What’s the matter with Kansas?
9 November 2005 by Sean
Gentle title for a total fucking tragedy: Kansas schools to give Darwin a little competition
Snippet:
The leading defender of evolution, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education, said she fears the new Kansas standards would serve as the “playbook for creationism.”
The vote came six years after Kansas shocked the scientific and political world by stripping its curriculum standards of virtually any mention of evolution, a move that was reversed in 2001.
The discussion was renewed in 2004 and promptly revived the ugly and highly personal debate about the teaching of evolution, which was on display Tuesday, when board members accused each other of dis- honesty and disingenuous- ness.
“This is a sad day, not just for Kansas kids but for Kansas,” Janet Waugh of Kansas City, one of four dissenting board members, said. “We’re becoming a laughingstock not only of the nation but of the world.”
9 November 2005, on 6:08 am
The headline should have been – ‘Ignorance Prevails’
9 November 2005, on 6:12 am
“”I’m very pleased to be maybe on the front edge of trying to bring some intellectual honesty and integrity to the science classroom rather than asking students to check their questions at the door because it is a challenge to the sanctity of evolution,” said Kenneth Willard, a board member from Hutchinson, Kan.”
“”I’m very pleased to be maybe on the front edge of shitting on the acheivements of evolutionary scientists because I’m a religous moron, who, as a dumbfuck Christian layman, thinks he has a right to talk about “intellectual honesty” while I am in the process of fucking over anything that challenges my beliefs, and is happy to bring religion into the science classroom.,” said Kenneth Willard, a board member from Hutchinson, Kan.”
9 November 2005, on 8:20 am
See, this is what happens when cousins marry.
>:)
9 November 2005, on 9:16 am
But my cousin is hot.
9 November 2005, on 9:16 am
From the AP:
the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
That’s it. I now am demanding that they teach Intelligent Falling instead of the theory of gravity.
9 November 2005, on 9:24 am
Check this out. It’s a little more accurate.
9 November 2005, on 9:44 am
LOL, andrewb. That nailed it.
LOL, again, Ford. I have several hot cousins. They may in fact be far enough away in the gene pool to be safe (seconds, thirds, etc.). Yet they are still under the genetic delusion that we are closely related. Not that I wanna breed with ANYONE, but that’s how it goes.
Rockstar:
Thanks for the link to The Dialectizer. As someone who has worked on the web for 13 years, I have gotten a bit weary of its bells and whistles. I used to love the one that turned your notes into (Muppet) Swedish Chef Speak. Keep me posted on sick novelties, as I am now a web crone and need coaxing to check this shit out.
9 November 2005, on 11:11 am
I just hope that Kansas does not produce any future scientists if this is their stance. The children will be brainwashed too early to know any better than to become a creationsit scientist… or as I like to call them pseudo-scientists.
What about the colleges there… will they adopt this too? If not then how does it make sense to teach grammer school students different material then college students.
9 November 2005, on 11:21 am
“I just hope that Kansas does not produce any future scientists if this is their stance. ”
The only thing Kansas will produce is the next generation of late shift workers at McDonald’s.
Did they really rewrite the definition? That is the most pathetic and outrageous thing I’ve heard yet. Do we get to redefine religion, then?
Religion – n. a childish belief in imaginary authority figures held by stupid people.
*lol*
9 November 2005, on 11:42 am
Well Lya:
They now have to teach that there is a supernatural explanation for anything and everything. Therefore, high schools can make anything up. How will their answers be graded? For instance:
Question 1:
How were mountains made?
Bobby: God did it.
Suzy: Fairies did it.
Which is wrong? Neither in Kansas.
9 November 2005, on 11:43 am
Chris -
“What about the colleges there”
Actually, I’ve noticed that a lot of colleges are starting to teach the “controversy” too. For example, my college has begun Honors seminars (for the smart kids) regarding Evolution vs. Creationism and ID. It’s a really hot topic for everyone now and I think that people should know both sides. However, they should only know ID and creationism to see how incredibly ludricrous they are. I truly want to believe that this is the purpose for teaching the “controversy” at a university level, but maybe I’m wrong. What good does it do, however, to teach people about nuclear physics and quantam theory and encourage them to advance the fields if they’re supposed to believe a gawd did it? If gawd did it, why explain it? In fact, what is the purpose of learning at all if gawd did it? So if you’re going to brainwash kids in their elementary years, you might as well have school go from kindergarten to third grade, because long division and writing in cursive is all you need to know! What a bunch of morons…..
But folks, I’ve got a proposition: as I approach the spring semester and my new Evolution vs. Creationism honors class, I ask all of you to present me with material showing how silly gawd is so I can fight the creationism whores! Thanks
9 November 2005, on 12:20 pm
What’s the matter with Kansas?
Uh, it’s full of ignorant republican christian rubes?
9 November 2005, on 12:26 pm
If we could only get a few prestigious universitites to announce that they will not be accepting applications from Kansas in 10 years because of a “slip in educational standards”. That would bring out some more Kansas citizens to the polling place and get rid of this ridiculous shit.
9 November 2005, on 12:27 pm
“But my cousin is hot.”
Well then just don’t BREED with them.
Ryan –
“Question 1:
How were mountains made?
Bobby: God did it.
Suzy: Fairies did it.
Which is wrong? Neither in Kansas. ”
Then I say the Pastafarians get active in that state.
9 November 2005, on 12:52 pm
Hello again, all! Been a while!
Being in Kansas, I’ve made a few observations about the communities here-
1. Universities in Kansas will NOT teach ID in their science courses. Most universities here are still that intelligent. KU recently opened a huge evolution display in their campus museum.
2. The majority of science industry professionals I’ve met in Kansas are not from Kansas (at least thirty against three).
3. I was invited to sit in on a day of high school in my locality- they offered me a job as a substitute teacher. A school board rep heard that I had teaching experience and the area is dying for people to help (one sub taught an entire year before they were able to hire a full time teacher):
Kansas HS students are remarkably dumb with some few exceptions.
The school uses texts nearly older than me.
There are only two OPTIONAL computer skills class.
Many of the seniors I observed couldn’t type.
Over half the students I talked to were not interested in college. The other half often said that they wanted to attend college to escape small town life and “to party.”
Frikin Kansas.
9 November 2005, on 12:58 pm
Seriously,
How are these kids going to make it in college when the only thing they’ve been taught is that “goddidit”? Most colleges (except maybe Oral Roberts U) won’t accept that type of curriculum
9 November 2005, on 1:03 pm
So it’s true then …they have rationalized teaching different material for grammer and college levels. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS IS NOT SO OBVIOUSLY RIDICULUS TO PEOPLE IN KANSAS???
9 November 2005, on 1:31 pm
One consolation for graduates outside Kansas is there will less competition for the higer paying technical jobs.
9 November 2005, on 1:36 pm
Hey, take the Republican high road. All those kids in Kansas will be our permanent underclass one day. Hell, someone’s gotta do it!
“Hey, Goomer, these are remarkably yummy. Who deep fried them?”
“Duh. Goddidit.”
9 November 2005, on 1:57 pm
“Hey Goober, that’s some mullet you got there …how’d you grow it so long?
“Duh. Goddidit.”
9 November 2005, on 2:10 pm
“Hey Goomer how’d yer sister git knocked up?”
“Uh . . . goddidit”
9 November 2005, on 2:17 pm
I’m from South Carolina and must admit that I don’t understand this controversy about marrying cousins.
9 November 2005, on 2:20 pm
Alan… Here is the kissin’ cousins love song.
9 November 2005, on 2:22 pm
BTW, for those that don’t know, “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” is the title of a good book on the subject of how the Christian right has convinced working class, mostly Xian, white America to vote against its own interests.
9 November 2005, on 2:46 pm
Hey Kansas, how’d you end up voting against your own interests?
Duh, Goddidit!
9 November 2005, on 3:17 pm
Hey Kansas, do you realize that if you use this logic 10, 100, 1000 years ago that we would have never learned anything about the world we live in.
“Hey Ug, how do you think these hand axes would work if we tied them to a stick?”
“I dunno Pug, but lets not try because god gave us these hand axes!”
or
“Hey Orville, how do you think we can fly like the birds?”
“I dunno Wilbur, but god makes the birds fly… I guess we’d have wings if he wanted us to!”
or
“Hey honey, how do you think lightning works and how can we use it?”
“I dunno Franklin, but god make lightning so don’t play with it.”
9 November 2005, on 6:14 pm
Not to spoil to fun, folks, but please learn how to spell “grammar” before making fun of the Kansas education system.
9 November 2005, on 6:32 pm
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong
by Jonathan Wells
“… with observations or experiments. Like all other scientific theories, Darwinian evolution must be continually com- pared with the evidence. If it does not fit the evidence, it must be reevaluated or abandoned-otherwise it is not science, but myth. …”
The thing is the Darwin therory has been around for a while, doesn’t science look for new things. If Darwin is truth why are we nervous about it holding its own against ID…what are you all scared of?
9 November 2005, on 6:48 pm
Darwin’s theory has been built upon and elaborated upon since he originally wrote “Origin of Species.” It’s not a static theory that just sits there. It is the basis for much of the work in biology that has come since. And it is a theory that, like relativity, is being verified daily in thousands of ways. What we are scared of is our kids being taught a “theory” (ID) that has no basis in scientific inquiry whatsoever, having them grow up idiots, having this country lose all of its scientific advantage to other nations that aren’t teaching their kids fairy tales as fact.
It’s already happening, as you can see in the South Korea post I made a while ago. I heard a story on NPR this morning about how China is starting to outstrip us in computer science.
Maybe I should just give up and move to a country that isn’t struggling with theocracy. Where they are actually living in the 21st Century and have put superstition behind them. South Korea, here I come.
9 November 2005, on 6:53 pm
by Jonathan Wells
“… with observations or experiments. Like all other scientific theories, Darwinian evolution must be continually com- pared with the evidence. If it does not fit the evidence, it must be reevaluated or abandoned-otherwise it is not science, but myth. …”
Yea, like we’ve done all along… thanks for reminding us of what we already know!
9 November 2005, on 6:58 pm
“Um, Darwin’s theory has been around 150 years. Isn’t it time we challenged this boring old theory with a theory that’s been around 2,000 years? A theory which has never had squat proved about it?”
9 November 2005, on 7:45 pm
Speaking of marrying cousins, Charles Darwin married his cousin, Emma Wedgwood in 1839. They had ten children, 3 of which died young. Several of the others had chronic illnesses. Darwin himself feared this may have been due to their close lineage. On the other hand, three of them went on to become prominent scientists themselves.
9 November 2005, on 10:04 pm
I think it’s a great day for fairness in academia. Now that we’ve got fair representation of a competing scientific theory in Kansas, in the form of intelligent design, hopefully that will open the door for adding other competing ideas and theories to the curricula of public schools.
Here are a couple I would like to see made mandatory in public schools:
The Holocaust was a fabrication. There are political scientists and historians who believe they have valid proof to substantiate this idea. Since all ideas and theories are equally valid and should be taught to students in public schools, I sure hope some school boards adopt resolutions to teach this idea alongside the flawed, “mainstream” accounts of the Holocaust.
Flat Earth Theory. There are still those who fervently believe, or claim to believe, that the earth is in reality flat. There are lots of photos and mathematical calculations “proving” that the earth is round, but as we now know, photos can be faked, and calculations can be fudged. Don’t our public school students deserve to know about this controversy as well? They need to be taught about the flaws and gaps in the Round Earth Theory.
It’s about time that alternate theories for everything be given equal time in our public schools. In fact, I have this theory that religious fundamentalists are brain damaged. I haven’t yet developed any proofs for this, but then again, neither has intelligent design come up with any experimental proofs for that theory. Still, I believe my theory is a young, vibrant theory that deserves mandatory equal time in psychology classes. Perhaps I can get free legal advice and representation from the Thomas More Center.
9 November 2005, on 10:45 pm
Shade: ha!
10 November 2005, on 8:37 am
“Not to spoil to fun, folks, but please learn how to spell “grammar” before making fun of the Kansas education system.”
Oh give me a fucking break. A few spelling mistakes pale in comparsion to mythology being taught as science.
10 November 2005, on 9:24 am
If Darwin is truth why are we nervous about it holding its own against ID…what are you all scared of?
Scared of the fact fundies like yourself will get people to believe that Intelligent design is science. Scared of religion being taught in schools instead of knowledge. Scared of the fact that Kansas now accepts goddidit as an answer for anything, no explanation needed.
Events like this give you the opportunity to say “see, people still debate this, so there’s still a controversy!”
No, there is none. Intelijunt desine is made up nonsense that starts with a conclusion, immediately removing it from the field of science. The fact you espouse it so means you are ignorant or a liar, plain and simple.
Proponents of ID are one of two schools of thought: 1) My religion is right, and evolution doesn’t fit in with my religion. So it didn’t happen (not true on both accounts). 2) I’m a dumbass and don’t care how we do it, but the LORD needs to come back into our lives!
The non-credulous often get the “what are you afraid of” question. Here’s one for you, sable chicken:
Why are you afraid of evolution when it’s autonomous from your faith in god/gods?
10 November 2005, on 9:41 am
Oh, yeahshade51:
You totally missed the alternative theory ofthe Apollo moon landing missons. They were faked, you know.
10 November 2005, on 10:11 am
Thanks Lya… I tried to take the high road there but your right …fuck you John… if your not trying to spoil the fun then why else bring it up. Oh, I know what you want: Thanks John, your smarter than me… thanks for teaching me how to spell grammar. Oh by the way smart John, you missed the fuckin point!
10 November 2005, on 10:33 am
“Thanks Lya… I tried to take the high road there but your right …fuck you John… if your not trying to spoil the fun then why else bring it up. Oh, I know what you want: Thanks John, your smarter than me… thanks for teaching me how to spell grammar. Oh by the way smart John, you missed the fuckin point! ”
As you may have noticed, I care fuck-all about the high road. This is because I’ve learned through many years of debating theists (not implying this John is one – I don’t know him) that “taking the high road” is often code for “backhanded insult”. I’ve seen theists claim victory in an argument because someone made a spelling mistake. As if misspelling a word somehow proves Dog exists. In reality -you know, that place where theists never go- wasting time on semantics like that is just smoke and mirrors when they’ve got nothing left in their arsenal.
So, the “high road” is highly overrated.
Perhaps the del.icio.us tasties who run the site migh give us a preview or edit function? *wink wink nudge nudge*
10 November 2005, on 10:47 am
Lya- yes, smoke, mirrors, and semantics is there only game. I may not be a great speller but I can stamp my PG seal across their forhead and sign it if they need proof of my scientific ability.
10 November 2005, on 10:50 am
sorry …replace “there” with “their” above
10 November 2005, on 10:55 am
Lya, will check out the del.icio.us options. So aren’t you s’posed to be blogging by now?
10 November 2005, on 12:04 pm
“So aren’t you s’posed to be blogging by now?”
Well color me sheepish.
I’m waiting until I find something banner. Or rather that’s what I tell you guys. Really, I’m just intimidated by the prog.
10 November 2005, on 1:50 pm
Ryan
“Why are you afraid of evolution when it’s autonomous from your faith in god/gods? ”
I am not afraid of the Darwins theory of evolution…it totally makes sence when it comes to breeding Dogs or Chickens. But it leaves me with a ton of unanswered questions about evolution. shouldn’t a bird be a bird be a bird? Why can’t I a make a peacock chicken? Or a Pheasant chicken? How about an eagle chicken? I can’t breed the two together because it is just plain breaking the laws of nature. So for me to believe in evolution, I also have to believe that nature broke its own laws over and over and over again…but I don’t see it in play. If I breed a horse with a donkey they will have a mule, but mules are starile. It stops right there.
I have raized a little chicken that had a mutation. She was so cute…she was super friendly and she was bow legged. Instead of running like the other chickens she hopped. Very cute to see this little chicken come hopping across the yard to greet me. But she never lived long to even lay one egg, because she fell into some water, because of her legs she couldn’t climb out. What mother says “oh goody” if her doctor tells her that her baby has a mutation?
Dawin’s therory is just selective breeding.
When I was a child I thought that evolution made sence, as well as was autonomous with God. I thought that it took billions of years for God to make it all happen, but that theory has it’s flaws too. So why not believe that God made it come all in to being in a week? Is the point, just prove this wrong, or can it be proven right?
10 November 2005, on 2:25 pm
“Why can’t I a make a peacock chicken?”
Dna.
When I was a child I thought that creationism made sense, then I grew up.
“I thought that it took billions of years for God to make it all happen, but that theory has it’s flaws too.”
Well, theories that include imaginary deities do tend to have fatal flaws.
“So why not believe that God made it come all in to being in a week?”
LOL I don’t know. Why not believe aliens did it all in a week?
10 November 2005, on 3:49 pm
Cluckin’ Chicken-
Until you can answer how it fits the following criteria, your support for ID is ignorance-
“The seven prerequisites to scientific theory are:
1. Consistency
2. Spareness (i.e. Occam’s Razor)
3. Usefulness of description
4. Empirically testable & falsifiable
5. Based on controlled and repeatable experiments
6. Correctable & mutable
7. Progressive, yet tentative to previous theory
Please consult an academic website for further definition of the above- a secular website. Daubert Criteria are similar, but with pronounced variation (I see that Wikipedia has an elaboration of the four criteria):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_Standard”
This is all quoted from a faaaaaar earlier post that I made to question Frank, who has never answered how ID fits these demands.
Cluckin’ Chicken, do your worst.
10 November 2005, on 4:25 pm
Why can’t I a make a peacock chicken? Or a Pheasant chicken? How about an eagle chicken? I can’t breed the two together because it is just plain breaking the laws of nature. So for me to believe in evolution, I also have to believe that nature broke its own laws over and over and over again?
That’s what creationists believe. I happen to think that an ostrich and an eagle are quite different. That’s due to (thank you, Lya) a little thing called “differing allele structures”, or in layman’s terms – EVOLUTION. You are obviously ignorant to what the term means. Learn about it here, then come back and debate me. Were I to see a chicken sire a peacock, I’d instantly become a Creationist…
You know, I had an entire rebuttal proposed. I typed the whole thing in the little comment box. Then I remembered how Creationists debate – bullshit, change subject, ad infinitum. No, I’ll stick with this point. You show me why differing allele structures break the laws of nature. I will not address the rest of your vaccuous post till you answer this.
10 November 2005, on 8:20 pm
“Why can’t I a make a peacock chicken? Or a Pheasant chicken? How about an eagle chicken?”
Actually, you can. Or rather, scientists can. In all actuality, nature can. It’s a condition called amphidiploidism. It’s a form of allopolyploidy, which means more than 2 copies of a chromosome set. Amphidiploidism is: An allopolyploid; a polyploid formed from the union of two separate chromosome sets and their subsequent doubling. An organism produced by hybridization of two species followed by chromosome doubling. An allotetraploid that appears to be a normal diploid. (http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-A/amphidiploid.html) If the species are close enough, and I believe if they have similar reproductive systems, it can easily happen. It does have to occur under the right conditions, but who said new species evolved every 10 years? It’s a complicated process, but allopolyploidy provided the major force for evolution of new species. This is what some GMO foods are, as well.
11 November 2005, on 12:16 am
Crystal, I completely understand how humans came from apes now, it’s like common sence. Scientists did it! Could you whip up one of those GMO Peacock Chickens for me. Please.
Markus, Your right, God better pull his act together and fit into the 7 point criteria, or no one will believe in him.
11 November 2005, on 8:21 am
“Markus, Your right, God better pull his act together and fit into the 7 point criteria, or no one will believe in him. ”
Once again, that’s the trouble with imaginary deities. They never do anything to prove they exist. *LOL*
11 November 2005, on 9:22 am
Crystal, I completely understand how humans came from apes now, it’s like common sence. Scientists did it
Again, showing you have no idea what evolution is. Thanks for making my point again sable chicken. If I ever saw an ape give birth to a human, I’d be a firm believer in Creationism. Since that never happened (we evolved from a common ancestor), I’ll stick with reality. Now answer my question:
You show me why differing allele structures break the laws of nature.
P.S – if you want to sound intelligent re: amphidiploidism I suggest you read about it and not put up straw men. But that’s not my argument…
11 November 2005, on 9:46 am
Once again, that’s the trouble with imaginary deities. They never do anything to prove they exist. *LOL* — Or worse, Lya: it’s in the not-doing that their existence is proven. Makes one wonder: when do the constant appeals to fallacies become dysfunctional?
11 November 2005, on 10:00 am
Cluckin’ Chicken,
Meaning, you can’t answer the demands on ID to be labeled a valid scientific theory? THANK YOU! Well, I guess we can all be happy we can now withdraw ID from science courses.
11 November 2005, on 1:01 pm
I’m really all for questioning evolution in our schools… since that is really what science does day in & day out… they question their own conclusions & theories… I believe that, over the many years since evloutionary theory was 1st proposed, scientists have evaluated the God-did-it theory & have rejected it… I would love to see evolution & ID proposed as aopposing theories in our classrooms, then have the students evaluate the evidences for both… it could be (probably would be) the death of creationism…
11 November 2005, on 1:57 pm
Thank You Damnright,
“it could be (probably would be) the death of creationism…”
this is why I say, lets give it a try…If God is not behind it, it will fail and you can all be happy once again that God would not crawl under your little microscope. What are you so afraid of people?
11 November 2005, on 2:11 pm
Of course! Because this is how science is done:
-Testable hypothesis is developed by scientists
-Hypothesis is tested by scientists
-Results written up and submitted for peer review
-Paper passes peer review and is published
-Other scientists repeat the experiments and confirm results
-New theory is eventually accepted by scientists
-Theory is presented to schoolchildren for evaluation
-Theory passes schoolchildren review and is new scientific theory
No, sablechicken. I will not have my children exposed to your made-up beliefs thank you. If they’d like to examine your bullshit later in life, fine.
11 November 2005, on 2:11 pm
Dawg, Sable… You have it so backwards, I can barely talk to you.
We are not afraid of JACK SHIT. That’s why this web site exists.
What we don’t want is several generations of ignat Americans espousing Creationism as fact, destroying any possible technological edge we have on the world, and watching South Korea surge ahead of us in progress. We are actually, quite possibly, bigger patriots than any asshole Xians you know.
And I am not even a patriot, I am a one-worldist. I just happen to care whether my country turns into a steaming mound of religious dog shit.
We are fighting IGNORANCE, plain and fucking simple. Do you see that? Do you get that? Am I talking to a fucking child here? As Rockstar asked, do you even read our responses? I am giving up on you Sable, dear. You are screaming with fingers in your ears without hearing a single fucking thing we are saying.
You have exhausted my patience. Really. Truly. Buh-bye.
11 November 2005, on 2:14 pm
Oh yeah – sable chicken:
We’re not afraid. We just don’t want false information taught in school. If I came out and said that we should teach your children that magic toilet people will eat them if they poop, is that ok?
WELL WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF???? HMMMMM????
11 November 2005, on 2:37 pm
One more thing –
If you can come into my school with your bullshit, can I go to your church and preach that Jeebus was a homosexual axe-wielding serial killer?
(forgive me, I forget who posted that originally…)
11 November 2005, on 3:24 pm
“You show me why differing allele structures break the laws of nature.”
Ryan, are we talking about black and white moths? Or Apes slowly turning into a humans over, only God knows how long. Because if you are talking about differant looking moths, differing allele structures don’t break the laws of nature. Now if this black and white moth could become any thing but a moth…even something close…like a butterfly, I would change my view on the laws of nature, in the way I see it. I do not deny mirco-evolution, but nothing about it makes me think that the stretch of ape to man is possible outside of some kind of GMO lab work.
I think where the problem really is…GMO’s although might have many good uses, might also have pandorx box effects on life as we know it…I think what you are really scared of is that if we find God under a microscope….well science just like everyone else will not be able to justify how it is craping up our environment.
Ryan, tell me why the site you are referring to, says that people are bigger and healthier then every before because of the food we eat….I look around and I see people getting fatter and more unhealthy because of the food they eat.
…Ryan…we are all to blame.
Crystal, are you growing your own food? Do you really think that Science will come up with a magic pill for world hunger. It’s GMO corn!? guess what that is only making it worse.
Yes Ryan, I will forgive you, and God will too if you ask Him.
11 November 2005, on 4:21 pm
No, I will not answer anymore questions. You said:
So for me to believe in evolution, I also have to believe that nature broke its own laws over and over and over again…but I don’t see it in play
You show me why differing allele structures break the laws of nature.
You are either being dishonest or you don’t understand evolution. Which is it?
11 November 2005, on 4:58 pm
I was asking the person I plagarized to forgive me. I really do think we should teach the controversy at church.
11 November 2005, on 5:06 pm
You show me why differing allele structures break the laws of nature.
I don’t understand “allele structures” this is the first that I have heard of this term. I read your link. and as far as I can tell it is talking about structures in the same family. So I don’t see how this is breaking the laws of nature. It also doesn’t help me see that these structures will leave there family to become something completely new. I am not a scientist, so I am sure that I sound like a ssabmud. Really help me understand. If you want to just go way over my head…we will not come to understanding, or is this what you want? Do you like this little game? If someone doesn’t throw me a bone real soon, this is going to get old. Sean has all ready said that he has got this thing on a loop.
Good bye for now
11 November 2005, on 5:49 pm
I’ll take ignorant for $2000 Alex.
sc:
I’m being serious here. You’ve said you don’t understand evolution. I bet you’ve espoused your position (I assume Creationism or ID) to many people. This is the very reason we dislike religion. You think evolution insults your faith (it doesn’t), and make up ways to prove it wrong (which they haven’t).
After studying the theory of biological evolution, you’ll come to the same conclusion as the Pope – it is totally compatible with faith in religion. OK?
11 November 2005, on 9:39 pm
“Crystal, I completely understand how humans came from apes now, it’s like common sence. Scientists did it! Could you whip up one of those GMO Peacock Chickens for me. Please.”
What are you, 5 years old? Honestly, that was the more ignorant and childish comment I’ve seen come from your fingers. For your information, the human and chimpanzee chromosome are 96% similar. In addition, “The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.” (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html) Does this seem like utter coincidence to you? Doesn’t it make you think, “Well, maybe they ARE strongly related for something like this to happen.” The article also mentions that they found 40 million differences within the 3 billion base pairs of the genomes, but if evolution occurred over a period of 5-8 million years, this is only 5-8 million mutations per year. Seeing as mutations can occur spontaneously and within nanoseconds (AND THEY DO), this is very, very plausible.
“Crystal, are you growing your own food? Do you really think that Science will come up with a magic pill for world hunger. It’s GMO corn!? guess what that is only making it worse.”
Yes, science will come up with a magic pill for world hunger. Are you stupid or lazy? I hate to insult you, but this is ridiculous. You didn’t even stop to consider my arguments. I’m not answering this, because common sense tells you there will be no “magic pill for world hunger,” because magic doesn’t exist in our world. Have you observed “magic”? If so, that’s pretty cool. But I call you crazy. Science will, in the end, keep you alive and kicking to fullfill a normal and healthy life. Unless you don’t want that. But if you do, I’d quit bitching. Also, GMO FOOD DOESN’T HURT YOU ANYMORE THAN NORMAL FOOD! Look it up. I don’t have time to.
For Rockstar’s argument, here’s a good start: an allele is one copy of a gene. For each gene, you are supposed to have two copies of a gene, one from each parent. Mutations happen in these alleles to cause genetic deviations, and this results in new phenotypes (physical characteristics). Go from there…
The moral of this post: Keep your hole shut unless you the know what the fuck you’re talking about.
12 November 2005, on 2:03 pm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/07/LVG709K7MV1.DTL
“Someone needed to make this film, because if this technology isn’t challenged and if this corporatization of our whole food system isn’t stopped, at some point it will be too late,”
http://www.csupomona.edu/~uwc/non_protect/student/GWT-GeneticallyModified.htm
However, opponents say that GMO’s are dangerous. Crops with built-in insecticide might kill beneficial insects too. Crops resistant to weed killer might encourage even greater use of chemicals that are harmful to humans and the environment, and some fear that these plants might crossbreed with wild species to produce “super weeds” that can’t be killed. Others say that the long term effects of GMO’s on humans and on the environment are not well understood and that these products have not been properly studied or tested.
http://www.macalester.edu/~montgomery/GMOs2.htm
Crops have been modified for centuries by humans using selective breeding techniques, but GMO biotechnology is a more specific and rapid selection process. … Therefore, GMO technology creates concern over potential environmental and human health impacts
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/000124.html
GMO crops are risky. The health effects of GMO crops is simply not known – it may be minimal, but we just don’t know. The environmental risks are significant – you are, after all, releasing self-reproducing beings into the world, beings which haven’t existed long enough to be much studied. Finally, the societal risks of our current structure for developing GMO crops are huge – they are mostly attempts by large corporations to add genetic monopolies to the practices of factory farming. They aren’t plants carefully re-designed and freely given to the world’s poorer farmers to use with caution, they are plants designed to prop up agrobusiness.
http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/GMO/GMO.html
12 November 2005, on 2:48 pm
Sable Chicken, here is as simplified of a version as I can think of to explain the propsed process of evolution. No one is claiming that a species spontaneously produces another. What happens is that mutations occur which can either be detrimental (your bow-legged chicken) or advantageous (an opposable appendage, different coloration, slightly different structures, etc.). Those mutations which prove to be advantageous give the animal who has them some kind of advantage over the other members of their species. Maybe they can hide from predators better. Maybe they can move faster or find food easier. Regardless, these advantages make them more likely to survive longer than their non-mutated counterparts and increase their chances of breeding. The more they breed, the more likely this enhancement is to pass on. sooner or later the mutation becomes the norm and those without the mutation either adapt, die out, or the species might split into two distinct species. Now imagine this process occurring over millions or even billions of years. One change here, one change there. Over time, what was once one species now may be several. In fact, they may now only share superficial outward similarities. However, there may not be more than a small difference in the overall genetic structure of the two or more species. Given time, which if you acknowledge the age of the earth you will have to admit there has been plenty of, this is a process which could give rise to innumerable species. In fact, there have been many more species that have gone extinct than currently exist. The process can be a rather rapid one and an observable one.
12 November 2005, on 3:53 pm
Thanks, KR. That was as lucid an explanation as we needed. What really needs to happen here is what Mark Twain (dawg, we need more Southerners like him!) acknowledged a century or so ago: the Earth is ancient in the extreme. As my dad once said in a poem: history takes time.
I don’t care if your little brain can’t wrap itself around the idea of millions or billions of years. Mine can’t either. That’s why I choose to worship the awe-inspiring notion of that concept itself. I will say it again. The earth and the universe are ancient in the extreme. Lots and lots can happen in that time, way beyond burning bushes and over-burdened, animal-laden cruise ships.
I am in awe of that fact alone, rather than the childish view of an invisible sky-daddy looking down upon us and handing out anthropomorphist conclusions on the nature of reality.
Our actual reality, as everyone from Albert Einstein to Stephen Hawking has pointed out, is far more awe-inspiring. Give in to the love. Heck, Rockstar has said this more than once, and even Hawking would agree with you. Your gawd is not even incompatible with this view of the universe. Can’t you embrace the wonder of the universe and merge your religious beliefs with it at the same time? Give it a shot. It might not be all that hard.
There is beauty, true beauty, on this side of the argument, folks. Come walk with us in the magic garden of KNOWLEDGE.
13 November 2005, on 12:00 am
Thank you King R, this is also my understanding of macro-evolution as I was taught. I’m not trying to be rude, but it just doesn’t make that much sense to me. At one time I thought well, ok God made Adam out of the dust in one day, what is time for God, the one day for God, it could have meant millions or billions of years to us. So the theory of evolution and God creating the earth didn’t really conflict…if I didn’t think about either one in to much depth.
http://www.geocities.com/hs_wong33/RedJungleFowl.html
The red jungle fowl is said to be the original “chicken” from which all domestic chickens are descended based on comments and observations made by Darwin.
Micro-evolution, I see it in play…it is 100% clear to me. Where did the demestic chicken come from, we know the Jungle Fowl…How far can we trace the Jungle fowl back to? Close to when the Bible says the earth was created. But lets just set aside that God made man *poof* full grown, and the chicken *poof* full grown. If it didn’t happen that way, than we have the whole problem of “which came first the chicken or the egg?” (again,I’m not trying to be rude)
I saw a study on fox’s raised for fur. Instead of going out and killing foxes in the wild, this person got several pairs and breed them in cages. Within only 3 generations the foxes started to have demestic dog like mutations. Spots and curly tails… and they became worthless for fur. But it is very easy to see how man could have all these different kinds of dogs in a very short time. But if we let dogs go back to being wild, many would die out in perhaps, as little time as a month. Bulldogs can’t even have natural births, because the puppies heads are to big. Without alot of TLC (or very special conditions) it would be very unlikely for a fox to have spots.
Now for me to go any farther I have to be able to imagine, that over much time, and perfect conditions there are much bigger differences. Like egg laying to live birth. At what point would an animal lay and egg and know to sit on it for months. I tried makeing a home made incubator, because I was to cheep to spend $65. on what looked like a cooler with a light bulb. I thought I took special care, but it can just be the littlest thing that goes wrong that will end life. I am saying this to make a point that it is a stretch to that this perfect and delicate balance evolved what we have today (or at least had).
If the world is as old as billions of years, the time line would be something like a mile long, and man is just a thin dime in the picture. In this very, very short time we have changed the face of the earth like nothing else. It is truely a little scary to think about. We cut down trees like there is no tomorrow…trees that are 2000 years old and think nothing of it! Redwood decking…we are throwing it all away for a bowl of soup. I truely think that the earth is much younger then we think.
Lets go back to where chickens came from? Why wouldn’t we look at man the same way. Lets go back to Jesus, Like I said before we know where he came from, he is not make believe, he didn’t just roll in out of the desert from only God knows where. Jesus constantly refers back to the Old Testament. If we can’t look a the Bible as some truth, why should we think that any book as having truth in it.
Noah…there are stories from all over the world about a great flood. Now you might ask how could Noah do this? The conditions would have to be so right, it couldn’t have happened…but the conditions would have to be so right for all the plants and animals to evolve, form nothing to what we have today it say that it just evolved, no help from God. Noah had God’s help.
I am all for KNOWLEDGE, I don’t claim to have all the answers. By the way it is pritty nice over on my side too. My side offers eternal life…your side, when you die thats it. If I am wrong, I lose nothing…what if I am right? That is alot to just throw down on the table and let it ride. I will place it all on Jesus.
13 November 2005, on 8:41 am
I am all for KNOWLEDGE, I don’t claim to have all the answers. By the way it is pritty nice over on my side too. My side offers eternal life…your side, when you die thats it. If I am wrong, I lose nothing…what if I am right? That is alot to just throw down on the table and let it ride. I will place it all on Jesus.
Reminds me of something I said to my stepbrother at 10 years old. He said: “I go to church in case it’s all true.”
I said: “I don’t go to church in case it’s all bullshit.”
Have the courage of your convictions.
13 November 2005, on 12:10 pm
Sable Chicken said: “At one time I thought well, ok God made Adam out of the dust in one day, what is time for God, the one day for God, it could have meant millions or billions of years to us. So the theory of evolution and God creating the earth didn’t really conflict…if I didn’t think about either one in to much depth.”
I think what your addressing here is what people say when they mention their is no necessary conflict between Christian beliefs and the theory of evolution. Let us assume, for a moment, that the world was created by God as described in the book of Genesis. So we have the whole premise that the world was created in six days with a seventh set aside so God could kick back and watch some football or bbq. Anyway, there are at least two possible interpretations of this, as you mentioned:
1) A “day” for God could be any length of time, from 24 hours as we recognize it, to millions or even billions of years as you stated.
2) The events described must be interpreted literally! If the Bible says 6 days, it means six days exactly!
Each of these interpretations beg certain questions. Let’s look at one we could ask about either. Why would a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient supreme being need to spend any time at all on his/her creation? Why not make it instantly appear? Why not spend six hours, six minutes, or six seconds? Wouldn’t it be all the same? One answer to this might be that the events described in Genesis could be read symbollically. Perhaps the sequence of days might be for purposes of creating a hierarchy of what a society considers important. Maybe it’s to illustrate notions or beliefs about what must have come first to last. Perhaps it is nothing more than an illustration of the fact that the bible was written poetically. However, what we are facing here is a work that defies a literal interpretation. Looking at it in this light, I see no contradiction between your system of beliefs and the scientific evidence which you acknowledge. To me, it seems that what you are doing is abandoning one set of evidence which you admit has at the very least a good deal of validity in favor of a set of beliefs which you are scared not to believe in because you believe there is a contradiction. Or to put it another way, certain members of your faith believe that evolution is wrong and even though you admit that it is feasible to some degree, you are afraid that they must be right. I would say it is better to go with what seems to make sense instead of believing that something must be true because you’re afraid that you might be wrong if you don’t believe in it.
13 November 2005, on 11:48 pm
I believe the events described in the Bible must be interpreted literally! If the Bible says 6 days, it means six days exactly!
I have had to throw out #1 after reading the Bible for myself, I didn’t decide to do this because others talked me into it, I did it because I wanted to find understanding. I have found that the Bible does need to be thought of in a way that is literal, but it is equally symbollical. The last for me to appreciate was it’s poetic writing.
I think that there is a misconception that I don’t think for myself, because I am a Christian. I wish I could tell you that, my friends and family shouted Hallelujah when I made it clear that I was a Christian. Even the Bible makes it clear that not everyone is going to be happy about standing strong in my faith in Jesus. So if I was out looking for a feel good religion, Christianity would not be a number one. But it is #1 when it comes to truth. Truth is the same thing that we hope to find when we look to science for answers.
Genesis…why did it say in seven days? If you want to know the answer to these kinds of questions…you have to look at it from the perspective of wanting understanding…not, I would have done it differently if I was God. The seventh day God rested. We are to look to God in how we live our life, God wanted us to take some time to rest, from working, and reflect on God.
Why would a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient supreme being need to spend any time at all on His creation?
Our existance from begaining to the end of time is all planned out right there in those 7 days. Adam was to be a perfect person, but God gave man free will, He wanted us to be different from all the animals. The story of the Bible is the story of us (mankind) and our relationship with God. It is so all encompassing, from you as an individual, to the whole world.
Let me try and put it to you this way. I have had a sense that there is a God from before I could speak, before I ever heard of God. Does that prove anything…no. I have always loved and cared about animals, learning everything about animals has been a life long passion for me… At 5 years old (in want for a pet) I would raise Monarch catapillers to butterflies. I tell you…how this happens is nothing short of unique. They have been programed, or designed to go through this metamorphsis. This sudden and drastic change…how could this take place, unless it was just plain designed to do this.
I now have the courage of my convictions. (I may not have the writing skills to get that across clearly though)
14 November 2005, on 1:31 am
Sable: sorry, but this entire post is a major cop-out.
How is this not a complete and total logical cop-out?
Genesis…why did it say in seven days? If you want to know the answer to these kinds of questions…you have to look at it from the perspective of wanting understanding…not, I would have done it differently if I was God. The seventh day God rested. We are to look to God in how we live our life, God wanted us to take some time to rest, from working, and reflect on God.
Explain, please. TOTAL COP-OUT, friend.
14 November 2005, on 3:47 am
Sean, you don’t want to hear my heart at all.
14 November 2005, on 7:59 am
“My side offers eternal life…your side, when you die thats it. If I am wrong, I lose nothing…what if I am right? That is alot to just throw down on the table and let it ride. I will place it all on Jesus. ”
When – WHEN will xtains stop using this bullshit ‘argument’? Pascal’s Wager is the most childish load of crap.
If when you die you meet any other god aside from the one you’ve worshipped, we’ll see you in hell.
It’s such a pity to see these people desperately trying to justify their superstitions over and over again and failing every single time.
14 November 2005, on 11:55 am
Sable: I am a warm-hearted person, but appeals to sentimentality over logic fall on deaf ears with me. The world is full of people who willingly fly planes into buildings on sentimental ideals. I am sick of it. If you wanna be my friend, appeal to me on logical grounds. Thank you.
14 November 2005, on 12:14 pm
“My side offers eternal life…your side, when you die thats it. If I am wrong, I lose nothing…what if I am right? That is alot to just throw down on the table and let it ride. I will place it all on Jesus. ”
When – WHEN will xtains stop using this bullshit ‘argument’? Pascal’s Wager is the most childish load of crap.
Lya. Rock on.
14 November 2005, on 4:13 pm
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pascal.html
“The world today, perhaps more than ever, is in need of our undivided, moral and rational, attention. The problems of the world, both natural and man-made are many: famine, floods, the greenhouse effect, the ozone hole and the irreversible extinction of countless species of plants and animals. The only chance the world has is for humankind to understand that this world is all we have, there is no other, no afterlife.”
Tell me Mr. Nice Guy, Do you think that these kinds of things are not of inportances to a person with belief in an after life? What keeps anyone from doing and taking anything they want from this life…if there is no afterlife? If one feels they can pull it off, why not rape over the world, for a red cent, or just because they find some kind of sick pleasure in it, what will hold them back? The me, me, me, mentality, is that not the most logical conclusion, to a godless culture? How are ethics and tolerances decided on an ever changeing world? Why not just kill off the homeless, is it not logical that they are of no use? Is it an act of tolerance to purposely attack the symbols of a group of persons faith? Are we not train-wrecking into a culture of narcissistic people, in which there is no cure or medication?
14 November 2005, on 4:29 pm
“in which there is no cure or medication?”
What self-serving nonsense. Religion is neither a cure or a medication. It is the disease. When vain and self-righteous theists stop pretending that their superstition makes people better than those who are smart enough not to fall for it the world will be a better place.
No matter how much pathetic cut and paste apologetics you waste our time with it does not change the fact that pascal’s wager is a flaccid and stupid argument.
Got to admit, this god-belief thing isn’t very substantial.
14 November 2005, on 5:05 pm
…why not rape…just kill off the homeless…
sable chicken:
If the only thing preventing you from killing and raping people is your belief in god/gods, do me a favor – HOLD ONTO THAT BELIEF! Just don’t stop believing!
The rest of us will simply try to lead the best life we can in our limited time alive.
14 November 2005, on 8:50 pm
Tell me Mr. Nice Guy, Do you think that these kinds of things are not of inportances to a person with belief in an after life? What keeps anyone from doing and taking anything they want from this life…if there is no afterlife? If one feels they can pull it off, why not rape over the world, for a red cent, or just because they find some kind of sick pleasure in it, what will hold them back? The me, me, me, mentality, is that not the most logical conclusion, to a godless culture?
Hey, Sable. That is actually very cruel, when you think about it. Really. Think about it.
14 November 2005, on 11:03 pm
Sable Chicken:
You pointed me to links of personal opinion pages that lack any evidence of GMO foods harming the health of people more than normal foods. Because this is a forum regarding religion, I will be happy to talk with you more about this via email (sugar_high7@hotmail.com).
In addition: A person who denounces the existence of god/gods is not immoral, but simply intelligent. Just because we do not believe in invisible omnipotent creatures does not mean that we are mass-murdering fuckheads. We simply think clearer than others. Denouncing god is not evil in our books, it is logical. We don’t deny god because we want to kill, rape, and pillage; we denounce god because there’s no need for it in our lives. We don’t need someone to keep us in line to be good people. We don’t need to think that we are going to hell if we do bad things, we don’t do them because they’re unnecessary. Many people who kill, rape, etc. have some kind of mental deficiency or chemical imbalance that influences their decisions to do so. So what about them? Are they bad people because god made them like that? Think about these things…
15 November 2005, on 12:44 am
Is it an act of tolerance to purposely attack the symbols of a group of persons faith?
no one is going to touch this with a ten foot pole?…hmmm
Crystal, I live in the first county in the USA to ban GMO’s, I’m not in the mood to hear you tell me by private e-mail that, your are going to keep me alive after I get sick from eating “Frankinfoods.”
http://www.gmofreemendo.com/
15 November 2005, on 8:11 am
“Is it an act of tolerance to purposely attack the symbols of a group of persons faith?”
LOL Oh yeah, what stinging wit! What an intimidating point! /sarcasm
Is your only reason for coming here to slander, defame and insult those who aren’t part of your cult?
Grow up.
15 November 2005, on 9:13 am
Is it an act of tolerance to purposely attack the symbols of a group of persons faith?
To us bashing god/gods is the same as saying the Tooth Fairy is a bitch and Santa Claus eats babies. They’re all imaginary.
15 November 2005, on 10:43 am
Cluckin’ Chicken,
…Is it an act of tolerance to purposely attack the symbols of a group of persons faith?
As much as I hate to Goodwin- A xian named Adolf Hitler already handled this for you.
Intolerance of the symbols of opression and exclusionary hostility is always an acceptable reaction.
Furthermore, your difficulty and obsession with “pooping” (as you put it) most likely has nothing to do with GMO foods.
15 November 2005, on 11:24 am
I have three things to say in response to sable chicken:
1. The extent of your ignorance regarding the world around you amazes me.
2. I can no longer speak with you.
3. Fuck you.
Inappropriate? I no longer care.
15 November 2005, on 11:41 am
Crystal, I live in the first county in the USA to ban GMO’s, I’m not in the mood to hear you tell me by private e-mail that, your are going to keep me alive after I get sick from eating “Frankinfoods.”
Translation:
“I have no proof to back up my unfounded claims except websites with no evidence.”
Most of your “evidence” looks more like people who are anti-corporation wackos than anti-GMO…
15 November 2005, on 4:07 pm
“Most of your “evidence” looks more like people who are anti-corporation wackos than anti-GMO…”
Oh yes…logic
Crystal, Your last comment, remindes me of when I was driving along, picking up some speed to get onto the highway. I see a hich-hiker thumbing a ride…I have no logical reason as to why I should not pick this guy up, I only have my gut instinct to follow…and that, is telling me it would be dangerous. Am I really doing the right thing to not pick him up? One quick look in the rear view mirror, to see him flash me the “FU” bird, is all the logic I need to now I did the most logical thing.
Marcus, I love your blog too…oh wait, the link on your name doesn’t work.
Lya Kahlo,
“Is your only reason for coming here to slander, defame and insult those who aren’t part of your cult?” This question makes me wonder if atheist have not formed themselves into a cult without even realizing it.
15 November 2005, on 4:14 pm
Oh yes…logic
Yes, that little device we use to detect BS.
This question makes me wonder if atheist have not formed themselves into a cult without even realizing it.
It’s possible. Not all atheists are critical thinkers. But lumping all atheists in one category is a logical fallacy known as false generalization.
15 November 2005, on 7:35 pm
sable chicken,
I can’t resist responding to you, mostly because I like to have the last word. (It’s a complex.) Anyway, I do realize that telling you to fuck off was about the most childish thing I could have done at the time, but my frustrations with you took over. I do not understand how you can go through your life, thinking that how you think is absolutey correct. Because that’s what you tell us everytime you post. You do not provide any valid evidence regarding the accuracy of your thinking, yet you refuse to listen to the proven contradictions made by others. Continue living your life of vanity, for god (if it exists) will surely punish you for it.
15 November 2005, on 8:49 pm
vanity really wasn’t the word I was looking for, so substitute it with egocentrism. that fits a bit better…
15 November 2005, on 10:11 pm
Cluckin’ Chicken,
I don’t have a blog, because I’m not trendy- unlike some here who blog to give updates on their colonic health and their love of fowl.
Moreover, you have proven beyond all irrefutable evidence to be an enormous idiot.
16 November 2005, on 8:01 am
” This question makes me wonder if atheist have not formed themselves into a cult without even realizing it. ”
This respsonse makes me wonder if christians have an ounce of honesty, integrity or decency in them. Answer questions, don’t dodge them.
16 November 2005, on 9:50 am
I don’t have a blog, because I’m not trendy- unlike some here who blog to give updates on their colonic health and their love of fowl.
Moreover, you have proven beyond all irrefutable evidence to be an enormous idiot.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Dude, total new keyboard for that one…
16 November 2005, on 10:27 am
Rockstar,
This is, what, two I owe you now?
Hey, Ron, is this comment thread setting a new record for GifS? I’m hoping it lives to be 100.
16 November 2005, on 8:52 pm
Well, maybe if sable chicken would post some more self-righteous comments we could continue it. But I believe she still hasn’t answered Rockstar’s question from posts #51 and #61, nor has she presented me with valid evidence regarding the safety hazards of ingesting GMO foods.
17 November 2005, on 4:08 am
“I believe the events described in the Bible must be interpreted literally! If the Bible says 6 days, it means six days exactly!”
Well, that certainly proves a lot. So, your belief is now proof. Ok.
“I have had to throw out #1 after reading the Bible for myself, I didn’t decide to do this because others talked me into it, I did it because I wanted to find understanding. I have found that the Bible does need to be thought of in a way that is literal, but it is equally symbollical.”
Wait, so the bible “must be interpreted literally” but it “does not need to be thought of in a way that is literal.”
Hmmm. So it must be literal AND not literal. That certainly makes sense.
“So if I was out looking for a feel good religion, Christianity would not be a number one. But it is #1 when it comes to truth. Truth is the same thing that we hope to find when we look to science for answers. ”
Well, as evidenced above, there is nothing scientific about Christianity. Generally, in science, when there is a direct conflict, such as must be literal and can’t be literal, we have a problem. In other words, if two mutually exclusive sets of rules apply to something, it doesn’t work too well.
“Our existance from begaining to the end of time is all planned out right there in those 7 days. Adam was to be a perfect person, but God gave man free will.”
Here we have a problem. So, “from begaining (sic) to the end of time is all planned out right there in those 7 days.” In other words, God, from the beginning, planned and foresaw EVERYTHING. Therefore, whatever happens to everyone is his plan. But, “Adam was to be a perfect person, but God gave man free will.” So here we have a serious contradiction. Either God made a mistake by giving man free will, thus making God fallible, or free will is an illusion and our paths are predetermined, meaning there are those that are born with absolutely no chance for salvation because they are merely following a script. In other words, God is either flawed or he is cruel and would damn people to eternal torment withut any chance to avoid that fate. Let’s think about this closely: either he does NOT know what we will do, exposing him as flawed, or he knows what we will do because he has predetermined us to be saved or damned. And that is the main reason I can not believe in god.
15 February 2007, on 2:03 pm
Sorry about my last post, I should have rolled over and adopted your opinions.
What the fuck are you talking about? What other post? It wasn’t to this site.
Just a side note, did you notice that this post is from 2005?
15 February 2007, on 3:17 pm
It was up and waiting for a moderator.
Since evolution took billions of years, what’s the difference 2 years could make?
If you made another comment here besides this one and the last, it must have gone to the spam folder.
Very few people are interested in going back to old posts. If you are interested in “debate” come to the main page and post on recent discussions. You can do it yourself, or I will be happy to copy and paste your comments in current threads so people can ask you a few questions.