I have never seen any Christian/Christian group deny global warming because "God would not do that" NOT ONE! I would love to know where you go that information.

Co2 levels are high, but what they have NOT proven is that they are causing the problem, NO NO NO they have not.

Things are being done... while they are being done, people can talk about it. If you read what I wrote about it in the thread - there's my response about global warming... it seems you didn't read it 

School kids sitting through calling the Easter bunny the Easter bunny? Yeah, I bet that is tough on them! GAD!


OK, so you can parrot, but you're still not thinking.  So where are the insults I've been tossing?  Come to think of it, that does seem a very good description of your own posting habits.

As for believing that a book with "several" proven stories therefore means everything in it is absolutely true... I thought you said you were intelligent? Or isn't logic a part of intelligence?  Spelling, grammar and punctuation certainly don't seem to be.


PS There is no Co2 in the air: Co (cobalt) doesn't form little molecules like that.  It's CO2 (or CO2 if you want to be really pedantic)


To philbo and lterhune:

I've had to edit your posts (along with some other people) several times for too much attacking the person and not staying on topic, as I reminded everybody earlier that's not permitted in this section, please take the personal matters to pm's.

Thanks.

YOU didn't read what I wrote, did you?. It is you OPINION that it is the best explanation we have. 


I don't think philbo owns the exclusive rights on thinking that the theory of evolution offers the very best explanation of all the observable evidence.  If you would like to provide another explanation that fits all the evidence we have then we will listen to that.


Like I SAID, evolution is not proven. Creationism is found in a book with SEVERAL proven stories, not bits - SEVERAL.


Just because one or two parts of the bible has some historical basis it doesn't follow that the whole book is true.  Especially when some parts are clearly false.

I'm confused... in the recent mini-brouhaha between Linda and myself, I simply don't see any insults, hardly anything addressing the person rather than the view they're putting forward.  From either side - even though I have been accused of using insult in place of debate, I fail to see anything that I've typed as being an insult; similarly, although there has been a bit of "I'm cleverer than you, so there", you could barely count that as insulting.

Is debate here really getting so emasculated that anything that could be construed as vaguely negative about someone else is immediately censured (even if not censored)?

Maybe we ought to have a separate sub-board... call it "Outside", say, where the kid gloves can be removed... then you could say "Do you want to go Outside and say that?" ;)


I don't think philbo owns the exclusive rights on thinking that the theory of evolution offers the very best explanation of all the observable evidence.  If you would like to provide another explanation that fits all the evidence we have then we will listen to that.

I don't?  Oh, I suppose there are one or two others, but they hardly count... ;)

^ ditto,  I am getting the same vibe.

I'm confused... in the recent mini-brouhaha between Linda and myself, I simply don't see any insults, hardly anything addressing the person rather than the view they're putting forward.  From either side - even though I have been accused of using insult in place of debate, I fail to see anything that I've typed as being an insult; similarly, although there has been a bit of "I'm cleverer than you, so there", you could barely count that as insulting.



I think you missed one or two debates that went really off the rails.  Pages of personal insults got deleted.  Chucky started this thread threatening to close down this section if people didn't stick to the rules.



I don't?  Oh, I suppose there are one or two others, but they hardly count... ;)



:P

Special rules were made for this section because of several debates that really went off base. Questioning each others intelligence and calling their viewpoint "stupid", etc. is getting personal and not addressing the subject, therefore it's not permitted, comments like that are what have had to been edited out numerous times now. Using stereotypes is also against the rules, and some posts have had to been edited for that. The rules were put in place to try to avoid the debates in here from turning into a bunch of flaming like several topics were before.

Again the rules for this board are listed here:

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=26011.0

Questioning each others intelligence and calling their viewpoint "stupid", etc. is getting personal and not addressing the subject, therefore it's not permitted, comments like that are what have had to been edited out numerous times now.

If I remember correctly (as it's been edited, I can't be 100% sure), what I said was along the lines of "please don't make yourself seem more stupid than you have to" - lterhune obviously has an exceedingly high opinion of her own intelligence; however, statements like "the theory of evolution hasn't been proved" is such a howler to drop in front of anyone who has a grasp on what science is, that for her to use statements like that rather damages her own case.  If you see what I mean.  Should I have used the term "ill-educated", perhaps, seeing as what is missing is not necessarily "intelligence", but more like "knowledge" - especially the knowledge of what science is and means.

. Creationism is found in a book with SEVERAL proven stories, not bits - SEVERAL. And calling people who believe in Creationism and calling Creationism childish names doesn't help your cause



How many stories in the Bible have been scientifically proven?  The Bible as history can only be correlated theoretically with the most acurate scientific methods we have, such as astronomical calculations and carbon dating.  For instance, scientists believe based on what the Bible says that if Jesus did indeed live, he wasn't born 12/25/0000.  They estimate sometime in the summer and between 4 and 7 BCE. 

That's because history itself is not an exact science.  Much of what historians believe about the reign of Julius Caesar is deduced from antiquated writings and records.  Scientists can analyze the decay of carbon molecules and determine within a degree of certainty that the scroll is at least as old as 44 BCE, but historians cannot verify to the same degree that events described in the scroll actually occurred.  For that we'd need a camcorder...and a time machine!  Until then, historians themselves must take a few things on faith while they continue to study events of the past.

So, when you say there are several "proven" stories in the Bible, I'm not sure what you mean.
???

I always thought the Easter Bunny was a symbol of fertility,it's a totally pagan thing,why are they calling it christian in the first place?  ???

I always thought the Easter Bunny was a symbol of fertility,it's a totally pagan thing,why are they calling it christian in the first place?  ???
yeah, what IS the story behind that? i think just about all major christian holidays are caught up in all this pagan stuff. someone explained it to me once but i partied too much and forgot.

in speaking of which -- did anyone ever see "the wicker man"? not that hilariously trashy nic cage remake but the original one with christopher lee? it's total genius. all about the conflict and interrelation between catholicism and paganism. and also, you know, sex. and killing.

yeah, what IS the story behind that? i think just about all major christian holidays are caught up in all this pagan stuff. someone explained it to me once but i partied too much and forgot.

in speaking of which -- did anyone ever see "the wicker man"? not that hilariously trashy nic cage remake but the original one with christopher lee? it's total genius. all about the conflict and interrelation between catholicism and paganism. and also, you know, sex. and killing.


Yeah.. and thingy got her tits out, what was her name.. swedish chick right? Wicker Man kicks ass.

Christianity and it's major elements are all Pagan, or the vast majority.

Communion is the same as God Eating which I believe was Eucrydian.. or however you spell that.
Christmas day - 25th December, the birth date of the Sun God.
Resurrection.. same as Attis.
The Christian image of God is Zeus.
Jesus Christ IS!!! Mithra.. the similarities are ridiculously obvious.. to the point were I'd call the storys about Jesus plagiarism.

Co2 levels are high, but what they have NOT proven is that they are causing the problem, NO NO NO they have not.



let's take a minute to review your post. you said "CO2 levels are high, but what they have not proven is that they are causing the problem..." you have to understand that global warming doesn't just mean that the earth gets warm. it's much more complicated than that. global warming occurs when green house gasses (the most abundant one being CO2) are released into the atmosphere. when sun beams hit the earth surface they bounce off of it and reflect back into space. the green house effect causes some of the reflecting heat from the sun to be "trapped" in the earths atmosphere thus causing temperatures to rise. in the past, this has been a good thing. if it weren't for the greenhouse effect the earth would be far too cold to sustain human life. owever, in the past, CO2 has only been released naturally via natural forest fires and photosynthesis. however, with the existence of us humans and our enourmouse CO2 emiting industrial buildings, the amount of green house gasses in our atmosphere is growing fast. CO2 levels are already higher than ever and they're still rising. now, i'll get to my point. the theory of global warming is based on the FACT that we are releasing harmful CO2 (which is a greenhouse gas) levels into the air. however, in your original post, although you admited that global warming is a real problem, you also deny that CO2 levels are causing a problem. you're contradicting yourself madame.

let's take a minute to review your post. you said "CO2 levels are high, but what they have not proven is that they are causing the problem..." you have to understand that global warming doesn't just mean that the earth gets warm. it's much more complicated than that. global warming occurs when green house gasses (the most abundant one being CO2) are released into the atmosphere. when sun beams hit the earth surface they bounce off of it and reflect back into space. the green house effect causes some of the reflecting heat from the sun to be "trapped" in the earths atmosphere thus causing temperatures to rise. in the past, this has been a good thing. if it weren't for the greenhouse effect the earth would be far too cold to sustain human life. owever, in the past, CO2 has only been released naturally via natural forest fires and photosynthesis. however, with the existence of us humans and our enourmouse CO2 emiting industrial buildings, the amount of green house gasses in our atmosphere is growing fast. CO2 levels are already higher than ever and they're still rising. now, i'll get to my point. the theory of global warming is based on the FACT that we are releasing harmful CO2 (which is a greenhouse gas) levels into the air. however, in your original post, although you admited that global warming is a real problem, you also deny that CO2 levels are causing a problem. you're contradicting yourself madame.


I think you want to say "madam," not "madame," or do you?
;)

So with Iterhune, we have a person who finds the theory of global warming less plausible than the *factual* story of Noah's Ark. 

I think the Right will build an "ark" of sorts when sea levels start to rise, but it won't be for animals, it will be for billionaires!
:D

I think you want to say "madam," not "madame," or do you?
;)

So with Iterhune, we have a person who finds the theory of global warming less plausible than the *factual* story of Noah's Ark. 

I think the Right will build an "ark" of sorts when sea levels start to rise, but it won't be for animals, it will be for billionaires!
:D


nope, i meant madame. french form. yeah, she needs to think before she speaks. oh, and are you denying that a single man did as "god" said and collected all the animals two by two? i'm offended you'd say such a thing. how else do you think the almighty one recreated our entire earth after destroying it with a wrath brought unto it by he himself?

anyways, i think what she needs to understand is that the bible wasn't really intended to be true. even when i did believe in god, i knew most of the bible was just a bunch of terminology. the bible doesn't really say that the earth was created in 7 days. that's just a bunch of terminology. the average human (especially the uneducated mesopatamian) cannot comprehend 765060060560506700006570650705667007650706076507065076507056706507065700000000000000000000000  years. that kind of number just doesn't sink in to well and it doesn't exactly roll right off the tongue either. and so, the bible puts it in simple easier to understand terms. now of course, the whole "there is one ultimate being who watches over you and hears your prayers" thing is intended to be taken litterally, but for the most part, as i have said, the bible is a bunch of terminology. frankly I don't believe a single word of the bible but hey, that's just me. 

So with Iterhune, we have a person who finds the theory of global warming less plausible than the *factual* story of Noah's Ark. 


Where is the heck did you get that? I never said any of that


I think the Right will build an "ark" of sorts when sea levels start to rise, but it won't be for animals, it will be for billionaires!
:D


I will respond more to people who are civil. Did that feel good though?

Where is the heck did you get that? I never said any of that.... so I guess you are a Troll.

I will respond more to people who are civil. Did that feel good though?

OK, OK, that was a bit snarky.  If you're a billionaire or planning to hitch a ride on the ark, I'm sorry if I offend. 

I'm just trying to fingure out which Biblical stories are proven fact...

Where is the heck did you get that? I never said any of that.... so I guess you are a Troll.


Blind accusations of trolling with no concrete evidence will not be tolerated. Rein it in.

Blind accusations of trolling with no concrete evidence will not be tolerated. Rein it in.



why is it that everyone here can insult her...but as soon as she stands up for herself...she gets everyone all over her butt?

Please point me elsewhere to places where other people accuse members of trolling and of only posting in threads in order to insult other people.

why is it that everyone here can insult her...but as soon as she stands up for herself...she gets everyone all over her butt?

Please point me elsewhere to places where other people accuse members of trolling and of only posting in threads in order to insult other people.



But I've seen her make some valid points...and people jump all over her. I'm not saying that EVERY post was valid...but even the ones that were seem to be treated as her threatening another member, etc.  It seems like everytime someone here has a different opinion than the "norm"...they get this kind of treatment. Just my observation...carry on.

why is it that everyone here can insult her...but as soon as she stands up for herself...she gets everyone all over her butt?

I don't agree with her but I don't insult her personally.  I do use sarcasm when I respond to her inflammatory rhetoric.  Folks have done the same to me when I spout off, and that's what I should expect.  She has made some statements that are rather....well you've seen them.  Leave it at that.

i for one don't really mind her. i find it difficult to engage with her sometimes, though.

anyway...

this is 100% actual footage.animals were totally harmed in the making of this film.

http://emuse.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/18318

green house gasses (the most abundant one being CO2) are released into the atmosphere

Wow, there's so much going on in this thread that I don't know where to start. :)

The most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is actually water vapour, not carbon dioxide. As for Easter, the Christian festival derived its name from the Anglo-Saxon month Eostur (named after a Saxon dawn goddess whose origins are uncertain), which corelated to April in the Julian calendar. The Anglo-Saxon pagans celebrated Eostur as the month of renewal (coming as it did in Spring) and rebirth, so it was the perfect choice for what the Christians believe to also be a festival of resurrection. The date of Easter was determined by the Council of Nicaea in 325AD, almost 300 years after Christ's death. Before that, there was no agreed period as to when the festival should be celebrated, although there was and remains some belief that the Last Supper corresponded with the Jewish festival of Passover, which is why the two occur at around the same time. Whatever, it appears that the timing of Easter was deliberate so it was correspond with a season that was already a festival in the pagan world, so that conversion to Christianity would be a little easier. The current 'traditions' of Easter then are a blend of the Christian belief in the death and Resurrection of Christ and that pagan belief (represented by the egg) of the renewal of life. Whatever, Easter is a celebration of renewal whichever POV you take. 

As for the proof of events from the Bible, there's very little. When it comes to evolution, however, there is abundant evidence that species evolve over time. The mistake a lot of people make when looking at evolution is that we look at humans, for example, and think "Well, humans haven't changed much for a million years. Neither have cats. So where's the proof of evolution?" At the microscopic level, however, organisms like bacteria evolve every few generations. This is why the recipes for medicines have to be slightly modified every few years, as microbes develop strains that become resistant. The non-resistant ones die out, leaving the stronger ones. This is evolution. Another example is that of cane toads. Cane toads are tropical toads introduced into tropical areas of Australia from the equatorial areas of Central and South America to help control sugar cane pests. Since 1935, however, the range of the cane toad in Australia has extended from the tropical zones almost as far south as Sydney. A cane toad brought directly from Guatemala would die very quickly if released into the wild in Sydney, but one descended from an Australian can toad would probably survive. That's because in the 70 years since they were brought to Australia, cane toads have evolved over hundreds of generations to adapt to a cooler climate. They have been able to do this because they breed very quickly and spawn immense numbers of offspring (35,000 or more at a time). Even if only 1% of each spawn survives, that's enough to continue the population. Evolution of large animals takes far too long to be observable, but in cases like the ones I've just described, they are readibly observable. I believe biologists call this "evoultioni in action". It may not necessarily be incontrovertible proof of the theory of evolution, but it strongly supports it.

Wow, there's so much going on in this thread that I don't know where to start. :)

The most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is actually water vapour, not carbon dioxide.

OK.  The cycle of water through the hydrosphere is not the catalyst for the greenhouse effect.  The exponentially increasing release of C0-2 into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution is.

Otherwise, you make some good points.

OK.  The cycle of water through the hydrosphere is not the catalyst for the greenhouse effect.  The exponentially increasing release of C0-2 into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution is.


Agreed, but I think there needs to be clarification between the naturally-occurring greenhouse effect that created the conditions that allowed life to exist on this planet in the first place, and the artificial greenhouse effect that is endangering it now. :)

Agreed, but I think there needs to be clarification between the naturally-occurring greenhouse effect that created the conditions that allowed life to exist on this planet in the first place, and the artificial greenhouse effect that is endangering it now. :)



Well, right.  Without water vapor, the Earth would be 400 degrees below zero!

The runaway greenhouse effect has interrupted the homeostasis of the natural greenhouse effect (ie. before humans began extracting carbon stored in the geology for millions of years and pumping it directly into the atmosphere over just a couple of centuries).

Agreed, but I think there needs to be clarification between the naturally-occurring greenhouse effect that created the conditions that allowed life to exist on this planet in the first place, and the artificial greenhouse effect that is endangering it now. :)



i think that's what most people get confused about. they here all this talk from our current administration about how the greenhouse effect is natural, and temperature and C02 levels have always fluctuated. well, that may be true, but it's never been like this. it's never been off the charts like it is now. the problem here is trust. most people who don't agree with the green house effect have a bit too much trust, and faith in our government.

I think it's important people know the difference, because when governments say, "The greenhouse effect has always existed" they are right, but they're not telling the whole truth. And when zealots claim "the greenhouse effect" is killing us all, they're not telling the whole truth either.

i believe by any definition by which "water vapor" can be defined as a "greenhouse gas," the atmosphere itself can be defined as a "greenhouse gas." after all, it's keeping heat from leaving the surface of the planet.

if, on the other hand, the changing lvels of CO2 are actually running the risk of permanently altering the way life is lived on Planet Earth, perhaps a little zeal might be called for to prevent that? ???

Yes, and as much as this subject has nothing to do with the Easter Bunny ( :) ), I think it's important people know the difference, because when governments say, "The greenhouse effect has always existed" they are right, but they're not telling the whole truth. And when zealots claim "the greenhouse effect" is killing us all, they're not telling the whole truth either.
oops, somehow because of this post i somehow managed to post a retort on the easter bunny thread! :o (update: i think someone moved it... thanks, whoever you are.)

i believe by any definition by which "water vapor" can be defined as a "greenhouse gas," the atmosphere itself can be defined as a "greenhouse gas." after all, it's keeping heat from leaving the surface of the planet.

That's over-simplfying things a little. Mars has an atmosphere, and that doesn't stop heat radiating away. But in essence, you're right.


if, on the other hand, the changing lvels of CO2 are actually running the risk of permanently altering the way life is lived on Planet Earth, perhaps a little zeal might be called for to prevent that? ???


A little, yes. But I'm as opposed to people blurring the facts to scare others into believing them as much as I opposed to people ignoring the facts and pretending there isn't a problem. Manmade climate change is occuring, though. There's no doubt about that.

Wow, there's so much going on in this thread that I don't know where to start. :)

The most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is actually water vapour, not carbon dioxide. As for Easter, the Christian festival derived its name from the Anglo-Saxon month Eostur (named after a Saxon dawn goddess whose origins are uncertain), which corelated to April in the Julian calendar. The Anglo-Saxon pagans celebrated Eostur as the month of renewal (coming as it did in Spring) and rebirth, so it was the perfect choice for what the Christians believe to also be a festival of resurrection. The date of Easter was determined by the Council of Nicaea in 325AD, almost 300 years after Christ's death. Before that, there was no agreed period as to when the festival should be celebrated, although there was and remains some belief that the Last Supper corresponded with the Jewish festival of Passover, which is why the two occur at around the same time. Whatever, it appears that the timing of Easter was deliberate so it was correspond with a season that was already a festival in the pagan world, so that conversion to Christianity would be a little easier. The current 'traditions' of Easter then are a blend of the Christian belief in the death and Resurrection of Christ and that pagan belief (represented by the egg) of the renewal of life. Whatever, Easter is a celebration of renewal whichever POV you take. 

As for the proof of events from the Bible, there's very little. When it comes to evolution, however, there is abundant evidence that species evolve over time. The mistake a lot of people make when looking at evolution is that we look at humans, for example, and think "Well, humans haven't changed much for a million years. Neither have cats. So where's the proof of evolution?" At the microscopic level, however, organisms like bacteria evolve every few generations. This is why the recipes for medicines have to be slightly modified every few years, as microbes develop strains that become resistant. The non-resistant ones die out, leaving the stronger ones. This is evolution. Another example is that of cane toads. Cane toads are tropical toads introduced into tropical areas of Australia from the equatorial areas of Central and South America to help control sugar cane pests. Since 1935, however, the range of the cane toad in Australia has extended from the tropical zones almost as far south as Sydney. A cane toad brought directly from Guatemala would die very quickly if released into the wild in Sydney, but one descended from an Australian can toad would probably survive. That's because in the 70 years since they were brought to Australia, cane toads have evolved over hundreds of generations to adapt to a cooler climate. They have been able to do this because they breed very quickly and spawn immense numbers of offspring (35,000 or more at a time). Even if only 1% of each spawn survives, that's enough to continue the population. Evolution of large animals takes far too long to be observable, but in cases like the ones I've just described, they are readibly observable. I believe biologists call this "evoultioni in action". It may not necessarily be incontrovertible proof of the theory of evolution, but it strongly supports it.




Well said. Karma to you.



Cat

But I've seen her make some valid points...and people jump all over her. I'm not saying that EVERY post was valid...but even the ones that were seem to be treated as her threatening another member, etc.  It seems like everytime someone here has a different opinion than the "norm"...they get this kind of treatment. Just my observation...carry on.
I think some of the posts were edited to remove the more "threatening" elements ;)

Oh, and I, too, want to know which of the stories have been "proven"?  I'm talking COMPLETE books here, not just bits and pieces? 

My "theory" vis a vis the bible is that it is a collection of stories based on fact but that none of them are 100% "true."  Sorry, but when a book says that some guys lived 100-300-600 years, I file that under "fairy tale."

I think some of the posts were edited to remove the more "threatening" elements ;)

Oh, and I, too, want to know which of the stories have been "proven"?  I'm talking COMPLETE books here, not just bits and pieces? 

My "theory" vis a vis the bible is that it is a collection of stories based on fact but that none of them are 100% "true."  Sorry, but when a book says that some guys lived 100-300-600 years, I file that under "fairy tale."

Methusala, over 900 years!  Yeah, that was in the early days.  Then Big G rewrote the contract putting a 70 year cap on the lives of humankind.  Yep, three score and ten and then hang it up.  He was right.  We now have folks regularly living  90 and 100 years.  Their quality of life diminished significantly in the last decades and it costs society a heck of a lot of money to keep them alive.  If everybody died before the age of 70, we wouldn't have this Social Security crisis!
::)

Methuselah obviously had a highly developed anti-oxidant protective mechanism, active telomerase to prevent chromosome attrition, and maintained his tumor suppressor elements until he was 964, at which point everything failed and he developed acute myeloid leukemia while sunbathing in the Egyptian desert.  DUH.

Methuselah obviously had a highly developed anti-oxidant protective mechanism, active telomerase to prevent chromosome attrition, and maintained his tumor suppressor elements until he was 964, at which point everything failed and he developed acute myeloid leukemia while sunbathing in the Egyptian desert.  DUH.

Sure, and with today's medical techology, we would spend three million dollars so old Meth could live to be 970!
::)

Sure, and with today's medical techology, we would spend three million dollars so old Meth could live to be 970!
::)


How right you are.  Old people don't deserve to live.

How right you are.  Old people don't deserve to live.


Well, I'm just saying it's a conundrum.  Modern medicine is obliged to keep elderly people with terminal illnesses alive as long as possible, even if they're suffering.  That's why so many people write living wills with DNR clauses.

Well, I'm just saying it's a conundrum.  Modern medicine is obliged to keep elderly people with terminal illnesses alive as long as possible, even if they're suffering.  That's why so many people write living wills with DNR clauses.



This may be getting off topic a bit. Liz Jeffords (wife of Sen. Jim Jeffords) just passed away last week from cancer. After 4 bouts with chemo, she decided not to undergo another round (which I don't blame her), but since Vermont doesn't have an end of life law (i.e. assisted suicide-but I believe there is a bill in the legislature which the gov. wants to veto), she literally starved herself to death for the past month because she didn't want to live with it anymore.


I know, this should be another topic.



Cat

This may be getting off topic a bit. Liz Jeffords (wife of Sen. Jim Jeffords) just passed away last week from cancer. After 4 bouts with chemo, she decided not to undergo another round (which I don't blame her), but since Vermont doesn't have an end of life law (i.e. assisted suicide-but I believe there is a bill in the legislature which the gov. wants to veto), she literally starved herself to death for the past month because she didn't want to live with it anymore.


I know, this should be another topic.



Cat


:\'( Very sad.



As for the Creationism vs. Evolution Debate, it absolutely boggles my mind that there are people who don't "believe" in evolution.  How is that possible?  Have you ever watched a monkey?  They have such similar characteristics and personalities to humans, it's impossible to believe we're not related.  And race - doesn't it make sense that humans adapted to their various environments, i.e. evolved over time, and that is why we have different races of people?  People are certainly welcome to believe in their religion if they choose to, but there is proof of evolution everywhere you turn.  Why are they so quick to dismiss it?  Is it out of fear that maybe their beliefs aren't as concrete as they think they are?  If you have absolute faith, you should have no problem being open to other points of view. 

In my opinion, creationism doesn't make any sense.  I'm sorry if this offends people, but the entire idea seems pretty absurd to me.  Why wouldn't God put 100 or 1000 people on Earth instead of just 2 if he wanted to populate the entire thing?  And why didn't he put people all over the place instead of just in the Garden of Eden?  And what are the other "proven" parts of the bible?  I know that there are some sections of the bible that are historically accurate...is that the proof?  Proof that God wrote it?  Or proof that the people who wrote it are correct in their timelines?  Where exactly is the proof that sections of the bible are true?

As for the Creationism vs. Evolution Debate, it absolutely boggles my mind that there are people who don't "believe" in evolution.  How is that possible?  Have you ever watched a monkey?  They have such similar characteristics and personalities to humans, it's impossible to believe we're not related.  And race - doesn't it make sense that humans adapted to their various environments, i.e. evolved over time, and that is why we have different races of people?  People are certainly welcome to believe in their religion if they choose to, but there is proof of evolution everywhere you turn.  Why are they so quick to dismiss it?  Is it out of fear that maybe their beliefs aren't as concrete as they think they are?  If you have absolute faith, you should have no problem being open to other points of view. 

In my opinion, creationism doesn't make any sense.  I'm sorry if this offends people, but the entire idea seems pretty absurd to me.  Why wouldn't God put 100 or 1000 people on Earth instead of just 2 if he wanted to populate the entire thing?  And why didn't he put people all over the place instead of just in the Garden of Eden?  And what are the other "proven" parts of the bible?  I know that there are some sections of the bible that are historically accurate...is that the proof?  Proof that God wrote it?  Or proof that the people who wrote it are correct in their timelines?  Where exactly is the proof that sections of the bible are true?


"I didn't grow outta no dang monkey missey!"  ::) ::) ;D

That's pretty much the sentiment that the evangelists will have.

What I've never understood is why Creationism is SO concrete, whereas most Christians will be perfectly happy to tell you that other parts of the Bible (or in the case of Genesis - The Torah) are simply storys used to illustrate a point.

Of course it doesn't make sense, it was plagiarized a couple of thousand years ago by a bunch of hippys hanging out in a real hot desert..

"I didn't grow outta no dang monkey missey!"   ::) ::) ;D

That's pretty much the sentiment that the evangelists will have.



Well, and that raises a whole 'nother question.  Why are people so opposed to the idea that we could have evolved from apes?  It actually makes a damn lot of sense to me.  It explains where we get some of our animalistic tendencies - whether those tendencies are sexually oriented in that some humans have a hard time being monogomous, or even some of our violent tendencies.   

Well, and that raises a whole 'nother question.  Why are people so opposed to the idea that we could have evolved from apes?  It actually makes a damn lot of sense to me.  It explains where we get some of our animalistic tendencies - whether those tendencies are sexually oriented in that some humans have a hard time being monogomous, or even some of our violent tendencies.   


I'm very ape like.

Yeah.. and we didn't descend from modern day apes, modern day apes are pretty far removed from what we originally came from, hell, just look at Neanderthal man, he was before homo-erectus or whatever the hell the classification that became us was and he looked far more human than an ape.

:\'( Very sad.



As for the Creationism vs. Evolution Debate, it absolutely boggles my mind that there are people who don't "believe" in evolution.  How is that possible?  Have you ever watched a monkey?  They have such similar characteristics and personalities to humans, it's impossible to believe we're not related.  And race - doesn't it make sense that humans adapted to their various environments, i.e. evolved over time, and that is why we have different races of people?  People are certainly welcome to believe in their religion if they choose to, but there is proof of evolution everywhere you turn.  Why are they so quick to dismiss it?  Is it out of fear that maybe their beliefs aren't as concrete as they think they are?  If you have absolute faith, you should have no problem being open to other points of view. 

In my opinion, creationism doesn't make any sense.  I'm sorry if this offends people, but the entire idea seems pretty absurd to me.  Why wouldn't God put 100 or 1000 people on Earth instead of just 2 if he wanted to populate the entire thing?  And why didn't he put people all over the place instead of just in the Garden of Eden?  And what are the other "proven" parts of the bible?  I know that there are some sections of the bible that are historically accurate...is that the proof?  Proof that God wrote it?  Or proof that the people who wrote it are correct in their timelines?  Where exactly is the proof that sections of the bible are true?

I am Christian but I am also very open to other concepts. Evolution does exist in some forms IMHO. ie. tadpoles to frogs etc. I believe I am open minded about it because I am strong in my faith. Like has been said, sometimes those who are no so strong in their faith may be the ones who balk at any other concept, or retaliate when their faith is questioned.

It is also my belief that the Book of Genesis is an outline of important events. Adam and Eve were the only humans placed in Eden and when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, God threw them out and shut Eden for all eternity. Of course, Genesis outlines family trees, and who "begat" whom. From teachings, God told Moses what to write, thus why only the more important 'lessons', if you will, are wrote about in Genesis. Of course this also allows me to believe that there were more 'first' people other than Adam and Eve - if not then we are all inbreds!  ;D

Evolution is easier believed because you can SEE it and faith is less believed because you can't see it. Does that mean because I can't see the brain of the person I am standing next to .... that their brain doesn't exist?

To me, that's what a lot of the debate boils down to. People want proof, any kind of proof - because doubting beliefs is easier when there isn't concrete evidence to back it up.

edited to add the h in Christian

I am Cristian but I am also very open to other concepts. Evolution does exist in some forms IMHO. ie. tadpoles to frogs etc. I believe I am open minded about it because I am strong in my faith. Like has been said, sometimes those who are no so strong in their faith may be the ones who balk at any other concept, or retaliate when their faith is questioned.

It is also my belief that the Book of Genesis is an outline of important events. Adam and Eve were the only humans placed in Eden and when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, God threw them out and shut Eden for all eternity. Of course, Genesis outlines family trees, and who "begat" whom. From teachings, God told Moses what to write, thus why only the more important 'lessons', if you will, are wrote about in Genesis. Of course this also allows me to believe that there were more 'first' people other than Adam and Eve - if not then we are all inbreds!  ;D

Evolution is easier believed because you can SEE it and faith is less believed because you can't see it. Does that mean because I can't see the brain of the person I am standing next to .... that their brain doesn't exist?

To me, that's what a lot of the debate boils down to. People want proof, any kind of proof - because doubting beliefs is easier when there isn't concrete evidence to back it up.


no, we want plausibility. the idea of one entity waving a magical wand and creating the universe is simply reddiculous, while the theory of evolution is very plausible.
  p.s. sorry, the transformaion of tadpoles to frogs isn't evolution.

 
  p.s. sorry, the transformaion of tadpoles to frogs isn't evolution.

;D I know, I just couldn't come up with anything else at the time - my mind drew a blank ;D ;D

I am Cristian but I am also very open to other concepts. Evolution does exist in some forms IMHO. ie. tadpoles to frogs etc. I believe I am open minded about it because I am strong in my faith. Like has been said, sometimes those who are no so strong in their faith may be the ones who balk at any other concept, or retaliate when their faith is questioned.

It is also my belief that the Book of Genesis is an outline of important events. Adam and Eve were the only humans placed in Eden and when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, God threw them out and shut Eden for all eternity. Of course, Genesis outlines family trees, and who "begat" whom. From teachings, God told Moses what to write, thus why only the more important 'lessons', if you will, are wrote about in Genesis. Of course this also allows me to believe that there were more 'first' people other than Adam and Eve - if not then we are all inbreds!  ;D

Evolution is easier believed because you can SEE it and faith is less believed because you can't see it. Does that mean because I can't see the brain of the person I am standing next to .... that their brain doesn't exist?

To me, that's what a lot of the debate boils down to. People want proof, any kind of proof - because doubting beliefs is easier when there isn't concrete evidence to back it up.


So, my question is - If you can see evolution around you, why not entertain the concept that humans evolved. That doesn't mean that the story of Genesis is totally made up, after all, who is to say evolution did not have a guiding hand? If I was making something, I would do it step by step rather than jump to the final stage.

This is mere conjecture, but does it not make sense to you?

I am Cristian but I am also very open to other concepts. Evolution does exist in some forms IMHO. ie. tadpoles to frogs etc. I believe I am open minded about it because I am strong in my faith. Like has been said, sometimes those who are no so strong in their faith may be the ones who balk at any other concept, or retaliate when their faith is questioned.

It is also my belief that the Book of Genesis is an outline of important events. Adam and Eve were the only humans placed in Eden and when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, God threw them out and shut Eden for all eternity. Of course, Genesis outlines family trees, and who "begat" whom. From teachings, God told Moses what to write, thus why only the more important 'lessons', if you will, are wrote about in Genesis. Of course this also allows me to believe that there were more 'first' people other than Adam and Eve - if not then we are all inbreds!  ;D

Evolution is easier believed because you can SEE it and faith is less believed because you can't see it. Does that mean because I can't see the brain of the person I am standing next to .... that their brain doesn't exist?

To me, that's what a lot of the debate boils down to. People want proof, any kind of proof - because doubting beliefs is easier when there isn't concrete evidence to back it up.



There is a story that Eve was Adam's second wife. His first was Lilith who was very much her own woman which Adam didn't like. Which is why Eve came along-a bit more submissive to Adam. Also, after Cain was cast out, the next paragraph of the Bible states, "Cain knew his wife". Who the hell was his wife? At that point in the Bible, there were only 3 people around-Adam, Eve and Cain.



Cat

So, my question is - If you can see evolution around you, why not entertain the concept that humans evolved. That doesn't mean that the story of Genesis is totally made up, after all, who is to say evolution did not have a guiding hand? If I was making something, I would do it step by step rather than jump to the final stage.

This is mere conjecture, but does it not make sense to you?


i believed that for a day. the next day i decided i didn't believe in god at all.

So, my question is - If you can see evolution around you, why not entertain the concept that humans evolved. That doesn't mean that the story of Genesis is totally made up, after all, who is to say evolution did not have a guiding hand? If I was making something, I would do it step by step rather than jump to the final stage.

This is mere conjecture, but does it not make sense to you?

It does make sense to me.
I did say that evolution does exist in some forms, and I know it happens in humans, because evolution is all about genes and such being passed on and the human ability to adapt. Like I said, I am open to other views and actually learn and take things from them.
Like you, I would take it step by step as well, because the finished product isn't always what we hoped for if we remove certain steps.

Now quid pro quo - if you can't see the faith around you, why not entertain that a higher power exists?
(Honestly, I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if you have already stated this some place else. Sorry ;) )

It does make sense to me.
I did say that evolution does exist in some forms, and I know it happens in humans, because evolution is all about genes and such being passed on and the human ability to adapt. Like I said, I am open to other views and actually learn and take things from them.
Like you, I would take it step by step as well, because the finished product isn't always what we hoped for if we remove certain steps.

Now quid pro quo - if you can't see the faith around you, why not entertain that a higher power exists?
(Honestly, I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if you have already stated this some place else. Sorry ;) )


The fact that I don't believe in any religion, doesn't mean I don't believe in 'God' as we so crudely put it. I'm after the same thing Einstein searched for 'The grand unifying theory' right now, the best shot at that is The God theory. Essentially, for me, God is the absence of Fact and in certain areas of my knowledge.. and man's knowledge, there is an absence of fact, thus, in those areas, to make any further progress, one must at least entertain the idea of God. Whether God be some sort of infinite being capable of existence on plains we cant imagine.. or whether God be an ethereal force binding things together I cannot say, but until Fact is provided to fill in those gaps in man's knowledge, I have to entertain the concept of God, there's no other element to add to the equation.

The thing is, whenever some says creationism, people automatically think of the Bible. There are MANY creation stories that were around long before the Bible was. If anyone is interested, check this out.


http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html



Cat

While you can't prooooooooooooooooove that God exists, you can't disprove it either.  Absence of proof is not proof of absence.  Therefore faith > all.

I am not super religious but I am not arrogant enough to say that, beyond the shadow of a doubt, some form of higher being does not exist.

There is a story that Eve was Adam's second wife. His first was Lilith who was very much her own woman which Adam didn't like. Which is why Eve came along-a bit more submissive to Adam. Also, after Cain was cast out, the next paragraph of the Bible states, "Cain knew his wife". Who the hell was his wife? At that point in the Bible, there were only 3 people around-Adam, Eve and Cain.



Cat

I know of the story about Lilith.
But like I said, from my teachings, Moses was told what to write, the lessons that God wanted in the Bible.

There had to be many more human creations after Adam because if not, we would be inbreds... which then raises a question for me. If we are all inbreds from the same two first ever created people, then why do we ALL not have the physical or mental difficulties that are associated with inbreeding? Evolution would be the answer. Because genes adapt so we can survive.

I never said I don't believe in evolution - but I do have a very strong faith.
Does this sound hypocritical? I am asking honestly....

The fact that I don't believe in any religion, doesn't mean I don't believe in 'God' as we so crudely put it. I'm after the same thing Einstein searched for 'The grand unifying theory' right now, the best shot at that is The God theory. Essentially, for me, God is the absence of Fact and in certain areas of my knowledge.. and man's knowledge, there is an absence of fact, thus, in those areas, to make any further progress, one must at least entertain the idea of God. Whether God be some sort of infinite being capable of existence on plains we cant imagine.. or whether God be an ethereal force binding things together I cannot say, but until Fact is provided to fill in those gaps in man's knowledge, I have to entertain the concept of God, there's no other element to add to the equation.

karma +1

I had to read and re-read your post. You are intelligent beyond your years.
Now let me think about this a bit more lol  ;) ;D

I know of the story about Lilith.
But like I said, from my teachings, Moses was told what to write, the lessons that God wanted in the Bible.

There had to be many more human creations after Adam because if not, we would be inbreds... which then raises a question for me. If we are all inbreds from the same two first ever created people, then why do we ALL not have the physical or mental difficulties that are associated with inbreeding? Evolution would be the answer. Because genes adapt so we can survive.

I never said I don't believe in evolution - but I do have a very strong faith.
Does this sound hypocritical? I am asking honestly....



Not at all. In fact, I had a conversation one time with someone who claimed to be a Born-Again Christian (that should tell you the how she responded to just about EVERYTHING). I said to her that I find it hard to believe everything in the Bible. She asked me if I believed that man evolved from apes. At the time I really didn't have an answer to that (in fact, I still don't). She then asked me how I didn't know if Adam & Eve weren't apes. That got me thinking. Yeah, it is possible. Of course I was surprised to hear this coming from a Born-Again Christian who takes EVERYTHING in the Bible literally. I do believe that there are some aspects of the Bible that have a kernel of truth to it. But most of Genesis I have a hard time swallowing.



Cat

Not at all. In fact, I had a conversation one time with someone who claimed to be a Born-Again Christian (that should tell you the how she responded to just about EVERYTHING). I said to her that I find it hard to believe everything in the Bible. She asked me if I believed that man evolved from apes. At the time I really didn't have an answer to that (in fact, I still don't). She then asked me how I didn't know if Adam & Eve weren't apes. That got me thinking. Yeah, it is possible. Of course I was surprised to hear this coming from a Born-Again Christian who takes EVERYTHING in the Bible literally. I do believe that there are some aspects of the Bible that have a kernel of truth to it. But most of Genesis I have a hard time swallowing.



Cat

Genesis is a hard book to read for sure. The other thinng that has to be remembered is that today's Bible is a translation. Undoubtedly, tons of stuffhas been left out through years of this.

The more I read the last couple pages in this thread, the more my mind is tending to think that maybe, just maybe, evolution and creationism work hand in hand.



While you can't prooooooooooooooooove that God exists, you can't disprove it either.  Absence of proof is not proof of absence.  Therefore faith > all.

I am not super religious but I am not arrogant enough to say that, beyond the shadow of a doubt, some form of higher being does not exist.

These are the words more or less, that I have been looking for. Which leads me to:
The idea that something a person can't see or prove, so it must be invalid, is strange to me.


no, we want plausibility. the idea of one entity waving a magical wand and creating the universe is simply reddiculous, while the theory of evolution is very plausible.


See Rice's words above.

While you can't prooooooooooooooooove that God exists, you can't disprove it either.  Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Therefore IPU?  But seriously, absence of proof of a being who in theory has absolute control over every object, animate or inanimate, is surely some degree of proof that either he isn't there, or he isn't what you think he is?


But most of Genesis I have a hard time swallowing.

I know what you mean... but if you mush it up with some water and stick lots of ketchup on


no, we want plausibility. the idea of one entity waving a magical wand and creating the universe is simply reddiculous, while the theory of evolution is very plausible.

It's not just that it's plausible, it is currently the most plausible explanation for what we see around us.


  p.s. sorry, the transformaion of tadpoles to frogs isn't evolution.

Unless you happen to believe that Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny (which must be one of the more unusual hooks to a parody, wouldn't you agree?)... no, I know it's not evolution in itself, but the phrase implies that the stages that an organism goes through while growing covers the same ground as it did while evolving.  Not that anybody really believes that, these days.

karma +1

I had to read and re-read your post. You are intelligent beyond your years.
Now let me think about this a bit more lol  ;) ;D


MMm, maybe not intelligent.

I'm glad you see what I mean though.

There is a story that Eve was Adam's second wife. His first was Lilith who was very much her own woman which Adam didn't like. Which is why Eve came along-a bit more submissive to Adam. Also, after Cain was cast out, the next paragraph of the Bible states, "Cain knew his wife". Who the hell was his wife? At that point in the Bible, there were only 3 people around-Adam, Eve and Cain.



Cat
Depending on what you've read, some Apocryphal writings claim that Lillith was actually the 2nd and Eve was the 3rd.  I think the first one's name was Sarah or also Eve?  However, when the "Bible" (as we know it today) was put together from the different writings, those who did it did not think that Eve being the 3rd one would bode well with the "readers" so they omitted the parts about the first 2.  Supposedly, this is where the saying "The third time's the charm" came from (according to my American Lit teacher ???)

Not at all. In fact, I had a conversation one time with someone who claimed to be a Born-Again Christian (that should tell you the how she responded to just about EVERYTHING). I said to her that I find it hard to believe everything in the Bible. She asked me if I believed that man evolved from apes. At the time I really didn't have an answer to that (in fact, I still don't). She then asked me how I didn't know if Adam & Eve weren't apes. That got me thinking. Yeah, it is possible. Of course I was surprised to hear this coming from a Born-Again Christian who takes EVERYTHING in the Bible literally. I do believe that there are some aspects of the Bible that have a kernel of truth to it. But most of Genesis I have a hard time swallowing.



Cat
I have a really hard time believing almost anything in the bible after watching a few History channel specials on the Gnostic texts and the Apocrypha (or deuterocanonical to us Catholics).  There are actually 3 different "bibles" floating around....one is Jewish and includes only the OT, the Protestant which includes the NT and OT (with some slight changes) and the Catholic which includes the NT and 7-9 additional books.  Heck, there are even different versions of each one...one Catholic one includes 7 additional books in the OT and another includes 7 OT & 2 NT books.  Not to mention that the "Bible" was not even "put together" until about 700 AD (give or take a few years).....

I have a really hard time believing almost anything in the bible after watching a few History channel specials on the Gnostic texts and the Apocrypha (or deuterocanonical to us Catholics).  There are actually 3 different "bibles" floating around....one is Jewish and includes only the OT, the Protestant which includes the NT and OT (with some slight changes) and the Catholic which includes the NT and 7-9 additional books.  Heck, there are even different versions of each one...one Catholic one includes 7 additional books in the OT and another includes 7 OT & 2 NT books.  Not to mention that the "Bible" was not even "put together" until about 700 AD (give or take a few years).....


A lot of deeply devout Christians like this idea that the Bible is the sum total of all Truth directly from God.  History shows, as mentioned above, that the Biblical canon we know today was compiled hundreds of years after Jesus was crucified.  There were many "Gospels," but the authorities chose Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because they were most favorable to the Church's interests.  Thomas almost made it, but not quite.  So there has always been a political angle to Christianity, as opposed to a purely ecclesiastical/spiritual one.

I never said I don't believe in evolution - but I do have a very strong faith.
Does this sound hypocritical? I am asking honestly....


Not at all!  The fact that you can believe in both, or at least see the logic in one or the other is quite un-hypocritical in my book.  There are a lot of people out there who say there is no possible way evolution could have happened - those are the people I was referring to in my posts.  I actually believe in a higher power myself - I just don't believe in any of the organized religions. 

Depending on what you've read, some Apocryphal writings claim that Lillith was actually the 2nd and Eve was the 3rd.  I think the first one's name was Sarah or also Eve?  However, when the "Bible" (as we know it today) was put together from the different writings, those who did it did not think that Eve being the 3rd one would bode well with the "readers" so they omitted the parts about the first 2.  Supposedly, this is where the saying "The third time's the charm" came from (according to my American Lit teacher ???)
Start as you mean to go on, typical man, one is never enough! ;)

My best friend did her first degree in theology and we used to have many discussions along these lines. I have come to the conclusion that the bible is of it's time. It was written by men with all the foibles of human nature, including the need to embelish and exagerate. I have absolutely no difficulty in believing 100% in evolution and having my faith. Without trying to sound patronising I pity the people who are too blinkered to even listen to posibility, there are so many wonders in life. What is it they say 'there is more in heaven and earth.............'

Simple; Go to the International High IQ Society and take one of the five tests. Pass it and become a member.  Look up my name, (my name is my screen name here and I live in CA) - compare the scores. To be in it you just need to be in the top 5% of the world. To beat me, you need to be in the top 2%. See, easy.

I'm intrigued to know why you feel the need to mention about having a high IQ. In my experience it doesn't mean as much as some people would like to think. I have had the fortune and misfortune to deal with some of the very best brains in the world. A high IQ doesn't stop some of them from being extremely dense about many things!

I'm intrigued to know why you feel the need to mention about having a high IQ. In my experience it doesn't mean as much as some people would like to think. I have had the fortune and misfortune to deal with some of the very best brains in the world. A high IQ doesn't stop some of them from being extremely dense about many things!
An Error Has Occurred!
Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 24 hours.

Not at all!  The fact that you can believe in both, or at least see the logic in one or the other is quite un-hypocritical in my book.  There are a lot of people out there who say there is no possible way evolution could have happened - those are the people I was referring to in my posts.  I actually believe in a higher power myself - I just don't believe in any of the organized religions. 
I agree 100%.  I see nothing hypocritical either.  I also believe some kind of higher power had to start the whole "big bang" off.  I mean, the "speck" had to come from somewhere.  Do I necessarily believe that a higher power controls all aspects of my life?  No.  Do I like to think there's someone "up above" watching over me?  Sure.  Is it God/Allah/Jehovah/Buddha/etc.?  I have no clue.

+1 for both of you.

My best friend did her first degree in theology and we used to have many discussions along these lines. I have come to the conclusion that the bible is of it's time. It was written by men with all the foibles of human nature, including the need to embelish and exagerate.


That's really what it makes more sense.
Btw anyone ever read The Bible without the religious element ? I found it to be one of the greatest books i ever read,amazing fantasy world.

The fact that I don't believe in any religion, doesn't mean I don't believe in 'God' as we so crudely put it. I'm after the same thing Einstein searched for 'The grand unifying theory' right now, the best shot at that is The God theory. Essentially, for me, God is the absence of Fact and in certain areas of my knowledge.. and man's knowledge, there is an absence of fact, thus, in those areas, to make any further progress, one must at least entertain the idea of God. Whether God be some sort of infinite being capable of existence on plains we cant imagine.. or whether God be an ethereal force binding things together I cannot say, but until Fact is provided to fill in those gaps in man's knowledge, I have to entertain the concept of God, there's no other element to add to the equation.

Excellent post! There's no way I could possibly add to this without sounding like an ignorant douche.

Excellent post! There's no way I could possibly add to this without sounding like an ignorant douche.


yeah, it is a good post. makes ya think.

i remember a quote not long ago, some scientist or something.... i can't remember the details but basically it amounted to, what an act of cruelty it is of whatever created us to make us die and have us know we're going to die, but not let us know the purpose of it or where, if anywhere, we're going to end up. it leaves us in this helpless place where we get desperate for meaning and find it in religious narratives, no matter how irrational.

i always thought a movie or novel would be interesting about, what would happen if one day somebody actually came up with an answer to the question of what happens when we die -- a scientifically proven and verifiable, irrefutable answer. i mean, i doubt that would ever actually happen but i think it would be fun to explore. what would happen to religions and cults? would they placidly lay down their grievances and get with the rest of us? or would they become even more reactionary?

by the by, i'm really not as anti-religion as i come off. honestly, most religious people are decent, reasonable folks but, as with soe many other things, the fringe weirdos get all the attention and by virtue of that get undue influence. i mean, look! they're in the white house and are plainly running the supreme court at the moment.

Therefore IPU?  But seriously, absence of proof of a being who in theory has absolute control over every object, animate or inanimate, is surely some degree of proof that either he isn't there, or he isn't what you think he is?


Maybe he doesn't want you to see him?  Who knows?  I guess he's so supreme that he likes to mess with us poor earthling knaves :)

I'm intrigued to know why you feel the need to mention about having a high IQ. In my experience it doesn't mean as much as some people would like to think. I have had the fortune and misfortune to deal with some of the very best brains in the world. A high IQ doesn't stop some of them from being extremely dense about many things!


Was it you or Karen I discussed the common sense gap in academics with?

Excellent post! There's no way I could possibly add to this without sounding like an ignorant douche.


Thank you sir.


yeah, it is a good post. makes ya think.

i remember a quote not long ago, some scientist or something.... i can't remember the details but basically it amounted to, what an act of cruelty it is of whatever created us to make us die and have us know we're going to die, but not let us know the purpose of it or where, if anywhere, we're going to end up. it leaves us in this helpless place where we get desperate for meaning and find it in religious narratives, no matter how irrational.

i always thought a movie or novel would be interesting about, what would happen if one day somebody actually came up with an answer to the question of what happens when we die -- a scientifically proven and verifiable, irrefutable answer. i mean, i doubt that would ever actually happen but i think it would be fun to explore. what would happen to religions and cults? would they placidly lay down their grievances and get with the rest of us? or would they become even more reactionary?

by the by, i'm really not as anti-religion as i come off. honestly, most religious people are decent, reasonable folks but, as with soe many other things, the fringe weirdos get all the attention and by virtue of that get undue influence. i mean, look! they're in the white house and are plainly running the supreme court at the moment.


Thank you too.

See, to assume that it's a cruel act implies that one must also believe that 'God' for lack of a better term is a sentient being,. along the same lines of sentience that we have drawn.

I have come to the conclusion that the bible is of it's time. It was written by men ...

And definitely "men"... after all, not a single mention of what shoes Eve wore ;)


Maybe he doesn't want you to see him?  Who knows?  I guess he's so supreme that he likes to mess with us poor earthling knaves :)

It's not just a question of "seeing" - it's more like he's so supreme that he *doesn't* mess with us poor earthling knaves... he's so very supreme that he never does *anything* we can confidently ascribe to him.

That's really what it makes more sense.
Btw anyone ever read The Bible without the religious element ? I found it to be one of the greatest books i ever read,amazing fantasy world.



I find the Bible to be a fascinating book(s). I don't look at it from the religious aspect but from a historical one. These stories have been floating around for a long, long time before they were put into writing. And of course as many people have already mentioned-there are the translations, the different authors, the deletions, and many other things that happened to the stories before they became the Bible as we know it today. I see the book mainly as a book of myths (with a kernel of truth to it-as I said in an earlier post). I know there are some people who may find that offensive that I look at it as a book of myths. I told one die-heart Christian (her husband was a Baptist minister) that I do think of the Bible as myths and she said that she didn't. I said, "That is why you are a Christian." I have always been fascinated by religions and myths-be it Egypian, Roman, Native American, Norse, etc. etc. To me, the Bible (as well as the Koran and the Torah) fall into this catagory. 


BTW, I also believe in a supreme being-The Goddess, who has another name: Mother Nature.



Cat

Was it you or Karen I discussed the common sense gap in academics with?
That does ring a bell.

That does ring a bell.


Probably both of you.

The fact that I don't believe in any religion, doesn't mean I don't believe in 'God' as we so crudely put it. I'm after the same thing Einstein searched for 'The grand unifying theory' right now, the best shot at that is The God theory. Essentially, for me, God is the absence of Fact and in certain areas of my knowledge.. and man's knowledge, there is an absence of fact, thus, in those areas, to make any further progress, one must at least entertain the idea of God. Whether God be some sort of infinite being capable of existence on plains we cant imagine.. or whether God be an ethereal force binding things together I cannot say, but until Fact is provided to fill in those gaps in man's knowledge, I have to entertain the concept of God, there's no other element to add to the equation.

Entertaining the idea of God is actually all I ever ask when I get into conversations with nonbelievers. The same goes for me, entertaining the thought of all being Evolution. There has to be some form of give and take, if not then we would ultimately end up fighting all the time, if not trying to kill one another over who it right and who is wrong. You have summed up basically what a lot of people try to say, but just can't seem to find the right words. karma

No matter the belief, it is a religion of some form. *Some* Satanists claim Satan but will argue till they are blue in the face that there is no God. But to believe in Satan one must believe in God, because Satan is an ArchAngel who wanted the same 'power', if you will, that God has, so he was cast out. (According to teachings)

It's not just a question of "seeing" - it's more like he's so supreme that he *doesn't* mess with us poor earthling knaves... he's so very supreme that he never does *anything* we can confidently ascribe to him.



wow...that is so far off. Perhaps if you had a "relationship" with him, you would see just how much he CAN do for you.  There are many instances in my life that I can confidently say that "someone" had to have a hand of some sort on the situation.

wow...that is so far off. Perhaps if you had a "relationship" with him, you would see just how much he CAN do for you.  There are many instances in my life that I can confidently say that "someone" had to have a hand of some sort on the situation.


Would you explain how?

I see things that could in a way be attributed to a guiding hand, but I'm talking about things on such a grand scale it's hard to fathom. Ideas like the perfect gravity existing for life to spring forth, the perfect combinations of gases forming a breathable atmosphere etc, etc. In every day life I see no signs of God - I just see people making decisions based on what chemical reactions in their brains are instructing them to do to further their own needs.


Entertaining the idea of God is actually all I ever ask when I get into conversations with nonbelievers. The same goes for me, entertaining the thought of all being Evolution. There has to be some form of give and take, if not then we would ultimately end up fighting all the time, if not trying to kill one another over who it right and who is wrong. You have summed up basically what a lot of people try to say, but just can't seem to find the right words. karma

No matter the belief, it is a religion of some form. *Some* Satanists claim Satan but will argue till they are blue in the face that there is no God. But to believe in Satan one must believe in God, because Satan is an ArchAngel who wanted the same 'power', if you will, that God has, so he was cast out. (According to teachings)


Well, to even begin a conversation (not an argument) one must at least concede that the other side could well have a valid point to make, otherwise there is no chance for dialog and thus no hope for advancement of ideas.
We already try and kill one another over who is right and who is wrong.. I call it religion.  ;)

Now, I happen to disagree with your second statement. Religion is just a word, to call ideas religion isn't wrong.. it's just attributing the wrong word to a concept.
To believe in Satan then one doesn't necessarily have to believe in God, just like if you believe in God you don't HAVE to believe in Satan, but it certainly helps, as logic itself dictates that one begets the other. Dark and light. Matter and anti-matter. Every action, particle, idea and event has an equal and opposite reaction etc.

In my opinion, having faith is very different from having religion. I realize I sound arrogant when I say this, but religion strikes me as a disease, something limiting one's abilities to think because it ties you down in to the wrong mentality, where this is wrong and this is right. Essentially is blocks avenues of thought that were previously open by saying that if you go down said avenues of thought, you will be punished. To me, that's dangerous.
Faith however, is totally different. When my Mother had surgery on her spine I had to place my faith in the Doctor's abilities to perform the surgery proficiently without paralyzing her. Whenever I cross the street, I have to have faith that a car won't come flying along and kill me. Faith doesn't necessarily mean religion.
I have faith that one day Science will give us the answers we've been looking for all this time. .. and you know, if Science proved the existence of God, then that would be just fine with me.

Well, to even begin a conversation (not an argument) one must at least concede that the other side could well have a valid point to make, otherwise there is no chance for dialog and thus no hope for advancement of ideas.
We already try and kill one another over who is right and who is wrong.. I call it religion.  ;)
Thankfully, I am able to see where valid points can be made - otherwise I wouldn't be having this conversation at all! ;)


Now, I happen to disagree with your second statement. Religion is just a word, to call ideas religion isn't wrong.. it's just attributing the wrong word to a concept.
To believe in Satan then one doesn't necessarily have to believe in God, just like if you believe in God you don't HAVE to believe in Satan, but it certainly helps, as logic itself dictates that one begets the other. Dark and light. Matter and anti-matter. Every action, particle, idea and event has an equal and opposite reaction etc.

And I can see where you think it is using the wrong word. Maybe I should have said "no matter the belief, it is a higher faith of some form". Myself, I call it faith. And yes, logic does dictate that one begets the other for sure.


In my opinion, having faith is very different from having religion. I realize I sound arrogant when I say this, but religion strikes me as a disease, something limiting one's abilities to think because it ties you down in to the wrong mentality, where this is wrong and this is right. Essentially is blocks avenues of thought that were previously open by saying that if you go down said avenues of thought, you will be punished. To me, that's dangerous.
Faith however, is totally different. When my Mother had surgery on her spine I had to place my faith in the Doctor's abilities to perform the surgery proficiently without paralyzing her. Whenever I cross the street, I have to have faith that a car won't come flying along and kill me. Faith doesn't necessarily mean religion.
I have faith that one day Science will give us the answers we've been looking for all this time. .. and you know, if Science proved the existence of God, then that would be just fine with me.

I have these same ideas in regards to faith, but my faith also covers other areas in my life. I have faith that I will be brought out of hard times, I have faith that I am being tested for a reason and I will overcome. I have faith that my prayers are heard and answered. And answered doesn't mean that God always says yes - because it simply doesn't work that way. I don't even think I could explain why, so you can ask if you like, but I am not sure I would have the answer that would satisfy you. All I know is that my faith calms me, and even though I still get frustrated with my faith, I keep it because ultimately it is mine to hold on to.
Does that make sense?

I will not discuss my beliefs here, instead I will just ask a few questions.

To the creationist: Where do the dinosaurs fit into this theory? It is a known fact that dinosaurs and man did not inhabit
                          the earth at the same period.

To the Evolutionist: If man evolved from apes, Why do apes still exist?

There are millions of bits of evidence to support the theory of evolution, are there any bits of evidence to support
creation? Some people writing words in a book is not evidence.

As for people in the Bible living for 600+ years; they had no way to measure time. The concept of 365 days being a
year wasn't known to them. They may have counted full moons as being a year. Someone living 50 years would see
600+ full moons thereby being 600 years old.


P.S.  "People who agree with you already agree with you, you don't change people's mind."
                                                                                                                      .........Frank Zappa

I have these same ideas in regards to faith, but my faith also covers other areas in my life. I have faith that I will be brought out of hard times, I have faith that I am being tested for a reason and I will overcome. I have faith that my prayers are heard and answered. And answered doesn't mean that God always says yes - because it simply doesn't work that way. I don't even think I could explain why, so you can ask if you like, but I am not sure I would have the answer that would satisfy you. All I know is that my faith calms me, and even though I still get frustrated with my faith, I keep it because ultimately it is mine to hold on to.
Does that make sense?


I couldn't have stated this any better. This is exactly how I feel as well. I realize that it is hard sometimes to fathom certain things regarding spirituality...but like you said, it all boils down to having faith. I have been through things in my lifetime...good and bad, and I know that I was not alone...nor was I the one that orchestrated certain things in my life.


Would you explain how?

I see things that could in a way be attributed to a guiding hand, but I'm talking about things on such a grand scale it's hard to fathom. Ideas like the perfect gravity existing for life to spring forth, the perfect combinations of gases forming a breathable atmosphere etc, etc. In every day life I see no signs of God - I just see people making decisions based on what chemical reactions in their brains are instructing them to do to further their own needs.



See, and the things that you described...perfect combinations and such, in order to make things exist as they do...I see the total opposite of you. I see every sign of there being a God, when it comes to looking around at nature and the miracle of life, and such.  To me, there has to be a God...it's just something that I have always believed...and always will believe...I don't need concrete "proof".

To the creationist: Where do the dinosaurs fit into this theory? It is a known fact that dinosaurs and man did not inhabit
                           the earth at the same period.



Not sure but according to a mother I sat next to in the Pediatricians office the dinosaurs died in Noah's flood.  ;D

To the Evolutionist: If man evolved from apes, Why do apes still exist?


Ah, that one's easy.  "Because humans and the other species of present-day apes descended from a common ancestor.  It's sorta like asking if the Toyota Prius is a descendant of the internal combustion engine of the Model T, why does the Pickup Truck exist?  The Prius is well-adapted to cities where you never go more than half a block without hitting the brakes and it's a pain to find parking spaces, and the Pickup Truck is well-adapted to the countryside, where you might have to go over 500 feet of unpaved road to get to your ranch, or you might want to tow a boat to the lake for going fishing."

As for the creationist side, I can't answer that, as I'm not a creationist.

I'm not a creationist, because I can comprehend the sort of God that would create the world out of whole cloth in six days.  A comprehensible God bugs me.  I mean, isn't a being worthy of the name "God" supposed to be bigger than that?  Don't omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and all those other traits supposedly posessed by this "God" character demand a God bigger than something that my mere human mind can comprehend?

Now, the sort of God that could not only invent something like string theory, but implement it, on the other hand, is pretty impressive.  Certainly a hell of a lot smarter than the Creationists' God.  This guy tweaks a few numbers (we know the numbers, there are less than a dozen of them), and voila, a universe pops into existence out of sheer nothingness and mathematics.  Then he waits 9 billion years for that particular universe's physics and chemistry to evolve self-replicating molecules, and another 5 billion years for the self-replicating molecules to achieve sentience.  Then (maybe), the sentient critters in his test tube look out at him and say "Hi?  You out there?"  Clever guy.

If the past 6000 years of human history is any guide, after we figure out how to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity (whether we use string theory or something else to explain it), we'll probably still have plenty of questions to ask about how this universe-thing came to be.  Clever as we are, if there exists a God, he's presumably smarter than that, right? :)

"Science is a game we play with God to find out what His rules are."
- Niels Bohr, physicst.

Fun game, too.

To the Evolutionist: If man evolved from apes, Why do apes still exist?


Something evolving from another thing does not necessarily mean that the original thing ceases to exist.  It just means it has changed in some way.  It's like different races of humans.....if parents of different races have a child, a new "race" is created which is a mix of the parents.....that does not mean that other members of the original races cease to exist, their offspring is simply "different" than them.  It's like dominant/recessive genes.....there's no telling how they're going to mix and what's going to come of it, you can predict, but you can't say for sure.....simply because a dominant gene may "take over" doesn't mean the recessive one ceases to exist...

Ah, that one's easy.  "Because humans and the other species of present-day apes descended from a common ancestor.  It's sorta like asking if the Toyota Prius is a descendant of the internal combustion engine of the Model T, why does the Pickup Truck exist?  The Prius is well-adapted to cities where you never go more than half a block without hitting the brakes and it's a pain to find parking spaces, and the Pickup Truck is well-adapted to the countryside, where you might have to go over 500 feet of unpaved road to get to your ranch, or you might want to tow a boat to the lake for going fishing."



You really didn't answer my question, the basic evolutionary theory is man evolved from apes. This goes back to the Scopes
Monkey Trial. Stating a common ancestor is the easy way around the question. Using your analogy, the basic theory would be
Pickups evolved from Toyotas. A better theory would be a common ancestor, a Model T; which by the way, was not the first
combustion engine vehicle.

Look,this being a creationist point of view, my question, and above answer are sarcastic. Darwin's theory has always stated
a common ancestor. Most creationist believe he meant monkeys so that vision stayed in there mind, hence the question.

Now, if man and apes evolved from a common ancestor, why is it that man shares more genetic traits to pigs than apes?
Ladies, keep the comments to yourself, you're included too.  ;D

Thankfully, I am able to see where valid points can be made - otherwise I wouldn't be having this conversation at all! ;)
And I can see where you think it is using the wrong word. Maybe I should have said "no matter the belief, it is a higher faith of some form". Myself, I call it faith. And yes, logic does dictate that one begets the other for sure.
I have these same ideas in regards to faith, but my faith also covers other areas in my life. I have faith that I will be brought out of hard times, I have faith that I am being tested for a reason and I will overcome. I have faith that my prayers are heard and answered. And answered doesn't mean that God always says yes - because it simply doesn't work that way. I don't even think I could explain why, so you can ask if you like, but I am not sure I would have the answer that would satisfy you. All I know is that my faith calms me, and even though I still get frustrated with my faith, I keep it because ultimately it is mine to hold on to.
Does that make sense?


You're far more open to discussion than a lot of the Christians I talk with, of course, I am aware that a lot of that is to do with geography as much as belief. As you know, I come from a Southern Baptist family, most of whom are so inbred and retarded they find it hard to tie their shoelaces, never mind engage in constructive debate, so I'm never going to get the same kind of discourse from them.. that may be something that's tainted my views on Christians as a whole.

Yes, of course we have to have faith, the examples I've given are accurate I think.. and then, we need to have faith in our own abilities, much like you've said - If we don't, it's unlikely that we'll accomplish anything.
I can see where religion can play a big part, going on the assumption that one is (for lack of a better term I'm afraid) weak minded, then if you were to simply have total faith that 'God' or whoever was looking out for you, you may be able to succeed where before you would have failed.

To the Evolutionist: If man evolved from apes, Why do apes still exist?


The same reason that Huskeys and Wolves exist at the same time.

There were numerous stages of human evolution.. and bipedal mammalian evolution. The common ape is nothing like the ancestor we both share.

A good for instance is Neanderthal man. Genetic research has shown that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens (Us) share a common ancestor around half a million years ago. But Neanderthals did not become Homo Sapiens, they were another very similar creature, but ultimately died out around 35-40,000 years ago.

You really didn't answer my question, the basic evolutionary theory is man evolved from apes. This goes back to the Scopes
Monkey Trial. Stating a common ancestor is the easy way around the question. Using your analogy, the basic theory would be
Pickups evolved from Toyotas. A better theory would be a common ancestor, a Model T; which by the way, was not the first
combustion engine vehicle.

Look,this being a creationist point of view, my question, and above answer are sarcastic. Darwin's theory has always stated
a common ancestor. Most creationist believe he meant monkeys so that vision stayed in there mind, hence the question.

Now, if man and apes evolved from a common ancestor, why is it that man shares more genetic traits to pigs than apes?


Pigs vs. apes?  Gonna call foul on that one.  Rather than cut-and-paste (since I'm also not a paleoanthropologist), I'd just refer you to the Smithsonian for something that looks reasonably up-to-date on modern evolutionary theory.

As for your "sarcasm", however -- no sarcasm required -- you've answered it yourself: "Most creationist(s) believe (Darwin) meant monkeys".  The problem is, the difference between "monkey", "ape", and "great ape" is pretty darn slim to anyone but a zoologist, and most laymen (on either side of the "debate") do not differentiate between any of the three preceding terms in casual speech.  (Quick now, in 5 words or less, what's the difference between an "ape" and a "monkey"... or any other quadruped?  I can't do it either off the top of my head!)

"All humans are primates" does not imply that "All primates are human".
"All humans are primates.  All monkeys are primates" doesn't imply that "all monkeys are human".

The problem with the scientist is that he assumes that his reader won't make those bogus leaps of logic, even if he's careless with his language.

The problem with the religious leader is that he knows that most of his flock will make those bogus leaps of logic, especially he chooses his words carefully enough.

Hence:

Scientist:  "Humans and chimps have a common primate ancestor."
Creationist:  "You mean we're all monkeys?"
Scientist:  "No, the ancestor has been extinct for tens of millions of years.  Chimps aren't your dad, they're your 5-millionth cousin, 4 million times removed."
Creationist:  "Monkeys isn't human!"
Scientist:  "No, neither are chimps.  Monkeys are maybe your 25-millionth-cousin, 24-million times removed."
Creationist:  "They's all monkeys!  None of 'em is human!"
Scientist:  "WTF?  I never said any of them were!"
Creationist:  "WTF?  Yes you did!  You said we was all monkeys/chimps/apes!"

Then the poo-flinging and struggles for territorial control start.  Sorta like what chimps do in the wild.  'Cept instead of poo, we use bombs, and instead of where the last chimp from the other tribe died, we draw lines on a map.

The really funny part is that the Genesis story isn't that far off from what a Babylonian tribesman from 4000 BC would write if shown an episode of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" (first, there was nothing, then light, then matter, then stars, then rocky planets such as Earth, then a moon  around the Earth, then oceans condensed onto Earth's surface, life arose in its seas, its land was colonized by plants, then vertebrates evolved, one species of which became humans) were shown to him... without any words.

I believe that God, if it exists, has a sick sense of humor (and when I die, I expect to find Him laughing, but this isn't a Depeche Mode thread).  That's the sort of thing I'd do if I were God.  Being God, of course, I think His sense of humor would have to be better than mine, and that He'd find an even funnier way to pull one over on us.  If science is a game we play with God to find out what his rules are, then life is a game we play with God to find out what the punchline is.

If science is a game we play with God to find out what his rules are, then life is a game we play with God to find out what the punchline is.


My new goal in life is to say anything as poignant as this.

Bravo sir.

wow...that is so far off. Perhaps if you had a "relationship" with him, you would see just how much he CAN do for you.  There are many instances in my life that I can confidently say that "someone" had to have a hand of some sort on the situation.

And from those instances you can confidently deduce that this "someone" is an all-powerful world creator imbued with a remarkably human set of prejudices?  Don't you feel that might be just a little bit of an extreme logical leap?

I'm sorry, but I can't have a relationship with someone who, in my view, doesn't exist: I didn't have imaginary friends as a child, and see no reason to start now.

If there is someone all-powerful there who can help those who believe in him, can you explain why throughout history the more put-upon and oppressed peoples have been more religious... you'd have thought that if he really did help the people who prayed to him, it would be the other way around.


Pigs vs. apes? 
...
If science is a game we play with God to find out what his rules are, then life is a game we play with God to find out what the punchline is.

A superb post, start to finish (and not even remotely FUBAR ;))


In my opinion, having faith is very different from having religion. I realize I sound arrogant when I say this, but religion strikes me as a disease,

Religion is what you get when faith is used for control; at least, organized religion is.  It's the way you get other people to do what you want them to, by convincing them it's what God wants them to do; I used to hold pretty much your viewpoint on faith as a positive thing, but experience has changed my mind on that, and while in some people it does inspire them to better things, in others all it does is promote arrogance, bigotry and a belief that "other people's lives" aren't worth as much as their own.

I believe that God, if it exists, has a sick sense of humor (and when I die, I expect to find Him laughing, but this isn't a Depeche Mode thread).  That's the sort of thing I'd do if I were God.  Being God, of course, I think His sense of humor would have to be better than mine, and that He'd find an even funnier way to pull one over on us.  If science is a game we play with God to find out what his rules are, then life is a game we play with God to find out what the punchline is.



Of course SHE has a sense of humor. Look at the platypus.



Cat

Of course SHE has a sense of humor. Look at the platypus.



Cat


You just reminded me of a nun that taught in my High School.

She would say "In the name of the Mother and the Daughter and The Spirit all around us".  ;D

Religion is what you get when faith is used for control

Hey, you're pretty poignant yourself, you know!

My new goal in life is to say anything as poignant as this.

Bravo sir.


/takes a bow

But I refer you to Niels Bohr, who gave me the inspiration on science being the game we play with God to find out what His rules are.  It's only by standing on the shoulders of giants that we (humans) can see so far, and that I (your humble poster) can see frickin' anywhere.

As a reminder to the theists, and with a nod to whoever first said it (sorry, I don't  have a source for it)... science is about how, not why.  Religion is about why, not how.

So if you're willing to give up a (human and therefore fallible) certain bishop's interpretation of his reading of the Book of Genesis, you can give up young-earth Creationism without giving up your belief in God, and after having done so, you can certainly believe in both the existence of (the  Judeo-Christian version of) God, and the theory of evolution at the same time.  They're not inconsistent.  Indeed, they have nothing to do with one another.

For anyone looking for a theological argument, I'll point you towards the book of Job.  Those passages where "Thus spake God to Job out of the whirlwind... blah, blah, blah, a lot of questions about the water cycle and evolutionary biology that a Hebrew farmer of 6000 years ago would have had a hard (impossible!) time answering."  Well, since the story was written, we humans have figured most of those questions out, and could answer God.  But so what?

And yet - 6000 years of poking around His creation later - and we still don't have an answer to ("From whence dost thou derive the fine structure constant?", nor "and furthermore, how dost thou explain the contradictions between the observed behavior of matter at the scale of the very large, that thou callest 'special relativity' - against the observed quantum-mechanical behavior at the scale of the atom that thou callest 'quantum chromodynamics'?  Ye observest at two scales, thy scriveners and mathematicians hast created thee two excellent theories, and yet thou canst not reconcile these theories without contradicting one or the other!").

My answer to the "debate" is as I said a few paragraphs ago:  science is about how, not why.  Religion is about why, not how.  Leave the "how did we get here" to the scientists and the engineers.  Leave the "why does the universe exist in the first place" to the philosophers and faithful.  Worry about what happens when the two meet in a few million years when both groups have run out of questions. 

Essential reading for scientist and theologian alike: Science-fiction / humor author Douglas Adams on the hypothetical Babel Fish. 

If ever anything were to be discovered that conclusively proved the existence of God, it would simultaneously prove God's non-existence. Both God (and His wannabe-discoverer) would be dealt with shortly by the necessities of the Universe.

You really didn't answer my question, the basic evolutionary theory is man evolved from apes. This goes back to the Scopes
Monkey Trial. Stating a common ancestor is the easy way around the question. Using your analogy, the basic theory would be
Pickups evolved from Toyotas. A better theory would be a common ancestor, a Model T; which by the way, was not the first
combustion engine vehicle.

Look,this being a creationist point of view, my question, and above answer are sarcastic. Darwin's theory has always stated
a common ancestor. Most creationist believe he meant monkeys so that vision stayed in there mind, hence the question.

Now, if man and apes evolved from a common ancestor, why is it that man shares more genetic traits to pigs than apes?
Ladies, keep the comments to yourself, you're included too.  ;D


really? because when darwin came up with the theory, i believe he stated that humans and apes came from a COMMON ANCESTOR.

Of course SHE has a sense of humor. Look at the platypus.

It's a pretty sick sense of humour, too: she's been getting one band of merry men to go snipping bits off their penises for the last few thousand years... she must have tears in her eyes (from laughing, anyway).

It's a pretty sick sense of humour, too: she's been getting one band of merry men to go snipping bits off their penises for the last few thousand years... she must have tears in her eyes (from laughing, anyway).




;D ;D ;D



Cat

really? because when darwin came up with the theory, i believe he stated that humans and apes came from a COMMON ANCESTOR.


More importantly, the theory of evolution states that all mammals have a common ancestor (most commonly believed to be a shrew-like monotreme from the Jurassic Period), and that common ancestor evolved from a reptile, which evolved from an amphibian, which evolved from a fish, and so on back to the primordial ooze. In essence all living things evolved from the same single-celled microbes.

Let's also not get confused about people who believe in the Creation (that God created the universe and everything in it) and Creationists, who believe that the Creation story from the book of Genesis is undeniable, literal fact.

i was wondering why i feel like a shrew-like monotreme most days.

yes, i think a lot of christians take the bible as a kind of allegory for living their life... they believe in a god who created the universe but believe god couched the story of creation in the bible in a language that the people of the time could understand.

the people who take the word of the bible literally should probably be called a different name. the word "christian" doesn't really apply to them (after all, what do they have to do with the merciful teachings of christ as they appear in the bible) but when i say bad things about them i have to use the word "christian" because the language is impoverished.

i've heard the word "christist," which is good, but it still has the word "christ" in it, and i don't think they should be given that.

i was wondering why i feel like a shrew-like monotreme most days.

yes, i think a lot of christians take the bible as a kind of allegory for living their life... they believe in a god who created the universe but believe god couched the story of creation in the bible in a language that the people of the time could understand.

the people who take the word of the bible literally should probably be called a different name. the word "christian" doesn't really apply to them (after all, what do they have to do with the merciful teachings of christ as they appear in the bible) but when i say bad things about them i have to use the word "christian" because the language is impoverished.

i've heard the word "christist," which is good, but it still has the word "christ" in it, and i don't think they should be given that.


Crazys.

i was wondering why i feel like a shrew-like monotreme most days.


We all have days like that. :)


the people who take the word of the bible literally should probably be called a different name. the word "christian" doesn't really apply to them (after all, what do they have to do with the merciful teachings of christ as they appear in the bible) but when i say bad things about them i have to use the word "christian" because the language is impoverished.

i've heard the word "christist," which is good, but it still has the word "christ" in it, and i don't think they should be given that.


It's still Christianity though, because it still incorporates the teachings of Jesus even if there seems to be an emphasis on Old Testament texts. The biggest problem with the Bible as a basis for Christianity is that it's really two different religions. The first part is about a Creator who's vain, wrathful, vengeful, and jealous, who orders entire tribes annihilated and who punishes people out of all proportion to their crimes. It is filled with characters whose behaviour, in a modern context, would have them denounced as monsters: David, a war-mongering, bloodthirsty tyrant, Lot, who had sex with his own children, and dozens more. The second part has God in a human form, teaching people directly, but this time preaching love, humility and peace, with an added component of forgiveness. By it's very nature, the Bible, and therefore Christianity, is a dicotomy. How can you believe that the same God who sacrificed His own Son in a symbolic gesture to save the souls of all mankind could be the same one who, a few thousands years before, flooded the entire world and everything in it because he was pissed off with mankind, or ordered his tribal leaders to massacre thousands of people and keep the survivors as chattel? Did He change His mind? Did He realise He was going about everything the wrong way? If he's everpresent and all-knowing, wouldn't He have known all this was going to happen and, if He did, which by definition He must have, why didn't He do it right in the first place?

More importantly, the theory of evolution states that all mammals have a common ancestor (most commonly believed to be a shrew-like monotreme from the Jurassic Period), and that common ancestor evolved from a reptile, which evolved from an amphibian, which evolved from a fish, and so on back to the primordial ooze. In essence all living things evolved from the same single-celled microbes.

Let's also not get confused about people who believe in the Creation (that God created the universe and everything in it) and Creationists, who believe that the Creation story from the book of Genesis is undeniable, literal fact.


  Yeah, like the lung fish. scientists think that may be the link between fish and land animals. Back somewhere in either this thread or the bunny one (not sure where morphie put it) i made a pretty big post on the subject of taking the bible literaly. for the most part (although some is meant to be taken litteraly) it's just a big book of figurative language.

   Edit: turns out that post i made wasn't so big afterall!

I believe that God, if it exists, has a sick sense of humor (and when I die, I expect to find Him laughing, but this isn't a Depeche Mode thread).  That's the sort of thing I'd do if I were God.  Being God, of course, I think His sense of humor would have to be better than mine.......


So you've seen that movie too huh?

We've had a debate along these lines before, with Harmonica if I recall correctly, so I'll repeat some of what I said back then.  While we may not understand exactly how evolution works, we can, and do manipulate it, that's why there are different "breeds" of animals.  Get rid of all dogs except St Bernards and chiuhahuas and you would have two seperate spicies, because they couldn't interbreed.  Other evidance: our over use of antibiotics has led to the evolution of super-bugs that are resistant to them.  Further, there is the example of a moth in England that use to be white.  It hid on the light bark of a king of tree.  When a dark one hatched, it wwas quickly eaten by birds.  Along came the coal fired steem engine, the soot darkend the bnark, and oinly the darker moths survived.  All this is evolution in action.  One could go on...

The "theory" aspect has do do with how we explain the observable.  And since we can't duplicate the process, we can't "prove" how the mechanisms work, so we theorize.

We've had a debate along these lines before, with Harmonica if I recall correctly, so I'll repeat some of what I said back then.  While we may not understand exactly how evolution works, we can, and do manipulate it, that's why there are different "breeds" of animals.  Get rid of all dogs except St Bernards and chiuhahuas and you would have two seperate spicies, because they couldn't interbreed.  Other evidance: our over use of antibiotics has led to the evolution of super-bugs that are resistant to them.  Further, there is the example of a moth in England that use to be white.  It hid on the light bark of a king of tree.  When a dark one hatched, it wwas quickly eaten by birds.  Along came the coal fired steem engine, the soot darkend the bnark, and oinly the darker moths survived.  All this is evolution in action.  One could go on...

The "theory" aspect has do do with how we explain the observable.  And since we can't duplicate the process, we can't "prove" how the mechanisms work, so we theorize.




Hey DC, this is almost the same thing I posted a few pages back. I'm still waiting for the rebuttal.  :)

Hey DC, this is almost the same thing I posted a few pages back. I'm still waiting for the rebuttal.  :)

That's because there *is* no rebuttal: the sort of person who doesn't believe that evolution happens either cannot or will not think rationally about this.

That's because there *is* no rebuttal: the sort of person who doesn't believe that evolution happens either cannot or will not think rationally about this.

Prepare for vitriolic slamming of your character...all in green!

Prepare for vitriolic slamming of your character...all in green!


What's with the green anyway?  I'm going to request that she uses hot pink or a lovely shade of lavender. :)

What's with the green anyway?

Er.. envious?  Probably not... Environmentally friendly?  Doubtful... Naive or inexperienced?  Damn, ain't there just too many implications of "green".

But as Spaff'll tell you, it's not easy to be green

What's with the green anyway?  I'm going to request that she uses hot pink or a lovely shade of lavender. :)

Green is the color of the Prophet.  Perhaps she's a closet Muslim.

You're in for it now.

i sorta pictured everybody backing cautiously away from the thread the way they inch outta the saloons in those old-time westerns when a gunfight's about to break out.

Green is the color of the Prophet.  Perhaps she's a closet Muslim.


Been nice knowing you.

My guess is she won't take the bait.  She's got too much class for that!

My guess is she won't take the bait.  She's got too much class for that!
Either that or she realizes she's fighting an uphill battle.....and losing...

Either that or she realizes she's fighting an uphill battle.....and losing...



ya, it's frustrating to be ganged up on...whether you are right or not.

ya, it's frustrating to be ganged up on...whether you are right or not.


Just in case if you haven't been reading everything she has brought this all on herself.

Just in case if you haven't been reading everything she has brought this all on herself.



you don't seem to understand though that it really sucks whenever you are alone in your beliefs/opinions...and everyone else is up against you. I never said that she hasn't been radical in some of her views....but I do agree with some of the things she is saying...I just don't have the balls like she does....and I am a bit more openminded, I suppose.  I have been sitting back watching BOTH sides of the argument..and she is not the only guilty party when it comes to saying things that shouldn't be said...that's all I'm trying to say. If one is getting reprimanded for taking things too far...than others should be getting the same treatment.

you don't seem to understand though that it really sucks whenever you are alone in your beliefs/opinions...and everyone else is up against you. I never said that she hasn't been radical in some of her views....but I do agree with some of the things she is saying...I just don't have the balls like she does....and I am a bit more openminded, I suppose.  I have been sitting back watching BOTH sides of the argument..and she is not the only guilty party when it comes to saying things that shouldn't be said...that's all I'm trying to say. If one is getting reprimanded for taking things too far...than others should be getting the same treatment.



Are you aware that I cannot talk about my religious beliefs because they are not mainstream.

I also find your argument to be very one-sided which you normally aren't.

you don't seem to understand though that it really sucks whenever you are alone in your beliefs/opinions...and everyone else is up against you. I never said that she hasn't been radical in some of her views....but I do agree with some of the things she is saying...I just don't have the balls like she does....and I am a bit more openminded, I suppose.  I have been sitting back watching BOTH sides of the argument..and she is not the only guilty party when it comes to saying things that shouldn't be said...that's all I'm trying to say. If one is getting reprimanded for taking things too far...than others should be getting the same treatment.

The fact that she's aggressive, opinionated, abusive and hypocritical enough to complain when somebody does to her what she hands out to others does rather bias me against her... personally, I don't think she should be reprimanded for anything that's been said in any of the threads in which I've been involved (though I have been told there's been worse, I've not gone looking for it); before joining the messageboards, she posted some of the most rabidly anti-Liberal abuse parodies, the majority of which are vituperative in the extreme and don't bother with any attempt at accuracy that might get in the way of the insults.

It's one thing to say "it sucks when you are alone in your beliefs or opinions"; but the way she goes on at times is a bit like the Top Gear presenters driving into Alabama with "Hillary for President" (amongst other things) on the side of the car.

It's one thing to say "it sucks when you are alone in your beliefs or opinions"; but the way she goes on at times is a bit like the Top Gear presenters driving into Alabama with "Hillary for President" (amongst other things) on the side of the car.


More proof that Alabama shouldn't be part of the union.. they're closer related to chimps than humans.

Absolutely, I'm with Philbo.  It's hard to be all alone in your beliefs.  I've been there.  If you're vitriolic and aggressive about it, that's another issue.

Harmonica still has her beat, she hasn't made any death threats!

More proof that Alabama shouldn't be part of the union.. they're closer related to chimps than humans.


Careful there, one of our frequent posters is from Alabama!  But he's not a native, he migrated from California.

Careful there, one of our frequent posters is from Alabama!  But he's not a native, he migrated from California.


He's one of those rare, fine upstanding citizens heard in Alabamian folklore. :)

Are you aware that I cannot talk about my religious beliefs because they are not mainstream.

I also find your argument to be very one-sided which you normally aren't.



there's a lot you don't know about me....but I can say, that if you do talk about your beliefs...I would never even consider bashing them. There are a lot of people on the boards who think VERY differently from the way that I do...but I have respect for them...and I have never once belittled someone's religious or lack of religious beliefs....or anything that has to do with their religion. The fact of the matter is...nobody is going to change anybody else's mind when it comes to personal beliefs...so both sides of the argument should just agree to disagree.  And from what I said before....I do agree that some of the things she said were uncalled for...but all I was trying to get across what that she wasn't the only one that was saying offensive things.

But she is the only person who came directly out and told someone they were "just hard-core rotten". People have every right to stand for their beliefs, but they should show some restraint. This person attacked the beliefs of others by directly attacking their character. That's not the way to do it. If this person feels she can't come back here, I for one won't be sorry.

But she is the only person who came directly out and told someone they were "just hard-core rotten". People have every right to stand for their beliefs, but they should show some restraint. This person attacked the beliefs of others by directly attacking their character. That's not the way to do it. If this person feels she can't come back here, I for one won't be sorry.


God outsources His "judging" to His people.  Been that way for centuries, dontcha know!

our very own resident ephbophile mushroom is from alabama, i think. i went to huntsville once. i was very impressed by the ready availability of Hooters restaurants there.

our very own resident ephbophile mushroom is from alabama, i think. i went to huntsville once. i was very impressed by the ready availability of Hooters restaurants there.


South County St Louis has two Hooters within about 2 miles of each other which has always impressed me.

I would imagine that breasts are about the only available thing in Alabama to take away from the drudgery of bible reading.

But she is the only person who came directly out and told someone they were "just hard-core rotten". People have every right to stand for their beliefs, but they should show some restraint. This person attacked the beliefs of others by directly attacking their character. That's not the way to do it. If this person feels she can't come back here, I for one won't be sorry.
Thank you.

The way I see it, if everyone just "agrees to disagree," what's the point of debate?  If someone dishes it out to me, they'd darned well better be able to take it.

And, I don't see it as someone "being ganged up on."  If you're going to call a group of people every nasty name in the book, then you should expect them to retaliate.  Yes, most people on this board are "liberal" so if you come bashing "liberals" in almost every post, expect most of them to respond.  If I went on an obviously "right" leaning board and started spouting off about how ignorant they are and wrong and "just hard core rotten," I'd expect them to start retaliating at me as well.  There's a right way and a wrong way to do things.  Andy is a self-proclaimed conservative, but he doesn't resort to juvenile name-calling and even though many of us may not agree with him, we respect his beliefs because he also respects ours.  Basically, it has nothing to do with a person's political leanings, it's how they present themselves.....if you're going to present yourself as an egotistical ass, expect to be treated as such.....

South County St Louis has two Hooters within about 2 miles of each other which has always impressed me.

I would imagine that breasts are about the only available thing in Alabama to take away from the drudgery of bible reading.
Yeah, but the downside is that you're probably related to them ;) 

Yeah, but the downside is that you're probably related to them ;) 


;D ;D ;D ;D

"Mah mothers mah sister!"

;D ;D ;D ;D

"Mah mothers mah sister!"
Git R Done ::)

Git Er Done ::)


I have the t shirt!

South County St Louis has two Hooters within about 2 miles of each other which has always impressed me.

Don't they always come in pairs, then?

I have the t shirt!
So, I guess you've been there, done that.... ;)

well you all don't have to worry about your evil arch enemy, Iterhune....she's been banned...carry on with regular discussion. ;)

well you all don't have to worry about your evil arch enemy, Iterhune....she's been banned...carry on with regular discussion. ;)


Wait, what were we discussing???

Well, without someone calling me a frothing, rabid liberal lunatic I'm just not sure I'm gonna feel the political discussions anymore. I need my daily dose of trollery!

Don't they always come in pairs, then?


Much like their prime appeal.

well you all don't have to worry about your evil arch enemy, Iterhune....she's been banned...carry on with regular discussion. ;)


That sucks. I liked her, yeah she was pretty hateful, but I think that's a great thing, way more interesting than brown noseing.


Well, without someone calling me a frothing, rabid liberal lunatic I'm just not sure I'm gonna feel the political discussions anymore. I need my daily dose of trollery!


Your mother was a skunk, your opinions meaningless, your life choices and value system are redundant and your personal hygiene leaves much to be desired.

Your mother was a skunk, your opinions meaningless, your life choices and value system are redundant and your personal hygiene leaves much to be desired.


Aw, bet you say that to all your friends!

Aw, bet you say that to all your friends!


Just Mike, I call the rest of them ugly as well.

well you all don't have to worry about your evil arch enemy, Iterhune....she's been banned...carry on with regular discussion. ;)


Linda's gone? What a shame,someone is going to miss her a lot :(

Linda's gone? What a shame,someone is going to miss her a lot :(


who would that be?

who would that be?


lterhune other wise known as linda.

lterhune other wise known as linda.


oh no...I was just wondering who was going to miss her, as Isabel stated above.

oh no...I was just wondering who was going to miss her, as Isabel stated above.


I think she and I tried to make peace a few times but couldn't quite make it last.  BUT we tried!!!!

who would that be?


I think someone overhere had a BIG CRUSH on Linda,and who can blame them? She was gorgeous and opinionated,alluring combo imo ;)

Dont think those are alluring when you only think in black and white.  Ive been reading over these posts and they did get a little heated.  Kind of funny imo.

okay! i admit it! please, linda, come back to me! come back! i need to be berated for my core beliefs! i want to spend all night confronting unyielding fanaticism! dogma makes me SO hot!

naw, i jest. i'll be honest, though... i liked linda. i admired her ability to stand steadfast for everything i despise. plus once in a blue moon she'd mellow out and it was nice to see. ultimately politics is SUPPOSED to be about communicating with people who disagree with you although that hardly ever happens anymore these days. :( and she was usually an example of the failure to communicate rather than the other thing.

whatever, i don't think she shoulda gotten banned but i typically feel that way when someone gets banned. the more personalities the better, is what i say, and people shouldn't be so damned thin-skinned. i don't really blame the moderators, they have a job to do... i blame the busybodies who have nothing to do but complain about words on a screen, which as far as i know have never hurt anyone.

okay! i admit it! please, linda, come back to me! come back! i need to be berated for my core beliefs! i want to spend all night confronting unyielding fanaticism! dogma makes me SO hot!

naw, i jest. i'll be honest, though... i liked linda. i admired her ability to stand steadfast for everything i despise. plus once in a blue moon she'd mellow out and it was nice to see. ultimately politics is SUPPOSED to be about communicating with people who disagree with you although that hardly ever happens anymore these days. :( and she was usually an example of the failure to communicate rather than the other thing.

whatever, i don't think she shoulda gotten banned but i typically feel that way when someone gets banned. the more personalities the better, is what i say, and people shouldn't be so damned thin-skinned. i don't really blame the moderators, they have a job to do... i blame the busybodies who have nothing to do but complain about words on a screen, which as far as i know have never hurt anyone.


Tia thinks everything is about him ::) :P

Let's face it she was the main reason the political threads were pumping,most of us think alike so it gets boring to discuss politics when we start every post with: "yes, i agree!"

Tia thinks everything is about him ::) :Pi don't think everything's about me...

I dont think she should have been banned either.  At least you all had someone to debate against.  Its kind of hard to do when there are generally alot of people who think along the same lines.  LOL.  

Maybe she eventually said something that just really pissed the moderators off.  Im new here, so it is not my place to place blame on anyone.  

i don't think everything's about me...


You know?


I dont think she should have been banned either.  At least you all had someone to debate against.  Its kind of hard to do when there are generally alot of people who think along the same lines.  LOL.  

Maybe she eventually said something that just really pissed the moderators off.  Im new here, so it is not my place to place blame on anyone.  





Hi newbie,i agree with you, and you can blame away,everyone here is a glutton for punishment ;)

So, do I "Evolve" into something more than a newbie, or do I just have to post more?    ;D

So, do I "Evolve" into something more than a newbie, or do I just have to post more?    ;D


Lol,sweetie,i'm here for more than 4 months and am still a newbie,i never wanna evolve into something else 8)

So, do I "Evolve" into something more than a newbie, or do I just have to post more?    ;D


You'll change from being McVitie into another penguin

edited to add

and after 100 posts you'll be able to hand out Karamel (applause)

Lol,sweetie,i'm here for more than 4 months and am still a newbie,i never wanna evolve into something else 8)
i re-newbied.

i re-newbied.


yeah but you're such a post-whore you're already a nestor

He He    :)  Well, at least then when you piss someone off or make a mistake, you can say sorry, im still a newb, and it is accepted.  I would say that even if I wasn't a newb.  

He He    :)  Well, at least then when you piss someone off or make a mistake, you can say sorry, im still a newb, and it is accepted.    


Tia would never do that.  He's as pure as the driven snow

Tia would never do that.  He's as pure as the driven snow
aw! you noticed!

Well, at least you didn't say pure as yellow snow.

Tia thinks everything is about him ::) :P

Let's face it she was the main reason the political threads were pumping,most of us think alike so it gets boring to discuss politics when we start every post with: "yes, i agree!"

I dont think she should have been banned either.  At least you all had someone to debate against.  Its kind of hard to do when there are generally alot of people who think along the same lines.  LOL. 

Maybe she eventually said something that just really pissed the moderators off.  Im new here, so it is not my place to place blame on anyone. 



Trust me, even with most of us having similar beliefs, we've gotten into some pretty heated debates in here.....you'll find out soon enough ;)

That being said, I think it was finally the personal name calling that got her banned.  I can't be sure because I never reported any of her posts (I think I've only reported spam and that only 2-3 times).  The way I see it, if you're going to post in a political debate board, you've gotta' have some thick skin.  If you're going to come here, post some pretty offensive stuff, then say everyone's "picking on you" when they rebut your argument or give it right back at you, a politics board is no place for you.  Also, if you're not intelligent enough to read and follow the rules BEFORE calling someone ignorant or worse simply because you disagree with them, you deserve to be banned.

If I have called anyone any offensive names, I apologize.  I honestly try to keep the arguments on topic and refrain from attacking the poster (or posters).....which is more than I can say about others.

Tia would never do that.  He's as pure as the driven snow
***cough, cough***choking on coffee***must not laugh***must not spit on laptop***

Well, at least you didn't say pure as yellow snow.


With remarks like that I can see you'll go a long way here!

You should pop over to the Playful Penguin Place.  I think you'd like it in there

Well, at least you didn't say pure as yellow snow.

SemperYoda sense of humour has.  Good it is.  Welcome he is.

Let's face it she was the main reason the political threads were pumping,most of us think alike so it gets boring to discuss politics when we start every post with: "yes, i agree!"


I'm gonna have to start defending Genocide again I guess.

I'm gonna have to start defending Genocide again I guess.


So which inbred, un-evolved group is it this time?

So which inbred, un-evolved group is it this time?


Huh?

Oh, I'm thinking today I should defend Pol Pot.

Huh?

Oh, I'm thinking today I should defend Pol Pot.


O.k so they question came out wrong.

Those who knew Pol Pot personally said he was a very nice guy.

How can someone who is said to be a nice guy kill the academia of a country?  What was Pol Pot's motivation?

O.k so they question came out wrong.

Those who knew Pol Pot personally said he was a very nice guy.

How can someone who is said to be a nice guy kill the academia of a country?  What was Pol Pot's motivation?


Well, I'm a nice guy and I'd kill most of the academics as well. Along with the lawyers and the Socialists.

Well, I'm a nice guy and I'd kill most of the academics as well. Along with the lawyers and the Socialists.



I think I can understand lawyers and a few misguided Socialists.  You yourself are an academic, why would you kill your own kind? :-\\

I think I can understand lawyers and a few misguided Socialists.  You yourself are an academic, why would you kill your own kind? :-\\


I'm not an Academic. Academics are those that don't learn, don't teach, just talk. Waste of carbon.

I'm not an Academic. Academics are those that don't learn, don't teach, just talk. Waste of carbon.


Oh you mean upper class little snots who's parents got them into an Ivy League school only to become coke-heads and an embarrassment to society.  Is that what you mean?

SemperYoda sense of humour has.  Good it is.  Welcome he is.


Thank you.

Oh you mean upper class little snots who's parents got them into an Ivy League school only to become coke-heads and an embarrassment to society.  Is that what you mean?


I think he means university staff and teachers

Oh you mean upper class little snots who's parents got them into an Ivy League school only to become coke-heads and an embarrassment to society.  Is that what you mean?


Stop talking about me like that.    ;D

Stop talking about me like that.    ;D


Your parents must be proud. :P

I think he means university staff and teachers


No, not exactly.

I got no issue with teachers and those that help. My issue is with the people that sit there for years, getting government grants to research some pathetic little book on the mating habits of the Ugandan sand caterpillar. To them I say "PISS OFF!"

My issue is with the people that sit there for years, getting government grants to research some pathetic little book on the mating habits of the Ugandan sand caterpillar. To them I say "PISS OFF!"


So err looking at the effects of protective clothing and its properties on energy consumption during different activities is alright then?

I like uganda sand caterpillars.  They turn out to be ugly butterflies though.  As for their mating habits, I think they are trying to pass a law that they are too young to mate, but they need the research to prove it.  Dont think it is going to pass though.

So err looking at the effects of protective clothing and its properties on energy consumption during different activities is alright then?


You're STILL doing that?!?!

Have you found out anything particularly interesting yet?

You know what I mean, you work with these people.. well, sort of. I dare say the worst offenders are unable to communicate on a normal basis.

The sorts of people who receive thousands and thousands in Government grants to do mindless research on absolutely trivial subjects and then stage protests when their funding is cut off.

I like uganda sand caterpillars.  They turn out to be ugly butterflies though.  As for their mating habits, I think they are trying to pass a law that they are too young to mate, but they need the research to prove it.  Dont think it is going to pass though.





And before anyone mentions the connection a caterpillar changing into a butterfly is not an example of evolution

You're STILL doing that?!?!




that was the title of Lucy's thesis.  I haven't read it so I don't know what she found out!  There were so many different things she could look at that I reckon there's still scope for another 3 years research at least.

that was the title of Lucy's thesis.  I haven't read it so I don't know what she found out!  There were so many different things she could look at that I reckon there's still scope for another 3 years research at least.


.. and now she's in Canada right? If I remember correctly?

No, not exactly.

I got no issue with teachers and those that help. My issue is with the people that sit there for years, getting government grants to research some pathetic little book on the mating habits of the Ugandan sand caterpillar. To them I say "PISS OFF!"



I'm glad you clarified because I was going to jump all over you talking about my husband that way.




Cat

I'm glad you clarified because I was going to jump all over you talking about my husband that way.




Cat


;D

As I clarified to begin with. Academics don't teach, they just talk, big difference. I've had some great teachers, but any time one must deal with Academia, it's a chore.

No, not exactly.

I got no issue with teachers and those that help. My issue is with the people that sit there for years, getting government grants to research some pathetic little book on the mating habits of the Ugandan sand caterpillar. To them I say "PISS OFF!"


So we have people dying of incurable diseases that the government says we have no funds to research but yet they can give grants to research insects.  Umm, I think you know where I'm going with this.

So we have people dying of incurable diseases that the government says we have no funds to research but yet they can give grants to research insects.  Umm, I think you know where I'm going with this.


Exactly.

Ya know, I'd be perfectly happy for them to spend their entire lives devoted to something.. if it was productive, ya know, like finding a cure for AIDS or something.. but there are seriously.. people who spend there entire lives researching the most pointless and useless of topics.

Exactly.

Ya know, I'd be perfectly happy for them to spend their entire lives devoted to something.. if it was productive, ya know, like finding a cure for AIDS or something.. but there are seriously.. people who spend there entire lives researching the most pointless and useless of topics.


The government would rather study the mating habits of caterpillars than promote stem-cell research.  Sorry, I'm just trying to process this all.

The government would rather study the mating habits of caterpillars than promote stem-cell research.  Sorry, I'm just trying to process this all.


I don't know what the Government stance is on the mating habits of caterpillars (that was just a facetious example) but at a time when funding for clinical research is being cut and bills are being passed to limit stem cell research it seems ridiculous to me that research grants are doled out for the most pointless of projects.

I don't know what the Government stance is on the mating habits of caterpillars (that was just a facetious example) but at a time when funding for clinical research is being cut and bills are being passed to limit stem cell research it seems ridiculous to me that research grants are doled out for the most pointless of projects.


Pointless project are less "morally objectionable".  :P

I don't know what the Government stance is on the mating habits of caterpillars (that was just a facetious example) but at a time when funding for clinical research is being cut and bills are being passed to limit stem cell research it seems ridiculous to me that research grants are doled out for the most pointless of projects.

While I'm not going to try and justify everything that's ever got a research grant, a lot of very good stuff has come from research that didn't seem to have a point beforehand - there's a great website whose name escapes me (and wasn't in the first couple of google pages) that has dozens, or even hundreds, of inventions, cures and the like discovered by research that sounds about as reasonable as studying the mating habits of caterpillars (well, slightly more so, given that caterpillars don't mate).

Same thing goes for academics: there are some (and I would include teachers in this) who are simply a waste of space, and the point of whose existence seems to be simply to while away the days in academe; there are others who really do some useful thinking - but you can't always tell in advance which a person is going to be.

Your recipe for academics would basically prevent all progress, period.  Sure, it's not 100% efficient, but it's better having some makeweights than no thinkers at all.

Philbo is on the money, as always! :)

You just never know what research into even the most pointless-sounding area is going to produce. There has been many studies over the years that have turned up the most staggering and unexpected finding, and often you can take findings from one area and apply them in others to aid with research in those areas. This happens all the time. I'd go so far as to say that almost no research project is pointless. If there's an argument at all, it should be about which projects get priority, and who should foot the bill.

Davey is also right in that there is a lot of dead wood in academia, but this is also true of any large institution.

Davey is also right in that there is a lot of dead wood in academia, but this is also true of any large institution.


You said it!

The chief purpose of academia is the echange of ideas, not making money.  That's why the Right hates academia.  The more they try to turn academic institutions into for-profit enterprises the less diversity there is on campuses, the more corporate influence there is in campus life, the more bloated administration gets, the more teaching positions get cut, the more subsidies from the Defense Dept. and petrochemical companies...

I've seen how it goes down, and it's does nothing for intellectual vigor.

.. and now she's in Canada right? If I remember correctly?


that's right.  not entirely sure her exact research area now but someone mentioned she was putting implants into leg muscles

While I'm not going to try and justify everything that's ever got a research grant, a lot of very good stuff has come from research that didn't seem to have a point beforehand - there's a great website whose name escapes me (and wasn't in the first couple of google pages) that has dozens, or even hundreds, of inventions, cures and the like discovered by research that sounds about as reasonable as studying the mating habits of caterpillars (well, slightly more so, given that caterpillars don't mate).

Same thing goes for academics: there are some (and I would include teachers in this) who are simply a waste of space, and the point of whose existence seems to be simply to while away the days in academe; there are others who really do some useful thinking - but you can't always tell in advance which a person is going to be.

Your recipe for academics would basically prevent all progress, period.  Sure, it's not 100% efficient, but it's better having some makeweights than no thinkers at all.


True, I hadn't really considered it from that point. I still maintain that...


there is a lot of dead wood in academia, but this is also true of any large institution.


.. and maybe clearer guidelines could be drawn up to prevent so much money from being wasted.


You said it!
The chief purpose of academia is the echange of ideas, not making money.  That's why the Right hates academia.  The more they try to turn academic institutions into for-profit enterprises the less diversity there is on campuses, the more corporate influence there is in campus life, the more bloated administration gets, the more teaching positions get cut, the more subsidies from the Defense Dept. and petrochemical companies...
I've seen how it goes down, and it's does nothing for intellectual vigor.


I happen to agree to a point here. I dislike the corporate influence on campus life. I'm going to go back and finish my degree this fall, when I was walking around the campus I saw company names on three buildings and discovered that Express Scripts (a pharmaceuticals company for the most part) actually have their headquarters on the campus. Now.. I realize a lot of this is so that students working in those fields have the chance to experience the actual professional environment they are looking to work in, but still, it's a school, not a commercial property.


that's right.  not entirely sure her exact research area now but someone mentioned she was putting implants into leg muscles


:o Urgh, that sounds.. err..fun.

I happen to agree to a point here. I dislike the corporate influence on campus life. I'm going to go back and finish my degree this fall, when I was walking around the campus I saw company names on three buildings and discovered that Express Scripts (a pharmaceuticals company for the most part) actually have their headquarters on the campus. Now.. I realize a lot of this is so that students working in those fields have the chance to experience the actual professional environment they are looking to work in, but still, it's a school, not a commercial property.



But that's the endstage of your Grover Norquistian "starve the beast."  If you "starve the beast" you don't get an Ayn Rand utopia of brilliant entrepeneurs enriching the world with their selfishness.  What you get is a government subservient not to citizens but to private entities in which the most money is concentrated--banks and corporations.  UMass, for instance, is enthralled to the polymer industry.  This is great if you're majoring in chemical engineering.  If you major in the arts and humanities, you're looking at fewer programs, fewer instructors, and an ever shrinking purse.  BTW, the right-wing media does a bang-up job jeering at the arts and humanities.  Fascists must maintain public distrust of the intellectual and the artist.  Ideas matter.  Fortunately, 7-year-olds are now learning to communicate in the primitive dialect known as "text-messaging," which will render them incapable of forming abstract or complex thoughts and make them pliable to top down command structures.  And I should not just say fascists suppress the arts and humanities, so do communist dictatorships.  They don't call them the liberal arts for nothing.  In ancient Rome, a slave could study engineering, but not philosophy.  It has less to do with the economic pay-off of a degree in a given discipline and more to do with the ideas a discipline presents.  Mathematics is no threat to authority (until you get to the theoretical and abstract levels of advanced math where it joins philosophy).  However, you cannot trust Shakespeare or Hegel in the hands of a liberal professor!  David Horowitz dit le non non non!

The one thing I have always wondered about evolution is that it seems to be going in the opposite direction
for the human species. The human species is the species on the planet that their young are so helpless and
so vulnerable for so long. We have evolved our young to develop more slowly. Children of the past were
expected to work in the fields or as apprentices at an early age, some as young as 8 or 9. Young teens were
married and started families of their own, if a woman wasn't married by 20 she was considered a spinster. In
todays world, life expectancy is longer but at what cost to our young? Families are being started later in life
and children are rarely taught to be independent. If this trend keeps up we will evolve into a species of morons!

ever see the movie "idiocracy"? it explains the phenomenon you're talking about, and it's 100% scientifically accurate.

ever see the movie "idiocracy"? it explains the phenomenon you're talking about, and it's 100% scientifically accurate.


No I haven't seen it, is it something I should look for?

No I haven't seen it, is it something I should look for?
it's not for every taste but i thought it was pretty funny. the whole premise is that natural selection no longer selects for the fastest and the smartest in human society, but instead just for dumb people who don't know how to use rubbers and take the pill. so this guy ends up in suspended animation and wakes up 500 years later to discover that everyone in society has become incorrigibly stupid, and hilarity ensues. it's a vaguely elitist movie but it's got some really hilarious moments and it's really anti-corporate... which is why you haven't heard of it.

What's with the green anyway?  I'm going to request that she uses hot pink or a lovely shade of lavender. :)


the color green is a sign of arousal!  :D

the color green is a sign of arousal!  :D


That's just so wrong. ;D

Fascists must maintain public distrust of the intellectual and the artist.  Ideas matter. d


Bertolt Brach, the German anti fascist playwright once said "Art is not a mirror of reality but a hammer with which to shape it".  Couldn't agree more.

Bertolt Brach, the German anti fascist playwright once said "Art is not a mirror of reality but a hammer with which to shape it".  Couldn't agree more.

Brecht would know.  Fled from the Nazis barely keeping ahead of the Gestappo from country-to-country in Europe, he immigrated to the U.S., only to blacklisted after the war, then he made his home in East Berlin, only to be suppressed by the communist regime there!

The more authoritarian the government, the more the arts are suppressed.  Authoritarians see the artist as courtier to bolster and flatter the regime. 

it's not for every taste but i thought it was pretty funny. the whole premise is that natural selection no longer selects for the fastest and the smartest in human society, but instead just for dumb people who don't know how to use rubbers and take the pill. so this guy ends up in suspended animation and wakes up 500 years later to discover that everyone in society has become incorrigibly stupid, and hilarity ensues. it's a vaguely elitist movie but it's got some really hilarious moments and it's really anti-corporate... which is why you haven't heard of it.


I'd rent it, but "Ow, My Balls!" is on tonight.  An' then I'm 'baitin.

(Warning: Site contains spoilers.  You can click on these MP3 samples, if they work after I've cut through the Javash(ahem)cript.  But see the movie before visiting the site I've linked to.)

I'd rent it, but "Ow, My Balls!" is on tonight.  An' then I'm 'baitin. 

shut up! ass! i'll kick your... ass... with my... ass. ass!

*eats chee-tos*

shut up!

shut up! ass! i'll kick your... ass... with my... ass. ass!

*eats chee-tos*

shut up!


This thread... it's got... you know, electrolytes!  What we crave!

it's not for every taste but i thought it was pretty funny. the whole premise is that natural selection no longer selects for the fastest and the smartest in human society, but instead just for dumb people who don't know how to use rubbers and take the pill.
Ain't that the truth, though?  And Catholics, of course (plus any other religions who specifically ban contraception/abortion)

The one thing I have always wondered about evolution is that it seems to be going in the opposite direction
for the human species. The human species is the species on the planet that their young are so helpless and
so vulnerable for so long. We have evolved our young to develop more slowly. Children of the past were
expected to work in the fields or as apprentices at an early age, some as young as 8 or 9. Young teens were
married and started families of their own, if a woman wasn't married by 20 she was considered a spinster. In
todays world, life expectancy is longer but at what cost to our young? Families are being started later in life
and children are rarely taught to be independent. If this trend keeps up we will evolve into a species of morons!


You're only seeing this from a western-style civilization POV. In tribal/Third World economies, children are out in the fields at very young ages, the women are just about babied-out by the time they're 30 and most people are dead before they're 50.

You're only seeing this from a western-style civilization POV. In tribal/Third World economies, children are out in the fields at very young ages, the women are just about babied-out by the time they're 30 and most people are dead before they're 50.


That isn't just in tribal/third world economies, take note of who picks the fruit and vegetables.  "Grapes of Wrath" is as timely today as it was when it was written in 1939. 



In todays world, life expectancy is longer but at what cost to our young? Families are being started later in life
and children are rarely taught to be independent. If this trend keeps up we will evolve into a species of morons!



How we socialize our children, and the physical changes brought about by evolution are mutually exclusive.

That isn't just in tribal/third world economies, take note of who picks the fruit and vegetables.  "Grapes of Wrath" is as timely today as it was when it was written in 1939. 

The cons sure miss those days!

How we socialize our children, and the physical changes brought about by evolution are mutually exclusive.



Ah, I think this does have something to do with evolution.  The human does not run on instinct alone.  The ability to reason distinguishes us from other creatures.  Therefore, it takes longer for the human brain to mature fully.  Humans are much more malleable than a cow, a dog, or a mosquito.  We also have more problems.
::)