I was referring to the creationist link provided by RightWinged.

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.

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?

Hearing creationists’ talk about “evidence” and “proof” makes me giggle.

Nonfactor on February 4, 2007 at 3:19 PM

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.

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.

Resolute on February 1, 2007 at 7:41 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.

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.

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.

Archaeopteryx was the first known bird, and though he does not look like birds of today his existence pre-dates dinosaurs.

Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 3:08 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.”

Esthier on February 1, 2007 at 8:44 AM

All anyone is saying is that it has flaws and shouldn’t be accepted as hard scientific fact

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.

it takes a supreme being out of the equation.

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.

Are you serious? You think it’s because we debate that we lose?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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)

If evolution explains lifes creation then why did evolution start and then stop?

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.

Nonfactor on January 31, 2007

Dude. Listen to yourself. Now evolution only takes place on a microscopic level? What caused the Cambrian explosion?

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.

Did you read where I said how the situation is outlandish?

Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 9:22 PM

Yes. That’s not the point. Nevermind.

Hal has an interesting post on the state of modern Christianity.American Christianity is sick, and it’s something we’ve done to ourselves. We’re losing a lot of credibility in the larger culture, but it’s our own fault that it’s slipping away…….

I’ve had a busy day, just skimming the thread when I saw this:

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

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.

RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 9:04 PM

Did you read where I said how the situation is outlandish?

No scientist has ever been able to create life from scratch and with all our worldly knowledge of life workings.

Guardian on January 31, 2007 at 3:38 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.’

If evolution explains lifes creation then why did evolution start and then stop?

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.

Guys, all I know is I’m going to evolve wings because that would be very advantagous for me.

RightWinged on January 31, 2007 at 3:54 PM

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.

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.

Evolution is almost the same as adaptation.
Nonfactor on January 31, 2007 at 11:59 AM

You may want to do a little more research on that. That was the problem Darwin ran into, confusing adaptation with evolution.

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

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.

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?

Lawrence on January 31, 2007 at 11:40 AM

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.