The Passion...

[J-Proof]

This is another often-used, and incredibly wrong statement that I hear so often. Darwin NEVER said that. There are accounts of those who were with him at his deathbad, who have denied the story about his ever recanting.

Whether or not he actually did will probably be argued for the rest of eternity. But the real issue with the macro-evolution model is something else I previously stated:

The entire scientific idea of entropy is completely denied by this macro-evolution model. The idea that disorder could lead to order, that species who cannot reason suddenly can, is entirely against scientific law.

Now, if you fit macro-evolution into the scope of intelligent design, then I believe it makes sense both scientifically and faithfully. The idea that a being (God, as I believe Him) reached down on the universe and /caused/ these evolutions to happen makes perfect sense to me.

And as for the OUTRIGHT LIE that "America was founded by christians," the fact is that most our country's Founders were deists, which was the closest thing there was to atheism at the time. Deism held that, while, sure, God (or something god-like) created the Universe and everything in it, He/She/It/They certainly have no interest in the affairs of the human race now. This is, at least, a much more reasonable view of God than the bloodthirsty maniac He's depicted as being by pretty much every major Western religion.

I've seen this argument a lot, but I find it interesting that all the published diaries, journals, memoires, and biographies I've read about /many/ of our country's founders illustrate clear pictures of reference and reliance specifically on God in terms of Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Quaker, and Catholic practice (etc).

I know you've got a lot facts right - that many of our country's founders were deists - but just as many key roles (if not more so) were Faith-filled people. While someone like Jefferson is raised up as a pillar of atheism within our country's founding ranks, people ignore the delegates in the two Continental Congresses, the French and Prussian supporters who came overseas to help fight the War for Independence, and the many significant officers and minute men who made the fight possible.

Anyway -- these ideas of Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion are symbiotic. I agree that forcing one to worship a certain way is wrong, in the same way I believe that forcing someone /not/ to worship the way they choose is wrong. In the end, whatever is or is not on the dollar does nothing to stop people from being faithful, nor does it hinder extremists from looking at us with animosity.

The only way we can stop extremists from "hating" us is by getting rid of the one thing that both principles have in common -- Freedom.

[msmpls]

The entire scientific idea of entropy is completely denied by this macro-evolution model. The idea that disorder could lead to order, that species who cannot reason suddenly can, is entirely against scientific law.

Now, if you fit macro-evolution into the scope of intelligent design, then I believe it makes sense both scientifically and faithfully. The idea that a being (God, as I believe Him) reached down on the universe and /caused/ these evolutions to happen makes perfect sense to me.

Forgive me if I'm misinformed or if this was addressed in one of the previous 100 or so posts but I thought that most Christians believe god is infalliable and therefore would not have played a role in evolution.

How does your interpretation explain this argument?

[J-Proof]

Forgive me if I'm misinformed or if this was addressed in one of the previous 100 or so posts but I thought that most Christians believe god is infalliable and therefore would not have played a role in evolution.

How does your interpretation explain this argument?

Pretty much the same way Galileo's idea helped us understand God's universe....

I see no problem with the idea that God's creation of the world involved him forming beings out of evolution. And where would evolution trample on God's creation being perfect? When you think about it - the macro-idea that organisms were evolved by God's hand does nothing to falsify scripture. And the micro-idea that organisms can adapt only supports the position that God's creation is "perfect" (and durable).

[msmpls]

So it's the entire system that is perfect rather than the individual pieces of the system (which may or may not be successful in the "survival of the fittest")?

[torgosPizza]

But the real issue with the macro-evolution model is something else I previously stated: The entire scientific idea of entropy is completely denied by this macro-evolution model. The idea that disorder could lead to order, that species who cannot reason suddenly can, is entirely against scientific law.

You need to understand what macro-evolution is in order to argue against it, first. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented. I can give you examples if you wish.  We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

JP, you argue that many religious people did good things. That's not the issue here. As a matter of fact, that's completely outside the issue. I think it's fairly well known that some great minds have been religious - but there have also been many incredibly brilliant minds who were not. Again, I can name names, but that's neither here nor there.

so yeah if you beleive in relativism completely then yeah this argument wont work as a convincing argument for gods existence. 

Sarcasm, your argument against relativism has been heard multiple times. And I will admit I don't know a lot about moral relativism. But why does that issue always come up as a proof for god's existence? When you say that there is a moral absolute, that does not prove that God exists. Unless I am missing a big chunk of conversation that I failed to read, in which case I apologize.

My argument is that you don't need a god in order to be morally obliged to the preservation of your own kind. I think I'd stated before that Dawkins, in his recent book, argues that the reason we recognize the difference between good and evil is a result of evolution of the brain. We want to be good to others, to help our own kind, as a result of being evolved from smaller groups which often consisted of our immediate family. It was a natural instinct that, if a family member fell into a stream, to want to help them out. It would go against our very genetic, very inherited nature to let someone who was related to us drown and die, thus cutting off one of the branches of our family tree.

Granted, we have since moved out of those smaller tribes, but as a result of evolution, that instinct has remained the same. Which is why when something happens like Virginia Tech, everyone of all stripes, atheists included, come to their aide and grieve alongside the people who they may not have even known.

[J-Proof]

You need to understand what macro-evolution is in order to argue against it, first. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented. I can give you examples if you wish.  We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

JP, you argue that many religious people did good things. That's not the issue here. As a matter of fact, that's completely outside the issue. I think it's fairly well known that some great minds have been religious - but there have also been many incredibly brilliant minds who were not. Again, I can name names, but that's neither here nor there.

No no no -- My argument is that evolution and God fit in the same blender. I could make a willitblend movie using the Bible, the Quran, the Codes of Nebuchadnezzar and Hamurabi, some Buddhist Scrolls, and a Houghtin Mifflin edition of "Science and You" and they'd all blend together.

As for your dissertation on speciation, I think you've misunderstood my purpose in citing entropy. Entropy relates to any and all science as scientific law (not theory). All science period.

My argument is not against speciation happening, I believe something (in my case, I believe that something to be God the Father) causes it to happen =)

[torgosPizza]

As for your dissertation on speciation, I think you've misunderstood my purpose in citing entropy. Entropy relates to any and all science as scientific law (not theory). All science period.

Well, Entropy (as I understand it) is central to the SECOND law of thermodynamics, and specifically has to do with the dissipation of energy over time, with regard to the ability to do work indefinitely. Not anything to do with how you've used it here.

All it takes is a little bit of research to find out more about Entropy, and I feel that when you learn more about it, you find that it doesn't fit at all with the argument that is so often found in arguments from the religious side.

[torgosPizza]

More about Entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

[J-Proof]

Well, Entropy (as I understand it) is central to the SECOND law of thermodynamics, and specifically has to do with the dissipation of energy over time, with regard to the ability to do work indefinitely. Not anything to do with how you've used it here.

All it takes is a little bit of research to find out more about Entropy, and I feel that when you learn more about it, you find that it doesn't fit at all with the argument that is so often found in arguments from the religious side.

Entropy is a scientific principle that was proven through the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but it's relationship to science is far vaster than thermodynamics (which is already quite vast).

I am well-read on thermodynamics, though many are better read than I. My physics professor had a grand three-week study of entropy that applied this law to all science (which is in no way revolutionary or new -- entropy is already considered scientific law as pertaining to literally everything). Part of the study related how absolutely everything is part of a thermodynamic system.

Wiki is usually a poor source for someone studying the grand and detailed spectrum of science -- though I /was/ able to locate some of my old neighbors through it so it has its uses

[torgosPizza]

That makes sense to me, then. Glad to hear you had a decent physics professor (mine wasn't very good). In any event, Entropy is often cited as being a grounds against evolution, when it's really not. The process is seen in nature all the time, but for some reason, in the argument for religion, it comes up as trying to be proof that evolution is wrong. Care to explain?

[J-Proof]

That makes sense to me, then. Glad to hear you had a decent physics professor (mine wasn't very good). In any event, Entropy is often cited as being a grounds against evolution, when it's really not. The process is seen in nature all the time, but for some reason, in the argument for religion, it comes up as trying to be proof that evolution is wrong. Care to explain?

Haha -- there's where I differ from the average Joe =)

I think evolution happened and is still happening. Period. What distinguishes myself from an evolution-purist is that I believe a being known as "I AM," aka "Yaweh," aka "Iehowa," aka "God of Jacob" caused it to happen. Furthermore, the adapting capabilities of the natural world around us (even down to our ability to tan in the sun) is proof in the perfection of natural creation, not a proof against it!

I find entropic law to be a proof that someone /has/ to have caused it, not that "it" (or evolution) doesn't exist =)

Hope that answers your question. What I find hilarious is that we could technically just look over our shoulders and talk about this since we sit right next to each other all day long, but instead, we vent ourselves away on this forum =)

[gbeenie]

I couldn't agree more; I don't give a rat's ass what islamists think of us.

I think you meant "Muslims"

Truthfully, I don't care what anybody thinks of me, but in this instance I'm referring specifically to those muslims who think their religious view should be forced on everyone; hence, "islamists."

[msmpls]

I couldn't agree more; I don't give a rat's ass what islamists think of us.

I think you meant "Muslims"

Truthfully, I don't care what anybody thinks of me, but in this instance I'm referring specifically to those muslims who think their religious view should be forced on everyone; hence, "islamists."

I see.
I've never heard that term before.

[gbeenie]

I couldn't agree more; I don't give a rat's ass what islamists think of us.

I think you meant "Muslims"

Truthfully, I don't care what anybody thinks of me, but in this instance I'm referring specifically to those muslims who think their religious view should be forced on everyone; hence, "islamists."

I see.
I've never heard that term before.

It's a version of the term "religionist," which denotes someone who believes in the superiority of religion.

[Tarantulas]

Because it makes much more sense that:

The world was made in 7 days, 6000 years ago.

Man is made from dirt and woman is made from some manner of "dirt rib".

At least science goes out on a limb and admits that is doesn't know all the answers, and is quick to replace theories when they are disproved.



I do like it that when the christian "scientific community" finally get around to accepting things that the rest of the world agrees as being plausible they finaly call it "god's design."

Nice save... that way faith never has to be wrong or ever been seen as a stumbling block to progress! 

----

As for "passion", it's porn for christians.  Look at all the folks that lined up to see a cinematic representation of the death of christ, bought popcorn, guilted others into seeing it, bought the DVD, action figures, posters, novelization, got the extra value meal, etc.....

It's one thing for christians to understand the teachings of their faith, it's another for a racist piece of shit like Mel Gibson to make millions off it.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3069082   <--- In other news, more religious nonsense....