Not according to the Council of Nicea, I believe. Women just barely got souls, animals lost.

Catholic Version Pope John Paul II now says that animals do have souls. He is infallible, therefore they must.

Protestant Version - No

Islamic View - No, but the author would like them to, based on personal experience.

The Methodists - Succinct, to the point, no.

Not exactly. Religion was really nothing more than man's early attempt at science. Much later, principles (new tools) important to science - the need for both theory and experiemental confirmation - was added to the body called science. Science during the bible's time had no such tools. Today those who blindly believe the bible must then deny what a fact really is. How to create facts was not understood back when the bible was written. In the meantime, science has move forward beyond the bible - using new tools that did not exist 2000 years ago.

Demonstrated in this discussion is a 'denial of facts' - from those who give the bible way too much credit and credibility.

The bible was a good attempt at explaining many sciences that mankind needed to build a civilization. Much early science was based mostly on parables. But in all good sciences (including those that grew from Islam and Buddhism), mankind advances: learns more of god's laws everyday. Unfortunately, there are these ostriches who say, "Everything we need to know is in the bible". Reality does not work that way. People who worship a real god learn more of god's laws every day. That means the bible has been replaced repeatedly with better science books.

And so we arrive at the real definition of religion. Early attempts at learning how the world works is worshipped by people who fear change. Worshipped by people who fear to learn from god's newest disciples.

OnyxCougar has a problem. All facts were written a few thousand years ago? There are no more prophets because only the bible can be correct? We call such people anti-innovative.

Reality. Name more of god's prophets. Einstein. Newton. Hilbert. Gauss. Franklin. DaVinci. Keppler. Sigmund Freud. These too are god's prophets. They all discovered more of gods laws. They used god's laws from previous prophets to learn more god's laws. They innovated.

Today we hold god's prophets to higher standards because our newest bibles are chock full of more "god's laws" including new tools such as scientific challenge. God's prophets must prove their discoveries of what god teaches. As we learn more of god's tools, we even use them to discover which of god's prophets better understood god.

Science demonstrates a god that Onyxcougar worships is really nothing more than a pagan. No wonder god must appear in human form. God in that time was the best that man could comprehend. Today we know many of those prophets could have easily been Capt Kirk from a starship named Enterprize. No wonder her god is so pathetically limited as to have will, opinons, and love. No wonder her god has his chosen people - and president. All characteristics of gods found in every pagan religion. To worship her pagan god, she needs a science book that says nothing more need be learned. She calls it the bible.

Why do religious extremists deny science such as evolution? It means their one and only book has been obsoleted. Parables that were revised as we have learned more of gods laws. We study the bible to better learn our history. How things did and did not work. Parables on how man could be so mistaken as to destroy and how man can advance by learning more of gods laws. We learn science to move forward - to better understand god. Notice that this god is truly supreme. Not so limited with human emotions as the bible's god. Our books are constantly being updated and revised as god's prophets discover more of god's laws.

Christianity provided principles on which we have developed the sciences of law, civil rights, chemistry, psychology, physics, and other sciences. Bible was but an early attempt. And like all early sciences, it is chock full of errors, myths, fallacies, and misinterpretations. For example, the bible was written by humans who did not yet have one important tool (to exist, a fact must have both underlying theory and experimental evidence). Early prophets did what they could with so many limited tools. They used parables - one of the most powerful tools of learning during that time.

God's prophets today use new tools of science - such as what a fact really is - to teach us all more of gods laws. When was the last time interpreters of the bible told us that 8% of all species are gay? Those who cannot learn (worship the bible) even promote hate of gays. How do they promote hate and yet call themselves god's choosen people? Probably for the same reason that god told George Jr to 'Pearl Harbor' Iraq. He too is god's choosen president - if one blindly worships a pagan god.

Yes. Finally. Someone read the phrase "evolution as it relates to the origin of man" that I posted so many times.





And my contention is that since ORIGINS is completely unprovable, leave it out entirely.

No, ORIGINS is not science. Any way you try to slice it. ORIGINS is religion, by whatever means you try to explain it.

Let me check on nephesh and get back to you.

Wow. That's pretty wordy. Lets go a little at a time.

Although the bible does have science in it (however crude we view it today), I would say religion as an institution was misused from the beginning as a tool of power and profit and control.

You're going to have to define "the bible's time". Do you mean when it was written? If so, please prove that theory and experimental confirmation was not in existence during the time of, lets say, Moses. Cite.

Uh...please prove this statement. So facts weren't facts back in the days of Jacob? When, exactly, then, did facts become facts?

You are incorrect. I'm not denying ANY facts. I'm denying a specific set of interpretations based on the facts. It is my belief that a different set of interpretations of the same facts can explain creationism JUST AS WELL as the interpretation posited by evolutionist origins.

I don't know who views the bible as a book of science. Again, there are ideas of science in the bible, but it is hardly a science text. Your premise is flawed.

Really? I thought the real definition of religion was:

But you know, all those pesky dictionaries MUST be wrong...


Huh? Who said that? I thought you said there were no facts a few thousand years ago? You're contradicting yourself....


Who is "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket? Who said only the bible can be correct? Don't put words in my mouth that I never said and then tell me I'm wrong.

Although I'm not sure of your usage of the word "prophet" here, I can agree with the idea here.

Newest bibles? Last I checked there was a group of writings that was agreed upon a couple hundred years or so ago, and that was then termed "the Bible". Full stop. Your statement is based upon the flawed premise that the Bible is a textbook of science, which (for the third time) it's not.

More metaphor based on flawed premise.

huh? You lost me here....


If you're going to use pop culture references, at least spell them correctly. That's Enterprise.

? Please explain how having will, opinions and love is pathetic or limited.

I don't believe my God chose George Bush. Bush may think that, some fundies may think that, I don't. So please refrain from linking me to your religio-political overgeneralizations.

Again (4th time) the bible is not a science book. That's YOUR straw man. Also, the bible doesn't say "nothing more need be learned". So please, stop making these ridiculous statements.

I'm hardly a religious extremist. And evolution as it relates to origion of man is not science. It's guesswork. And it shouldn't be taught in school any more than creationist origins should.

I disagree. First, the bible (specifically the old testament) is the cornerstone and foundation of Christian, Judaism and Islamic faiths. Within it are timeless concepts that will never be obsolete, as much as you wish they were. Granted, there are some things (like stoning people) that western society considers obsolete now, but the western justice system was based off of Christian laws and punishments within the bible. We don't stone people now, we imprison them. And as we have seen, imprisonment isnt much of a deterrant, is it? But that's another thread entirely....

So you agree it's also got history in it. History that has never been DISproven. We may not be able to prove all the history, but what secular history we can verify time and time again agrees with biblical history. So since it hasn't been DISproven, why not believe it all? Again, another thread, but definitely a product of the EvCvID debate.

Perhaps back in the day that was true. Now, many scientists learn science in an attempt to prove god doesn't exist, and to get other people to doubt god as well. What's the best way to do this? "Prove" that the primary and fundamental statement "In the beginning God created" is wrong, by advancing this UNPROVABLE notion that man evolved from primordial soup. If the Bible is wrong, then you can't trust any of it, and therefore, the foundation of 3 of the world's major religions is GONE. That's why this is such an important issue to Christians, indeed, it should be a major issue to Muslims and Jews. The theory of Evolution as it relates to origin of man is completely opposite of the bible. And you have to take a stand. Do you believe in the word of God or fallible man? Both theories are equally unprovable, and therefore, religious in nature, and should NOT be taught in school.

Tee, you are the ONLY person who I've ever met (virtually or otherwise) that thinks emotion is a bad thing, or limiting, or pathetic.

Again, I'm not so sure of your use of "prophets" here.

A scientist could be called a prophet, by def. 4, but I would say that "god's prophets" would be more apt to lift god up, so to speak, as opposed to many scientists, who try to tear him down.

Not just Christianity, but all 3 major OT based belief sets.

Depends on the interpretation. Strictly exegetical, no it's not.

But just a little while ago you said they had facts... stick with one story Mr. Kerry!

Jesus used parables. And it was obvious when he used them because the style of writing changed and he SAID he was using a parable.

You need to define what a fact is and figure out if a fact is a fact all the time, or if a fact is a fact only after a certain time. Please be consistant on when a fact is a fact. Until then, I'm ignoring your Kerry-ish argument about facts.


Firstly, "worship the bible" is not something that people are supposed to be doing. Those who use the bible as a foundation for their faith are supposed to "worship" God (by whatever name each faith might use).

Secondly, I reject that if one believes in the bible that they cannot learn. And I do NOT promote hate of gays. I don't promote hate of anyone. That was a completely out of hand and inflammatory statement. And made to ilicit an emotional response. Be careful, Tee.

Last I checked, gods chosen people are the Israelites. And those are Jews. So you're saying Jews promote hate? huh?

Prove that.

A nonsense statement.



EDIT: changed exegisial to exegetical. Yeah. I can spell.

This is one reason why I'm trying to learn hebrew and greek. I want to see what the text says and read it in an exegetical context, so that I can interpret it, instead of somebody interpreting it for me.

And I don't even want to go into catholicism.

You never answered my question, OC (although it was awhile back and I think it may have ended up in a different thread...):

No molecules-to-man, ok. But if you agree that speciation happens, is there a reason you can't accept the possibility of apes-to-man (other than the fact that the Bible says they were created at the same time?)

This is the first time I have viewed this thread and have only one thing to say:


OnyxCougar's fingers have got to be getting tired. :)

Sorry, clod, didn't see it.

Yes, even with mutation and speciation, which is observable and experimental (and can thus be proven), I do not believe molecules to man (I'll shorten Molecules to Man theory to evolution in this post) happened. Let's examine some of the principle portions of the theory and counter with creationism (please understand I'm not a scientist, and this is really dumbed down becuase I'm not one of those technical type people. If you want a technical answer go to AiG's website....they have molecular biologists and people who are WAY smarter than me that can answer your question:

1. Evolutionary Theory posits that the "big bang" occured (life from non-life), and that the stars (and sun) were created BEFORE the earth and the planets.

1. Creationists posit that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and that the earth was made first, with the sun being made after, to separate the night from the day.

2. Evolutionary Theory posits that on the primordial earth, there was a mixture of chemicals and compounds in the waters and air of the earth and somehow (no one quite knows) life spontaneously occured, and the first cells appeared. (Here's HM's "magic".)

2. Creationists believe that God made all the flora and fauna and they were all vegetarians...no animal ate any other. He looked around and "saw that it was good".

3. ET says that one magic cellular organism (the one that spontaneously appeared from non-life) then reproduced itself and then there were two magic life-forms. (How did a cell have all of the components to survive and reproduce if it spontaneously generated from non-life? Reproductive systems are incredibly complex, even asexual reproduction isn't easy... yet somehow this magic cell managed it...)

3. Creationists: See #2

4. So from this really smart cell that spontaneously burst onto the scene able to reproduce itself, ETists say that more cells came about and more and more and then for no reason at all, TWO cells went from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. They had cellular sex. Now HOW their "bodies" changed to have a "sperm" and an "egg" type of cell, no one knows. You're just supposed to buy this. No cells have EVER been seen to be able to spontaneously appear. No cells have EVER been seen that can come from an asexual reproduction and suddenly become sexual reproducers.

This form of evolution, "evolving up" means there must be an addition of information. Some how, some way, the cells HAD to learn to divide and/or go from asexual to sexual reproduction.

There has NEVER been any record of information GAIN in any life form scientists have studied. Mutation and Speciation happen, but these involve LOSS or CORRUPTION of EXISTING material.

In other words, all the genetic material is already there to start with, and speciation and mutation LOSE genetic variability as they "adapt" to their environment.

Evolution Theory posits that some how, some way, those single simple cells GAINED information to form multiple celled organisms, and those "evolved" to a HIGHER form of life.

But since what we actually observe is the OPPOSITE of this effect, the evolutionary theory cannot be proven.

Here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...faq/origin.asp is a AiG page on cellular origins and primordial soups.

Here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...infotheory.asp is an AiG page on Information Theory.

If this doesn't answer your question, Clod, please forgive me, my brain is tired from Tee-Dub's post.

My fingers are fine, it's my brain that's tired.

I don't really believe I'm going to change anyone's mind, but I do hope I'm making them question the information they've been force fed.

If you do a thorough investigation and you really believe one non-provable theory over another, that's one thing. But research it a little, look at ALL arguements OBJECTIVELY, and then make your decision.

OC, I understand your position on molecules-to-man.

What I'm asking about is just speciation from apes to man, forgetting all the earlier steps for a moment.

In your mind, could a group of apes speciate to the degree that they became indistinguishable from humans?



Edit to add: I'm in no hurry, so feel free to take a break for awhile before getting back to me. I won't be back online to read it until 6AM tomorrow anyway. :)

"speciation from apes to man" assumes man "evolved" from apes, that apes are our ancestors. It has a starting assumption I don't agree with. It's inseparable from the molecules to man idea, because it's just the last few steps on that tree.

To answer your question more directly, no, in my little mind, speciation from apes to man can't occur because there are things men can do that apes can't (sometimes called "higher functions") and that is information GAIN, while speciation is information LOSS.

This is one of those topics where you can really only look at things subjectively.

Therein lies the problem.

Now, folks, how's about this little tidbit ... showed up in my mailbox courtesy of one of my right-wing mailing lists.

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

The bible as a tool of influence can easily be a source of 'good' or of 'evil'. The same parable is told in another story called Star Wars. Parables were powerful tools to justify an action or 'prove' the king was chosen by god. But in biblical days, that is how most of mankind knowledge was proven.

Still something happened in Greece long before - and yet was little understood since most people could not read let alone understand Greek. Socrates was using something radical called logic to prove things such as that the gods were simply nothing more than extensions of human traits. Socrates indeed taught things never before comprehended because he was using a new tool – logic. If – then …. For if gods choose people, practice jealously or disdain, and exercise personal will, then gods were not infinite. Even though so much of our early logic and even concepts of social order can be traced to the Greeks, still, people even 1000 years later had no knowledge of the concepts. The tools that so many had to perform 'advanced' thinking were parables from the bible.

It indeed was a good book in its time. And yet its concepts could also be used by (was it the Dominicans?) to massacre another French Catholic people (the Jesuits?). (Does anyone have this story - I cannot find it?) It justified the Crusades – even resulting in the ransacking of Constantinople in 1205. Therefore 'good' was just as easily turned into 'evil' - which means good and evil are based more on emotions - not necessarily on facts. But that is how the bible was used (manipulated) throughout history. We used an early social science to make mistakes - and learn more laws of nature - or god's laws if you will.

People such as DaVinci rescued, demonstrated, and performed logic in a time we call the Renaissance. In the days of Moses, one would only say something - and his credibility was enough? Tools of logical thought were that deficient. As science advanced, the procedures to establish facts have advanced. Currently we use things such as peer reviewed papers, bibliographic citations, and mathematical theory to demand far more before we accept something as fact. At least that is what one who is not a junk scientist does.

Things we call junk science were common in biblical times. Anyone who saw Capt Kirk transport to earth would indeed call him god. Today, we call those 'facts', at best, a parable. Did a burning bush talk to Moses? Ever see a speaker created from the flame of a bunsen burner? Was it god, some electronic wizardry, or just a fairy tale that Moses used to provide credibility to his ten rules of social order? Was Moses nothing more than a great 'innovator' who appreciated a need for better rules? Well we do call him a prophet.

The principles that Moses set forth are historically important and well proven principles. How the principles were created could have been a lie - so common with parables. But what those rules accomplished can be defined as the early principles of a science called law. Ten Commandments (and not necessary the story) are important facts in mankind history.

Principles of creation met the criteria for fact in biblical times. But man has advanced. We no longer believe the principles of spontaneous reproduction because our requirements for facts have made spontaneous reproduction nothing more than a myth. Same can be said of creationism. It too no longer meets the criteria as fact. It too has fallen to the rank of parable or nursery tale. A tale important to mankind's history. But not valid in a world of a constantly advancing science. There is no factual basis for creationism. Only a … we will get to that definition of religion later.

Currently mankind is in another struggle. We can no longer explain a universe that is four dimensional - length, width, height, and time. As we continue to advance, we may learn that this universe is 7 or 10 dimensional. IOW as our tools get better, we must now learn how a particle simultaneously in NYC and one in London are the same particle. What does the bible say about this? Real sciences - the principles that advance mankind - must continue long beyond what is found in the bible.

IOW we develop and then use better tools to learn more facts. Yes many things taken for fact in the first hundred years AD were nothing more than myths. The stars did not 'talk' to us. In the meantime, much great wisdom such as 500 BC Sze Tzu is still not understood even by (corrupt) leaders today who are getting and presenting the Freedom Metal …. because they were ignorant of well proven military science. Go figure. How do you explain that fact? Too much religious beliefs imposed on other people by a president who ‘believes he is god’s chosen one’ … reality and knowledge be damned. More examples of how a Christian religion imposed on others can cause the deaths of about 98,000 Iraqis.

There still are many mysteries (ie junk science proclamations) in the world such as WMDs and aluminum tubes. Even when science says otherwise, still many will believe myths. Mankind still has much to learn.

You may not know anyone who views the bible as an early book of science. And yet is that not what Moses brought down from the mountain? Does the bible say which foods of that time should not be eaten? Right there we have the science of law and the science of nutrition. Where else do biblical people learn how to advance mankind - the purpose of science? The Quran even teaches trade rules. Economics. Another science (although some might argue economics is black magic).

A definition of religion says Therein lies my point. In biblical times, the bible was some of the best science (other religions had similar principles and books). But the bible is now an obsolete book. Religious means believing in those old and now obsolete principles. IOW beliefs held with "ardor and faith" - as called emotions. Parables not based upon the newer tools of science such as logic. In Christian religion, god's prophet existed only in biblical times. In religion, god has sent no more prophets? Nonsense. That makes god nothing more than a super human. Or the creation of a good fiction writer.

Religion even in that definition implies no change - no advancement - no discovery - that things will always be the way less educated people believed - only because that was written back then. Religion must be based upon emotions such as “ardor and faith”? It requires “scrupulous conformity”? Any prophets that say otherwise must be wrong because only the bible is correct. Things based only upon emotion and not based upon what we now require as fact.

How trusting must a religious person be? Scam artists recognize the most religious among us are easiest to scam. They are the most trusting. Less likely to ask 'embarrassing' or probing questions. Most easily influenced by junk science reasoning. IOW people with less appreciation for science and most appreciation for the now obsoleted science are better defined as religious. It a trend - not a rule.

That pesky dictionary is not wrong. It also implies what one must do to choose religion over facts, logic, and other tools of science. Use emotion rather than facts.
[Continues in next post]

[Continued from previous post]
In the meantime, I am not putting words into any one person's mouth. Religious extremists are not Onyxcougar. But some religious peers of Onyxcougar would repeatedly and outrightly subvert other religions to promote the ‘power and glory’ of their righteous religion. Then they are called ‘good’? That other religion called ‘evil’? Again I must quote Pat Robertson on his 700 Club That promotes hate. That is how one religion must subvert another. It demands religious segregation. How evil as demonstrated in stories from Kahlil Gibran - the great religious poet and story teller of early 1900 Lebanon. Pat Robertson promotes principles contrary to what the United States is base upon and the stories of Gibran. And yet Pat Robertson represents what right wing religious extremists would attempt to do to America. No different than promoting racial hatred. Still Pat Robertson is considered a benchmark of ‘good’ religion?

There is no place for religion in politics, science, education, etc other than as a lesson of history. Why? The act of religion is and must remain a relationship between you and your god. No one else has any right to subvert or deny you the right to practice your religion. Furthermore, no one religion has the right to impose their beliefs on other people.

It is a new principle discovered by the science of law - 1000+ years after the bible was created. Religion has no place in law, astronomy, physics, psychology, mathematics, etc. If that religion is your religion, then it has rules by which you live. If the religion is credible, then it also does not impose itself on others not of that religion. IOW a true Christian would never have tried to force a Christian democracy on an Islamic people. Once we called the Crusades evil examples of a perverted religion. Religion should never tell a Buddhist that he could not drive on the Sabbath. Or that a woman can fly a plane but not drive a car. And yet many religions are so "scrupulous conformity" as to also impose themselves on other. That is simply not acceptable because mankind has learned so much more about religious principles since the bible.

One of "god's laws" that was discovered by more of god's prophets - including the founders of this nation - is the freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means a relationship between you and your god unimpeded by any other AND that your religion and its beliefs are not imposed on others. Where in the bible are such principles taught? You can find concepts from which these principles are derived. This science of social order used principles even found in an early science book - such as the bible.

There is no soundbyte response to describe the principles of, relationships to others, and the evil justified by religion. Religion was a good science in its time. Since then, mankind has learned so much and moved on. So much that this posting had to be shortened – extensively.

First, not all whose religion is tightly tied to the bible are religious extremists. Furthermore, just because George Jr is 'god's chosen president' does not mean that it is the belief of all or any devout Christians. In fact George Jr is only god's chosen president because HE believes it. It is HIS religion and HIS religious belief. It demonstrates that George Jr worships a limited and flawed god. A god with gross human deficiencies such as choice and preference - and therefore a limited god - a pagan god.

Prophet - innovator. Someone who discovers more of god's laws. Someone who cannot exist hundreds of years later if only the bible is correct. Someone who advances mankind by adding or correcting principles long since expanded and corrected from the original bible.

It would be illogical to say that a flaw in the bible makes the entire bible flawed. It was a good book in its time just like all science books. We ignore what was wrong, use what works, write a new book, and advance mankind. From the bible have been spawned many new and better books such as geometry and Darwinism.

Despite what your religion may teach, mankind has been correcting, upgradings, and expanding on the bible and other early works; including the Quran. Using principles taught by the nuns with big sticks - they are all inspired words only from god? Nonsense. They are nothing more than men trying to understand a massive concept we call god. Conventional myopic religions fear to understand that mankind has long since moved beyond the original bible. We have learned more and wrote new versions. We have a whole Dewey Decimal system for corrections and updates that man has since made.

IOW the god as taught in those conventional and myopic religions is nothing more than an extension of human wants, need, and emotions. If a god has a chosen person (ie George Jr), then his god is a limited creation with human traits. And that god probably worships his god. That god would be as pagan as the Greek and Roman gods. After all, even those gods chose sides in war and had human emotions such as perference. Those gods had their favored 'good' people. Why did those gods not just eliminate the enemy themselves if those gods were so powerful? Damning logical question that Socrates asked.

A real god is far more infinite. He has no limits such as will, love, or 'choosen people'. Jesus was as much a son of god as is everyone else. Those who think otherwise need a pagan concept to comprehend something that is too infinite. BTW the concept of infinity also did not exist in biblical times.

No problem. Everyone must have some way of dealing with a concept so infinite. Just as long as they don't use beliefs to subvert other's lives. Again, a fundamental principle that made America so great. Religion is nothing more than a relationship between you and your god. It must not affect others against their will.

Bottom line - no matter what your religion says, mine has move long beyond its early and flawed "The Bible" - as we learn more of god's laws. My religion is not stagnant like fundamentalist Christians, conservative Jew, or 'Muslim Brotherhood' Muslim. Unlike those religions, mine promotes tolerance. Mine says god is something to keep learning more about. God does not 'talk' to choosen people. God is what science is about.

I have no problem with those who would worship the same old and flawed books. Religion in a most conservative and conventional sense is to believe something blindly as if nothing better, smarter, improved, or more accurate can exist. Fine. Just don't impose those religious beliefs on my life or my peers - as the previously quoted Pat Robertson would advocate to the destruction of America.

When I say 'worship the bible', it means blindly believe god as defined only in their 'perspective interpretation' of that bible. If they were worshipping god, then they knew the bible is nothing more than an early and flawed attempt to explain god. A limited god is created by 'worshipping the bible' rather than learning of a larger and more infinite god. Biblical word. Flawed. A good early attempt. Something quite limited using parables. If something so limited becomes the total foundation of a religion, then clearly that religion is just another pagan religion. Fundamental christians routinely discuss things that are too limited to be anything more than a pagan god. Damning fact. If a god has love, will, or his 'chosen people', then that god is limited - a classic pagan god with the same human traits (flaws) found in Greek and Roman gods.

Previously defined are examples of what a fact is. For example, to prove a fact, we must have both experimental evidence and underlying theory. Without both, a fact does not exist. This concept did not exist in biblical times as history teaches. A fact does not exist only because a lying president 'felt' there were weapons of mass destruction. Those who believed that 'feeling' to be fact were indeed using only emotion and easily subverted by propaganda. This same process is why many also believe 'their interpretation of the bible'.
[continued in following post]

[continued from previous post]
I spent time in christian college libraries. Do they reflect what is taught? For example, there are no calculus books. How will one learn the principles on which mankind advances without an appreciation of calculus. Calculus is not in the bible. Calculus was from a "god's prophet" that biblical scholars must deny - Newton. Therefore calculus is not necessary? Library is empty and devoid of basic science. You tell me. How can America advance - continue to do what made America so great - when we have decided to protect our students from basic scientific principles. We would even deny them basic science such as Darwinism? Therefore we must also deny them another science called fractals and chaos? How many more sciences do we deny them before it is safe enough for them to learn? (Sound like an FCC that fears what we might hear on the radio?)

Do you suspect a great clash of hate in our future? I do. Because so many are being brainwashed by only one book - the bible - rather than learning from the so many books that came afterwords and corrected the bible. They let their emotions make their decisions rather than logic.

I don't call emotion a negative thing, nor limiting, nor pathetic. Emotion is the basis for so much human strength as I personally proved many times on a wrestling mat. I used emotion to be stronger. It was a logical decision. And when in a championship bout, we almost came to blows, my decision was due to a logical mind still controlling my emotions - that were clearly causing quite a commotion on that mat. Emotion also described as the good side of the force. When emotion replaces logic in making decisions - then we have the dark side.

Demonstrated in Star Wars (exclude the magic) is not so difficult to understand. I never said emotion is a bad thing. How emotion is used - if it overrides logic - then the human would be (by your definition) 'evil'. Emotion is something used by and must be always controlled by logic. It is one reason a child takes so long to be a fully functional adult. Emotion takes that long and is that difficult to tame, contain, and carefully utilize. In fact, I am shock that conventional religions don't teach this. But then the most conservative are also not teaching tolerance.

People with limited knowledge make good cannon fodder. They have less potential to be god's prophets. They are groomed to become soldiers (cannon fodder) for another Crusade - or torturers of another Spanish Inquisition. After all, was it not inside this Christian administration (at the highest levels of the George Jr presdiency) that torture was authorized? Of course it was. Remember nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition - a fundamenatal lesson from history about what blind religious beliefs can do. The Spanish Inquisition demonstrates the 'dark side' of emotion. Nobody thought religion could be the source of so much 'evil'. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. 'Evil' when the religion is too deeply rooted in emotion. Its called not learning anything beyond one flawed and early science book - the bible.

And yes, the bible was an early science book - because that was how limited science was in those days.

You may reject "that if one believes in the bible that they cannot learn." Sure they can learn. But they are not even provided the facts TO learn. Where are basic science and math principles being taught in those christian colleges? What is the most advanced math being taught there? Business math. I asked farther of these future ministers being educated there. They are taught math to balance checkbooks, calculate interest rates, etc. You tell me. This is a college education? We learned this stuff in high school. This is not college material. To learn, first facts and underlying theories of science must be made available. The process of proving facts is not magically inherited - it must be taught. No wonder they believe creationism. They don't even have basic lab sciences to learn how facts are deduced and proven. Therefore they easily confuse emotion with logical thought. Perfect if your life ambition is to be a propagandist. Exactly what military academies don't want which is why they teach engineering - science grounded in reality. I fear christian colleges may be manufacturing cannon fodder for Armageddon - worst case.

Defined in every post are examples of how facts are created AND why those principles did not exist in biblical times. This demonstrates why we will not agree. What you call guesswork is how science continues to advance mankind AND why creationism has long since been discredited along with spontaneous regeneration. It is not guesswork if one better appreciates how facts are created and justified. Fact must be based on fundamental and well proven science theory AND must be demonstrated in experimental evidence - including numbers. These concepts did not exist among the biblical authors nor their targeted audience. They were righting the best science of its time.

Where is basic science taught in fundamentalist religion? It is not. The bible teaches nothing about science principles demonstrated even by Socrates and not widely appreciated until the last 100 years.

Holy shit. You just wrote three thousand, five hundred and twenty eight words in what was effectively one post. That is twenty thousand, eight hundred and nine characters and somewhere below 85 paragraphs.

And, yuck. Was that in Alabama?

He's 81, and he was an athiest.

1) It could very well be end of life desperation,

2) he was an athiest which requires just as much of a blind insistance in an absolute (religion) as any xtian, pagan, etc.

Where's the surprise?

Reminds me of a few lines from China Doll;
Yesterday I begged you
before I hit the ground
All I leave behind me
is only what I found

I won't lie, I didn't even read TW's second set of posts. It's not that important to me.

It's worth the effort to copy and paste all of that stuff from other places but you won't read something that he actually took the time to compose and type?

I suspect that you fear that it will cause you to question.

TW makes a lot of good, interesting, coherent points (that is my non-christian Christmas gift to you, tw ... nice series of posts).

information GAIN
 

However --

Information GAIN certainly does occur. One example is gene duplication: occasionally, when DNA is passed from generation to generation, sequences of DNA are duplicated. Usually the duplicate information immediately follows the original information, but sometimes it moves to an entirely different location. Gene duplication is widely acccepted, and has been examined for over 30 years now. According to this article published in 2001 in Science,

This page is a good starting point for looking into gene duplication and explains it reasonably well for the laity.

In case you require extra special evidence, this paper, entitled "Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment" describes the preceding experiment (or a verification of it).

Not only was information gained [information was duplicated and hence there was more overall information], but the extra information was an improvement over the information existing at the beginning of the experiment.

A question just occurred to me...
 

If we have all of these works from Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Xenophon, etc., guys who predate Jesus by hundreds of years, why are there no writings directly attributable to his own hand?

Don't we know Aristotle through Plato or am I misundermembering Philo 101.

I just picked a few as they fell out of my head.

My question is in regards to them writing and being preserved over a time that goes back before the alleged Jesus and Jesus popping up and leaving nothing.

My point being that we only know the "alleged" Aristotle because Plato wrote his stuff down. There is really no doubt that Jesus existed. Everything else about him is open for debate.

Oh, that, yeah, Plato wrote about Socrates. That's why he wasn't in the list.

:blush: oooppsss ya get the point though. Studying history we end up trusting somebody somewhere along the way, who to trust can be a problem. With enough sources we get a good idea whether or not someone existed but interpreting their life is difficult even with modern figures.

There are a lot of people that would disagree with you, bro...me included.

Yeah, I was leaving that one for someone else. :D

It's a question of a jesus or The Jesus(tm).

Speaking of Jesus, the headline of this article made me laugh.

This showed up in my mailbox.

Duplication is not adding new information. It's still the same info, just duplicated.

If I have cell A, B, C and D, and I duplicate C, I have A, B, C, C, and D. I don't have a gain of information. C was there to begin with. What I mean by gain of information is somehow getting an E from somewhere. That is what is required for the evolutionary theory to work (molecules to man).

[quote] According to this article published in 2001 in Science,

There is so much wrong with that "story" that I'm surprised you bothered to link it. First, this is all guesswork based off of a computer simulation database. Second, they are guessing that the mutation/duplicate rates stay constant over time (or didn't account for the flux). Third, according to my (usually flawed) math, that's one duplicate gene every 100 million years. Most of those duplicated don't do any thing, and if they do, they don't do anything relating to new functions. This was a irrelevant story anyway, because gene duplication is not adding new information, which is required for molecules to man origins.

Well, I'm a laity, but I was still lost. Try here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...2/genetics.asp

But more overall information is not new information. I think the problem here is the way I described it (my fault). See above about ABC and D and the link I posted, that describes the 4 main genetic changes in regards to origins.

IIRC, Jesus as a person has been historically documented by at least three independant sources (other than the bible), one of which was the roman scribe to Pontious Pilate, Josephus.

Whether or not this person was or was not the Messiah [tm] is of course, speculative.

Until it mutates.The second C will mutate differently from the first C. So you start with ABCD, go to ABCCD, and then A'B'C'C"D'.

Agreed. But that's not new information. That is mutation of the same information. Show me where we get an E and we'll talk about gain of information.

Having 3 legs is not the same as having 2 legs and wings.

This is from the link wolf posted:

Agreed. But you can't test origins.

Also agreed. But there is no evidence for origins. It isn't observable or testable. It's a bunch of guesses.

It's all about your starting presuppositions and the way the evidence is interpreted. There is alot of science out there, and a few ways to interpret the facts we can observe and duplicate.

And on a personal note, I don't buy the intelligent design theory any more than the evolutionary theory. And ID theory is NOT the same as creationist. Usually, when you say "creationist" you mean a person who believes in 6 literal days of creation. ID theorists generally believe that God did it in millions of years.

edit:
So since you can't prove origins, then even the evolutionary theory is faith.
Religion.
Interesting.

Found these, I thought some may find it interesting.

more

This statement offends me deeply. Determining and believing in facts and structuring your life around them, helping others to determine facts and believe in facts and structure their life around them, is the MOST MORAL BEHAVIOUR that one can engage in.

Welcome to the world of scientific thought.

more

more

You do realize that everything you're posting is just really bad science, right? Let's poke holes in theories we don't understand using half the information available?

Prove it's half the information. Provide evidence to support or disprove the statements made. Cite.

Edit to add:

Why do you call it "really bad science"?

The problem is not in the cites, it's in how they're used.

Your post #485, for example, uses cites to determine the nature of a small part of the entire big picture of geology, and then makes a massive, UNCITED leap in paragraph three.

That's not science, it's dumb people trying to understand things without looking at the overall picture because the overall picture doesn't fit their conclusions.

It's as if one took measurements of the rate of cars driving down the highway between 8 and 9am, and made a massive leap to say that more cars drive east than west which proves that there is a car deficit in the west.

So they say they have shown sediment of dirt rolling into the sea. Where, then, are their cites which show how other geologic processes create MOUNTAINS of dirt OUT of the sea?

Duh?

It's all about your starting presuppositions and the way the evidence is interpreted. If you throw away some of the evidence, or just prefer to ignore it, you can come to any conclusion you like. Probably the wrong one though.

ok, lets look at the post.

First two paragraphs gives rates of accumulation and subduction, which you said you don't have a problem with the cites, so we'll assume that's correct.

Third paragraph, first sentence lists a posit of the evolutionary theory.

If the first two paragraphs (with cites) are correct, and the rates stayed the same, then the referenced posit of the evolutionary theory cannot be correct.
Would you agree with that?



edited from:
then the evolutionary theory cannot be correct
to
then the referenced posit of the evolutionary theory cannot be correct.

All theories face the same level of harsh judgement. If there isn't enough information given to prove one way, there isn't enough to prove the other way either.

I agree completely. I didn't mean the above posts to imply this "PROVES" creation, but instead, poke more holes in ET.

One of the posts before, from wolf's link, says that if you can disprove a theory, you have to throw that theory out and start over.

How many holes do people have to poke before we should say it's not a good theory?

When C' and C" are eventually different enough, you can call one of them E.

There are, however, methods of evaluating which theories are more likely to be correct, such as Occam's Razor, checking for internal consistency, review by third parties (harsh judgement), and logic.

I'm not sure whether Onyx accepts building evidence out of pre-existing evidence by 'doing the math'.

Anybody heard of this guy?
 

I just downloaded one of his videos and I'll post a review when I'm done.

http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp

Welcome to DrDino.com
Welcome to Creation Science Evangelism. Here at CSE, our goal is to share the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have not heard, and to strengthen your faith if you are already a believer. We do this by showing how Science actually gives glory to God by supporting the Biblical account of creation. Please enjoy our website as you learn, or shop in our online store.

Look here:

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/emblems.html

Nice assortment. They have certainly expanded!

Nice Isis.

I've heard of him. He has some "controversial" theories that many creationist disagree with, and AiG and Kent Hovind have gone a few rounds. I'm one of the people that stands firmly on the AiG side, because they have actual scientists and reasearchers, and Kent Hovind has a questionable honorary doctorate, and was a high school teacher.

In addition, Kent Hovind should wear the tin-foil hat in public. He gets rather political with his "new world order" ideas. In short, he has some good stuff mixed in with alot of bad stuff, and makes it harder for proponents of the good stuff.

Ok...not sure if this will cause the globe to wobble on its axis, but I agree with Sycamore. I believe in a creator, by whatever name one chooses to call him, her, or it, and I think that if that creator chose to create the world through evolution, who's to say no?
Evolution just seems logical to me, and considering the perfection in the way things are made, in how they fit together, etc. I know that if I were doing such an experiment, I'd start it off and then let it go to see what happened. Who's to say the creator didn't do the same?


For all we know, God's gonna get graded on this, and we're screwing up his Cosmic GPA with all our silliness and stupidity....



Sidhe