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 ... 3 4 5 6 Next »
In an attempt to lighten the mood among friends here, I want to pass along one of the coolest videos I’ve seen on YouTube… This dog is amazing (watch the whole thing).
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 1:31 AM
400 !!!
elgeneralisimo on January 31, 2007 at 1:36 AM
A great story Randy! Faith is happy and overcame adversity because she’s loved and cared for. I love dogs!
thedecider on January 31, 2007 at 1:43 AM
Thanks for the link TD. As a Methodist I’m saddened by political positions taken by my church’s national leadership whom I’ve never met. I find my church to be apolitical inside it’s doors and open literally to anyone. On Fox recently, MM was preceded by a Methodist leader who opposes GWB’s library being proposed at SMU in Dallas. I like my church. I helped plan our building’s construction. I’m there every sunday. If my church’s leadership snubs W over the library issue they will loose me & my family to…wherever we go, sans moonbats.
Buck Turgidson on January 31, 2007 at 1:44 AM
I decided to leave this thread the moment the discussion turned to evolutionism, and I’ve once again been reminded just why that is.
I don’t deal well with religious fanatics, that’s why.
I’m a Christian and yes, I BELIEVE in the word of G-d. The operative word here being “believe.” I have no rock-solid, hard evidence proving that I’m right, and I’ll eventually have to deal with it. That’s fine by me. I had a choice, and it was MY choice. That doesn’t mean that I can’t listen to a non-believer’s objections without instantly calling him a crackpot and calling for his burning at the stake.
I know what I believe, but I ALSO know that I could be completely wrong, since I don’t have conclusive proof that I’m right.
The other side, on the other hand, have no proof, they have an interesting theory, but they’ll do anything they can to discredit, disbar and fire anybody as much as questioning their precious religion.
And they’ll routinely trot out their “the vast majority of scientists agree with us”, pretending that that’s an argument. The “vast majority of scientists” once agree that everything was made out of four elements, that atoms could not be split, that the Sun circled the Earth and that the Earth was flat.
And that vast majority were every bit as convinced that burning heretics at the stake was a perfectly reasonable response to anybody questioning their “wisdom” as the followers of The Church of St Darwin of Galapagos are today.
Which brings me back to my original point:
There’s absolutely no point in arguing with religious fanatics. I’m perfectly willing to entertain the notion that the faith that it took me decades to find might be completely wrong. I’m not perfect. I’m just a human trying to stumble my way through an ineffable world. I know what I believe, but that doesn’t make me universally right.
What’s more important, I don’t automatically discredit those who disagree with me and demand that they be shut up.
Yet I, as “a Christian fundamentalist”, am the one who is a “dangerous crackpot fanatic?”
Don’t argue with imbeciles.
Misha I on January 31, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Keep the faith Buck! Religion is mans invention. God’s word is eternal! You’ll find the place you need to be at.
thedecider on January 31, 2007 at 1:49 AM
Perhaps a lack of faith might be the problem. From your post, it seems your faith can be bruised by the comments of those who disagree with you. Just saying. You’re either solid on what you believe, or you’re not. Pick one and stick with it. You’ll feel better (and more confident) in the end.
thedecider on January 31, 2007 at 1:53 AM
They oppose nonsense, mischaracterizations of science. And the spread of ignorance.
Had doctors been more familiar with evolutionary theory, we’d have less problem with superbugs. Phylogenetic analysis can and has been accepted as evidence in court cases. Had Libya allowed it, that type of analysis would have saved the lives of several doctors. The theory of evolution gives scientists a guide to help find out the function of genes, so it is extremely useful in genetic engineering.
dorkafork on January 31, 2007 at 1:55 AM
Oh, and that’s why I fundamentally disagree with those denouncing Allahpundit as well. You know, he COULD be right. All of us, including myself, could be completely wrong.
I hope I’m not, I fundamentally, as a matter of faith KNOW I’m not, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t listen to him.
And I sure as Hell wouldn’t try to get him discredited or fired from he’s job because I happen to disagree with him.
Misha I on January 31, 2007 at 1:55 AM
Rightwinged,
You seem to be correct about the appendix, although for a long time it was considered to be vestigial. But the coccyx is vestigial, no doubt. You are incorrect on that one.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 1:56 AM
I AM solid in what I believe. But that doesn’t mean that I have to entertain the stupid, vain notion that I have to burn at the stake anybody who might disagree with me, nor that I don’t have to listen to their arguments.
G-d, as I believe in Him, is big enough to handle that on his own.
I only wish that Darwinists would be as confident in THEIR beliefs.
Misha I on January 31, 2007 at 1:58 AM
Rightwinged,
There’s also other examples, like wisdom teeth.
Boa constrictors possess small, vestigial hind legs.
Even the Tyranosaurus Rex’s small arms can be considered vestigial, although I think it’s debateable.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 2:00 AM
and…
Sorry Misha, but I’m detecting some abiguity here between your posts. You “could be completely wrong” and yet, your “solid in what” you believe. Doesn’t make sense.
thedecider on January 31, 2007 at 2:05 AM
I could sit and argue about the tailbone, but you admitting that I’m right on the appendix goes back to my point. It was taught for a LONG time that it was vestigial. “Scientists” used to teach a list of hundreds of “vestigial” parts… that list now contains just a handful, including some that they are just refusing (at this point) to accept do serve purposes. How long before they stop assuming, get to studying, and admit they are wrong. I know, I know.. how do I know they’re wrong. My point is that there was no reason to study the function of the appendix, as long as it was thought to be vestigial. Your confident statement as fact prove exactly what my problem with teaching based on evolutionary assumptions is. Because that example of evolutionary dogma is just one of thousands that are proven false, yet still taught, remain in textbooks, etc. (As someone mentioned earlier the moths, and I mentioned the “gill slits” that human embryos have… previous taught by evolutionists as evidence of our relationship to fish, later turned out to be our ears developing). Perhaps you have a better understanding now of what I’m talking about when I say teach the science, not the story that is constantly being slammed by facts when real science is done… And more disturbing is the leading scientists in the world, when discovering that something doesn’t evolve the way they’ve always thought and been teaching for decades, they don’t just report the facts of their studies. They claim that it proves the evolutionary process worked differently, even though their discoveries had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (again, not my opinion, this is fact) to do with evolution… but because evolution is assumed they can’t even see how ridiculous their statements are.
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 2:06 AM
I so wish I had gotten involved in this thread earlier.
First and foremost, I am an atheist. I know that sentence will affect the thoughts of everybody reading it in some way or another, but if you believe in a god of any kind or not don’t judge me based simply on that fact.
I’d like very much to debate evolution vs. creationism or the existence of a god vs. the non-existence of a god, but in debates like the former (and in some cases the later) it is pointless to even have a debate, not because I’m afraid of debating, or because I don’t have a rational argument, but because when discussing god everyone comes to a standstill.
The fact is there is no evidence that the Christian God exists, all that exists are the wishful beliefs of the people who follow the faith. There is, however, evidence that the phenomenon known as evolution is real. Admittedly some Christians believe evolution and God can coexist, while some (some I’ve even seen in this thread) believe that the two ideas are contradictory; both beliefs can’t be true.
I would also like to note for the record (before anyone makes any assumptions) that I was raised a Christian, I went to a few Harvest festivals as a kid, and my aunt and uncle are home-schooling, Republican, Bible-beaters. Also, I didn’t call anyone here any names, and I’d appreciate it if people could respond in kind.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 2:07 AM
See 2:06 post I just put up….
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 2:09 AM
Randy, doesn’t this all go to a bigger issue? Those who doubt (or don’t want to believe in a) God must come up with a reason why life exists? Why are they here and what is the meaning of all this? I haven’t seen a single post that actually brings this up. For most, it comes down to the scientific versus the biblical. Those who reject a Creator must have a reason to substantiate the existence of life. Hence the “evolution” theory. A theory unproven to this day, and one even Darwin doubted at the end of his life. If one rejects the notion of a Creator, then one must have an argument to support why a “creator” does not exist. Isn’t that really what the evolution versus creation argument is all about?
thedecider on January 31, 2007 at 2:18 AM
Rightwinged,
You have “proven” nothing. You can’t say just because at one time scientists believed slits in embryos and they turned out to be wrong that that somehow is evidence that all evolutionary theory is wrong.
Also when you assert that there is no such thing as a vestigial trait (because to accept that there are would undercut your whole argument for a creator) it is up to you to show what function it serves. The burden of “proof” is on you; I can’t prove a negative, nobody can.
So I’ll start you out: What possible function could wisdom teeth have when they don’t even fit in you damn mouth?
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 2:19 AM
The curse of knowing what you believe while being willing to listen to opposing views without wanting to strapping them to a burning stake.
I know, but I can live with that.
I’ve been on both sides of that coin, but only one side was willing to listen to what I believe as opposed to what they thought I OUGHT to believe, sharpening the nails while they were pretending to be attentive.
That, and the miracles I observed in my personal life convinced me that G-d exists. I was an unbeliever, yet G-d showed His face to me and moved my life in the right direction. Without reciprocity, simply out of love.
That’s how I found Him. And He didn’t demand of me that I treat anybody who hadn’t made that journey as unworthies, I was as unworthy as they come myself when I found Him, He didn’t ask *anything* of me. My troubles were solved before I finally recognized Him as my savior, and they would have remained solved had I not.
Yet now I’m a “doubting Thomas” because I refuse to ignore His other children who have yet to make that journey?
Torquemada, is that you?
Misha I on January 31, 2007 at 2:22 AM
Actually, they do fit in my mouth. But to go along with your argument, who’s to say wisdom teeth didn’t serve a purpose for everyone at some point in time? You shouldn’t confuse environmental changes with evolution. Evolution proposes that specicies evolve into more advanced species over time. Environmental changes occur as the environment in which a species lives changes.
thedecider on January 31, 2007 at 2:30 AM
Haha! Hardly. It’s good to meet you, Misha. Congratulations on your journey! Sounds like you’ve had an interesting life. By the way, it’s okay to spell His name. God likes to be acknowledged and proclaimed. I won’t try to rush you in to that though.
thedecider on January 31, 2007 at 2:34 AM
The question of why is for the religious. Atheists ask the question of “how,” not why. Evolution isn’t a theory to explain why; it is a theory to explain how. How is life here? How are we here? And while you are correct that evolution hasn’t been proven, neither has God, neither has plate tectonics, neither has universal gravitation.
You’ll very rarely see an atheist ask the question of why or why not God exists, those questions seemed to be reserved to reverent people such as yourself.
Ironically it was stated in one of my favorite books, God Emperor of Dune: “It is impossible to argue with someone who knows they’re right.”
Not necessarily. Evolution is a series of mutations, and as Darwin observed, wherein usually the strongest survive. This doesn’t mean that the species get more advanced, just that the species usually becomes more able to survive.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 2:39 AM
Decider
You’re incorrect. Environment is a cause for “evolving,” which may include loosing a few teeth or growing wings or a tail or feathers to adapt to a new habitat. Remember survival of the fit. They are all covered under evolution. They are not mutually exclusive.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 2:41 AM
If I could revise one answer very quickly. It is fundamental for people to want to know “why,” they or anything else exists. Religious people have found the answer in a god of some sort. Atheists and the theory of evolution don’t seek to explain “why.” Religion does.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 2:44 AM
As for you question, they were of use in the past when humans had wider jaws. Today they are leftovers and useless. Eventually they will completely disappear (I only had 3 of them). But I warn you, it won’t be in our lifetimes.
We can’t witness changes because changes happen so slowly, so we use fossil’s to better understand the changes earth’s creatures have undergone during the many millions of years there has been life on this planet.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 2:48 AM
I’d revise it again. Evolution absolutely seeks to answer the question “why.”
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 2:50 AM
How so? Evolution shows us how humans came to be; it doesn’t tell us why humans came to be.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 2:52 AM
Interesting point Nonfactor. And it goes back to the fundamental question of who is right, which depends on whether you’re a person of faith or not. Science, to a degree, can also be a matter of faith. When you consider there are so many theories about “how” things came to be, it can require an element of “faith” to believe in those theories. So, when it comes down to faith, who is right, and who is wrong? The one who believes in a Creator, or the one who sticks with pure science? The one who believes in a Creator knows that faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen. Is a pure scientist who believes in a theory any different? What makes them different? Again, it comes down to one who believes in a Creator, and one who does not.
thedecider on January 31, 2007 at 2:53 AM
Unless you’re thinking of “why” in a more literal sense – humans are here because the conditions were right on Earth for life to form and our species to evolve.
I am thinking of “why” as the question posed by thedecider – “what is the meaning?”
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 2:54 AM
Nonfactor,
I misunderstood what you meant by “why.” Forgive me, I’m getting tired. I’ve been talking about this since 7PM yesterday.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 2:55 AM
On this point, I agree with Bert169. Evolution does seek to know why? In fact, most science seeks to know not only how, but why.
thedecider on January 31, 2007 at 2:57 AM
Believe it or not, I agree with everything you said in that post. Truthfully I believe arguments like these are pointless because when dealing with matters of God vs. Science the side of God always wins because answers such as “God made it happen,” “God works in mysterious ways,” etc. trump the theories put forth by science.
Completely and totally knowing that evolution is correct is faith, but I don’t completely and totally know that evolution is correct, just as I’m not sure that our lithosphere is floating on our asthenosphere, but through science we do know that the probability that evolution is correct is very high, and the probability that earthquakes are formed through plate tectonics is very high. In religion (any religion) there is no way to verify whether or not it is true or just a shared belief system.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 2:59 AM
thedecider,
“Why” is a bit ambiguous. Nonfactor was referring to the moral question. And it’s true, evolution is amoral.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 3:00 AM
bert169,
Environment has not shown to be a factor in changing one kind of animal into another kind of animal, nor has it even been shown to be a factor in growing wings on an animal which is not designed or coded by DNA for wings.
Your post sounds and reads like a fairy tale.
What makes your post and the thanking behind it, and many who bought into that faulty concept, is that evolutionists mock Christians and Intelligent Design scientists as being unscientific and believing in Faith, when it is clearly such errant thinking as what you presented here, and is shared by others of the evolutionists molecules to man; frog to prince believes, that evolutionists with such beliefs are making giant leaps of faith and believe in fairy tales.
Definition: Evolutionism: A religion based on belief in fairly tales and in the giant leap of faith that a molucule can magically become a man; and a frog can magically become a prince via naturalistic means, through gradual change over time, without purpose, intelligence, or design, and without an intelligent Creator or creative agent involved.
A belief that theory and philosophy are the same as hard, direct evidence of science.
William
William2006 on January 31, 2007 at 3:03 AM
Okay, now you’re just beginning to completely ignore my points and make me repeat them. Look, I already busted some of your evolutionary dogma (calling the appendix vestigial), and we could sit and argue about each and every one… First of all, do you really have time to do that? Second of all, that has nothing to do with my point. My point was that it there were hundreds of “vestigial” parts years ago, and now we’re left with only a handful, as REAL science has been done, proving that things previously thought to be vestigial infact served functions.
As I said (though you’ll ignore AGAIN), is it fair to lie to students simply because an evolutionary mindset presupposes something, and the actual science hasn’t been done to determine the real truth yet? What do you not get about that? You’ve ran from this question the entire night, and keep trying to toss all these little evolution talking points out at me. I’ve said repeatedly, even if you were right about all of this (which you’re not), do you really think it’s proper to teach theory that exists based on evolutionary assumptions, when they are CONSTANTLY being knocked down? Again, you can say that all of these (thousands) of examples don’t really hurt the theory (because evolutionists always find a way to try to make them fit), but that STILL isn’t the point. Should they teach assumptions, when their assumptions are constantly being proven wrong. What is wrong with teaching just the facts?
I’ve repeatedly asked you why is it when a discovery proves to a scientist that something didn’t evolve the way they’d thought and taught for years, instead of just reporting the finding, they mention that it “evolved differently” than they had always thought, even though the finding showed nothing about evolution, other than the fact that long held beliefs about it’s evolution were false?
Why is it you keep hiding from what are very simple questions… Why can’t we just teach science, and leave all the story telling out of it? You keep insisting that I answer all of these tiny little questions that require a lot of research on something that isn’t that deep of an issue. Why are you so afraid to just say “yes, they should just teach the actual science” or no “they should teach that we came from nothing exploding in to everything, rain on rocks, etc. because somehow that advances science”
I’m actually about done with you. I tried to lighten this place up a bit, but you’ve repeatedly ignored lengthy posts of mine to throw out these very specific little “vestigial” examples to argue over. Can’t you just accept that there is a lot of misinformation out there in evolution world, which you proved yourself with your appendix example.
Even you don’t know what evolution is about. Evolving is (supposedly) the process by which RANDOM AND UNGUIDED mutations happen, sometimes as a benefit, allowing those with the mutation to advance. They become more attractive for mating, and eventually the entire species “evolves” to be like them. Environment isn’t the cause. Sometimes these mutations make something more adapted to the environment, making it “the fittest”, etc. Evolution isn’t about something simply adapting to an environment. It proposes that all of the ridiculously complex systems we see in life, that we’re barely beginning to learn about and faily when trying to duplicate in the lab constantly, “evolved” by random mutation.
(here’s where you respond, still ignoring the simple questions I’ve been asking all along. I predict you’ll focus on one tiny part of my post to divert from the real point. Or maybe you’ll go back to the tiny specific issue debate which has nothing to do with my point again.)
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 3:06 AM
I would simply add that people accept the various prime mover arguments because it is acceptable and understandable to them. They are not seeking answers in the same way a scientist is: through rigorous testing and retesting. Most people don’t have the time and dedication to do that.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 3:06 AM
This is so funny I have to respond, then I need to get some sleep.
I will not attempt to demean any such belief in creationism. What I will try to do is explain evolution to you so you at least have a more accurate view of what it is.
Evolution is simply a series of genetic mutations bred throughout a species. For example, if humans started being born with four fingers and four fingered humans started mating with each other and having four fingered children over a large span of time four fingered humans would be the norm and in words four fingered humans would have evolved from five fingered humans. This type of evolution isn’t likely to happen in the natural world because there is no practical reason for having four fingers. Such a process has been seen on this Earth. Prehistoric horses didn’t have hooves, they had fingers. Over time horses mutated into animals with only 4 fingers, and then 3, and then 2, and eventually only 1. The reason these mutated horses continued living and producing offspring was because the mutation was helpful for the horses–they allowed them to run faster. Remnants of this evolutionary process are seen in fossils and even on modern day horses where a thumbnail can be found below the knee (where the thumb receded into the horse’s leg). Another example being that all dinosaurs are birds (look at the skeleton of a dinosaurs face and the skeleton of a birds face for an easy comparison).
Evolution isn’t some evil process. It is a series of rational occurrences over a tremendous span of time.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 3:14 AM
bert169,
Following your logic it is actually on YOU to prove that wisdom teeth are vestigial organs.
I have three of my original four wisdom teeth in my head. One did grow in at a slight angle, the rest fit fine and are not crowded.
In our culture, with additives to food and the like, our children tend to grow bigger faster than many other cultures. This does have an effect on bone growth and that includes the development of the jaw. Another factor is many in our culture eat processed and softer foods, and hence their jaws do not get the strength and such that eating and chewing food better would offer.
Other cultures do show a different jaw structure, that their wisdom teeth do not seem to be a problem, and many in this country also have no problem with their wisdom teeth.
Again, you argue that you know the design better than the designer and that wisdom teeth are an example of a vestigial organ.
It is on YOU to prove it.
Furthermore, to answer you question, what purpose do wisdom teeth serve? What purpose to other teeth in the mouth serve?
The teeth serve the purpose of aiding in digestion by mashing the food we take into the mouth into a past like texture so that it can pass through other parts of the digestive system and be utilized by the body for the sake of nutrition, rebuilding tissue, providing vitamins, minerals, etc.
The wisdom teeth are among the molars which are excellent for mashing nuts, grains, fruit, vegetables, etc.
William
William2006 on January 31, 2007 at 3:16 AM
Before I forget, and because you apparently want people to pay attention to this point you are making let me respond. Most all things in science are theories, they are taught in school anyway. Do you have a problem with geologists teaching about plate tectonics or a problem with physicists teaching about gravity? Guess what, they’re theories. The reason they are taught in schools is because the theories are probably correct, and the reason why God isn’t taught in a science class is because God isn’t science.
You see the thing with science is, is that when they discover that something happened differently than they thought they admit to the mistake and change it. Evolution isn’t an exact science, but it’s the closest thing we have to figuring out what lived millions and billions of years ago and how it turned into something else.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 3:20 AM
Rightwinged,
Your arguments are illogical. Just because the appendix may have been found to have a purpose, that doesn’t prove evolutionary theory is wrong. It’s funny you don’t also think about how instruments used for detecting changes have changed. So, when somebody at one point says that a trait is vestigial and then someone comes along and overturns that conclusion 100 years later, you don’t need to go off on barking conspiracies about how dishonest scientists are.
But don’t worry, we’re back to the politics: “Teach science, teach science, teach science.”
As for my understanding of evolution, if you can tell me the two principles of Darwinian Evolution, and then reconcile those with that moronic post you just put up, you won’t need to try to run around trying to “prove” the creation. You will have convinced me that you are God.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 3:20 AM
Nonfactor,
Thank you for cogent argument. He’s ask me the same question forty times (hyperbole, look out!). I was trying to get around to that particular one, but he’s throwing out so many non-sequitors and conspiracy theories that I had to only take a few at a time to keep my posts short. I know he won’t read them if they are long.
Anyway, my patience is running thin. Rightwinged has really no understanding of even rudimentary evolution; therefore it is not a debate, but a shoutfest.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 3:28 AM
What is your problem!? You’ve become like a liberal now (perhaps you are, I don’t know). You’re building ridiculous strawmen, and wanting to go in circles, and you’ve become a complete waste of time, while at the same time being a disrespectful dick who refuses to answer simple questions (that I’m now tired of repeating). I NEVER submitted that the appendix falsified evolution. I proved that lies are taught as science based on evolutionary assumptions, and it would be a waste of everyone’s time to sit here and go over each and every one. I didn’t even bring it up anyway, you brought it up.
So to be clear, you’re afraid to answer a very VERY simple question?
Nonfactor, this is where you weaklings always go… Keep God out of the classroom. No one said to put him in. Just teach the science. And most of science is NOT theory, that is ridiculous. And you know that gravity comparison is just so stupid…. I can’t believe people still attempt to use it.
As for science “admitting their mistake and changing it”, etc. you just prove how blinded by the dogma you are. First of all, that was exactly my point. THEY DON’T admit and change it. Even when a discovery has nothing to do with evolution, other than proving that their belief in how something evolved WAS WRONG, they still through “evolution” back in the mix when NOTHING in the discovery pointed to evolution at all. Why can’t they just report what they found? What is so hard about that? And you say it’s the closest thing we have to figure out how things turned in to other thigns. Do you not see what… nevermind, you don’t.
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 3:34 AM
Rightwinged,
Where have you shown that scientists have lied? You do know what lying is don’t you? Because I think you believe it is person says A. A turns out not to be true. Person is a liar.
You have to actually show that the scientist knew a trait was vestigial and then deliberately said it wasn’t.
Now simply showing that scientists may have been resistant to accept research that overturned conventional wisdom is not enough. All research is that way. Try getting a getting a PhD whenever all your work goes against the conventional wisdom. Research can be very bureacratic at times.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 3:42 AM
Based on that comment I’d say there was hope for you yet…. If it weren’t for the fact that you still refuse to answer a very simple question, and are doing exactly what I predicted you’d do, picking out little side points so that I’ll spend time reexplaining them so we can get as far away from that simple question as possible.
I’m tired of actually engaging you in your diversions, because this is just a dance you could continue forever. I’ve got to eat something and crash. Later.
RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 3:52 AM
Lawrence… how heavily do you think it should be regulated? Does your desire to keep people away from “dangerous life styles and choices” mean you want to ban all forms of pornography at the federal level? Is there any kind of pornographic material that you think adults should legally be permitted to decide for themselves whether to view or not?
INC… do you see any difference between striving against pornography on a personal level, and using the federal government to outlaw pornography altogether?
Watcher on January 31, 2007 at 4:13 AM
The crux of the whole matter is captured right here with these two comments (IMHO).
We are all basically arguing about:
What is truth? Does it exist? Is truth knowable? Can truth be known with certainty? by me?
Since philosphers, theologians, and scientists have been arguing about this stuff for centuries, I won’t try to “weigh-in” and resolve these issues. (It’d be silly for me to try.)
The only thing that I would like to point-out is that we basically face this same dilemma in nearly all facets of our lives. We make our decisions (loosely) based on the facts — with a considerable amount of emotional bias and a few pre-conceived notions tossed into the mix. Sometimes a bit of logic or inference is required. Sometimes not.
Case in point: Frequently, after the verdict is read at a jury trial conducted within our legal system, the members of the jury still can NOT say with 100% certainty that the accused is innocent or guilty. We already know for certain the some individuals have been wrongly convicted and in some cases even executed for crimes that they did not commit. Nevertheless, we expect the jury to MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. People of faith are no different when they make their decision to believe in God — and even more interesting than that is the fact that scientists do exactly the same thing.
Another interesting thing about science is that not all scientific evidence is created equal. Just as Christianity is split-up into all kinds of factions with their own “pet doctrinal slant” on things, so too is science. Here is my take on it. You can divide science into at least four broad categories (and maybe more) with the certainty of each category’s claims steadily diminishing as the category number increases (Note that these lists are meant to be “representative” of a broad category and not “comprehensive.”):
1) Mathematics itself — based on pure logic. Certainty level – 100%. It is the foundation of all the other sciences.
2) Computer science, most branches of engineering, some branches of physics and chemistry. All based on the idea of a “control experiment.” All experimental parameters can be controlled. Experimental outcomes are nearly 100% repeatable — all the time. Physical phenomenon can be “modeled” using mathematics. Uncertainties arise for physical systems exhibiting non-linear or chaotic behaviors. Predictions are less than 100% certain in those cases. Measurement tolerances and inacurracies can also sometimes reduce the level of certainty.
3) Biology, medicine and other branches where it is impossible to perform an experiment and control ALL of the major influences on the outcome. Experimentation is still possible, but these branches are always characterized by their heavy use of and dependence on statistics.
4) Sciences built on observation alone. Experimentation (for the most part) is impossible. Astronomy, archeology, meteorology, paleontology, geology usually fall into this category. Measurement equipment is used to observe specimen. Observations improve as the measurement equipment advances in its precision and sophistication.
I guess what I am trying to point out here is that I trust what an aeronautical engineer tells me about the limitations of his airplane WAY MORE than I trust what the medical doctor tells me about what is causing my high blood pressure. I trust the paleontologists about as much as I trust an astrologer, a palm reader, or my tea leaves.
Faith in God has its parallels to science as well.
CyberCipher on January 31, 2007 at 4:28 AM
Yeah right,
Expose illogic and hypobole of one of his arguments. He then says the next one is really the most important one. Your thinking is riddled with the emotion of a second grader. You are unfamiliar with the language of science. You continually use words like “prove,” not understanding the significance of it. You have no understanding of the process of science in general, but a healthy dose of zealotry that tells you they are all liars. I quit asking you questions about evolution because I know you can’t answer them or even see their significance.
Now, whenever you go to your church and complain about how those evil scientists who don’t “teach science” won’t debate, refer back to this debate. I took time out of my life to sit here and have a discussion with you when most people would have dismissed you as a crackpot.
I’m not claiming to be an expert; I have only recently made the decision to dedicate my life knowledge and understanding through reason and empirical study. But though I have thick skin, it still offends me to the core that men who have also dedicated themselves to the same goal are accused of deliberate coverups and conspiracies by a person whose compass in life points not north, but to a side of the political spectrum, whether it be left or right.
I’m not saying, nor have I ever said, your belief in a supreme being is incorrect. Nobody on earth can say that. I can only hope the thought of evolution doesn’t shake your faith. Though your zealotry against it is evidence that it does just that.
I bid you well. But I must say that I don’t hate you. I don’t think you’re an imbecile. We both failed in our discussion. We failed, science and religion, in our search for common ground.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 4:43 AM
my comment was a response to Rightwinged. Not you CyberCipher
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 4:49 AM
Michelle and Bryan go to Iraq, risk life and Limb and their families never get a wink of sleep to bring us insightful reporting – gets 65 comments
Nancy’s “apple didn’t fall far from the tree” Daughter makes comments on religion and white crackers – and they’re off to the races
now is the sound of me weeping
EricPWJohnson on January 31, 2007 at 4:59 AM
Whats worse than that is when The View threads get more comments…
EnochCain on January 31, 2007 at 6:11 AM
Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. All systems move towards disorder (entropy).
To accept evolution as fact instead of theory is the same as accepting God as fact. Both are expressions of faith. As Ann Coulter explains brilliantly in Godless, evolution is the religion of the left.
Valiant on January 31, 2007 at 7:21 AM
The government already regulates pornography. Models must be over 18. Viewers must be over 18. As a society, we already decide what we consider appropriate, or moral, and regulate those things – and the reason is that it is for what the majority of us see as the good of our society. It is little different from the government enforcing building codes for the safety purposes.
The question never was about outlawing pr0n. It was about regulating. It is regulated. And, unless someone is into kiddie pr0n, they would agree it should be.
Randy:
Actually, the topic of this thread was whether Christian readers agreed with the sentiment of the NRO reviewer who said that Christians should be aware of, and adapt to, the language spoken by the society at large.
Given how the conversation devolved, it makes me wonder if we can.
nailinmyeye on January 31, 2007 at 7:35 AM
I know this is late, and long after you posted. Don’t you guys ever sleep. But, aren’t you talking about adaptation and not evolution? Isn’t evolution the creation of a new species from an existing one? The hoofs analogy is an adaptation, as referenced by your 4 fingers. There are many adaptations, or what most in error, call evolution, penguins, ostrich, fish that walk to new ponds, etc. Those are adapting to a new enviornment. What species morphed into a new species? I do not have a dog in this fight, I do not care whether evolution is real or not it does not affect my belief system. Luther said it best “Let scientists argue science, and theologians argue theology”. And I am neither.
I think the argument between scientists are now revolving around what is an adaptation, and what is evolution. Seeing as the scientists have not discovered, yet, that true evolution.
right2bright on January 31, 2007 at 7:45 AM
like mother like daughter, evil stinking B$$$#%
retired on January 31, 2007 at 7:59 AM
I can give you a few, some where ID played more of a roll than others.
California school sued over intelligent design
Rural high school introduces concept in philosophy class
In that school it was only taught in phillosophy, during which all religious origins were speculated.
ACLU sues over ‘intelligent design’ in Pa.
Suit challenges policy on teaching
alternative to evolution theory
Book Battles: Evolution, Marriage
In that case no other theory was ever even mentioned. It was just a sticker.
ACLU Scores $1 Million From Evolution Case
The Dover case is one I already quoted above, but the article is misleading. It didn’t require kids to learn about alternative theories, it simply explained that there are other alternative theories and told students what they could read to learn about them. That was it.
The suit was all over one statement. This is it:
No one taught any other theory or made any further mention of any other theories, and for that, the school district is out one million-tax payer supported-dollars.
Oh, also, the statement was never read aloud in classes anyway. Teachers refused to read it.
So let me rephrase, tax payers are out one million dollars, most of which went to the ACLU and its lawyers, because a school district wanted to read a statement that mentioned an alternative theory to evolution.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 9:02 AM
right2bright,
Not quite, the proper word for the arrival of a new species is speciation. Now speciation, extinction, adaption, etc.. are all included under the much larger theory of evolution.
Second problem is that a species doesn’t come from another one. I know you’ve heard a hundred times that man evolves from apes. All evolution says is that, like all living things on earth, they have a common ancestor.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 9:09 AM
John,
No, it still is guilt by association. You are trying to imply that evolution is at some level responsible for ideologies such as eugenics. You claimed that it was no coincidence that “eugenics movement became prominent 30-40 years after Origin of Species “. And again, what people do with such a theory does not mean that the theory used is inherently evil or conducive in and of itself to that ideology. Your second paragraph contradicts your first.
And your source for that claim would be? So far, I keep hearing very old arguments that have no supportive evidence regarding what evolution is. In regards to the eugenics movement, are you trying to claim that prior to Darwin that there did not exists any idea similar to what would become known as eugenics?
T.H Hulxey is not Darwin and he did not accept or support many of Darwin’s ideas.
I have not nor do I plan on reading any of Dawkins’ books. What I need to know of his views I have gotten from his freely published articles, debates, speeches and the BBC documentary(s). Dawkins takes the stance that teaching theism to children is a form of child abuse. This is a rather extreme view, though I do agree with his premise that children are not religious nor should be indoctrinated. They should be taught at an age of understanding, not indoctrinated form day one.
If you also consider the tendency that figures in the public eye tend to suffer from the cult of personality and are never critically addressed or questioned by their followers (see Hillary or Coulter sycophants for example), I tend to endeavor to stick to a more rational view regarding topics like this and avoid “personalities”.
Gene Splicer on January 31, 2007 at 9:18 AM
“A lot of New York liberal Democrats who go to the megachurches come back talking about how scary they are.”
Seems to me the general sentiment here is what the hell is Lib doing trying to tell a church what to do? Their Libs for crying out loud. We all know the difference between Libs and Conservatives is that We belive there IS a God whereas they belive they ARE god. Twisted freeks.
auspatriotman on January 31, 2007 at 9:26 AM
Thanks for that clarification. If all living things on earth have a common ancestor, then my question still stands. There must be hundreds (millions) of examples of species morphing into other species. The easiest to find would be the transformation from a single cell to complex cell. Or are you saying that non-flying penguins (or change if hoofs) are proof of evolution? Argument ended because the Woodpecker has a harder bill than a Blue Jay. Has there been one instance (there must be one because of the millions of different species on earth, and now our millions of years of history) of finding that link from one organism to another? If they have a common ancestor, than there has to be some sort of morphing from one species to another. Or do the scientists just think that has happended, and are still looking? Just trying to nail down this evolution stuff. Wives have experienced speciation (after marriage) for thousands of years and they do not say we have evolved.
right2bright on January 31, 2007 at 9:34 AM
Gene,
More than that, they demonstrate that they have no clue what evolution is, which puts them in a difficult position to debate. But on the flip side, their ignorance leaves provides them confort because they lack the skills to even recognize a cogent argument from a fallacy or even a leap of faith.
As for Dawkins, I do think his views are a bit extreme, but kids are “indoctrinated” (to use that word) from birth by their parents. Most children accept their parents religious beliefs, political beliefs, among others. Dawkins ideas betray a bizarre idealism where he believes its possible for everyone to be like him. I understand why he’d like that, but it just doesn’t work that way.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 9:36 AM
“A lot of New York liberal Democrats who go to the megachurches come back talking about how scary they are.”
Yeah, but when they are ill or a loved one needs an operation, you can bet they are heading for the nearest quality hospital…a hospital that more than likely was built by those “scary people”. And you can bet the Pelosi and her group were educated in a system developed by those “scary people”.
I have asked this question seveal times on HA, and I will ask it again and again utill I hear an answer. How many churches, or higher education learning centers have atheists built? What have athiests and agnostics added to society? Welfare centers, counseling centers, job fair centers, family relief centers, besides the dismal government programs that have enslaved people to this system, where are the atheists centers or agnostic centers that help people? Atheists food banks, there is an oxy-moron for you.
right2bright on January 31, 2007 at 9:46 AM
right2bright
A wonderful question, and yes, there are examples of species morphing into other species. The best example I can think of is feathered dinosaurs, particulary Archaeotopteryx. It is debateable whether it constitutes a full blown missing link, but it certainly supports the connection between dinosaurs and birds, besides the pelvic bones and the vertebrae similarities that were already apparent from fossilized remains of the big dinosaurs.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 9:47 AM
I don’t know how conservatives got mixed up with creationists.
How does believing in the base values of freedom, democracy, capitalism, etc – put me in with people who ignore scientific fact and think evolution is a bunch of BS?
triple on January 31, 2007 at 9:48 AM
OK, I left this thread early last night, so I’ll just put all of the rest of my responses in this post…
No, theories can become facts. That’s as close to fact as they can get.
The point RW was making is that in the Bible, God first defines what a “day” is in the context. Genesis is very clear. It says, “God called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night.’ And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.” That’s literally the most simplistic definition of a “day” that can be given.
But I do agree with you that it really doesn’t matter. If people can accept that God created the world, then really why would it even take Him six days?
The time it took for the world to be created is not worth an argument.
I like the way it’s set up now and wouldn’t mind it being relaxed a bit. Leave minors out of the whole thing, but let adults do as they please.
Porn may hurt men and women (I don’t necessarily agree with that), but it’s certainly no worse than the soft-core stuff on TV, adultery, strip clubs and every other moral issue these days.
In fact, speaking as a married women, watching porn with your spouse can actually help your love life. Just consider it a more vivid kama sutra guide.
Maybe RW came in swinging, but not all of us have. And before RW even jumped in as a “Truther,” you’d already insulted us all as following a “crackpot” theory.
It wasn’t just you disagreeing with the theory or disagreeing with Christians. We’re crackpots.
And maybe we are. Maybe we’re completely delusional. Maybe the scientists have finally got it right this time after years and years of embarrassing mistakes about curing people with leeches, the sun revolving around the earth, a flat earth and a lack of understanding concerning the atom. Maybe they’ve got it all figured out, this time.
But please forgive some skepticism, especially considering the scandals that revolve around scientists who study evolution.
I’m not claiming a conspiracy. But there have been several reported cases where scientist knowingly lied about “proof” of evolution, only to be found out about later. And despite that many of these things were disproven long before I even got into high school, I was still taught them as though they were still true and still proof of evolution.
And it doesn’t make sense for a scientific theory to be guarded as much from criticism as this one has been. And again, I’m not talking about a conspiracy.
I don’t know why I was taught the moth story as evidence for evolution even though it’s one of the biggest proven hoaxes in science today. I don’t even care why. I’m just saying that it happens, and it makes me further doubtful of the theory. But that’s what happens when you’re lied to. You begin to distrust.
This isn’t like talking to a Truther and providing debunking sites for things they believe they were lied to about. These are actual admitted lies that are still being taught as fact.
This is more comparable to Clinton continuing to claim he did all he could to get Osama.
As to this response, it was just a joke. What I meant was that I’m not fond of confrontation in general. In real life, I actively avoid it if at all possible. And when arguing, I prefer not arguing with people I respect.
The thing about my parents was just a joke.
And I only left when I did because I cannot sit at a computer all day. I do it for a living, and that’s enough.
Although, I’m still waiting for the positive outcome here. And just to be clear, I’m not whining or complaining. I just don’t see the great outcome.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 9:54 AM
“Speak in a language the liberals can understand”
I dont see how that is possible without a lobotomy, for my vocabulary is greater than knowing 20 out of around 40 available cliches and slogans.
VinceP1974 on January 31, 2007 at 9:54 AM
So the answer, after millions of years and millions of species, and thousands of scientist analyizing data, is NO (even though you said yes, you later changed it to debatable). But there is a few debatable, but not confirmed examples. Looks like the evidence is not in, evolution is just a theory, and not a very well supported one at that. Maybe in the next decade or so the scientists will come up with something more.
Thanks for the answer.
right2bright on January 31, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Because we chose Reagan over Goldwater.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Esthier,
That is not the whole story. Guest speakers were supportive of ID and ID was being presented as a forms of science. If the philosophy class wished to discuss the creation story, fine, but not ID as science. Form the article:
An initial course description sent to parents in December said it would examine “evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin’s philosophy is not rock solid.”
This is not philosophy.
And again, trying to introduce a religious based claim into a science class. ID and CS are not science and do not stand up to any form of traditional scientific scrutiny.
These stickers were a misrepresentation of what evolution is and displayed the ID/CS/creation POV of what they thing evolution is. I see not problem with these stickers if every bible in the same area has this warning placed on it.
This is not a fine, but an agreement to pay legal fees. You claimed that a school was fined for mentioning ID.
And again, this is more than just a mention. This speaks to the heart of the issue. ID and CS are not on par with evolution, are not based upon scientific research or pursuits and is not science since both ultimately break down to “God did it”.
ID and CS can be taught in the proper frame of reference or the proper class but not as an equally to any form of scientific investigation, pursuit or discipline.
Gene Splicer on January 31, 2007 at 10:08 AM
So evolution has moved from being a theory to a fact now? When did that happen?
Bibles are not given to students in classes. If they were, I would support you there.
You asked about a case where ID was mentioned. This was one. All they did was mention ID.
And no one was saying that ID and evolution are equal. If they had been equal, then ID would actually have been taught in school instead of only being mentioned (which again, it never actually was mentioned). Evolution on the other hand, was taught in school. I think it’s very clear that ID was not considered equal to evolution.
You’ve never taken a phillosophy class that considered the science of the phillosophies being discussed?
I’ve heard teachers explain how Plato’s thoughts on being and solid objects could have a basis in science. Some physicist actually argue that a chair is only solid because you believe it is solid. That matter in this earth can actually react to us, to our belief.
I guess I missed a chance at a million dollars when my teacher tried to hypothetically discuss science.
Keep reading…
It wasn’t just something the two of them worked out together. They were ordered to pay these fees by a judge, and the plaintiffs picked a number that was more than their out of pocket fees.
This wasn’t a case settled out of court. And this wasn’t just a case of paying lawyer’s fees as the first sentence of the article implies.
Maybe “fine” was the right word, but this wasn’t a case of paying lawyer fees either.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Maybe I should be more clear. There are other species of feathered dinosaurs. Don’t get hung up on words like “missing links,” that’s an old cliche from early in the 20th century. When people use it they are talking about a specific time when a specific species break apart and create two new species, like when man and chimps speciated. They are not necessary to recognizing the validity of the general pattern of evolution theory, which is what i’m trying to get across.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 10:24 AM
I’m a day late and a dollar short getting in on this thread so I’ll spare you my opinion.
But after reading RightWinged’s rants, I couldn’t help but thinking that if he was explaining his views on evolution to us in person it would look a lot like this.
JaHerer22 on January 31, 2007 at 10:28 AM
469.
Hugestest. Thread. Evar.
spmat on January 31, 2007 at 10:31 AM
JaHerer22,
And I wasted my time discussing it with that guy. From now on, if I sense someone patronizing me, conversation’s over.
bert169 on January 31, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Thanks. Good to meet you too, thedecider, and yes I have. Sorry if I were too quick to fire there.
Misha I on January 31, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Catholic grade school, Catholic high school, Catholic college. Still in the fold–not sure if that’s because of or in spite of my Catholic school overload!!
honora on January 31, 2007 at 11:12 AM
It’s not about the viewers, it’s about the victims. I think all pornography should be illegal.
From my perspective this is no different that saying thats child molesters have a right to choose to molest children as long as the children are okay with it.
Pornography viewers are like sexual predators, and the actors and models are the victims of said predation.
Lawrence on January 31, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Esthier,
As it has been stated here, evolution is considered as fact by many scientists or at least as close os any theory can approach fact. And as I mentioned earlier, I think you are confusing the generic term of theory with how science views and operates under the term.
No, but you are proposing to comment on a well supported theory form the POV of a faith-based pseudoscience. That is what is wrong and not rationally allowable.
The devil is in the details. You claimed that a school was fined for simply mentioning ID. This is not the case. They tried to lower evolution, or raise ID depending on your POV, to an equal level. ID and CS are not science.
Again, the stickers are clearly from the ID/CS theistic POV using the abused claim of “only a theory”.
Again, this is not philosophy. The guest speakers were supportive of ID and CS as a form of science, not a philosophy, equal to that of evolution. In such a context, this does not belong in a philosophy class.
A legal fine is the wrong term. Perhaps “monetary judgment” is more appropriate? Recouping of legal fees is normally a separate issues from fines.
Bert169,
I think the idea of transitional form is a bit of a red hearing considering that all forms are technically transitional forms. This would include our current form. The idea of missing links is an outdated notion to some extent.
You are correct in your point that many who seem to be denouncing evolution here do not appear to understand the theory to begin with.
Gene Splicer on January 31, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Everyone needs to understand that Biblical Creation is defined as a Miracle, not an act of normal scientificly explainable cause.
There is no point for Christians to try and defend Miraculous creation in human scientific terms, yet for some reason we try.
Likewise, there is no point for human science to try and disprove and/or mock Christian beliefs. Human science can’t disprove miracles, yet for some reason we try.
If a miralce happens, and you choose not to believe it was a miracle, that is your business.
If a scientific theory is posited, and I challenges that theory with facts, then that is my business. But we shouldn’t mock each other’s efforts to try and view science from a different perspectives. Because that’s what science is all about.
Lawrence on January 31, 2007 at 11:21 AM
that is what honora is saying, then I agree.
However, while we do have such a responsiblity, we can not do so without Grace and we can’t even have Faith without Grace.
Grace comes first because that is what Christ gives, because of Grace we can have True Faith, and because of True Faith we can act on our responsibily to avoid sin.
The question of course then, how does one arrive at a state of grace…..there’s the rub. Many thanks to slublog and DrM2B for re-stating my argument much more eloquently than I could do!!
honora on January 31, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Excellent quetion, honora.
I’m not up to speed on what the current Roman Catholic church teaches, but the early catholic church fathers taught that Christ just gives Grace to us. One of those Miraculous things that God just does.
It’s not a Gift we choose to accept, but it is a gift we can choose to reject. If we reject the Gift of Grace then we’re on our own without Christ and can never reach a state of Grace on our own merit.
If one rejects Grace at some point in their life, the gift doesn’t actually go away. Anyone can choose to stop rejecting this Gift at any time and Christ reenters our lives, it is Christ that then miraculously returns us to a state of Grace.
The responsiblity for achieving Grace is Christ’s, not ours. The only responsiblity we have is to not reject Christ as the very Messiah whom He claims to be.
Lawrence on January 31, 2007 at 11:40 AM
You Catholic school girls are nothing but trouble.
Rick on January 31, 2007 at 11:44 AM
I guess we need to understand what you mean by transitional forms.
Within the field of Biology, it is common knowledge that transition such as micro-evolution in context of adaptation is a fact. However, macro-evolution is still theoretical and unproven.
Take fruit fly studies. Regarding micro-evolution, it is well documented that we can manipulate a population of flies in such a way that they adapt and change (or transition) in any number of ways. However, regarding macro-evolution, the new flies continue to be flies. They do not (at this point can not) evolve into a new species of insect.
The thing is, the transitions observed are in regards to DNA codes that already exist in the parent DNA. We can not naturally add the new DNA codes necessary to make one species into another and creatures to not mystically or accidentally acquire new codes in their DNA.
We are trying to force this to occur in unnatural ways, but are as yet unsuccessful in creating any new chimeras or creatures that could become viable species. Nature seems to have a way of not letting this unnatural activity be successful.
Lawrence on January 31, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Evolution is almost the same as adaptation. The horses in my example adapted or evolved to become faster. Because these faster horses were superior to the slower fingered horses they survived to continue breeding, while the others eventually died off over the course of millions of years.
Actually, there is. About a year ago a big deal was made about a fossil of a fish that was found to have feet. The date of the fossil also coincides with the date scientists believe amphibians first appeared on Earth.
But the theory of evolution isn’t cut and dry. It started with scientists seeing that the earth was over 4 billion years old, and that human beings couldn’t have lived on a primitive earth, so human life must have come from somewhere. From there they fill in the blanks, and there are still a lot of blanks left, but some answers are out there.
Why not? Because it isn’t convenient to argue it? Is it also not worth arguing whether or not the earth is thousands of years old vs. billions of years old?
To say nothing of the Church. Who as we all know don’t deal with scandals and are always correct in their world view.
There is a lot of proof out there in the form of fossils. Hardly are we going to discover a species in the midst of evolving, because if the new species survives it will look like a different species (Brachiosaurus and Brontosaurus). There are fossils of fingered horses, I don’t know what other evidence you want.
And a final note on the fact vs. theory argument. Many things in science are theories, but they are taught as fact because they are probably correct. Universal gravitation is taught in every single physics class I’ve been in. Plate tectonics has been taught in every single geology class I’ve been in. These are examples of theories, just like evolution. But the evidence of observation has shown in all three instances that they are most likely true; so we teach them.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 11:59 AM
They didn’t just “mention ID”. They required teachers to read a dishonest statement about evolution and ID. A statement that didn’t make ID seem equal to evolution, it made it seem better. They were also required to offer an intelligent design textbook. This same textbook was a piece of evidence in the Dover trial:
They weren’t being unfair to ID. ID is simply a dishonest attempt to get creationism into schools.
dorkafork on January 31, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Many things in science are theories, but they are taught as fact because they are probably correct.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 11:59 AM
So your opinion that your theories are correct, abscent of fact, prove… what? As you say, this proves nothing.
Yes we know there where fingered horses. But there is absolutely no proof that they where ancestors to hooved horses. This is absolute speculation on your part. It is more likely that fingered horses simply became exctinct because hooved horsed could escape predators faster.
Lawrence on January 31, 2007 at 12:10 PM
You know it darlin’!!! (Who do you think that Billy Joel song was written for???)
honora on January 31, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Only the good die young.
Ian on January 31, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Re: Long thread
Any time you mention the G-word on this site, the thread achieves over 100 comments.
Ian on January 31, 2007 at 12:17 PM
I am speaking of the transitional form(s) on a macroscopic level. Specifically the idea of the missing link. The argument for a separate and distinguishable species is based upon finding something in-between such species. Individuals do not evolve in that respect. Populations or entire species do and do so subtly. How many minor changed need to occur before a new species is created?
You are correct that we see variations within species and this includes mankind and have yet to see the emergence of a new species.
Gene Splicer on January 31, 2007 at 12:18 PM
I don’t know how conservatives got mixed up with creationists.
How does believing in the base values of freedom, democracy, capitalism, etc – put me in with people who ignore scientific fact and think evolution is a bunch of BS?
triple on January 31, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Have you ever studied the Bible? The Bible puts forth the very principles you have listed. Democracy as we know it came forth out of many years of class oriented societies in large part. The haves and the have nots. The belief in the principles of the Bible was used by our founding fathers. One evolutionist theory is that we as humans are still evolving. You only need to look at the kooks in San Fran to see how far people can go with the Christian element missing from the equation. Christians beleive we as humans are created in the image of God Almighty. We are a finished product.
sonnyspats1 on January 31, 2007 at 12:52 PM
It’s called the THEORY of Evolution by scientist. When they change it to the FACT of evolution, you might have a point here.
No, but you are proposing to comment on a well supported theory form the POV of a faith-based pseudoscience. That is what is wrong and not rationally allowable.
No, again, SCIENTISTS are calling it a THEORY, not a FACT. Christians have nothing to do with that part.
That certainly is your opinion, but by your statement, ANY mention of ID would do just what you said.
And again, it’s the SCIENTISTS who have labeled it a theory.
Which is exactly what is often done in philosophy.
Again, it was much more than legal fees. But sure, next time I’ll be more verbose.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Are you trying to help me prove my point, or not?
You’re comparing scientists who study the theory of evolution to leaders of a religious organization.
Even I wasn’t trying to go that far with it.
I agree that scandals in the Church should cause skepticism. I also believe scandals outside the church should cause skepticism.
I’m no apologist for religion. In fact, the God I worship hated religious scholars more than anyone else.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Actually, no. When something is a fact, like The LAW of Gravity, it is taught as fact.
When something is a theory, it is taught as a theory, well, most things.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 1:50 PM
That must mean you went to school after 1960, because in the first half of the century, we had a different theory.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Basically it’s just a guess based on how something “looks like” something else. That’s evolution.
They teach how the skeleton of a bat and the skeleton of a whale look similar. So see? There’s the connection…
Evolution takes millions of years. It’s not some feathered dino turning into a bird. It’s pond scum with a leg that breeds another scum with a leg. Then years and years later, it’s pond scum with a leg and a film that can perceive light. Then years and years later, it’s pond scum with a couple bones, the beginning of a backbone.
Those fossils would do something to turn a skeptic.
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Times up!
spacemonkey on January 31, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Dishonest?
This is all true. It’s the Theory of Evolution, and there are gaps in it. And no, there are no explainations for them.
Such as a mysterious fossil record that makes it seem as though a large amount of species just came into existence out of nowhere. That’s the fossil record.
Evolution also has a hard time explaining how something so complex, filled with many, many parts, as the eye came to be. And it doesn’t really try. According to evolution, each part of the eye is to evolve separately and they’re each to have a function seperately.
And as for offering a book that may be connected to Creationism… libraries also have copies of the Bible available, which arguably is a little more connected to Creationism.
And again, where does it make ID seem better? Because they’d have to read it on their own free time? Are you so out of touch with teenagers that you actually believe they’d be more interested in reading a book that was required or at all helpful in school even if that book is not intended to be treated as a work of fiction?
Esthier on January 31, 2007 at 2:11 PM
They do not have any fossils showing the fingered horse evolving into a hoofed one. They found the fossil of a small horse like creature with toes and assumed it was an early horse. There are no fossils of the in between stages. The chart that they show is pure speculation.
Rose on January 31, 2007 at 2:13 PM
It also seems to be agreed that dinosaurs became extinct because of a meteor. But it also is agreed that birds and reptiles evolved from the dinosaurs. There seems to be a disconnect there.
Rose on January 31, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 Next »