Well, animals would have had to evolve, since there are some that eat only meat - carnivores, and eating meat implies that the hunted is killed, and remember death didn't exist in the garden of eden, so they would have evolved into the meat eaters that they are now. LOL I am being sarcastic of course. That would be the only reason way a fundy would believe in evolution. Imagine sharks that ate sea cucumbers! Why would they need all those very pointy teeth? LOL. Even when they try to make sense, their logic is laughable.

Could you imagine how freaked out adam and eve must've been when they noticed their little pet kittens that ate cabbages and the like turned into tigers and started eating sheep?! Right before their very eyes! POOF! little snowball turned into a blood thristy killing machine.

There are easy ways to torpedo such nonsense. One way is to point out that we share over 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, our closest living relative -- but that's not the clincher.

The clincher is than unlike nearly every other mammal (with the exception of the guinea pig), the higher primates cannot produce their own ascorbic acid (Vitamin C). If a squirrel doesn't get enough Vitamin C in its diet, no problem -- but if the same thing happens to a gorilla or human, the result is scurvy (Vitamin C deficiency disease) -- humans, gorilla, and chimpanzees (as examples) lack a key enzyme for ascorbic acid synthesis. Details at
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5jllsa -- admittedly, the article is a bit technical (but interesting).

I suppose that one could deny the importance of these facts, but combine them and it's way past coincidence.

~~ Mikey

One more thing just occured to me...isn't the popular theory of evolution one that has upright humans developing FROM a common animal ancestor? Doesn't that imply that animals came before upright man? So if animals do evolve as your brother states, he might as well agree with the scientific theory. Sounds like he is on the fence and not necesarrily as fundamental as he thinks he is. Might as well try to explain to him that "upright man" has plateaued in his evolution, and that yes, animals did evolve...and man is the result.

"He believes that animals evolved, but humans did not -- they were created."

I've been discussing this issue with a guy at work that said this same thing.

It's a logical fallacy called special pleading.

Retroviral DNA evidence suggests we share common ancestry with chimps.

Thanks to michael for the vitamin C info. I'm not rying to change this guy's mind but it's best to have a well thought out argument for your position on hand.

You should have seen his face when he tried to use pascal's wager on me. His smile dropped like a rock when I explained the problems with it.

The Catholic Church has come up with an interesting middle-ground regarding the science of evolution:

"Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are." -- ref

I believe that is the view which Muslims take, although I'm not sure.

Maybe you should introduce him to the ERVs:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

That may convince him. You should also check out my website "Answers in Genesis Busted":
http://www.aigbusted.com

It may be useful to you in debates with creationists.

-Ryan

Perhaps I should not be allowed to post here. I do not despise anyone who holds the positions, contrary to mine, that there is no God, life after death, et. al.. On the contrary, I have the deepest respect for their honesty, deepest respect for them personally, but also the deepest regret they have come to those conclusions. So, you know my intention will be to challenge those beliefs.
I would like to hear your comments first before, if I am allowed to, I continue posting.

Dear SlowAndSteady,

Go ahead and post with a couple of conditions.

1. Realize that we are Ex-Christians, and have heard, and sometimes preached, all the standard arguments, so don't think about us as people that don't understand Christianity or the bible. We do!

2. Don't get all preachy on us, as it will just piss us off, and people will go at you with both barrels blazing. It won't be pretty.

3. Don't quote the bible. We know the bible very well and we don't believe it is the inspired word of god. It is just a book written by men, so quoting it does not work for us.

4. Use logic and reason. That is all that will work here. Appeals to faith don't substitute for evidence.

5. Expect some people here to treat you with disdain and anger. This is our site and we don't tolerate people insulting our intelligence. Many of us are still very pissed at the religion that wasted so much of our lives.

6. Ask questions to try and understand our positions. Don't try to re-convert us.

That last one is really the bottom line. If you want to have a conversation in order to understand who we are (we are not all the same obviously) and how we got to where we are, then feel free to ask some questions, and then LISTEN!

Many of us spent decades as Christians. We have heard all the arguments and there is nothing you can say to bring us back. If your goal is to re-convert us, then don't waste your breath.

But please feel free to really try to understand what made us reject your religion. From your original question, I think you may be the type of person that can do this.

Peace.

- Lance

S & S...So, you know my intention will be to challenge those beliefs

Yes, by all means!....challenge, away. Of course, you're off to a bad start when you imply that the absence of belief in something is a "belief". Bearing that in mind, please also bear in mind the following points, as well:

- Many of us, including myself, will not accept any type of revealed knowledge(i.e..religious documents, etc) as "evidence" for anything.

- Many of us, myself included, will not accept anecdotal testimony as evidence for anything. For instance, evidences such as NDE's, as evidence for a post-mortem existence(afterlife).

- Many of us, myself included, will not accept "GOD DID IT!" as evidence, in lieu of simply pleading ignorance on any given subject. For instance, since we don't know the origins of the Universe with absolute certainty, etc... "GOD DID IT!" is not acceptable "evidence"; it is a non-answer, in fact.

- And finally, many of us, myself included, will not accept "Creationism" as the default "truth", if one should manage to find gaps in the Theory, and fact, of Evolution.

Good luck, and may the most reasonable man win!

S&S, please continue, this may be interesting. However, if you don't understand why we won't accept revealed knowledge, anectodal testimony, or GODIDIT! as an answer, ask us to explain why, before implying that our minds are closed.

That being said...let 'er rip!

Thanks for the responses, and, without difficulty, I agree to the "rules".
I will be away for the next couple of days, but I look forward to getting back to listening in this discussion.

To answer the original question, yes I have heard that proposal before.

So, my new response is, so man is the one that sinned? (usually get an affirmative) Therefore the punishment for man's sin was that the whole of creation was now subject to death? (usually get an affirmative) So how come all the creatures that evolved before man came on the scene died, in some case many hundreds of millions of years before? (so far, only stunned silence)

Yet more evidence that the church has invented a monster - either the Christian story is true but God knew man would sin and therefore subject all of creation to the sentence before the crime had been committed, or the Christian story is not true and death is not a penalty for sin (irrespective of whether God exists or not).

I'ce heard this stance before and it's as ignorant as any creation myth. Next time you talk to your brother ask him why humans share retroviral DNA with higher apes. (in other words, broken viral remnants from our ancient history that continue to be handed down via sex) We share them in the exact same position in the primate DNA helix. The only way this can happen is because we have a common ancestor. One of many proofs of our evolution.

According to the bible, god only created the jewish people. His choosen ones. All other people came from the land of Nod, east of Eden. I take this to mean that only the choosen ones were created and the rest of us evolved! lol

So if you are not of jewish ancestry, then you evolved!

As an atheist, I do not think that the jewish people were created either.

What's up freeman,long time no post.Good point concerning the Jews.

Maybe they were the first to evolve,thus god chose them.What a bunch of crap!---peace freedy

Lurking in the background. I grow tired of the lambs! lol

I have been busy with a new job that does not allow their computers to be used for anything other than work. And as I have had more time at home, I have been catching up on the "honeydo list". URGH!

I read and have been in the forums section than here. Still I lurk and pounce every now and again.

Glad to see your still around freedy. peace

freeman,yea I like to roar and scratch at the sheeple every once in awhile.

Good to hear from you again.

I work in an engineering field. I have often encountered this view of evolution among religious believers.

Usually, the individual has a back-ground in science or engineering that makes a literal interpretation of the bible difficult or impossible. It is usually the age of the earth or the universe that forces them to revise their views.

They tend to be more interesting in a discussion than biblical literalist. They have two different groups of people in their life, so they constantly have to fight a battle on two fronts. They have to answer detailed criticism from technically-minded friends, but they also have to justify their deviation of faith to the members their church community.

Sometimes, I find that these individuals are genuinely conflicted. They may not be comfortable discussing it.

Hi Jerpoint,
I'm one of those engineers that was very conflicted about trying to rationalize my Christianity with my old earth views.

I was able to do this in the San Francisco Bay Area, where many liberal or moderate Christians balance these views. It wasn't until I moved to Central Oregon where I was faced with so many young earth fundamentalists that I was forced to resolve this conflict.

Happily now the conflict is resolved, my Christianity is completely gone, and my mind no longer needs to make sense of the craziness.

Reality is a wonderful thing.

- Lance

Jerpoint wrote:
Usually, the individual has a back-ground in science or engineering that makes a literal interpretation of the bible difficult or impossible. It is usually the age of the earth or the universe that forces them to revise their views
---
Jerpoint,
Very interesting observation here !!

Going back two decades ago, at a time in my life where I was still sure god had created all life on this planet (directly), it was EASY to ignore the mounting evidence for things like evolution, and find faults with the accuracy of things like carbon dating.

There was no internet back then that one could [EASILY] jump on to do research on such topics, and when one is cozy in their beliefs of god, why would one take the trouble to go to a library and find books that counter one's desired belief system, right.

Unlike in today's world, most folks (at least in my area) didn't have much knowledge about things like evolution and so there was always a minimal challenge to counter one's belief in the unbelievable.

Today (in my area), to bring up religious beliefs/dogma in a professional workplace is a rare occasion (being an unspoken rule of sorts). Because of this, I really never get to find out how college educated xtian (technical) coworkers might reconcile the bible with our modern day knowledge, but I am curious to see how most would attempt that.

Surely something would have to 'give' in such an attempt. Either one has to take some of the bible far less literally, or one has to find fault with the branches of science that contradict the bible dogma.
Oddly enough, those who find fault with the branches of science that contradict the bible, have little problem with the parts of science that benefit their health and daily lives.

Good subject and I'd like to see more about how technical minded xtians who are also bible literalist, manage to reconcile the huge problems between science and god's word.


ATF (Who long ago used to fight against evolution, and had no idea at the time, how naive he was in doing so)

I'm trying to understand why someone would have anger towards me if I had done nothing wrong to them. I can understand why someone would be angry if there is pin-headed stupidity directed at them in the name of any religion. But to condemn all who hold the beliefs of that religion is like being angry at a voter because a politician lied to them.
I would like to know what was said or done to cause offense but I would like the same consideration.
To continue the analogy, ask me if I agree with the politician's actions.
Next, do I espouse the same party platforms, etc.
But to condemn every voter and the entire electoral and democratic system because of stupid, greedy, insensitive politicians does not make sense, even if there seems to be no lack of them.
Ditto for greedy, stupid, insensitive, and on and on, xtians.

Slow and Steady,
but also the deepest regret they have come to those conclusions. So, you know my intention will be to challenge those beliefs.

Sounds rather confrontational, doesn't it?

Please refer to boomslang's comment, it rather puts things in perspective.

S & S...I'm trying to understand why someone would have anger towards me if I had done nothing wrong to them.

Dear S & S,

It's quite possible that you are new to the blogging world, and if that is the case, you should be "tipped-off" that addressing the person to whom you are directing your comments to, greatly fascilitates the discussion, which includes, avoiding confusion.

I reviewed my post addressed to you, and I see nothing that would indicate I have anger towards you, personally. However, I should probably add, that you came here, and normally, I see that, alone, as an implicit challenge, taking into consideration the name of the website...e.g.."Exchristian net". Hello?

So, on top of the implicit challenge, you have also been explicit in telling us your intentions for being here....

S & S: "So, you know my intention will be to challenge those [non-beliefs]."

Bring it.

Boomslang, since this was originally about evolution, I have a question for you, or anyone, centerd on the first appearance of life, presumed to be a single cell.
Since we know the first life form has long since passed on, the assumption is that this first life form come already equipped with the ability to reproduce itself.
Can you explain that process?

Reproduction of the original copy may very well have been the result of a mutation caused by the environment [that is if your assumtion is that there was only one single cell of one type]- but that also doesn't mean that there weren't trillions of that type of that cell which could explain a kind of mutation by converging with each other too.

stephen_richard_webb said:
"[that is if your assumtion is that there was only one single cell of one type]"

Since my cells are supposed to be derived from that one source cell, then I'm talking about that one cell which eventually lead to me. If there was any death in between that one cell, regardless of any supposed merging with other cells, I would not be here, writing this.

"which could explain a kind of mutation by converging with each other too."

Could you please explain this merging process, as it occurred after the first life form existed, and, also, how long did this first life form exist before it mutated or merged, and then died?

S&S:

Excuse me for butting in.

Here's my answer to your line of questioning: I don't know.

So what?

The fact is, no one knows exactly how or when life began. Once upon a time, lightening, earthquakes, meteors, eclipses, sicknesses, etc., were all beyond the scope of human knowledge. In more ignorant times, all those forces of nature were deified in one way or another. Not satisfied with ignorance and unable to tear away the veil of ignorance, people attributed the unknown to the gods.

That’s all you are doing here. Just because the genesis of life remains a mystery, that doesn’t lend any credence to the idea that an unexplainable, immaterial, metaphysical entity started it up. Besides, if your deity did do it, how did she do it? Please explain the process that your goddess used to stimulate the first life form? First, of course, you’ll have to demonstrate that your goddess exists.

If an answer to a big question is “I don’t know” or “I can’t imagine how it could happen naturally,” then the default solution to the problem is not “See, my religious belief is true!”

I hope you see the point. No matter how successful you are in throwing doubt on modern scientific theories, you are still no closer providing objective evidence that your goddess exists, that she created life, and that she interacts on a regular basis with anyone or anything.

Besides, if life demands a supernatural creator, then wouldn’t a supernatural creator also need a super-duper-natural creator? I assume the creator is technically alive, in your mind. If there is even one life form that can be shown to be self existent (as in the case of your goddess), then you’ve equivocated on your position. If no life forms can exist without being supernaturally created, then your goddess is not a life form, and therefore not alive. If you want to say that your goddess is some sort of non-alive energy force that stimulates variety in the universe, well, that’s as reasonable as any answer in a sea of ignorance. How about ancient astronauts? Maybe super-intelligent travelers from another galaxy seeded this planet with life. Of course, how they came to be would be a question. Or how about this: A trillion tiny self-existent gods merged their energies for one explosive creative act that generated life.

See how the imagination runs where ignorance reigns?

We are ignorant to our genesis. We may always be ignorant of it. However, until objective evidence can be presented that one of the myriad creation myths are true, then I’ll continue to be a skeptic who can admit that at times I don’t know.

I liken a fundamentalist christian to Venom the black spiderman. Venom becomes such a part of spiderman, that spiderman and the venom are indistinguishable from one another. That's the best analogy i can come up with for not liking christians and thier religion both. As for evolution, there is documented evidence proving it: the monkey throwing the spear and the four legged duck. there may be more instances besides this, but two is good enough for the moment.

webmdave:
Thanks for joining in, rather than "butting in".
I don't know if you have made the conclusion that evolution is a fact, however, I have a problem with the statement that evolution is a fact when it is based on such a huge unknown as the origin of life.
To answer the question, "Who cares?", I would say Darwin and all those who took a hand in explaining the theory to me in school.
Yes, the explanation, "I don't know" is a good one, and a bold one. I hope I can follow the example.
To answer some of your other questions, first, let me say that, yes, there are a great many hypotheses that could explain life's origins, however, when there are great numbers of people that arrive at very similar conclusions, then that hypothesis could be looked at more closely. That does not say that they are right, but it does say the similarities can't be ignored. If there are very few similarities in the belief, say, that a trillion tiny gods merged, then, although not discounting it, that would not lend itself to believability.
I will respond further when time allows.

S&S:

Evolution is a fact. It is as much a fact as is the theory of gravity.

What you are quibling about is abiogenesis.

Evolution and abiogenesis are two different fields of study that are frequently confused by Christian apologetics.

Regardless, I don't know is not a bold answer, it is just plain honest. Even if I studied the science of evolution in depth, I doubt I possess the comprehensive skills, the patience, or the interest necessary to fully fathom the science. Then again, I don’t care much about atomic theory, algorithmic information theory, critical pedagogy theory, the theory of relativity, quantum field theory, systems theory, critical theory, or literary theory. In fact, about the only theory that has ever really set my wheels to turning has been music theory.

However, since you seem obsessed by the theory of evolution, perhaps you could cast some light on your expertise in the matter. I would expect that you have studied the science in depth and have come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is flawed based on that extensive study. In light of your confusing evolution with abiogenesis, however, it appears likely that you’ve not studied at all.

Even so, regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of any scientific theories, those theories have no relation to providing objective evidence for your invisible friend. Consider this: If I manage to fill your mind with enough doubt as to the existence of your god, does that now by default make evolution true? Of course not! Objective evidence in support of these different ideas is what is required. Casting doubt on religion beliefs doesn’t bolster a scientific theory and casting doubt on a scientific theory doesn’t validate a religious belief.

There have been many thousands of people who have believed all sorts of nonsense since history began. Besides, every new religious cult on the planet starts out with only a few individuals. Surely you wouldn't posit that the majority opinion on truth wins, especially in light of the humble beginnings of Christianity. I mean, think about it... The majority of the world has never been Christian. And even in Christendom, there is not real unity. Christianity is splintered into a thousand camps, each calling the other heretic.

You are aware that the Catholic Church, the largest segment of Christianity, teaches evolution, aren’t you?

Be careful that you don't find yourself in the same state as Luther and Calvin, who condemned Copernicus for teaching that the Sun was the center of the solar system rather than the Earth. After all, the said, Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still; he didn't command the Earth to stop rotating.

S & S....Boomslang, since this was originally about evolution, I have a question for you, or anyone, centerd on the first appearance of life, presumed to be a single cell.
Since we know the first life form has long since passed on, the assumption is that this first life form come already equipped with the ability to reproduce itself.
Can you explain that process?

Dear S & S,

You have been very forthright in stating your purpose for being here: To challenge our beliefs[non-belief]

Well, for me personally, you will not reconvert me to Theism, nor to any of its by-products, including "Creationism", by thinking that if you shoot enough holes in the Theory of Evolution - or, if you get me to say "I don't know" how the first cell reproduced - that that will make your magical worldview "true", by default. As Webmdave pointed out...logic doesn't work that way.

Best,

webmdave wrote:"S&S:Evolution is a fact. It is as much a fact as is the theory of gravity."

(I'll address only a couple of points at a time and leave the rest for later)

It is up to you to accept it as fact, but, why such desperation to do that? Everyone has the right to choose this for themselves and not to be shamed into it. I'm not saying you use this tactic, however, ridicule has been used to convince me of the veracity of the claim. Furthermore, the second step, cell division, in the theory cannot be satisfactorily explained, nor can the enormity of the leap from life to reproduction be shown to be appreciated by those who share the theory with me. Consequently, I conclude there is too little real science here to make it believable to me, personally.

webmdave: "What you are quibling about is abiogenesis."

I looked up that word and found that, contemporaneously with Darwin, there was the notion that life spontaneously existed. For instance, maggots, it was assumed, sprang to life just out of the blue if there was rotten meat around. They did not have a clue that maggots were the result of eggs laid by flies. So, Darwin probably was not daunted by the fact that the step from a non-life form to life-form was of any major consequence. It was just assumed to be the case. Science, with some difficulty it seems, according to the article, has moved on from that, but the theory has been held tenaciously and I suspect that is because of the fear of science losing out in the ages old battle of religion versus science. Unlike yourself, many people I have talked to refuse to believe in God simply because of the theory of evolution. My own father was among them. He did not have any understanding of the theory, yet jumped to it to save himself from getting tricked into living forever, in a wonderful place without having to do a thing to deserve it. Pretty scary stuff. Can't blame him for that.

webmdave: "Regardless, I don't know is not a bold answer, it is just plain honest. Even if I studied the science of evolution in depth..."

I'll stick with my claim that it was a bold statement. Honest as well.
Ok. So, you're asking me if I've studied it in depth, yet, by our own admission, you have not done that yourself, and you are instructing me in this? No, I have no light to shed on this theory, just an observation that those that hold the theory to be true have ignored the fact that going from step one, a life form, to step two, cell division and reproduction, is an unbelievably astounding step. Is it not?

I will have to get back to work at hand before I address the rest of your post.

Thanks, all, for continuing to allow me to post in this forum.

Something that I don't get concerning fundamental christianities opposition of macroevolution is that there doctrine proposes an even greater jump than that of the sciences - dirt -> man = macroevolution in a major way. Yet they say that macroevolution is not possible, that ONLY microevolution occurs. Doesn't make sense.

How about a time out for a little humour?

A wealthy old Gentleman decides to go on a hunting safari in Africa , taking his faithful, elderly Jack Russell named Killer, along for the company.

One day the old Jack Russell starts chasing rabbits and before long, discovers that he's lost. Wandering about, he notices a leopard heading rapidly in his direction with the intention of having lunch.

The old Jack Russell thinks, "Oh, oh! I'm in deep doo-doo now!" Noticing some bones on the ground close by, he immediately settles down to chew on the bones with his back to the approaching cat. Just as the leopard is about to leap, the old Jack Russell exclaims loudly, "Boy, that was one delicious leopard! I wonder if there are any more around here?"

Hearing this, the young leopard halts his attack in mid-strike, a look of terror comes over him and he slinks away into the trees. "Whew!", says the leopard, "That was close! That old Jack Russell nearly had me!"

Meanwhile, a monkey who had been watching the whole scene from a nearby tree, figures he can put this knowledge to good use and trade it for protection from the leopard. So off he goes, but the old Jack Russell sees him heading after the leopard with great speed, and figures that something must be up.

The monkey soon catches up with the leopard, spills the beans and strikes a deal for himself with the leopard.

The young leopard is furious at being made a fool of and says, "Here, monkey, hop on my back and see what's going to happen to that conniving canine!

Now, the old Jack Russell sees the leopard coming with the monkey on his back and thinks, "What am I going to do now?", but instead of running, the dog sits down with his back to his attackers, pretending he hasn't seen them yet, and just when they get close enough to hear, the old Jack Russell says, "Where's that damn monkey? I sent him off an hour ago to bring me another leopard!”

Moral of this story....

Don't mess with the old dogs...age and skill will always overcome youth and treachery! BS and brilliance only come with age and experience.

S & S...... but the theory has been held tenaciously and I suspect that is because of the fear of science losing out in the ages old battle of religion versus science.

Fear of science losing-out to religion? Good grief!...you weren't kidding when you said it was time for a little humor, were you?

Okay, firstly, as pointed out to you previously, the subject of how life evolved is a separate subject, and thus, a separate discussion from how life came about, which is the field of abiogenesis. Yes, this thread is about evolution, I'm perfectly aware of that. So then, if you would, please stop harping on, quote:

- "non-life form to life-form"

Secondly, you are employing the very argument that some of us admonished you to NOT use, and that, for your review, is that attempting to shoot holes in the current leading scientifically-based hypothesis for the origins of life...i.e Abiogenesis, or, the current leading scientifically-based theory for how life evolved..i.e..the theory of Evolution, will NOT make a "supernatural" explanation a plausible alternative, in either case, by default. Again, see non-sequitur.(logical fallacy)

S&S, I have been following this discussion and methinks you protest too much about your reasonableness. And what about your humorous anecdote? Is it a subtle threat that we are in danger messing around with a sly old dog like you?

Methinks also that you might be a creationist troll.

I know only the basics of evolution. The regular Ex-Christians here know more than I do, but they are probably not experts. You, on the other hand, seem to know nothing but creationist dogma and fallacies. I suggest you go to some scientific websites on basic evolution and try to understand (if you are capable and willing) their scientific explanations before you come here to preach creationism. I suggest you start with this site,
http://www.genotypebyenvironment.org/
and other web sites by Dr. Massimo Pigliucci or Google “basic evolution.” Avoid the religious, creationist sites.

When you have your PhD in Creation Science (lol) then go debate Dr. Pigliucci.

S&S:

Please don't waste your time addressing the rest of my comment to you, unless of course you intend on being entertaining.

Why?

Well, since you clearly demonstrated that you haven't EVER seriously studied any of the bio-sciences and fully admitted that you had to "look up" the meaning of abiogenesis, it is fairly obvious to me that we have nothing meaningful to exchange in this discussion. What in the world could two science ignoramuses possible learn from each other?

In the meantime, get this through your thick skull: When it comes to talking about a mythological daemon that pooped out a man and woman after ingesting a metaphysical depilatory (KJV play on the word “dirt”), it’s irrelevant whether ANY or ALL scientific theories are found to be wanting! You’re whole premise is this: “Some people had wrong notions about maggots, therefore my daemon doth exist!”

Sorry S&S, y’alls so-called logic just don’t quite compute.

Peace, love, and the American way.

"...age and skill will always overcome youth and treachery!"

Not if the opponent has youth, treachery, AND skill!

But I did appreciate the humor.

For the sake of argument lets say you have thoroughly convinced me that evolution wasn't a viable explanation for the diversity of life on planet earth.

What then?

Do you have any credible evidence for the "theory" of GODDIDIT?

Dave asks:"What in the world could two science ignoramuses possible learn from each other?"

Which reminded me of a quote(for some reason):


"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
--Will Rogers

boomslang: "Secondly, you are employing the very argument that some of us admonished you to NOT use, and that, for your review, is that attempting to shoot holes in the current leading scientifically-based hypothesis for the origins of life..."
Yes, I see that.
I'll stop that.
I am seriously interested in what made you leave the camp I'm in.

stronger now: "Do you have any credible evidence for the "theory" of GODDIDIT?"
No.
As you must know, any evidence I have for this is not "transferrable".
Discussion of evidence, I realize here, is non-issue anyway, so, tell me, what got you moving on to this site from Christendom?

Stephen_Richard_Webb said...Something that I don't get concerning fundamental christianities opposition of macroevolution...

It's a puzzler, for sure, I agree.
Is that why you left it?

webmdave: What in the world could two science ignoramuses possible learn from each other?

I concede you have nothing to learn from me.
However, I would like to learn from you what happened that made you leave?

S&S: I wrote it all out several years ago: CLICK HERE

S&S, I know I am not currently engaged in any dialogue with your statements, but... a few observations nonetheless.

Christendom has only "one" binding tenet; the acceptance that Jesus was "The Jewish Messiah” that fulfilled the Old Testament prophesies. Christendom was founded on the "closure" of the Old Covenant, and the establishment of a Newer Covenant.

This single tenet of "belief" is the "linchpin" or "keystone" for "all" those who proclaim to be Christian.

Example #1; if a person accepts the Old Testament/Jewish Tanakh, and New Testament as Holy Inspired Writings, but reject Jesus as The Jewish Messiah that fulfilled the Old Testament prophesies... they would likely be a Messianic Jew, etc.

Example #2; if a person accepts "only" the Torah/first five books of the bible, and perhaps a few other books of the Old Testament/Jewish Tanakh, then they are likely a Rabbinical Jew.

There is a "lot" we can talk about regarding religion, but you are "inquiring" about "your" camp. Your camp encompasses Christendom, in a "general" context.

So, because you have asked a "general" question, about Christendom; I'll respond by addressing the "only" tenet of belief that is "relevant" to "all" Christendom.

I do not accept the belief tenet; "Jesus was The Jewish Messiah, that fulfilled the Old Testament prophesies."

Because, I do not believe in the single "linchpin's" (absolute variable in the Christian formula) veracity... I am not a member of Christendom, or any of the thousands of sub-Christian splinter groups.

If you want to explore the Jewish Prophesies, that went "unfulfilled" then, we can start with the prophesy that once The Jewish Messiah arrived to carry out the Jewish God's promise to "His" people, that the Jews would be "united" under one national banner, and that "all" people would be brought to the "one" True Religion - Judaism.

Now, if that happened, Christendom would never have been established... the "establishment" of Christendom, logically "dis-proves" the "fulfillment" of the Old Testament/Jewish Tanakh prophesies.

Anyway, that is why "I", am not a member of Christendom. Also, there are many people who attend Christian services, who accept that "single" axiom of Jesus as The Messiah... it is how we have "Mormons", "Catholics", "Protestants", etc., all under the Christendom banner, but "all" very much different in how they "ritualistically" practice their "religious" beliefs. Some have gone as far, as extending messianic prophesy; Pope (Catholics), Prophet (Mormons), etc.

Oh, and... of course, beyond not being a member of Christendom, is a much different discussion, than, not wanting to be associated intellectually lazy people in society, who "claim" to be Christian - perhaps, a follow on discussion?

webmdave, thanks for informative input. I will read it over, but not with any ulterior motive, I assure you.

S&S:"... what got you moving on to this site from Christendom?"

A desire to stay sane.

See my incomplete story here.

S & S...I am seriously interested in what made you leave the camp I'm in.

The simplified answer is the unceasing cognitive dissonance that being in your "camp" caused me. I had to continually weigh my options--"do I want to keep ignoring my intellect?"..or... "do I want to stay on my knees?". Finally, my intellect took precedence(Precisely as "God" knew it would)

Hey Boom,
So that is why Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge!?

The bible god loves his subjects to be ignorant!

..::tumbleweeds::..

Webmdave, I'm still reading your bio from the link you gave me.
I'm not really so much a slow reader as one who has limited free time.
From what I've read, I believe you have come to some solid conclusions.
So be it.
I do see some similar patterns of experience in my life, however, I noticeably differ from you in how serious you were about it compared to me as a kid.
As a 13 year old, I was given the option by my father as to whether I would continue having to go to church with my mother, and I optioned out.

Webmdave, I have some experiences which do not line up at all with some of your conclusions about Christians I've read from your link, specifically regarding your conclusion that there is no new life in them.
They are not "pat answers", and not the result of formal study, but personal experiences.
Would you be interested in reading about them?

S&S, There are many stories of people that have gotten "new lives" after dropping the god belief as well.

Some have gone from the brink of insanity, to a relatively calm and rational individual.

A "new life" in atheism.

If there are people who have totally changed their behaviours, for the better, after leaving christianity, what then could an experiencial tale of change be worth as evidence for supernatural change in a (christian)persons life?

I suppose if you only view the acceptance of the christian worldview as being "better" than any other change then you would see the person who drops this belief as one who automatically changed for the "worse", regardless of whether or not it was beneficial to his life and those around him.

strongernow: If you are in a more peaceful state than you were, go for it. To conclude I think you have changed for the worse is irrelevant. I will always say to go where the peace is, unless, of course, you find peace at the expense of another person's peace or violate them somehow, which I'm sure is not the case with you.
To cope, I lived most of my life with my ability to detect deep-core agitation shut off, and then the dam broke.
I now pay attention to that "inner peace indicator" and will find out what it is that disrupts me and, if possible, change the situation.
Work tends to disrupt me at times, however, I need the paycheck, so, without any other job, I accept that agitation, and I'm ok with that for now.
I do not think less of you or think you're in a worse situation, stongernow, for making that move. I applaud you for it. Many don't do anything (as opposed to can't do anything) to resolve situations that plague them and I can't help but tend to think less of them, regardless of whether they align themselves with any of my beliefs.
Overall, I have more a problem with frustration rather than categorizing anyone as "less than".
It's like, if I was an eye-witness at an accident and I saw the white car ram the black car and those that arrive on the scene after the fact are trying to persuade me it was the other way around, or, once it was all cleaned up, persuading me that the accident never took place.
I was there and I saw what happened.
I don't think less of the those who don't believe me, I've just learned to give the explanations and leave it alone or risk my own peace.
You know, it's not like I took a ride on an alien space ship or something, but, if I had a dramatic role in a movie playing the part of someone who had taken a ride on one, I'm there.
Even if I had no talent as an actor, I could do that part with believability. And probably great frustration as well.

S & S...Strongernow: If you are in a more peaceful state than you were, go for it. To conclude I think you have changed for the worse is irrelevant. I will always say to go where the peace is, unless, of course, you find peace at the expense of another person's peace or violate them somehow, which I'm sure is not the case with you.

If I may....

The search for "peace", and the search for truth, are often times two entirely different things. In other words, the two might not necessarily yield the same results.

Again, the objective search for truth means to find/accept the results, regardless of if those results bring "peace", or any other emotionally-based state-of-being.

S & S......if I was an eye-witness at an accident and I saw the white car ram the black car and those [who] arrive on the scene after the fact are trying to persuade me it was the other way around, or, once it was all cleaned up, persuading me that the accident never took place. I was there and I saw what happened. I don't think less of the those who don't believe me, I've just learned to give the explanations and leave it alone or risk my own peace.

This, IMO, is a poor analogy, if it is meant to illustrate a parallel to believing in "God", and/or, why some people lack a belief in "God".

If you are an eyewitness to an automobile accident, there are certainly the driver's sides of the story to consider, as well as any passengers. There are also the crumbled remains of the cars. There are skidmarks on the road, which can determine who braked, and who did not. There are any subsequent injuries, medical reports.....and the list goes on.

In other words, it doesn't matter how "frustrated" you become, or how insistant you are, unless you can offer any, or all, of the above-exampled types evidence for this "accident", your analogy fails to be truly analogous with your premise.

Implications that exchristians were acting the part? Is that what you're getting at S&S?

Great!

So are you....

...unless you can somehow show us that you are a True Believer™ and a True Christian™.

I see no need for you to make such an implication other than it serves to make you feel better.

Or, have I missread your intent?

Boomslang: "The search for "peace", and the search for truth, are often times two entirely different things. In other words, the two might not necessarily yield the same results."
I agree.
Finding "the truth" in the case of, say, being defrauded by your best friend, will yield anything but peace, but will eventually bring closure and the peace that goes with that.
The "truth", as Pilate was referring to in his question of Jesus, might also bring the loss of peace if you had to give up your girlfriend and go back to your wife, but, eventually, peace will rule in your life.

Boomslang: "This, IMO, is a poor analogy, if it is meant to illustrate a parallel to believing in "God", and/or, why some people lack a belief in "God"."

I was only trying to prove I was not harboring any "better than thou" attitude with this illustration, and, unless there's something deep within that I just can't see, I know I don't have any such attitude.
However, that is not the point here in my communications in this blog.
As I said out front, I asked for permission to challenge your views, and I expect the same challenge in return.
Belief in God, and believing that you can have a personal relationship with God is extremely tough, and it easily makes sense to leave it alone.
Furthermore, many reasons to reject faith can be found in the actions of members in the church who, for instance, can find no forgiveness for divorce, twisting scripture to prove their point, ignorant that it was God himself that first provided for divorce with instructions to Moses.
At that time, it was to address violence and murder as the result of an unbreakable agreement, whereas Jesus was addressing an issue of seemingly pious men using the Moses Bill of Divorcement to "sample" all the virgins and not be stuck with maintenance of multiple wives and children.

Previously, I said: "The search for 'peace', and the search for truth, are often times two entirely different things. In other words, the two might not necessarily yield the same results."

S & S responds...I agree. Finding "the truth" in the case of, say, being defrauded by your best friend, will yield anything but peace, but will eventually bring closure and the peace that goes with that.

It is not entirely true that "peace" prevails in the end, in such situations. We hear in the media of many intances where MURDERING the offender is the result of such trespasses. Are you telling me that having the blood of your former, and now deceased, "best friend" on your hands, eventually brings "peace"? In other words, don't go looking for the "truth", unless you can handle it. I argue that most, if not all religious people who opt for "faith", in lieu of the honest inquiry into their beliefs, could not handle the truth of what they may find. Further, I think clinging to "faith" is a semi-admission to that.

S & S...The "truth", as Pilate was referring to in his question of Jesus, might also bring the loss of peace if you had to give up your girlfriend and go back to your wife, but, eventually, peace will rule in your life.

Again, more hasty generalizing, IMO. Many people would sooner KILL their spouse, before giving up their "lover". It happens.

S & S...I was only trying to prove I was not harboring any "better than thou" attitude with this illustration, and, unless there's something deep within that I just can't see, I know I don't have any such attitude.

The Christian philosophy, itself - at least implicitly - wreaks of a "better than thou" attitude. Let's be honest---"I am saved...you are not" ? "I'm not perfect...just forgiven" ?

S & S...However, that is not the point here in my communications in this blog. As I said out front, I asked for permission to challenge your views, and I expect the same challenge in return.

Okay, where is the "challenge" of my nonbelief?? Where is anyone telling you that you cannot post your opinion(s)?

S & S...Belief in God, and believing that you can have a personal relationship with God is extremely tough, and it easily makes sense to leave it alone.

Yes, I believe that to have "a relationship with God" is extremely tough, as well. But obviously, for different reasons. To me, it has to do with why the invisible and the non-existent look so much alike.

S & S...Furthermore, many reasons to reject faith can be found in the actions of members in the church who, for instance, can find no forgiveness for divorce, twisting scripture to prove their point, ignorant that it was God himself that first provided for divorce with instructions to Moses.

Cart, ahead of horse. Until you can provide evidence that the "bible" was of "Divine" inspiration, telling me the "God" did this, that, and the other thing, is moot.

S & S...At that time, it was to address violence and murder as the result of an unbreakable agreement, whereas Jesus was addressing an issue of seemingly pious men using the Moses Bill of Divorcement to "sample" all the virgins and not be stuck with maintenance of multiple wives and children.

Yes, "sample all virgins". That sounds simply lovely. Perhaps this is why it was okay to stone to death, any woman who attempted to marry, who wasn't a virgin...you know, to cut back on "maintenance".

boomslang: "Are you telling me that having the blood of your former, and now deceased, "best friend" on your hands, eventually brings "peace"?"

No. I can't tell you what it would be like to have the blood of my best friend, or anyone, on my hands, so, can't argue it. But, from the wrongs I've done to others in my past that I do have on my hands I can tell you that peace in that area only came after facing up to the wrong I had done.
In 1978 I was wrenched out of the mindset that I was right in what I had done in leaving my wife and children and had to confront it as wrong on my part. Although I had not made peace my goal in all this, I did come to peace in it, which was interrupted by increasing revelation of the harm I had done to them. As a result, I continue to make frank admissions of this wrong to my ex-wife and my children. There was grievous harm done to them at the hands of an abuser who would not have got past me if I had remained on my watch. Errors in judgment that my children have made in life I can see clearly they would not have made if I had not done what I did. I'm still walking that one out, and, writing this reminds me that there is new relationship with my children and the guilt that, for years, hindered that relationship is not hindering anymore. I was also able to turn a new page in life when, in 1978, I faced it.

"Again, more hasty generalizing, IMO. Many people would sooner KILL their spouse, before giving up their "lover". It happens."

Yes, sadly, it does happen. This spouse I'm referring to I had left 6 years before for a luscious blond I met at work and we fell in love. I had never been in love before and, could not keep from an affair with her. After 3 months or so, responsibility brought me back to my wife, but I longed for freedom, which I eventually got, but, of course, the romance I had left behind and now expected to spring back to life, was gone. Definitely not worth committing any crimes over. Never thought of that anyway.

"To me, it has to do with why the invisible and the non-existent look so much alike."

Well put. That was a l.o.l. for me. You're a good writer. Seriously.
Well, for me, I can tell you I did not get convinced because of anyone providing me evidence. Wasn't looking for it and I would have probably told them what I've read in responses here to bible thumpers like me, with a few more expletives.
What mainly convinced me, eventually, and it did take some time, was life after that moment in 1978 where I confronted my wrong as wrong, and comparing my life leading up to that point. I was dumped by my girlfriend and my only friend, and I saw a connection to this repeating heartbreak, every 6 months or so, and my divorce in 1975.
And, as it turns out, I was right.
To give you some background, I had acute brain inflammation syndrome in 1965, right after high school graduation at age 18, (caused by sleeping sickness, Equine Encephalitis) and had some noticeable memory, as well as other brain function impairment, which I really did not want to face, and did not face. Lucky for me I had written my university entrance exams and was accepted before my bout with this disease. I did attend university after the disease, and I even made it through the first year of Science, but my parents, to use my older sister's words, thought I had gone off the rails. And they were right. They thought I had done some drugs or something, since LSD was just starting to emerge along with the hippies at that time. But, that was not the case.
I just learned how to cope with the aftermath of this and, dropped out of university, got married in 1968, had a child and just kept going.
I did notice a change after the encounter in 1978, though, and after at least four months of no return to what I had known previously, I had to consider this as evidence. I could not explain it away, as much as I tried. And, I know this is not evidence I can pass along to convince anyone of God's existence, but it did play a major role in convincing me. There was also other supernatural events and evidence that was provided intellectually in large amounts once I got past a certain point in the process, including, at God's own urging, confronting doubts about His existence I had since Sunday School that I did not want to face just in case the minuscule faith that was there would disappear.
You know, if I could prove to you somehow that God is real, I would. But that is just not available and, not from any weakness in the Case for God. God told me one day about 8 years ago, out of the blue, that I don't have to prove He exists.
I was surprised by that because I did not realize that I did not have to do that.
I've since concluded that physical evidence leads a person through intellect, however, the path to an assurance of God's existence is not to be found that way, but only through the "heart" which has been given enough "evidence" to prime the process.
I can say for sure that to demand evidence that meets your criteria closes the door on any evidence of God's existence that can be available to you. It just won't happen.
Been there, done that.
There were other times I had prayed and I just gave up after a while since no answer came. Still don't know why it went that way, although determination, I think, was a factor. Never really got angry at God. Just didn't really believe and I was confirmed in that when prayers didn't get answered.

"Perhaps this is why it was okay to stone to death, any woman who attempted to marry, who wasn't a virgin...you know, to cut back on "maintenance"."

Huh?

"Just didn't really believe and I was confirmed in that when prayers didn't get answered."

Hmmm.

Do you think that someone could really believe, yet when their prayers are not answered, could come to the conclusion that what they believed in wasn't real? Or is that an impossibility to you? If so, please explaine why.

Or are you going to continue to ignore me?

Dear S & S,

To economize on time and space, we can say that no human being is entirely exempt from dealing with the trials and tribulations of "life". Of course, this is stated obviously, and in no way proves or disproves the existence of any invisible, supernatural beings.

So, moving on, you said...

God told me one day about 8 years ago, out of the blue, that I don't have to prove He exists.

"He" is right! You don't have to! On the other hand, if either you, or "Him", expect me to believe that this "God" exists, and "He" spoke to you, personally, then yes, you'll have to prove it, or at least, provide some convincing evidence. But you admit that you cannot. So, perhaps we're at a stalemate.

In any event, while the "Creator of the Universe" seemingly has no problem making appearances, and having pow-wows, etc., with certain individuals, for some strange reason it is evidently intent on making the majority of its supposed creation accept its existence on "faith".

Well, I have a problem with that, in a senario where "God" really existed. But of course, I believe it's much more likely that no such being exists, and that these "encounters" amount to self-deception, and wishful thinking, when people are at their most vulnerable.

In any regard, I'd be curious to know what the voice of the "Creator of the Universe" sounds like. I believed I had a "relationship" with "God" for 2/3rds of my life, but even still, I never heard a "voice" that wasn't my own conscience.

Can you describe the voice, then? Did "God" have a middle-eastern accent? A lisp? Was there hall reverb on His voice?..or was it bone-dry? While I'm sure you see this as mockery, and I guess it is to an extent, I really am curious to know.