Ignorance is not an Excuse

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 101 discussions (248 posts)
  1. Inspirepub profile image72
    Inspirepubposted 15 years ago

    I don't see anything in your Communist quotes about Darwin - what's the connection?

    If A attacks B and C attacks B that doesn't mean that A equals C.

    Communists attacked all religions for one reason; atheists attack various religions for other reasons, and Darwin didn't actually attack religion at all. There are many committed Christians who believe that Darwinian natural selection is The Hand Of God in action, and that evolution is the way that God brought forth all the living creatures that we see today.

    Darwinism is completely compatible with Christianity, and it is equally compatible with atheism, because it is religiously neutral.

    The only reason that Darwinism is potentially a threat to Christianity is because it provides a plausible explanation for the state of the world as we see it today that does NOT require the existence of a Christian God. It is compatible with the Christian God, but does not depend in His existence.

    Atheists generally embrace Darwinism as the best explanation available to them, given that the alternatives require belief in some deity or other - or in several, depending on whose creation myth you're looking at. Many atheists would happily abandon Darwin in a heartbeat if something more scientifically viable came along, but so far nothing has.

    The Christian creation myth has no better claim to truth than the Hindu, Shinto or Australian Aboriginal myths. To an atheist, they are all equivalent. To a believer in any one of these religions, their own story is Truth, and all others are Evil, Barbarian, or just Ignorant and Wrongheaded.

    The "attack" on Christianity is no greater now that it has ever been. The Arian heresy, for example, has been around since Jesus died, or maybe even before. It was only declared heresy hundreds of years later, and in fact Charlemagne and many early Holy Roman Emperors were Arians.

    Arians believe that Jesus was just a man, not Divine - or no more Divine than anyone else. They have been "attacking" orthodox Christianity ever since orthodoxy was defined by the Council of Nicaea. And Muslims have been "attacking" Christianity since 600 something AD. And pagans since before it had a name.

    There has never been a time when Christianity was not being assailed from all sides. It is a religion of the persecuted, and part of the Christian psyche seems to require a sense of perpetual victimhood, even when it holds political ascendancy.

    Christianity is doing just fine, and it is no more "attacked" today than it was 1000 years ago.

    Jenny

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I was just about to ask why Christain always think they are being "attacked" or "persecuted", especially in this thread, when it has absolutly nothing to do with religion whatsoever. 

      I say to the paranoid religious types, It is all in your head.  It's 2008, grow up, if you would stop insisiting that everyone is out to get you, then maybe you would stop arguing with anyone and everyone who thinks differently than you.  Jesus put it in your head that everyone is out to get you, and I can say that, it is not true!

  2. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

    Wasn't Newton an Arian?

  3. Prophecy Teacher profile image61
    Prophecy Teacherposted 15 years ago

    Sandra - Newton did not believe in the Trinity - as it was later revealed in his writings (after his death) - while he was alive he didn't talk about it much since in the Anglican church it was considered heresy to be otherwise.


    Mark, I am very busy the next several days...I will discuss your post as i can.

    Thanks,

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Any time....

    2. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      doyee

  4. Make  Money profile image66
    Make Moneyposted 15 years ago

    Mark Jesus did not preach a disdain for the church in any shape or form.  Although Jesus did show a disdain for the pharisees and the sanhedrin in a big way.  I am showing tolerance, love and understanding otherwise I wouldn't be posting in these forums.  I am still trying to understand why you guys continue to attack Christianity.  You guys prove my point over and over again.

    Mark believe it or not I am saying something similar to what you are saying when I say that Christian Nationalism is not God's Christianity.  Christian Nationalism with Bush and the McCainiacs goes completely against the second tenant of God's New Covenant to us, "to love thy neighbor as thyself".
    http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/12/28/c … w-bush.htm
    http://www.speroforum.com/wiki/default. … alism.html

    Jenny has said that Darwinism is not an attack on Christianity.  So why don't you guys try to prove that to Christians by not attacking Christianity any more? 

    I'd go as far as to say that some birds or other species have evolved depending on their environment.  You know like a bird in one part of the world may have different colors or is bigger than another bird of the same species that lives in a different part of the world which has a different environment.  But you have to understand that as Christians it is hard for us to accept that we evolved from apes.



    Quotes from this site about Newton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
    "Snobelen concludes that Newton was ... possibly an Arian and almost certainly an antitrinitarian." but "T.C. Pfizenmaier argues that Newton held the Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity rather than the Western one held by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and most Protestants.[19] In his own day, he was also accused of being a Rosicrucian (as were many in the Royal Society and in the court of Charles II)."

    So it looks like Snobelen and Pfizenmaier disagree with each other as to whether Newton believed in the Trinity or not.   

    I'd tend to agree with Sandra, PT and Snobelen after reading the disgusting book called Holy Blood, Holy Grail.  Holy Blood, Holy Grail was the predecessor of the Da Vinci Files and the authors tried to further their joint cause by gaining media attention by accusing the author of the Da Vinci Files with copyright infringement.  In the book called Holy Blood, Holy Grail it claimed that Isaac Newton was the Grand Master of Freemasonry in his time which supports the quote from the above web site, "he was also accused of being a Rosicrucian".
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucian

    It's not a secret that the Illuminati, which is part of Freemasonry and is often used in reference to the New World Order, has had the plans for a couple of hundred years to infiltrate Christianity to subvert and slander Her.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati

    I doubt if it's a coincidence that the first mention of the New World Order by a U.S. politician was on September 1, 1991 by daddy Bush, exactly 10 years to the day before 9/11.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo

    It doesn't matter whether the East or the West wins this fight for control of the New World Order, no matter what the outcome it will not be good for the majority of the citizens of our planet.

    Mark if you think that I have side tracked your thread I'd like to tell you that I have not because it is part of the plan of both the East and the West to attack Christianity. 

    Mike

    1. profile image0
      Zarm Nefilinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Dude you are so onto us.

      Archbishop Bugnini WAS a freemason and DID architect Vatican II's liturgical reform for nefarious reasons related to the uber secret pact he made with Baphomet and the Freemasons.

      His nephew contacted me and now I am a part of the Illuminati run by Adam Weishaupt XI.

      We are gunna get you, only a matter of time...

      lol

    2. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Mike - I have cut this part out as I am really not interested in discussing those other allegations you are making. Mainly because it does not have any bearing on the theory of evolution or Darwin's origin of the species. If you want to turn Darwin into some sort of religious anti-christian crusader, be my guest. I understand why you feel the need.

      But, I have bolded a part of your statement. And I have one question.

      Why?

  5. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

    Mike -

    What are you not getting here?

    Darwin's theory, and the current theory of biological evolution have absolutely nothing to do with whatever I may think of christianity and the lack of christian behavior I see from most so-called christians.

    But, if you show love, tolerence and understanding by attacking a scientific theory, you have just lost me completely.

    I personally think the christian religion is a crock. Mostly because I have yet to meet any christians. But I think all the other religions are a crock, and I am indiscriminate in my lack of regard for them. If the catholic church had spent its energy devoted to looking after the needy instead of making war and collecting money for the last 1,000 years, maybe my opinion would be different.

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

    But please show me an instance of me attacking christianity in this thread.

    If you want to say that a scientific theory that proves man was not created as we are now, and evolved over eons of time is an attack on christianity, you are in for a lot more where that came from because we are only just beginning to develop technologies that allow us to more fully understand our roots.

  6. profile image0
    mikeq107posted 15 years ago

    Hey Mark:)

    What do you measure life by?

    MikeQ

  7. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

    Hey Mike smile

    I am not so sure I measure life.

  8. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    How about something between dark, cold empty space and planet earth, or between life as how we know it and some ideal
    conception as it might be in heaven.

  9. Prophecy Teacher profile image61
    Prophecy Teacherposted 15 years ago

    Make $ - Sandra - there is no better source for anything Newton than The Newton Project. Enjoy.

    http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=1

    Type Trinitarian into the search box

  10. profile image52
    jewel4lifeposted 15 years ago

    Christianity is more than a religion. it means being christ like. you can only get there thru his word and not by arguement. whether one believes in God or not does not make him less of who he is-God. i thank God man has been on earth for thousands of years and has not evolved into anything else according to ur theory. God bless you

    1. Misha profile image62
      Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      You don't want to get there, right? wink Otherwise you wouldn't take part in arguEment...

  11. Make  Money profile image66
    Make Moneyposted 15 years ago

    Thanks for your understanding Mark.

    Regarding your question "Why?", simply because it contradicts the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

    Other than the Bible there is no positive proof of the Garden of Eden but just the other day I read an article that talked about an area in the Middle East that was like a garden at one time which is now a desert.  I do not understand everything in the Bible but what I do I take literally.  There have been some that have traced genealogies back to Adam by using the Bible.  Again no positive proof unless you take the Bible literally but then on the same note there is no positive proof that we evolved from apes either.  You are right Mark, it does boil down to a matter of faith, for both of us.




    Excuse me Mark, I just need to reply to Zarm.

    No fear here Mr. Nephilim.  A Friday the 13th is not an unlucky day for us as it is to you and yourn. lol 
    You do understand what I am getting at though Zarm, it is about souls.  Most Catholics realize the New Mass is valid anyways.  And there is good news for those that want to attend a Latin Mass, Pope Benedict has recently declared that if there are 30 people in an area that want to attend it should be offered and it now is.  And it's not just the people that read Gruner's material or the SSPX that are still waiting for the consecration.

    By the way Zarm, just yesterday I was reading another article that didn't have much good to say about that Legion.  I thought you'd like to know.

    Mike

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Mike - Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say anything about having faith in evolution. I know that lying is part of your christian ethos, but still.

      I have left some links regarding proof about the evolution of man. Please feel free to follow them if you are interested in becoming less ignorant than you are apparently choosing to be.

      Although you have yet again reinforced my "beliefs." Christian = Liar. And you wonder why christianity is "under attack." lol

      Thank you. I love you lol

      http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6937476.stm
      http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/3142.html
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

      These are all links to reputable scientific studies and discoveries. No politics, no religion.

      I will not be responding to you any further on this thread. If you wish to remain ignorant, that is your choice. The bible doesn't count as positive proof I'm afraid. sad

      ciao

  12. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    Garden of Eden. Seems to me considering where we are at in space, seemingly lifeless for at least who knows how many light years, that we are 'now' living in the
    'Garden of Eden', the planet earth. Also seems to me - to leave the garden is a state of mind.

  13. Make  Money profile image66
    Make Moneyposted 15 years ago

    Lighten up Mark.

    You have proven my point again.

    This web site should also be consider when looking at evolution.
    Quote from http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
    "Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Heribert Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed."

    Seeing this bothers you so much I won't post in this thread any longer.

    Keep the faith Mark

    Mike

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      lol

      How very christian of you big_smile

      Sorry - I just do not like liars.

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        I would like to say, thanks Mark for keepin' it real.  I agree with Coolbreeze!  smile

        1. Mark Knowles profile image58
          Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          A pleasure smile

  14. Sterling Sage profile image59
    Sterling Sageposted 15 years ago

    I just discovered this thread, and I think I can contribute some useful information.  First, let me encourage people on both sides to ease off the flames, since they ultimately prevent us from focusing on the main issue.

    Now--I have a good understanding of biological science.  I'm not bragging; I'm just showing my "credentials" when it comes to the science involved.  So I'll try help explain what I can.

    I see one important thing missing from the discussion, something that should help clarify the current belief of most modern scientists:

    Evolution is no longer a theory. It is only called the "Theory of Evolution" for historical reasons.  When it was first proposed, the phrase was literally correct, since, like any theory, it began as an untested idea. Things are very different today, though.  Evolution is generally considered to be a fact because it has now been thoroughly investigated, and there is a mountain of compelling evidence for it and virtually no compelling evidence against it.  It should have been renamed "the Theorem of Evolution," meaning that it's an established fact.  The only reason it's still called "Theory" is that it was originally a theory, and so many people had heard of it that the name just stuck.  By the time it was proven, it would have been difficult or even impossible to change the name.

    I hope this helps.

  15. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "Evolution is generally considered to be a fact because it has now been thoroughly investigated, and there is a mountain of compelling evidence for it and virtually no compelling evidence against it." Try as I might - I have yet to see the proof for cross-species evolution.

    1. Sterling Sage profile image59
      Sterling Sageposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      As others have pointed out, the development of new species is usually a gradual process.  It works a little like this:

      I have relatively long, slender fingers, like a lot of people.  Of course, there are also plenty of people with short, thick fingers.  Right now, it really doesn't matter to me.  I played piano a little for a while, and maybe I had a slight physical advantage there.  Currently, a person's ability to play piano doesn't determine their ability to survive or reproduce.

      Now, let me create an imaginary future to show how this small difference could play into the formation of a new species.  In this future, I have children with a woman who has long fingers, too, and it turns out that they both result from the same gene.  Some of our kids have longer fingers than either of us parents, some shorter.  Still, not very important for survival.  Now picture similar scenarios playing out all over the world, for generations and generations.  Some people happen to inherit genes that give them very long fingers (in our world with many billions of people, there truly is a wide variety of physical traits.  Some are very rare, like being as tall as the average basketball player.) It still doesn't really matter much to anyone else.

      Now, in this hastily imagined future, people who aren't good at piano start dying.  It doesn't matter why; let's just say some genetically engineered virus is involved.  Predictably, almost everyone tries to learn and excel at playing piano.  Those who inherited those long fingers have a much easier time of it (how wide a space can you span with your fingers ?).   Many of these people survive to form a new society of musically talented, long-fingered people.

      A small number of short-fingered people flee to a place that isn't affected.  Those who stay behind perish.  The lucky ones survive to form a small society of their own.  They completely isolate themselves from the long-fingered folks in order to stay safe.  They have children, then grandchildren.  Generations go by, and they become pretty much like we are today, but with shorter fingers.  Pianos are prohibited by law and existing ones are destroyed.

      The long-fingered society also grows, but has no contact with the other group.  Again, they're pretty much like us, but they place music near the top of their cultural priority list, and they're good at picking quarters from the bottom of tall jars.  Some other genetic traits become common, but they aren't noticeable.  The genes that determine the chemical details of sperm and egg formation change in subtle ways, but so slowly that it rarely causes any concern.

      Meanwhile, the short-fingered people also undergo some subtle changes in their reproductive chemistry.  It takes generations, so nobody there notices, either.  Life goes on...

      One day, a few daring individuals from each group set out to meet each other.  They discover that the original disease is long gone; they can safely interact.  They report back, and these two groups eventually start to come back together.  There's just one major barrier to re-integrating the two populations.  Those subtle changes in reproduction have left people of one group incapable of having children with anyone of the other group.

      To sum it up, we now have two populations that can't mix genetically.  In other words, they have become two different species.

      Remember how some of my own kids were long-fingered and the others were short-fingered?  They all had 50% of their genes from me.  Some of their descendents, and therefore some of mine, ended up in each population.  My great, great, great....grandchildren are not Homo Sapiens, and the branches of my family tree straddle the two new species.

      Humanity has divided into two similar but distinct species.  In time, the differences may increase until it's hard to tell that they're even related to each other.

      OK, that's the end of make-believe time.  While my example is probably flawed in some ways, it shows how one species can have descendents of a different species.  That is, in fact, exactly what's been happenning for billions of years, and that's how the variety of life on the planet came to exist.  That includes us human beings.  Research has now given us many details of the process, and shown that there just isn't any other plausible explanation.

      Evolution is a fact, as much as any fact we've learned through science.  If anyone wants, I can collect some links with details supporting my claims.

      Thanks for sharing your ideas and reading some of mine.

  16. Inspirepub profile image72
    Inspirepubposted 15 years ago

    Thanks for putting an example together in simple terms, Sterling Sage. you certainly live up to your screen name!

    knolyourself - it's not that one of today's species evolved from another of today's species, and Mike - it's not that humans evolved from apes.

    It's more like today's species are all cousins, some closer cousins, and some more distant cousins.

    Our closest cousin species is the chimpanzee. The ancestor we share lived millions of years ago in Africa.

    The horse's closest cousin is the donkey. Their common ancestor also lived millions of years ago, on the Russian steppes.

    When humans and horses started living together co-dependently, it allowed both species to spread to parts of the world where they would never have been able to survive without each other.

    Our innate ability to connect emotionally with creatures of other species, to nurture their orphaned young and make them part of our tribes, paid off big time in survival value for humans and all domesticated animals.

    We can form those emotional connections with animals because of all the physical and mental structures we have in common. It's easier to connect emotionally with mammals than with reptiles. It's easier with large mammals than with rodents. And, according to all reports, it's easier with primates than with dogs and cats. The closer we are genetically to a species, the easier it is to connect emotionally.

    Why is it so awful to think of ourselves as part of a great continuum of God's creatures? Why is there a need to make humans separate, superior, inherently of some different substance to other creatures? Why is the thought that we are all one so hard to accept?

    Jenny

    P.S. Have you perhaps been taught that there will be no animals in Heaven? Or on Earth after the Second Coming?

  17. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    I got the theory. But still you've offered no evidence. Personally my theory is three archetypes: seed, eggs and
    womb. I think any creature from say womb birth carries
    the genetics to be anything else that is womb born. Same with seed and egg. So now I look for the trigger.

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting.  So a tree came from the ground had a seed, a seed made a tree that bared fruit, the fruit fell from the tree and rotted and made flies. hmmmm....?

      1. Sterling Sage profile image59
        Sterling Sageposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        The rotted-fruit/flies idea is very similar to other beliefs that were once common.  That type of concept was called "spontaneous generation."  In case anyone's interested, here's a web page that shows how the idea was tested scientifically:

        http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm


        knolyourself,

        I'm not sure what you're suggesting, but it sounds like you're interested in knowing how traits pass from generation to generation.  If so, please check the web for pages about evolution.  If you still have unanswered questions, please let me know, and I'll do my best to provide whatever specific resources you need to draw fair conclusions.

        cool

    2. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Well, you must have missed my original post where I linked to many evidences:




      If you want some more, I have plenty, but these are some I linked to earlier:

  18. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "So a tree came from the ground had a seed, a seed made a tree that bared fruit, the fruit fell from the tree and rotted and made flies." Not exactly. Trees and fruit come from seeds. Flies come from Eggs. My theory being that
    contained in the genetic make-up of the seed is a universal component, where any seed could theoretically evolve into some new plant species. The same for the
    egg and the same for mamal genetics. Thus conditions
    in the greater environment would trigger so-called evolution. Hey - its a theory.

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      well fruit flied do come from rotten fruit even where there are no other flies, no other flies, no eggs, just rotten fruit and then mystery flies.  I guess if you are saying it still came from a seed than I could see what you are saying.  smile

  19. Sterling Sage profile image59
    Sterling Sageposted 15 years ago

    I just remembered about a NOVA episode about the creation/evolution debate.  It's well made and pretty entertaining.  I highly recommend watching the video, whatever your own position is.  It's available online here:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

    p.s. I think there's a "play all" button in the Quicktime version.

  20. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    Something just saw, thought might be of interest:
    "as one late 2007 poll put it. Belief in (literal) Hell and the Devil was firm amongst 62 per cent of those surveyed. Darwin, complete with evolution / 'natural selection' clocked in with a poor 42 per cent. (About the same as Obama's rating in his latest polls.)"  Palin is the winner.

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Holy Moly, if that happens then I would have to say that the Devil does exist. lol.

      1. Inspirepub profile image72
        Inspirepubposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Actually, the survey *I* saw said 72% of Americans believe in angels and 27% believe in evolution.

        Even scarier.

        Jenny

    2. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately, you are probably right. Just look at all the attacks made on evolution in this thread.

      In the face of a belief - facts, proof and evidence mean nothing.

      People seem to prefer the sugar pill over the reality 62% of the time.

      I am beginning to think it is a waste of time even trying. They think that Jesus said they should kill, murder and maim the planet, therefore they are right. That is what god said.......

      I wanna be a cockroach, they are next to take over smile

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        I don't think you waste your time.  smile  Maybe you can understand what I was saying before, that it does exist by what it produces.  (purly metaphorical or allagoricle) however it seems thier god is not good. 

        I really cannot for the life of me understand why they can't see it is not ok to murder, lie, cheat, steal etc.   Just one of those things, emotional istablitity I suppose.  Not that I am perfectly stable, but at least I know better than that. 

        Maybe the problem isn't steming from thier faith, but rather their lack of faith, which is to do what is right regardless, and we know war aint right, kiling aint right, burning people alive is just outragous I wouldn't even do that to my dinner etc... 

        smile

      2. profile image0
        Zarm Nefilinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        No, giant mutant cockroaches are not going to be next.

        It won't happen, because there are those amongst us who believe survival of the species is a higher imperative than what "Jesus wants".  It is afterall, a very natural and evolutionary directive.  Evolution of the human species will cease if nuclear holocaust or something like it that is only man made happens and the human species becomes extinct.  There are those amongst us who use our intelligence as a contingency to try to prevent and preempt such a mass murder and I won't elaborate how some of us who value the continuance of the human species might go about stopping such a thing from happening.  Suffice it to say there are conceivable ways that do not involve violence to any sizable living organism and such ways would be the only morally permissible ends to a very just cause, survival of the species.

        It is our duty as humans to protect our own survival and the survival of other species from Nuclear Holocaust, it is our evolutionary imperative.  We cannot enjoy life if we do not exist, and it is the duty of every human to ensure continuity of existence for the species if one can reasonably do so in the face of expected nuclear holocaust.  Almost all cannot and thus almost all cannot be expected to.  It is a burden one must choose for oneself if one values life at the deepest levels and wants life to continue in it's present form.

        The reason Einstein thought a supranational government was necessary in order to avert Nuclear Holocaust is very informing.  In any case, such a thing is still far off and charismatic fools who think Jesus or Allah or whomever would love to initiate the second coming of themselves with a Nuclear Holocaust providing the fireworks for such an occasion still abound and still aspire to their deranged ambitions.

  21. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

    Ok I stand corrected but I still don't believe it.  Fruit flies are mystery flies. lol. 


    I need proof that fruit flies do not mysteriously apprear out of fruit and that flies don't magically grow on sh*t. lol. 

    I can grow flies in my kitchen right now.  How long does the fruit fly larvae live?  How can fruit flies still be grown out of rotten fruit if you nuke your fruit first and sterilze it?  Where did the fruit fly come from in the first place?  I mean how come you can grow fruit flies anywhere.  Miles doesn't count.  Who cares if a fruit fly can smell fruit a mile away, it doesn't sense that if they can and they love rotten fruit that they wouldn't just fly on down the street to a neighbor who I am sure is one, who has rotten fruit.

    Did the fruit hitch a ride on an airplane?  Or is there something else in the fruit beside fermentation that causes larvae to appear in the fruit.  And why does it always seem to be bananas or peaches? lol. 

    I guess in the experiments presented...something is missing like um...in a sealed and sterilized jar, I would think the fruit needs air to rot.  In a jar with cloth covering the fruit, the fruit will rot but it is assumed that the fly must have laid its' eggs at the grocery store. 

    Nope, when it comes to fruit flies, I need more evidence.  They grow out of fruit.  If a cockacroacha can live with out a head, then a fruit fly can grow out of fruit. 

    I don't think it is spontaneous generations, I never heard of that until today, but another reason why they grow out fruit. 

    smile

  22. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    It is the duality of they are saved and everyone else is not. Those not saved really don't count. We give them hell here or god gives it to them later - no matter, they have it coming. It is the final solution. But we never give up, and try and save these souls, but there is only so much one can do. (It's what happen when you separate
    heaven from earth.)

  23. Make  Money profile image66
    Make Moneyposted 15 years ago

    I totally agree with you Zarm, "It is our duty as humans to protect our own survival and the survival of other species from Nuclear Holocaust".  This should be the same whether it's coming from either an atheist or religious standpoint.  Who we should be concerned about are the fanatical fringe whether religious or atheist.  We are speaking from the same pulpit my friend.

    Mike

  24. profile image49
    user44posted 15 years ago

    No, Mark.... You're wrong. Sometimes IGNORANCE may excuse someone.... You wanna know?

    It is against the teachings of God, and of the Holy Scripture, that other churches is built in other places, let's say in the US, or in England, or in Germany, or in Rome. They also claim that another church had also been founded in the Philippines. The truth is, God did not give any right to anybody to build his own church. It is indeed disgusting that today, a lot of ministers build churches of their own. They deliberately oppose and defy what the Bible said - that, the Gentiles, like us, must join or make ourselves a part of the body, or the Church, for us to be saved.

    And what is the reason why we must abide by it? It is because, as far as God is concerned, He did not give anybody His consent to build a church right now in our time. This is what Psalms 127:1 says-

    "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that built it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."

    sword44.blogspot.com

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      So, you understood the theory of evolution and do not think it is a lie?

  25. profile image0
    pgrundyposted 15 years ago

    Mark, you are amazing. How do you stand these crazy arguments? At a certain point, I just throw up my hands and give up. But it bothers me a lot, all the religious smearing of science. You don't have to be a genius to see the merits of both--although, if we really get down to it, nobody ever waged a war over evolution or burned someone at the stake for not believing in evolution or locked someone in an iron maiden or put them on the rack or the dunk tank...

    So maybe the religious zealots could just tone it down a notch? If you don't believe in evolution, fine, don't. Nobody is forcing anybody to even think in the U.S. these days. We're all completely free to be as moronic as we wanna be so far as I can tell. smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      lol

      Two reasons -

      1. I work all day online and am bored to tears. The arguments are the only thing keeping me awake. big_smile

      2. Having been abused in the name of the christian religion, I genuinely think that teaching your children that evolution is a lie and lying about what it actually says should be considered child abuse.

      These are public forums and anyone who happens across them can see quite clearly some of the stupidity, ignorance and blatant attacks that have been leveled at me for explaining a scientific theory.

      If just a few people happen across these forums and start asking questions, it will have been worth the effort.

      Get's a little draining sometimes though, but one of my threads "Atheism Rules !" has now got it's own page rank smile

      1. BDazzler profile image78
        BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        "Having been abused in the name of the christian religion, ..."

        I am sincerely sorry that  happened to you Mark.   I have issues with "Dawinism" per-se on a more scientific basis, but cannot deny my bias.  And I cannot deny that my bias has been affected by the people I listen to. It has become politisied on both sides and clearly is a polarizing topic. 

        People of faith should never be threatened by differant ideas.

        Being "right" is not the same of being righteous.  I know that sometimes I get caught up in the emotions of it and suddenly it's not even enough for me to be right, by I have to prove my opponent wrong. Regardless of the actual truth.  That is neither right nor righteous.

  26. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

    Well, I am not sure I can claim to be "righteous," although I am often "right " lol

    Just as a matter of interest, what is the the scientific basis of your issues with the theory of evolution?

    I am not sure I even understand what "Darwin-ism," is. If you mean "Social Darwinism," I have issues with it also.

    1. BDazzler profile image78
      BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      From what I understand, (keep in mind that I am not a biologist) Darwin's theory is based on his observations at the time of structural similarites between members of a species. i.e. apes kind of look like people, and we can see differences in bones by digging deeper etc... And based on his observations at the time, this seemed reasonable.


      I have read reports (granted these are Christian sites, but these are Christian biologists, with actual creentials - I think)  that Recent DNA anlysis of different frogs, which had been, based on Dawrin's theories, presumed to be "related"  show that IF they evloved, the evolved 100% independntly and the statistical probablity of them having the same basic bone structure but different DNA was causing even hard core dawinists to rethink their theories.

      From the evidence I have seen pressented, I see adaptation within a specices, (which I personally see as evidence of intellegent design) but I haven't seen too much evidence cross-species "evolution".

      1. Mark Knowles profile image58
        Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Ah, well things have moved on since Darwin first postulated his theory. His book was published in 1859 and scientists have been trying to dis-prove it since then.

        There is verifiable proof that speciation occurs. In fact there are four different ways this occurs, and new species have been artificially created. There is some disagreement over the timeframes this has happened in the past, but no one was there to write it in a book millions of years ago big_smile

        Here are a few links to some more information:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

        I have seen many christian "science," sites, and I have to say, when this is taught to children this is what I consider to be child abuse.

        There is no doubt evolution occurs, has occurred and is continuing to do so. The entire scientific community agrees on this, and attempts to dis-prove it every time any new piece of information is discovered or test is made. If it is possible to dis-prove it, they will do so. That is what scientists do. 

        These so-called christian scientists do both themselves and their religion a huge dis-service attempting to dis-prove a theory without using proper scientific practices.

        I understand it does not agree with a literal interpretation of the bible, and some consider this to be a threat to their faith, but this will not change the facts, and making stuff up to fit the bible's telling is immoral, wrong and I would hazard a guess, sinful too big_smile

        I do not have a faith based belief in evolution, which is what many creationists try to say is the case.

        If you want a fuller explanation, see the first post in this thread big_smile

        1. BDazzler profile image78
          BDazzlerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Yeah, that's why I said Darwinism "Per-se"  ...  The Cambrian explosion I think is the "big one" ...

          I think it should be obvious to anyone that parts of the Bible are literal and parts are figurative. Now, I know I have been wrong on both counts.  For example, I used to think demons were figurative ... I now know better ... wish I didn't.  I hope the people who believe they are figurative are never convinced otherwise.

          I used to think the seven days of creation were literal ... now I don't. But I'm OK with those who do.

          I think insisting on "all literal" or "all figurative" gets both sides in trouble.

          I also think that had Darwinism not been so derided by the church that it would have ...dare I say, "evolved" into something a little less political ...

          I would have thought after Galleleo the professional holy men would have learned that science cannot harm true faith ... but ... I was ready to make a joke about Jesus loving "stupid people" too, but I am reminded that he taought me more about love from a mentally handicapped woman than I learned from all the theologans I ever met ...

  27. Jeromeo profile image62
    Jeromeoposted 15 years ago

    Which came first...The Monkey...or the Monkey's Uncle?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Australopithecus afarensis, a distant cousin big_smile

  28. aka-dj profile image63
    aka-djposted 15 years ago

    Here I go again.
    Having (re)read the first post to this thread, I have to say, though, evolution satisfies the curious mind about the "variety" of life and species. However, it was also posted, that the "origin" of all things is "unknown". Evolution is devoid of a real answer ot that question.
    Therefore, I argue, that ID (creation), is a viable (alternative) explanation. Of course, if you dismiss outright the (possibility of) existance of an higher being, then it does look "foolish, magical, even ridiculous". But on the other hand, it has been stated by numerous people, that science does not seek to prove, or disprove the existance of (a) God.
    No-one it 100% objective, because we all "bring something to the table". Typically our own frame of refference, or "worldview", which directly impacts on both the questions we ask, and the answers we accept.
    No man knows "all things", therefore, ther is ample room for "unkown" knowledge (be it truth, fact,laws, worlds etc.)

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution has never attempted to answer the question of abiogenesis (the very beginning of life as we understand it).

      I do not know how life began. I have said that many times. Darwin did not know and did not even attempt to answer that question.

      As far as I am concerned, a "creator," is a valid as any other theory at the moment, although I do not "believe," this was the case.

      But it is clear, we were not "created," in our present form.

      As I said in my first post, my absence of a belief in god had absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The theory of evolution is just one step in the process of understanding our origins. You could just as easily say, "God started the process of evolution," and I cannot argue with that other than from my lack of belief in a god.

      Which is what the Catholic church has done.

      I do not understand the big bang theory, and I do not know how life came from the "primordial ooze," or mud lol

      But arguing against evolution because it does not fit with your bible explanation makes no sense to me. Evolution happened, is happening and will continue to happen. I see no conflict with a belief in a god - unless you take the bible as 100% LITERAL.

      In which case you are fighting a lot of evidence.

      Does that mean you are now accepting evolution as a valid scientific theory and see that it does not conflict with your beliefs ?

  29. aka-dj profile image63
    aka-djposted 15 years ago

    I see three points to address.
    1) Catholic perspective;  Having been part of the RC church (by birth, and only non-practicing) I later left altogether, due to my disagreement with many of their (contrary to the bible) doctrines. So I'm not surpeised by this compromise, ie evolution "guided by" the hand of God.

    2) 100% literal approach to Bible study. That is only within context. Obviously ther are many stories, similies, illustrations,poetry, songs, etc, which clearly are not intended to be taken "literally". They are acts of praise, worship, etc that certainly convey "truth", or (attempt) to describe the nature, character, and thoughts of God. Jesus told "parables", that were intended to paint a picture of spiritual thing etc. So, in context, that which is (usually) intended to be taken litterally, should be!

    3) Do I accept evolution as a "valid" theory. To a limited extent, I do. I mean, the super-bugs, that have made it into the news lately, are actual examples of (to some extent) evolution. I refer to things like "golden staph" as one, that is now, completely resistant to antibiotics. Though this may be said to be "evolution", I see it as mutation.
    The part of evolution that I object to, and most vehemently, I might add, is simple cell (if there is such a thing) can over time, grow almost infinitely more complex. Given the myriad of species, not to mention groups of species like flora, fauna, and all their sub-catagories, it sounds at best a fairy tale. There has just not been enough time elapse, even if if were possible, given the laws of nature as we know them today.
    PS, I was first taught evolution in school. My accepting of ID (creation, call it what you will) came years later, as I kept askinq questions, but found "no reasonable" answers. One example, I still remember to this day, is how can we have trillions of gallons of oil in the earth, that came from gradual deposits of living matter on the sea floor? I was no scientist, but knew enough that it would rot, long before it got buried, compressed, and "oil-ified". The flood is far more plausible, given the catastrophic, global, and (relatively) quick nature of the event. I know, I know...... smile Sorry about the long winded reply. smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      lol

      Thanks for the honest response. it shows you thought about it. smile  But -

      It was a yes or no question.

      To a limited extent means no.

      It is not like some contradictory passage in the bible, where no one knows what it means and everyone has a different idea and you all agree to disagree, but say it is the same.

      A big flood six thousand years ago seems much more plausible to you?

      What has "oil-ification" got to do with evolution?

      In other words, you see the scientific validity of the theory, but choose not to accept it because you cannot make it quite work with what you interpret your bible to say.

      Nothing to do with evaluating the evidence - because even though you accept "some" evidence as proof of evolution, the fact that the bible talks about a flood, which some ignorant lay-minister with the scientific credentials of a small rock, has "interpreted" to mean would  "oilificate" the world, you must now reject this valid proof and evidence.

      Despite the fact that there is zero evidence of this.

      Although, you are not limiting that to science.You left your church because they did not agree with your "beliefs" about science.

      I understand this - my Grandparents did the same thing - only in reverse - to the Catholics.

      So, one more question if you don't mind smile

      Is there anything that you accept as correct by using empirical evidence, or is everything you "believe" based on faith?

      Because you are coming to decisions in exactly the opposite way that science does.

      "This is what I already believe - what theory can I come up with that might fit that belief?"

      1. aka-dj profile image63
        aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        It is by faith, but, to clarify, I don't have "empirical" evidence. Only other people's "word". I have never tested anything personally. I rely on "experts" in their field.
        I would rather ask a bible scholar about the bible, than an "atheist".
        I would ask a historian about history etc.
        So, as far as "evolution" is concerned, I have read enough to have enough of an understanding to "reject" it. It is ILLOGICAL!
        Life from non-life is ILLOGICAL. It is PURELY faith based to think otherwise.
        It is = to creation, in plausability. You have to take it by faith, (ie, life coming from non-life). We have no "empirical" evidence for it.
        I ahve already "conceded" to mutation as a form of evolution, because we DO have evidence for that. But even that, I have to take experts "word" for it.(faith) in what they said!

        1. Mark Knowles profile image58
          Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I am a little confused here.

          You accept expert opinion on everything except science.

          When you want help with the bible, you go to a theologian. (But not catholic ones now because they think evolution was god's work)

          When you want history, you go to a historian.

          But when you want expert opinion on evolution, you don't go to a scientist, because what they say is ILLOGICAL, even though you "concede" that there is evidence.

          Did I get that right?

          And surely life from non-life is what god did?

          1. aka-dj profile image63
            aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            "And surely life from non-life is what god did?" Maybe you DID get it?

            Non-life, referring to the "dust of the earth" we are physically made of, was "made alive" by God "breathing" life into it (Adam). So, technically, life (as we know it) actually came from LIFE!

            Maybe that confused you even more! lol

      2. aka-dj profile image63
        aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Yes it does!
        Evidence?
        I can actually think of one!
        When Mt St Helens erupted in the 80's, one of the results of that event was a HUGE mudflow, which carved out a canyon, that is 1/6th ( i believe) the size of the Grand Canyon. That took a few days. (supports a flood theory, in small scale)
        So, even if you hold to the "erosion over a long period of time" explanation of how it came to be, you HAVE to accept an alternative, "emprical" example, that says EXACTLY the OPPOSITE.
        I don't have to prove or disprove anything. Neither do you. But, we do have to come to an (acceptable) conclusion that answers our questions.
        So, it comes down to that word you "hate",faith. Sorry about that. sad

  30. aka-dj profile image63
    aka-djposted 15 years ago

    Sorry Mark. I  must speak a different language, or something.
    You seem to never "quite get it clear"!
    I don't want to write it again, rephrased, to help you "get" it.
    Perhaps you are just outright argumentative, I don't know. You raise issues, I answer your questions, but (as always) you skirt the aswers. sad

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      That is because your answers are ILLOGICAL big_smile

      1. aka-dj profile image63
        aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        Maybe there are two types of logic.
        One christian and the other atheist. What do you think? hmm

        1. Mark Knowles profile image58
          Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          lol

          Whatever you are using to make your current argument is not logic big_smile

  31. aka-dj profile image63
    aka-djposted 15 years ago

    So, since you did not mention anything about my example, let me ask you about it.
    Which theory is (more) plausible?
    The Grand Canyon eroded slowly over a l-o-n-g time, or could a flood (say like Noah's) have done it? (Remember, we have empirical evidence) so choose carefully. hmm

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I guess this is going to depend on your definition of "empirical."

      What on earth does this have to do with the theory of evolution?

      Or when you want advice on geology, do you not want to go to a geologist either?

      Back to the lay minister for geology also.........

      Not sure I see the point in repeating this discussion. Or even what you are trying to prove. That the Grand Canyon was formed in five minutes, and rusting was what caused the dinosaurs to be turned into oil, even though they were on the Ark as well.....

      And this is proof that evolution doesn't happen. Except for mutation which does, but doesn't count because that is a faith based belief that you have had to take some lying geneticist's word for.

      What seems more "plausible," to me?

      Hmm, let me think. 5 Minutes or millions of years?

      Tough ones to choose from.

      I have a feeling I know which you have decided is the more plausible.........

      But go right ahead.

  32. aka-dj profile image63
    aka-djposted 15 years ago

    Works for me!

  33. aka-dj profile image63
    aka-djposted 15 years ago

    Thank you!
    That was a VERY clear answer!
    Don't know WHAT question it was to ,but not mine.You are the one who brought the "flood" into it!!!
    BTW, Where did you get the idea that dinosaurs were on the ark?  hmm

  34. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

    Actually - you bought up the flood:



    You mean you don't know about the christian scientist that makes the dinosaur videos that Mike is always pushing?

    I will see if I can find the link.

    1. Sufidreamer profile image78
      Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Simple - Anaerobic conditions with no oxygen means no decomposition.

      Oil deposits on land occurred in marshy areas with high acidity, which again prevents decomposition. This process is why scientists find perfectly preserved bodies in bogs, thousands of years after their death.

      I hope that clears things up for you smile

      1. Mark Knowles profile image58
        Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        You can clear it up all you like, it won't make one whit of difference big_smile

    2. Make  Money profile image66
      Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Here they are Mark.  They are worth watching, even if it's just for entertainment. smile




      I just realized that Darwin did not start the theory of evolution.

      Quote from Catholics and Evolution



      Mike

      1. Sufidreamer profile image78
        Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        As my Greek friends keep reminding me, the Ancient Greek philosopher, Anaximander, was there first!

        Anaximander

  35. aka-dj profile image63
    aka-djposted 15 years ago

    Not tonight!
    I'm off to bed! cool

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Sleep tight smile

  36. Sufidreamer profile image78
    Sufidreamerposted 15 years ago

    Interesting debate, Mark. This is one of the few forums on the net that has not degenerated into a slanging match. A little heated, at times, but fairly civil!

    I must admit that I hate the way that the whole argument becomes blown out of proportion. Science and religion coexisted, peacefully, for centuries, but the Creationism/Evolution argument polarizes opinion. As an ex-biologist, I understand the evidence well enough to believe that evolution provides the best answer. As a Christian, I do not take the Bible literally - the version we have today bears little resemblance to the original Greek texts.

    The real question, when not muddied by a minority of extremists, is what happened before the Big Bang, a theory originally proposed by a Catholic Priest. The Creationism debate muddies the water too much and prevents us from looking at the interesting issues. ID is not, and never will be, science. It belongs in the Religious Studies class, not the Science lab.

    In the UK and Greece, creationism is hardly taught at all, so I hope that we do not descend into totalitarian Communism sad

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Trying to keep it non-confrontational. I can see whee some get to a level of frustration. I usually stick to the label, "ignorant," so as not to cause offense. smile

      http://markpknowles.com/wp-content/uplo … _evil2.mov

    2. aka-dj profile image63
      aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Just suppose for a moment that ID "IS" how it started. Then, science also started with it. Not only did matter, space, time and light start at the moment of creation, BUT every physical law we now know. None of you have proposed any valid explanation for the origin of all things, therefore, ID is a valid POV.
      As for totalitarian communism, wasn't that started and run by atheists?
      The freedoms you and I enjoy today came from a Judeo/Christian worldview, certainly NOT atheism!  smile smile

      1. Mark Knowles profile image58
        Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        What has this got to do with the theory of evolution?

        Did I not explain it correctly?

        If you can only accept evolution if it gives you the answer to the beginning, this is the explanation for that:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

        Myself, I disagree with both, because I am unable to wrap my little brain around the idea that there was nothing. I mean, even if there is nothing, there has to be somewhere for the nothing to be, which is something lol

        I picked up an interesting quote today -

        "If you open your mind too far, your brain falls out."

        Watch out that doesn't happen. big_smile

      2. Sufidreamer profile image78
        Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        That one was a tongue in cheek comment referring to an earlier comment in the debate - not serious, so I apologise for the misunderstanding on that one.

        Firstly, I never said that Creationism was not a valid point of view, so you are twisting my arguments. Everybody has the right to their own personal faith and beliefs, so good luck to you. I stated my opinion that ID, however you dress it up, is not a science. It does not remotely follow the scientific process. My point is that science classes teach Evolution and Religious classes teach Creationism. If any student wishes to combine the two, then they should sign up for a philosophy class and study metaphysics.

        Secondly, I do not want to 'suppose for a moment.' that ID is how it started. 'Suppose for a moment.' that I had a million dollars. It is an irrelevant argument, and by stating that first, it invalidates every other point you made.

        PS Knolyourself - hope you enjoyed the turkey!

        1. aka-dj profile image63
          aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          You have already made a "supposition", for your own position.
          There has to be a "beginning". I call it creation, you call it ?, (Big Bang)? .
          Evolution may explain things to you about the way things "are, and were" for billions of yaers, but that is "after" the (fact, I mean supposition). smile
          BTW, we don't do turkey, but thanks for the good wishes.

  37. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "It belongs in the Religious Studies class, not the Science lab."
    Are not both sides the same as a generality. The science industry demands that one believe the 'Big Bang', which I do not, or no money for you, and many the religious institutions demand that one believes creationism, which I do not, or risk
    ostricization.

    1. Sufidreamer profile image78
      Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      That is harsh. Fortunately, we do not see too much of that in Europe, apart from in private schools. Creationism is never taught in science classes here, so I am sorry to hear that your personal beliefs make things difficult for you. Forcing you to accept the Big-Bang is very unscientific and disappointing sad

  38. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "so I am sorry to hear that your personal beliefs make things difficult for you. Forcing you to accept the Big-Bang is very unscientific and disappointing" Don't make things difficult for me. Almost everything I think is not agreed too by almost anyone. That's because it is original thought. With science mandated to a specific belief system, one has to create one's
    own theories if not accepting the norm.

    1. Sufidreamer profile image78
      Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      That is society, sadly. Everything revolves around a conventional belief system. I know how you feel, which is why I now work for myself, from home. I read some of your hubs, and there is some very interesting food for thought there.

  39. Sufidreamer profile image78
    Sufidreamerposted 15 years ago

    I know - I must be in a wicked mood tonight mad

  40. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    Working from home in Greece - what a deal. You look like a great guy, as am I. I am cooking a turkey.

  41. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "PS Knolyourself - hope you enjoyed the turkey!" Still cooking. It is Thanksgiving here in US, turkey day.

    1. Sufidreamer profile image78
      Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Forgot about that - Happy Thanksgiving to all our American friends! smile

  42. Make  Money profile image66
    Make Moneyposted 15 years ago

    Wow, Anaximander (610 BC - 546 BC)

  43. Sufidreamer profile image78
    Sufidreamerposted 15 years ago

    Not really - evolution is independent of 'The Big Bang' theory. The universe, for example, could have existed eternally and evolution would still be a valid theory. The two are not mutually dependent, and are different areas.

    Going back to the Big Bang, for me that is the really interesting debate. There is so much room for conflicting ideas, and science, theology and philosophy are all working towards the same end (beginning?). My own belief (and this is an opinion, without scientific basis!) is that an omnipotent entity could have created the universe and laid down the laws of creation. A Catholic Priest first proposed the Big Bang, a sign that scientists and theologians can work together quite happily.

    After reading your new hub, I will once again state that I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools, but not in the science lab. People can then make their own decision and choice about what they believe.

    As for the turkey, I was just being polite - I am veggie but hope that everybody had a great Thanksgiving day!

    1. aka-dj profile image63
      aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I know about Thanksgiving, but it's not a "holiday" where I live. I do like turkey, which we (traditionally) have for Christmas, instead.

      1. Sufidreamer profile image78
        Sufidreamerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

        big_smile

  44. Lady Guinevere profile image67
    Lady Guinevereposted 15 years ago

    Now lets learn about Soul Evolution here:
    http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/~acc … erSelf.htm

    I can't copy any of it or I would because it is that good.

  45. Lady Guinevere profile image67
    Lady Guinevereposted 15 years ago

    Wrong page, but right site.  Here is the page and I can copy now!!
    http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/~acc … heSoul.htm

    "...Creation itself is an expansion of our Creator’s thought and self-awareness. The evolution of soul entities is another aspect of this expansion. Through the process of Evolution, individual souls, each a ‘Spark’ of the Creator’s Consciousness, embark on a journey of exploration and growth, ultimately returning to unity with the Creator, endowed with the fullness of wisdom and experience.

    Through its evolutionary descent into the worlds of materiality the Soul first develops a growing awareness of self as an individual entity. The ego-self gradually becomes more assertive, gaining strength and widening its field of exploration. As it descends into the worlds of density and matter, self-awareness becomes ego-centeredness, developing a desire for personal-gain and superiority, often acquired through aggression, and sometimes, even violence. When all the possibilities of its separate ego-development have been fully explored, the soul can then begin its return journey back up through higher planes to unity, learning the gentler arts of co-operation and sharing with others. The eventual culmination will be its eventual re-unification with the Unity of the Creator as an evolved, compassionate and fully ‘aware’ soul. And so it is that we set out on the great Cycle of Evolution. As the soul or spirit descends into worlds of increasing density and matter, we develop this correspondingly increased sense of individuality.

    Ego Centredness
    During the descent of Spirit, often called the downward arc, there is not only a tendency towards greater materiality, the Spirit involving itself in matter in order to learn to receive impressions through it, but there is also a tendency towards differentiation, the stream of Divine Life dividing and sub-dividing itself into an ever-increasing number of streamlets and units of consciousness.
    ................................................
    The 'fall' of the soul
    The concentration by the ego on self-motivation and self-interest, leads inevitably to competition and conflict, as each ego-individual tries to profit from and ‘get the better of’ others. This explains why political and social relationships on Earth have tended to dominate human thought and group activity. It also explains why we have failed to live at peace with one another.
    This self-centered concentration on developing an individuality at the expense of others has led to most of the problems experienced by humanity throughout Earth’s history, and it has also caused many souls to ‘fall’ even further.

    Through negative deeds and thoughts manifested in various forms of oppression, murder, torture and perversion, these souls, when they exit the Earth plane, find themselves enmeshed in the denser lower Astral worlds - a self-induced personal hell.  Even these rebellious souls, having ‘fallen’ into worlds of darkness, are also learning from their experience of evil. Eventually they tire of the constant competitive conflict, and finally feel moved to start looking upwards towards the Realms of Light for salvation.
    ........................................
    We are all One
    While the development of individuality is a necessary part of the process of evolution as we are currently experiencing it, we may also wish to remind ourselves from time to time that fundamentally we are all a part of, and at ONE with all of Creation. This great truth is something we can easily forget, enmeshed as we are in a world of individuality and separateness. But the recollection of our true underlying unity with all of Creation can give comfort in times of stress, providing a sense of context and reality as well as reassurance and guidance.

    We are all inter-linked, both through a shared origin, and through the Creator’s continuous River of Creative Thought. We are linked, not only as humans with humans..."
    ..................................................
    and it goes on and on about death, re-incarnation, Abortion and the like.  I just pasted a few paragraphs and not the whole thing.

  46. profile image0
    thetruthhurts2009posted 14 years ago

    "In Darwin's time all of biology was a black box: not only the cell, or the eye, or digestion, or immunity, but every biological structure and function because, ultimately, no one could explain how biological processes occurred."
    Michael Behe

    "This fact immediately suggested a singular event - that at some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size. To many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event - the creation, the beginning of the universe."
    Michael Behe

    "It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on."
    Michael Behe


    Darwin's Fairy Tale being preachced in the church of atheism is shattered by Michael Behe and actual science
    Do your homework atheist!

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      LOL

      And that just about sums up you religionists. You cannot possibly have had enough time to read this or any of the links I placed.

      "Don't read it, just cut and paste another relligionist's argument based on personal opinion with nothing to back it up."

      lol lol lol lol

      Yet another 4LOL moment from a religionist. big_smile

      No wonder your religion is dying.  wink

      1. profile image0
        thetruthhurts2009posted 14 years agoin reply to this

        Atheist 1 your faith is something to be desired. Michael Behe is scientist who disproved your evolution myth to the point even your atheist brothers are jumping ship to agonistic,  He had the common sense to acknowledge a Creator unlike your god dawkins whose  said we just look like were created, but ignore that and look at apes and these pretty pictures. Back to smiles' huh oh well. Thank for proving faith can make anything true. I've looked your dogma rant of "proof" every atheist says something different like a religion or something. Your church has more faith than any other.  Read the book and look up Flew, it can’t hurt you got “proof” right? Wrong! You won’t read the book or look up flew because the theory is perfect as long as you keep it from the proof. Reality Check your theory has been crushed and just holding on to the rubble. No need to reply just stay in that no god, materialistic tunnel. I bet it’s dark
        btw nice buzz word.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image58
          Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          So you did not read anything there. Jst cut and paste. Thanks.

          Sure - no materialism in religion. Another 4LOL staement right there. lol lol lol lol

          1. profile image0
            thetruthhurts2009posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            No atheist, Atheism is your religion you guys are even advertising. Materialism is your god. I supplied sources, books, facts, and even an ex-atheist , but no proof will suffice, because you have complete commitment to unbelief and nothing I or any one says/does can break that faithtrust. Case in point you don't see because you don't want to. Blind by Choice! Atheism=materialism=fatalism. You my friend are a dying breed. Enjoy yourself and pray your right.
            Matthew 7:6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
            No more pearls pigs. I’m officially outta here

            1. Mark Knowles profile image58
              Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

              Ah interesting - second hand condescending insults.

              "I didn't say it, I am just parroting what Matthew said. "

              lol lol lol

              Only a 3LOL statement that time.

              Speaking of pigs...............

            2. earnestshub profile image80
              earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

              Thank dog!

    2. Michellcat profile image61
      Michellcatposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      truthhurts wrote that evolution was being "shattered" by Michael Behe. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      I found this on wikipedia, before going on to follow various links and discover that Behe really is just arguing that cells can't make decisions. (no, but they can both adapt and mutate, which is what evolution is.)

      This is what wikipedia had to say about Michael Behe.

      "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community.[2][3][4] The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University, Behe's academic home, has published an official statement which says "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."[5] In the only court case to consider the legitimacy of "intelligent design" as a scientific theory worthy of inclusion in a public school curriculum, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Behe's testimony is extensively cited by the judge[6][7][8][9] in his ruling that intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.[10]"

      1. profile image0
        thetruthhurts2009posted 14 years agoin reply to this

        Deleted

        1. profile image50
          The Paulposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          What do you need to see, exactly, to consider molecule to man evolution proven?

          Transitional forms between prokaryotes and eukaryotes? Single celled, free-living organisms evolving to grow as colonies of undifferentiated cells?  Organisms living as colonies of undifferentiated cells evolving differentiation and specialized roles within the colony?  Mutation and natural selection creating new enzymes from old enzymes?  Mutation and natural selection creating new enzymes with totally novel functions from molecules which have no catalytic activity at all?

          Aside from a time machine, what more do you want?

          1. creepy profile image56
            creepyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Time machine is all I need

            1. profile image50
              The Paulposted 14 years agoin reply to this

              So for some hypothetical world where evolution is a fact and physics works more or less the way we think it does there is no possible scenario in which you will not be deluded into denying the fact of evolution, right?

              So really, we're in agreement.  We both see your position not so much as being informed by logic, but more akin to putting your fingers in your ears and singing "lalala, I can't hear you,"

  47. profile image0
    thetruthhurts2009posted 14 years ago

    "NOTE: Truth is precious, Jesus is precious...we must not continuously expose ourselves to people so violently opposed to the gospel."

    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      You need to look up the word "violent." I can heartily recommend the Oxford English dictionary as a good source for the meaning of words.

      And yes, I would think not seeking out and aggresively attacking people who do not subscribe to your belief system is probably a good idea.

      ciao - again. lol

  48. qwark profile image61
    qwarkposted 14 years ago

    Why is it that so many become so fanatically involved in an abstract concept: god, which can only be experienced in the form of opinion and conjecture?
    Wouldn't that be classified as a kind of "insanity?"

    1. creepy profile image56
      creepyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I would think so kind of like the idea that hope and change actually meant something

      1. qwark profile image61
        qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        Creepy:
        All religion is based 100% on "hope."
        Change? There is no "hope" that believers in the deadly idiocy of this "god" concept can change. Contemporary monotheists have been enaged in war, death and destruction for a couple millenia and are still involved in it. They are witlessly guiding humanity toward the self fullfilling prophecy of "armageddon."

        1. earnestshub profile image80
          earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Exactly! Iraq was invaded in the name of god by President George W.Bush.

          1. qwark profile image61
            qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            EArnest:
            Ya got that right! :-)

          2. qwark profile image61
            qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Earnest:
            I read your "hub" about the "Bastard" and left a response. loved it! Became a fan.

            1. earnestshub profile image80
              earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

              Hey thank you qwark! I will rush off and look! smile

  49. earnestshub profile image80
    earnestshubposted 14 years ago

    Was the moon landing a hoax? lol

    1. sooner than later profile image60
      sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      no. one day I will teach you how to discover what is real and what is not. lol

      1. earnestshub profile image80
        earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

        Are you going to tell me the truth about the invisible sky fairy again? lol

        1. sooner than later profile image60
          sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          So typical. lol
          Can you bring me some more artistic renditions of how it was? lol lol Maybe if you dug up enough sloth teeth as I did, you wouldn't be so confused when you submit the teeth and pictures like this are drawn lol

          1. earnestshub profile image80
            earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Did you miss all of Sir David Attenborough?

            1. sooner than later profile image60
              sooner than laterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

              I don't miss him at all. calming voice though, I do miss that. lol

  50. sooner than later profile image60
    sooner than laterposted 14 years ago

    A family of actors. did you know that? lol

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)