Evolution? How?

timber wrote-

Quote:

Fear, ignorance, and superstition easilly trump reason, knowledge, and understanding, in that they require no initiative, no effort, call for no independent thought, challenge no cherished comforts, traditions, or legends.

Would you like someone to exercise his/her initiative with great effort and applying independent thought to challenging cherished comforts,traditions or legends in the field,much explored by numerous people who shall remain nameless,of the physiology of excitable cells in the human domain.
You seem blissfully unaware timber that this area of science even exists and would be quite fascinating in late grade,mixed biology lessons.

Christianity is about forgiveness of sin. I am a Christian because I am forgiven, not because I believe in creation.

There are lots of Christians who believe in evolution. That's their right. They aren't less of a Christian because of it.

They may be wrong on the issue, but they are still Christians. God isn't going to stop answering their prayers or stop loving them.

I cannot 'appease' God , even if I were 'right' on every issue, I still couldn't earn my way to heaven by knowing all the right answers. I'm not afraid God will hate me if I'm wrong.

The chances of me getting to heaven and hearing God say "You know, you were the only one right on everything" are pretty small, so I am not really counting on being 'right' on everything to ingratiate me with God.

Christians are Christians because of the grace, mercy and forgiveness of God, not because they know all the right answers or have earned it in any way.

Whether I'm right about creation or not isn't going to make God love me more or love me less.

I have no need to 'lie' about creation, because there is no benefit to me either way.

I see creation as being the stronger of the two positions. You disagree but I don't think you're intentionally deceiving me about what you think.

Creation is an interesting side issue, but if I'm wrong I am still a Christian.

There are lots of issues --- political, social and yes, even Biblical issues, over which Christians disagree. You don't have to be 'right' on all the issues to still be a Christian.

But I really think that the constant accusations of deception are completely out of place and simply a distraction from discussing the topic. Disagree all you want. But unless you have proof positive that someone is intentionally saying what they don't actually think and believe -- then they are not lying. Call them bull headed, lazy, airheads, ostriches, or just stupid if you think that's appropriate (it's probably not, and probably not productive to the discussion) , but lying they are not.

Kind of a long post. I try to stay away from those because I don't think most people read it all.

'Nuff said about this on my part. You can add your 2 cents and we'll get back to topic eventually.

Christianity today is like an antique in dire need of restoration. They only go as far as patching up some of the holes and painting over the tired old finish.

Lightwizard wrote:

Christianity today is like an antique in dire need of restoration. They only go as far as patching up some of the holes and painting over the tired old finish.

God is not a relic...

Regardless of root creed or denomination, religious fundamentalism is psycopathic, a mental disorder, the fountain of hate, prejudice, bigotry, ignorance, intolerance, and superstition.

rl wrote:

Christianity is about forgiveness of sin. I am a Christian because I am forgiven, not because I believe in creation.

More correctly, Or erroneously. Christianity is by its apologists and proselytizers purported to be about, among other things, the "forgiveness of sin", the construct establishing and defining the concepts of "forgiveness" and "sin" according to its own precepts, circularly, self-reinforcingly, absent independent, empirical, external validation. You forgot to list, true life experience... One is a Creationist/ID-iot (Or bigoted science) by way of being a Fundamentalist Christian Are you implying Jesus Christ is unworthy of adoration? constrained thereby from engaging in objective, It is not objective if it flat out denies God without it's own evidence to warrant such a inaccurate and ignorant assumption. critical thought, Mostly critical about things "science" knows nothing about. the excercize of which perforce exposes the absurdity of the religionist proposition. there is nothing absurd about a creator and their creation.

Quote:

There are lots of Christians who believe in evolution. That's their right. They aren't less of a Christian because of it.

Correct as far as it goes; salient is that they are not Fundamentalist Christians. Regardless of root creed or denomination, religious fundamentalism is psycopathic, It is more psycho to out of ignorance or fear deny the possible existence of God rather "objectively" embrace this possibility of the immeasurable logically and see what can be learned from the experience.a mental disorder,is perceived out of the same ignorance and lack of reasoning on the subject. the fountain of hate, prejudice, bigotry, ignorance, intolerance, and superstition. The fountain of hate does not only serve those who love God...

Quote:

They may be wrong on the issue, but they are still Christians. God isn't going to stop answering their prayers or stop loving them.

I submit it has not been, regardless whether it can or cannot be, demonstrated either that "God" exists apart from the psychosocial construct of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia or that "prayer" has any statistically significant effect. The extraneous passages do shed light on the core values of the Bible...

Quote:

I cannot 'appease' God , even if I were 'right' on every issue, I still couldn't earn my way to heaven by knowing all the right answers. I'm not afraid God will hate me if I'm wrong.

The chances of me getting to heaven and hearing God say "You know, you were the only one right on everything" are pretty small, so I am not really counting on being 'right' on everything to ingratiate me with God.

Again a modicum of correctness here; the odds of there being either the God or the heaven of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, let alone the Fundamentalist interpretation of that mythopaeia, are vanishingly small. Impossible? No, nothing precludes the possibility. Probable? Likely not; nothing indicates the possibility. You don't' have a standard to measure that last comment... so you are simply giving an opinion about something you cannot scientifically "back up". So should we make a NEW religion out of your unscientific contradiction to the Bible?

Quote:

Christians are Christians because of the grace, mercy and forgiveness of God, not because they know all the right answers or have earned it in any way.

Christians of any stripe, liberal, mainstream, or fundamentalist, are Christian by idoctrination, any opinion is formed by indoctrination. preference, preference is not a trait also relegated to only people of "faith"... belief, faith and acceptance, dittoas is the case with any adherent of any religionist or scientific.proposition.

Quote:

Whether I'm right about creation or not isn't going to make God love me more or love me less.

Thats pretty much likely right in every particular; there is no reason to assume there might be any god or gods, WRONG, there is profit in God's insight and perspective into our lives. let alone the God you conceptualize, yours is better? Please explain yours then...to love anyone or anything any more or less. God finds favor in those who "study" his word.

Quote:

I have no need to 'lie' about creation, because there is no benefit to me either way.

Plainly not so. The Creationist/ID-iot clearly derives benefit from rejecting science; Creation in it's purest form does not reject science it augments it. doing so is the only means by which the Creationist/ID-iot proposition may be defended. Science rejects more of God's kingdom than creationists reject of science. So what discipline is "defended" by rejection?

Quote:

I see creation as being the stronger of the two positions. You disagree but I don't think you're intentionally deceiving me about what you think.

The only deception involved is that requisite to the acceptance and endorsement of the Fundamentalist Christian-Creationist/ID-iot proposition, The Creationist has creation to look at and thank the "God". The evolutionist thanks nothing and no one.apart, perhaps, from the employment of the verb form "to think" in self-referential present tense active case pertaining to the cognitive processes of a religionist. Here are some more verbs for you, "to honestly consider", "to entertain the notion", to reasonably conclude".

Quote:

Creation is an interesting side issue, but if I'm wrong I am still a Christian.

Partially correct; by the evidence of your postings, you are and will remain a Fundamentalist Christian, while the Fundamentalist Christian concept of "Creation" is the absurdity Absurd only to biased, prejudiced, closed minded and the "unscientific". to the discussion at hand.

Quote:

There are lots of issues --- political, social and yes, even Biblical issues, over which Christians disagree. You don't have to be 'right' on all the issues to still be a Christian.

Understanding - actually objectively, critically understanding, any issue makes being "right" about that issue very much more likely. Your postings evidence no functional understanding of the actual issue whatsoever, but rather reflect a blind, uncritical, unanalytical acceptance of a mythopaeiac dogma. How can it be blind when it has been "studied". It is you who make judgments and are "blind" from NOT studying it.

Quote:

But I really think that the constant accusations of deception are completely out of place and simply a distraction from discussing the topic. Disagree all you want. But unless you have proof positive that someone is intentionally saying what they don't actually think and believe -- then they are not lying. Call them bull headed, lazy, airheads, ostriches, or just stupid if you think that's appropriate (it's probably not, and probably not productive to the discussion) , but lying they are not.

And again, I can sorta go along with you here; as referrenced earlier, belief in an absurdity, no matter how fervently held, in no way imparts any truth to that absurdity. Anyone is perfectly entitled to accept or reject science, logic, and reason as that one may prefer and find appropriate, however, one's feelings have no bearing on the demonstrated validity of science nor on the undemonstrated validity of the religionist proposition.
Just because someone believes something does not mean it is not a lie, they are just possibly unaware that it is a lie. Like scientists are fed the lie that God cannot exist. They believe it without no objective evidence to disprove it and they are adamite about believing this "lie"...

Quote:

Kind of a long post. I try to stay away from those because I don't think most people read it all.

'Nuff said about this on my part. You can add your 2 cents and we'll get back to topic eventually.

There's been no digression - the issue at root is the absurdity of any attempt to equate the Creationism/ID-iocy proposition, and its fundamentalist religionist foundation, with science, logic, reason, or honesty. Honesty is not closing your eyes to possibility... so your version of science is unpure...

Yep. Definitely elliptical.

Quote:

Orbits were first analyzed mathematically by Johannes Kepler who formulated his results in his three laws of planetary motion. First, he found that the orbits of the planets in our solar system are elliptical, not circular (or epicyclic), as had previously been believed, and that the sun is not located at the center of the orbits, but rather at one focus.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

FM why would we develop a "God spot" in the human brain if there was not an external force that prompted the "evolution" of a spiritual "member"?

Isn't the physical presence of a receptor center for religious thinking evidence of God in evolution?

Timber did not write "regardless of what they believe."

You should stop making sh!t up.

Main Entry: creed
Pronunciation: 'krEd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English crede, from Old English crEda, from Latin credo (first word of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds), from credere to believe, trust, entrust; akin to Old Irish cretid he believes, Sanskrit srad-dadhAti
1 : a brief authoritative formula of religious belief
2 : a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle

Anthropologists and Darwinian theorists have frequently speculated that religion may have developed as a self-policing mechanism as cooperation with others became useful. With their intelligence and skills at making weapons, there was little to stop early humans from slaughtering each other like wild maniacs, until they began to fear unseen beings even bigger and badder than themselves. This sort of adaptation has always been considered a purely psychological function, but now we have the first evidence that the religious instinct may be physically hard-wired right into our noggins.

Which brings us to the most intriguing conundrum posed by the discovery of the God Spot. It's a double-edged sword shoved right through the heart of the science vs. religion debate, bearing either good news or bad news for the faithful masses depending on how you answer the chicken-or-the-egg question: does it mean that God created our brains, or that our brains created God?

MY COMMENTS ARE IN RED

And my responses are in dark blue - timber

timberlandko wrote:

rl wrote:

Christianity is about forgiveness of sin. I am a Christian because I am forgiven, not because I believe in creation.

More correctly, Or erroneously. Demonstrate that this be not true Christianity is by its apologists and proselytizers purported to be about, among other things, the "forgiveness of sin", the construct establishing and defining the concepts of "forgiveness" and "sin" according to its own precepts, circularly, self-reinforcingly, absent independent, empirical, external validation. You forgot to list, true life experience... Nonsense - while a life experience may encompass delusion, that in no way renders that illusion true One is a Creationist/ID-iot (Or bigoted science) You attempt to don the mantle of victimhood - science has neither tolerance nor prejudice; it is neutral and objective by definition. In that science does not and cannot support their proposition, religionists of the fundamentalist Christian bent perceive science to be at odds with them and their afoundational proposition, when in truth science is entirely apart from their proposition and its dependencies. by way of being a Fundamentalist Christian Are you implying Jesus Christ is unworthy of adoration? No - any such determination of merit is a wholly personal matter, unless dragged into public venue. I offer no assessment in the matter, you of course are welcome to do as you see fit constrained thereby from engaging in objective, It is not objective if it flat out denies God without it's own evidence to warrant such a inaccurate and ignorant assumption. I submit again that science by definition is objective, and that science provides no validation of the religionist proposition - nor, honestly, does science invalidate the religionist proposition; science is apart from the religionist proposition, a circumstance which brings about a wholly emotional, irrational attack response from ignorant religionists - with acknowledgement that the ignorant, though vocal, are but a fraction of religionists.]
[critical thought, Mostly critical about things "science" knows nothing about. science "knows" only about natural phenomena and that dependent upon and descended from natural phenomena - all science "knows" about any religionist proposition is that no empirical, independently verifiable evidence for or against such propositions exists. the excercize of which perforce exposes the absurdity of the religionist proposition. there is nothing absurd about a creator and their creation. The absurdity is not so much in the concepts per se, but more in the manner of the presentation and defense of those concepts. No detatched, dispassionate, objective, forensically valid, logically sound argument may be made for any religionist proposition.

Quote:

There are lots of Christians who believe in evolution. That's their right. They aren't less of a Christian because of it.

Correct as far as it goes; salient is that they are not Fundamentalist Christians. Regardless of root creed or denomination, religious fundamentalism is psycopathic, It is more psycho to out of ignorance or fear deny the possible existence of God rather "objectively" embrace this possibility of the immeasurable logically and see what can be learned from the experience. Demonstrate that I - or science in general, for that matter - have ever denied the possibility a mental disorder,is perceived out of the same ignorance and lack of reasoning on the subject. Demonstrate any lack of reason evidenced in my position on the issue the fountain of hate, prejudice, bigotry, ignorance, intolerance, and superstition. The fountain of hate does not only serve those who love God... No problem there - the fountain of hate is exclusive to no ideology, though it certainly has been shown to be, while not exclusive, clearly partial to theologies

Quote:

They may be wrong on the issue, but they are still Christians. God isn't going to stop answering their prayers or stop loving them.

I submit it has not been, regardless whether it can or cannot be, demonstrated either that "God" exists apart from the psychosocial construct of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia or that "prayer" has any statistically significant effect. The extraneous passages do shed light on the core values of the Bible... Nothing said or implied regarding the core values of the Bible - there is much merit to the moral and ethical teachings therein, teachings not exclusive to nor in any way dependent on or descended from the Bible. There is however little merit to the wrapping of those teachings in the myth, mystery, fear, paranoia, and superstion which comprise the "extraneous passages" which are the bulk of that particular collection of folktale and homily.

Quote:

I cannot 'appease' God , even if I were 'right' on every issue, I still couldn't earn my way to heaven by knowing all the right answers. I'm not afraid God will hate me if I'm wrong.

The chances of me getting to heaven and hearing God say "You know, you were the only one right on everything" are pretty small, so I am not really counting on being 'right' on everything to ingratiate me with God.

Again a modicum of correctness here; the odds of there being either the God or the heaven of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, let alone the Fundamentalist interpretation of that mythopaeia, are vanishingly small. Impossible? No, nothing precludes the possibility. Probable? Likely not; nothing indicates the possibility. You don't' have a standard to measure that last comment... so you are simply giving an opinion about something you cannot scientifically "back up". So should we make a NEW religion out of your unscientific contradiction to the Bible? The standard is the lack of evidence for the proposition - admittedly, in similar fashion there exists no conclusive evidence against the proposition, however, with specific regard to the Abrahamic mythopaeia and its dependent propositions, millenia of fruitless effort to provide evidence for the proposition has so far come to naught, rendering an assessment of low probability objective, dispassionate, reasonable, rational, and logical

Quote:

Christians are Christians because of the grace, mercy and forgiveness of God, not because they know all the right answers or have earned it in any way.

Christians of any stripe, liberal, mainstream, or fundamentalist, are Christian by idoctrination, any opinion is formed by indoctrination. preference, preference is not a trait also relegated to only people of "faith"... Granted - however, "People of Faith" offer nothing in support of their propositition beyond conjecture, assumption, and preference.belief, faith and acceptance dittoas is the case with any adherent of any religionist or scientific. Demonstrate that preference, prejudice, or emotion be consistent with science proposition.

Quote:

Whether I'm right about creation or not isn't going to make God love me more or love me less.

Thats pretty much likely right in every particular; there is no reason to assume there might be any god or gods, WRONG, there is profit in God's insight and perspective into our lives. For your assertion to be acceptable, it must be validated through evidence, as opposed to emotion, which is all you provide. let alone the God you conceptualize, yours is better? Please explain yours then... Persisting in intellectual dishonesty, you present at once a red herring and a straw man fallacy; I cannot "explain" my concept of "God" for the simple reason I have no such concept - neither pro nor con. to love anyone or anything any more or less. God finds favor in those who "study" his word. Again you betray an emotional attachment to, as opposed to an objective appraisal of the proposition you forward but fail to validate

Quote:

I have no need to 'lie' about creation, because there is no benefit to me either way.

Plainly not so. The Creationist/ID-iot clearly derives benefit from rejecting science; Creation in it's purest form does not reject science it augments it. Sophistry, allowing the most charitable assessment. Demonstrate that science in any way addresses, let alone indicates, the concept of "Creation" as embodied within the religionist proposition doing so is the only means by which the Creationist/ID-iot proposition may be defended. Science rejects more of God's kingdom than creationists reject of science. So what discipline is "defended" by rejection? An outright lie - perhaps innocently and without deceptive intent posed, but a lie none the less. Science does not address "Gods kingdom", either to endorse or to reject the concept; science merely has discovered no evidence supportive of the concept. Science does not "deny" or "reject" "God's kingdom", science is absolutely neutral on the issue, other than in the mind of the Religionist/Creationist/ID-iot. The Religionist/Creationist/ID-iot apparently is incapable of conceptualizing absence of comment as anything other than rejection and attack; science does not attack the Religionist/Creationist/ID-iot, but finds itself forced to defend against same, who for their own reasons press an agenda inimical to science.[/b]

Quote:

I see creation as being the stronger of the two positions. You disagree but I don't think you're intentionally deceiving me about what you think.

The only deception involved is that requisite to the acceptance and endorsement of the Fundamentalist Christian-Creationist/ID-iot proposition, The Creationist has creation to look at and thank the "God". The evolutionist thanks nothing and no one. Yet another baldfaced lie; there is no such thing, apart from within the ortured musings of Religionist/Creationist/ID-iots, as an "evolutionist" - there are but those who objectively, dispassionately, logically, and rationally understand and accept science, and those who feel their need to believe in something or someone to "thank" somehow threatened by science's absolute impartiality and objectivity. apart, perhaps, from the employment of the verb form "to think" in self-referential present tense active case pertaining to the cognitive processes of a religionist. Here are some more verbs for you, "to honestly consider", "to entertain the notion", to reasonably conclude". Indeed I have "entertained the notion", honestly, deeply, critically considered it, and reasonably have concluded it, as presented through the Abrahamic Mythopaeia in particular to the discussion here ongoing, is meritless, afoundational, and absurd.

Quote:

Creation is an interesting side issue, but if I'm wrong I am still a Christian.

Partially correct; by the evidence of your postings, you are and will remain a Fundamentalist Christian, while the Fundamentalist Christian concept of "Creation" is the absurdity Absurd only to biased, prejudiced, closed minded and the "unscientific". Demonstrate, objectively, logically, in forensically valid and academically sound manner that your proposition be not absurd, and that science be biased, prejudiced, closed minded, and "unscientific". Demonstrate any legitimate scientific validation whatsoever for your proposition to the discussion at hand.

Quote:

There are lots of issues --- political, social and yes, even Biblical issues, over which Christians disagree. You don't have to be 'right' on all the issues to still be a Christian.

Understanding - actually objectively, critically understanding, any issue makes being "right" about that issue very much more likely. Your postings evidence no functional understanding of the actual issue whatsoever, but rather reflect a blind, uncritical, unanalytical acceptance of a mythopaeiac dogma. How can it be blind when it has been "studied". It is you who make judgments and are "blind" from NOT studying it. You argue from ignorance - you imply I have not studied your proposition, its antecedents, contemporaries, descendents, and competitors. Such simply is not the case; I suspect my foundations in theology, literature, history, archaeology, linguistics, psychology, the biologic sciences, the geologic sciences, the cosmologic sciences, logic, and forensics surpass that of many - yourself included. I do not aver that is so, I merely suspect it, and welcome dispositive evidence from your quarter.

Quote:

But I really think that the constant accusations of deception are completely out of place and simply a distraction from discussing the topic. Disagree all you want. But unless you have proof positive that someone is intentionally saying what they don't actually think and believe -- then they are not lying. Call them bull headed, lazy, airheads, ostriches, or just stupid if you think that's appropriate (it's probably not, and probably not productive to the discussion) , but lying they are not.

And again, I can sorta go along with you here; as referrenced earlier, belief in an absurdity, no matter how fervently held, in no way imparts any truth to that absurdity. Anyone is perfectly entitled to accept or reject science, logic, and reason as that one may prefer and find appropriate, however, one's feelings have no bearing on the demonstrated validity of science nor on the undemonstrated validity of the religionist proposition.
Just because someone believes something does not mean it is not a lie, they are just possibly unaware that it is a lie. Like scientists are fed the lie that God cannot exist. They believe it without no objective evidence to disprove it and they are adamite about believing this "lie"... Demonstrate that "scientists" are "fed the lie that God cannot exist", or that science is "ademite" (sic - the word is "adament") about "believing" anything. I will go along with the notion some, likely far and away most, religionists are unaware that which they "believe" is, by the rules of evidence, afoundational, a proposition without provenance. They do not consciously "lie", the simply endorse, perpetuate, and fail to recognize the lie in which they "believe". [/b]

Quote:

Kind of a long post. I try to stay away from those because I don't think most people read it all.

'Nuff said about this on my part. You can add your 2 cents and we'll get back to topic eventually.

There's been no digression - the issue at root is the absurdity of any attempt to equate the Creationism/ID-iocy proposition, and its fundamentalist religionist foundation, with science, logic, reason, or honesty. Honesty is not closing your eyes to possibility... so your version of science is unpure...[/b] I challenge you to demonstrate that "my vision" of science involves or even implies "closing my eyes" to the POSSIBILITY of the proposition you forward - I submit such patently and unambiguously is not the case; I allow freely and frequently for the POSSIBILITY, though, by the available evidence, I can accord to that possibility any significant PROBABILITY.

Peace with God...

Setanata wrote:

Timber did not write "regardless of what they believe."

You should stop making sh!t up.

'Regardless of root creed' and 'Regardless of what they believe' are substantially the same thing.

from merriamwebster.com

Quote:

Main Entry: creed
Pronunciation: 'krEd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English crede, from Old English crEda, from Latin credo (first word of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds), from credere to believe, trust, entrust; akin to Old Irish cretid he believes, Sanskrit srad-dadhAti
1 : a brief authoritative formula of religious belief
2 : a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle