OK I seriously wanted to know this....

[VPDcurt]

Sure, everything is related to everything else in some manner. But if you had a truly inquisitive mind you might do a serious survey of the evidence supporting evolution, or you might dig up some of the expanding literature on theories of abiogenesis, or you might read up on the latest physics research concerning the Big Bang. Your response to this massive intellectual challenge? "It's too complicated to occur naturally, therefore I will defer to an invisible, all powerful man who sits in the sky and judges all our actions." If all of mankind maintained that approach we'd still be fearing lightning as God's wrath and sending the women to menstrual huts to bleed into bowls.

So yes, evolution is dependent on abiogenesis, and our universe is obviously the product of some seminal event. It is irrelevant, however, to the ongoing process of evolution how that actually occurred. I mean, my existence depends on my parents mixing genetic material in the 1970's. My development from fetus to 6'4" blonde freak, however, occurred regardless of whether this occurred in a test tube or the back of a Studebaker in Tijuana. See my point?

Grow up...seriously.

I'm done with this thread as well. Clearly this thread has turned into one where stupidity will prevail, so I am inclined to leave as I stand no chance in such a discussion.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[myodana]

in the words of greg proops on psycho-christians vs. regular christians:
"and when i say psycho-christian, i don't mean regular christian who prays, and jesus comes over, and you have biscuits or whatever... or whatever you do with jesus, volleyball, lawn darts... i'm taking about christians who have NOTHING better to do than to worry about someone enjoying themself somewhere on earth... and these are the christians who want to SHOOT everyone who disagrees with them... 'cause intolerance is one of the basic precepts of modern christianity (NOTE SARCASM HERE ). i believe it was jesus, yes i'm certain it was jesus who said 'i hate anyone who's not like me!'"

just to interject some humor. it's better when you can hear the incredible sarcasm in his voice.. but oh well.

 

[NEATOMD]

Leechy, Havarti666,...etc

There is no sense in debating these issues with you. You make statements about a faith that you do not understand because you are unwilling to learn about it and know just what that faith system does and does not believe. As long as you continue to insist on debating against a theology that you do not understand, your arguments will continue to be full of fallacy and error. While, I could continue to debate this issue with you, I find it impossible to defend my beliefs while you make incorrect assumptions about what those beliefs are.

ie: Leechy has incorrect beliefs about Christian theology regarding benevolence. The bible never claimed that God would make everything turn out the best for every human. Yet, it does say he is a just God. However, it also says that we cannot understand his justice...further, it says that no human DESERVES ANY good thing he gives (therefore, one might argue that NO ONE DESERVES to have a working body in the first place). I could elaborate, but it would be a waste of my time since anyone reading this either already understands this concept, or like Leechy won't make an honest attempt at understanding it anyway. Honestly, do not even assume that I'm accurate...look it up for yourself, investigate it. Do not just listen to what others say it says, but look it up and read it for yourself. Do not take things out of context, either...

Notice this: I have studied the decent of man and considered the evidence for man evolving from microorganisms with an open mind and still have come to the conclusion that the evidence is in favor of creationism when considered in the context of Christianity by having researched all these topics thoroughly. I did not blindly adopt Christianity as my faith because of pressures from family or religious leaders, but rather, I sought out the answer for myself. While I continue to assess old information and include new information as I learn it, I still come to this same conclusion. No scientific evidence has ever disproved any religious belief of mine though I have studied both thoroughly. The beliefs of Christianity do not hang on any piece of scientific evidence, but instead tend to reaffirm science. (ie: If life were found on Jupiter or even Mars, it would not disprove Christianity because the bible never says there is no life outside of the earth. Rather, it makes sense to believe that if God could create life on earth, then he could also create it elsewhere) Furthermore, my faith has been reaffirmed by my life's experiences though tested time and again.

I fully understand that no one on this site is going to have his/her mind changed by reading these posts which only scrape the surface of this debate. Instead, being disrespectful to one another will only push people farther away. It is my hope though, that no one out there would blindly accept anything without full consideration for both sides of that argument.

I don't think that everyone here has to agree with me. I do think that everyone should respect each other and their opinions no matter what they think.

That's all I've got to say about that...

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Leechy, Havarti666,...etc

There is no sense in debating these issues with you. You make statements about a faith that you do not understand because you are unwilling to learn about it and know just what that faith system does and does not believe. As long as you continue to insist on debating against a theology that you do not understand, your arguments will continue to be full of fallacy and error. While, I could continue to debate this issue with you, I find it impossible to defend my beliefs while you make incorrect assumptions about what those beliefs are.

ie: Leechy has incorrect beliefs about Christian theology regarding benevolence. The bible never claimed that God would make everything turn out the best for every human. Yet, it does say he is a just God. However, it also says that we cannot understand his justice...further, it says that no human DESERVES ANY good thing he gives (therefore, one might argue that NO ONE DESERVES to have a working body in the first place). I could elaborate, but it would be a waste of my time since anyone reading this either already understands this concept, or like Leechy won't make an honest attempt at understanding it anyway. Honestly, do not even assume that I'm accurate...look it up for yourself, investigate it. Do not just listen to what others say it says, but look it up and read it for yourself. Do not take things out of context, either...

Notice this: I have studied the decent of man and considered the evidence for man evolving from microorganisms with an open mind and still have come to the conclusion that the evidence is in favor of creationism when considered in the context of Christianity by having researched all these topics thoroughly. I did not blindly adopt Christianity as my faith because of pressures from family or religious leaders, but rather, I sought out the answer for myself. While I contintue to reasses the information and include new information I a learn it, I still come to this same conclusion. No scientific evidence has ever disproved any religious belief of mine though I have studied both thoroughly. The beliefs of Christianity do not hang on any piece of scientific evidence, but instead tend to reaffirm science. (ie: If life were found on Jupiter or even Mars, it would not disprove Christianity because the bible never says there is no life outside of the earth. Rather, it makes sense to believe that if God could create life on earth, then he could also create it elsewhere) Furthermore, my faith has been reaffirmed by my life's experiences though tested time and again.

I fully understand that no one on this site is going to have his/her mind changed by reading these posts which only scrape the surface of this debate. Instead, being disrespectful to one another will only push people farther away. It is my hope though, that no one out there would blindly accept anything without full consideration for both sides of that argument.

I don't think that everyone here has to agree with me. I do think that everyone should respect each other and their opinions no matter what they think.

That's all I've got to say about that...

well said and i applaud your tenacity in keeping this debate going. I opted out long ago, both b/c of other obligations and also b/c I saw where it was heading. I've had to deal with similar debates far too often only to see the exact same thing happen. I've grown tired of people telling me what I think and why i think it without giving me a chance to explain it myself. I know these debates won't change anyone's mind, but as NEATOMD said, I (and I hope others as well) have studied the subject before and have not accepted my Christianity as blind faith just b/c my parents expected me to; it was b/c of my own study and analysis. Let's all respect each others' beliefs and realize that doctors can live harmoniously and yes even practice medicine with beliefs in either creationsim or evolution. I do not believe either view point jeopardizes our abilities as physicians.

 

[Gut Shot]

As long as you continue to insist on debating against a theology that you do not understand, your arguments will continue to be full of fallacy and error.

Well MY Irony-Meter just blew out. Damn! And I had just upgraded the buffer to 4.2 terabytes. Sigh.

 

[Gut Shot]

Sure, a benevolent God would absolutely punish us eternally for failing to come to the right answer about his existence. Please...

Which God are we talking about, New Testament or Old Testament? (a.k.a. "God before He changed His mind"?)

At the core of much human sentiment, be it religiousness or belief in the paranormal, is our central insecurity about our place in the universe and what happens to us after we die. If Jesus or Allah or Odin appeared in my living room and showed me the eternal delights awaiting me in the afterlife I would be quite happy. Until that happens, however, I will have to face the cold, hard fact that so many of us are running from: there may be not point to our existences, and after we die there is nothing but oblivion and a permanent career as worm chow.

Oddly enough, accepting that possibility has been an extraordinarily freeing experience (either that or I've just read too much Vonnegut). Reality is an interesting place, even if we're just electrons tunneling through quantum space in our neurons. Heck, that'd be pretty cool, and might give electrons some of the credit they so richly deserve.

 

[DianaLynne]

Let's all respect each others' beliefs and realize that doctors can live harmoniously and yes even practice medicine with beliefs in either creationsim or evolution. I do not believe either view point jeopardizes our abilities as physicians.

Nicely said! I do have to say, I miss God. Back in my high school days, I was leading Bible-studies, attending church regularly, and convinced friends that dinosaur bones were laid in the ground by Satan to deceive us all from the Word. It really worked for me and I felt really badly about myself all the time because I was a really bad sinner. (Hence my myopia I guess.)

Then one day, my very little imperfect brain was doing some math. I wanted to figure out how long it would take to drive to the moon. You know, you're really bored and sometimes you just go for a drive. Turns out it took months, that is if you're doing the speed limit and you don't stop to pee. Since I couldn't actually drive there but was still quite bored, I kept going. How long to drive to Pluto? That was a big number, so I decided to go in the space shuttle. Then, how long to get to the end of the galaxy going the speed of light. Then, how long to get to the edge of the observable universe. I came up with an answer that was roughly 15,000 times longer than the universe had even existed. (Assuming of course we're using the cosmology estimates.)

That was a long time and means that this is an awfully big universe. In my little mind, I was unable to comprehend how there could be a supreme being running the show that would actually torture me for eternity for subscribing to some other belief system. My little brain thought that that seemed really vindictive and pointless. Seems like a supreme being would have a lot more to do, like making black holes and immune systems.

I think of religion as like an operating system for a computer. Christianity is like Windows, Buddhism is a Mac, etc. They're user interfaces. They give us a handle on how to work spirituality. Cuz clearly I don't get it. The universe is pretty frickin' big and complex. I gave up on cosmology, my mind can't wrap around it. I can't get my mind around God either, so I've settled on just figuring that there's something out there a LOT bigger than me and it seems like a good idea if I try to live my life honorably. I pay respect to the universe, I feel thankful for my good fortunes, I feel badly when I've wronged someone or something, and I still get a thrill out of a beautiful day.

So anyway, that's my belief. I can speak Christianity and can do so comfortably. I think of Christ as a metaphor for all that's good about humanity. I dunno if anyone designed anything, but I also believe in a lot of wacky stuff happening if you just give it long enough. Evolution works for me and I don't know if I can ascribe life to some sort of intentional design. Seriously, I'm good either way.

PS Man, just say "Christianity" in a forum and there's 250 posts. Nobody ever reads the threads I start... I should be more controversial. Hey, did I mention I was bi?

 

[SocialistMD]

Then, how long to get to the end of the galaxy going the speed of light. Then, how long to get to the edge of the observable universe. I came up with an answer that was roughly 15,000 times longer than the universe had even existed. (Assuming of course we're using the cosmology estimates.)

I just had a seizure. All of my neurons fired at once and I woke up on the floor. You are going to have to explain it to me.
1. What are cosmology estimates?
2. How is the universe measured?

I've always figured "observable universe" was based on the distance of the farthest away star we can see. I'll go ahead and say light travels the speed of light, and very few things travel as fast(which is why my definition of "observable universe" is as it is); so what you are saying is we have received light from a star that we shouldn't even be seeing for another 15,000 times x (x being the age of the universe in cosmology estimates)???

All of this from a bisexual ski-bunny... I'm frightened and somewhat aroused...

 

[Reckoning]

I just had a seizure. All of my neurons fired at once and I woke up on the floor. You are going to have to explain it to me.
1. What are cosmology estimates?
2. How is the universe measured?

I've always figured "observable universe" was based on the distance of the farthest away star we can see. I'll go ahead and say light travels the speed of light, and very few things travel as fast(which is why my definition of "observable universe" is as it is); so what you are saying is we have received light from a star that we shouldn't even be seeing for another 15,000 times x (x being the age of the universe in cosmology estimates)???

All of this from a bisexual ski-bunny... I'm frightened and somewhat aroused...

The funniest thing about these threads and why I have continued to read is the reflexive way we all ****can each other's rather interesting and sometimes eloquent perspectives because of some goofy detail. You SocialistMD, appear to the master of this. Thanks for sharing, BTW.

Edit: My apologies to SocialistMD and DianneLynn. I was laughing too hard to interpret this as a genuine question. All neurons firing at once...awesome.

 

[heeter]

Oh you guys! Still up to it I see...

After reading through PsychoDoc and his enablers' posts it brought a tear to my eye. Whenever the religious righties lament "oppression!" or "intolerance!" they are invoking the "all points of view are valid" post-modernism liberals love to use and conservatives love to hate. Irony is dead! Long live irony!

 

[leechy]

Leechy, Havarti666,...etc

I fully understand that no one on this site is going to have his/her mind changed by reading these posts which only scrape the surface of this debate. Instead, being disrespectful to one another will only push people farther away. It is my hope though, that no one out there would blindly accept anything without full consideration for both sides of that argument.

I entirely agree with the paragraph I've quoted above, but I do feel you've made some disrespectful comments yourself. (I.e., "my high school biology teacher wants his arguments back.") I personally wasn't offended, but if you're going to imply that others have not been respectful, I should note that you haven't been clean either.

On a different note, you did mention that I had not yet answered the other fellow's comments (and some of your comments) about eyes.

You suggested that God wired squid and octupi eyes differently because they live in "Oceans (water)". But fish and cetaceans have the same messed up wiring we do, and they do fine in water. I find it much more convincing to say that natural selection messed up in vertebrate evolution and could not go back to correct its mistakes, than to be searching for some reason why God would give octopi different eyes than dolphins.

But now with regards to what the other fellow said (CU2020, or something like that). I have no argument with his science. I just think it's inconsistent to say on the one hand that an organ is too optimally designed to have arisen through naturalistic means, then to fall back on naturalistic arguments to explain every weakness in that supposedly optimal organ. Also, the vertebrate eye really does have a design flaw - the nerves and blood vessels degrade the quality of visual information we receive, and the wiring causes us to have a blind spot. Sure, we still do fine in spite of it - our brains have evolved to deal with the flaws - but we could have done much better.

Neato, I actually like your mode of argumentation a lot better than CU2020's, in that you're not hiding behind science in answering the issue of design flaws, but consistently using theology. You now agree that we are not optimally designed, and that God does not have to give us perfect bodies (or a perfect anything else). But this does negate the foundation of the creationist position - that the natural world / organs of the human body etc are too perfect, too optimal to have arisen through a chance process.

Like you said, there's no way we're going to change each other's opinions, and I didn't enter this discussion with that illusion. However, I feel I've learned from this discussion, and I thank you for having engaged in it with me.

 

[leechy]

I think of religion as like an operating system for a computer. Christianity is like Windows, Buddhism is a Mac, etc. They're user interfaces. They give us a handle on how to work spirituality. Cuz clearly I don't get it. The universe is pretty frickin' big and complex. I gave up on cosmology, my mind can't wrap around it. I can't get my mind around God either, so I've settled on just figuring that there's something out there a LOT bigger than me and it seems like a good idea if I try to live my life honorably. I pay respect to the universe, I feel thankful for my good fortunes, I feel badly when I've wronged someone or something, and I still get a thrill out of a beautiful day.

Ahh, DianaLynne. I can only join GuyLaroche in singing your praise. Your posts are a model of good sense and elegance.

 

[leechy]

At the core of much human sentiment, be it religiousness or belief in the paranormal, is our central insecurity about our place in the universe and what happens to us after we die. If Jesus or Allah or Odin appeared in my living room and showed me the eternal delights awaiting me in the afterlife I would be quite happy. Until that happens, however, I will have to face the cold, hard fact that so many of us are running from: there may be not point to our existences, and after we die there is nothing but oblivion and a permanent career as worm chow.

Good post. I've always thought the day I see a ghost (or a goblin, etc) with my sanity intact would be the happiest day of my life, insofar as it would assure me of an afterlife. Until then, I reconcile myself to the possibility of oblivion.

 

[SocialistMD]

The funniest thing about these threads and why I have continued to read is the reflexive way we all ****can each other's rather interesting and sometimes eloquent perspectives because of some goofy detail. You SocialistMD, appear to the master of this. Thanks for sharing, BTW.

While I appreciate your praise, I really was curious about this and I hope she answers me. If she was serious about the actual distances/travel thing, what she stated could be used as an argument (albeit not a water-tight one) for or against creationism, depending on the definition of cosmology estimates. If we are seeing stars we shouldn't be based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, then the universe must be older than the Bible indicates.
I was just trying to give the people who really want this thread to continue some more fuel for the fire.

 

[IAMS]

Growing up Mormon, we were always taught to expect persecution for our beliefs, in fact, it was to be considered a sense of validation - because being God's people are meant to be difficult and there are going to be challenges. Of course, that was Utah, and everyone is Mormon, and if you weren't Mormon, you were in effect ostracized.

I guess it's sad to see social life reduced to cliques of people needing validation, and where they don't have much to do with others who are different. For me, it's refreshing getting out into the world and meeting people from all walks of life with different experiences that are oddly similar to my own.

 

[NEATOMD]

I entirely agree with the paragraph I've quoted above, but I do feel you've made some disrespectful comments yourself. (I.e., "my high school biology teacher wants his arguments back.") I personally wasn't offended, but if you're going to imply that others have not been respectful, I should note that you haven't been clean either.

LOL, sorry. I didn't mean to offend anyone with that post. I didn't realize that you or anyone else even took it seriously. I was just making a joke (maybe it wasn't funny, but I'm laughing about the confusion now)...again sorry if it did offend anyone.

-Neato

 

[DianaLynne]

While I appreciate your praise, I really was curious about this and I hope she answers me. If she was serious about the actual distances/travel thing, what she stated could be used as an argument (albeit not a water-tight one) for or against creationism, depending on the definition of cosmology estimates. If we are seeing stars we shouldn't be based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, then the universe must be older than the Bible indicates.
I was just trying to give the people who really want this thread to continue some more fuel for the fire.

I guess I'm getting called out on my "goofy detail" of 15000 times longer than the universe has existed. I hope that my point isn't lost in my math. (Perhaps I forgot to carry the two.) Honestly, that night with the calculator was about 10 years ago and I don't remember my exact methodology, all I remember is the flabbergastment I felt when I got a sense of the immenseness of the universe. Cosmologist say the universe "started" around 16 billion years ago. If you think of it as a radius, then we're looking at ~30 billion light years across, and that's not considering the expansion of space itself. Not only are objects moving through space, but space itself is expanding, so the "event horizon" of our universe has a diameter of ~80 billion light years. I mean, whoa! I don't know if this is true, if I'm even talking about this in a scientifically rigorous way, but my real point is that I don't understand how a supreme being is going to send me to hell to be tortured for infinity years because I wear a garment made out of two kinds of fibers. I think of the universe itself as a supreme being rather than cast my allegiance with some bloke who had some amazing sociological theories and they wrote a book about him saying that he's the son of God. I'm afraid religion people get caught up in the literal interpretation and forget the idea behind it.

I believe in mythology. Humans tell stories about things we don't understand and the stories become truth. Is truth fact? I dunno, ask a philosopher. I'm a scientist. I believe in prayer, though I don't know what I'm praying to. I won't fault people for believing the way they do anymore. I used to try to convert Christians to my agnostic belief system, but then I thought that maybe it wasn't nice to try to take away someone's comfort. If it helps them sleep at night and inspires them to do good in the world, awesome! It does suck when the conflicts arise because the concerned parties can't get over the fact that one side says "Allah" and the other says "Jesus." Sounds like a fight over semantics to me.

And besides, if I'm wrong, I'll recant on my death bed.
- attributed to Homer Simpson

 

[Reckoning]

I guess I'm getting called out on my "goofy detail" of 15000 times longer than the universe has existed. I hope that my point isn't lost in my math. (Perhaps I forgot to carry the two.) Honestly, that night with the calculator was about 10 years ago and I don't remember my exact methodology, all I remember is the flabbergastment I felt when I got a sense of the immenseness of the universe. Cosmologist say the universe "started" around 16 billion years ago. If you think of it as a radius, then we're looking at ~30 billion light years across, and that's not considering the expansion of space itself. Not only are objects moving through space, but space itself is expanding, so the "event horizon" of our universe has a diameter of ~80 billion light years. I mean, whoa! I don't know if this is true, if I'm even talking about this in a scientifically rigorous way, but my real point is that I don't understand how a supreme being is going to send me to hell to be tortured for infinity years because I wear a garment made out of two kinds of fibers. I think of the universe itself as a supreme being rather than cast my allegiance with some bloke who had some amazing sociological theories and they wrote a book about him saying that he's the son of God. I'm afraid religion people get caught up in the literal interpretation and forget the idea behind it.

I believe in mythology. Humans tell stories about things we don't understand and the stories become truth. Is truth fact? I dunno, ask a philosopher. I'm a scientist. I believe in prayer, though I don't know what I'm praying to. I won't fault people for believing the way they do anymore. I used to try to convert Christians to my agnostic belief system, but then I thought that maybe it wasn't nice to try to take away someone's comfort. If it helps them sleep at night and inspires them to do good in the world, awesome! It does suck when the conflicts arise because the concerned parties can't get over the fact that one side says "Allah" and the other says "Jesus." Sounds like a fight over semantics to me.

And besides, if I'm wrong, I'll recant on my death bed.
- attributed to Homer Simpson

For the record, I liked your post, and agree with it. And I don't even care that your'e bi, and blond, and like to ski till your elbow is double jointed.

 

[SocialistMD]

I guess I'm getting called out on my "goofy detail" of 15000 times longer than the universe has existed. I hope that my point isn't lost in my math.

I'm not trying to call you out on anything at all; I am curious if the numbers were the real ones you calculated because I really do think there would be something there against literal "Biblical" creationism if they were. I got your point and it was well-appreciated. I thought that you might have inadvertently stumbled onto something with your calculations if your numbers were corrrect, and that is why I asked.

 

[CNU2020]

This thread is hilarious. Seriously. Stop. Go back and read. As I was saying, in addition to some amazing creativity, some of the thoughts here (prolly most of them) have totally been mis-understood and mis-quoted too many times to count. There have been astronomical circular arguments as well. Ex. I am intolerant of your intolerance. I personally love that one! -- Go ahead, you can laugh... it's funny . It is interesting that those who most frequently accuse others of narrowmindedness (if that's a word) are themselves extremely narrowminded... otherwise why would they care if someone shared their thoughts with them?

Seriously, in all our rambling, there is something to be considered:

Human logic can tell us if the structure of an argument is valid, it cannot tell us if it is true. Indeed, an argument can be logically valid and materially false at the same time! Observe the following example.

+ Premise 1: Something which is correct part of the time is better than something which is never correct.
+ Premise 2: A stopped watch is correct twice a day, while a fast or slow watch is never correct.
+ Conclusion: It is better to wear a stopped watch than one that is fast or slow.

The above argument is logically valid but obviously false! While something that is true will always be logically valid, the converse is not the case. In other words, combinations of facts do not always converge to make a complete truth. Unfortunately, few 100% provable and relevant facts have been posted here, but I guess that's the reason we're debating relentlessly. No one here seems to be an authority on all subject matter; very few even seem to know much about the things they wrote about.

Example/FYI/random info blurb: Leechy --Interestingly enough, it is theorized that this infamous "blind spot" (optic disc) you spoke of actually can serve purposes such as enhancing binocular cues. Again, I am certain that won't change your mind on anything, nor will it prove my point... but it's an interesting theory you may want to be aware of none the less.

That being said, I doubt in all this argueing anything productive really truly has come about. I.E. No one believes any differently than he or she had previously. It's not that difficult to understand what's happening here. It's hard to get people to want to listen to your thoughts when you attack them first. In fact, it likely pushes them further to the other extreme. Thinking you'll shove your beliefs (or lack there of) into someone else is possibly the worst logic I've seen, altogether. (myself included). So, again, as a consolation, maybe we can see humor in things such as the poor logic within so many posts seen above.

<[ I can already hear the frenzy of keyboards. Go ahead, I know half a dozen people or more are itching to post a synical or snide remark. I honestly don't know how some people here passed up a chance at stand-up comedy. I think you're making a mistake passing up the opportunity.]>

-- Peace out

 

[IAMS]

A college class was told they had to write a short story in as few words as possible.

The instructions were the short story had to contain the following three things (1) Religion (2) Sexuality (3) Mystery.

There was only one A+ paper in the entire class. Below is the A+ short story.

Good God, I'm pregnant, I wonder who did it.

------------------------------------------------------

Eve chats with God...

"Lord, I have a problem."

"What's the problem, Eve?"

"I know that you created me and provided this beautiful garden and all
of these wonderful animals, as well as that hilarious comedic snake,
but I'm just not happy."

And why is that Eve?"

"Lord, I am lonely, and I'm sick to death of apples."

"Well, Eve, in that case, I have a solution. I shall create a man for you."

"Man? What is that Lord?"

"A flawed creature, with many bad traits. He'll lie, cheat and be vain;
all in all, he'll give you a hard time. But he'll be bigger, faster and
will like to hunt and kill things. I'll create him in such a way that
he will satisfy your physical needs. He will be witless and will revel
in childish things like fighting and kicking a ball about. He won't be as
smart as you, so he will also need your advice to think properly."

"Sounds great," says Eve, with ironically raised eyebrows, "but
what's the catch Lord?"

"Well,.....you can have him on one condition."

"And what's that Lord? "

"As I said, he'll be proud, arrogant and self-admiring..... so you'll
have to let him believe that I made him first. And it will have to be
our little secret........ you know, woman to woman."

 

[burton117]

which is most Christian friendly? Which ostracizes them?

Cornell

MSSM

NYMC

Columbia

NYU

Vandy

Wake

Duke (probably not from what I read on other threads)

This would have made a good poll!!!

 

[dsblaha]

I have not read all 14 pages so forgive me if this has already been answered. It is my opinion that Wake Forest is very friendly to Christians. From what I can tell, I would say half of my class is religious and practices their religion. (wild guess). Most of the patients you will be seeing will also be religious, and bring it up in nearly every interview.

The school of medicine is affiliated with Baptist Hospital but the school is not. I do not believe it is associated with any denomination.

 

[jhugti]

Endosymbiotic theory, proclaimed as scientific truth in biology texts all over the nation, has no empircal proof whatsoever. Furthermore, most of the "science" that supposedly supports molecules-to-man evolution inevitably distills down into some varient of a philosophical contention that "similarity in structure must imply similarity of origin."

...

http://www.answersingenesis.org if you'd like to know more.

correct me if im wrong, but doesn't the presence of double membraned, self supporting/energy producing, independently replicating structures within all eukaryotic cells suggest that endosymbiosis might be true?

also, leave it to creationists to use resources that display even in their URLs that their minds have been made up before looking at the facts. As long as people go searching in books with no authors, with no accountability, with no evidence, and chock full of events that directly contradict physical laws and human experience, I'm sure we'll be hearing about lots more "answers"....

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

correct me if im wrong, but doesn't the presence of double membraned, self supporting/energy producing, independently replicating structures within all eukaryotic cells suggest that endosymbiosis might be true?

also, leave it to creationists to use resources that display even in their URLs that their minds have been made up before looking at the facts. As long as people go searching in books with no authors, with no accountability, with no evidence, and chock full of events that directly contradict physical laws and human experience, I'm sure we'll be hearing about lots more "answers"....

Give it up. Don't eubacteria by and large have the same genetic code as eukaryotes? Can't we clone human insulin genes into bacteria and have them produce insulin for us? So, how would mitochondria and chloroplasts have a different genetic code?

 

[jhugti]

I just thought these two articles were interesting. They both point out that about 75% of medical doctors believe in miracles and believe that they have seen them. That's a pretty significant evidence that medicine and religion are intertwined. One might say, proof that something higher than science is out there. Meanwhile, science can't prove that many miracles (medical or not) did or did not happen. Faith, on the other hand does offer an explanation.

http://www.s8int.com/doctorsfaith.html
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42061

yet another example of stupendous rigor in religious fact-finding.

Source 1: "Saint".com

I would invite everyone to look to the left panel of this website, where one can find much evidence for underwater cities, and 20th century dinosaurs. sweet.

Source 2: offers such helpful articles as "Free report on surviving nuclear fallout", advice in case "'Gays' getting your investments?," and offers services so that people can "Stay informed of Christian persecution!" Also has free articles to speak out against the "enviro-wackos", and- you guessed it- immigrants! In case you didn't know, "America has thrown open its national doors and laid out the welcome mat for murderers, revolutionaries and terrorist sleeper agents"

This truly seems like the kind of competent and unbiased source I look for in news.

 

[jhugti]

Give it up. Don't eubacteria by and large have the same genetic code as eukaryotes? Can't we clone human insulin genes into bacteria and have them produce insulin for us? So, how would mitochondria and chloroplasts have a different genetic code?

what?

are we misunderstanding each other or is there some confusion about the term endosymbiosis?

The presence of a single genetic code has nothing to do with the likelyhood that a simpler organism was taken up by a more complex one and incorporated into its machinery. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited completely independently of nuclear DNA, hence suggesting that mitochondria were added to eukaryotic cells. That's it. Nobody is talking about a "different genetic code"....

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

what?

are we misunderstanding each other or is there some confusion about the term endosymbiosis?

The presence of a single genetic code has nothing to do with the likelyhood that a simpler organism was taken up by a more complex one and incorporated into its machinery. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited completely independently of nuclear DNA, hence suggesting that mitochondria were added to eukaryotic cells. That's it. Nobody is talking about a "different genetic code"....

Yes, but if mitochondria were to originate from eubacteria getting stuck in eukaryotes, wouldn't that suggest that they should have a genetic code identical (or very close) to that of eubacteria? I don't see why it would switch genetic codes, especially as that would impede communication with a the eukaryotic genetic material that uses that same genetic code as eubacteria.

 

[jhugti]

Okay, I think we are geniunely misunderstanding each other here...

ALL organisms use the same genetic code of 4 nucleotides to code for codons, which in turn code for amino acids. I don't think (I hope) that this is what is being debated here as it is the fundamental tenet of molecular biology.

Perhaps you mean to say that the mitochondria have genomes non-identical to eubacteria. This is a true statement, but I'm yet again thrown by its apparent lack of relevance. Why would one expect a stasis in genetic change millions of years after a biological event? Also, I fail to see what you mean by impeding communication with eukaryotic genetic material. Mitochondrial gene products (proteins) do, in fact, work just fine with nuclear gene products (also proteins).

While we're on the topic of mitochondrial DNA, it might be relevant to point out that mDNA is also the only circular DNA in eukaryotes. Hmmm. Seems awfully familiar to our bacterial buddies.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Okay, I think we are geniunely misunderstanding each other here...

ALL organisms use the same genetic code of 4 nucleotides to code for codons, which in turn code for amino acids. I don't think (I hope) that this is what is being debated here as it is the fundamental tenet of molecular biology.

Perhaps you mean to say that the mitochondria have genomes non-identical to eubacteria. This is a true statement, but I'm yet again thrown by its apparent lack of relevance. Why would one expect a stasis in genetic change millions of years after a biological event? Also, I fail to see what you mean by impeding communication with eukaryotic genetic material. Mitochondrial gene products (proteins) do, in fact, work just fine with nuclear gene products (also proteins).

While we're on the topic of mitochondrial DNA, it might be relevant to point out that mDNA is also the only circular DNA in eukaryotes. Hmmm. Seems awfully familiar to our bacterial buddies.

I am not talking about mitochondrial DNA itself. I am talking about the CODE, which should be significantly more resistant to change, if we are going to apply evolutionary theory to it. My question is, if mitochondria have one genetic code, and eubacteria AND eukaryotes have another, doesn't that challenge the notion that mitochondria originated from eubacteria-like ancestors? I mean, if the present eubacteria had the same genetic code as the mitochondria, I would agree that the endosymbiotic theory has a valid case, but isn't the discrepancy in codes a problem?

 

[sylee]

Yes, but if mitochondria were to originate from eubacteria getting stuck in eukaryotes, wouldn't that suggest that they should have a genetic code identical (or very close) to that of eubacteria? I don't see why it would switch genetic codes, especially as that would impede communication with a the eukaryotic genetic material that uses that same genetic code as eubacteria.

The reason why scientists believe that presence of mitochondria (and chloroplasts) can be explained by endosymbiosis is that their genomes resemble those of prokaryotes and NOT the nuclear genome. For mitos, the genome can be traced phylogenetically to a group of proteobacteria (not sure what ones, but I'm sure you could find a journal article on it from pubmed, since we are also kind of on the topic of credibile resources) that include intracellular parasites... suspicious, huh?

Also, I believe the structure of ribos are different.... Their transcripts begin w/ fmet, like in bacteria.... NOT met, like it is in eukaryotes.

Aaaand, (this is far from the last bit of evidence but I really need to go) More strong evidence includes the fact that mitos (and chloros) have their own machinery to synthesize proteins.... which closely resemble those of prokaryotes!

Just some strong evidence for endosymb. that might clear up the "different genetic code" deal

 

[jhugti]

As far as I know, the only truly different codons in mDNA are UGA, AGA, AGG, and AUA. The other major difference between mDNA and nuclear, the presence of only 22 tRNAs, is explained by a more extreme form of the wobble that, in eukaryotes, makes single AAs often have multiple codons that differ at the third position.

In any case, 3 of the exceptions to the code are stop codons- I won't speculate on their use as I'm not a molecular geneticist, but its seems possible that the translational duties of mitochindrial nucleic acids changed markedy after their incorporation into eukaryotic cells- precipitating a change in stop codon codes. My point is that its not as though there are lots of AA coding changes- the codes are essentially the same with some changes that could easily be explained by selective pressure. Hardly a reason to dismiss the whole shebang....

ok out for the evening-

 

[NEATOMD]

Honestly, I don't think this is worth my time... but I don't find it to be incredibly important so much where the information is published as much as I care who did the research that is being quoted. But, since you either can't read or are too lazy to look it up...


http://www.s8int.com/doctorsfaith.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=42061
"The survey was conducted last weekend by HCD Research and the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies of The Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City. Physicians surveyed were Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist."

This study was published in several other places too. I just used these two web sites as sources because they were the first two that popped up when I googled for the info from the research. I might also add that the reason why this information would be found on religious websites might have something to do with the fact that the information provided by the study is more important to them than say...an athiest. Further, similar reasons might be inferred with regard to the fact that one of the institutions that conducted the survey was "The Jewish Theological Seminary."

You might also note that the posting which listed those web sites was not an argument for or against evolution, but instead something I just thought was interesting.

 

[NEATOMD]

also, leave it to creationists to use resources that display even in their URLs that their minds have been made up before looking at the facts. As long as people go searching in books with no authors, with no accountability, with no evidence, and chock full of events that directly contradict physical laws and human experience, I'm sure we'll be hearing about lots more "answers"....

If you were referring to the bible in the quote above, then I'm a little confused. First of all, I've never heard of any book not having an author. Actually, that statement kind of contradicts physical laws and human experience...but Christians have never claimed that the bible has no authors (each book does have an author). You would know that if you knew much about the bible. Instead you criticize what you don't know or understand while at the same time claiming creationists have made up their minds without first considering the evidence regarding evolution. I'm pretty sure that makes you a hypocrit. By the way, as I said before, I have studied both in great detail with an open mind before coming to my conclusion which, apparently, cannot be said about you. Unfortunately, the rest of your statement is "chock full" of incorrect statements and assumptions which only further indicate your lack of comprehension regarding what the does bible say. I'm not going to waste time explaining why...

As I said before, there is no way I can debate these things with you since, as indicated from the quote above, you have absolutely no idea about what the bible does actually say. Niether is this the proper place for such a debate. It would just be a waist of our time.

 

[jhugti]

My point re: using the bible as a scientific source is simply that it is by definition, irrefutible to its proponents. Thus, you cannot criticize its authorship (since such a criticism will be met with either a simple "It was written by God" or a list of people who's credibility has no way of being ascertained), you cannot point out that parts simply don't make sense according to physical laws (for those parts are invariably the allegorical ones), etc. etc. No matter how much it may sound like it, my point here is not to bash religion. Instead, I'm pointing out the inherent contradictions involved in using articles of faith as scientific data. Those of us on the "other" side of the argument are stripped of any way to really argue, since neither the information nor the credibility of the sources is open to question.

I won't dispute that spirituality has an important place in the human experience- it is in many ways central to it. However, that does not make science and religion equal players in describing the laws of the natural world. Why should we ignore the clear scientific explanation of speciation when we routinely trust our safety, well being, and lives to the other laws (discovered by the same processes, I might add) that science has uncovered in the past 2000 years? Why should this issue be any different simply because a book written thousands of years ago disagrees?

The reason, btw, that I posted some of the ridiculous content of those other websites was similarly to demonstrate that when an agenda exists (proving creationism so that religion is not second guessed) all kinds of "data" that would ordinarily get ignored gets read and in fact published. It's nothing specific to religion/creationism- any time someone has an axe to grind, the standards of science drop markedly. Do you really think that a religious organization would conduct and publish a survey demonstrating that physicians AREN'T religious? Moreover, though I saw little about the methodologies of the survey, one quote that stuck out at me was the definition of a miracle as used by the survey.

Miracle = "something that happens beyond scientific and medical explanation"

I have no doubt that 73% of physicans see things that defy explanation on a daily basis. That doesn't make all those happenings miracles, though. It makes them mysteries. This is the same reason that creationists are misguided in trying to shoot down evolution. The lack of a scientific explanation does not, in any way, substantiate a religious one in the absence of independent support for that religious hypothesis. Thus, just because medical events aren't explained by science or because Darwinism doesn't yet have a step-by-step history of living things doesn't make those phenomena mysteries requiring divine explanation.

Last, I'd like to mention that contrary to what NEOTOMD has suggested, my mind is certainly not made up before I approach intellectual problems. If I received some clear, irrefutible evidence that the story of creation was in fact true, I would drop this entire argument, become as devoted a disciple as anyone, and do my absolute best to convince people of the truth as I would then know it to be. As yet, such convincing evidence has yet to cross my path depsite earnest attempts to find it (via Christian authors). Rest assured, however, nobody is more eager to see it than I am.

 

[civic4982]

acceptable, not bashing, doesn't call them *****s or claim they don't know how to reason, doesn't bash the Bible or those who read it...you know, the typical issues...

what medical schools do that?

 

[civic4982]

which is most Christian friendly? Which ostracizes them?

Cornell

MSSM

NYMC

Columbia

NYU

Vandy

Wake

Duke (probably not from what I read on other threads)

I would take a stab at it and say Vanderbilt. Just look at the part of the country they're in. Also, the smaller the city, I'd say the more chances are you'll see a more religiously friendly environment. I'm not basing this on any studies or anything actualyl that has any relevance . Just a guess...

 

[civic4982]

I love that everyone is arguing over such a subjective topic expecting to convince the other person that they're right or corner them. Some great philosophical and religious minds have been touting this subject for decades now and you think you're gonna beat somebody on an online forum and convince THEM? You've gotta be fukkin' kidding yourselves.



All you smart people should just agree to disagree because 15 pages later, obviously ain't nobody gonna win! You're gonna think you're soooo damn right and the other person is a fanatic/suckered by science. Get over yourselves already.

 

[leechy]

I love that everyone is arguing over such a subjective topic expecting to convince the other person that they're right or corner them. Some great philosophical and religious minds have been touting this subject for decades now and you think you're gonna beat somebody on an online forum and convince THEM? You've gotta be fukkin' kidding yourselves.



All you smart people should just agree to disagree because 15 pages later, obviously ain't nobody gonna win! You're gonna think you're soooo damn right and the other person is a fanatic/suckered by science. Get over yourselves already.

It's not a subjective topic - unless you think that Newtonian physics and meteorology are also subjective topics. But I agree, arguing is pointless.

 

[jhugti]

It's not a subjective topic - unless you think that Newtonian physics and meteorology are also subjective topics. But I agree, arguing is pointless.

well said

 

[civic4982]

It's not a subjective topic - unless you think that Newtonian physics and meteorology are also subjective topics. But I agree, arguing is pointless.

My case was not against science but rather against what the basic argument is here. Wheter or not religious beliefs are plausible.

You are right that those are not suibjective topics, but even science is not impervious to error. There are still things in science that are inexplicable and since no data was taken at the times in question (I think talk of miracles was above) that are solid enough of evidence I'd have to say this is quite subjective.

I'll leave my views at that. You're all welcome to interpret however you like.

Now, back to your regularly schedule bickering

 

[fun8stuff]

As far as I know, the only truly different codons in mDNA are UGA, AGA, AGG, and AUA. The other major difference between mDNA and nuclear, the presence of only 22 tRNAs, is explained by a more extreme form of the wobble that, in eukaryotes, makes single AAs often have multiple codons that differ at the third position.

In any case, 3 of the exceptions to the code are stop codons- I won't speculate on their use as I'm not a molecular geneticist, but its seems possible that the translational duties of mitochindrial nucleic acids changed markedy after their incorporation into eukaryotic cells- precipitating a change in stop codon codes. My point is that its not as though there are lots of AA coding changes- the codes are essentially the same with some changes that could easily be explained by selective pressure. Hardly a reason to dismiss the whole shebang....

ok out for the evening-

Just because you are a Christian (as myself) does not mean you cannot accomodate science into your philosophy. The point of Christianity is not to explain the minutia about how we all got here (when the bible was written it would have been impossible for people to understand God's methods). The point of the Bible is to tell why we are here. It is not necessary that we understand how we came to be as much as it is to why. You shouldn't see science as something that contradicts religion. I don't see the problem here.... you guys aren't even using refutable sites....

 

[Attentive]

Just because you are a Christian (as myself) does not mean you cannot accomodate science into your philosophy. The point of Christianity is not to explain the minutia about how we all got here (when the bible was written it would have been impossible for people to understand God's methods). The point of the Bible is to tell why we are here. It is not necessary that we understand how we came to be as much as it is to why. You shouldn't see science as something that contradicts religion. I don't see the problem here.... you guys aren't even using refutable sites....

Sorry if I'm misreading prior posts(former Christian, now hopeful agnostic) but I thought the discussion was about religion jumping into science classrooms(ID), portraying itself as science, causing a backlash of science needing to contradict religion to keep it out. So there is a need to see science as contradicting religion to keep it out of a 'science' classroom.

Personally, my main problem with ID is that people on this thread seem to associate religion with Christianity alone, hence ID is by Judeo-Christian-Islamic God only. I'm curious as to what people who advocate ID would say to then attributing the 'intelligence' part of of ID to the Raelian's aliens, Greek/Roman Gods, Hindu Gods, etc.

 

[fun8stuff]

Sorry if I'm misreading prior posts(former Christian, now hopeful agnostic) but I thought the discussion was about religion jumping into science classrooms(ID), portraying itself as science, causing a backlash of science needing to contradict religion to keep it out. So there is a need to see science as contradicting religion to keep it out of a 'science' classroom.

I did kind of skim things, seeing how it was so long... so you're probably right.
...

Now I think I am starting to lean toward just have science be strictly science. It almost seems more appropiate for the creation theories/myths to be taught in a philosophy/mythology class. Biology's creation theory is evolutio, big bang, darwinism, etc....

 

[jhugti]

I did kind of skim things, seeing how it was so long... so you're probably right.
...

Now I think I am starting to lean toward just have science be strictly science. It almost seems more appropiate for the creation theories/myths to be taught in a philosophy/mythology class. Biology's creation theory is evolutio, big bang, darwinism, etc....

your posts are 100% correct- the "point" of religion historically has never been to explain the minutia of science. Just as you pointed out, religion has always given life meaning- something that I don't see science doing for a long long time.

Religion isn't going anywhere, nor do I think it should. When it comes to mechanistic explanations of natural phenomena, however, science has been shown superior time and time again.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

It's not a subjective topic - unless you think that Newtonian physics and meteorology are also subjective topics. But I agree, arguing is pointless.

I think it takes a lot of arrogance....and impudence ... to put such a LIE on webpage! You are WELL aware that Newtonian mechanics, even with it's errors w/ respect to relativity and quantum mechanics, is infinitely more airtight and self-consistent than that evolution bogus bs that's peddled. Btw, when it's problems cropped up, physicists established NEW theories, didn't try to patch up that old beaten up piece of junk theory - like Gould's punctuated equilibrium to explain away the lack of missing links...

 

[sumfratrisamor]

some bloke who had some amazing sociological theories and they wrote a book about him saying that he's the son of God

I must ask you not to use such derogatory language when refering to the Lord Jesus Christ.

(what's the icon for a stern face?)

 

[sumfratrisamor]

also, leave it to creationists to use resources that display even in their URLs that their minds have been made up before looking at the facts. As long as people go searching in books with no authors, with no accountability, with no evidence, and chock full of events that directly contradict physical laws and human experience, I'm sure we'll be hearing about lots more "answers"....

Where is a single shred of evidence that even closely contradicts physical laws and/or human experience?

People like Newton and Pastuer used the scientific resources of the Bible as the foundation of research that has been no small part of today's advanced society.

 

[sumfratrisamor]

what medical schools do that?

Well, we seem to get enough of it in here.

 

[sumfratrisamor]

My point re: using the bible as a scientific source is simply that it is by definition, irrefutible to its proponents. Thus, you cannot criticize its authorship (since such a criticism will be met with either a simple "It was written by God" or a list of people who's credibility has no way of being ascertained), you cannot point out that parts simply don't make sense according to physical laws (for those parts are invariably the allegorical ones), etc. etc. No matter how much it may sound like it, my point here is not to bash religion.

You could to some degree ascertain the credibility of these 40 men.

Instead, I'm pointing out the inherent contradictions involved in using articles of faith as scientific data.

Saying that homosexuallity or bisexuallity is genetic is an article of faith. They contradict evolution.

Those of us on the "other" side of the argument are stripped of any way to really argue, since neither the information nor the credibility of the sources is open to question.

Go ahead, question them.

I won't dispute that spirituality has an important place in the human experience- it is in many ways central to it. However, that does not make science and religion equal players in describing the laws of the natural world.

True, they are not equal players. They have different roles.

Why should we ignore the clear scientific explanation of speciation when we routinely trust our safety, well being, and lives to the other laws (discovered by the same processes, I might add) that science has uncovered in the past 2000 years?

Because some of these clear scientific explainations are not so clear.

Why should this issue be any different simply because a book written thousands of years ago disagrees?

The reason, btw, that I posted some of the ridiculous content of those other websites was similarly to demonstrate that when an agenda exists (proving creationism so that religion is not second guessed) all kinds of "data" that would ordinarily get ignored gets read and in fact published. It's nothing specific to religion/creationism- any time someone has an axe to grind, the standards of science drop markedly. Do you really think that a religious organization would conduct and publish a survey demonstrating that physicians AREN'T religious? Moreover, though I saw little about the methodologies of the survey, one quote that stuck out at me was the definition of a miracle as used by the survey.

Miracle = "something that happens beyond scientific and medical explanation"

I have no doubt that 73% of physicans see things that defy explanation on a daily basis. That doesn't make all those happenings miracles, though. It makes them mysteries. This is the same reason that creationists are misguided in trying to shoot down evolution.

< >

The lack of a scientific explanation does not, in any way, substantiate a religious one in the absence of independent support for that religious hypothesis.

Lack of scientific explanation? Are you suggesting that Evolution does not already have ALL of the answers

Thus, just because medical events aren't explained by science or because Darwinism doesn't yet have a step-by-step history of living things doesn't make those phenomena mysteries requiring divine explanation.

You mean there are significant gaps in the theory of evolution? Sounds to me like you need faith to believe in the things that inevitably fill those gaps, huh? I think the world officially has another religion - a godless one.

Last, I'd like to mention that contrary to what NEOTOMD has suggested, my mind is certainly not made up before I approach intellectual problems. If I received some clear, irrefutible evidence that the story of creation was in fact true, I would drop this entire argument, become as devoted a disciple as anyone, and do my absolute best to convince people of the truth as I would then know it to be. As yet, such convincing evidence has yet to cross my path depsite earnest attempts to find it (via Christian authors). Rest assured, however, nobody is more eager to see it than I am.

Good. Read the Bible; if you want even more convincing evidence, or just some added detail, then try science.