Genius of Darwin

Didn't watch series 1 & 2 but caught this the other day and it was amazing to watch, as well as demonstrating that, whatever the creationists think, Darwinism isn't quite as unproven as they like to think.

Cue head to heads with idiots who insist on teaching creationism in American schools. All of which look like deers caught in headlights when challenged and don't get the PC approach of "I disagree but i respect your opinion".

The first guy, the Australian, is a riot: There was no rain until Noah and everyone lived to 1000; we only die at 70 'cause we are sinners.

And the blonde woman is a fantastic train wreck - the look on her face is as if she realised that everything she knew was a lie. The neurons firing, making connections, the realisation that she had been wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP3Ag...eature=related

if there is a god ...he sucks.

Excellent OP.

I'm not going to rate though because I'm currently boycotting that bullshit. I'd love to deactivate it btw. I hate this clutter.

this is good stuff.

"you are a scientist, and you really believe that the earth is <10k years old?"

"yes i do."

And that scientist ignored all scientific fact in favour of "I'd rather believe in..." Talk about scary. Almost as bad as playing hide and seek by just covering your eyes and hoping no one spots you.

I disagree with this ranking system too but strangely enough, this post had 4 stars before. Both responses have been in favour yet all the starts have gone. Hmmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

this is good stuff.

---

You're right this is good stuff.

"400 million years ago the fish turned into amphibians, then into reptiles, then to birds, then to mammals."

400 million years ago eh? Did he just pull that number out of his ass?

How come no one has ever seen a fish evolve into an amphibian?

Is there anyone on this forum that doesn't believe in this stuff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

this is good stuff.

---

You're right this is good stuff.

"400 million years ago the fish turned into amphibians, then into reptiles, then to birds, then to mammals."

400 million years ago eh? Did he just pull that number out of his ass?

How come no one has ever seen a fish evolve into an amphibian?

Is there anyone on this forum that doesn't believe in this stuff?

---

No one has seen a fish evolve into an amphibian completely because this transformation probably takes thousands and thousands of years. We have only considered evolution as an alternate option to supernatural magic for 200 years.

All we can observe with the naked eye are forms of transition in the present. It's not as if a fish gives birth to an amphibian. An example of what I'm talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Tl5...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijSbKhcbvwg

Here is pretty much a simplistic view of how evolution really works.
I may be a little off in the examples but this is a general idea.

It can come about in a few different ways "evolution" can happen.

So take the Galápagos Finches they are all pretty similar with the only difference being beak sizes. So there are a buncha finches all with the same size beak and life is rough for the finches, they all eat the same size nuts so finding food is kinda hard. Well one day through a mutation a finch is born with a bigger beak than normal, he can eat larger nuts the other finches cant eat. Because of this he is able to get strong and knock up a buncha finches and have a buncha babies who some will inherit his mutation of a larger beak. And after time two types of finch emerge ones with "normal" size beaks and ones with larger beaks.

Another type of evolution is were one species decides to break into different groups. So say there is a group of fish of one species. The group gets pretty big and half the group leaves to try to find better food. Well over time the two different species will have different genetic mutations and these genetic mutations could be different between the two groups and eventually after a long while there are so many differences that they become two different species.

there are a lotta different circumstances that lead to evolutions but the basis is just mutation occur on the genetic level and get passed along from generation to generation.

/ramble

without a doubt, and by far, the best way i know of to understand evolution is to watch donexodus2's videos on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2 he explains evolution so well, and goes into many awesome topics having to do with evolution

for those too lazy to watch his vids ill say a few things

the evidence for evolution is astounding. every single thing that any creationist has ever said about either creationism or evolution has been proven to be incorrect. creationism is the epitome of ignorance. the theory of evolution is one of the greatest scientific advancements of all time. it has become considered the unified theory of biology.

fyi, some of you guys have a skewed idea of what evolution is. watch donexodus' vids, and maybe a couple cdk007 and thunderf00t vids as well for clarification. i would love to explain it myself, but they do it so much better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JL

You're right this is good stuff.

"400 million years ago the fish turned into amphibians, then into reptiles, then to birds, then to mammals."

400 million years ago eh? Did he just pull that number out of his ass?

How come no one has ever seen a fish evolve into an amphibian?

Is there anyone on this forum that doesn't believe in this stuff?

---

are you joking? if not, and you do not acknowledge the evidences, please state your position more clearly so i can crush you.

fwiw, i really dont like how the op vid likes to equate evolution with atheism. this creates tremendous pressure for those who cannot imagine a world without the man upstairs, and it only provokes more irrationality. evolution actually has nothing to say about theology other than indirectly.

the scientific method, otoh, has a shitton to say about theology

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by will641

this is good stuff.

---

You're right this is good stuff.

"400 million years ago the fish turned into amphibians, then into reptiles, then to birds, then to mammals."

400 million years ago eh? Did he just pull that number out of his ass?

How come no one has ever seen a fish evolve into an amphibian?

Is there anyone on this forum that doesn't believe in this stuff?

---

http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/4...ogrbrosxg8.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder

A Almost as bad as playing hide and seek by just covering your eyes and hoping no one spots you.

---

very underestimated strategy imo

jesus JL why you gotta be such a tease

My dad's reason for not believing evolution is

"How come dolphin's don't try to go to the moon? Why us?"

When I found out he was a creationist my jaw hit the floor. The guys a fucking nuclear chemist.

what was his answer to that question?

the only scientists that 100% acknowledge the theory of evolution are biologists because, well, they have to if they want to compete, not to mention all evidence backs it 100%. a biologist who denies evolution is like a biologist who denies cell theory - just doesnt work.

i personally find it baffling how many scientists dont apply the scientific method to all things.

Not as baffling as Bush Jnr getting voted into office. Twice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla

what was his answer to that question?

---

either:

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


or:

42!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder

Not as baffling as Bush Jnr getting voted into office. Twice! And still, to this day, defending this wholesome stupidity!

---

fyp

v nice, although all this creationism vs darwin thing isn´t that big of a deal here. I talked to our reverend about this topic and he doesnt disagree at all with evolutionists.

"Wouldn´t it be cool, if God developed the mechanisms of evolution and just watches what comes around in some millions of years?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XTR1000

"Wouldn´t it be cool, if God developed the mechanisms of evolution and just watches what comes around in some millions of years?"

---

At least this is more palatable than creationism. Though the reverend gives the credit for evolution to God, it still contradicts the bible (dinosaurs, creation of the world, making man from clay). How does he explain all that and the fact we are related to simians after al?

The genius of Darwin.....

If a species survives, it works.

Simple.

I've never understood why creationists dont pull the God card more often. I mean, when you have an omnipotent being capable of anything whos will and mind is beyond our understanding on your side, it seems like kind of a catchall to me.

"How do you explain dinosaurs"

"God coulda made those fossils"

"What about the turtles man!"

"God coulda created different turtles"

and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bjsaust

I've never understood why creationists dont pull the God card more often. I mean, when you have an omnipotent being capable of anything whos will and mind is beyond our understanding on your side, it seems like kind of a catchall to me.

"How do you explain dinosaurs"

"God coulda made those fossils"

"What about the turtles man!"

"God coulda created different turtles"

and so on.

---

actually they do this a lot. its called gawdidit

the reason why any use any other argument (like something scientific) is because they believe their logic to be legitimate, when in fact its the opposite 100% of the time. this is because they simply misunderstand logic

something i find irritating is how many lay persons who acknowledge evolution consider it far weaker than it is. ToE is actually one of the strongest and most understood theories of similar proportions in science. it is more understood than gravity, as an example.

ToE is so strong that if i had to choose any elaborate non-mathematical scientific theory to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom it would be ToE. in fact this has already been done. check out the link to donexodus2 then follow to his six part ken miller series. miller was one of the biologists who had to do exactly that in a courtroom vs ID, and ID got raaaaaaaaaaaaaped

Why was ID in a courtroom? What was the outcome?

miller explains it far more thoroughly and enjoyably than i can http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...5EA2BF6382BC08

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder

At least this is more palatable than creationism. Though the reverend gives the credit for evolution to God, it still contradicts the bible (dinosaurs, creation of the world, making man from clay). How does he explain all that and the fact we are related to simians after al?

---

Theistic evolutionists don't take the Old Testament, in particular Genesis, literally. Seven days doesn't have to be seven 24-hour periods. "Day" One can mean the Big Bang theory, or whatever theory you subscribe to. Dinosaurs can certainly have been created and then gone extinct during "Day" Six. The specific references to the creation of man can mean anything from guiding the evolution to the creation of man's soul in such a context. And most of the large Christian denominations (Roman Catholics, Anglicans, most Protestant religions) do now count themselves as theistic evolutionists.

It's really the fundamentalist Christian movement (and mostly in the US) that's coming up with this loud Creationist and Intelligent Design craziness.

The big problem Richard Dawkins is having, is that he can't have a good argument with anyone he's challenging, because he's by far and away smarter, and a better debator, and communicator than any one of his adversaries.

I mean, we could beat people at poker, document it, and then present these people as retards because they can't handle our game. Unfortunately, this is what Dawkins has done here.

I am an atheist, the argument of evolution is NOT that I evolved from a monkey. The argument of evolution is that I evolved from Cro Magnam Man.

Look at that stupid chart of all the guys that look like man, the guy on the far left looks like a cave man, and the guy on the far right looks just like me, only with muscles.

They stand up straighter, and their heads get bigger, and useless bones wither away as you progress to the right.

We've seen skeletal evidence of our own evolution for the last couple million years yet people refuse to believe it, injecting the argument, "Well I look like a monkey, and monkeys look like me, therefore I must have come from the monkey." They then extend the argument: "If I come from monkeys, there must therefore be a "missing link" in the chain that is easily identifiable as a monkey AND man".
Finally they quantify with grace: "If we can't find the missing link, you're wrong, god is right, and you'll burn in hell."

Remember it's the religious that are creating the monkey to man argument in the first place.

But all mankind evolved from apes. Even Cro Magnam dude. Even modern day chimps have a 99% match to human DNA. Follow the line back and we (apes & us) all come from the same source and are branches of the same tree.

I've spent a lot of time at the museum, I've never seen the skeletal evidence linking us and chimps. This is what all those religious nutjobs are pointing at when they say "there is no evidence" do you have any?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragnar4

I've spent a lot of time at the museum, I've never seen the skeletal evidence linking us and chimps. This is what all those religious nutjobs are pointing at when they say "there is no evidence" do you have any?

---

The Moscow, Idaho museum?

its not evolved from apes, but share a common ancestor with apes. iirc we do not know who the most recent common ancestor was. also iirc we're closer to apes than to neanderthals. interestingly, neanderthals were probably equally as intelligent as humans

seriously guys, watch the donexodus videos. its somewhat silly to accuse antagonists of evolution of not understanding the issues when we do not even understand the issues.

You're talking about "The genius of Charles Darwin" which was a 3 hour document in 3 episodes on UK:s channel 4, you should watch the whole thing.

"Our DNA is actually closer to a chimp's than a horse's is to an ass, and horses and asses mate."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

its not evolved from apes, but share a common ancestor with apes. iirc we do not know who the most recent common ancestor was. also iirc we're closer to apes than to neanderthals. interestingly, neanderthals were probably equally as intelligent as humans

---

Not true, we split with neanderthals maybe around what, 250,000 years ago from the same common ancestor and we split with apes 7 million years ago.
You can discuss the dates, but we are closer to neaderthals than apes

and we know our most recent common ancestor is Sahelanthropus tchadensis which we think was a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees

theres a decent likelyhood that we could mate chimps and humans, but this is less likely than a quick look at our genomes suggests. this is likely due to a huge morphological difference between us.

its thought that its also possible that humans and neanderthals mated, but that their offspring never produced any offspring due to infertility, much like what you find when you mate a lion and tiger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder

Even modern day chimps have a 99% match to human DNA.

---

Just to clear this up:
Humans and chimps can have 95% or >98.5% similar DNA depending on which nucleotides are counted and which are excluded. Modern humans can have a single recent ancestor <10,000 or 100,000-200,000 years ago depending on whether a relationship with chimpanzees is assumed and which types of mutations are considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

its not evolved from apes, but share a common ancestor with apes. iirc we do not know who the most recent common ancestor was. also iirc we're closer to apes than to neanderthals. interestingly, neanderthals were probably equally as intelligent as humans

---

Not true, we split with neanderthals maybe around what, 250,000 years ago from the same common ancestor and we split with apes 7 million years ago.
You can discuss the dates, but we are closer to neaderthals than apes

and we know our most recent common ancestor is Sahelanthropus tchadensis which we think was a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees

---

Are you suggesting we split, as in derived, from Neanderthals?

Are you suggesting we co-existed with Neanderthals?

Please clarify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

its not evolved from apes, but share a common ancestor with apes. iirc we do not know who the most recent common ancestor was. also iirc we're closer to apes than to neanderthals. interestingly, neanderthals were probably equally as intelligent as humans

---

Not true, we split with neanderthals maybe around what, 250,000 years ago from the same common ancestor and we split with apes 7 million years ago.
You can discuss the dates, but we are closer to neaderthals than apes

and we know our most recent common ancestor is Sahelanthropus tchadensis which we think was a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees

---

yea im wrong on that. dunno wat i was thinking. information gathered was in passing by.

however im pretty sure we dont know the last common ancestor. your suggestion is however the most likely candidate we have. i would like to know if this is actually confirmed last common ancestor. im kinda talking out my ass when it comes to details of anthropology tho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

we know our most recent common ancestor is Sahelanthropus tchadensis which we think was a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees

---

The is neither proven or unproven and is a matter of scientific debate. You're representing it as fact in this thread, which is a little misleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muzzard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iopq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

its not evolved from apes, but share a common ancestor with apes. iirc we do not know who the most recent common ancestor was. also iirc we're closer to apes than to neanderthals. interestingly, neanderthals were probably equally as intelligent as humans

---

Not true, we split with neanderthals maybe around what, 250,000 years ago from the same common ancestor and we split with apes 7 million years ago.
You can discuss the dates, but we are closer to neaderthals than apes

and we know our most recent common ancestor is Sahelanthropus tchadensis which we think was a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees

---

Are you suggesting we split, as in derived, from Neanderthals?

Are you suggesting we co-existed with Neanderthals?

Please clarify.

---

not split from neanderthals, but split from the common ancestor. this is often colloquially referred to as split with neanderthals. its describing the point where that which later became neanderthal and that which later became sapiens stopped breeding with each other, and went their separate ways. we split with each other but from our common ancestor, even though we werent sapiens or neanderthal at the time.

we dont know a whole lot about neanderthals, but there was possibly some coexistence. could have been anywhere from nothing to quite a bit in isolated areas. as a whole, no there wasnt comingling. populations were small, and you know how tribal things work.

a huge practical difference we know between us was in how we hunted, and probably where we hunted. iirc the most current explanation for neanderthal extinction was due to climate change neanderthal lost their short range ambush hunting habitat, and they couldnt make it out in the open plains due to terrible agility and endurance that sapiens had. they had amazing strength tho.

also they never had that big a population i think, and a lack of genetic diversity really fucks species.

I guess I don't understand the whole debate.

I believe that evolution exists. I believe that no one has scientifically proven how the world and all of its species were created.

Are these beliefs mutually exclusive? If so, why?

In the same vein, I think that believing that god exists and believing that the Bible is not a story but is "God's word" are two separate things as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chardrian

believing that god exists and believing that the Bible is not a story but is "God's word" are two separate things as well.

---

If I believe that The Bible is God's word, I must believe in the existence of God.

These two things you mentioned are different. Keep in mind, if one is true that the other must also be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankItDrew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chardrian

believing that god exists and believing that the Bible is not a story but is "God's word" are two separate things as well.

---

If I believe that The Bible is God's word, I must believe in the existence of God.

These two things you mentioned are different. Keep in mind, if one is true that the other must also be true.

---

One can believe in the existence of God without being convinced the Bible is "God's Word" which, I think, is Char's point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chardrian

I guess I don't understand the whole debate.

I believe that evolution exists. I believe that no one has scientifically proven how the world and all of its species were created.

Are these beliefs mutually exclusive? If so, why?

In the same vein, I think that believing that god exists and believing that the Bible is not a story but is "God's word" are two separate things as well.

---

people on both sides, mainly the religious side, regularly confuse issues. couple examples: it is commonly believed that the acknowledgment of evolution negates a god, but it doesnt, and often evolution is confused for biogenesis.

creationism is better labeled as intelligent design because then it addresses evolution correctly. the one and only 'legit' ID argument i know of, irreducible complexity, has been disproven quite nicely.

something very few realize is that 'creation' is meaningless due to infinite regression and the fact that existence doesnt exist before existence exists. there is no 'how' since 'how' didnt exist until 'how' existed. 'there' 'could' 'be' 'infinite' 'things' 'before' 'and' 'outside' 'our' 'existence', but we cannot fathom them. everything is parenthesized because every single iota of things we understand in our existence has zero relation to that which is beyond our existence. a good analogy is how in quantum mechanics everything we knew/know about our universe makes no sense. we could know everything about everything in this universe other than the quantum, yet all that would be 'contradicted' by the quantum.

Yeah I probably wasn't clear.

I was having a problem with the dude from Thunder's video. He seems to think that if you believe in evolution you can't believe in a higher power/god. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

I agree with him that it's closeminded to think that we haven't evolved. But I think that he has made the mistake of equating evolution with creation. And it's this mistake that has caused the whole clusterfuck of evolution vs ID. People get pissy when you tell them that their FAITH, their CORE beliefs are wrong. So if you state the view that if you believe in evolution then you can't believe in god it's going to make all those people who do believe in god pretty pissy.

Religion comes into the creation debate. Religion should not come into the evolution debate. It is theoretically possible for everyone (higher power believers, atheists, and agnostics) to believe that everything has evolved from one beginning cell/organism/species/fill in the blank - that's evolution. Where faith and religion and science come into the debate is figuring out where did that very first cell/organism/species/fill in the blank come from - that's creation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankItDrew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chardrian

believing that god exists and believing that the Bible is not a story but is "God's word" are two separate things as well.

---

If I believe that The Bible is God's word, I must believe in the existence of God.

These two things you mentioned are different. Keep in mind, if one is true that the other must also be true.

---

One can believe in the existence of God without being convinced the Bible is "God's Word" which, I think, is Char's point.

---

this does create other problems tho. i find it intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge logical discrepancies, and to believe something to be arbitrary which is not meant to be arbitrary does exactly that.

things religious are not arbitrary, yet 100% of religionists treat them as such. this activity is extremely obvious when people mold religion to new unrelated information

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

this does create other problems tho. i find it intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge logical discrepancies

---

Such as? Are these discrepancies created by organized Religion or faults with Spirituality of any sort?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chardrian

I was having a problem with the dude from Thunder's video. He seems to think that if you believe in evolution you can't believe in a higher power/god. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

---

You should watch all of the episodes wufwugy linked to, that guy addresses this very issue quite thoroughly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chardrian

I was having a problem with the dude from Thunder's video. He seems to think that if you believe in evolution you can't believe in a higher power/god. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

---

You should watch all of the episodes wufwugy linked to, that guy addresses this very issue quite thoroughly.

---

Well, DonExodus doesn't think that they are mutually exclusive either... he agrees that God and evolution can coexist. Did you mean to support Char's point?

"Why I Believe in God"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eXxF...eature=related

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankItDrew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chardrian

believing that god exists and believing that the Bible is not a story but is "God's word" are two separate things as well.

---

If I believe that The Bible is God's word, I must believe in the existence of God.

These two things you mentioned are different. Keep in mind, if one is true that the other must also be true.

---

One can believe in the existence of God without being convinced the Bible is "God's Word" which, I think, is Char's point.

---

If this was his point, I understand it now. It's quite possible that a God exists while a book on Earth claims to be the word of God, when it actually is not. I think that this possibility is much greater than both ideas being true (Gods existence + word of Gods written).

Let's assume God exists for a moment. Now, as a follower and believer of the words within the Bible, you actually believe that you know what God wants? You actually think you know what God thinks about specific people and the morals you have come to live by? You actually believe, that you know what God is thinking? Come on now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

this does create other problems tho. i find it intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge logical discrepancies

---

Such as? Are these discrepancies created by organized Religion or faults with Spirituality of any sort?

---

yes. superstition does not adhere to the scientific method; this alone makes it illogical.

in response to your first sentence, our understanding of the christian god comes from a literal interpretation of the bible and other like scriptures, and evolution contradicts the bible. according to logic, this obliterates the bible as a statistical source of accuracy, yet intellectually dishonest christians/religionists disregard this and fabricate an illogical reason for why they can still believe in a christian god.

this is just one example, there are an innumerable amount.

ill address this somewhat more in my next post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chardrian

I was having a problem with the dude from Thunder's video. He seems to think that if you believe in evolution you can't believe in a higher power/god. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

---

You should watch all of the episodes wufwugy linked to, that guy addresses this very issue quite thoroughly.

---

Well, DonExodus doesn't think that they are mutually exclusive either... he agrees that God and evolution can coexist. Did you mean to support Char's point?

"Why I Believe in God"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eXxF...eature=related

---

donexodus is a great biological mind and a great scientific mind, but for some reasons, like many scientists, he doesnt apply logic and the scientific method completely to theology.

he is absolutely right that a god can exist, but as to knowing even the slightest bit about this god he is wrong. he does claim that it is a personal belief and he doesnt try to convince anybody, but the fact remains that the statistical likelyhood of his god existing is the same as anything else, and that, according to logic, is a worthless position from which to believe something, and it is as good as wrong.

somehow, 100% of christians who accept contradictions to their faith disregard this. faith itself is a contradiction to knowledge, but that doesnt keep people from imposing faith based beliefs onto information based things.

donexodus' intellectual dishonesty that allows him to not see how evolution crushes christianity is his entirely arbitrary and unreasoned idea that some biblical accounts are not literal. he doesnt provide evidence for why, his entire defense is undefined and unscientific, and thats exactly what antagonists of truths do.

he, like most people, make the mistake of thinking that there exists some things that the scientific method does not apply to. he, like most, believe that supernatural exists, when by definition it does not.

I think [our] God [as interpreted by pretty much every religion ever] is the Sun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

our understanding of the christian god comes from a literal interpretation of the bible

---

That is one understanding of the Christian God, and a very Fundamentalist one at that. As I said above, the majority of the most populous Christian demoninations do not interpret the Old Testament in particular as a text to be taken literally.

I'm far, far, far from an active Christian, but I'm seeing a lumping together of God=Religion=Creationism at times in this thread and think it's important to distinguish between them all if you really want to understand the issue. Otherwise, you're committing the same mistakes as the Fundamentalists behind the Creationist movement, which is to use extremism to represent the entire population being examined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

our understanding of the christian god comes from a literal interpretation of the bible

---

That is one understanding of the Christian God, and a very Fundamentalist one at that. As I said above, the majority of the most populous Christian demoninations do not interpret the Old Testament in particular as a text to be taken literally.

---

truth, knowledge, information, fact, etc. those are all literal. if you want to claim that the genesis creation account is allegorical (which it most likely is) then you have to deny any relation to fact. non-literal things/ideas make no predictions, cannot be tested, have no definitions; and those are prerequisites for truths. if we do not have those then we are provided with no truths. do you see how this means that non-literal interpretations of religions tell us nothing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

truth, knowledge, information, fact, etc. those are all literal. if you want to claim that the genesis creation account is allegorical (which it most likely is) then you have to deny any relation to fact. non-literal things/ideas make no predictions, cannot be tested, have no definitions; and those are prerequisites for truths. if we do not have those then we are provided with no truths. do you see how this means that non-literal interpretations of religions tell us nothing?

---

I haven't claimed anything, other than your suggestion that all Christians hold a literal interpretation of the Bible is false. I'm confused enough about my own spirituality without attempting to debate the issue, except to say that organized religion of any kind is fucked up. But I'm also well versed enough on Theology and Christianity through my Catholic school upbringing (and hardcore in-laws) to say that if your impression is that a belief in the Christian God means a denial of evolution and blind acceptance of Creationism, it's just not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

truth, knowledge, information, fact, etc. those are all literal. if you want to claim that the genesis creation account is allegorical (which it most likely is) then you have to deny any relation to fact. non-literal things/ideas make no predictions, cannot be tested, have no definitions; and those are prerequisites for truths. if we do not have those then we are provided with no truths. do you see how this means that non-literal interpretations of religions tell us nothing?

---

I haven't claimed anything, other than your suggestion that all Christians hold a literal interpretation of the Bible is false. I'm confused enough about my own spirituality without attempting to debate the issue, except to say that organized religion of any kind is fucked up. But I'm also well versed enough on Theology and Christianity through my Catholic school upbringing (and hardcore in-laws) to say that if your impression is that a belief in the Christian God means a denial of evolution and blind acceptance of Creationism, it's just not the case.

---

youre confusing issues and not understanding my posts.

religionists believe a lot of things, but only when those things are literal and defined can those things be evaluated for merit. i started this by mentioning the intellectual dishonesty that religionists espouse when they arbitrarily decide what to apply reason and empiricism to and what not to. this is what allows them to believe that they mold their beliefs to new information without ever defining their position and without ever actually molding anything of substance.

a mistake that religionists make is claiming that many understandings from science (evolution is just one of many) dont void the possible existence of A god (which is true), and they fail to apply the scientific method and logic to THEIR god, and they conclude that the possible existence of A god = existence of THEIR god

this all stems from the idea that the supernatural exists imo. there is zero evidence that there exists one thing that is not simply natural, and thus understandable via only the scientific method and logic


let me put it a different way

if the genesis account is allegorical or metaphorical or what have you then it has no factual merit, and beliefs founded on that which suppose they have factual merit are actually equivalent to any belief of anything ever.

if the genesis account is literal then science crushes it and the entire case for chrisitanity collapses since christianity relies upon biblical infallibility.

now there are those who say that chrisitanity does not rely upon biblical infallibility. well good for them since when believing that they create their own religion and cannot call it christianity. people who believe this type of thing should study the history of chrisitanity, or actually the history of judaism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

youre confusing issues and not understanding my posts.

---

I don't understand them either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

youre confusing issues and not understanding my posts.

---

Not at all. Your arguments are well understood but tangential to my point so I haven't responded to them. My correction was very specific...see below.

Quote:

---

now there are those who say that chrisitanity does not rely upon biblical infallibility. well good for them since when believing that they create their own religion and cannot call it christianity. people who believe this type of thing should study the history of chrisitanity, or actually the history of judaism.

---

"There are those" = the majority of Christianity, and Judaism as well, now that you bring it up. It's absolutely true that this wasn't always the case though. As recently as pre-WWII, most denominations were strictly Creationist. But that is where Christianity has grown to, so to speak, so is very representative of the majority of the Christian population today. This is my point, that your earlier statement "our understanding of the christian god comes from a literal interpretation of the bible and other like scriptures" is not reflective of the attitudes of the entire Christian population. Of course Theistic Evolution has no factual merit. I'm not debating that.

I suppose one could say that to abandon earlier beliefs is to alter the very fundamentals of a religion. I have no interest in defending that or any Christian position. As I've said, I'm not a practicing Christian so I'm riding a fine line between holding my personal beliefs and communicating my understanding of Christian doctrine. Still, I find it somewhat admirable that a denomination can look at the scientific evidence and admit it to be true despite its history. That's at least better than a stubborn refusal to accept scientific fact like the Fundamentalist movement is doing. I suppose if science can continue to collect new evidence and create new theories as a result, religion needs to be allowed to do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BennyLaRue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

youre confusing issues and not understanding my posts.

---

Not at all. Your arguments are well understood but tangential to my point so I haven't responded to them. My correction was very specific...see below.

Quote:

---

now there are those who say that chrisitanity does not rely upon biblical infallibility. well good for them since when believing that they create their own religion and cannot call it christianity. people who believe this type of thing should study the history of chrisitanity, or actually the history of judaism.

---

"There are those" = the majority of Christianity, and Judaism as well, now that you bring it up. It's absolutely true that this wasn't always the case though. As recently as pre-WWII, most denominations were strictly Creationist. But that is where Christianity has grown to, so to speak, so is very representative of the majority of the Christian population today. This is my point, that your earlier statement "our understanding of the christian god comes from a literal interpretation of the bible and other like scriptures" is not reflective of the attitudes of the entire Christian population. Of course Theistic Evolution has no factual merit. I'm not debating that.

I suppose one could say that to abandon earlier beliefs is to alter the very fundamentals of a religion.

---

this is exactly the case for christianity. its not this way with all things but it is with prophetic religions. christianity is a prophetic religion. prophetic infallibility is a requirement that modern christianity has forgotten/ignored. orthodox judaism has not. this is important since orthodox judaism is the foundation from which christianity extends. whats funny is that orthodox judaism steadfastly contends that christianity is a false extension.

despite the history, it is still easy to demonstrate the need for prophetic infallibility in a religion that derives its 'truths' from prophecy exclusively. just like how scientific truths rely upon the infallibility of the scientific method.

Quote:

---

I suppose if science can continue to collect new evidence and create new theories as a result, religion needs to be allowed to do the same.

---

you would think so, but thats not the case. when a change is made to a prophetic religion that is not from a qualified prophet then it is by definition an incorrect change. this doesnt apply to evidence and theories in science since those never change the foundations of science. alterations of evidence and theories in science is what science is. prophetic religions can only do this when it is prophetic.

Quote:

---

you would think so, but thats not the case. when a change is made to a prophetic religion that is not from a qualified prophet then it is by definition an incorrect change. this doesnt apply to evidence and theories in science since those never change the foundations of science. alterations of evidence and theories in science is what science is. prophetic religions can only do this when it is prophetic.

---

In the Catholicism case in particular, this is actually what Papal infallibility is all about. Mormons grant their leadership similar infallibility. Have the leadership of these two groups fucked things up in the past? Absolutely, so far as to have "infallible" Popes needing to correct doctrine created by other "infallible" Popes. It's a massive failing of organized Religion to think particular humans cannot err. But, this is how prophetic religions get around the very issue you've brought up and how the acceptance of theistic evolution was allowed to become official doctrine without critical rebellion in the Church.