Newly found fossils provide more proof of evolution?

[keratin]

Except that genesis explains in pretty good detail about the creation of the earth and the creatures on it.

Though I'm surprised that you would put credence in a deity becoming human when there's no way prove it could happen or that this deity actually exists.

The Genesis story goes into no detail into what is exactly being created, for all we know all those physical things like water and planets and stars and wildebeests existed physically and all God did was give them concept to be defined by which could just as easily be a soul or some sort of metaphysical quality that created them in His view. Since God is unknowable, there is no way to know what exactly God meant (especially since both the Greek wording and the Hebrew Wording proceed to be vague).

And the Old Testament is full of stories that weren't true (Jonah and the Whale [well really big fish] for one). Job is believed to be another. Why not Genesis, what real difference does it make for a Christian what the old testament says as Jesus basically said (I egregiously paraphrase) 'that stuff is superceded by this new covenent that I make with you'. And really being Christian at its core isn't about following meticulous rules (did not Christ work on a Sabbath?) or wording from ancient texts. It's about being a good person, that loves ones neighbor and about the belief that what you do in life is covered by the death of a man who died for you, and if you don't like that...well...you can take it up with the boss.

It's an untestable hypothesis, that by its nature can easily be used to explain things that science doesn't have perview (such as souls and the metaphysical). Furthermore, since you can't prove anything about those things and by their supernatural nature don't interact in any physical way with the natural world (Because if they did they'd leave a trace which would then pull them into being natural and thus explanable) then it does no harm to believe if it makes you more comfortable. It is when people assert that some things can't happen because a supernatural thing says it couldn't have...that the problem arises, the willful ignoring of data that says that this natural process is happening in this way...that's the problem.

I'm also open-minded enough to accept new proper scientific evidence that evidences a soul or heaven or God, and willing to modify my theory to fit new data. But no such data has arrived, and I am quite happy to keep God firmly in the metaphysical as a concept.

[agent_86]

The Genesis story goes into no detail into what is exactly being created, for all we know all those physical things like water and planets and stars and wildebeests existed physically and all God did was give them concept to be defined by which could just as easily be a soul or some sort of metaphysical quality that created them in His view. Since God is unknowable, there is no way to know what exactly God meant (especially since both the Greek wording and the Hebrew Wording proceed to be vague).

And the Old Testament is full of stories that weren't true (Jonah and the Whale [well really big fish] for one). Job is believed to be another. Why not Genesis, what real difference does it make for a Christian what the old testament says as Jesus basically said (I egregiously paraphrase) 'that stuff is superceded by this new covenent that I make with you'. And really being Christian at its core isn't about following meticulous rules (did not Christ work on a Sabbath?) or wording from ancient texts. It's about being a good person, that loves ones neighbor and about the belief that what you do in life is covered by the death of a man who died for you, and if you don't like that...well...you can take it up with the boss.

It's an untestable hypothesis, that by its nature can easily be used to explain things that science doesn't have perview (such as souls and the metaphysical). Furthermore, since you can't prove anything about those things and by their supernatural nature don't interact in any physical way with the natural world (Because if they did they'd leave a trace which would then pull them into being natural and thus explanable) then it does no harm to believe if it makes you more comfortable.

I'm also open-minded enough to accept new proper scientific evidence that evidences a soul or heaven or God, and willing to modify my theory to fit new data. But no such data has arrived, and I am quite happy to keep God firmly in the metaphysical as a concept.

Sigh... there a lot of "what ifs" to cover in that post...

The bible (and most holy books) was written for humans. But since evolution says we are just one in a line of many species that will eventually be replaced by a better and different one, it too is not very useful.

[keratin]

Sigh... there a lot of "what ifs" to cover in that post...

The bible (and most holy books) was written for humans. But since evolution says we are just one in a line of many species that will eventually be replaced by a better and different one, it too is not very useful.

Evolution makes no determination about qualitative better, only quantitative efficiency of varieties. The Bible is supposedly transcendent...most assuredly God understands this; I wouldn't worry about God's audience, I think God can handle it.

God is by his nature what ifs. He's vague and unknowable. The Bible was written for the ancient Jews of Judea and associated tribes. It's not even for us...the closest it got was for for those early Christians during the mid-late Roman empire and most of that stuff about fidelity to faith was so that they wouldn't succomb to the constant temptation of alternate Christianity (Gnosticism specifically) and other mystery religions. The context has nothing to do with today...but the general principles of charity and general societal goodness are still applicable...the enumerous specific edicts on sexuality, slavery, woman's emancipation and the like were completely bound into the context of the time and were used as rhetorical weapons so as to differentiate themselves from the Roman-Hellenistic complex of the time. In other words, the important stuff about the Bible...the stuff that Jesus said 'Be good, don't judge, I'll save you in the end' are still viable...it's the meticulous stuff that's just historical chaffe that a transcendent eternal supernatural God would not give one whiff about.

[Clintville]

There are religious evolutionists. Besides, what use is an omnipotent god when that god is superseded by chance when it comes to the abundance and eventual form of life on this planet?

What exactly are these religious evolution believers worshipping?

And before we go off on a tangent on what the meaning of "religion" is...

Lets stick with this one from dictionary.com:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Ever heard of Deists? What about old Earth creationists. The god doesn't have to be omnipotent.

[natalie addict]

Klingon.

Which just begs the question, "Why was the Enterprise orbiting Uranus?"

[Clintville]

So, I ask again... What are evolutionists being religious about, when they give credit to chance and death for their current condition?
No where does it say evolution created the universe. A person could believe that a god, gods, or some kind of supernatural thing created the Big Bang and then then left the rest up to itself.

Christianity isn't the only religion. Existing religions aren't even the only potential beliefs.

[agent_86]

No where does it say evolution created the universe. A person could believe that a god, gods, or some kind of supernatural thing created the Big Bang and then then left the rest up to itself.

Christianity isn't the only religion. Existing religions aren't even the only potential beliefs.

True, but most religions posit the existence of a god or gods that created the universe.

[Clintville]

Sigh... there a lot of "what ifs" to cover in that post...

The bible (and most holy books) was written for humans. But since evolution says we are just one in a line of many species that will eventually be replaced by a better and different one, it too is not very useful.
Why can it not be written to humans with evolution existing? God could have waited for humanity to come into existence. What would time be to God?

[natalie addict]

Klingon.

I told my Russian g/f that I envied her because she could read "War and Peace" in the original Klingon. She didn't have a clue what I was talking about.

[Clintville]

True, but most religions posit the existence of a god or gods that created the universe.
And what does "most" have to do with anything. Didn't you just make a similar point?

[agent_86]

Why can it not be written to humans with evolution existing? God could have waited for humanity to come into existence. What would time be to God?

I guess that makes sense to you.

[Clintville]

I guess that makes sense to you.
Well, it isn't really up to an opinion. Evolution is obviously compatible with non atheists. Otherwise only atheists/agnostics would believe in it. That is unless you think that your belief is the only religion, which wouldn't make any sense.

[agent_86]

And what does "most" have to do with anything. Didn't you just make a similar point?

Being religious denotes worship. Worship denotes there being a reason for being worshipped.

Maybe I'm missing the evolutionist's reason for worshiping a deity that has little to do with anything.

[keratin]

True, but most religions posit the existence of a god or gods that created the universe.

Jainism doesn't, in fact Jainism makes a relatively lengthy logical argument against creator gods and that their deities are just as much part of the karmic cycle as any other being in existence.

[Drawz]

Which just begs the question, "Why was the Enterprise orbiting Uranus?"

Something about the Captains Log, I believe.

[keratin]

True, but most religions posit the existence of a god or gods that created the universe.

Humans need this sort of belief to be human...to be where the falling angel meets the rising ape...we start with the little lies like the tooth fairy and Santa Claus and the like so that we can practice for the big lies later on in life...like Justice, Duty, Mercy, that sort of thing. Because really if you took the universe and ground it down to the finest powder and seive it through the finest seive, you wouldn't find a single atom of justice, or molecule of mercy...but we humans we keep pretending that there's some rightness in the universe by which it can be judged....largely because you have to believe in something, which is rather the point, exactly....

I rather think we've grown up enough, that we can start focusing on believing the big lies...and let the little lies...fade away.

By the by...there's nothing wrong with Death...He's quite sweet and philosophical...as he once said...'What can the harvest hope for, if not for the care of the reaperman'. There is no justice...just him...

[agent_86]

Jainism doesn't, in fact Jainism makes a relatively lengthy logical argument against creator gods and that their deities are just as much part of the karmic cycle as any other being in existence.

Does that negate what I said?

[keratin]

Does that negate what I said?

No, but it doesn't change the fact that there may be a chance that a majority of religions that posit a creation story are wrong and those tales are in fact just fairytales....

I mean believing God created the world is functionally no different than believing that Odin bludgeoned an Ice Giant to do it, or that Izanagi and Izanami stirred it up with a big stick or that through various sometimes lewd acts the Brahamin deities brought the universe into existence, or that it suddenly appeared from the primordial chaos of Eros birthing Gaia and Chronos....yet...yet...you would fight tooth and nail explaining that they are different...on some level.

Like I said, we start with the little lies...so we can practice for the big lies...

[agent_86]

No, but it doesn't change the fact that there may be a chance that a majority of religions that posit a creation story are wrong and those tales are in fact just fairytales....

I mean believing God created the world is functionally no different than believing that Odin bludgeoned an Ice Giant to do it, or that Izanagi and Izanami stirred it up with a big stick or that through various sometimes lewd acts the Brahamin deities brought the universe into existence, or that it suddenly appeared from the primordial chaos of Eros birthing Gaia and Chronos....yet...yet...you would fight tooth and nail explaining that they are different...on some level.

Like I said, we start with the little lies...so we can practice for the big lies...

And I would argue it's no different than believing that pure chance dictating all life on earth or the creation of the universe.

[keratin]

And I would argue it's no different than believing that pure chance dictating all life on earth or the creation of the universe.

But evolution isn't chance. It has stochastic elements, but those elements are worked upon by a very precise, meticulous selective force that is very deterministic and works along a general trend...towards nothing in particular but the trend is predictable and not random not chance. You can predict that bears with small ears and heavy fur will become more common in colder climates than bears with large ears and thinner fur. It isn't chance that this happens, in fact you see the same patterns of selection happening over and over and over again.

[Greyclouds]

Except that genesis explains in pretty good detail about the creation of the earth and the creatures on it.

No, Genesis does a pretty poor job. For instance, where are the bacteria? If they were created "after the fall," then that ignores HUGE concepts such as symbiosis, nitrogen cycles, zoo/phytoplankton and it also ignores the fact that bacteria are the largest collective biomass on the planet.

Actually, one COULD use apologetics to attribute bacteria to the fall, but that would make the serpent/Lilith the most prolific creator (being the creator of the most abundant life-forms).


Though I'm surprised that you would put credence in a deity becoming human when there's no way prove it could happen or that this deity actually exists.

There is a big difference between this belief and your insistence: the first does not attempt to suspend huge swaths of science to make it possible; literalist creation DOES suspend reality in its conjectures. The grand majority of Christian sects believe that Jesus was also human.

[Marleysdaddy]

And I would argue it's no different than believing that pure chance dictating all life on earth or the creation of the universe.

Except no one believes that.

Keep kickin' that straw man...you're not the first, and you won't be the last.

[Marleysdaddy]

Well, I'm not the only dummy that thinks the two are:

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity -- omnipotent chance." Ridiculous - I bet Princeton is regretting giving this guy a doctorate in history (though hopefully it wasn't in the history of science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roszak_(scholar)
"The doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation. Evolution consistently accepted makes it impossible to believe the Bible" - Thomas H. HuxleyAgain, ridiculous - accepting the theory of evolution makes it impossible to believe a literal interpretation of one chapter of the Bible...NOT "the Bible"

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable!" - Sir Arthur Keith FRS

Slightly less ridiculous - Evolution, like all scientific theories, is "unproved and unprovable"
but special creation is NOT the only alternative (Sir Keith is committing the fallacy of false choice)

[captusa]

Originally Posted by agent_86
Well, I'm not the only dummy that thinks the two are:
..................
I can't argue with that.

[Marleysdaddy]

Now, now cap'n...that's not necessary ;)

[Drawz]

Now, now cap'n...that's not necessary ;)

Funny though. :)

[captusa]

Now, now cap'n...that's not necessary ;)

Very few things are.
AND
How could I resist ?

[Marleysdaddy]

Originally Posted by Marleysdaddy
Now, now cap'n...that's not necessary ;)

Very few things are.


Was that a logic joke? :dance:

[Marleysdaddy]

Bump for agent 86 to provide evidence that the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy accepted the theory of evolution to increase the Church's membership...

[agent_86]

Bump for agent 86 to provide evidence that the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy accepted the theory of evolution to increase the Church's membership...

It was obviously speculation on my part. As I said, I'm not catholic and I don't claim to speak for them. Its interesting that you dwell on that.

Are you Catholic, is that why you dwell?

[Marleysdaddy]

It was obviously speculation on my part. As I said, I'm not catholic and I don't claim to speak for them. Its interesting that you dwell on that.

Are you Catholic, is that why you dwell?

I'm not a Catholic, and 'speculation' is not synonymous with 'evidence'

In post 434 you claimed to have said evidence,

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=62136841&postcount=434

so I just asked to see it.

[Greyclouds]

I'm not a Catholic, and 'speculation' is not synonymous with 'evidence'

In post 434 you claimed to have said evidence,

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=62136841&postcount=434

so I just asked to see it.

I would like to see that evidence too.

Not Catholic, but interested to see some actual evidence of that assertion.

[agent_86]

I would like to see that evidence too.

Not Catholic, but interested to see some actual evidence of that assertion.

Wow. You guys are a humorless bunch.

[Greyclouds]

Wow. You guys are a humorless bunch.

Yep.

Now, show us the goods.

[agent_86]

Yep.

Now, show us the goods.

The post you quoted was a joke... sarcasm...

http://static.tvguide.com/MediaBin/Galleries/Movies/G_L/Gi_Gp/Goods_Live_Hard_SellHard/1/the-goods5.jpg

[captusa]

The post you quoted was a joke... sarcasm...

http://static.tvguide.com/MediaBin/Galleries/Movies/G_L/Gi_Gp/Goods_Live_Hard_SellHard/1/the-goods5.jpg


Poe's Law!!!!!

[captusa]

Wow. You guys are a humorless bunch.

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you don't have any information that supports your assertion that the Pope recognized evolution theory in order to bolster flagging membership in the Church...
You accuse the hierarchy of the largest Christian denomination of promoting what you consider Atheism to boost membership and claim to have evidence equal to 150+ years of scholarly evidence in biology, geology, archeology and paleantology.


OH NOW I GET IT.


ha ********ing ha

[agent_86]

You accuse the hierarchy of the largest Christian denomination of promoting what you consider Atheism to boost membership and claim to have evidence equal to 150+ years of scholarly evidence in biology, geology, archeology and paleantology.


OH NOW I GET IT.


ha ********ing ha

Oh it's all fun and games until someone makes a joke at evolution's expense, then the room goes quiet...

[Drawz]

Oh it's all fun and games until someone makes a joke at evolution's expense, then the room goes quiet...

As I read it, the jokes at your expense:

"You're right Drawz, I have no evidence whatsoever for my ridiculous assertion, but...but... there's no evidence for evolution either, so there!"*


*The preceding is wholely a comedic creation of Drawz Inc. And in no way reflects actual thoughts or statements made by Agent 86.

[Marleysdaddy]

Oh it's all fun and games until someone makes a joke at evolution's expense, then the room goes quiet...

While I admire your attempt to turn this on the other participants in the thread, it's completely clear to everyone what really happened.

You are welcome to claim that it is a joke now, but you will not convince me that when you typed post #434 you were just "joking". Point your detector at your own cow pie this time.

You do not have, nor did you ever have, any evidence that the Roman Catholic Church accepted the theory of evolution to bolster it's sagging numbers...actually, you haven't even provided evidence that the Church had sagging numbers.

[agent_86]

While I admire your attempt to turn this on the other participants in the thread, it's completely clear to everyone what really happened.

You are welcome to claim that it is a joke now, but you will not convince me that when you typed post #434 you were just "joking". Point your detector at your own cow pie this time.

You do not have, nor did you ever have, any evidence that the Roman Catholic Church accepted the theory of evolution to bolster it's sagging numbers...actually, you haven't even provided evidence that the Church had sagging numbers.

Well, i knew I read it some where about sagging attendance:

http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/index.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-11-07-church-main_x.htm

"The "most damaging change in Catholic life is the precipitous decline in Mass attendance. It's the sign of a church collapsing," says Catholic University sociologist William D'Antonio, co-author of statistical studies of American Catholics.

Nationally, attendance slid from 44% in 1987 to 37% in 1999. D'Antonio predicts it will be 33% in 2005.

"Each generation starts with a lower attendance rating. People don't grow into attending Mass," he says."

And I remember also the announcement that the church doctrine was compatible with evolution, because of the fuss it caused in 96:

http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html

I simply put 2 and 2 together. But again it was speculation on my part that attendance was the reason they adopted evolution.

Again it was a joke based on my recollection. But you can keep going if you like.

I do remember either an interview or newspaper article with somebody that it was US attendance that prompted the adoption of evolution. The memory is vague and distant, but I suppose if you must dwell on it I can dig and find it.

Does the info i posted count as "evidence" that Catholic numbers were sagging? Just curious, since I have to explain and fully document my jests and jokes...

[Greyclouds]

Well, i knew I read it some where about sagging attendance:

http://cara.georgetown.edu/bulletin/index.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-11-07-church-main_x.htm

"The "most damaging change in Catholic life is the precipitous decline in Mass attendance. It's the sign of a church collapsing," says Catholic University sociologist William D'Antonio, co-author of statistical studies of American Catholics.

Nationally, attendance slid from 44% in 1987 to 37% in 1999. D'Antonio predicts it will be 33% in 2005.

"Each generation starts with a lower attendance rating. People don't grow into attending Mass," he says."

And I remember also the announcement that the church doctrine was compatible with evolution, because of the fuss it caused in 96:

http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html

I simply put 2 and 2 together. But again it was speculation on my part that attendance was the reason they adopted evolution.

Again it was a joke based on my recollection. But you can keep going if you like.

I do remember either an interview or newspaper article with somebody that it was US attendance that prompted the adoption of evolution. The memory is vague and distant, but I suppose if you must dwell on it I can dig and find it.

Does the info i posted count as "evidence" that Catholic numbers were sagging? Just curious, since I have to explain and fully document my jests and jokes...

Use the [/humor] tag next time you mean to try to dismiss actual points in a debate with a joke, please.

For instance, "Intelligent design is so true, because it's irreducibly... um... simple?" [/humor]

See? Everyone hopefully saw that I was joking and laughed (thank you, tip your waitresses on the way out...). Too bad that my joke was actually quite Freudian :lol:

[Marleysdaddy]

Yeah, what Greyclouds said... ;)

[Marleysdaddy]

Ever heard of Deists? What about old Earth creationists. The god doesn't have to be omnipotent.

Actually, the god can't be omnipotent...that's why it's called the Omnipotence Paradox :razz:

[Drawz]

Actually, the god can't be omnipotent...that's why it's called the Omnipotence Paradox :razz:

Ah, the classic question: "Could God microwave a burrito so hot that even He couldn't eat it?"