deleted

I thought I was clear in saying that his was a SECULAR view. I quoted his book for THAT PURPOSE. To hear from an unbeliever about the Ape to man fraud. I never said he was a creationist and implied that he was NOT a Christian.

You started out by saying that you agreed with me that evolution was a fairy tale and unscientific. Then you got off on this bashing of the Bible and your white agenda. At first I appreciated the help exposing evolution but I'm not at all interested in hearing manufactured leaps about the bible not being God's word. I do pray that you realize the gamble you are taking that has eternal consequences.

Chief,

I think I have about exhausted the time I can spend on this topic, but I will definitely PM you my address. I am always looking for interesting things to read/watch. I am going to respond this time (and maybe more, but less immediately in the future) to a few of the comments from above.



I would say that it is a personal choice to see evidence of design in nature- certainly not wrong but not a necessary conclusion. That is the beauty of science, it explains only how things happen in nature, and leaves the observer the freedom to attach whatever meaning they want to it. Strictly speaking, if we were looking for design, there are numerous examples that would not seem to be logical design solutions, but work for the individual organisms. To me Evolution explains those without questioning why a “designer” would have done it this way or that. Again, if you feel that a designer is necessary, evolution does not preclude you from including that in your personal belief system, but evolution does not require the action of a supernatural being either.

The murder scene scenario above is definitely an oversimplification of what we observe in nature, and the questions science tries to tackle.



No disagreement here, science changes so rapidly in some areas that text books are outdated as soon as they are printed. One problem with using the Bible as a reference for science is that it has not changed in 1000’s of years (assuming there were no changes in the oral history of the bible before transferred into the written word, no copying mistakes, or no translational errors throughout its history).




No harm in stating your beliefs, however that is what they are- YOUR beliefs. I don’t think your intent was to equate me and my belief system to demons so I won’t take offense at that . I don’t want to deviate this conversation away from the initial topic so I won’t delve into the Bible and it’s various interpretations (both literal and metaphorical). Truth be told, I am sure I am not as well versed in that aspect as you are.

To summarize- (and I think we may just need to agree to disagree) my views are as follows:

Science is (or should strive to be as much as possible given the fact that PEOPLE conduct science with their own personal baggage):

* A secular pursuit. An attempt to espouse one religion’s world view over another greatly reduces the scope of those who can participate in the discussion.
* A naturalistic view- meaning it should strive to describe ONLY what can be observed, tested, and explained using natural laws and leave the supernatural to it’s rightful place- religion.
* A continual quest not for “answers”, but for greater knowledge of our natural world.
* Objective- scientists should not start out with the end in mind. When someone does that, all too often the data is interpreted to find the answer that was being sought, instead of allowing the data to lead us to the answer- whatever that is.

Any application beyond that is a personal choice, but we should not try to impose our personal belief system on the science as a whole as no matter what view that is we will needlessly alienate a large portion of people on earth.

I personally am glad that science and religion occupy different (but for me complimentary) parts of my belief system. Again, that is my personal belief system and will not accommodate everyone. One of my main problems is that people on both sides of this argument misapply science to try to force people to adopt their belief system or be “WRONG”. I can not believe there is one solution that should fit everybody and bristle at any ideology that indicates so. The other main problem I have is the misinformation and down right ignorance regarding this topic among our populace. I think if there were a more calm, frank, and honest discussion on both sides, the turmoil this topic raises would be greatly reduced and we could all go about our daily lives a lot less concerned about this.

Thanks for the intellectual exercise!

im not posting on this forum anymore, but before i leave though id might aswell ask you, Kale Mann can you actually provide some evidence for macroevolution?

im a science student in uni, and from all the evidence i have studied, it points to microevolution only, which is just the variation within a species due to change in genetic information with already exists. Macroevolution has never been observed, genetic information can not just magically appear. Macroevolution is a scientific impossibility.

But . . . with God, all things are possible!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Ha.

Macroevolution is a scientific impossibility.

Don't know. . . . don't care.

God made me and to him I return. Viewing one strand of DNA it all its magnificent complexity and beauty is enough to convince me of intelligent design. I'm a big picture kind of guy. I hate details. But that is just me. I hope we can accept each other, even if we have wildly different beliefs.

To state the obvious - this is just my opinion. What others believe is of no concern to me. He will save whomsoever He wants to save. One plants, another waters BUT only GOD can make things grow. So thinks me!

I can accept tat others have what i think are crazy beliefs. Beliefs such as: "BANG! We just appeared!" or "Billions and Billions and Billions of years ago we slowly emerged from the slimy pond and over time turned into the complex beings that we are today." Wow . . . Really?! Where did the slimy pond come from in the first place? Oh well. . . Who cares?!

Believe what you want to believe. Lets just be fiends and sing the Barney song together and maybe even go drink a beer or two together! ;-)

Telling the truth in science is important to some.

OK. . .

"You will know the TRUTH, and the truth will set you FREE!"

But . . . whose version of the truth? To the victor, goes the truths! Caesar is a god! No, I don't believe that. Just throwing out another big concept to ponder.

Philosophy is fun. As long as you don't take it too seriously. I mean you don't want to be like Descartes. Sit in an oven all day and ponder, ponder and ponder . . . to come out with . . . cogito ergo sum (English: "I think, therefore I am"). Not bad for a day's work if one is a philosopher! ;-)

Your chosen path of apathy is a comfortable one, but avoiding critical thinking has led to the mushy middle.

I said I wouldn't respond, but I'm bored so here goes.



IF you are actually a science student, can I provide evidence that you have not already been exposed to- I certainly hope not or you are receiving a very poor education. Also, my guess is that any evidence that I supply you will have some "alternative" explanation, but remember- any explanation that invokes a supernatural process is a LESS scientific explanation.
So . . . what about Fossil Evidence, Genetic Similarities, Similarities in Organic molecules (such as hemoglobin), Vestigial Structures, Symbiotic Relationships (mutualistic and parasitic), etc, etc, etc.

In addition Evolution does not distinguish between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" that is a false barrier put up by those that would work to undermine and discredit the theory of evolution. Change is change and change is evolution. No one can dispute that change has not occurred. We don't use the same antibiotics or pesticides we used 50 years ago, why- because natural selection has led to a change in the affected organisms. This is called evolution. Is it speciation? No- but evolution says given enough time, selective pressure, and reproductive isolation the change can lead to new species. Has this been directly observed- not that I am aware of but that does not mean it does not happen. It only means the time scale it takes are too long for us to observe. If witnesses are required for belief (or in science’s case understanding) than how can anyone have belief in anything that occurred prior to their own life? Do we discredit everything in a history class because we ourselves have not seen it? I can’t prove the US Revolution happened because I did not witness it nor can I talk to anyone who did, but I see the evidence for it around me today. It seems that sometimes those who so fervently demand PROOF for one explanation- accept another blindly with no such criteria. Again, it is their right to do so, but should they also be so vocally critical of an alternative explanation?

I assume if you are a college student you are in your late teens or early 20's. Can you notice a difference in your appearance on a daily basis? What about hourly, or each secord? Probably not, but there are differences- they are just too subtle to notice. But if you looked at yourself only once a decade in the mirror- you would notice large differences, because it takes extended time for the little daily changes to register. Multiply that by a million or so and that is the time frame we would need to be able to observe in order to see speciation occur- or what you refer to as macroevolution.

As far as your claim:


Scientifically speaking you are correct- MAGIC can play no role in a scientific explanation as that would be invoking a supernatural explanation. However there are things called mutations, which can cause change in the DNA several ways such as: deletions of DNA, substitutions of base pairs of DNA, or insertions of DNA multiple times which adds DNA to an organism. In addition during the process of Meiosis (which is how sexual reproductive cells are made such as pollen, sperm, egg, etc.) a process called crossing over occurs. This is when 2 homologous chromosomes (they are the pairs of chromosomes you get from your parents- 1 from each)literally cross over eachother and exchange DNA. It has been documented that occasionally they do not cross over at the same place which leads to one chromosome having less DNA than it initially did and one chromosome having more DNA than it initially did. Another possible source of DNA addition is from viral activity. Many viruses have what is called a lysogenic (or dormant) protion of the life cycle. This is when the virus injects it's DNA into your cell, and the DNA becomes integrated into your DNA. Each time the cell divides, it unknowingly copies the viral DNA and passes it on to the new cell too. The virus lays dormant until something happens and it becomes active again. This is why a cold sore seems to pop up occasionally (us wrestlers should know that a cold sore and the herpes infections seen on many wrestlers foreheads are essentially the same virus, and that is why we can get outbreaks). Another example of this occuring is chickenpox and shingles. If the virus never becomes active again, the DNA can stay in the cell indefinitely. If this occurs in bacterial cells (yes bacteria get viruses too) that DNA is passed on to each new bacterial cell produced. If the viral DNA is inserted into a more complex organism's sexual reproductive cells than that DNA can get passed on to offspring.

There are several explanations that have been both documented and do not invoke "magic" for the addition of DNA into the genome of an organism.

AGREED!



AGREED, but maybe more important in science is the PURSUIT of the truth, as scientifically speaking we will never have all the answers.

**Excellent point. At one time SCIENCE told us that the TRUTH was that the world was flat and many such other crazy things. "The PURSUIT of truth." I like that. Very well said. Thank you.

**Anyone who thinks he knows it all is not wise and this is according to the Book that many of them 'worship'. Note: That does not mean that I don't like the Bible. I like parts of it. I LOVE parts of it. But the kill, kill, kill stuff is hard for me to swallow. The eat your children parts of it, are hard for me to swallow. But . . . not to someone who is a black and white fundamentalist. But that's OK. I can still accept them. You don't have to be my twin to be my brother. Wither it is a brother in 'Adam' or a brother in 'Christ'.

"This is the chief aim of an unbeliever's assaults: to get rid of Christ, to get rid of the Atonement, to get rid of His suffering in the place of men! They say they can embrace the rest of the Gospel, but what 'rest' is there? What is there left? A bloodless, Christless Gospel is neither fit for the land nor the dunghill; it neither honors God nor converts the souls of men." - Charles Spurgeon 1894.

That sermon just came to mind Dean. I do appreciate you "brother" and your enthusiasm for wrestling. I mean no disrespect just as you mean no disrespect with your literalist comments. In my opinion, if we wind up picking parts of the Bible that we "like" and other parts we take out of context and claim we don't "like" it, we are then guilty of fashioning a god in our own image. He becomes the grandpa upstairs that is all accepting. That is a tragic minimizing of the God that we all will stand before in judgement, just one hearbeat away. Take all of scripture as authority and truth or call it a paperweight.

**Understood. That is one way of looking at it. But then one has to go into the whole drama of the Canon. What makes the canon so special? So holy?

**I still love God and Jesus. I just don't get wrap around the axle about the details anymore. I try to be 'good' not to get to heaven but because I know the Gospel and believe strongly in the truths (as I see them!) of Romans 4:5, Romans 8, Eph (the whole letter!!!), I Cor 13 (AWESOME CHAPTER), and all the Gospels. Applying and trying to understand just that 1/30th of the Bible is enough to keep me pondering and joyful and busy for the rest of my life. Trying to understand every single sentence is impossible and dilutes the 'stuff' that is really good. Yeah, I know Eric. It is ALL GOD INSPIRED! ;-)

**I get the big picture. That is enough for me. I don't need to see and know every single tree in the forest up close and personal to see/appreciate ALL of the forest.

Chow bro,

Dean

George Carlin has it right!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o&feature=player_embedded

Andy,

It's always a good discussion and I appreciate your input. What drives my faith is the person and work of Jesus Christ. My belief is that the bible is the only objective truth known to mankind. It is without error. I came to the point in my life where I quit trusting in myself and the ideas that I had of how God should be and I trusted solely in Christ for my salvation. I certainly never want to come across more righteous than anyone but with humility, knowing that I'm a sinner saved by the grace of God. When a Christian has that faith that the bible is the word of God and that Christ is the cornerstone, it is many times perceived as unbending and not open-minded. In my mind, open-minded means undecided. I have decided to follow Jesus. Along with that decision, I am compelled to tell others about Him and His exclusivity. As my verse Acts 4:12 says, "There is no salvation in any other", there is an urgency that I have to share. I have to overcome being embarrassed or avoiding conflict and in love, share the truth about how you get to heaven. We are all one hearbeat away and we can't get this wrong. As to your point about the golden rule, most religions think that the golden rule merits you eternal life. According to the bible, those good works are a result of a regenerate heart. As a believer, you can't help but do good works. All credit goes to God, zero to us. Having said that, I have to tell my kids the truth. That truth would exclude other paths. One way is right and the others are wrong. It is truly exclusive and offensive but He is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. Matt. 7:14