Creationism and Science

[BLADEMDA]

---

Members don't see this ad.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/arj/v3/enigmatic-Neanderthals.pdf

There are many "scientific" Creationists. Evolution as taught by Atheists may indeed be factually incorrect. This subject is much more complex than most people understand.

Click on the link to see how some Scientific Creationists explain our ancestors.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Virginia Commonwealth University Life Sciences Survey. May 12-18, 2010. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.7.​

.​

"Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin of biological life? Biological life developed over time from simple substances, but God guided this process. Biological life developed over time from simple substances, but God did not guide this process. God directly created biological life in its present form at one point in time." Options rotated​

.​

God guided God did
not guide God directly
created None of
these (vol.) Unsure/
Refused % % % % %

5/12-18/10​

24 18 43 2 14

.​

"How much have you heard or read about the theory of evolution: a lot, some, not too much, or nothing at all?"​

.​

A lot Some Not too much Nothing at all Unsure/
Refused % % % % %

5/12-18/10​

44 32 13 10 2

.​

"In general, would you say the theory of evolution conflicts with your own religious beliefs, or is mostly compatible with your own religious beliefs?" Options rotated​

.​

Conflicts Mostly
compatible Unsure/
Refused % % %

5/12-18/10​

42 43 16

.​

"From what you've heard or read, do you think the evidence on evolution is widely accepted within the scientific community, or do many scientists have serious doubts about it?"​

.​

Widely
accepted Many have
serious doubts Unsure/
Refused % % %

5/12-18/10​

53 31 16

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

The idea surrounding ancient aliens is a basic one. It states that the human population was influenced by a group of extraterrestrials that visited Earth in the past. The aliens were directly involved in the evolution of primates, including humans. It has been suggested that this was accomplished by way of genetic engineering, cross-breeding, or a combination of both, ultimately helping in the development of human cultures, technologies and religion. The idea first gained widespread exposure with the 1968 publication of Chariots of the Gods by Erich von Däniken, but the concept has been around since the middle of the 19th century. A common variant of the idea includes proposals that deities from most, if not all, religions, including angels and demons, are actually extraterrestrials whose advanced technologies were taken by people as evidence of a divine status.
This concept is related to the religious practice of a cargo cult, which can be seen in modern day pre-industrial tribal societies. Especially during World War II, when indigenous people were contacted by soldiers with advanced equipment, such as guns and tanks. The cults subsequently attempted to obtain wealth through magic and religious rituals and practices. The ancient alien theory states that extraterrestrials purposely tricked the human population into believing they were Gods, creating religion to help people evolve more efficiently. The Fermi paradox is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.
It has been proposed that, with the current age of the universe and its vast number of stars, if the Earth was typical, extraterrestrial life should be common. In response to this paradox, the zoo hypothesis has been suggested. It states that aliens generally avoid making their presence known to humanity, or avoid exerting an influence on development, somewhat akin to zookeepers observing animals in a zoo, or experimental scientists observing a study of life. Adherents of the hypothesis feel that the Earth and humans are being secretly surveyed using equipment located on Earth, or elsewhere in the Solar System. Charles Fort’s unpublished 1915 manuscript, novel X, describes how Martian beings or Martian events control life on Earth. Fort ultimately burnt the manuscript, but one surviving quote from it is “The Earth is a farm. We are someone else’s property.”

 

[BLADEMDA]

The only thing that creationists agree on is that they don't like evolution. Even Genesis gives two contradictory accounts of creation
If someone tells you that creationism provides a better explanation for life on Earth than the theory of evolution, ask them which version of creationism.
Among creationists, there is an extraordinary range of beliefs about how life came to be. A few creationists accept that evolution produced the great diversity of life on Earth - apart from humans. Others think all life evolved but that the process was guided by a supernatural being.
Other creationists accept that evolution can lead to minor changes (microevolution) but deny that lots of little changes can result in new species or even new groups of organisms (macroevolution). Some think a deity created the very first life but then left it to evolve by itself.
Then there's the vexed issue of timing. "Young Earth Creationists" regard the Genesis account as "inerrant" despite its contradictions (see Evolution is wrong because the Bible is inerrant), and claim the planet was created about 6000 years ago. "Old Earth Creationists" meanwhile accept the hundreds of lines of evidence suggesting otherwise.
God, amok

This schism is just the beginning. Some don't dispute the earth's apparent age but believe it is an illusion (the omphalos hypothesis, which some summarise as "God faked it"). Yet others claim that the planet itself is billions of years old but that life on it was created only recently.
Creationists do at least all believe in a creator. But who is it: God, Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, Zeus, Olorun, aliens or a giant hermaphrodite?
Those who have studied our planet and the life on it, however, have come to very clear conclusions: the Earth is around 4 billion years old and all the life on it gradually evolved from much simpler forms. There is no evidence of any kind of outside intervention, and no need to invoke it to explain what is known. Yes, there are many debates among biologists, geologists and cosmologists over the finer details, but these will be resolved sooner or later by new discoveries or experiments. Reality is the ultimate arbiter.
By contrast, there is no way to resolve the often vast differences between the numerous forms of creationism. Anyone can come up with their own version of creationism (and many do). How do you convince the followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for instance, that his noodle is not the real creator?
Read all the myths in our Evolution Special

 

[BLADEMDA]

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did. If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The same is true for the famous horse series. Looks great, doesn't it? But each of the supposed ancestors is a complete animal. They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction. There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes. Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random trial-and-error if evolution was true, but no transitional forms have been found. The fossils have not caught any changes in the midst of being created, even though they should have occurred over long periods of time. In the late 1800's, evolutionists simply placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series. However, evolutionists no longer believe there was the direct ancestry (orthogenesis) shown in this chart...

 

[BLADEMDA]

Mutation-natural selection could no more build the vast, intricate networks in living creatures than a beaver could build the Hoover dam.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Many scientists are with us
The only tactic left to evolutionists is to ridicule their critics as simpletons who don't understand how their pet theory really works. Here is a link to a roster of hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they thoroughly understand evolution theory. They also have the courage to defy the high priests of academia by voluntarily adding their names to a skeptics list against Darwinism.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Evolutionists assume evolution is true, then write endlessly about when and where it happened, rates and lineages, etc. But if macroevolution is physically impossible in the real world, and it is, then all the rest is fantasy. There are only two possibilities. Either every part of every living thing arose by random chance, or an intelligence designed them. It is now clear that the theory of evolution's only mechanism for building new parts and creatures, mutation-natural selection, is totally, utterly, pathetically inadequate. In spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel. They desperately hope that some natural process will be found that causes things to fall together into organized complexity. These are people of great faith. And they are so afraid of connecting God with science that, like the Japanese Army of World War II, they would rather die than surrender. Unfortunately, the staunchest defenders sit in places of esteem and authority as professors, scientists, and editors, and have the full faith of the news media. The public is naturally in awe of their prestige. But once the facts are understood it becomes obvious that the theory of evolution is long overdue for the trash can, and to perpetuate it is fraud. Perhaps it made sense for what was known when On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, but not today.

 

[BLADEMDA]

BOTTOM LINE:

I believe we live in a world Designed by God.

Others believe we live in a world of random chance with no God.

I can't prove my theory any more than they can prove theirs.


http://www.newgeology.us/Debunking Evolution.pdf

 

[btbam]

🙄

 

[countingdays]

Your 'arguments' are basically just a list of logical fallacies.

The argument from ignorance is the central fallacy of all creationist thought.

 

[Birdstrike]

.

 

[Bertelman]

There is a tremendous amount we don't know about how this Universe was created.

There is tremendous amount we don't know about how life formed, developed, and changed.

Anyone that claims to be certain about either, ignores how much there is that we don't know.

The discussion is all fine and good, but what's wrong with just saying, "I don't know"?

I'll say it: I don't know.

I'll go one better- I think I might have an idea, but I don't care what anyone else thinks, just don't tell me what to believe, and don't teach my kids pseudoscience in the classroom. Teach them science, and leave the religion up to me.

 

[pgg]

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

Got ANYTHING besides opinion, we are all entitled to them but this constant statement of opinion as fact really does not cut it as informed thoughtful discussion

If only you were as rigorously logical on this topic as you are when arguing circles around hapless militant CRNA trolls.



If you choose to believe in a supernatural origin or spark, you won't find much objection from most atheists - as long as you shape your creation beliefs around the facts and evidence. You may not simply ignore the broad, deep, and rich evidence for macroevolution from the fossil record and biological sciences and expect to be taken seriously.

Read this
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/19...4_1_evolution-pope-pius-xii-science-and-faith

Evolution is only threatening to religious faith if you're a rigid literalist. There's no reason for belief in a creator to be incompatible with science. It's a totally unnecessary belief, and in less charitable moments rude atheists might even deride such a belief as childish, but it's not demonstrably false the way young-earth creationism is.

You simply have to modify and shape your religious beliefs around the observed world. There's plenty of historical precedent for this, see for example the Catholic Church and Galileo. And, per the news article linked above, that same Catholic Church saw the writing on the wall about evolution many years ago. Why haven't you?

Of course you can believe in any god you like - but you're not entitled to your own facts.

 

[deleted9493]

G.K. Chesterton was a contemporary of Darwin's and spoke well (and humorously, as he often did) against the implications of Darwin's theory. No doubt that evolution is a theory but it can be little more than that since our 'descent' was prehistoric. Science is necessarily observable, placing prehistoric matters squarely out of its realm, into the realm of speculation. Speculation should be left to philosophers, theologians, and cosmologists. Biologists are very bad at it.

Chesterton says it best in The Everlasting Man:

"But this little incident has always lingered in my mind as a sort of parable. Most modern histories of mankind begin with the word evolution, and with a rather wordy exposition of evolution, for much the same reason that operated in this case. There is something slow and soothing and gradual about the word and even about the idea. As a matter of fact it is not, touching these primary things, a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' even if you only mean 'In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.' For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he could create one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species.

But this notion of something smooth and slow like the ascent of a slope, is a great part of the illusion. It is an illogicality as well as an illusion; for slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one. The Greek witch may have turned sailors to swine with a stroke of the wand. But to see a naval gentleman of our acquaintance looking a little more like a pig every day, till he ended with four trotters and a curly tail would not be any more soothing. It might be rather more creepy and uncanny. The medieval wizard may have flown through the air from the top of a tower; but to see an old gentleman walking through the air in a leisurely and lounging manner, would still seem to call for some explanation. Yet there runs through all the rationalistic treatment of history this curious and confused idea that difficulty is avoided or even mystery eliminated, by dwelling on mere delay or on something dilatory in the processes of things. There will be something to be said upon particular examples elsewhere; the question here is the false atmosphere of facility and ease given by the mere suggestion of going slow; the sort of comfort that might be given to a nervous old woman traveling for the first time in a motor-car."

 

[Arch Guillotti]

Whatever your belief, cutting and pasting loads of stuff from other websites really is sort of a drag.

 

[sevoflurane]

There is a tremendous amount we don't know about how this Universe was created.

There is tremendous amount we don't know about how life formed, developed, and changed.

Anyone that claims to be certain about either, ignores how much there is that we don't know.

The discussion is all fine and good, but what's wrong with just saying, "I don't know"?

I'll say it: I don't know.

Nice! I like this. I also don't think anybody truly knows anything with 100% certainty... on either side. Never been big on blind faith just like I'm not big on cults... but I also think there is more to this universe than the little layer our little humanoid minds have peeled back... and that's just a feeling based on "0" facts. I sometimes get that feeling at 10,000+ ft when I take a moment to take it all in and think about how amazing this special planet truly is... Not another one like it in our solar system and immediate gazillion light year vicinity. We are certainly exceptionally special to be able to be here and be part of it.

That feeling might be simple euphoria and brain chemistry stuff, but I'm not convinced it is entirely that sometimes. 😳 I guess it's natural to try to find a purpose in everything we do. So yeah... I don't know.

And to lighten things up a little:

I do prefer eggs benedict in the morning.... 🙂

 

[BLADEMDA]

Whatever your belief, cutting and pasting loads of stuff from other websites really is sort of a drag.

I'm just trying to lay out my argument. Both sides make valid points. I'm not a rigid "ideologue" on the subject. Rather, I found the study of "how we got here" fascinating as do many others.

I am amazed at just how many "holes" the theory of evolution has in in it; yet, the media and others portray those who believe in God as the source of life and/or the absolute creator as idiots without any basis.

PGG, I have looked at this subject with an open mind. Can you say the same?
Perhaps, you are blinded by the truth which leads you to a path that contains God? Or, you won't see that "microevolution" over millons of years just doesn't cut the mustard.

Anyway, I've got no issues with anyone disagreeing with me on this. None. Rather, I simply would like to point out that evolution as we now know it is far from scientific certainty and those who believe in evolution without God are in the minority in this country.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Adam and Eve by Titian (Wikimedia Commons image)

(CNSNews.com) - When the Founding Fathers declared America’s independence from Great Britain, they founded the United States with a declaration that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.
Two hundred and thirty-five years later, according to a new Gallup poll, the vast majority of Americans continue to believe in God. But self-identified liberals, Democrats, Independents, people with post-graduate educations, and Easterners are less likely to say they believe in God than conservatives, Republicans, people without post-graduate educations and Americans from the South, West and Midwest.
Young adults between the ages of 18-29 are also less likely to say they believe in God than Americans over 30.
Gallup surveyed 1,018 American adults from May 5-8. It asked 530 of these Americans “Do you believe in God?” and 488 of them “Do you believe in God or a universal spirit?”
Ninety-two percent of the first group said they believed in God, and 91 percent of the second group said they believed in God or a universal spirit.
Seven percent of the first group said they did not believe in God and 8 percent of the second group said they did not believe in God or a universal spirit.
In both groups, only 1 percent said they had no opinion on the matter.
When the combined results for both questions were broken down demographically certain patterns emerged.
98 percent of self-identified conservatives and 91 percent of moderates said they believed in God, but only 85 percent of liberals.
98 percent of self-identified Republicans said they believed in God, but only 90 percent of Democrats and 89 percent of Independents.
96 percent of Southerners, 92 percent of Westerners, and 91 percent of Midwesterners said they believed in God, but only 86 percent of Easterners.
94 percent of college graduates said they believed in God, but only 87 percent of those with a post-graduate education.
94 percent of Americans between 30 and 49 years of age, 50 and 64 years of age, and 65 and older said they believed in God, but only 84 percent of those between 18 and 29 said they did.
Belief in God in the United States was almost universal until at least the late 1960s. According to historical Gallup polling numbers, 98 percent of Americans said they believe in God in surveys conducted in 1953, 1954, 1965 and 1967.
In 1967, only 1 percent of Americans said they did not believe in God.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Atheist alert. New statistics from the Public Religion Research Institute show that over 70 percent of Republicans and over 50 percent of Democrats want a president who has "very strong religious beliefs." While a large majority of the electorate fully embraces the importance of the commander-in-chief's faith, atheists groups continue to denigrate politicians - along with all religious people - who believe in God.
Atheists see the majority of the American people as "less educated but more abundant indoctrinated masses," who are led by "superfundies [fundamentalists]." According to the group American Atheists, "superfundies" are people like, "Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, [and] George Bush."


Atheists are free to believe or disbelieve as they please, and no one is filing lawsuits to take away their constitutional rights. It is people like the members of the ACLJ and those of us whose families fled persecution who are fighting back to defend the heritage of our nation from atheist attacks.
These angry atheists are losing in court because their interpretation of the Constitution is flawed, little more than an exercise in "mental gymnastics" attempting to make a "fantasy" godless America into a reality.
The American people are a people faith and, from politically liberal to conservative, they desire leaders with "very strong religious beliefs."
How can atheists "hold these illogical and irrational beliefs" about religious people when the vast majority of Americans consider them unfit to lead the country?

 

[cincincyreds]

Watching the history channel, it seems ancient aliens had a lot to do with our evolution. Why are we even discussing creationism on this forum? It is just another way to shove religion down my throat.

 

[vector2]

Blade's posting is like a logical fallacy tornado of argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad ignorantiam, and argumentum ad nauseam all rolled into one. What's even sadder is that it makes newbies like me slightly more hesitant to take his experience/advice/pubmed spam re: anesthesia at face value when his ability to assess degrees of evidence seems so flawed.

 

[pgg]

Watching the history channel, it seems ancient aliens had a lot to do with our evolution. Why are we even discussing creationism on this forum?

Same reason we discuss snowboarding, firearms, and whiskey.

If we could find a way to combine all three of those, that would be an epic thread.

It is just another way to shove religion down my throat.

Halp! I'm being oppressed! 😉

 

[pgg]

PGG, I have looked at this subject with an open mind. Can you say the same?

I have and do.

I view modern evolutionary theory with exactly the same degree of skepticism as I do the atomic theory of matter. That there are details to fill in and things we don't yet understand does not allow us to discount the rest of the evidence.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Blade's posting is like a logical fallacy tornado of argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad ignorantiam, and argumentum ad nauseam all rolled into one. What's even sadder is that it makes newbies like me slightly more hesitant to take his experience/advice/pubmed spam re: anesthesia at face value when his ability to assess degrees of evidence seems so flawed.

Back at you.😉

 

[Trisomy13]

And in one rapid succession of posts, I lost all respect for Blade's sense of logic and reasoning!

But our differences are what makes us fun, so more power to you my god-fearing friend.

 

[Trisomy13]

Adam and Eve by Titian (Wikimedia Commons image)

Beavis and Butthead by Judge (Wikimedia Commons image)



Both great stories, if you ask me.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Allegory is a demonstrative form of representation explaining meaning other than the words that are spoken. Allegory communicates its message by means of symbolic figures, actions or symbolic representation. Allegory is generally treated as a figure of rhetoric, but an allegory does not have to be expressed in language: briefly, an allegory is a device used to present an idea, principle or meaning, which can be presented in literary form, such as a poem or novel, or in visual form, such as in painting or drawing.
As a literary device, an allegory in its most general sense is an extended metaphor. As an artistic device, an allegory is a visual symbolic representation. An example of a simple visual allegory is the image of the grim reaper. Viewers understand that the image of the grim reaper is a symbolic representation of death.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Only 30% of Republicans believe in "evolution;" 68% do not.

61% of independents believe in "evolution;" 37% do not.

57% of Democrats believe in "evolution;" 40% do not.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I don't let my Faith "cloud" my perspective in making clinical decisions. I use best practice evidence to guide my decision making process.

However, just as I have met many excellent Muslim and Hindu physicians I know many excellent Christian ones as well. All of us manage to get along quite well and rarely does "faith" interfere with medical decisions; but, it does happen from time to time (e.g., Jehovah's Witness).

 

[BLADEMDA]

The next big question of Faith is "Do you believe in a Heaven and a Hell?" You know my answer.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[countingdays]

85% of those who don't believe in evolution would fail a basic quiz on evolution and would also fail a quiz on the religion they think they believe in.

 

[Trisomy13]

I prefer this one!

And don't let my teasing lead you to believe I doubt your clinical practice, or that your religious beliefs affect your decision making. I am just on the flip side of your argument, and I have found my life to be less stressful if I just agree to disagree. "Some of my best friends are religious!" 😉

 

[BLADEMDA]

God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years: Creationism



Man has developed over millions of years, but God guided this process: Theistic Evolution



Man has developed over millions of years, but God had no part in this process: Naturalistic Evolution

 

[BLADEMDA]

85% of those who don't believe in evolution would fail a basic quiz on evolution and would also fail a quiz on the religion they think they believe in.

http://www.gotoquiz.com/the_evolution_quiz

 

[BLADEMDA]

This quiz is much harder:

http://www.gotoquiz.com/creation_vs_evolution

 

[BLADEMDA]

In a section titled "Evidence for Evolution," materials submitted by Apex Learning make long-debunked popular arguments for evolution from vestigial organs. The materials claim that the coccyx, appendix, tonsils, and many other functional organs are "vestigial" but fails to mention that these organs have important functions (e.g. appendix, coccyx, tonsils, etc.) or are not evolutionary holdovers (e.g. male nipples). The diagram below shows these claims:

 

[BLADEMDA]

Have some extra time? Take this short Quiz on your own Belief system:

http://www.gotoquiz.com/what_are_your_beliefs_on_creation

 

[Valadi]

Atheist alert. New statistics from the Public Religion Research Institute show that over 70 percent of Republicans and over 50 percent of Democrats want a president who has "very strong religious beliefs." While a large majority of the electorate fully embraces the importance of the commander-in-chief's faith, atheists groups continue to denigrate politicians - along with all religious people - who believe in God.
Atheists see the majority of the American people as "less educated but more abundant indoctrinated masses," who are led by "superfundies [fundamentalists]." According to the group American Atheists, "superfundies" are people like, "Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, [and] George Bush."


Atheists are free to believe or disbelieve as they please, and no one is filing lawsuits to take away their constitutional rights. It is people like the members of the ACLJ and those of us whose families fled persecution who are fighting back to defend the heritage of our nation from atheist attacks.
These angry atheists are losing in court because their interpretation of the Constitution is flawed, little more than an exercise in "mental gymnastics" attempting to make a "fantasy" godless America into a reality.
The American people are a people faith and, from politically liberal to conservative, they desire leaders with "very strong religious beliefs."
How can atheists "hold these illogical and irrational beliefs" about religious people when the vast majority of Americans consider them unfit to lead the country?

With greatest respect and without trying to begin a flame war, for a religious man, I find your opinions devoid of empathy and understanding for a significant percentage of the US and world population.

To begin with, our founding fathers, though including religious reference into their language, were distinctly secular and believed that a government should operate as such. The atheist argument is not that a leader need not have faith, but that his religious convictions should not influence his policy. Our founders understood the implications such influence could have on the rights of any of a nation's people and for that reason included in our Constitution that Church and State should be decidedly separate. Whether or not a politician is of an atheist or religious belief is irrelevant to the question of government when the purpose of government is to protect man's unalienable rights -- regardless of belief, politic, or status.

As there are radical Christians, Muslims, and other religious sects, there are also radical Atheists. Barring the opinions of these radicals, which I believe are divisive and incompatible with a free and just society, I do not think that the majority of atheists would seek to eradicate one's ability to practice their religion -- so long as they are not imposing their beliefs on other. To that end, I do not think that anyone of faith need "defend the heritage of our nation from atheist attacks." As stated, the attacks are affirmatively against the role religion has in our government, and that such influence should be removed lest it infringe on the liberties of those groups who do not participate, or cannot afford to participate, in federal special interest groups.

Where you are trying to go with your recitation of statistics about religious belief and party status, I am not sure.

You are free to believe as you wish, and if it helps you in your life I think that is wonderful. However, I am deeply offended when you insinuate that our political leaders need share in certain religious convictions, or that such convictions should bear any relevance whatsoever on their ability to judiciously protect the rights of all this country's citizens.

 

[BLADEMDA]

With greatest respect and without trying to begin a flame war, for a religious man, I find your opinions devoid of empathy and understanding for a significant percentage of the US and world population.

To begin with, our founding fathers, though including religious reference into their language, were distinctly secular and believed that a government should operate as such. The atheist argument is not that a leader need not have faith, but that his religious convictions should not influence his policy. Our founders understood the implications such influence could have on the rights of any of a nation's people and for that reason included in our Constitution that Church and State should be decidedly separate. Whether or not a politician is of an atheist or religious belief is irrelevant to the question of government when the purpose of government is to protect man's unalienable rights -- regardless of belief, politic, or status.

As there are radical Christians, Muslims, and other religious sects, there are also radical Atheists. Barring the opinions of these radicals, which I believe are divisive and incompatible with a free and just society, I do not think that the majority of atheists would seek to eradicate one's ability to practice their religion -- so long as they are not imposing their beliefs on other. To that end, I do not think that anyone of faith need "defend the heritage of our nation from atheist attacks." As stated, the attacks are affirmatively against the role religion has in our government, and that such influence should be removed lest it infringe on the liberties of those groups who do not participate, or cannot afford to participate, in federal special interest groups.

Where you are trying to go with your recitation of statistics about religious belief and party status, I am not sure.

You are free to believe as you wish, and if it helps you in your life I think that is wonderful. However, I am deeply offended when you insinuate that our political leaders need share in certain religious convictions, or that such convictions should bear any relevance whatsoever on their ability to judiciously protect the rights of all this country's citizens.

I'm not insinuating anything; Joe Q. Public likes voting for a person with religious moral values. Being "religious" is simply good politics in the USA.

My personal views of our politicians are most seek political office for personal gain or power. Very few actually have the public's good as their primary concern.

This can be proven by politicians' desires to get re-elected no matter the cost to society or our future. When was the last time any politician really put "country first" over personal goals, political party or financial gain?

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[Valadi]

I'm not insinuating anything; Joe Q. Public likes voting for a person with religious moral values. Being "religious" is simply good politics in the USA.

My personal views of our politicians are most seek political office for personal gain or power. Very few actually have the public's good as their primary concern.

This can be proven by politicians' desires to get re-elected no matter the cost to society or our future. When was the last time any politician really put "country first" over personal goals, political party or financial gain?

I can't think of a way that can be proven, since 'personal goals' are distinctly subjective... Moreover, what does that question have to do with the question as to their 'fitness' to lead the country in relation to their religious convictions or lack thereof? If anything it shows that religion is a means to manipulate masses and gain party favor, and in fact should be entirely eradicated as a factor in electoral decision making.

I have always had the most respect for a Creationist argument that simply states, "I believe because I have faith." How does your rapid succession of poor online quizzes with gross misspellings and news articles help raise awareness about your faith? Further, why is a growing percentage of atheists in the US cause for concern?

The fact of the matter is that by definition faith cannot be proven. Evolutionists do not propose to have all the answers right now, but they are working to elucidate the means by which we exist, and evolution is currently the most plausible theory. To argue that any chance for us to exist without the intervention of a Creator simply because a single theory has flaws does not mean that the only alternative is a metaphysical one.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I find discussion interesting and entertaining. I enjoyed the online quizzes and looked up a few of the questions.

This thread is simply an invitation to discuss one's belief or explore why you believe what you do.

Perhaps, one or two individuals will re-examine the hard facts behind the theory of evolution and explore other possibilities.

 

[mersault]

BOTTOM LINE:

I believe we live in a world Designed by God.

Others believe we live in a world of random chance with no God.

I can't prove my theory any more than they can prove theirs.


http://www.newgeology.us/Debunking Evolution.pdf

Atheists have absolutely NOTHING to PROVE. Atheism by definition is a LACK of belief. It's like saying I have to prove to you that I don't believe in fairies or demons, whereas the person who claims to believe in such nonsense is the one making a statement and stating a belief, and therefore, has to "prove" it.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Atheists have absolutely NOTHING to PROVE. Atheism by definition is a LACK of belief. It's like saying I have to prove to you that I don't believe in fairies or demons, whereas the person who claims to believe in such nonsense is the one making a statement and stating a belief, and therefore, has to "prove" it.

Sorry, this thread is about Evolution, Creationism and Theism as "theories" for man's origin. So, Evolution does need to be proven if it is to be accepted as fact.

 

[vector2]

Stop being a posterchild for the people who think physicians have a really poor grasp of basic scientific principles. Scientific theories can't be definitively "proven" by their very nature.

What is a theory?
Evolution is a fact and a theory

 

[BLADEMDA]

There are many PhDs out there who would disagree with the notion that Evolution is FACT. Only microevolution has been proven as fact. Macroevolution remais a theory.