Do you believe in evolution through natural selection?

[redsquareblack]

---

Members do not see this ad.

The Bible was not written by Constantine.

For all intents and purposes, it is, considering Constantine was responsible for the Bible in its current form.

 

[thedoctor8706]

you didn't get the recap yet i'm assuming, but the dolphins were KILLING the saints in the first half, then the floodgates just broke loose.

oh wow, they really lost their chance! that would've been a huge upset! this ending could be interesting... regardless, i think the saints are on their way to super bowl XLIV

 

[oaklandguy]

The Roman historian Titus Flavius Josephus mentioned Jesus specifically in his history called The Antiquities of the Jews.

And Oaklandguy, Constantine was not the first pope. Peter the Apostle was.

It is not recorded anywhere that Peter was. The first recorded Pope was Constantine. There is no Biblical verse claiming that Peter was the first Pope. There also are no Biblical verses claiming that Mary died a virgin, in fact, before Jesus is crucified he begs Peter (your first Pope) to take care of his brothers and his mother. And Paul in Galatians says James is Jesus' brother.

Edit: I brought up the brother thing because it is a common misconception.

 

[angst019]

and those morals contradict darwinism: survival of the fittest, according to which, those human morals are stifling evolutionary progress.

Evolution, the fact that describes the origins of species, is over here.

Human morality, the behaviors that describe the way humans ought to live in order to achieve a comfortable society, are over there.

They are not exclusive. The fact that the universe does not care about whether you live or die has no bearing on the fact that you care whether you live or die.

Furthermore, nothing about Darwinism suggests that it must continue, only that it will given the facts of life. Even if humans have succeeded in 'stifling evolutionary progress' through our use of morality (we haven't: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution.html), that is not an argument against the fact that we have evolved in the past. Proving that an automobile is currently stopped does not prove that it has always been immobile.

Lastly, morality makes evolutionary sense. Behaviors that say "do that which is good to your other humans" would thrive in a society where other humans are almost always relatives, as in pre-historic ones. That behavior persists today regardless of whether or not it actually works, just like your hand exists today regardless of the fact that we use it for what it was originally selected to do (aid in swinging from branch to branch in early primates.) Yes, genetics do have bearing on behavior, and even if they didn't you would still have to take into account the 'meme,' the proposed unit of cultural evolution.

 

[redsquareblack]

It is not recorded anywhere that Peter was. The first recorded Pope was Constantine. There is no Biblical verse claiming that Peter was the first Pope. There also are no Biblical verses claiming that Mary died a virgin, in fact, before Jesus is crucified he begs Peter (your first Pope) to take care of his brothers and his mother. And Paul in Galatians says James is Jesus' brother.

Edit: I brought up the brother thing because it is a common misconception.

As the first Bishop of Rome, Peter was also the first Pope. Just sayin'.

 

[oaklandguy]

Why does "science" say Hezekiah's tunnel couldn't exist? It's just a tunnel that moved water downhill..

And as for the axes and wheels found at the bottom of the red sea... You should've mentioned Ron Wyatt's other discoveries which include:

Noah's ark, the Biblical Ark of the Covenant, the actual location of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Tower of Babel, the actual site of Mt. Sinai, the real site of the crucifixion of Jeebus, and the original stones of the Ten Commandments.

I think you'd be on much more solid ground if you mentioned these more meaningful discoveries. Besides, one isn't too hard-pressed to think of other reasons why wheels and bones might be at the bottom of a sea by EGYPT.

It takes faith to believe in the Bible. Those findings are cool, but the only one I've seen in person is Hezekiah's tunnel. I mentioned the wheels at the bottom of the Sea of Reeds (the Red sea was something lost in translation), because it is widely known. I mentioned them to State that parts of the Bible have been proven, so you cannot take the entire book and throw it as being false. That was my point. Nothing you mentioned hurts my point?

 

[greatnt249]

It takes faith to believe in the Bible. Those findings are cool, but the only one I've seen in person is Hezekiah's tunnel. I mentioned the wheels at the bottom of the Sea of Reeds (the Red sea was something lost in translation), because it is widely known. I mentioned them to State that parts of the Bible have been proven, so you cannot take the entire book and throw it as being false. That was my point. Nothing you mentioned hurts my point?

Conversely, you cannot say that because some things are true in the Bible that the entire Bible is true.

I'm not arguing against the Bible, but it is silly to pick and choose what scientific theories you choose to believe in, especially when evidence has been presented that lends significant support to said theories.

 

[Vulcan]

you didn't get the recap yet i'm assuming, but the dolphins were KILLING the saints in the first half, then the floodgates just broke loose.

Too soon?

.....sorry couldn't resist

 

[LuciusVorenus]

As the first Bishop of Rome, Peter was also the first Pope. Just sayin'.

you should be on cnn 🙂

 

[musafirah]

What books of the Bible are those from Lucius? I'd be interested to read them in context.

they are from the qur'an... but they agree with the big bang, and Quran says that the universe was created instantly from nothing (e.g. God said, "Be!" and it was.) but the quran doesn't necessarily point to evolution in the sense that we required it to exist

 

[teenmachinery1]

you should be on cnn 🙂

We'll have to leave it there...

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Too soon?

.....sorry couldn't resist

hahahaa WOW. amazing catch. 👍

 

[LuciusVorenus]

We'll have to leave it there...

nooooo
oh CNN

 

[teenmachinery1]

It takes faith to believe in the Bible. Those findings are cool, but the only one I've seen in person is Hezekiah's tunnel. I mentioned the wheels at the bottom of the Sea of Reeds (the Red sea was something lost in translation), because it is widely known. I mentioned them to State that parts of the Bible have been proven, so you cannot take the entire book and throw it as being false. That was my point. Nothing you mentioned hurts my point?

We'll have to leave it there...

 

[redsquareblack]

nooooo
oh CNN

Hey, I was just sayin' way before CNN decided to get all adolescent girly.

 

[LuciusVorenus]

Hey, I was just sayin' way before CNN decided to get all adolescent girly.

You should sue :O

 

[scotsdoc54]

It is not recorded anywhere that Peter was. The first recorded Pope was Constantine. There is no Biblical verse claiming that Peter was the first Pope. There also are no Biblical verses claiming that Mary died a virgin, in fact, before Jesus is crucified he begs Peter (your first Pope) to take care of his brothers and his mother. And Paul in Galatians says James is Jesus' brother.

Edit: I brought up the brother thing because it is a common misconception.

Constantine was never a pope. He was a pagan convert (after age 40) who was not baptized until near his death in 337. Even after his supposed conversion, after battle he still venerated old Roman gods like Apollo. He is remembered for easing the persecution of Christians in the early church, not as a Pope.

There is, however, a large body of early patristic writings that point to Peter being the first bishop of Rome, and thus the Pople (thanks redsquareblack). Look up the writings of Clement and the early church fathers. In addition, the Bible was not formalized until the end of the 4th century/beginning of the 5th. It's also a long held tradition that Peter was martyred in Rome, as was Paul. The early church (from 100 CE on) recognized Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (before the formalization of the Bible, mind you) as evidenced through a number of writings.

The rest of your comments (Mary's virginity) don't really need a response, as that's not the purpose of this thread (well, neither is the Pope thing I guess). I'll address those in PM if you want though. I will point out though that unlike our own language, it was very common in ancient Jewish culture to refer to all of your extended male family as brothers, as is seen several times in the New Testament.

This is a gang up on Oaklandguy thread isn't it? Sorry for the derail.

 

[scotsdoc54]

Lucius, I'll have to look up those quotes in the Quran then. 😛 Should be interesting.

 

[oaklandguy]

Constantine was never a pope. He was a pagan convert (after age 40) who was not baptized until near his death in 337. Even after his supposed conversion, after battle he still venerated old Roman gods like Apollo. He is remembered for easing the persecution of Christians in the early church, not as a Pope.

There is, however, a large body of early patristic writings that point to Peter being the first bishop of Rome, and thus the Pople (thanks redsquareblack). Look up the writings of Clement and the early church fathers. In addition, the Bible was not formalized until the end of the 4th century/beginning of the 5th. It's also a long held tradition that Peter was martyred in Rome, as was Paul. The early church (from 100 CE on) recognized Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (before the formalization of the Bible, mind you) as evidenced through a number of writings.

The rest of your comments (Mary's virginity) don't really need a response, as that's not the purpose of this thread (well, neither is the Pope thing I guess). I'll address those in PM if you want though. I will point out though that unlike our own language, it was very common in ancient Jewish culture to refer to all of your extended male family as brothers, as is seen several times in the New Testament.

This is a gang up on Oaklandguy thread isn't it? Sorry for the derail.

If Peter became Pope before the New Testament was written why is it not in there that he was the Pope? In Galatians, Paul tells Peter off in front of the entire Church. I could not imagine anyone telling off the Pope in front of the Vatican now-a-days. I doubt they would have been able to do that in the early church too.

Constantine was the first Pope: http://www.reformation.org/pope-constantine.html

 

[RogueUnicorn]

If Peter became Pope before the New Testament was written why is it not in there that he was the Pope? In Galatians, Paul tells Peter off in front of the entire Church. I could not imagine anyone telling off the Pope in front of the Vatican now-a-days. I doubt they would have been able to do that in the early church too.

hope to christ you are not catholic.

 

[teenmachinery1]

This is a gang up on Oaklandguy thread isn't it? Sorry for the derail.

Well, if you say something enormously silly and bizarre perhaps you can get your turn.

I think modern discourse requires all reasonable people to point to fatuous statements comparing the current state of evolutionary theory to alchemy. Especially, when this is in a pre-medical forum.

Understanding biology without understanding evolution makes about as much sense as a doctor without understanding biology.

 

[redsquareblack]

If Peter became Pope before the New Testament was written why is it not in there that he was the Pope? In Galatians, Paul tells Peter off in front of the entire Church. I could not imagine anyone telling off the Pope in front of the Vatican now-a-days. I doubt they would have been able to do that in the early church too.

Constantine was the first Pope: http://www.reformation.org/pope-constantine.html

Dude, there were a whole mess o' Popes before Constantine. And Peter was the first. Pope was merely the title for the Bishop of Rome, of which Peter was the first.

 

[oaklandguy]

hope to christ you are not catholic.

I'm not. I am Brethren/non-denom.

 

[oaklandguy]

Well, if you say something enormously silly and bizarre perhaps you can get your turn.

I think modern discourse requires all reasonable people to point to fatuous statements comparing the current state of evolutionary theory to alchemy. Especially, when this is in a pre-medical forum.

Understanding biology without understanding evolution makes about as much sense as a doctor without understanding biology.

I understand evolution. And you are refusing to understand my point. People would have called you an idiot if you did not believe in Alchemy. The same way you are arguing with me for not believing in Evolution...

 

[RogueUnicorn]

I'm not. I am Brethren/non-denom.

it shows. let me give you one example of a pope before constantine - gregory the great.

I understand evolution. And you are refusing to understand my point. People would have called you an idiot if you did not believe in Alchemy. The same way you are arguing with me for not believing in Evolution...

the fact that you keep equating alchemy with evolution doesn't actually make it so. shocking, i know.

 

[thedoctor8706]

Too soon?

.....sorry couldn't resist

Hahahahahahahaha

 

[oaklandguy]

it shows. let me give you one example of a pope before constantine - gregory the great.


the fact that you keep equating alchemy with evolution doesn't actually make it so. shocking, i know.

Gregory the Great came after Constantine. Constantine was in the 300's AD, and Gregory was in the 500's AD.

 

[teenmachinery1]

I understand evolution. And you are refusing to understand my point. People would have called you an idiot if you did not believe in Alchemy. The same way you are arguing with me for not believing in Evolution...

Someone who refutes the germ theory of disease and instead claims that most disease is caused by witchcraft or homosexuality could make the exact same statement as you just made.

The difference between believing in evolution and jettisoning alchemy is evaluating both theories with evidence. Do you think there is just as much evidence for alchemy, or in fact, the theory of seven-day creation, as there is to support evolution?

edit: oh right, apparently you do (refer to my comment @407pm).

 

[oaklandguy]

Someone who refutes the germ theory of disease and instead claims that most disease are caused by witchcraft or homosexuality could make the exact same statement as you just made.

The difference between believing in evolution and jettisoning alchemy is evaluating both theories with evidence. Do you think there is just as much evidence for alchemy, or in fact, the theory of seven-day creation, as there is to support evolution?

I believe that in any court case, both sides have evidence. I don't think quantity of evidence should be a factor, I believe the quality of the evidence and where the evidence comes from should all play a role. I believe how old the evidence is needs to play part. And I believe what the evidence shows and whether it contradicts other parts of the world, society, etc. Also, no matter how much evidence you have, if you have a history of doing something, your history will override your evidence.

 

[teenmachinery1]

I believe that in any court case, both sides have evidence. I don't think quantity of evidence should be a factor, I believe the quality of the evidence and where the evidence comes from should all play a role. I believe how old the evidence is needs to play part. And I believe what the evidence shows and whether it contradicts other parts of the world, society, etc. Also, no matter how much evidence you have, if you have a history of doing something, your history will override your evidence.

I think someone replaced your quote with an excerpt from, "Going Rogue," by Sarah Palin.

In any case, We'll have to leave it there...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

 

[greatnt249]

I understand evolution. And you are refusing to understand my point. People would have called you an idiot if you did not believe in Alchemy. The same way you are arguing with me for not believing in Evolution...

Alchemy's reign ended around the Age of Reason; you can stop equating alchemy with evolution now.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Gregory the Great came after Constantine. Constantine was in the 300's AD, and Gregory was in the 500's AD.

there is no pope constantine in the 300s.

 

[redsquareblack]

Alchemy's reign ended around the Age of Reason; you can stop equating alchemy with evolution now.

The thing is, alchemy was disproven using.... SCIENCE! So it is with all things scientific; our understanding is constantly being refined, and when a theory no longer sufficiently explains the evidence, it is replaced.

Religion has never helped to clarify a scientific concept, or expose fraud, or otherwise increase scientific knowledge. In fact, the track record there is pretty bad.

 

[greatnt249]

I believe that in any court case, both sides have evidence. I don't think quantity of evidence should be a factor, I believe the quality of the evidence and where the evidence comes from should all play a role. I believe how old the evidence is needs to play part. And I believe what the evidence shows and whether it contradicts other parts of the world, society, etc. Also, no matter how much evidence you have, if you have a history of doing something, your history will override your evidence.

That doesn't make it scientifically correct. Smoking's a bad habit, but the evidence supporting its correlation with cancer isn't rendered irrelevant just because smokers believe it won't happen to them.

 

[redsquareblack]

there is no pope constantine in the 300s.

Correct. Constantine was an 8th Century Pope.

 

[oaklandguy]

I was referring to Emperor Constantine I, who claimed himself as Pope being the first Pope ever recorded. Because there are no recorded Popes before him, it is believed that he invented the term Pope. He also introduced the saints as being saints, he introduced the symbol of the cross, and he invented Christmas, because no where does it say when Jesus was born. But because Constantine I integrated pagan holidays into Christianity, he took a pagan holiday on December 25th and made a Christian holiday to help the pagans cope with the change he forced them into.

 

[SteinUmStein]

Can someone tell me why this matters :/

How could physicians without belief in evolution understand MRSA or other drug-resistant pathogens? What if their beliefs and lack of true understanding lead them to prescribe antibiotics that a patient's infection is resistant to?

Also, how could they ever understand the mutation of a virus like H1N1 without a solid foundation in evolution by natural selection?

It is very relevant. Developmental biology, cancer biology, viral and bacterial biology, genetic disorders and on and on depend on an understanding and acceptance of evolution.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

I was referring to Emperor Constantine I, who claimed himself as Pope being the first Pope ever recorded. Because there are no recorded Popes before him, it is believed that he invented the term Pope. He also introduced the saints as being saints, he introduced the symbol of the cross, and he invented Christmas, because no where does it say when Jesus was born. But because Constantine I integrated pagan holidays into Christianity, he took a pagan holiday on December 25th and made a Christian holiday to help the pagans cope with the change he forced them into.

it's amazing how one person can be so wrong in so many things.

 

[musafirah]

How could physicians without belief in evolution understand MRSA or other drug-resistant pathogens? What if their beliefs and lack of true understanding lead them to prescribe antibiotics that a patient's infection is resistant to?

Also, how could they ever understand the mutation of a virus like H1N1 without a solid foundation in evolution by natural selection?

It is very relevant. Developmental biology, cancer biology, viral and bacterial biology, genetic disorders and on and on depend on an understanding and acceptance of evolution.

not sure what oaklandguy thinks but in general its not micro-evolution and mutation that people dont "believe in", those things are obvious.. i believe the debate is over the origin of species/life.

 

[codswallop]

Someone who refutes the germ theory of disease and instead claims that most disease is caused by witchcraft or homosexuality could make the exact same statement as you just made.

I wonder if he rejects all facts in the field of microbiology because some people used to think there was spontaneous generation of microbes.

Maybe instead of writing a prescription for antibiotics he'll refer his patients to biblical writings telling them that their illness is due to witchcraft or homosexual behavior. Anything to keep the illusion of the infallibility of scripture alive.

 

[greatnt249]

not sure what oaklandguy thinks but in general its not micro-evolution and mutation that people dont "believe in", those things are obvious.. i believe the debate is over the origin of species/life.

The theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life; it's this ignorant (or intentional) conflation of concepts that keeps the "debate" going.

 

[vickpick]

I was option 1 until a couple of months ago.

Now I'm option 2. (not option 3 or 4 only because of fossil evidence)

just too many random mutations for so many perfect creature to live on earth

 

[RogueUnicorn]

The theory of evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life; it's this ignorant (or intentional) conflation of concepts that keeps the "debate" going.

which brings us back to my very first post on this thread.

 

[greatnt249]

I wonder if he rejects all facts in the field of microbiology because some people used to think there was spontaneous generation of microbes.

Maybe instead of writing a prescription for antibiotics he'll refer his patients to biblical writings telling them that their illness is due to witchcraft or homosexual behavior. Anything to keep the illusion of the infallibility of scripture alive.

It's one thing to have a debate; it's quite another to go on tangents concerning an individual's character.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

It's one thing to have a debate; it's quite another to go on tangents concerning an individual's character.

this "debate" has been one person plugging his ears and going "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!"

 

[codswallop]

not sure what oaklandguy thinks but in general its not micro-evolution and mutation that people dont "believe in", those things are obvious.. i believe the debate is over the origin of species/life.

What's sad about that is that common descent was known even before Darwin. Darwin just fleshed out the mechanisms by which evolution proceeds. And now in 2009 we have people that are foolishly rejecting the fact of common descent.

 

[oaklandguy]

I wonder if he rejects all facts in the field of microbiology because some people used to think there was spontaneous generation of microbes.

Maybe instead of writing a prescription for antibiotics he'll refer his patients to biblical writings telling them that their illness is due to witchcraft or homosexual behavior. Anything to keep the illusion of the infallibility of scripture alive.

That is what I plan on doing... Are you ******ed?

 

[SteinUmStein]

not sure what oaklandguy thinks but in general its not micro-evolution and mutation that people dont "believe in", those things are obvious.. i believe the debate is over the origin of species/life.

I maintain that believing in microevolution and denying macroevolution requires an enormous amount of self-deception, and usually requires rigid religious beliefs to maintain.

There's a huge amount of cognitive dissonance going on when a person tries to convince themselves that organisms can be selected for and evolve over the short term, but that that same process cannot be extrapolated and continued over the long-term into what is, gasp, macroevolution.

What exactly do people think happens over the course of hundreds of millions of years? Do you really think organisms nearly identical to humans were running around that many millions of years ago? Oh yeah, that's right, you just insert the magical Young Earth hypothesis in and everything is better. 🙄 So we'll add to our list of religiously debunked scientific theories modern carbon dating techniques, on top of evolution and the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[teenmachinery1]

I was option 1 until a couple of months ago.

Now I'm option 2. (not option 3 or 4 only because of fossil evidence)

just too many random mutations for so many perfect creature to live on earth

You might want to ask yourself why 99.9% of all "perfect creatures" are now extinct.

<-- you

 

[codswallop]

It's one thing to have a debate; it's quite another to go on tangents concerning an individual's character.

More his intellect and reasoning abilities than his character.