Video: Pelosi’s daughter covers creationism
posted at 12:37 pm on January 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I went looking on YouTube for clips from “Friends of God” to peg to NRO’s review, but the pickings were slim. We’ll have to make do with this, which is useful insofar as its subject lies on the cultural fault line and useless insofar as it implies not only that Christianity = creationism but that all Christians approach the subject with the comic illogic exhibited by Buddy Davis.
It’s not as derisive or nasty as it could have been, but Pelosi’s obviously presenting it as a type of freak show. Rewarding as entertainment, not so much as documentary.
The movie re-airs today at 1:30 and 10 p.m. and at various times over the next month. Exit question for our Christian readers: Agree or disagree with the following paragraph from the NRO article?
The biggest lesson of the film is that normalcy is in the eye of the beholder. When Pelosi shows thousands of people singing “I am a friend of God,” a club of skateboarders “skating for Christ,” or even an impassioned sermon, those familiar with evangelicalism see nothing odd. However, your average New Yorker or San Franciscan, or even your suburban neighbor who has never walked through the door of a church, sees something very strange indeed. Turning a hobby, such as skating or cruising cars, into an outlet for proselytizing may come across as artificial, even manipulative. The fervor of emotional worship, multiplied by thousands of worshippers, can leave those without that experience scratching their head. “There’s something very strange about these people,” says Pelosi to Haggard about the enthusiastic worshippers, “They’re so happy.” Happy, perhaps, but disconcerting nonetheless — or all the more — to many liberals. In an interview with the gay magazine The Advocate, she says, “A lot of New York liberal Democrats who go to the megachurches come back talking about how scary they are.” To those who have never been a part of evangelicalism, the lingo, the constant referrals to the Bible, the personal lifestyles defined mainly by their biblically imposed limits, religious passion, even the pure power of thousands of people at a rally, can be terrifying. Evangelicals would do well to understand this, not to conform to the broader culture, but to speak a language those outside the church can understand.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6
Not my area of expertise but I guess the evolution preceded the extinction of the dinosaurs.
honora on January 31, 2007 at 2:24 PM
So the meteor was selective and only killed the dinosaurs. Interesting theory. Maybe there is something missing that would connect the dots.
Rose on January 31, 2007 at 2:28 PM
And the birds and reptiles survived where dinos couldn’t?
I guess anything is possible.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 2:28 PM
This thread still has a chance of going over 500 comments. Not that far away…
Entelechy on January 31, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Wow. What a great discussion. I have read every single comment so far. I have been amazed by some of the responses. I guess I’ll throw my 2 cents in.
Personally I have no problem with evolution. From a scientific standpoint based on evidence it makes sense. However evolution is merely a few links in a chain of life and unless you can follow that chain back to the very beginning and be able to scientifically explain all of it, you are trying to comprehend how a lightbulb works with no knowledge, no concept of electricity.
My dilemma goes back to the beginning of everything and leads forward to the point where life already exists before evolution even comes into play. You can’t have evolution without preexisting life and substance.
My problem begins with the Big Bang itself. Science says that in the beginning there was absolutely nothing. Not one single atom and hence no time. Time can not exist without an atomic structure. Then one day (even though time did not yet exist) absolutely nothing decided to become absolutely everything. Decided and then became absolutely everything in this universe in less than a second. Science stipulates that matter can not be destroyed nor can it be created. Matter can change states but it can not be destroyed. Every single atom has been in the universe since that first second. No matter has been created since then. Now if someone can tell me what law of physics explains that little event I would really appreciate it because no matter how hard I try I can’t conceive it.
Flash forward a few billion years or so. Now we have planets. Where did life start? If you want to believe that life just spontaneously begins for the same reason that nothing decided to be everything then I can’t help you and for that matter you can’t help me. Without bringing Intelligent Design into play, I can see no way to explain the chain of events leading up to how already existing life adapts to it’s environment. Evolution is no brainer from that point forward but evolution can not and does not explain Lifes origin and I think THAT is by far the most interesting and relevant question. Forget the lightbulb. Where did the generator come from?
Guardian on January 31, 2007 at 2:38 PM
My take on that South Park clip, is it mocks evolutionary theory… but perhaps I just don’t get it, because you obviously feel like it mocks me.
And bert169. Bert, Bert, Bert… YOU are the one who refused to answer simple questions bud.
I, like you, have fully admitted I’m not an “expert”… However I also said we could sit here and debate each and every one of these very specific tiny points you raise. But where would that get us? You’ve already repeatedly stated that punching wholes in current evolutionary dogma doesn’t discredit the whole idea… So what is the point of debating all of these tiny things? As I proved, the “scientists” still teach misinformation, because you through the “vestigial appendix” in to the argument. I pointed out that there was a list of hundreds of parts thought to be vestigial… but as science and our capabilities has advanced REAL STUDY NOT EVOLUTIONARY ASSUMPTION has dwindled that list down to just a handful. To get back to one thing you were whining about before I crashed, when I was tired of you dodging questions… I call these “scientists” liars, yes. I understand your argument about “well if they didn’t know, they couldn’t be lying”, however that’s because THEY ASSUMED EVOLUTION instead of just reporting the science. I don’t know how many times I have to go over this. They wouldn’t have been teaching/reporting misinformation if they were doing honest science, instead of trying to make things fit in to a story they’d already written. Get it? This is why they are lying when they teach things that later turn out not to be true. This isn’t like a discussion between friends like “hey, what’s your best guess” it’s a steady flow of incorrect information being taught as fact to students in SCIENCE classes. You’ve made it abundently clear you have no problem with that, so long as it assists in making people believe they weren’t created by God, but by nothingness exploding in to everything, rain on rocks, etc.
(here’s the part where you jump back to “well punching wholes in part of the theory just means they get revised, doesn’t invalidate the whole thing.” And even though I think the whole thing is invalid for plenty of reasons, that’s not my point. My point is, why don’t we just teach what we know, and the other stuff can even be taught as “some scientists think, but we don’t know yet”? Is that so hard?)
Back to the gill slits thing for a second. Do you honestly not have a problem with kids being taught that when as an embryo they have gill slits, proving their relationship to fish!? They turned out to be developing ears, and there was NEVER any evidene leaning towards “gill slits”, it was simply evolutionary assumption. Why are you okay with that crap being taught? (Why am I still asking when you refuse to answer?)
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 2:45 PM
I believe in plate tectonics because the evidence backs up that belief, until more evidence comes in contradicting plate tectonics I will continue to believe it is true. I do not believe in a god because there is no evidence to support to existence of any one god, until more evidence comes in supporting the existence of a god I will continue to be an atheist.
So if you exclude the fossilized evidence of horses throughout millions of generations what does that leave? Were fingered horses put here by a god along with hoofed horses? And if so where are the fossils of hoofed horses millions of years ago?
Perhaps you haven’t read my previous posts, but many things in science are labeled as theories because we can never be 100% correct in observation. Gravity is a theory. Plate tectonics is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Are you going to question the force that pulls things toward Earth? Are you going to question how earthquakes are caused? Then why question evolution when just as much evidence has been used in support of it as the other two? I’ll tell you why; it’s because it contradicts The Bible, and if someone has a blind belief in The Bible they will never be able to see the truth in evolution.
The LAW of Gravity was coined by Newton; it is the proper title, it does not mean that it is a law. The THEORY of Universal Gravitation is the actual principle.
Dinosaurs evolved from birds, not the other way around. Please take a geology class or at least read up on the Triassic and Jurassic eras. There is a reason why all life on the planet did not go extinct because of the meteor.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Yes. That’s the theory anyway.
honora on January 31, 2007 at 2:50 PM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000810071719.htm
That whole condescending thing works better when you have the facts on your side.
honora on January 31, 2007 at 2:58 PM
So if dinosaurs evolved from birds than there must be a complete fossil record of this occurring. Please direct me to a link showing all the fossils that prove this theory. There would have to be a large amount of specimens for scientists to be so sure of this that they are calling it a fact. And I mean a large amount of fossils, not just one obscure one.
Rose on January 31, 2007 at 2:58 PM
That is incorrect. Scientists do not use the word “theory” in that way. Laws are not greater than theories. (See here.)
At the heart of this argument, you are trying to say that because it is labelled a “theory” means it is somehow weak. But this is a bit of terminology used and created (as you repeatedly point out) by scientists. Yet it doesn’t seem to matter to you what scientists mean when they say “theory”, or when they repeatedly point out how strong the theory of evolution is. (Many say it is both a fact and a theory.) It’s a dishonest semantic game on your part. The theory of evolution is as strong as the theory of relativity, some would say stronger.
No it doesn’t, but you’re obviously ignorant of science in general, evolution in particular.
Are you dense? It describes “Darwin’s” theory as “not a fact” and full of “gaps”. No negative descriptions of ID. And they recommend a textbook that’s a creationist trojan horse. In a science class.
dorkafork on January 31, 2007 at 2:58 PM
True to some extent, but scientists do have a theory for the creation of life. We know that wherever water is life follows (its part of the reason why finding water on Mars would be so significant). Scientists believe the first form of life on Earth spawned from the sulfur beds at the bottom of the early oceans. Those life forms then evolved into insects and fish which evolved into bigger fish and many different species of fish which then evolved into amphibians and birds and mammals and dinosaurs. But, no, we are not completely sure and cannot explain “all of it,” as of now.
I too have a problem with the Big Bang. I don’t understand it at all, and imagining a universe of nothingness with not even time makes no sense to me (as does imagining a god suddenly creating time and matter and space). But as I understand it the universe can be traced back to a point of origin ~ 14 billion years ago. I’m not sure if nothing existed or if this matter always existed just in a compact area. When the Big Bang occurred this matter was exploded (that’s a fun word) out into the universe and the remnants of this explosion can be seen today. Our universe is still expanding, and it is the only thing that is expanding faster than the speed of light.
The reason why a theory that the matter has always been here is so hard for me to understand is because it sounds a lot like a god theory. Not a religious god, but rather a god of entropy. It’s something you say because you have no other way to explain it, and I think that’s a cop out.
You have to realize though that our Solar System was not the first Solar System created. We exist in the Milky Way, home to millions of other solar systems. Our planet was formed when dust and heat from a previous solar system grouped together in a process called accretion. In only a few million years our Solar System was formed, and only a few hundred million years after that our planet was cooled and the oceans formed; thus laying the foundation for life.
I agree with you. Thinking about the origin of the universe is much more interesting than the origin of life here on Earth, but I don’t think you’d get as big a discussion.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Archaeopteryx was the first known bird, and though he does not look like birds of today his existence pre-dates dinosaurs.
There is still a fierce debate on whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs or the other way around and I probably shouldn’t have stated my opinion as a fact. Birds may have even evolved from a common ancestor as dinosaurs as they are both considered reptiles. I’ve read John Ostrom’s argument and it is convincing when dealing with Archaeopteryx, but he neglects that modern birds most likely did not evolve from this species.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 3:08 PM
No amount of fossilized evidence can “prove” a theory, fossils can just support it. When dealing with an observational science nothing can be proven, which is why most all things in physics are theories and most all things in chemistry are facts.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 3:10 PM
There is no evolution more interesting than the one this thread continues to take. I can’t believe how far this has gone.
Rick on January 31, 2007 at 3:15 PM
And I shouldn’t have been so snotty. My understanding (caveat: limited) is that this “first known bird” co-existed with dinos? And that the debate centers on whether birds descended from this creature or from “regular” dinosaurs. That is the sum total of my knowledge on this subject! (Limits are not all bad you know….)
honora on January 31, 2007 at 3:17 PM
I think the problem with this whole debate is the animosity that evolutionists have against anyone who doesn’t agree with them. There are problems with Darwinism but scientists will not discuss these problems or if they do they are considered heretics.
Rose on January 31, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Well, if the vast majority of the scientific community comes down on one side, if you are in the minority you are going against the collective wisdom.
If people don’t want to believe in evolution, have at it. I object to the hypocrisy of calling something one thing–I.D.–when it’s really a literal belief in Genesis. And hence a matter of faith, not science.
honora on January 31, 2007 at 3:21 PM
“Gill slits” refer to pharyngeal pouches. Developmental biologists know they are not actual gills. Don’t get hung up on the terminology, the fact of the matter is that same structure appears in all vertebrate embryos.
dorkafork on January 31, 2007 at 3:22 PM
This is ridiculous and based entirely on assuming evolutionary theory is right. Even if simply the existence of water was good enough for “life”, there are still any number of other things that must be just right for non-life to spawn life (again, it ain’t gonna happen… but even the theory that it did here on Earth assumes a lot of things were just right for “life” to begin). This is in fact why it’s so disturbing that whenever “scientists” think they see the possibility that water once existed on another planet, suddenly the media runs wild, reporting that we’re basically on the verge of finding alien life. It’s ridiculous.
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 3:22 PM
You’re missing the point dorkafork. It doesn’t matter what they know now. They taught that they were gill slits, showing our relationship to fish, based NOT on evidence, but based on evolutionary ASSUMPTION.
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Nonfactor, Rose, Rick, et al: funny story. There was an article in the New Yorker (I think) about the Dodo and Mauritius (sp?)–some expedition sponsored by the Brit. Natural History Museum blah, blah, blah. Anyone, one of the scientist interviewed said that everything she spoke in public about the work, she had to patiently explain, that no you cannot in fact create a Dodo from dead Dodo DNA.
It was pretty funny.
honora on January 31, 2007 at 3:25 PM
I think you’re mistaken on that one, Honora. ID literally is a belief in an intelligent designer. It has nothing to do with the Genesis story.
Many believers in the Genesis story may ‘hijack’ ID as evidence of their position. However, that does not change what ID is.
A scientist looking at the cosmos and saying, “Looks like this might have been put together by an intelligent force” is not at all the same as a scientist looking at the cosmos and saying “Looks like God made it in 7 days.”
There are plenty of people (in the scientific community and otherwise) that believe in or lean towards intelligent design that do not believe in the Genesis creation story.
JadeNYU on January 31, 2007 at 3:26 PM
That’s because you simply misunderstand what you’re talking about. ID doesn’t suppose anything about a particular religion. It simply points to design in nature, which evolution scientists are constantly finding and trying to make fit in to their story. It talks about irreducible complexity. You can get in to the whole gap argument thing, and that’s another story… all I’m saying is ID isn’t about Genisis, the Bible, Christianity, any of that.
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Actually not all scientists who believe in ID believe in the literal Genesis version of creation. Perhaps before grouping everyone together there should be some open mindedness on the other side of this debate.
Rose on January 31, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Going back to the Dover Pa case, the school board members who were pushing I.D. had neither the education nor any previous disposition to seriously support the idea you reference as I.D. They were pushing the Bible.
Granted, there may be people who believe in I.D. irrespective of religion. Again, my problem is the disingenuousness of the Dover people and their ilk.
honora on January 31, 2007 at 3:31 PM
It isn’t about not “agree(ing) with them”, it’s about crackpots trying to criticize a scientific theory that they don’t understand. And they often outright lie. That’s one reason scientists tend not to debate creationists, there’s no point in arguing with someone who’s either ignorant or arguing in bad faith. (Ignorance and religious bias is where the idea of “problems with Darwinism” come from.)
dorkafork on January 31, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Read what you said again and think I might have misunderstood.
Correct me if I’m wrong (again)….you aren’t saying that ID and Creationism are the same.
You’re saying that you don’t like when creationists use the ID label to push their ‘agenda’.
In which case, I agree with you. I’m a big fan of calling things what they really are. It makes discussions a lot less complicated.
JadeNYU on January 31, 2007 at 3:34 PM
The only Christians that would agree with this loony assertion are the fake Chrisitians that believe in “winning souls” or some other junk. The Bible declares that the names of the saved were written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. Jesus declares that “no man” can “pluck” the saved from his hand, so this “doctrine” goes down in flames. You have to be CALLED in order to be SAVED. The SAVED church with it’s attendant glossalalia has already beed admonished out of the mouth of GOD not to CONFORM to the secular world, so any Christian who agrees with Pelosi is an idiot. This is the DEFINITIVE world on the subject as it appears in Scripture, opinion to the contrary is in error.
The REAL Chrisitian is told explicity that the world is going to hell and that all that is in it are lies and liars. The REAL Christian was told NOT TO CAST THEIR PEARLS BEFFORE SWINE. Such liberal inclinations that express a desire to make the message of Christ more “palatable” to the unregenerated heathens are doomed before they start. Such greivous error comes from not understanding the role of Jesus Christ in ones salvation and usually come from churches who think they are saved because THEY raised their hand, confessed, believed or any other bunk that doesn’t require an IMMEDIATE answer from JESUS CHRIST, like having him change your language. These foolish intrepretations of the word are made by unregenerated know nothings who don’t properly understand that the message that we preach IS NOT FOR THE CONSUMPTION OF EVERYONE.
Jesus never intended for the gospel to be accepted by “everyone” he only demanded that it be preached everywhere, two different things. In fact the Lord put a special power or ability on HIS words, he made it so that they will find their intended target while confounding anyone to whom it is not intended. This is the reason that he spoke to them in PARABLES, by doing so, he made certain that His word would ONLY be received by those to whom it was SENT.
Soothsayer on January 31, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Not true. The evolution “community” is angry and desperate to have everyone believe there story, and are unwilling to give up until we all do (because apparently believing that we all came from nothing, and there is no god, leading to a world without morals will somehow benefit us?)
I gave you link here (again, don’t ignore the source, they’re excerpting and quoting from leading science publications)
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200701.htm#20070111a
This was just a recent bulleted list of the desperation of evolutionists freaking out because we all aren’t following them yet, but there’s a list similar to this probably at least once a month.
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 3:37 PM
How can there be a scientific means to life’s creation? If it is really so simple that a few random proteins and amino acids found each other in an ocean and decided to become a living thing then why can’t science create life? No scientist has ever been able to create life from scratch and with all our worldly knowledge of life workings. Life has never been created under any circumstance. It just is. How woulld random bits know how to assemble themselves without a plan as to what they would become? If evolution explains lifes creation then why did evolution start and then stop? Shouldn’t there be constant mutations in animal births if evolution is simply trial and error on the part of a species to become something better or at least more succesful? How come new things never crawl out of the ocean and start walking down the beach? Who (or what) told evolution to start and then stop? Why isn’t evolution constant if it is all random rearranging of gene sequences? Evolution should be happening all the time. It doesn’t. Life should just spontaneously erupt from the ocean all the time. It doesn’t. Life should be able to be created in a test tube. So far that has not been accomplished. Nor do I think it ever will be. Life can not be scientifically explained, duplicated or coerced into being under the best conditions and with all our knowledge. Why not? The SPARK that is life is unknowable, at least so far. It makes far more sense , at least for me, to believe in the theory of Intelligent Design as apposed to an unbelievable perfect chain of trillions of precise events that happened randomly. I’m no mathematician but I sure would like to know the odds of everything that had to happen, happened precisely where and when it should have with no plan.
Guardian on January 31, 2007 at 3:38 PM
That’s not exactly what ID is. That’s just what people say it is.
ID is an attempt to look at the world as though there were some purpose/design in its creation. Instead of assuming, as evolutionists do, that we evolved randomly, it assumes there was a purpose behind all of it.
ID doesn’t even have to contradict the concept that humans evolved from single cell organisms.
This isn’t even a new, religious idea. Aristotle spoke of it at length. I guess this means schools should be sure and take “Metaphysics” out of phillosphy classes then.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 3:39 PM
dorkafork you are obviously a religious bigot who is incapable of honest debate.
Rose on January 31, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Right. And if I may be so immodest to say, you are a piker at being wrong (again) compared to me!!
;^)
honora on January 31, 2007 at 3:41 PM
And the scientists, they have never lied?
You don’t even know what this “crackpot” theory is. Your arrogance is sickening. I’m sure there were many like you debating the “crackpots” who argued against conventional “wisdom” that claimed the earth was flat.
Scientists come and go while the “crackpots” always get the last laugh.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Actually, before someone corrects me, I shouldn’t say “always”.
But historically, the “crackpots” fair alright.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 3:45 PM
So you don’t think a structure that can be observed in all vertebrate embryos is evidence?
I don’t understand why commenters above keep insisting that ID “isn’t about Genisis, the Bible, Christianity, any of that.” I provided a link earlier, here’s another:
This was the textbook for ID. The newest edition lists two of the biggest figures in ID (Behe and Dembski) as authors. They may not be pushing Young Earth Creationism, but it’s still creationism.
dorkafork on January 31, 2007 at 3:49 PM
And you are being pedantic here. If you have to resort to word games rather than address the issues, then you have nothing but unsubstantiated opinion to rely upon. Again, science uses the term and operates under term of theory totally different thant the casual or latyman’s use of the term.
No, but xians must resort to word games to claim “it is only a theory.” At the very least, it is intellectually dishonest.
Really? So what philosophy classes often host guest speakers who detail biological science for philosophical discussions? Calling your claim a fabrication is being kind.
Gene Splicer on January 31, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Guys, all I know is I’m going to evolve wings because that would be very advantagous for me. You know, of course evolution “takes time”, so I’d start out with just a nub… Then after a few generations where just us people with nubs had been around, the nub would grow a tiny bit, then after a number of generations……… and so on…… until one day I had a full wing, with all of the built in veins and nerves, and the natural ability to fly, all of the knowledge and my brain having the ability to send the right signals. I could fly around all day, having a great time, never considering the old “what good is half a wing” question… Because natural selection wouldn’t make me more “fit” when I just had a nonfunctioning half wing or just a tiny nub in my back, etc. Why would I care to think about that problem, when I could just fly wherever I wanted?
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 3:54 PM
I wonder why they are letting this thread go so long. I do think that the reason it is getting so much attention is that there are differences among conservatives which come out in these kind of subjects where a post on something we all agree on wouldn’t receive so much attention. Everyone loves a debate. I do feel bad though when things get a little hostile and I’m not excluding myself from that statement. It would be nice to debate in a more civil manner, again I’m including myself. But it is too bad that AP sees us Christians as an irritant within the conservative movement.
Rose on January 31, 2007 at 3:54 PM
How is it a word game when they’re simply using the words of scientists? A theory is something that is unproven. A fact is something that is proven.
That’s it.
But I digress, since this is getting absolutely nowhere.
What mention of ID would be acceptable in your eyes?
And what, if any, criticism of evolution should be allowed, in your eyes?
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 3:56 PM
I hope that shows you recognize ID as a religious belief.
Also glad to see the proponents recognized as “crackpots” instead of scientists.
dorkafork on January 31, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Since ID accepts the fact that there is a designer than of course there would be a religious connotation to it. But these scientists do not accept the premise of spontaneous generation which is required to agree with Darwinism as the basis for the existence of life.
Rose on January 31, 2007 at 4:04 PM
In reference to my mention of the LIE (based on evolutionary assumption) of “gill slits” that was taught for some time, before being overturned by actual study, you responded:
To which I responded:
To which you, shockingly responded:
Dude, what I’m talking about is the fact that during the 19th century, it was a leading theory that these were actually gills and used as a way to tie us to our supposed fish ancestors. THIS WAS TAUGHT. It was based on evolutionary assumption. It was not seen in evidence, because as we know IT WAS WRONG. This is one tiny issue (out of tens of thousands of overturned Darwinian dogma), but just used as an example of why only real science should be taught, not storytelling.
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 4:05 PM
It’s hard not so long as you keep showing your disdain for people who believe things you don’t.
But really the “crackpot” is in quotes for a reason. It’s literary device.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 4:11 PM
No, it doesn’t. That’s abiogenesis, not evolution. Nor, as pointed out by Ann Coulter, does that mean God didn’t create life.
dorkafork on January 31, 2007 at 4:12 PM
It’s nice to see that you can be selective in what you chose to understand, even concerning that book.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 4:14 PM
RightWinged, if you think criticism of 19th century understanding of biology has anything to do with the current understanding of evolution, or the way evolution is taught, there is no helping you. How this means scientists are lying now because 19th century scientists made a mistake, I do not know.
dorkafork on January 31, 2007 at 4:15 PM
But if you don’t believe in spontaneous generation where did the first one celled animal or plant come from? It would have had to suddenly appear with the ability to reproduce or it would have just died and the spark of life would not have existed.
Rose on January 31, 2007 at 4:16 PM
And it is seen in evidence. It is there. It is a physical structure common to vertebrate embryos.
dorkafork on January 31, 2007 at 4:16 PM
I’d add that you’re using a leftist definition of “lie”. 19th century scientists got it wrong… nope, they lied. Bush was wrong about WMDs, nope he lied.
dorkafork on January 31, 2007 at 4:18 PM
And you’re naive enough to believe that scientists aren’t still doing the same thing now, teaching something based on assumptions for which they have no basis.
If we could argue this in 100 years, you’d argue that 21st century scientists have nothing to do with the misassumptions being taught to kids in the 22nd century.
Haven’t you ever heard, “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice…”
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 4:19 PM
The point isn’t whether or not they knowingly told a lie. The point is that they didn’t know and taught it anyway. The point is that they’re doing the same thing now.
You can bet anything that Bush will never make the mistake he made with WMDs again. But scientists get a free pass here.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 4:22 PM
As I said, this was just one example (but a big one, and the images used to support it remained in text books throughout the 1900s). But there are thousands upon thousands of other examples coming out every day. The “mistake” you speak of, was assuming evolution and it continues to stand in the way of real science.
I kind of already went over this, knowing you predictable people would bring it up eventually.
Bush based the WMDs on intelligence (noted that all the Dems who call him a liar spent the previous 13 years making the same case, based on the same evidence, including Clinton who attacked in 1998 after making regime change our policy, using virtually identical language as Bush).
The “embryos have gills proving we’re related to fish” wasn’t based on any study or intelligence. It was based on ASSUMED evolution. Evolution, as it constantly does, holding back science.
I’m not even going to get in to the fact that it seems quite clear that there were WMDs in Iraq that were moved to/through Syria. Perhaps after Rockefeller’s 14 month heads up. Perhaps in those convoys we have satellite photos of in the early days of the war. Perhaps later, after sites were identified and located, and for whatever reason ignored by the administration (or perhaps just lost in the shuffle do to beurocracy). I’m not sure why Bush is so afraid to say they were there. Perhaps because without the smoking gun he’d really be screwed to make such a statement at this point, and perhaps he dropped the ball and let the stuff get a way. Others think it’s because we’re trying to keep Russia as an ally and they were involved in Iraq’s WMD programs (we KNOW they were hiding Russian and Turkish scientists from the most recent weapons inspectors).
Again, all of that is irrelevant… But I do believe there were WMDs there. Because it was based on intelligence, history, and evidence (even if misintepreted).
The gill thing, was based on NOTHING except ASSUMED EVOLUTION! Get it?
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Excuse me for correcting you, but in the early Catholic church you earned grace, it was not given to you by God. You worked or paid enough, and the priests would grant you grace. The only way to God, was through the priest, hence the railing on all old Catholic churches. It seperated man from God, with the clergy as the intercedent. And the Catholic church still clings to remenants of that. That was one of the 90+ manifests that Luther wrote. He believed the bible stated that you could only be saved by God’s grace, and that grace was from God only. Nothing you do could or would change that, you can’t manipulate God into giving you grace. Over the past seveal hundred years, the Catholic church has adopted much of what Luther interpreted.
right2bright on January 31, 2007 at 5:00 PM
By “early church”, I’d assume she meant even before that. The Catholic churches didn’t start out crooked, did they?
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 5:21 PM
We all gotta’ go with what we know, right? Some of us secretly admire your ability to consistently and unabashedly defend exactly the wrong position on nearly every topic/thread here on HotAir. Somehow, HotAir wouldn’t be the same without you.
CyberCipher on January 31, 2007 at 5:24 PM
You may want to do a little more research on that. That was the problem Darwin ran into, confusing adaptation with evolution.
right2bright on January 31, 2007 at 5:42 PM
I can’t believe supposedly educated commentators would make the arguments that changeing a theory over time means it is flawed and the whole thing must be thrown out. Scientists are being closeminded by amending thier work but a literal never changeing or alterable reading of the bible is open minded.
No one has been brave enough to address the idea that the Catholic church is open to change over time and accepts evolution. You can disagreee with the Catholic but it nevertheless puts all these arguments that evolution is a “belief” that is against christianity in the trash bin where they belong.
Another of example of how “evangelicals” give victories to the liberals: beause you foolishly debate evolution the Republican party has no scientific credibility and the left moves to impose thier social agenda using this weakness by means of global warming.
Resolute on January 31, 2007 at 7:21 PM
No life has ever been created from scratch. Life needs a planet to live on, and water to live off of, and something to start the entire thing. I understand that those who believe in a god would think that life can come from scratch, but I can’t do anything more than to say ‘that has not proven to be true.’
Evolution has not stopped. One has to realize that evolution takes place due to random mutations and time, lots and lots of time (billions of years to be exact). We still see some forms of life evolve, but it’s microscopic or it’s certain forms of plants. It took billions of years for fish to actually gain the ability to walk on land and become amphibians; we won’t see a new type of amphibian suddenly appearing any time soon.
Let me try to explain this as easily as possible. Can you grow wings? No. But can a child be born with wings? It is possible. This child’s wings may not allow him to fly, but say he mates with another person with wings and they have a child with wings, but these wings are more pronounced and the child may even have some control over them. Then that child mates with another person with wings and so on. This situation is outlandish, of course. There is no practical reasons for humans to mate with a mutated man with wings and no situation would currently make this winged man live over normal people.
Say, however, that the world is suddenly flooded (much like in Waterworld) people with webbed feet would become more populace. The webbed feet mutation is present already, but because it would become a coveted gene and because it would allow for better survival, webbed feet people would become more popular, and when people without webbed feet become a minority we could say ‘people have evolved.’ See? That seemed a bit more complicated than I would’ve liked.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 8:52 PM
You prove my point regarding my wings Nonfactor… but I already explained it, and you chose to ignore virtually all of it.
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Did you read where I said how the situation is outlandish?
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Watcher,
I’ve had a busy day, just skimming the thread when I saw this:
As a quick answer: I think you have to make the case a little differently. On a personal level I would bring in the spiritual and moral aspect. On the federal government level I would bring in the harm it does to society and the individual. Yes, I do believe government is in the business of legislating morality.
Lawrence at January 31, 2007 at 11:14 AM (this site really needs numbered comments) made some good points, although I think it is also destructive towards the viewers. Participating in something that is degrading to others is also self-destructive for you. You dehumanize someone else by your treatment of them, you dehumanize yourself. Concentration camps come to mind.
I’ve probably left something out, but it’s a start.
INC on January 31, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Yes. That’s not the point. Nevermind.
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 11:00 PM
It is the point. Your characterization of evolution is false and “outlandish.” People don’t just grow fully capable wings over generations, evolution doesn’t work like that.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 11:03 PM
I know, that’s what I mean by “it’s not the point”… The wings are outlandish. But again, this is too deep of a thing to get in to here. Just ponder the idea of physical traits and the ability for them to function magically coming about by random unguided mutations. What luck huh? How lucky are the millions of systems in the millions of species out there to have “evolved” ridiculously complex systems that we don’t even come close to having an understanding of, despite constantly trying to mimick what we see in nature. Especially lucky are the species who have complex abilities and traits that they couldn’t survive without, and these things would fail to be passed on in partial form (i.e. what good is half of a wing). If something doesn’t serve a function it isn’t supposed to be passed along. So everything, right down to fingers and toes… Of course this isn’t “how it happened”, I know, but for a visual (because it gets a little too technical if we’re going to get down to the microscopic level, where it’s even more complex with all sorts of circuits and machinery)… But for the hell of it, being born with fingers wouldn’t be an advantage and wouldn’t be passed along unless the bones, nerves, and veins and the knowledge and ability to use them was also there. AGAIN, I’m not saying that a finger just sprouted up… I’m just giving you a visual of what you believe happens on a much smaller and more complex level.
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Dude. Listen to yourself. Now evolution only takes place on a microscopic level? What caused the Cambrian explosion?
Guardian on January 31, 2007 at 11:45 PM
If you want top scientists to explain what I’m talking about, much better than I can, check out this section of a DVD that has been broken down in to 7 parts on YouTube.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jA3jGR12zhw&mode=related&search=
(and by the way the Biochemist Behe, isn’t even on “my side” on Young Earth, and that we didn’t come from apes… so don’t start dismissing this out of hand)
RightWinged on February 1, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Resolute on January 31, 2007 at 7:21 PM:
That’s not the point, at least not the one I’m making. Evolution isn’t necessarily wrong. But that doesn’t automatically make it right. All anyone is saying is that it has flaws and shouldn’t be accepted as hard scientific fact, which others here seem to disagree with, no matter how many times these flaws come out in the open.
Believe it or not, but not everyone who calls themself a Christians even cares what the Catholic church does. We had a Protestant reformation for a reason.
I personally think the Catholic church is misguided at times and do not associate myself with it. And many others (however wrongly) don’t even consider Catholics to be Christians. I’m not writing this as an insult against Catholics but only to explain that just because the Catholic church believes in or doesn’t believe in something, that doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity itself.
And last, I don’t claim evolution is against Christianity in the first place.
I do however believes that the only reason it is as accepted as it is (and as blindly as it is in many cases) is because it takes a supreme being out of the equation.
Were scientists to come up with another theory that excluded such a being, it would automatically either become the equal to evolution or would supercede evolution.
Are you serious? You think it’s because we debate that we lose?
Conservatives hand victories over to the Left so often by just agreeing for the sake of being agreeable.
Joe McCarthy didn’t out Hollywood celebs, but the Left has said it enough, made enough movies about their own victimhood that we’ve said sure, we won’t argue about it. McCarthy=bad man.
And hence the dark era of McCarthism has grown to such a proportion that people don’t even know the true story, that McCarthy was a man who wasn’t even interested in the spies themselves but why the spies were allowed access to high-ranking government positions.
And there were a ridiculous amount of spies in high-ranking government positions.
But that’s lost, because our side gave it up. We’re cheap like that. We give it up for the Left so much that we don’t even know the truth ourselves.
Esthier on February 1, 2007 at 8:44 AM
Well then you don’t understand science. Newtonian physics has flaws. Einstein’s theories have flaws. These theories don’t even agree with each other and are known to be incomplete and in need of a new theory to update them both. So do you doubt gravity and expect to fly away any moment apon finding that out? Yet, they are still the accepted theories that are taught in school because they can not be discarded until a better theory replaces them. No matter how endlessly you search for and even find flaws in evolution theory, it is still the “correct” theory until someone comes up with a better one. Creation does not explain the world in a better way, accepting it means throwing out the foundations of modern medicine, farming and other things.
You are contradicting yourself. If it does then it is defacto anti-christian. yet many christains believe it and the Catholic belief is in evolution AND God the creator so you are factually wrong.
You lose because you debate the wrong things and automatically take the 180 position to the liberal instead of a reasoned position that gov’t shouldn’t be involbed in this area.
debate: pro-life vs pro-choice instead of making it a states right issue = you lost to abortion
debate: sex ed vs abstinence ed instead of saying this really should be up to parents = you lost to sex ed
debate: department of education ciricula and funding battles instead of eliminating the department = you lose when liberal agendas are taught in school
debate: left guns cause violence vs right video games and movies cause violence = we all lose becase criminals cause violence
debate: social program increase vs tax cutting = we all lose when the argument should instead be for spending cuts and the budget goes out of control, but we cant have that because you want your social programs to teaching abstince and creationism.
need i go on?
Resolute on February 1, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Ok, I have zero interest in religion or the evolution debate, but I can’t let that one go. Dinosaurs date back to 230 million years ago. Archaeopteryx was late Jurassic (150 million years ago). I don’t read that as “pre-dating.”
Tanya on February 1, 2007 at 11:21 PM
You really don’t know me, and you don’t know what I debate. Just because I think evolution is a flawed theory that is mathmatically completely improbable (as improbable as is mathmatically possible), that doesn’t mean I do everything else you want to label me as doing.
The prejudice against Christians from the Right is worse than anything on the Left. I’m beginning to agree with Allah that the Christians need to get out of this party.
No, it doesn’t make it anti-Christian (and seriously, you capitalize Catholic over Christian?). Because as Christians, we can look at evolution as simply something God put into motion.
We can do that with any theory put forth on anything. That’s just the virtue of believing in a God that can do anything.
It has nothing to do with the theory of life itself.
Even if the prevailing scientific theory of the day was that the souls of aliens strewn about space together created the earth, as humans and other creatures sprouted from the ground like plants, Christians could still turn that around and see God’s hand in the whole thing.
I’m not saying that evolution is anti-Christian. I’m simply saying that it’s a theory that doesn’t consider that God exists. In fact, it just doesn’t consider any god at all.
Any theory that does consider God, or any god, will be dismissed.
Any theory that doesn’t, and makes more sense than the alien theory, will be accepted.
Right now, we’ve only got one like that, so that’s the one we’re going with, even though the mathmatically probability that random mutations mating with random mutations can produce the life that we see here today is completely improbably based on our abilities to discern probability. In fact, things most people consider miracles, like cancer disappearing without a trace, a woman giving birth without ever having had sex and a man walking out of his grave after being in it a few days, are actually more probable.
But hey, there’s a consensus on this one. So we must listen, no matter how many times we’ve been lied to in the past.
That said, you may as well enjoy the next few years, because a consensus is coming now to say that Global Warming will kill us all soon.
Esthier on February 2, 2007 at 9:10 AM
Quick update – Darwinists are abandoning Darwin’s Tree of Life. Of course the assumed evolution crowd tries to downplay their move, but once again the data doesn’t fit their fairytale, and we on the creation side are once again right.
RightWinged on February 3, 2007 at 2:56 AM
Hearing creationists’ talk about “evidence” and “proof” makes me giggle.
Nonfactor on February 4, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Not sure what you’re talking about… it’s your own Priests in the Church of Charlie who are throwing out their Old Testament, the “Tree of Life”, because they can’t hide from it’s ridiculousness any longer. But they praise it for being the “ladder” that helped enlighten people to their way of thinking. Yeah, that’s science for ya.
But by all means, yuck it up. The FACT is the evidence CONSISTENTLY conflicts with evolutionary assumptions.
RightWinged on February 5, 2007 at 4:52 AM
Just because you assume we’re creationists doesn’t mean we actually are.
Though to be clear, if someone told me they were going to tell me a story, I’d just accept it as a story. But when someone tells me they’re going to educate me on science, I expect proof and facts, not a story.
Esthier on February 5, 2007 at 12:32 PM
I was referring to the creationist link provided by RightWinged.
RightWinged – so do you believe that evolution and the concept of the Christian God cannot coexist?
Nonfactor on February 5, 2007 at 9:53 PM
That “creationist link” was linking to a post citing LEADING DARWINISTS ADMITTING THAT THEY NOW HAVE BEEN FORCED TO REJECT DARWIN’S TREE OF LIFE!!! Nice try. Bash the site that brings it to our attention all you want, it doesn’t change the FACT that the TOL was all along a myth, yet taught as fact, and used as a stepping stone to get people to believe in evolution, and now even it’s proponents have been forced to abandon it.
RightWinged on February 5, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 4 5 6