from a divine creator I said that it is hard to believe we evolved without a creator.

Take the human eye for example...

[ttesta]

seems to be a trick of language doesn't it.

indeed ... you just found the solution. Discussion closed.

[robbie36]

I did not say we came from a divine creator I said that it is hard to believe we evolved without a creator.

Take the human eye for example...

The fact that you know next to nothing about evolutionary biology should not be used as an excuse to dream up creationist myths.

There has been plenty of research on how the human eye evolved from Darwin to Richard Dawkins. In fact recent research has shown that the human eye could have evolved from a single photosensitive cell in as little as 360,000 generations (a drop in the bucket in terms of evolutionary time).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

[Squirreloncrack]

I did not say we came from a divine creator I said that it is hard to believe we evolved without a creator.

Take the human eye for example...

The fact that you know next to nothing about evolutionary biology should not be used as an excuse to dream up creationist myths.

There has been plenty of research on how the human eye evolved from Darwin to Richard Dawkins. In fact recent research has shown that the human eye could have evolved from a single photosensitive cell in as little as 360,000 generations (a drop in the bucket in terms of evolutionary time).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

So youre sayinig the Human eye is not amazing.

10 ponts on pointing that out --> "could have evolved "

My goodness why don't you lighten up a bit it seems that most of the posts on TF are hell bent on pointing the finger.

BTW I had a great weekend how was yours...

[ttesta]

In fact recent research has shown that the human eye could have evolved from a single photosensitive cell in as little as 360,000 generations

and where did the single photsensitive cell come from?

[zeusbheld]

I did not say we came from a divine creator I said that it is hard to believe we evolved without a creator.

Take the human eye for example...

The fact that you know next to nothing about evolutionary biology should not be used as an excuse to dream up creationist myths.

There has been plenty of research on how the human eye evolved from Darwin to Richard Dawkins. In fact recent research has shown that the human eye could have evolved from a single photosensitive cell in as little as 360,000 generations (a drop in the bucket in terms of evolutionary time).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

So youre sayinig the Human eye is not amazing.

who said that? if you want to put words in people's mouths, let me join in too---are you saying amazing things can't happen just by the laws of nature? anything amazing *needs* to be designed by someone? that's an assumption at best; i'd be curious to see how you justify this assumption.

10 ponts on pointing that out --> "could have evolved "

-90 points for not having a clue as to how science works and progresses, or understanding the nature of an inductive argument.

at what point have scientists claimed to have understood every aspect of everything?

if you offer alternative explanations, the burden of offering up evidence and constructing an argument to support you explanation is on *you*. feel free to start...

My goodness why don't you lighten up a bit it seems that most of the posts on TF are hell bent on pointing the finger.

exactly what you mean by "pointing the finger" is beyond me. i've always understood the expression to mean fixing blame on someone. who is fixing blame for what? not sure i understand what your'e getting at.

= BTW I had a great weekend how was yours...

glad to hear, my weekend was most excellent also.

[jdv]

This is backed by the US government not minority at all.

I said that it is hard to believe we evolved without a creator.

Take the human eye for example...

Hi again mate,

I'm just trying to explain that majority support for something is not in itself a good reason for doing/supporting something. It never has been and it never will be.

Your second point is of course the point in question - creationism. The design theory, how can something so amazing possibly not have a creator? Well, humans think like this because we are tool makers. We make tools to do things and make our lives easier. A lion or an elephant does not make tools - it uses its own body to 99% of what it needs to get done. It does not think in terms of tools like we humans do. To us, the thought that something that is very 'useful' or has some sort of amazing 'quality' could not have a creator (i.e. a big shiny human in the sky) is unthinkable.

As it is, there is no logical argument for creationism (take my word for it). The next question is, how important is logic to you? Faith is an entity that expressly exists without logic. Faith defines itself against reason. If you have faith, and it's important to you and your life then no amount of logic will convince you otherwise.

[zeusbheld]

Squirrel - The fact that many scientists (infact, a minority, largely American) have decided that the "design" (golden ratio, dna string etc) can only have come from a divine creator is no good argument for the actual existence of said divine creator. Many scientists also used to believe that the phase 2 birth control pill would not create genetic mutations in children yet, behold, it did. Et cetera. A scientist cannot accept proto-darwinian evolution without simultaneously rejecting a christian god, although I realise you deliberately did not mention christianity.

I should have explained myself better.

still waiting....

There are many organizations teaching in parallel exactly that.

there are *many* organizations teaching religion, some are anti-science, some are not. that doesn't mean any of what they're teaching is science.

if one wants to reject science, that's one thing. science and religion aren't mutually exclusive necessarily but they definitely don't work the same way. but if one wants to reject evolution AS SCIENCE and SCIENTIFICALLY propose an alternative explanation, one needs to play by the rules of science.

the burden of proof that what they are teaching is science, and not wishful thinking by theists, is on them---and you, if you cite them. although so far you have named zip zip zero organizations. most of them i'm already aware of and chances are if you name them i'll be able to describe exactly why what they're doing isn't science (generous version) or why they're full of **** (less generious version).

There was in particular but I can?t remember its name but there are many reasons why this was formed? One is a new way of teaching evolutionary science to children with religion for the majority of fellow Americans. This is backed by the US government not minority at all.

a) the majority of americans are christians, and a significant portion of them are fundamentalist christians.

"backed by the US government"?? oh really? please support this bullshit--errrr, i mean statement; be aware that you better know what your'e talking about as i'm an american and i follow this sort of thing.

Maybe you should read this http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/CASP/Hokaj_T.html

and what exactly is a poorly-written anthropology paper supposed to demonstrate? if you're trying to indicate some sort of groundswell of skepticism in science, you'll have to do a whole lot better than that.

a) the social sciences arent' generally considered all that scientific, and don't provide any relevant expertise to evaluating the validity or cogency of arguments for and against evolution.

cal state chico? is that a community college? it's certainly not one of the top schools in california's state university system,

seems like you cite this paper coz your'e too lazy to explain your ideas. at any rate the author's credentials aren't any better than yours.

I try to keep my posts simple for the majority of the people on this site without using technical jargon! I guess because of this I?m misunderstood.

no, it's not because you're playing to the cheap seats, it's because your assertions are vague.

i suspect that whether or not you'd use it, you don't actually KNOW any "technical jargon."

I did not say we came from a divine creator I said that it is hard to believe we evolved without a creator.

Take the human eye for example...

yes and that's what i thought you said. it may be hard to believe as an individual, that's understandable--as a visceral, emotional reaction.

but don't pretend that because the idea bothers you, your discomfort has anything to do with science.

if you want to claim it has anything to do with science, you have a whole lot of explaining to do. still waiting...

[English_George]

Religion is a means for people to find a reason in life. If you actually read the histories of religions and understand the roots of beliefs then it is all there expalining itself. All religions have a common source and many of the stories in the Koran and the Bible are almost identical. Jesus is in both. There is a common source and they have been adapted to control mass populations.

Do you reall think that if there is a God, that he will single you out for not doing as he says, for doing things that are unholy? Please..........

Why do you think there are so many versions of the Bible?

"This was the truth, but we have changed it, so now this is the truth"

The human race is like a small child, any knowledge or reasons for being that are taught to it, are believed as the truth and never questioned. Religion comes from the heart, not from a book.

I am agnostic, I believe in a creator, but I do not believe that we will ever know how and when and why.

[jdv]

Interesting post and ill try not to misinterpret being called an anally retentive muppet (lol!).

For the record, I completely agree with you - many people fall into extreme opinions (such as outright denial or something, or outright acceptable of something) without thinking it through or having good, informed reasons. It's hard to tell these people apart from the people who hold these opinions for good reasons because everyone will tell you they have thought about it and think they have good reasons. I'd be happy to share with you my reasons for not being agnostic (i.e. not keeping my mind open on the possibility of God, as you suggest might be wise) but that's probably another thread anyway.

Anyway please don't think that holding a firm opinion means someone is close-minded to possibilities. It some cases it actually means they have spent many years getting there and it's the best they have come across so far. If god popped out of the sky tomorrow, or some new discovery was made that showed some new piece of information to the contrary, you can bet I would change my opinion in an instant. Same goes for most people, I reckon.

The opposite is fanaticism, and thats quite an accusation to make against anyone.

cheers

[zeusbheld]

to anyone naive or stupid enough to believe they can cobble together a good argument for creationism: please feel free to start a new "evolution is a hoax" thread

Do you really want to incur the "wrath of Mod"?

that was 'colored inside the lines', if only barely

DEAR MOT: can you please move the "evolution is a hoax: the sequel" material to its own thread? i have a feeling it may get hot in here pretty soon, and we dont' want to crowd out people saying yea or nay to christianity... :twisted:

[Squirreloncrack]

I did not say we came from a divine creator I said that it is hard to believe we evolved without a creator.

Take the human eye for example...

The fact that you know next to nothing about evolutionary biology should not be used as an excuse to dream up creationist myths.

There has been plenty of research on how the human eye evolved from Darwin to Richard Dawkins. In fact recent research has shown that the human eye could have evolved from a single photosensitive cell in as little as 360,000 generations (a drop in the bucket in terms of evolutionary time).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

So youre sayinig the Human eye is not amazing.

anything amazing *needs* to be designed by someone? that's an assumption at best; i'd be curious to see how you justify this assumption.

Isn?t that what this post is about is there someone/something that is the designer or not and/or do you believe?

My assumption is justified by there being so many religions in this world which is still something that is turning over in my mind. I haven?t got it worked out yet and probably never will. That does not mean I am right or wrong yes an assumption.

10 ponts on pointing that out --> "could have evolved "

-90 points for not having a clue as to how science works and progresses, or understanding the nature of an inductive argument.

at what point have scientists claimed to have understood every aspect of everything?

I have my own understandings and beliefs right wrong or indifferent. Maybe I don?t understand how science works in progress. I am also sure that scientists will never understand the aspects of everything. I could have one the lottery yesterday does that mean I did?

if you offer alternative explanations, the burden of offering up evidence and constructing an argument to support you explanation is on *you*. feel free to start...

[/quote}

I will just be repeating myself.

where did the single photsensitive cell come from?

My goodness why don't you lighten up a bit it seems that most of the posts on TF are hell bent on pointing the finger.

exactly what you mean by "pointing the finger" is beyond me. i've always understood the expression to mean fixing blame on someone. who is fixing blame for what? not sure i understand what your'e getting at.

You cannot provide righteousness from assumptions to gain credit it is how I felt maybe I?m just paranoid and sensitive.

= BTW I had a great weekend how was yours...

glad to hear, my weekend was most excellent also.

Glad you had a nice weekend!

[zeusbheld]

If evolution were true and we evolved from apes why is it than when you go to the museum you see dinosaur skeletons and no half man half monkey skeletons are they still frozen in the ice? im yet to see one.

congratulations on raising the single stupidest argument against evolution i've ever seen. i can't believe you can sit there and type that without anticipating being laughed at.

but feel free to spew nonsense about something you know nothing about and pull "facts" out of your ass, it's standard procedure here on TF. :roll:

This is not an argument against evolution.

yet you present it as if it's a reason for skepticism? can you get a spine please?

It?s obvious that evolution does exist my statement refers to the simplistic belief that many believe in one or the other.

certainly "simplistic beliefs" exist. we're in agreement there.

however,

"If evolution were true and we evolved from apes why is it than when you go to the museum you see dinosaur skeletons and no half man half monkey skeletons are they still frozen in the ice? im yet to see one."

is one of them. simplistic, misguided, utterly clueless... these are the adjectives that leap to mind. at best, you haven't the faintest clue as to what the theory of evolution actually says.

You will find many truths and falsities in all religions.

possibly, but evolution is not a religion, it is a theory constructed from scientific inquiry.

You will also find many inaccuracies in the way evolutionists derive dates and time of events.

yet you don't have the balls to cite any of these "many inaccuracies?" funny, all i've found is specious arguments from morally-bankrupt creationists who apparently believe that as long as your'e doing God's work, the end justifies the means.

and if all the dates are wrong, that wouldn't be 1/1,000,000 of the way toward refuting the theory of evolution.

there are a whole lot of things the creationists sneakily ignore just coz they hate the idea that we have some ancestors in common with chimps and apes.

The bible has foretold many places and events before they were discovered.

until you name one, i'll have to assume that this is vague, silly nonsense, pulled kicking and screaming directly out of your ass.

And no I am not saying the bible is gospel either!

in the sense of "a teaching or doctrine of a religious teacher" it is by definition gospel. in the sense of "an idea or principle, accepted as unquestionably true," that is much harder to prove to say the least.

by the way, science works by inductive reasoning, more or less. if *anything is accepted as "unquestionably true" then it is most definitely not accepted that way by science or scientists.

also, any scientific claim is innately testable, or falsifiable in principle. if a claim cannot be tested, it falls outside of science, full stop. God exists is one such claim.

There must be a relationship with our divine creator and evolution as many scientists have discovered this world is just too amazing to have just happened!

therein you describe the motive of most creationists, including the intelligent design folks. if all the evidence says the world "could have just happened" and a designer was not necessary, you can refuse to believe that.

by the way, your "many scientists" are a TINY MINORITY--NOT VERY MANY AT ALL. NOT ENOUGH TO FORM A CREDIBLE "SCIENTIFIC MOVEMENT." and all are, for the most part christians first and scientists second. gee, do you think they have an agenda?

[zeusbheld]

In fact recent research has shown that the human eye could have evolved from a single photosensitive cell in as little as 360,000 generations

and where did the single photsensitive cell come from?

the careful observer will note that *any* fairly comprehensive scientific theory has a) a lot of stuff we don't know, possible variations or alternatives and room for revision, and c) in principle, the possibility of refuting a beautiful hypothesis with ugly facts.

these qualities are what separate science from the typical bullshit spewed by wankers of the sort that would join TF. not to say that scientists aren't wankers of the sort that would join TF (if they were aware of it) but just as footballers must at least go through the motions of following the rules to play football, scientists must at least go through the motions of doing science to for their work to be science.

as to where the single photosensitive cell came from---a slight change in chemistry caused by genetic mutation is a highly plausible possiblilty. considering that other things happen through similar mechanisms.

once the change happens, if the change gives the organism better chances to reproduce, or survive long enough to reproduce (or reproduce more), it will spread through the population.

there are still a lot of mysteries, some of which may never be resolved--but anyone feeling skeptical has a lot of explaining to do, as there is evidence that a lot of other things work that way. bacteria become resistant to antibiotics by the same process--the ones that survive, reproduce. the ones that don't are weeded out.

[GoldMember]

I really did not want to put this up as religious conversations always seem to end up in some sort of argument.

Well serious answers are needed for some serious contemporary issues .For example,was the creationist defender Materazzi's torrent of verbal abuse actually guided by the the hand of Satan? .Has Zinedine Zidane been told in mysterious ways that a career in Pamplona beckons? Is Sebb Blatter indeed God? I think we need to know.

[jdv]

Haha, Fred