Good news: More Americans believe in the devil than in evolution
posted at 2:00 pm on December 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Via the new Harris Poll, a long-distance dedication to my pal CJ, the creationist-slayer. Key data points are in yellow. I’m not sure how to explain Catholics’ greater credulity on matters as diverse as evolution, ghosts, and UFOs, but your theories are welcome. As for the top line, we already have theistic atheists. Why shouldn’t we have atheistic theists, too?
One other intriguing data point at the link: More Americans believe the Old Testament is the word of God (55 percent) than the New Testament (54 percent). Presumably the former attracted Jewish votes that the latter didn’t, but that margin should have been more than offset by a subset of Christians — like, say, George Bush — who don’t regard the OT as literally true but surely take the gospels at face value. Here’s David Brody of CBN picking up on that on CNN yesterday. Exit quotation: “Well, hello! It’s the Holy Bible!”
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 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 16 Next »
It has been between two opposite sexes. Maybe a handful, if one did extensive research, in the history of mankind would marriage be between a man and a man. Can you think (since you are student of this) where it was marriage for a man and a man?
right2bright on December 13, 2008 at 12:31 AM
MadisonConservative on December 13, 2008 at 12:18 AM
You became irritated with aengus when questioned. Why? Why can’t aengus ask you for a deeper explanation of your beliefs? You put them out very regularly.
And why do you want to be happy all the time? Why do you want God to cater to your happiness continually?
Skidd on December 13, 2008 at 12:32 AM
I was referring to their history of polygamy which still exists today.
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 12:33 AM
Just to expand, often is was a man and many women…that was because men fought the wars, and you needed men, children to do combat. Civilizations could not afford to waste a valuable “asset” like a woman capable of giving birth, if there were a shortage of men. And of course men were the hunters and laborers, so the risk of death much greater.
right2bright on December 13, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Sure, since 2000 when the Netherlands made it legal. Spain, Canada, South Africa have followed, as did Massachusetts and Connecticut and until recently California.
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 12:35 AM
So what does that mean exactly? Because it’s recent it’s not right?
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 12:37 AM
I know the Mormon doctrine quite well, they do not practice, nor have they for decades polygamy (disavowed in 1890). You are severely misinformed.
I can see why you have some of your views, they are based on fiction.
right2bright on December 13, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Yes.
I’m sure you would consider the Holy Synods inspired by the Holy Spirit. The first one was in the book of Acts.
In the same way that the Holy Scripture were preserved by the Holy Spirit….the Holy Spirit preserved the Holy Tradition in the Orthodox Church.
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 12:38 AM
So then you agree there is no such thing as traditional marriage? and that the definition has evolved?
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Don’t be coy, you know what I meant…the fact that you can’t answer honestly, shows you have a weak argument.
right2bright on December 13, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Read your own comment again. You argued that we always redefined marriage throughout history. I was noting that nowhere in history has marriage included homosexual marriage.
terryannonline on December 13, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Because he questioned why I come into these discussions, and I’ve been at odds with him before over my views, and therefore assume he’s taking an adversarial stance.
MadisonConservative on December 13, 2008 at 12:41 AM
So Warren Jeffs has only existed in my head? Surely there are rogue Mormons, just as there are rogue homosexuals in San Francisco who engage in public sex at gay street fairs. Should marriage be taken away from all mormons or gays based on those extreme cases?
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 12:41 AM
I’ve questioned law many times, so I’m not sure where you’re coming up with your cute little hyperbole about “ostensible belief in the rule of law”. Please feel free to quote where I’ve stated law is infallible, or that it always pursues justice.
MadisonConservative on December 13, 2008 at 12:42 AM
except in the 21st century?
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Sure, it has adapted along the same lines, opposite sexes is enjoined in some formal agreement.
Many things adapt, dogs have puppies, they don’t have cats.
Marriage has been between a male and a female…
So at least we agree historically that marriage has always been between opposite sexes. But sometimes they were chattel, sometimes a contract, sometimes a union, but always between male and female.
A standard, if you wanted to keep your species alive.
right2bright on December 13, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Please, humor me. What did you mean?
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Again that’s why I wrote, “Gay marriage is very recent thing.”
terryannonline on December 13, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Well there’s plenty of heterosexuals to go around now, so we can continue to evolve that definition to include loving homosexual couples.
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Why not call it gaylage, or civil union, why are you so adamant about taking the word marriage, which in the English language as always implied a male and female.
Since a gay marriage is a different structure, and a different purpose, why not have a different name? Doesn’t that make sense?
Why would 5%, and actually in marriage about 3% max be so adamant about changing the defining nature of a word?
right2bright on December 13, 2008 at 12:47 AM
And again because it’s recent it shouldn’t be legal here and now?
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 12:47 AM
The Book of Acts- I am down with!!! Bravo Genesis 1:1-Revelation 22:21.
Otherwise, (Reference) Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Fundamental Fred on December 13, 2008 at 12:47 AM
MadisonConservative on December 13, 2008 at 12:41 AM
I haven’t been on this commment section for a looong time and forgot rivalries form. If that is this case, pardon me.
Skidd on December 13, 2008 at 12:49 AM
No that is not what you get when you can’t have a “normal” relationship.
Maybe you seem to be forgetting that Jesus Christ was a monastic?
How about St. John the Bible, St. Paul and numerous other saints and prophets….all were monks.
It was infiltration of thre RC church pure and simple.
Besides there priesthood even in the roman rite is not even considered valid because of their intent.
You’re right the older tradition that the Orthodox Church still uses, is for the priests to be married, but celibacy does not cause pedophila or homosexuality.
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Point of order: Calling the theory of evolution a joke is not the same as calling science a joke.
tom on December 12, 2008 at 6:09 PM
…any pidgeon breeder can confirm to you that evolution is a fact. Anyone who’s ever worked livestock of almost any kind can stand behind him and “me, too”…evolution is a fact…adaptation is a fact…demonstrable and quietly true….
…the problem results when:
A) you insist that a cat evolved from a fish, and
B) you use this assertion to invalidate all other faith.
…
Puritan1648 on December 12, 2008 at 6:44 PM
You say that evolution is a fact, and I say it is not. And yet, you do speak the truth. What you claim as a fact is called adaptation. Some call it micro-evolution. It is demonstrable and scientifically verified.
But when you refer to the theory of evolution, most people will understand that to include macro-evolution, that everything evolved from simpler organisms, which evolved from single-celled organisms. This is definitely not demonstrable and never scientifically proven. Evolution on such a scale has never been observed, and current thinking holds that it requires huge periods of time to occur, making it impossible to observe scientifically. (Though there are the “Hopeful Monster” types of theories.)
Now, my opinion is that adaptation is called “micro-evolution” specifically to claim that it is the exact same process that accumulates into what people traditionally knew as evolution: the process of every species evolving from simpler organisms. This leads to the commonly made claim that evolution has been proven, when it’s only proven to the scale of adaptation or so-called “micro-evolution.” Claiming evolution is proven without clarifying that you refer only to adaptation or micro-evolution is fundamentally and intellectually dishonest.
Which, I take it, is why you distinguish between the evolution you say is proven, and the claim that a cat evolved from a fish.
tom on December 13, 2008 at 12:49 AM
No prob. I have my share of antagonists. ;)
MadisonConservative on December 13, 2008 at 12:49 AM
We’ve been over this, the structure is the same, it’s the organs that are different. And civil union rights are not recognized in all 50 states as marital rights are, and vary widely.
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Don’t name a government that just changed their laws, give me a historical society that had homosexual marriage as part of their history. I don’t consider 10 years “history” when you mentioned 10,000 years.
right2bright on December 13, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Yes.
I started, but did not finish, a book sometime back that considered the Book of Acts (combined with the Gospel of Luke) to be in some part or sense a legal brief in defense of Paul. Regardless, it is part of the Biblical Canon and is thereby “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2Timothy 3:16).
Fundamental Fred on December 13, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Then change the laws, your mistake is that you are taking something that is revered, honored, historical, and trying to co-opt it. Just forget the word marriage, and go for the word civil unions. And that is what states were created for, so they have different rights, the rights of the people should not be placed in the hands of Washington, that is why we are the United States, where states have the majority of the power.
You make a mistake by 5% of the people trying to force your change on to the other 95%.
right2bright on December 13, 2008 at 12:54 AM
Well I don’t consider 120 years “history” when we are talking about the past 10,000, so polygamy being outlawed is recent as well. There’s a re-definition of marriage for ya. And and it still exists in many societies, see the muslims. So who’s to say what the “traditional definition of marriage” really is? and again, just because gay marriage is recent, that’s what makes it wrong? how so?
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 1:02 AM
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 12:25 AM
In our particular system of jurisprudence, which has common law continuity since before the Magna Carta, it has meant a union between a man and woman as husband and wife.
Most cultures have had this rite, be it clan, tribe, or nation, since the dawn of time. In the most primitive of practices, marriage is a matter of survival. And, I believe, many of the primitive practices of survival eventually become “sacred” rites as a result of the practice resulting in survival…a blessing of the gods, if you will.
I think that a study of all ancient cultures will reveal that certain practices in their early cultural development eventually turned into “sacred rites”, which provided the progenitor to their civilization. Perhaps the planting of crops at the equinox was at first an idea that became successful, providing a practical solution to survival, and since survival was extremely difficult, it naturally becomes sacred, and a successful civilization flourishes etc.
Now, I’m using conjecture, not providing proof, I realize.
But, back to our culture.
If you must force the state to impose your will upon the people, please, at the very least, answer these questions:
1. What shall be the new definition of marriage? Currently, it is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.
2. Why define it in this way?
3. Under what legitimate authority should the definition be changed to this new definition?
Saltysam on December 13, 2008 at 1:03 AM
That might be more impressive if I hadn’t seen how flimsy some of the “evidence” is. Like the known-fraudulent ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny proofs in the science textbooks when I was a boy, even though it had been known to be fraudulent for 50 years before then. Or the laughable assertion that the existence of 3 extinct horse-like animals proved that the horse evolved from these animals.
Unfortunately, evolutionists tend to take any evidence that can fit the theory of evolution as proof of evolution.
tom on December 13, 2008 at 1:03 AM
Interesting how you develop these theories…first it was oppression by the faithful and when shown they were less oppressive then Sears, you moved to Krishnas in the airports, that have been banned for decades…then you say Mormons are polygamists, and when shown you were wrong you post this…never acknowledging how wrong you have been.
Jeffs was a rogue, and not a LDS, that is like saying McVeigh was a Republican.
Do you really want to get into the street fair in San Fran? Do you really want the links to show how common place it is? And where was the protest from the gay community? If you excuse the pun, most gays embrace it.
These are not, and you honestly know they are not, aberration of behavior, but the norm at these parades.
You are dishonest to suggest that Jeffs is equal to gay parades…you are desperate.
right2bright on December 13, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Does it not seem ironic that people who believe in Global Warming also tend to believe in Evolution… Shouldn’t they be comforted with the belief that they would evolve to handle a changing climate?
Fact is, humans have always demonstrated resiliency to variable climates. Just compare average temps in Alaska and Florida. Last I checked, people were alive and well in both of these states.
Fundamental Fred on December 13, 2008 at 1:09 AM
Once again, you are either being coy or dishonest…were any of these definitions involve man on man? No, all of them were male to female.
You have fully explained that the “re-definition” of marriage has always been one involving male and female.
I never said it was wrong, did I? No, please be accurate and honest.
I said don’t take the word marriage and re-define it as same sex…
right2bright on December 13, 2008 at 1:10 AM
I’m not the one pulling “facts” about public sex/parades out of my butt, that would be you. and where were the protests against Jeffs by the LDS? why did they remain silent? and no I don’t know that that is the norm at parades, how many gay parades have you been to? and again why would that be justification to deny them marriage rights?
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 1:12 AM
and I said don’t take the word marriage and re-define as between one man and one woman
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 1:13 AM
First, do you even understand the difference between organic and inorganic?
Second, the theory of evolution is not about creation; it is not focused on the question of “when life begun,” but rather “how life evolves.”
Why are creationists so challenged with basic reasoning?
haner on December 13, 2008 at 1:15 AM
Unless you count people who escalate such disagreements as this into petty name-calling.
tom on December 13, 2008 at 1:18 AM
George W. Bush is the best social President Ever. When it comes to Pro-life he is the best we have had and he also has been great when it comes to marriage and other Christian and Jewish issues. Yes I say Jewish b/c any real Christian loves the Jewish people as well.
lavell12 on December 13, 2008 at 1:18 AM
It is exactly about creation and is a secular rebuttal to the concept of Creation. Ever hear the phrase “Primordial Soup?”
Fundamental Fred on December 13, 2008 at 1:18 AM
1) the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife or a man and a man as husband and husband or a woman and a woman as wife and wife.
2) homosexual couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples
3) All 50 states.
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 1:19 AM
There is no RE-define about one man and one woman… That is how it has always been defined!!!!
Fundamental Fred on December 13, 2008 at 1:20 AM
Unfortunately for you, geneticists have mostly confirmed evolution. Fossils or not.
haner on December 13, 2008 at 1:21 AM
Always the butt jokes with you guys, just a fixation I guess.
The LDS were all over the paper denouncing him, and they had been denouncing him for many years.
I have been to the parade in San Fran, glad you weren’t there, it was disgusting. I have also spent time in an Aids hospital giving comfort to those dying, the ones who no else would see…I hope you will, if you haven’t taken the time to do that…funny how at those hospitals there were more “straights” helping, and more of those “oppressive” faithful there. We have held more dying homosexuals in our arms then you would ever imagine. Fortunately, they are not so many now with the new drugs.
Your anger is misplaced, it should be towards your leaders who “out” people that don’t agree with them, who harass people who don’t agree with them.
The one thing to learn, before I call it a night…we won’t be bullied into giving up our rights, we won’t be bullied to relinquish our heritage…my advice, is to create your own heritage, make it proud and be proud, don’t steal what isn’t yours…and don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
right2bright on December 13, 2008 at 1:23 AM
You’re an idiot.
nazo311 on December 13, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Except to polygamists until the 20th century and muslims in the middle east today, and…..
Noneya on December 13, 2008 at 1:25 AM
What is their proof?
Did they have preconceived notions before interpreting the data?
Did they consider that genetic mutations normally result in a defect in the progeny whereas evolution relies on the idea of genetic mutations leading to the development of a stronger more advanced progeny or species?
Fundamental Fred on December 13, 2008 at 1:26 AM
Neither did I, I thought we both agreed it was between (historically) male and female, sometimes male and several females, but never a male to male.
right2bright on December 13, 2008 at 1:26 AM
If you are honest you will agree, for the past 10,000 years marriage was between man and woman, not man and man and not woman and woman.
Agreed?
If not give me a historical example.
right2bright on December 13, 2008 at 1:28 AM
The Primordial Soup argument has little to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution. The origin of life is a separate scientific endeavor all in itself. Your argument is the equivalent of saying Quantum Mechanics has everything to do with binary numbers.
haner on December 13, 2008 at 1:28 AM
Their practices do not fit the definition of marriage either- they re-defined the institution as well. At least they did get the gender mix correct though.
Fundamental Fred on December 13, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Darwin hinged on the concept of a “common ancestor.” From whence did that common ancestor emerge?
Fundamental Fred on December 13, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Dude, You’re so full of it.
Genetic research and DNA research have been the worst things to happen to the fraudulent and false theory of evolution, in the past 50 years.
Any honest scientist will admit it.
They had no idea how complex these systems are…there is ZERO chance that it could have happened on accident.
Evolution is being exposed as the fraud that it is.
More and more people are catching on that it is a fraudulent and unscientific theory that is being forced on the public in a conspiritorial way.
It is being exposed as the NWO fraud that it is.
Let me guess…you also believe in global warming right?
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 1:39 AM
Each of the gospels covers a three and a half year period of time. Luke does it in 24 chapters, Matthew in 28, John in 22, and Mark in 16. Obviously, each is not going to cover events at the same level of detail.
The fact that Acts specifically gives the period of time between resurrection and ascension, and Mark doesn’t, does not suggest some contradiction between the two. The fact that Luke skips over the detail that Acts fills in especially proves nothing, since both were written by the same man, Luke. It only makes sense that the book he wrote that focuses on the churches after Jesus is gone would give more detail on the parting.
The fact is that the Bible skips over a lot of details we’re curious about. None of the 4 gospels gives even a hint of what Jesus looked like, or His childhood, or His birthday, etc.
tom on December 13, 2008 at 1:41 AM
Nicely stated Sir!
Fundamental Fred on December 13, 2008 at 1:41 AM
There’s a thing called statistics… Your “normally result” means nothing to me when we are talking about random mutations. The median household income in America is $50,000, but that doesn’t mean my household or your household makes that amount or even close to it. Now suppose the US government decides to send all households who make under $80,000 to the moon (or consider it an act of god/nature if you will). Would that wipe out everyone in the US just because the US median income is $50,000? No. Who is left in the US now? Households who make over $80,000. Is that not more advanced or better?
haner on December 13, 2008 at 1:43 AM
Apples to Apples Dude…
You refer to “random mutations” versus deliberate acts of deportation by an extraneous body.
Fundamental Fred on December 13, 2008 at 1:48 AM
It’s zero chance only if you round. The complexity argument is the most pathetic doctrine to come from Intelligent Design. Your argument basically comes down to this: If something looks really complex, then it obviously can’t be made randomly, so God must’ve designed it. Brilliant.
Notwithstanding the fact that some of the most complex looking patterns to be created by man can be derived from the simplest mathematical equations, complex and emergent systems can be increasingly modeled by computers using very simple rules.
haner on December 13, 2008 at 1:56 AM
It looks like you don’t have a basic understanding of economics either…..
How is anyone going to make money without the serfs?
We have to get you a better education.
You see…that’s what happens when the universities in this country teach a bunch of lies, false science and revisionist history.
It produces a bunch of brainwashed morons.
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 1:58 AM
Uh no, read my post again. The random mutations was analogous to the income distribution of households in America. The deportation by an extraneous body was analogous to the fucking plague or some really badass cougar.
haner on December 13, 2008 at 2:00 AM
Your whole argument basically comes down to: if I keep pushing that the age of the earth is OLDER and OLDER(even though that’s NOT the case), then my ridiculous claims will sound MORE and MORE believeable. Brilliant.
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 2:05 AM
1. That’s three definitions. Words have meanings to give them distinctions. You have just erased any distinctions between men and women. Illogical.
Husband: a married man that has a lawful wife living
Wife: a married woman that has a lawful husband living
You now want to redefine marriage, husband, wife, man and woman?
For what reason, (let’s keep it rational, please) did you discriminate against a. more than two? b. animals? c. plants?
2. Homosexuals do have the same “rights” as heterosexuals. Your endorsement of the homosexual lobby’s methods to impose their will upon heterosexuals by authoritarian rule of the courts cannot be seen as anything other than persecutional and oppressive.
3. The state derives its legitimate authority from the consent of the governed. Or do you see legitimacy in a different light?
Saltysam on December 13, 2008 at 2:05 AM
It looks like you don’t have a basic understanding of economics either…..
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 1:58 AM
I am an economist trained at the University of Chicago. And I suppose you are going to attack Milton Friedman economics too? Take a hike.
haner on December 13, 2008 at 2:06 AM
Flatly false. By AD 100, the churches of God had spread throughout the Roman Empire to Persia, Asia Minor, India, Spain, and Northern Africa, at the very least. Had all these churches no doctrines?
Your ignorance is leading you to make ludicrous statements.
By the time Peter wrote his epistles, he was already recommending the writings of Paul as “scriptures.” See 2 Peter 3:15-16 When Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke, he mentioned the fact that others had already “taken in hand” to write of these things.
As Paul said when speaking to King Agrippa, “this thing was not done in a corner.”
tom on December 13, 2008 at 2:12 AM
What kind of moron economist actually thinks that if we got rid of lower income earners and only kept people making $80k +..that the same high income people would actually be making any money?
Really.. who was your professor?
Bill Ayers?
I think you just proved my point about the universities in this country producing brainwashed morons.
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 2:16 AM
Your argument is with Einstein.
Saltysam on December 13, 2008 at 2:17 AM
The plague and the cougar are still extraneous. That is not the same as the propagation of a genetic mutation that would have to descend from generation to generation to generation to generation, etc before effecting a significant portion of any given species.
Fundamental Fred on December 13, 2008 at 2:20 AM
You generally seem pretty reasonable, but the above betrays a notion that God must do as you think He should, or He must not exist.
God is not bound to live up to your expectations. Just because God does not do as you say God must do if He exists, does not prove that God does not exist. It is perfectly explained by the fact that you don’t really understand God. Romans 9:0-24
tom on December 13, 2008 at 2:27 AM
Forget about evolution. What evidence confirms the biblical account of the origins of life? Also, how does a man live inside a whale without being suffocated and digested? This stuff obviously wasn’t meant to be taken literally. They’re parables, if you will.
RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 2:27 AM
Climate Change isn’t a religion. It’s an international scientific consensus.
DeathToMediaHacks on December 12, 2008 at 9:35 PM
You seem to show some understanding that science is a process, not a conclusion. But then you go calling climate change a “scientific consensus.”
Science is not determined by consensus. Science is determined by the scientific method. This is exactly why the government should have no say in the definition of science. It chills the scientific method when government pressure is exerted towards “consensus.”
Global warming violates the scientific method in a very big way by the simple fact that the earth has been cooling over the last 8 years, not getting warmer. Science that ignores observations is bad science, no matter how much “consensus” you build among some groups of scientists.
tom on December 13, 2008 at 2:34 AM
Answer me how a man can be resurrected from the dead after three days, and I can answer your question.
tom on December 13, 2008 at 2:36 AM
I would agree that they are both parables AND literal imo..
Just because you believe something is not possible does not mean that it could not be literal also.
What about the Resurrection of Christ?
That is miraculous and impossible in your view.
What that also a parable?
SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 2:36 AM
RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 2:27 AM
Nah. Let’s not forget about evolution.
How do prokaryote cells eventually turn into sexual procreative homosapiens capable writing a poems or sending a man to walk upon the moon.
Why can’t a penguin compose “Pathetique”?
Saltysam on December 13, 2008 at 2:36 AM
Very well put. I agree. Hope that doesn’t make you start questioning your statement now…
tom on December 13, 2008 at 2:38 AM
Answer my question first. I always get around to asking it, eventually, and I don’t think I’ve ever had an answer.
RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 2:42 AM
Answer my question first.
RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 2:42 AM
Hell if I know….
Your turn.
Saltysam on December 13, 2008 at 2:44 AM
If we’re looking for apologies now, you could set the mood by apologizing for your earlier offensive post about the priest and the altar boy.
I’m not Catholic, and I still found it quite offensive.
[Just doing my little bit for reconciliation]
tom on December 13, 2008 at 2:44 AM
Saltysam on December 13, 2008 at 2:44 AM
Heh. Not a very compelling reason.
Prokaryote cells are basically the chemical result of a molecule called DNA reacting with it’s environment. We’ve observed DNA replicate itself, which results in new organisms (i.e. offspring). We’ve also observed that during the replication process (which is completely circumscribed by physical laws of chemistry) errors sometimes happen, which can change the way DNA reacts chemically with its environment to produce a different organism. We call this evolution.
I’m not sure how sexes evolved, although I’m sure that there are theories. I won’t cheat and look it up on Wikipedia. I do know that the way sexual reproduction works is a natural process – a chemical reaction that brings together molecules of DNA to produce new offspring. We call this dating. It’s entirely plausible to me that this could have emerged naturally some time in the last 4 billion years (and God only knows how many generations).
That’s one of my biggest problems with creationism. Just how many miracles did God need to create life? According to evolution, just one. According to creationism, severally million, then an asteroid, then several million more.
RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 2:57 AM
RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 2:57 AM
Very compelling. That explains the poems, and the man on the moon, and the penguin that can’t emote through the composition of a masterpiece.
The whale’s digestion system is designed to digest microscopic plankton, not large mammals. It could very well be that a whale, while engulfing a mass of plankton wrapped its mouth (mouth?) around a man, and quite readily rejected it shortly after.
Maybe you have a problem with this creationist, you know, the great mind that discovered and explained classical physics with his invention, calculus:
Saltysam on December 13, 2008 at 3:04 AM
Saltysam on December 13, 2008 at 3:04 AM
That doesn’t dispute evolution, which wasn’t even offered for consideration in Newton’s time. It’s a very dishonest abuse of the greatest physicist (not biologist).
Why can’t a penguin write poetry? Probably because they have bird brains. Maybe you’re right, maybe its because humans have souls (is that what you mean to say?), but I can’t ignore the coincidence that we also have larger and more complex brains.
RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 3:11 AM
Also, I bet you everything I own that you can’t survive in a whale. At least take the somewhat less insane argument that it was a miracle. Too bad God doesn’t get around to doing that sort of thing anymore, we could use some right about now, it would make things a lot clearer for everybody.
RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 3:14 AM
Unfortunately for you, that’s not at all true. Unless you’re playing the old “micro-evolution is proven, so macro-evolution must be also proven” dodge, macro evolution has yet to be confirmed by scientific observation or experiment. Sure, you can find confirmation of adaptation or micro-evolution, but you can’t show that it resulted in macro-evolution.
Genetics is an interesting subject in this context, since it mirrors very ancient scriptures which repeated over and over that things reproduce, “after his kind.” See Genesis 1. That of course is exactly what genetics tells us. And it is exactly what evolution assures us NOT to be true. Genesis teaches that cattle produce cattle, sheep produce sheep, frogs produce frogs, etc. Evolution steps up and says, “But those frogs were originally produced by fish, and those cattle and sheep were originally produced by a common ancestor.”
Genetics, in short, has been a problem for evolution, which has to explain how reproducing “after his kind” somehow produced such a huge variety of animals from single-celled organisms.
Genetics also confirmed that every human alive on the planet can be traced back genetically to a single woman. The scientists who discovered this of course called her Eve. The mother of all living. Yes, even evolutionists accept this fact.
tom on December 13, 2008 at 3:25 AM
RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 3:14 AM
I don’t think you understand. Whales cannot digest animals, they would probably die if they got a large animal stuck in its digestive tract.
It is entirely plausible that a man would survive being engulfed into the mouth of a whale. I’m suggesting a man would not make it past the “throat” and would be soundly rejected. Much like eating an orange and spitting out a seed. (Please don’t try it to prove me wrong!)
And, where have I disputed evolution? I simply am asking questions like you are? I’m just naturally curious.
You don’t need to recite the rudiments of genetic selection. I understand the theories. I don’t reject them out of hand because there isn’t indisputable scientific proof that humans descended from a chemical anomaly that resulted in a single celled organism that procreates asexually, either.
Why take such a hostile tone toward a completely plausible theory on your rather fun question? My answer certainly reaches the standards by which you accept unproven theories. Hell, you said you don’t know how cells turned into sexual beings.
And stop with the dishonest abuse crap. Newton was a deeply religious man. So what? What makes you think he wouldn’t say the same thing today? Do you have some scientific way of divining that?
What about Einstien? Darwin could have been his great grandfather:
Saltysam on December 13, 2008 at 3:38 AM
Saltysam on December 13, 2008 at 3:38 AM
We’re both talking about Jonah, right? Didn’t he live there in there for like a month? If I misread you, that’s my bad. It’s late.
Do you have some way of knowing he would say the same thing? That’s what makes it dishonest. And it’s irrelevant, because Newton didn’t dispute evolution with his statement, only atheism. Same goes for Einstein. I can’t know for sure, but I think that Newton, given the modern study of fossils and genetics, would find evolution completely reasonable.
What is supposed to be mild teasing comes across on the internet as hostility. That’s a problem with my writing, don’t take it personally.
RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 3:52 AM
Saltysam on December 13, 2008 at 3:38 AM
After re-reading that Einstein quote, I don’t like my response. There are Christians who believe in evolution (just look at the poll), and there are Christians who study evolution who see themselves as doing exactly what Einstein wanted to do.
RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 3:59 AM
I have read several posts by you and I am seriously challenged to understand your position. You claim to believe in the scientific method, statistics, etc. Yet you take what is undeniably a very incomplete set of scientific data and extrapolate that to a premature conclusion.
If you really believe in the things that you claim then you would also be able to understand that the real scientific answer to evolution will not be evident for many thousands of years. Until we have enough time and data to eliminate random inconsistencies we just will not know.
Please face facts. Even if you are right you are jumping way ahead of yourself. The evidence will not exist to prove evolution for many dozens of generations in the future. That also assumes that we do not blow ourselves into oblivion or get hit by a massive meteor strike. If you are going to criticize the creationists for their faith, please do not create a new religion of your own in the process.
Hawthorne on December 13, 2008 at 4:12 AM
tom on December 13, 2008 at 2:12 AM
I would suggest a bit of research. First, there is only one Church. Second, these groups did have doctrines; the Nicene Council established doctrine.
q2600 on December 13, 2008 at 4:15 AM
Marriage has always been, in every society, the union of one male to one female. Polygamy and polyandry do not break this rule; they simply allow certain individuals to enter into multiple marriage arrangements.
q2600 on December 13, 2008 at 4:19 AM
He wasn’t disputing evolution, okay. But more than rejecting atheism, he was suggesting intelligent design, which to most Bible bashers, is creationism.
I was using his quote in the context of our conversation.
Two of the greatest scientific minds to ever walk the face of the earth believed that there was more to this universe than the physical nature of it. In fact, they believed, after all of their lofty scientific understandings of the universe, that God must exist.
That’s pretty heavy.
And today, we have a huge segment of the population that thinks they are secular, yet they haven’t the first clue about the rigors of scientific thought. Most don’t even have a basic grasp of high school physics and chemistry.
They believe what they want to believe, haven’t the open mind that is required for disciplined, rational discussion, and take great leaps of “faith” to hold onto their ideas of things like global warming and evolution. Many just believe that God is for dumb people, and this gives them the confidence and self-delusion that they are secular and scientific, when in fact, they simply rely on their faith.
Saltysam on December 13, 2008 at 4:27 AM
I can spit you out a bunch of scripture references to “the churches of God.” That’s where I got the phrase. If the phrase is good enough for the scriptures, it’s good enough for me.
As for whatever sense you mean that the Nicene Council established “doctrine,” I repeat, the churches established by the apostles had been in existence for a couple of hundred years — and quite widespread — before the Nicene Council was called. The Nicene Council did declare the canon, but they broke no new ground there. They simply affirmed what was already accepted.
theregoestheneighborhood on December 13, 2008 at 4:27 AM
Oh oh!
There goes the neighborhood! ;-)
Saltysam on December 13, 2008 at 4:40 AM
Israel exists, as God foretold by Ezekiel the prophet…and thats not clear enough?? for people like you, if someone came back from the dead it wouldn’t be enough.
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Yeesh…this post’s been up for 19 hours and not even 900 comments yet?
You’re slipping, Allah.
flipflop on December 13, 2008 at 8:58 AM
its simple, provine, mayr, Dawkins, etc are the spokespeople for evolution. they are its most prominent defenders. they define what it is, and is not, whether you like it or not.
obviously evolution is more than just a biological theory. it purports to explain all human behavior, pretty much its a theory of everything, a worldview. from it flow things like eugenics. and yes its a racist theory.
“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128
the implications of evolution are clear:
no God
no savior or even a need for one
no right
no wrong
right4life on December 13, 2008 at 9:00 AM
What kind of sandals Jesus wore or what color eyes he had are not critical, but the original post I was discussing referred to CSI-type evidence of Jesus’ actions after the resurrection.
Luke likely wasn’t an eye-witness to the events following the resurrection and most agree he was using Mark as a source. The period of 40 days isn’t referred to in Mark and detectives trying to reconcile the different accounts would have a difficult time assembling corroborating accounts on the time and location of the Ascension–perhaps if they had the Q document it would help.
dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 9:49 AM
One may be a Christian or an Evolutionist, not both.
I agree with Allahpundit that this is good news, for it is: God created the devil just as he created the world, though the devil was a great and glorious angel before his fall. It was arrogance that felled him. Evolutionists would do good to learn the same lesson.
Aronne on December 13, 2008 at 9:51 AM
There are many who are practicing Christians and who also study and accept Darwin’s two theories.
dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 16 Next »