Posted on 12/18/2006 8:12:55 AM PST by SJackson
Why? Didn't it evolve from something, like viruses? What about viruses? Are they living or not? What's the transition between viruses and single celled bacteria and if viruses are living, that would be evolution. And if viruses are living they had to evolve from something else. What was that?
Really... Where did the third human on earth come from?...
Keep propping up your strawman RA.
Anti Dow-Jones false medicine, and anti dreaming false science, is not anti medicine nor anti science.
OK, I couldn't find out what they got the fruit flies to evolve into. What was it?
I do not agree. I work with a number of Atheists and they are fine moral upstanding folk.
You don't know God exists. You can't be certain God exists. But, you can believe God exists. I believe God exists, but I don't take it upon myself to assume the position of God and 'save' people. I don't have a problem with evangelizing itself (necessary for a growing church), just the attitude most bring to it (I'm saving the world, etc.).
God will sort everyone out when the time comes.
Lavrentii Beria
"By psychopolitics our chief goals are effectively carried forward. To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic depression and scientific turmoil.... With it you can erase our enemies as insects... Use the courts, use the judges, use the Constitution of the country, use its medical societies and its laws to further our ends.... create chaos. Leave a nation leaderless. Kill our enemies. And bring to Earth, through Communism, the greatest peace Man has ever known." ... Lavrentii Beria, Lenin University, in a 1933 address to a group of American/Marxist Psychology Students
The point is it doesn't matter. I have no problem with people sharing their beliefs. Some of the best conversations I have ever had started with this talking point. But I draw the line when ANYONE tells me that their belief system is better than mine, that they are more moral than I am because they are a member of a religion, or when anyone gives me the "I'm right, you're wrong" line.
If you truly believed that someone without Christ was going to hell for eternity when they died, wouldn't you want to warn them? And really, what kind of Christian would they be if they DIDN'T warn others?
I see this as the curse of being completely sure of one's belief system. Others call it faith. I don't believe that my failure to be a Christian will cause me eternal damnation. No matter how many times I am warned, it won't happen. How many times do Christians feel obligated to warn me? I would think once is enough. It's not like repeating the warning makes it any stronger or more believable.
But don't discount the message because of the messanger. There's too much at stake.
That's not why I discount the message. I have close friends who are Christian who I have discussed belief extensively with. I listened to what they have to say. And I don't belive it for myself. I don't believe in Christianity because it doesn't square with any of the reality that I have experienced in my life. I am no more capable of believing in God than you are of believing that Islam is the one true path.
Again, let me turn this around. A Muslim friend of yours wants to save you. He KNOWS that non-Muslims will be punished in the afterlife. He cares about you so much that he wants to warn you - after all, what kind of friend would he be if he DIDN'T try to warn you. And if you ignored his first warning, well, he should obviously keep after you because, well there's so much at stake. And he'll tell you that there are Muslims who don't have many people skills, and people who pervert the religion, so that you shouldn't discount the message because of some bad messengers.
As far as he is concerned if he is really your friend, he should try to convert you to Islam at every opportunity he gets, right? There's too much at stake to do otherwise, right? Why should I believe in the Christian who tries to save others more than I would believe in Muslims who try to save others?
(BTW, I'm using Islam as a generic example - substitute any religion you don't believe in above if you don't believe Islam applies)
I chose my screen name in 1998 based on my favorite liquor at the time. (Jack Daniels). I've moved on to scotch since then, but the name stays. If Jack Black the actor was around in 1998 I was not aware of him. I've considered trying to change it but it seems like a pain for the admins, so I just ignore most comments about it.
That seems a little high for some of them, but even that is enough to make declaring them "organized atheism" questionable.
Might it not be possible, in the case of the more vociferous atheists, that they feel it is their duty or mission to open others' eyes to the Truth As They See It? Indeed, this is the same motivation that drives many evangelical Christians, so why shouldn't it drive atheists too?
No, not as a scientific authority, but as a factual authority. God's word has been proven to be his word through analysis of its numeric undepinnings, and rejection of that fact is the biggest rejection of science that has ever occurred in history.
PhDs in Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Math, Astrophysics, Computer Science, etc
***********
I'm sorry they're no longer here.
Quite.
While it is true that evolution can by 'reformulated to be far from tautological', and when so formulated is a proper scientific theory, the polemical defenders of neo-Darwinism, Dawkins at their head, go out of their way to render the theory unfalsifiable, and thus non-scientific.
But I draw the line when ANYONE tells me that their belief system is better than mine,
Isn't that close to multiculturalism? Can't we say for instance that being a practicing Presbyterian is better than being a Pol Pot follower? A devout Buddhist better than being a Nazi. A productive agnostic better than being a serial killer? A stumble down drunk better than a terrorist suicide bomber?
that they are more moral than I am because they are a member of a religion,
Ultimately this is a claim of all religions. Follow these rule to be better and more moral. If you didn't believe that why would you be a believer and follower?
or when anyone gives me the "I'm right, you're wrong" line.
Are you objecting to them saying it or believing it? Saying it is rude, and perhaps obnoxious. Believing it is a part of the human condition. I prefer a gentle scepticism, myself, but that is for men of academic temperment. Men of action tend to believe they are right.
I chaulk much of "Bush hatred" up to academics hating the action-oriented stance of Bush, which is (to some extent I believe, though not to the extreme parody level promoted by idiots like the editors at the NY Times) based on his firm beliefs, including religious beliefs.
Dawkins isn't worth this thread, but maybe you are Junior. Has God hardened your heart?
The line about God hardening hearts (such as Pharaohs) is often misread. It is not that God actively reached out and forced someone's heart to harden. It was that, to Pharaoh, the thought of a God greater than him and his gods caused anger that hardened his heart.
Anger at God's greatness is not the only way that hearts are hardened by thoughts of God. Overweening confidence that one is in good with God, correct or not, can lead to the arrogance of assuming that others are damned or otherwise doomed. Such arrogance can cut one off from other people and lead to a hardening of the heart as hard as Pharaoh's.
I suggest that you look to your own heart before condemning another's.
I don't put a lot of stock into a theory of divinely guided evolution, because I'm not at all wedded to the idea of general evolution, but it's at least a possibility. God could have created things over a long period of time rather than all at once. Genesis describes the creation as taking place in 6 days, but the meaning of "day" is not set in concrete when you consider that the sun and the moon weren't around to mark the passage of time in days and weeks for the first few of these days. Evidently the plants were created earlier than the fish and birds, they were created earlier than the beasts, and everything else was created earlier than man.
By a few days, or perhaps by a much longer passage of time.
There's nothing in the account to suggest one thing changing into another, so whether animals could have developed from plants with the help of divine guidance is still really nothing but conjecture, and still unproved by scientific evidence as far as I know. But with God all things are possible, so I don't think it can be entirely ruled out.
God could have developed earlier monkey like creatures toward the human, and then at some point made them human by inserting souls into a specific pair, Adam and Eve. Frankly, I doubt it. What similarities there are between animal and human DNA can be explained not only by inheritance, but also by God's choice in creating them by using partly similar building blocks. But in any case, general evolution certainly couldn't have happened without divine involvement in the process, for purely scientific and logical reasons.
(Why? Didn't it evolve from something, like viruses? What about viruses? Are they living or not? What's the transition between viruses and single celled bacteria and if viruses are living, that would be evolution. And if viruses are living they had to evolve from something else. What was that?)
I don't know what you are trying to say, scientists have never said viruses evolved into single celled bacteria. There is a great to debate about whether or not a virus is a living thing. It is a microparticle that can only replicate by attaching itself to a living cell. It doesn't meet the requirements of a living organism. They did not "transition " into bacteria. If anything it is the other way around.
Look, you can keep saying "WHERE DID THIS COME FROM" or "WHERE DID THAT COME FROM" but it won't change the fact that whatever the answer is HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
Here is the definition of Evolution (courtesy of Wikipedia):
In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by changes in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones.
All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record
---
Notice something? There is NO MENTION OF THE ORIGINS OF LIFE. It doesn't matter. ABIOGENESIS is the area of science that concerns itself with the Origin of Life.
If every single idea in abiogenesis science is debunked, the Theory of Evolution would remained unscathed. Ok, get it now?
It took awhile, but they finally figured out they were wasting their time.
They may be back, but clearly they were frustrated that their agenda wasn't making much headway here.
True Believers never allow facts or logic to penetrate their brain. Whether you want to believe that the "Darwinists" are the True Believers, or the "Christians" are the True Believers is irrelevant. Both are equally immune to reason.
No, it's not a case of perception. There is plenty of outright hostility for all atheists on this board, not for anything any individual among us has done, but merely for being members of this unorganized grouping of atheists, a small number of which are strident and vocal in their anti-religiousness. Nonetheless, I will continue to treat individual Christians with respect, despite the fact that as an atheist I get little but abuse from Christians as a group.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.