Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Chance favors the prepared mind - Louis Pasteur

Hey Spider, This Is For You
by Lee

We haven’t had a good creation vs. evolution flame war debate around here in a while, so it was with great amusement that I read this article called Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid (Spiders).

Spiders are able to make seven different types of webs, which they use for different purposes, such as for catching prey, for walking on, for anchor points, for wrapping prey, and for other functions. It is ridiculous to suggest that a creature could randomly develop the irreducibly complex apparatuses to make and eject one type of webbing, but to make seven types is mind-boggling. An irreducibly complex apparatus is something that could not operate if even one of its components were missing. The chances of something of this nature to appear by accident with all of its necessary parts intact are essentially zero.

Note the conspicuous lack of any actual mathematics to support this claim, it’s just taken as an article of faith.  The author then goes on to list a whole slew of really snazzy things that spiders are able to do, really amazing nature-show type stuff that you’ve probably never heard of.  He continues:

A very lengthy book could be written on the miraculous nature of spiders, but I’ll stop here for now. Spiders are amazingly sophisticated creations, and give us many reasons to stand in awe of God’s creativity.

In other words, look at all these cool things spiders can do.  Since these things are impressive, it’s obviously evidence of creation.  Oddly enough, the fact that lichen are relatively simple from a biological standpoint is not evidence of the opposite position.  Complexity shows evidence of creation, but simplicity also is evidence of creation.  It’s almost like this isn’t actually science!

Oddly, one of Kent Hovind’s video debates was against a woman professor from Augusta University whose area of expertise was, of all things, spiders. All of this incredible evidence lay before her, and she was probably aware of all of it (I say probably because she was an incompetent scientist even by evolutionist standards), so she should have known better than anyone that spiders are evidence of intelligent design. In spite of this, she defended a nonsensical and irrational theory called the theory of evolution.

Which this entire article does nothing to discredit.  They use a nonsensical and irrational philosophical argument to try and disprove a scientific argument.

It was, however, clear that her hatred for God’s people overruled any standards of scientific objectivity that she might have had. Her hatred and hostility toward Christianity and Christian values were not hidden during the debate.

Ah, Christian victimhood.  This woman wasn’t merely opposed to creationism because it’s an asinine, unsupported, unscientific piece of faith-based philosophical drivel, it’s because she “hates Christianity.”

I saw a magician once.  He reached into my ear and pulled out a quarter.  It was amazing!  I have absolutely no idea how the quarter got there.  I didn’t put it there, and even if I did, how did the magician know it was there?  Besides, a quarter is too big to fit into my ear.  Yet there it was!  The very fact that this quarter was in my ear clearly defies the “laws” of physics.  “Science” tells us that there is no way that this quarter could have fit into a hole with a smaller dimension, but there it was!  So much for “science” having all the answers! 

Obviously this is proof that the magician who pulled the quarter from my ear has divine powers, and is able to transcend the immutable laws of the universe.  I hereby propose that we all unquestioningly accept his divinity, and worship him as our God.

Posted by Lee on 07/28/05 at 08:14 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 07/28/05 at 10:09 PM from United Kingdom

The scarry thing is the magician “argument” contains more science than creationism/intelligient design. You actually have a premis, an argument and a conclusion; thats more then the premis + conclusion contained in creationsim.

Posted by on 07/28/05 at 10:17 PM from Australia

I thought “Intelligent Design” wasn’t supposed to be about the Christian theory of Creation that comes from Genesis?  But this guy claims the Spider Woman debunks ID because of her

hatred and hostility toward Christianity and Christian values

I see ....

Did you notice the endnotes to this report?  He had to use evidence of the spider’s divine origin that was written by an eviil Muslim.

Posted by on 07/28/05 at 10:25 PM from United Kingdom

I thought “Intelligent Design” wasn’t supposed to be about the Christian theory of Creation that comes from Genesis?  But this guy claims the Spider Woman debunks ID because of her

You are soooo missing the point. You are using logic in a discussion about ID. Whenever you feel yourself doing that, give yourself a slap. It will save a lot of confusion.

Posted by on 07/28/05 at 10:27 PM from United Kingdom

For a further example of the use of logic by people who believe ID, you only need to read their welcoming page:

First, it was Ivan the Terrible last September, then Dennis the Menace last Sunday! What a year for Pensacola! The damage from Dennis was minor compared to Ivan. God protected us once again. Preliminary assessments show the damage to our ministry from Dennis was probably less than $20,000.

God protected us from the damage, apart from the $20k damage he caused that is.

Posted by crash on 07/28/05 at 11:03 PM from United States

I’d like to look at this quote a bit more:

All of this incredible evidence lay before her, and she was probably aware of all of it (I say probably because she was an incompetent scientist even by evolutionist standards), so she should have known better than anyone that spiders are evidence of intelligent design.

Sooooo....lemme see if I’ve got this right. He’s arguing that he’s right because an incompetent scientist could not prove he’s wrong? That’s like someone arguing with a toddler about the benefits of Social Security, and then using thier bewilderment as evidence that SS is a great system.

Posted by on 07/28/05 at 11:25 PM from United States

I hereby propose that we all unquestioningly accept his divinity, and worship him as our God.

...and his name is Teller.

Posted by on 07/28/05 at 11:27 PM from United States

Oddly enough, the fact that lichen are relatively simple from a biological standpoint is not evidence of the opposite position.

Hey, there especially tenacious though. Even a 4800psi pressure washer won’t get them off my driveway!

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 12:15 AM from United States

Hence the use of herbicides - oops, that damned science again.....

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 12:33 AM from United States

Note the conspicuous lack of any actual mathematics to support this claim, it’s just taken as an article of faith.

Not a trick question, but what exactly do you mean “mathematics”? How does that connect to spider webs?

In other words, look at all these cool things spiders can do.  Since these things are impressive, it’s obviously evidence of creation.  Oddly enough, the fact that lichen are relatively simple from a biological standpoint is not evidence of the opposite position.  Complexity shows evidence of creation, but simplicity also is evidence of creation.  It’s almost like this isn’t actually science!

No that wasn’t his point. He mentions something called “irreduceable complexity”, whic is what he is talking about. It means that something is so complicated that if you take out one part the whole thing wouldn’t work, so obviously it can’t evolve. It is like famous eye example. How does an eye evolve if unless you have a working eye there are no benefits to allow a higher chance of you passing on your genes? Same thing with flight.

Which this entire article does nothing to discredit.  They use a nonsensical and irrational philosophical argument to try and disprove a scientific argument.

See above.

Ah, Christian victimhood.  This woman wasn’t merely opposed to creationism because it’s an asinine, unsupported, unscientific piece of faith-based philosophical drivel, it’s because she “hates Christianity.”

Now I wasn’t there for the debate so I obviously have no idea exactly what was said and by who, but this woman could have been legitimatly attacking Christians. I don’t really see how that is so unbeilevable especially after reading some of the comments on this post.

I have absolutely no idea how the quarter got there

The author wasn’t inferring that God exists because something is cool. He is saying that something couldn’t have existed using a scientifically known phenomenon.

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/29/05 at 12:39 AM from United States

How does an eye evolve if unless you have a working eye there are no benefits to allow a higher chance of you passing on your genes?

{clears throat}

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 12:43 AM from United States

How does an eye evolve if unless you have a working eye there are no benefits to allow a higher chance of you passing on your genes?

{clears throat}

Is there an answer to that question somewhere on that website? I even followed a couple links from it and none them have any physical evidence of anything.

This is my favoriet part.

However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872)

Wow, that sounds like hard hitting scientific evidence to me. You evolutionists sure know how to prove your point.

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/29/05 at 12:46 AM from United States

You asked how an eye would evolve. A series of intermediate steps showing EXACTLY how it could be done was provided, yet you claim to not see an answer?

No wonder “you creationists” never bring any real evidence. You wouldn’t recognize evidence if it was simultaneously pissing in your lap and chewing off your nose.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 12:50 AM from United States

Isn’t the spider reference the same thing Lee does when he focuses his microscopic glare at a single incident of goat-fucking in Sweden or gun violence in Canada, then uses it to prove his “point” that non US countries have it all wrong and our country obviously does everything right?

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 12:52 AM from United States

How is how something “might” have happend evidence for anything?

First of all i never asked “how and eye would evolve”, I said “How does an eye evolve if unless you have a working eye there are no benefits to allow a higher chance of you passing on your genes?” which still stands. Even the lowest point on that chain is a “photosensitive cell”, where did that come from?

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 12:57 AM from United States

Even the lowest point on that chain is a “photosensitive cell”, where did that come from?

From angel droppings. ;)

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/29/05 at 12:59 AM from United States

How is how something “might” have happend evidence for anything?

So, your alternative is that it “just popped in out of nowhere”?

I’d love proof. ANY sort of verifiable proof. Something other than the argument that evolution can’t possibly be true.

Got any?

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/29/05 at 01:01 AM from United States

Even the lowest point on that chain is a “photosensitive cell”, where did that come from?

ALGAE is photosensitive, you twit. Plants turn their surfaces to face the sun, yet they manage it without eyes.

Don’t those count as “photosensitive cells”? Or is that too much nose-chewing for you to notice?

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:05 AM from United States

I have something that will blow everyones mind…

Where did God come from?

Suspenseful music playing.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:11 AM from United States

So, your alternative is that it “just popped in out of nowhere”?

I’d love proof. ANY sort of verifiable proof. Something other than the argument that evolution can’t possibly be true.

Got any?

First of all I never said that everything I beleive is grounded in 100% provable fact. Faith is faith. I know that. I have it, just like you have faith in evolution (remember the fact that you beleive that eyes evolved, even though there isn’t any actual evidence that it is even possible). Secondly, the alternative isn’t that “it just popped out of nowhere”, that is your belief not mine.

I beleive that the earth was created, by a incredibly intelligent God. You beleive that matter that came from nowhere somehow exploded with energy that has no source eventually, somehow, unprovablely became life.

You want something that shows evolution couldn’t have happend? Lets stick with the eye. I want you (because everything you BELEIVE is founded in 100% provable fact, not like us simpleton creationists) to show evidence of how an eye can evolve. Not giving me some graph of how it might of happend. I want real physical evidence that something that may have been just a lump of skin cells can somehow figure out how to become the rudiments of eyes. And then show how that rudiment, can be beneficial enough to allow that life form a higher chance of survival and thus pass its genes on.

If you can’t(which you can’t), I don’t expect you to change your mind. Just maybe accept the fact that you have just as much faith in your religion that I do in mine.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:17 AM from United States

ALGAE is photosensitive, you twit. Plants turn their surfaces to face the sun, yet they manage it without eyes.

Don’t those count as “photosensitive cells”? Or is that too much nose-chewing for you to notice?

And you point is? I never said photosensitive cells don’t exist. I asked where they came from.

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/29/05 at 01:20 AM from United States

First of all I never said that everything I beleive is grounded in 100% provable fact.

Ah, that’s good science!

You want something that shows evolution couldn’t have happend?

No, I asked for proof that everything popped in out of nowhere. Do you have anything like that, or more of that “second verse, same as the first” chorus of “evolution is false, so creation MUST be true!”

That nothing but the sheerest bullshit, because (and I cannot stress this enough):

DISPROVING ONE THEORY DOES NOT PROVE ANY OTHER THEORY. You may even be able to do which no one has ever been able to adequately do - disprove evolution entriely. (You won’t, because the world around you proves it every day. You prove it simply by existing.)

Now, having driven your blood pressure to the boiling point, let me point out something you have obviously failed to grasp. Evolution does not explain how life got started, only what has been happening to it since that time.

Think about it. If you can.

Still waiting for that evidence, btw…

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/29/05 at 01:23 AM from United States

I asked where they came from.

Just like everything else. As life adapted to the changing circumstances, the living plant cells had to learn to draw energy from something other than the warmth of the ocean waters. The major source of energy was that big ol’ bright light in the sky. (Maybe you’ve heard of it?)

Those plants who could draw energy from that source were more efficient in propagating themselves.

See how that works? Survival of the fittest. EVOLUTION.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 07/29/05 at 01:27 AM from United States

Drumwaster: For some fundamentalists, it seems to be Survival of the Witless.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:27 AM from United States

Faith is faith. I know that. I have it, just like you have faith in evolution

That’s the problem with creationists. Everything is faith based, even science. Science does not depend on faith. Dur!

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:30 AM from United States

Just because science doesn’t have all the answers, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have any of the answers.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:39 AM from United States

The funny part about CI is that all of its proponents have absolutely no fucking idea as to what they are really talking about.

Soft of like preschoolers explaining the miniature people in the radio or something......

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:40 AM from United States

Just like everything else. As life adapted to the changing circumstances, the living plant cells had to learn to draw energy from something other than the warmth of the ocean waters. The major source of energy was that big ol’ bright light in the sky. (Maybe you’ve heard of it?)

Those plants who could draw energy from that source were more efficient in propagating themselves.

See how that works? Survival of the fittest. EVOLUTION.

You see, my probelem with you kind of evolutionist is that, if I beleive something in the Bible with no real evidence to back it up I am “sticking my fingers in my ears” or just being a retard to not beleiveing the almighty Science. And you all talk like you have hard scientific evidence for everything you think is true and then you give me links to websites that use words like “maybe”, “might”, “could have"… And think that is supposed to prove your point.

You are no differnt than me Drum. We both beleive something. You just think you live in a world where your beleifs are completely grounded in provable scientific fact.

And why are you asking me to show you evidence of a young earth? I could show you something like the magnetic field of the planet, or our distance to the sun, or dust on the moon, or yada yada yada.

Then you know what you would do? You would find some link to a website to “proves” what I said was wrong. Of course the article would be litterd with words like the ones stated above but you will still think you would have proven me wrong.

Or you will say “disproveing evolution doesn’t prove Creation”, which in no way will help your point.

So I am trying to approach this a differnt way. I am trying to show the logical lie that is evolution with the eye argument. If the eye cannot evolve, then the eye DID NOT evolve. Do you understand that logic? If the eye DID NOT evolve, evolution didn’t happen. Therefore if you cannot come up with a provable scientific way the eye could evolve, you BElEIVE it did. Which puts you in the same boat as me.

Posted by Lee on 07/29/05 at 01:43 AM from United States

ALGAE is photosensitive, you twit. Plants turn their surfaces to face the sun, yet they manage it without eyes.

This type of plant motion (a heliotropism) is pretty good evidence of evolution.  Imagine the stalk of a plant going straight up vertically.  The sun comes up and shines on one side of the plant.  Plants are made largely of water, and water contracts when it warms—elemental physics.  Because the sun is heating one side of the stalk, those cells will contract while the cells on the other side of the stalk stay the same size.  This will cause the stalk of the plant to (gasp!) bend towards the sun, maximizing the rate at which plants can photosynthesize.  As the sun travels across the sky different sections of the plant will expand and contract, causing the plant to “follow” the sun wherever it goes.

It just seems so perfect, doesn’t it?  Fundamental physics could explain how higher-level plants could evolve.  If you were tryin g to design a natural system by which certain plants would survive and reproduce at a higher rate than others, you couldn’t come up with a better example than a heliotropism.

Or, if you want, you can look at this explanation and say, “That’s the way God planned it.” You choose.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:43 AM from United States

Just because science doesn’t have all the answers, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have any of the answers.

Quote me where I said science is bad. Or that science doesn’t have the answers.

The definition the word “science”.

knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

Really? Where is the tested science on how the eye evolves? Cause in my book (no pun intended) the word “might” doesn’t qualify as science.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:49 AM from United States

This type of plant motion (a heliotropism) is pretty good evidence of evolution.

What are you talking about Lee?  How is that evidence for evolution? Because something exists it must have evolved?

I honestly don’t understand what you are trying to prove here.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:50 AM from United States

Quote me where I said science is bad. Or that science doesn’t have the answers.

I wasn’t targeting you specifically with that comment. Rather, I was targeting a large number of creationists, some of whom post here with “science doesn’t have all the answers” comments. Well duh! Funny how many of the same people will point to the Bible saying, “It’s all right here.”

I couldn’t have any less respect for people of that ilk.

Posted by Lee on 07/29/05 at 01:51 AM from United States

So I am trying to approach this a differnt way. I am trying to show the logical lie that is evolution with the eye argument. If the eye cannot evolve, then the eye DID NOT evolve. Do you understand that logic? If the eye DID NOT evolve, evolution didn’t happen. Therefore if you cannot come up with a provable scientific way the eye could evolve, you BElEIVE it did. Which puts you in the same boat as me.

Provide to me a testable scientific way to prove that OJ killed those two people.  Unfortunately, there’s no way to do that, short of there being a videotape of the crime.  All we can do is collect the available evidence and draw a logical conclusion.  This is the scientific investigatory process.  We utilize this process in every aspect of our lives, every day.  I think it’s the height of ignorance to accept this process in every avenue of our lives except explaining the process of life, simply because it (a) doesn’t have an answer for *every* possible question you might ask, and (b) conflicts with the particular allegorical mythology of your individual religious beliefs.

Posted by dakrat on 07/29/05 at 01:52 AM from United States

ALGAE is photosensitive, you twit. Plants turn their surfaces to face the sun, yet they manage it without eyes.

Couldn’t say it better myself.

There is quite a bit of evidence believed to explain how spider silk evolved--And by the way it wasn’t always seven different webs (as the author claims) most spiders have seven different types of silk--not webs--as the article claims. 

Spiders are able to make seven different types of webs, which they use for different purposes, such as for catching prey, for walking on, for anchor points, for wrapping prey, and for other functions. It is ridiculous to suggest that a creature could randomly develop the irreducibly complex apparatuses to make and eject one type of webbing, but to make seven types is mind-boggling.

The webs of each species of spider remains the same.  Primitive spiders (the fossils go back hundreds of millions of years) don’t spin 7 kinds of silk.  The evidence points more towards the development of specializations with the more evolutionary advanced spiders having 7 types of silk.

Only mind-boggling to idiots.

Spider Evolution

Secondly, the alternative isn’t that “it just popped out of nowhere”, that is your belief not mine.

Well then if it isn’t your belief then just where did God come from?  Please remember, always was and always will be is not an acceptable theoretic answer.

All of the Intelligent Design (ID) people always claim that it has nothing to do with religion--really?

They say that an Intelligent Designer could be anything that seeded life on Earth, and that Intelligent Design is the only thing that can explain the complexity of life on this planet.

So following the principals of ID.  Let’s postulate that Intelligent Designers from Mars seeded Earth with life.  What are we to conclude from this?  By following ID philosophies, we can only conclude that the Designers from Mars were created by a more “Intelligent Designer.”

Following the ID line of reasoning to its logical conclusion means that somewhere along the line there was an Intelligent Designer that always was and always will be.

That is what this argument boils down to.  It is a battle between overwhelming observable evidence vs. sclerotic dogmatism.

Posted by dakrat on 07/29/05 at 02:03 AM from United States

This type of plant motion (a heliotropism) is pretty good evidence of evolution.  Imagine the stalk of a plant going straight up vertically.  The sun comes up and shines on one side of the plant.  Plants are made largely of water, and water contracts when it warms—elemental physics.

Also don’t forget that this property is only observed in water.  It is the only compound that expands when it gets cold.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 02:04 AM from United States

Hm....doing some quick research on the net, I found a site hosting the writings of a few different biologists commenting on the eye, and its supposed “complexity” and brilliance.

...not all features of the human eye make functional sense. Some are arbitrary. To begin at the grossest level, is there a good functional reason for having two eyes? Why not one or three or some other number? Yes, there is a reason: two is better than one because they permit stereoscopic vision and the gathering of three-dimensional information about the environment. But three would be better still. We could have our stereoscopic view of what lies ahead plus another eye to warn us of what might be sneaking up behind. (I have more suggestions for improving human vision in chapter 7.) When we examine each eye from behind, we find that there are six tiny muscles that move it so that it can point in different directions. Why six? Properly spaced and coordinated, three would suffice, just as three is an adequate number of legs for a photographer’s tripod. The paucity of eyes and excess of their muscles seem to have no functional explanation.

And some eye features are not merely arbitrary but clearly dysfunctional. The nerve fibers from the retinal rods and cones extend not inward toward the brain but outward toward the chamber of the eye and source of light. They have to gather into a bundle, the optic nerve, inside the eye, and exit via a hole in the retina. Even though the obstructing layer is microscopically thin, some light is lost from having to pass through the layer of nerve fibers and ganglia and especially the blood vessels that serve them. The eye is blind where the optic nerve exits through its hole. The loose application of the retina to the underlying sclera makes the eye vulnerable to the serious medical problem of detached retina. It would not be if the nerve fibers passed through the sclera and formed the optic nerve behind the eye. This functionally sensible arrangement is in fact what is found in the eye of a squid and other mollusks (as shown in the figure below), but our eyes, and those of all other vertebrates, have the functionally stupid upside-down orientation of the retina.

Just thought that it was rather interesting the various different imperfections of the eye.  I think that the eye is no where near its possible potential is being an awesome organ of the body created by God.  It seems instead that it is in imperfect, evolved organ that grew in its own way, whether random or be intelligent design.

More and more, even though I believe in the Christian God, I am leaning towards the idea that God poked our little world into extistance and started the ball of life rolling and that the natural process of evolution began from that “poke.” But heh, what do I know?

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 02:08 AM from United States

Provide to me a testable scientific way to prove that OJ killed those two people.

You are missing my point Lee. The whole eye subject has to do with whether or not it can evolve.

There are several differnt evolution theorys but the most common and accepted is that every now and then a mutation happens in a creature, and sometimes it is beneficial. The benefit allows the animal a greater chance at survival and pass on its genes thus allowing its offspring to have its same benfits and through time even more.

The problem with the eye (and many other natural devices including flight) is that unless you have a fully functioning eye it is useless and provides no benefit and therfore no passing on of the genes.

Let me give you an example, what came first the wing, or the muscles that move the wing?

Saying that algea is photosensitive doesn’t prove by any means that it evolved in an eye or is even in any way related to the eye’s origin. Plus it still doesn’t explain where a photo sensitive cell comes from.

Posted by dakrat on 07/29/05 at 02:09 AM from United States

That is what this argument boils down to.  It is a battle between overwhelming observable evidence vs. sclerotic dogmatism

Actually the last part should read.  “A battle between logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence vs. sclerotic dogmatism.”

Sorry for the omission.

Long live the Spaghetti Monster!

/pirate regalia

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 02:15 AM from United States

Desertfox, saying something could be better isn’t proof that it evolved. Sure you could ask why God didn’t give us Laser eyes to help with hunting, but what would be the point? We exist the way we exist.

The statement in there about the nerves. I was reading something about that and I beleive it has to due with protection of UV rays from the sun.

Posted by dakrat on 07/29/05 at 02:20 AM from United States

The problem with the eye (and many other natural devices including flight) is that unless you have a fully functioning eye it is useless and provides no benefit and therfore no passing on of the genes.

Sorry fool, but seeing the world the way humans see it with a fully functioning eye does not need to exist to develop from rudimentary water contractions, to light detection, to movement with light detection, to seeing your potential mates, into a complete human eye in one generation as you seem to see it.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 02:22 AM from United States

Well then if it isn’t your belief then just where did God come from?  Please remember, always was and always will be is not an acceptable theoretic answer.

You are trying to put a physical limitation on something that exists outside of the physical realm.

A better question is, if God does exist, why would he HAVE to come from something?

And Dakrat your article about Spiders. Read the 5th paragraph. These words were taken from that one paragraph.

suspected, believed, pretty certain, some experts think

Wow that certainly sounds like hard hitting scientific fact to me. And remember, all those words came from 1 paragraph.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 02:24 AM from United States

Sorry fool, but seeing the world the way humans see it with a fully functioning eye does not need to exist to develop from rudimentary water contractions, to light detection, to movement with light detection, to seeing your potential mates, into a complete human eye in one generation as you seem to see it.

Really? What eveidence is there of this? If it is half as good as your spider article I am sure I will be impressed.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 02:26 AM from United States

Even the lowest point on that chain is a “photosensitive cell”, where did that come from?

Isn’t this the question that science (which itself is constantly evolving) seeks to help answer?

Religion simply tells us…

“hmmm, I don’t know, it’s very very complex, must be God.”

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 02:27 AM from United States

Sorry fool, but seeing the world the way humans see it with a fully functioning eye does not need to exist to develop from rudimentary water contractions, to light detection, to movement with light detection, to seeing your potential mates, into a complete human eye in one generation as you seem to see it.

Sorry for the post again but I forgot something. I am not talking about just human eyes I am talkin about all eyes in general.

Plant cells contracting because of sunlight is a far differnt and in no way similar to the process of sight.

Posted by dakrat on 07/29/05 at 02:30 AM from United States

A better question is, if God does exist, why would he HAVE to come from something?

OH!!! now I see.

Now I see exactly why I find more comfort in the phrase “shit happens,” than in “the Lord works in mysterious ways.”

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 02:30 AM from United States

Isn’t this the question that science (which itself is constantly evolving) seeks to help answer?

Science and God don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Just because a Creationist says “God did it” doesn’t mean he thinks we should drop our test tubes and go back to beating our women. You can beleive that God created the world and still try understand everything in it.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 02:35 AM from United States

More and more, even though I believe in the Christian God, I am leaning towards the idea that God poked our little world into extistance and started the ball of life rolling and that the natural process of evolution began from that “poke.” But heh, what do I know?

Well, that’s a big step.

So, when God decides to make the human race extinct (perhaps after the 1000 years of peace following Armageddon), what do you predict his next species of worshipers will be? 

Ants?  Cockroaches?  Republicans?

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 02:36 AM from United States

Now I see exactly why I find more comfort in the phrase “shit happens,” than in “the Lord works in mysterious ways.”

That doesn’t really answer the question. So it still stands. Why, if God does exist, did he have to come from something?

The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. However, it can not be created nor destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein’s famous equation describes the relationship between energy and matter.

This is what you are basing your question. Because “everything comes from something”. Which is an observable testable scientific fact. Which is exacty why it wouldn’t apply to God. Since he exists outside of these laws he is not subject to them.

So I will reiterate my question. Why, if God does exist, did he have to come from something?

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 02:38 AM from United States

Science and God don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

You have a point.

However, I do BELIEVE that Science and Christianity ARE mutually exclusive.

Posted by dakrat on 07/29/05 at 02:40 AM from United States

Just because a Creationist says “God did it” doesn’t mean he thinks we should drop our test tubes and go back to beating our women. You can beleive that God created the world and still try understand everything in it.

But your whole position in this seems (at least to me), to have taken on that evolution cannot exist. 

If you hold the position that God is somehow directing evolution, then we may reach a common ground that it is impossible to disprove one another.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 02:42 AM from United States

However, I do BELIEVE that Science and Christianity ARE mutually exclusive.

I am actually going to agree with you there a certain point. I really don’t agree with alot of other Christians and what they want done and what they have done in the past regarding science. Especially the Catholic church.

I for one don’t beleive that creation should be taught in public schools. But then again I don’t beleive in public schools so its a rather moot point.

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/29/05 at 02:43 AM from United States

And why are you asking me to show you evidence of a young earth?

I didn’t ask that. Try actually reading what I’m asking for, and see if you can put together something more on point than the tiresome “you must be wrong, therefire I’m right!” nonsense I usually hear when I ask for proof of creation.

The problem with the eye (and many other natural devices including flight) is that unless you have a fully functioning eye it is useless and provides no benefit and therfore no passing on of the genes.

You seem to think that only those things that provide an immediate and proven advantage can be passed on through the genes. That’s not how evolution works.

There are three major types of mutations: beneficial, fatal, and neutral.

The beneficial mutations increase the likelihood that the creature will survive and thrive as compared to his competition. The fatal mutations kill the organism off before it can propagate. But neutral mutations occur all the time, and have no effect on survival. These neutral mutations can continue to occur until they DO provide a benefit to survival.

Modern man adding technology to the mix has altered the equations. By creating glass and learning to shape it accurately, those who suffer from poorer vision are now better equipped to compete with those who do not need the help. By creating guns that can kill meat animals at a distance, you make even the most inept hunter the equal of someone who could sneak up on the animal and kill it with their bare hands.

Just because you cannot see the microscopic shifts from one generation of humans to the next does not mean that they could not have taken place.

Now do you actually have real evidence, or do we get to put your “everything just happened one day in mid-October, 6006BC” concept squarely on the “conjecture” pile?

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 02:45 AM from United States

If you hold the position that God is somehow directing evolution, then we may reach a common ground that it is impossible to disprove one another.

I beleive that God miraculously created the world and the universe and all life within it. But from that point on he was hands off. So I beleive that that created the world in 6 days and about 6 thousand years ago. But from that point on animals have gone extinct, species have changed(to a certain extent) and the world today is biologically a very differnt place than it used to be.

Posted by dakrat on 07/29/05 at 03:11 AM from United States

I beleive that God miraculously created the world and the universe and all life within it. But from that point on he was hands off. So I beleive that that created the world in 6 days and about 6 thousand years ago. But from that point on animals have gone extinct, species have changed(to a certain extent) and the world today is biologically a very differnt place than it used to be.

We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is.

AND THIS PART IS THE MOST ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT!!!

For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I for one, am proud to announce that I have been touched by his noodly appendage.

null

Posted by dakrat on 07/29/05 at 03:35 AM from United States

I for one, am proud to announce that I have been touched by his noodly appendage.

“Fools you have no perception.  The stakes we are gambling are frightningly high.”

Posted by Lee on 07/29/05 at 03:49 AM from United States

What are you talking about Lee?  How is that evidence for evolution? Because something exists it must have evolved?

I honestly don’t understand what you are trying to prove here.

Okay, let me explain.  Nature is the original natural system.  Natural systems promote efficiency with brutality.  The free market is another natural system.  It promotes the best allocation of scarce resources which have alternate uses, but it is brutal when doing so.  Nature cures problems of overcrowding with starvation, and the free market solves its problems in a similar manner.

Okay.  The Big Bang happens.  Molten matter congeals and forms spheres and balls of gas, which become stars and planets and galaxies and everything else we see in the universe.  Eventually our planet cools and becomes water and earth with certain gasses in the atmosphere.  Through some unknown process life begins.

This life has to evolve using only what it has available to it on this planet: solar energy, water, etc.  Live that uses elements not found on earth could not survive.  So over the aeons plants came into being.  They used carbon dioxide and gave off oxygen.  Does it not make perfect evolutionary sense that something would arise to take advantage of this oxygen, and that this organism would give off carbon dioxide?  Natural systems promote efficiency, and what we see here is exactly the type of perfectly efficient system that would arise through a natural evolutionary process.

My point about heliotropism follows this logic.  Given abundant amounts of carbon dioxide and solar energy, why does it not make perfect sense that the higher-evolved plants (a sunflower versus a lichen or a moss, for example) would be the ones that the laws of physics would assist in receiving the most solar energy?  This is a perfect system, completely in balance.

Creationists look at this balance, at this complexity, and say, “See?  Look at all this balance.  This is evidence of God at work.” But what you don’t see is that life could not exist without this balance.  No matter how unlikely it is that this balance would evolve on its own, the very fact that we are able to exist and contemplate the issue means that it is entirely possible that this balance could have evolved on its own.

What I mean is, lets say that the chances of life on Earth evolving to what we see today—fully sentient beings— are 100 thousand trillion to one.  Astronomical odds.  However, the alternative is no existence.  So no matter how unlikely our existence may be, the very fact that we are here to ask the question means that, if nothing else, this is a possibility.

I can go out and buy a lottery ticket every week for the rest of my life, and the chances of me ever winning anything are miniscule, even on a long timeframe.  But the fact is that every week *someone* wins the lottery, so therefore the possibility that I might win is present.  Now, if the alternative to winning was that I would never exist, I would never know that I lost because I would never have existed in the first place.

Complexity, in and of itself, is not “proof” of intelligence, no matter how unlikely that complexity may be, because the alternative is that we wouldn’t be here to question the issue to begin with.

Posted by Lee on 07/29/05 at 03:51 AM from United States

By the way, did anyone get the reference in the title to this post?

Posted by mikeguas on 07/29/05 at 03:58 AM from United States

I’m guessing Goodfellas. If I’m wrong, it was still a damn good movie.

Posted by Lee on 07/29/05 at 04:04 AM from United States

Yeah, that’s what Jimmy says to Spider right after Spider tells Tommy to go fuck himself.  Jimmy slaps a bill on the table and says “Hey Spider, this is for you!”

Posted by Manwhore on 07/29/05 at 04:37 AM from United States

Lee,

Even with a megaphone you can’t get through to the retards. I seriously think you are a sadist for travelling down death row once again.

This argument is as old as time. All one can hope for is that people can wake up and realize that their convictions aside, science has provided them the healthy lifestyle they live to this day. I put my faith in the scientific process, and understand that without heretics (heh) like Gallileo we would still be like monkeys throwing rocks at the unexplainable.

Posted by Manwhore on 07/29/05 at 04:39 AM from United States

I’m guessing Goodfellas. If I’m wrong, it was still a damn good movie.

“Spider, Spider! Dance mutha fucka, dance!”

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 04:49 AM from United Kingdom

Creationists are shooting themselves in the foot here when they keep referring to nature’s “accidents”, instead of what is really happening, natural selection.

Useful things in animals or plants are accidents, they are steps of evolution precisely orchestrated to gain an advantage of its predators.

There is one famous example about butterflies in London, back during the industrial revolution times.  The butterflies were initially silver, matching the brickwork perfectly to avoid detection. However once the industrial revolution hit, the buildings wern’t that light grey anymore, they were almost black with smog/soot. The butterlies faced extinction because they now contrasted with the buildings, so the evolved with a totally different skin pattern, so in a few years they were almost black with little bits of their original grey.

And spiders are nothing compared to the complexity or the ingenuity of a human being. A spider can spin a web? Geat. Now get that spider to build a modern computer, including producing the chip and motherboard. Ask a spider to get more spiders into space, and then back down again safely.

Posted by Manwhore on 07/29/05 at 04:59 AM from United States

Speaking of GoodFellas, if you watch closely Henry Hill never actually kills anyone in the film. Interesting in an era of whacking he was spotless. The only thing his story aids in was the accessory to murder.

Jaded story, anyone?

Posted by dakrat on 07/29/05 at 05:03 AM from United States

Okay, let me explain.  Nature is the original natural system.  Natural systems promote efficiency with brutality.  The free market is another natural system.  It promotes the best allocation of scarce resources which have alternate uses, but it is brutal when doing so.  Nature cures problems of overcrowding with starvation, and the free market solves its problems in a similar manner.

This is perfectly true.  There are no known exceptions to the law of demand. 

It doesn’t matter if the gov’t creates a right to beach front property.  There are still more people who want beach front property then there is beach front property.  How will these scarce resources be distributed?  There are many ways.  But there is only one moral way. 

It is also most important to note that scarcity and abundance are usually price phenomenon, that have nothing to do with physical scarcity. 

People will demand more at a lower price and demand less at a higher price.

Has anyone ever urged you to buy less yachts?

The arguements would be plethora.  However, all such arguements are summed up in the price tag of a yacht.

Posted by Aaron on 07/29/05 at 05:09 AM from United States

Useful things in animals or plants are accidents, they are steps of evolution precisely orchestrated to gain an advantage of its predators.

Well, no, they aren’t precisely orchestrated, unless you’re arguing that there is, in fact, a divine being behind it. No matter how much I wish for it, my kid won’t be able to fly.

They *are* accidents, but good accidents survive, bad accidents don’t.

Posted by Manwhore on 07/29/05 at 05:15 AM from United States

No matter how much I wish for it, my kid won’t be able to fly

Cmon, wasn’t Mary Poppins divine?

Posted by dakrat on 07/29/05 at 06:10 AM from United States

Plant cells contracting because of sunlight is a far differnt and in no way similar to the process of sight.

Oh Nooo.  Algae cells and fungi cells (by the way, are you actually educated enough to know that fungi are neither plant nor animal?) and ferns have nothing to do with light detection. 

Just like amphibians have nothing to do with “fish crawling out of the ocean.” How ridiculous!!!

And once again the anti-darwin award goes to....the perennial fool.  See...this person assumes that sight comes first.  Next he’ll have us beleive that Noah also had all of the dinosaurs on his “arc.” Naturally the biggest dinosaurs wouldn’t fit and went extinct.  He couldn’t find any unicorns--that’s why there are none today.

God made a bet with the devil that Job would be faithful--if this is how God treats his faithful--he’d better keep his fucking hands off of me!!!

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 08:19 AM from United States

Lee,

You lost me on this one: 

No matter how unlikely it is that this balance would evolve on its own, the very fact that we are able to exist and contemplate the issue means that it is entirely possible that this balance could have evolved on its own.

You sound like you are saying that if Evolution isn’t true then we wouldn’t be here, so that is proof?  Are you trying to say that your belief has to be true because nothing else is possible?

Personally I believe in God, I also believe that he created the Universe, etc.  When the Bible says that he did it in 6 days, I don’t know how long that is to us, remembering that the Bible also says that our life span is but a blink of an eye, it may be that each day to God is 1 million years to us, who knows?  It could be that God started life with the plan for it to go through some Evolutionary changes to get the final result. 

I don’t totally buy into the ‘From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo’ theory, but some micro-evolution I can understand and accept.  It’s the macro that I believe is somebody’s imagination working overtime, but that’s just me.

Dirk was just pointing out that Evolution also has gaps in the theory that don’t explain everything (we weren’t there) so they make the best guess that they can to fill in the blanks, using the information that they have collected.  It isn’t unusual for them to later find out that their previous assumptions were wrong and have to change the theory with new evidence found and collected.  To call someone names and paint them out to be nuts for believing something different when there isn’t any solid proof either way is childish....

I guess it comes down to this:  If I’m wrong, when I die I will be dead...and will have lost nothing.  If you are wrong, when you die you may be heading to the hot spot, and will have lost everything.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 09:48 AM from United States

I guess it comes down to this:  If I’m wrong, when I die I will be dead...and will have lost nothing.  If you are wrong, when you die you may be heading to the hot spot, and will have lost everything.

Debsay makes a very good point here.  Other than having to endure comments like this -

This woman wasn’t merely opposed to creationism because it’s an asinine, unsupported, unscientific piece of faith-based philosophical drivel

and this -

No wonder “you creationists” never bring any real evidence. You wouldn’t recognize evidence if it was simultaneously pissing in your lap and chewing off your nose.

and this -

Even with a megaphone you can’t get through to the retards.

So, other than being told repeatedly by you non-believers that we are ignorant retards, what is so bad about us believing in God?  Please tell me, if I die tomorrow and find out that I was wrong, and you were right, there is no God, WHAT will I have missed out on in my life as a believer and what harm was done?  What will be the consequences of my belief? 

On the other hand, as Debsay points out, what if you non-believers find out the day of your death that he does indeed exist?  What are your conseqences?

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 09:55 AM from United States

umm punky?  It was moths, and that little experiment has been disproven.  The photographs were faked.  Google it. 

Drumwaster, going back to your “survival of the fittest = evolution” Who are the fittest?  Oh and that’s natural selection.  Get the definitions straight before we argue this point.  Natural selection is just a part of the evolutionary tale.  As it is a part the creation tale.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 09:58 AM from United States

Lee,

Don’t quote Drdino.  He has no idea what he is talking about. Look up Russell Humphreys, John Baumgardner, John Woodmorappe, to name a few instead.  They actually know what science is.. and what it isn’t.  Oh ya, they are creationists in case you missed that part.

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/29/05 at 10:22 AM from United States

Natural selection is just a part of the evolutionary tale.  As it is a part the creation tale.

Natural selection is NOT a part of the Creation mythos, because that very mythos states that everything was created fully formed and “perfect”, just a few thousand years ago, as though it had sprung fully-grown from the forehead of Croesus.

Evolution looks at the world, sees the changes taking place, and projects that process backwards in time, and loand behold, every bit of physical VERIFIABLE evidence found to date supports this theory.

I have yet to see a single Creationist provide so much as a butterfly that they can prove sprang from nothing, but I remain ever hopeful.

If anyone has evidence IN FAVOR OF Creation, please provide it. However, if all you have is the “your theory is wrong, so mine MUST be right”, don’t waste any of my time.

Now, do you actually have evidence? Or are you just going to keep trying to disprove evolution? Have you managed to disprove the Spaghetti Monster Theory yet? How about the rest of the Top Ten Creation Myths?

Do you understand why you can’t prove one theory “right” by attempting to prove an alternate theory “wrong”? It’s because those aren’t the only two choices…

Are you capable of drawing that distinction? Do you actually have any evidence in favor of Creation?

Put up or shut up time, boychik.

Posted by HARLEY on 07/29/05 at 10:45 AM from United States

I really don’t know why people wont accept this theory…

GOD says “Let there be light”, he kicks back with a god sized beer and pl ayes the game....  with few nudges here and there, and lets randomness take its course.....

I mean we all have played Simcity/SimEarth and the like haven’t we?
Given the age of the universe, i would not be spreed if Kang from planet Zeldar show ups one day and claims that HE started a silly little religion that gout out of control.....

uhh....
what ever… Drum, good link there on the eye…

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 10:49 AM from United States

"On the other hand, as Debsay points out, what if you non-believers find out the day of your death that he does indeed exist?  What are your conseqences?”

Don’t challenge them with faith-based fears, RepMom.  Anyone who states to believe in the God of the bible then bash the entire creation story and dismiss it as a “tall tale” (and as a side, to fully embrace evolution devoid of a creator), is trying to have it both ways.  It just can’t work.  In their supposed superior position, humans understand all, or at least enough to debunk that bible myth.

And atheists simply won’t listen.  They are actually superior to anti-creation christians due to the fact that they are at least consistent on both sides of the issue.

If your superior human brain (and ego, IMO) just can’t let you embrace ID or creationism as a plausible explanation for the origin of life, then that is problem #1 to overcome.  Humility is a key requirement for faith.  But I sense most of you will simply dismiss that as blind Christian stupidity or similar.

“By faith we understand that everything was created at God’s hand, so that what IS seen did not come from what WAS visible”

Heb 11:6 (NIV)

I would add humility as an aspect of faith in Paul’s words in this statement.

I’m a chemist.  Molecular theory is a good idea.  I would NEVER say that any aspect of molecular theory denied the existence of God (if it did). 

Prior to relativity and quantum mechanics, physicists were ABSOLUTELY sure that the “ether” was a heretofore undetected medium that must exist to harmonize the laws of electromagnetism, classical mechanics and light transmission.  Students were taught that the “ether” was a fact. It was a theory.  Relativity and Quantum Mechanics made it obsolete.

Per RepMom’s idea, I am not willing to state that there is no Creator based on any human theory.  But it still can be a good theory.

We’re only human, after all....

Dave D.

Posted by HARLEY on 07/29/05 at 10:52 AM from United States

Question, would not a less diversified animal and plant kingdom be stronger proof of a all powerfully deity?
I mean, Why the hell would God created 10,000 varieties of insects each with 100’s of their own divisions with in their own Phylum?
ther eis no purpose in that.
Such great varity is a VERY strong incicator of evolution....

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/29/05 at 11:06 AM from United States

By faith we understand that everything was created at God’s hand

Once you accept something “by faith”, you can never think about it rationally again, ignoring any evidence to the contrary and dismissing any arguments as ‘sacriligeous’ or ‘blasphemous’.

How nice for you all.

However, once again, evolution has never claimed to explain how life got started, only what has happened to it since that time (and continues to this day).

If it started as algae curdling on the shores of a primodial seas, so be it. If it started ten thousand years ago, with the earth created to look billions of years old (including all of those dinosaur fossils and millions of years of sedimentary layering) just to fuck with those who are trying to make sense of the world around us, that does not change the fact that evolution is still occurring.

So if throwing up your metaphorical hands and saying “Hey, it must have been that man on the moon” is what it takes to cope with a scary world where nothing really makes sense, then that’s fine. But you’ll never be able to prove that you are right without something that you can never whip up out of thin air - EVIDENCE. If God can creat an entire universe in six days, surely ONE of you creationists would have been able to come up with so much as a single scrap of evidence in the last hundred years or more, right?

RIGHT?

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 11:10 AM from United States

And people wonder why I’m a huge fan of James Randi, despite his lean to the left.

--TR

Posted by Aaron on 07/29/05 at 11:10 AM from United States

It was moths, and that little experiment has been disproven.  The photographs were faked.  Google it. 

That’s not quite right: There were merely some holes in the followup experiment. (For example, they didn’t consider that birds can see ultraviolent light quite a lot better than we can.)

The original claim, that the peppered moth population changed in parallel with soot levels, is totally correct. However, it’s just common sense: Trees are white, white moths hide on them, black moths get eaten. Trees are black, white moths get eaten, black moths live.

That isn’t even evolution, because a new species wasn’t created: It’s just one population rising while the other falls. However, it does show how a beneficial mutation, if inherited, can cause that mutation to rise in the population.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 11:45 AM from United States

So if throwing up your metaphorical hands and saying “Hey, it must have been that man on the moon” is what it takes to cope with a scary world where nothing really makes sense, then that’s fine. But you’ll never be able to prove that you are right without something that you can never whip up out of thin air - EVIDENCE. If God can creat an entire universe in six days, surely ONE of you creationists would have been able to come up with so much as a single scrap of evidence in the last hundred years or more, right?

So, the theory of evolution helps you cope with the scary world?  Good.  Whatever works for you.

I may be oversimplifing the situation, but it seems the issue here (or at least part of it) is that most of us here who believe that God exists and that he created the universe don’t necessarily feel the need to PROVE this to those who believe otherwise. 

On the other hand, some of you here who believe that the possibility of the existence of a God who created the universe is nothing but pure hogwash, seem to have made it your life’s mission to prove to us believer’s that we are wrong.  Why is that?  Why is it so important to convince us that you are right and we are wrong?  And why the need to belittle us because we don’t allow your arguments to change our beliefs?

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 11:49 AM from United States

I guess it comes down to this:  If I’m wrong, when I die I will be dead...and will have lost nothing.  If you are wrong, when you die you may be heading to the hot spot, and will have lost everything.

That is just plain shit…

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 11:54 AM from United States

I guess it comes down to this:  If I’m wrong, when I die I will be dead...and will have lost nothing.  If you are wrong, when you die you may be heading to the hot spot, and will have lost everything.

That is just plain shit…

Why?

Posted by sneaky_pete on 07/29/05 at 11:54 AM from United States

First, let me say that I am a Christian who believes in evolution.  I don’t believe in a literal 7 day interpretation of Genesis, I do not believe in a literal Adam & Eve, etc.  That said, I want to point out the sensationalism and entertainment behind Lee’s “taking apart” of the article.

In other words, look at all these cool things spiders can do.  Since these things are impressive, it’s obviously evidence of creation.

Most people who read the article aren’t familiar with the detailed workings of spiders.  I can see how you think this is meant to impress/intimidate the reader into thinking the author knows what he’s talking about, and then it makes statements about Creationism.  That technique’s a little shady, but it doesn’t invalidate the logic behind argument (which I think you missed).

Oddly enough, the fact that lichen are relatively simple from a biological standpoint is not evidence of the opposite position.  Complexity shows evidence of creation, but simplicity also is evidence of creation.  It’s almost like this isn’t actually science!

I don’t think that’s objective or fair, Lee.  If we looked at a desert that was bombed and pointed toward the charred sand as evidence of a bombing, would you criticize that inference by saying that the un-charred sand is evidence that the desert in question had NOT been bombed?  I doubt it.  Evidence, where it exists, trumps lack of evidence.  The presence of simplicity is not an argument for evolution, the lack of complexity is. 

They use a nonsensical and irrational philosophical argument to try and disprove a scientific argument.

Really?  I think the point is that so many complicated parts are required to enable a spider to spin a web that when those parts were first beginning to show (but not yet functional) there would be no advantage for the spider with an incomplete web-spinning system over a spider with NO web-spinning parts.  Another popular argument along these lines is the development of an eye.  The eye is a complex thing; it takes many parts to function.  But when, according to evolution, all of the creatures in the sea were blindly swimming around, and one mutated creature was born with a discolored area of skin where the eye would eventually evolve, what advantage would that organism have over the others?  Complex jumps in evolution do not fit the “survival of the fittest” mentality.  You don’t suddenly have offspring with a fully developed “defect” that gives it an advantage over its peers.

Ah, Christian victimhood.  This woman wasn’t merely opposed to creationism because it’s an asinine, unsupported, unscientific piece of faith-based philosophical drivel, it’s because she “hates Christianity.”

Ok, that’s pretty whiny, special-interest, boohoo I’m a persecuted Christian.  I’ll give you that.  It doesn’t help the argument logically, it just rallies the Christian against the common “enemy”: EVOLUTION!  (bum bum bummmm) Your criticism is valid, but your total dismissal of the idea in question because of a poor argument is not.

I saw a magician once.  He reached into my ear and pulled out a quarter...The very fact that this quarter was in my ear clearly defies the “laws” of physics.  “Science” tells us that there is no way that this quarter could have fit into a hole with a smaller dimension, but there it was!  So much for “science” having all the answers!

Nice straw man.  Who fell for it?

The main reason I believe in a Creator (and yes, there can be a God who set evolution into place.  The big beef with Christians is that they don’t like the idea of evolving from an animal into a human with a soul.  How does a soul evolve?  That’s a debate for another day, perhaps) is the zero to one problem.  How did something come from nothing?  Evolution from one living cell to where we are today, well, I have no problem with that.  But from nothing to one cell?  How did that happen?  Did a protein puddle get struck by lightning?

And even then, how did the puddle get there?  The lightning?  Have rocks been floating in space for forever?  Or was there a beginning?  Think about it for a while and be honest with yourself.  What takes more faith to believe?

Posted by sneaky_pete on 07/29/05 at 11:55 AM from United States

(continued)

Note the conspicuous lack of any actual mathematics to support this claim, it’s just taken as an article of faith.

Ok, here’s some math for you.  The human DNA strand, made up of four basic elements and millions rows long, is complicated organization, is it not?  Would the organism still function if the DNA were arranged?  Would it?  The whole strand has to be in exactly the right order.

Ok, now let’s say we have a deck of cards that needs to be stacked in exactly the right order.  By chance.  How many ways can something as relatively simple (to DNA strands) as a deck of cards be arranged?

About 8 x 10^67.  That’s big.

80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ways.

So if you buy a deck of cards and it’s stacked in precisely the right order, do you think the machine at the card factory did it?  Or do you think that they fell into place in just the right way?

Assuming the odds of the latter are one in a million, doesn’t that mean the odds of the former assumption are a million to one?

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 12:00 PM from United States

I guess it comes down to this:  If I’m wrong, when I die I will be dead...and will have lost nothing.  If you are wrong, when you die you may be heading to the hot spot, and will have lost everything.

That is just plain shit…

Why?

Well, firs of all if there is a God you don’t know how he feels about you believing in the “Christian God”.  He may as well be Allah the way muslims extremist believe and we will all, including you, burn in hell.  Then again he might just be a pedophile loving God, and all the pedophiles go to heaven and the rest burns in hell.  And then again he might just like people who don’t believe in him, you know, that whole “yoou want the girl that doesn’t want you” thing.

So, if you are wrong, you can be dead and have lost nothing, or you may burn in hell, or you may just enjoy heave.
Same for everyone else.
The odds are the same for everyone.

Posted by Akula on 07/29/05 at 12:18 PM from United States

The problem with creationists attempts to discredit evolution is their refusal to understand the concept of it.

Spiders didn’t randomly develop over a few hundred, or thousand years. This has happened over 4 BILLION years, more time then the human mind can contemplate.

We think of dinosaurs being so long ago, but even they were relatively new, and relatively evolved and complex compared to the rest of the life forms to ever live on theis planet.

The first life forms appeared and started evolving through natural selection 100 times further back in history then the dinosaurs appeared.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 12:19 PM from United States

Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

Posted by Akula on 07/29/05 at 12:20 PM from United States

I’d also like to add that we understand so very little about the universe, that I can’t discount the idea of intelligent design or somthing to that effect.

However, most creationists understand none of the scientific subtleties of the universe or evolution.

Posted by Lee on 07/29/05 at 12:33 PM from United States

You sound like you are saying that if Evolution isn’t true then we wouldn’t be here, so that is proof?  Are you trying to say that your belief has to be true because nothing else is possible?

Okay, Deb, let me simply it even further.  Say you have a die (dice).  You have to roll it and get a six.  However, if you roll it and don’t get a six you will have your memory erased, after which you can roll again.  You repeat this process as many times as necessary, and eventually you will roll a six.  Since your memory was erased after all your previous attempts, to you it appears that you rolled a six on your first attempt.  “Wow, a one in six chance, and I got it on the first roll!”

Now, imagine that you’re rolling a die with 100 thousand trillion sides.  Your chances of rolling a six are now one in 100 thousand trillion.  The same principle applies.  You roll the die as many times as necessary, and unless you roll a six your memory is erased.  After aeons and aeons of rolling, you will eventually roll a six.  Now, to you it appears as if, on your first roll, you accomplished something that appears impossible: you hit something with a one in 100 thousand trillion probability on your first try.

With me so far?  Good.  The principle described above describes the current situation we find ourselves in except rather than have your mind erased, you would never have existed in the first place.  There’s a one in 100 thousand trillion chance that evolution will produce the world we currently find ourselves in.  The creationist will look at these odds and do and say, “The chances of evolution happening are virtually happening are zero, therefore it implies some kind of higher intelligent design.” But simply looking at the odds isn’t a good comparison, because on a long enough timeline anything is possible, and we’re dealing with the timeline of the existence of the universe. 

Not only is it possible that live evolved based on a one in 100 thousand trillion chance, it’s probable.  And if it *hadn’t* happened, then we wouldn’t be here having this discussion right now.

Posted by sneaky_pete on 07/29/05 at 12:45 PM from United States

Not only is it possible that live evolved based on a one in 100 thousand trillion chance, it’s probable.  And if it *hadn’t* happened, then we wouldn’t be here having this discussion right now.

Right.  Because if, hypothetically, God exists and evolution doesn’t, He’d still be twiddling His thumbs, unable to create us.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 12:45 PM from United Kingdom

So, other than being told repeatedly by you non-believers that we are ignorant retards, what is so bad about us believing in God?  Please tell me, if I die tomorrow and find out that I was wrong, and you were right, there is no God, WHAT will I have missed out on in my life as a believer and what harm was done?  What will be the consequences of my belief? 

Haha, someone with the name Repub in their name who can’t see the problem with being completly wrong about something fundamental. You should work at the White House!

I don’t think that’s objective or fair, Lee.  If we looked at a desert that was bombed and pointed toward the charred sand as evidence of a bombing, would you criticize that inference by saying that the un-charred sand is evidence that the desert in question had NOT been bombed?  I doubt it.  Evidence, where it exists, trumps lack of evidence.  The presence of simplicity is not an argument for evolution, the lack of complexity is. 

Fair point, but then “bad” features of an organism are evidence against creationsim. From the problems with the eye discussed above, to the human apendix. There are so many apsects of our body that, if designed, then they where designed by an absolute muppet. Either God is really pretty crap at building humans or its evolution.

Crap, if its intelligent design, why did God design women to abort such a high percentage of their foetuses? Or is this original sin, somehow he changed the design after we sinned so things would go wrong? Makes absolutly no sense.

Really?  I think the point is that so many complicated parts are required to enable a spider to spin a web that when those parts were first beginning to show (but not yet functional) there would be no advantage for the spider with an incomplete web-spinning system over a spider with NO web-spinning parts.  Another popular argument along these lines is the development of an eye.  The eye is a complex thing; it takes many parts to function.  But when, according to evolution, all of the creatures in the sea were blindly swimming around, and one mutated creature was born with a discolored area of skin where the eye would eventually evolve, what advantage would that organism have over the others?  Complex jumps in evolution do not fit the “survival of the fittest” mentality.  You don’t suddenly have offspring with a fully developed “defect” that gives it an advantage over its peers.

See Drumwaster above. Most mutations are neither advantageous or disadvantageous they are netural. It can take many many generations for something useful to pop up. Some mutations are disavantageous but suddenly become advantageous based on some extra condition. Check out sickle cell anemia and malaria for an example.

If you really want to know the advantage of a bit of light detecting skin, ask some largely blind people who can only detect the most obvious changes from light to dark. I think you will find they like even that minimal level of sight. If everyone else was blind it would likely be a huge evolutionary advantage.

Posted by Akula on 07/29/05 at 12:45 PM from United States

Great example Lee.

The first organisms were single cell microbes. Eventually, ones with different properties began to survive better, meaning their DNA was passed on. Eventually, this lead to organisms that had multiple cells. Out of these, some had properties that allowed them to survive and continue passing on their DNA. Eventually properties become more and more pronounced, like larger size, organs, limbs. Keep in mind this is over the course of several billion years.

Another good way might be to look into the future. Lets say some people really do have very small, subtle psychic abilities. For some reason, these people have more success passing on their DNA then others. As generations pass, and people with such properties continue to pass on DNA, these properties become more pronounced in the next generation. In a million years these properties may have become pronounced enough that the entire population is capable of projecting their mind outside their body, do to natural selection of those with those properties millions of years ago.

Posted by sneaky_pete on 07/29/05 at 12:46 PM from United States

And what’s the deal with the 5000 character post limit, anyhow?

Posted by Lee on 07/29/05 at 12:52 PM from United States

Right.  Because if, hypothetically, God exists and evolution doesn’t, He’d still be twiddling His thumbs, unable to create us.

That’s not the point I was making.  I was solely talking about the statistical probability of live evolving, and that you cannot simply look at the unlikely probability and extrapolate support for creation from it.  This is one of the main arguments you hear from the creationism crowd and it’s totally bogus.

Posted by sneaky_pete on 07/29/05 at 12:56 PM from United States

padders!

Fair point,

Thank you!

but then “bad” features of an organism are evidence against creationsim. From the problems with the eye discussed above, to the human apendix.

Hmm.  That’s a toughy.  Maybe the appendix served a purpose a couple thousand years ago?

There are so many apsects of our body that, if designed, then they where designed by an absolute muppet. Either God is really pretty crap at building humans or its evolution.

Again, I believe in evolution.  The main reason I posted was to point out the irrationality contained within Lee’s rebuttal of the original article.  That said, the jump from 0 to 1 is where I have to concede to a Creator.  Even Lee has no explanation:

Okay.  The Big Bang happens… Through some unknown process life begins.

So there’s that.

See Drumwaster above.

I posted my huge post before reading the entire thread, and for my redundancy, I apologize.  Point taken.  The eye will no longer be an arguing point for me.  At any rate, the eye argument was used to debunk evolution/point toward a creator.  I’m attempting to point toward a creator and simultaneously accept evolution.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 12:56 PM from United States

So, other than being told repeatedly by you non-believers that we are ignorant retards, what is so bad about us believing in God?  Please tell me, if I die tomorrow and find out that I was wrong, and you were right, there is no God, WHAT will I have missed out on in my life as a believer and what harm was done?  What will be the consequences of my belief?

Haha, someone with the name Repub in their name who can’t see the problem with being completly wrong about something fundamental. You should work at the White House!

So, because you had no answers to my questions, you chose the route of a personal attack.  How very Dem of you.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 12:57 PM from United States

I find it laughable when people try to pit science vs. religion. What a bunch of utter nonsense. In the Middle Ages, science and religion were intertwined inexplicably, with religious institutions often funding and promoting scientific research. Sure, there were clashes, but so what?

Also, some but not all of the world’s great scientists were/are in fact religious. Why does it have to be either/or? Newton, Aquinas, Copernicus? Atheists? Don’t think so. Copernicus – the posterboy of science vs. religion – was apparently buried in a CATHEDRAL. Should I cue the evil music….

You mean to tell me that someone who looks to a God for morality can’t look into a microscope and objectively measure what he sees? What rubbish. Furthermore, why do the “religion hates science” folks always portray the religious as fervent nitwits and scientists (and atheists in general) as cool, detached geniuses?

Also, why is it that the anti-religious always point out the obvious rational failings of the Bible (i.e. the Adam and Eve story), but yet are strangely silent when confronted with all the failings of science? Alchemy anyone? Physiognomy? Got a headache, maybe you need to let your blood or drill another hole in your head? I still got a bunch of oily rags tucked away in a corner of my house, when the hell is life gonna spring forth? Must be something wrong with the ether in my neighborhood.

In fact, couldn’t someone make the argument that it was religion that actually initiated the birth of science? At some point thousands of years ago, man first looked up to the sky with wonder and asked “what is out there? It may be bigger than me; I need to find out.” This certainly doesn’t fit the standard atheistic line of: “man is an unimportant blob of protoplasm no different really from photoplankton.”

Posted by sneaky_pete on 07/29/05 at 01:01 PM from United States

I was solely talking about the statistical probability of live evolving, and that you cannot simply look at the unlikely probability and extrapolate support for creation from it.

Ok.  I suppose it’s like that analogy of a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling an airplane.  With enough junkyards and enough tornadoes and enough time, well, we’d have ourselves a 747 complete with sexy stewardesses, am I right?  Sorry.  That’s not actually meant to sound sarcastic.  I really did appreciate the die example, and I’ll be less likely to throw around the stats in this type of debate in the future.

Again though, I’m curious, where would you say the initial conditions required to let evolution begin come from?

Okay.  The Big Bang happens… Through some unknown process life begins.

Do you have any opinion beyond that?

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:03 PM from United States

In other words, look at all these cool things spiders can do.  Since these things are impressive, it’s obviously evidence of creation.

Why attack evolution in the first place?  Can’t G-d determine the trajectory of every mutant-producing cosmic ray in the universe?

Oddly enough, the fact that lichen are relatively simple from a biological standpoint is not evidence of the opposite position.

Insensitve remarks forwarded for appropriate action to ww.lichen-antidefamation-league.org

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:03 PM from United States

So I beleive that that created the world in 6 days and about 6 thousand years ago.

And you’re basing this belief on what again?

Here we have teams of researchers finding 190 million year old fossils. They reach these conclusions through repeatable and verifiable methods. What will follow is scientists from around the world studying their findings and scrutinizing the results. Not everyone will agree on the finer points but no credible member of the scientific community will argue that the fossil was specifically placed there six thousand years ago.

How can anyone believe in the young earth theory and expect me not to classify them as mentally ill?

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:07 PM from United States

About the moth thing, that only proves natural selection, not evolution (just playing devil’s advocate).

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:13 PM from United States

Now, imagine that you’re rolling a die with 100 thousand trillion sides.

You would be right IF there was a chance of evolution occuring at all.

Posted by sneaky_pete on 07/29/05 at 01:13 PM from United States

One day in the future scientists will decide that they can do everything the hypothetical “God” can do, and lo and behold!  God shows up and issues a challenge. 

“Ok,” God says, “We’ll both create a human life and if yours is as capable as mine I will leave you guys alone.  I’ll go away and not interfere and you can be the masters of your own destiny.”

“You’ve got a deal!” the group of scientists reply.

God smiles and bends down to begin forming the sand into a human shape.  When the scientists bend down to do the same, God interrupts, “No, no, no.  Get your own sand!”

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:17 PM from United States

This is where I’m coming from.

I guess it comes down to this:  If I’m wrong, when I die I will be dead...and will have lost nothing.  If you are wrong, when you die you may be heading to the hot spot, and will have lost everything.

The truth behind reality is not that simple.  Christianity is one of MANY religions that could be “right”, and as such, there are a plethora of fates that will befall unbelievers, depending on the religion that IS right.  Science is different than religion because it is based on reason, not on faith.  Science has been wrong in the past, and will undoubtedly be wrong in the future, but that’s the point of science.  In terms of evolution, all of the credible research to date points to one conclusion - evolution.

From Kenneth E. Boulding -

“The world scientific community has both many similarities to a world religion, but also very important differences.  It has, in the first place, a very distinctive ethic of its own, which I am almost tempted to call “the four-fold way,” as it has four essential components.  The first is a high value on curiosity, which not all cultures possess.  The second is a high value on veracity - that is, on not telling lies - which many other cultures also do not possess.  The one thing that can get a scientist excommunicated from the scientific community is to be caught deliberately falsifying his [or her] results - that is, in telling lies.  Error is often pardonable, but lying is the sin that cannot be forgiven.  The third ethical principle is the high value on the testing of images of the world against the external world that they are supposed to map.  Mere internal consistency is not enough, for there may be views of the world which are internally consistent, but which are, nevertheless, not true, in the sense that the real world does not conform to them.  There are many methods of testing.  Experiment is an important method where it is appropriate, though only perhaps a third to a half of the testing activities of science consist of experiment.  Careful observation and recording, coupled with systematic analysis, is another important method, such as we have in celestial mechanics and in national economic statistics.  Comparative studies of systems which are alike in many respects but differ in others is another important method; for instance, in medical research and the social sciences.  Underlying all these, however, is a profound belief that the real world will speak for itself if it is asked the right questions.  The fourth principle if scientific ethics is abstention from threat, embodied in the principle that people should be persuaded only by evidence and never by threat.  This, of course, is in striking opposition to the ethics of many religious organizations and of all political organizations.”

“To Boulding’s response we can also emphasize the concept that analyses and explanation of historical events can be accepted by scientists even without experimental recapitulation.  We regard geology, astronomy and evolutionary biology as historical sciences because their methodology has become sufficiently precise to allow explanations of past events that are “consistent with observations” of other past events and with present events.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:20 PM from United States

but then “bad” features of an organism are evidence against creationsim. From the problems with the eye discussed above, to the human apendix.

The human eye was designed perfectly and has slowly degenerated over time. ANd just because something could be better doesn’t prove that it was designed.

Oh and about the appendix. It is part of the immune system. So much for vestigial organs.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:24 PM from United States

You would be right IF there was a chance of evolution occuring at all.

And, of course, you have mountains of evidence to support that statement. Rrrright…

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/29/05 at 01:25 PM from United States

Posted by davidst on 07/29 at 11:07 AM

About the moth thing, that only proves natural selection, not evolution

So now that we have proven natural selection, all we have to do is show the other half (survival of the fittest), and we’ve proven evolution.

Thanks.

(Scientists call this a lemma, in case you didn’t know.)

Posted by sneaky_pete on 07/29/05 at 01:27 PM from United States

you have mountains of evidence to support that statement

Define “support that statement”.  I don’t think you thought that through, dope.

I think you mean that Dirk cannot support the IMPLICATION that evolution has no chance of occuring.

Either that or you think that Dirk cannot support Lee’s proposition about the die.

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/29/05 at 01:28 PM from United States

So much for vestigial organs.

Like nipples on a male? Or ear lobes? Or the third molar? Or the fetal tail?

Oh, yeah, huh?

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:31 PM from United States

<

Science is different than religion because it is based on reason, not on faith.

Oh, really, is that why some “scientists” continue to insist that straight sex is no different that homosexual in regards to AIDS?

Secondhand smoke kills how many?

Posted by sneaky_pete on 07/29/05 at 01:32 PM from United States

Like nipples on a male?

Glad you brought that up, Drum.  Male and female?  Why don’t all life forms just spawn instead of depending on a dual-gender reproduction model?

And how did two genders evolve?

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/29/05 at 01:34 PM from United States

Oh, really, is that why some “scientists” continue to insist that straight sex is no different that homosexual in regards to AIDS?

As long as they involve unprotected fluid exchange between an AIDS carrier and an uninfected person, they ARE the same.

Logic not taught much in your dimension?

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:34 PM from United States

Oh and about the appendix. It is part of the immune system. So much for vestigial organs.

The source you cite is crap. They don’t even know the difference between “forment” and “ferment”. Absolute junk science. Try again, Dirk.

Posted by sneaky_pete on 07/29/05 at 01:41 PM from United States

Drum!

Attack the easy target, hmm?  How ‘bout my concerns?

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:43 PM from United States

I don’t think you thought that through, dope.

Why are you calling me names? You must not have much of an argument, Pete.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:44 PM from United States

Heh, here we go.

Ok.  I suppose it’s like that analogy of a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling an airplane.  With enough junkyards and enough tornadoes and enough time, well, we’d have ourselves a 747 complete with sexy stewardesses, am I right?  Sorry.  That’s not actually meant to sound sarcastic.  I really did appreciate the die example, and I’ll be less likely to throw around the stats in this type of debate in the future.

I’m setting the record straight.

...it is important to recognize that random chance events are not the same as evolutionary events based on natural selection.  Chance can be defined as events whose causes are independent of each other, so that a succession of such events need bear no mutual relationship, and therefore often leads to disorganization ("chaos").  Evolution by natural selection, in contrast, marks events those occurrence depends on previous events, so that a succession of such events can lead to organized structures and increased complexity.  The nonorganismic (abiotic) synthesis of amino acids and other basic biological molecules also indicates that chemical reactions are biased to produce such molecules, and natural selection can subsequently operate to increase their complexity and organization.  Although the exact steps to the origin of life are not yet known, this does not detract from our understanding of many basic mechanisms that allowed the present diversity of life to evolve, nor affect the evidence that such evolution occurred.  Moreover, since the origin of life is a molecular biology question, and we are just learning molecular biology techniques, it is not surprising that we don’t yet know exactly how life on Earth originated.  Even so, we are learning how enzymatic reactions evolve, how metabolic pathways evolve, how developmental controls evolve and how genetic systems evolve.  That’s a lot of learning about early life questions in a very short time!
Always missing in creationist arguments is an understanding of selection - that the alternative to design by a “creator” is not random chance, but selection.  Selection is a sequential process that ties individual chance events into a “creative” sequence because particular steps in the sequence are “adaptive” and allowed to persist.  An adaptation is not a sudden event but the result of a succession of selective events, each with reasonable probability.
Thus, selection for improved sight leads to improved visual apparatus, selection for improved vertebral support leads to improved spinal apparatus, selection for improved hearing leads to improved auditory apparatus, and so forth - steps along the way are distinctly adaptive.

That last paragraph came with examples that I don’t have time to list (yet).

The simplest example of this that I’ve heard is as follows-

Take a bowl of 10 different letters, each in equal proportion (A,C,E,I,L,N,O,T,U,V).  We need to pull out the letters in the correct order to spell “EVOLUTION”, this is allegorical for what it would take to develop a species as it exists today.

Creationists would say the chances of pulling out the correct sequence of letters to spell EVOLUTION is a 1 in a 1,000,000,000 chance, that it’s nearly impossible to pull off, and they would be right.  EXCEPT, their interpretation of evolution is wrong.

Evolution involves stages.  The first stage being that the first letter you pull is the letter E, because that is the letter that is most fit to survive in that location at that time.  There is a 1 in 10 chance of pulling the letter E.  Pretty good odds, and if you factor in time and the rate at which you pull out letters, it’s only a matter of time before you pull an E.  The environment changes, and the second selection process begins.  The letter E is now attached to letter pulled from this stage, because it was selected for and is passed on through the previous stage.  In order to survive, we need an EV, so there’s a 1 in 10 chance of pulling an EV (since the choices for pulling are EA, EC, EE, EI, EL, EN, EO, ET, EU and EV).  Again, chances are good that an EV will get pulled.  The next stage begins, and EV is now a part of every organism, and so on and so forth.

The whole point is that Evolution is not one big random pull.  It’s adaptive, and that’s how complicated structures are developed.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:44 PM from United States

” As long as they involve unprotected fluid exchange between an AIDS carrier and an uninfected person, they ARE the same.

Logic not taught much in your dimension?”

That’s BS, and you know it. Scientists insisted for years that the rate of infection would be similar for straights as well as gays. Hasn’t happened, but yet the line is still touted.

The pt. is is that many scientists let their beliefs and biases cloud their findings. To say that science is purely based on reason and never has an agenda is laughable.

Posted by on 07/29/05 at 01:48 PM from United States

Oh, really, is that why some “scientists” continue to insist that straight sex is no different that homosexual in regards to AIDS?

Secondhand smoke kills how many?

Ok, first off, not all scientists agree.  Part of it could be interpretation on whatever subject, the other part is personal bias.  Scientists are humans, lo and behold.  The validity of the scientist is based on the reproducibility of their work (if experimental), and how testable a theory is (experimental and observation).  Unlike religion, where the sources of their faith are unchanging, science is mutable.

Posted by Drumwaster on 07/29/05 at 01:49 PM from United States

Scientists insisted for years that the rate of infection would be similar for straights as well as gays. Hasn’t happened, but yet the line is still touted.

That’s because of behavioral issues, rather than scientific ones. “And you know it.”

The simple fact is that if you have unprotected sex with strangers, your odds are much higher than if you were in a monogamous relationship with someone known to be free of the disease. “And you know it.”

If facts are so uncomfortable for you, then maybe you should go back to the kid’s table, because grups are busy talkin’…

Posted by on 08/02/05 at 12:54 AM from United States

Did anyone refer to molars?  I think they it is some evidence of evolution in action, but then again, what do I know… maybe God just decided to stop giving humans them.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/02/05 at 01:05 AM from United States

So we are now using “maybe” as evidence?

{/sauce for the gander}

Welcome back, everyone!

Posted by on 08/02/05 at 01:21 AM from United States

BTW, why did the page go down?

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/02/05 at 01:34 AM from United States

Double lightning strike on the building where the servers for this site (and about half a dozen others) are kept. The first one fried the surge protection, and the second (just a few moments leter) fried all of the electronic equipment.

Fuller details can be found at several sites, especially on those of us who are regulars who ALSO have our own sites. *shrug*

Posted by on 08/02/05 at 08:19 AM from United Kingdom

So, because you had no answers to my questions, you chose the route of a personal attack.  How very Dem of you.

I am sorry if you took it personally, but I am afraid if you can’t see the problem with being completly wrong in beliveing something then there is nothing more I can say to persuade you. Personally I want to believe in things that are true, not things that are convenient. Beliving in God is convenient for a number of reasons - it would be great if I could believe my dead family where sitting up in heaven waiting for me, but unfortunatly I can hide my logic just to make myself feel better.

Again, I believe in evolution.  The main reason I posted was to point out the irrationality contained within Lee’s rebuttal of the original article.  That said, the jump from 0 to 1 is where I have to concede to a Creator.  Even Lee has no explanation:

Is it really life that you mean 0 to 1. It seems to me that at the very fringe of alive/not alive we are not really looking at anything very complicated; in fact some inorganic checmical reactions are vastly more complicated than organic ones that happen inside life. Sure, we don’t know where life started or under what conditions. Some think amino acids can be formed naturally under electricity and other conditions, others think basic life might have come from outside the solar system. All I know for sure, is one day we will explain it.

The human eye was designed perfectly and has slowly degenerated over time. ANd just because something could be better doesn’t prove that it was designed.

Ha. How can something perfect degrade over time? Clearly for it to be perfect it wouldn’t degrade, or a more perfect undegrading eye could be built.

Glad you brought that up, Drum.  Male and female?  Why don’t all life forms just spawn instead of depending on a dual-gender reproduction model?

And how did two genders evolve?

I read something a while back about even single cell organisms that seem to exchange DNA before division. Sorry, no source. The answer to why is easy - genetic diversity. There is a balance in how much genetic diversity you want in how it favours evolution. If you have too much you get mutants that don’t work and die. If you have too little you get not enough differences to have effective natural selection and evolution. I guess the way it happens is the right balance.

Scientists insisted for years that the rate of infection would be similar for straights as well as gays. Hasn’t happened, but yet the line is still touted.

I have not read a single scientist say the chance of infection are the same, they are patently not because homosexual sex exposes blood, hetrosexual sex generally does not (of course I would imagine female homosexual sex has far lower rates of HIV transmission than hetrosexual sex, but funnily you don’t hear much about that).

Despite the chances being higher, HIV is moving towards a disease of hetrosexuals, just look at the transmission rates now in Africa.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/02/05 at 09:13 AM from United States

but I am afraid if you can’t see the problem with being completly wrong in beliveing something then there is nothing more I can say to persuade you.

Why not try actually providing facts and logic to support your position, puddles? That would go a long way. But accusing someone of an ad hominem attack and defending yourself by delivering one of your own does nothing but highlight the native hypocrisy so common to Donks like you.

Got proof(TM)?

Posted by on 08/02/05 at 09:43 AM from United States

"By faith we understand that everything was created at God’s hand”

Once you accept something “by faith”, you can never think about it rationally again, ignoring any evidence to the contrary and dismissing any arguments as ‘sacriligeous’ or ‘blasphemous’.

How nice for you all. “

You miss the point, Drum.  The most important part of that verse is “so that is what is seen did not come from what is visible”.  In other words, we don’t know the whole story and never will.  But arrogant, know-everything humans will never abide by that suggestion.  We MUST know it all, right?

Why does this subject inflame all of you so much?  Noone is judging you, yet Lee (who I like, btw) sees the need to put this up and work all you anti-religious geniuses to a froth.  I’m just telling you that I subject myself to humility in the presence of God and don’t claim to know it all.  And I have a PhD in organic chemistry.  I also stated that the evidence for evolution is there and that our limited view would naturally lead to the conclusions that our scientists have re: Evolution, so I am not bashing them.  But you failed to even comprehend that part because it didn’t get you all “frothy”, right?

Dave D.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/02/05 at 09:47 AM from United States

I stand by my statement. If you didn’t understand it the first time, maybe you should put that Piled highed & Deeper to use and ask your professor to explain it, using small words.

I’m just telling you that I subject myself to humility in the presence of God and don’t claim to know it all.

Kinda proves my point (about “not being able to think about it rationally again"), don’t it? If you don’t know the answer, your response is “Because God willed it that way and who am I to question Him?”, instead of, “I don’t know, let’s dig into it and find out!” like a scientist will.

Posted by on 08/02/05 at 09:58 AM from United States

Drum:

I’m telling you that we can NEVER understand the universe.  We are too simple.  Look at the book of Job and you’ll see what I mean. 

I also agree with you re: science.  We SHOULD keep looking.  I keep looking every day.  It’s in our nature.  But I feel that we need to maintain humility when it comes to dismissing God from our culture (something that happens more and more each day, imo).

Your hostility toward me (Piled Higher and Deeper!  Wow, what an original thinker you are.) really has me wondering about your quality, btw. 

Also, my professor was a liberal atheist jew.  I never saw eye-to-eye with him on religious matters.  But we NEVER got as hostile as you are during our discussions.  But feel free to get personal at my expense if it will help you with your fears....

Dave D.

Posted by on 08/02/05 at 10:02 AM from United Kingdom

If you don’t know the answer, your response is “Because God willed it that way and who am I to question Him?”, instead of, “I don’t know, let’s dig into it and find out!” like a scientist will.

And thats what you’ll lose if you’re a beleiver, and you turn out to be wrong. The chance to explore rather than accept.

Imagine if tomorrow, evolution is proved wrong. The scientists will say “Oh well, at least we tried, now lets try and and come up with another theory.”

I want to better my understanding of everything, rather than just accept that its all been taken care of for me, and that I shouldn’t worry.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/02/05 at 10:05 AM from United States

work all you anti-religious geniuses

You only got one word right, and it wasn’t “anti-religious”. I’ve got no beef against religion. I support religious activities and I encourage anyone who will ask to seek whatever sources of true happiness they can find, because happiness is in very short supply in the world.

But I also understand that religion is not a science, most of them are based on written translations of a translation of a translation of an oral tradition passed down over many generations (before writing came along), and they have no place being taught in schools at taxpayer expense. None of them.

If someone believes so strongly that his children will be raised on the same core beliefs, then I suggest home-schooling or religious schools.

By the way, did you guys manage to get together and come up with ANY evidence supporting Creationism? Anything? Anything at all? (I know that the best you will probably be able to come up with are yet more arguments against evolution, so if that’s all you have, quit wasting my time.)

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/02/05 at 10:17 AM from United States

I’m telling you that we can NEVER understand the universe.  We are too simple.

So we shouldn’t even try? Wow, what a scientist you must be.

But I feel that we need to maintain humility when it comes to dismissing God from our culture

Not our culture. Just our science schoolbooks, unless and until real, verifiable evidence comes along to support that position. You can’t come up with any, yet you still assert that you are right, and the rest of humanity is wrong. That is why I question your “reasoning”.

Also, my professor was a liberal atheist jew.  I never saw eye-to-eye with him on religious matters.

The clerk at the local convenience store is a Hindi, and we probably don’t see eye-to-eye on religious matters, either. But you know something? I don’t go into the convenience store to talk religion. I go in to buy sodas or gas.

Similarly, I didn’t go to science classes in order to be taught one particular religion’s beliefs. And the professor’s personal beliefs are utterly irrelevant to the subject matter. I went in to learn how to examine the universe around me, and submit what I see to rigorous testing.

I have asked - repeatedly - for anyone who supports Creationism to provide so much as a scrap of real evidence to support that conjecture. Can you provide that evidence, yes or no? Or can we start teaching the Spaghetti Monster Theory in schools, too?

Posted by on 08/02/05 at 01:03 PM from United Kingdom

Why not try actually providing facts and logic to support your position, puddles? That would go a long way. But accusing someone of an ad hominem attack and defending yourself by delivering one of your own does nothing but highlight the native hypocrisy so common to Donks like you.

Drum, I know you like arguing with me, but this seems to be one thing we are agreeing on. I was not even saying I was right, what I was arguing against is RepMom dosen’t seem to see the problem with being wrong. I wastn’t even saying she was wrong, just that her attitude towards being write/wrong is akin to let’s drown the witch to proove she istn’t one. Let me quote her:

I guess it comes down to this:  If I’m wrong, when I die I will be dead...and will have lost nothing.  If you are wrong, when you die you may be heading to the hot spot, and will have lost everything.

Repmom chooses to “believe” something because she is scarred of the consequences of not doing so. This is hardly a new argument, Voltaire suggested it a few hundred years ago. Its still a rather funny one - as if a perfectly good God would give you the power of reason and then punish you for using it, even if you used it incorrectly (by denying the existance of the Spaghetti monster for example).

Posted by on 08/02/05 at 01:06 PM from United Kingdom

I have asked - repeatedly - for anyone who supports Creationism to provide so much as a scrap of real evidence to support that conjecture. Can you provide that evidence, yes or no? Or can we start teaching the Spaghetti Monster Theory in schools, too?

Drum, I think you are asking an impossible task of creationists. They believe the bible word for word, and that is their evidence. There won’t be any more of it and whatever comes along to disprove it and explanation will be found to explain it (I wonder if they have people already working out explanations for say microbiotic life found on other planets in case we find that).

Its faith. And thats fine. Its simply not science and thats the problem.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/02/05 at 01:13 PM from United States

Its faith. And thats fine. Its simply not science and thats the problem.

You won’t hear me saying this often, so mark your calendars…

Padders is right.

{/shudder}

Yeah, I know, I know, “broken clocks” and all, but still…

Posted by on 08/03/05 at 12:13 AM from United States

Drum, I know you like arguing with me, but this seems to be one thing we are agreeing on. I was not even saying I was right, what I was arguing against is RepMom dosen’t seem to see the problem with being wrong. I wastn’t even saying she was wrong, just that her attitude towards being write/wrong is akin to let’s drown the witch to proove she istn’t one. Let me quote her:

I guess it comes down to this:  If I’m wrong, when I die I will be dead...and will have lost nothing.  If you are wrong, when you die you may be heading to the hot spot, and will have lost everything.

Padders - first off - If you are going to quote me, how about actually quoting ME, not someone else.  What you quoted came from Debsay.

Second -

Repmom chooses to “believe” something because she is scarred of the consequences of not doing so.

This is bullshit.  I never said any such thing. Just you putting words in my mouth.  I said - IF I DIE TOMORROW AND FIND OUT THERE IS NO GOD, WHAT WILL I HAVE LOST BY BELIEVING IN GOD?  WHAT WILL I HAVE MISSED OUT ON IN MY LIFE?

Now, can you answer that?

Posted by on 08/03/05 at 12:23 AM from United States

Padders - here are my exact words -

So, other than being told repeatedly by you non-believers that we are ignorant retards, what is so bad about us believing in God?  Please tell me, if I die tomorrow and find out that I was wrong, and you were right, there is no God, WHAT will I have missed out on in my life as a believer and what harm was done?  What will be the consequences of my belief? 

On the other hand, as Debsay points out, what if you non-believers find out the day of your death that he does indeed exist?  What are your conseqences?

Posted by Lee on 08/03/05 at 12:31 AM from United States

IF I DIE TOMORROW AND FIND OUT THERE IS NO GOD, WHAT WILL I HAVE LOST BY BELIEVING IN GOD?  WHAT WILL I HAVE MISSED OUT ON IN MY LIFE?

Well, you’ve never had group sex with 12 midgets, a goat, and a leather-bound transvestite hermaphrodite named Binky who can ejaculate on command and gets his jollies having a red-hot ice cream scoop shoved up his pooper.

Posted by on 08/03/05 at 12:34 AM from United States

Well, you’ve never had group sex with 12 midgets, a goat, and a leather-bound transvestite hermaphrodite named Binky who can ejaculate on command and gets his jollies having a red-hot ice cream scoop shoved up his pooper.

Isn’t there a religion that commands you to do that every Sunday?

Posted by Lee on 08/03/05 at 12:36 AM from United States

Isn’t there a religion that commands you to do that every Sunday?

If not there should be.  I’ll start it and crown myself Pope Leatherhood I.

Posted by on 08/03/05 at 12:51 AM from United States

Well, you’ve never had group sex with 12 midgets, a goat, and a leather-bound transvestite hermaphrodite named Binky who can ejaculate on command and gets his jollies having a red-hot ice cream scoop shoved up his pooper.

Oh, well, hell, if you put it that way.......

Guess you don’t really have an answer, huh?

Posted by Lee on 08/03/05 at 01:03 AM from United States

Oh, well, hell, if you put it that way.......

Guess you don’t really have an answer, huh?

Oh come on, I was just messing with ya. :)

But to answer your original question, what you’ve “missed out on” is a relative term.  There’s lots you’ve missed out on, but since they’re things that you would never have wanted to do in the first place then you really don’t feel like you’ve missed out on anything.

Let me give you an example just to illustrate my point.  Let’s say you were bisexual, in the sense that you were extremely attracted to women.  You loved your husband and kids and marriage, but you always wanted to get with a woman to fulfill a need that you weren’t getting from your current situation.  But, due to your religious beliefs (and/or your moral beliefs, which are largely based on your religious beliefs) you choose to suppress these urges and remain faithful and heterosexual.  At the end of your life you might find yourself regretting never exploring the aspect to your personality.  In this sense it could be reasonably said that you missed out on something because of your religion.  Of course, since you are not a repressed lesbian you don’t consider this “missing out” on something, any more than I don’t consider myself missing out on having sex with men.

So, to answer your question, you’re only missing out on something if it’s something you choose to do and don’t.  It’s a relative thing to each person.  I don’t consider myself missing out on a life having sex with goats because I have no interest in doing so.

Posted by Drumwaster on 08/03/05 at 01:24 AM from United States

If not there should be.  I’ll start it and crown myself Pope Leatherhood I.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is very disappointed in you…

Posted by on 08/03/05 at 01:28 AM from United States

Oh come on, I was just messing with ya. :)

I knew that, hence my first comment.  :)

So, basically there is no harm in my believing in God.  Correct?

Now, how about an answer to the second part of the question.  What if you are wrong, and he does exist?  You had a fun life, but what about the consequence in the end?  What about that hot spot Debsay mentioned? 

I know you were BSing with your comment, Lee, but it brought something to mind.  Some here have suggested that we believe in God because it makes life easier to handle, and as Padder’s said, we fear what might happen if we don’t believe.

With that train of thought, I could just as easily say that those who deny God’s existence do so to make their life easier.  To give themselves liberty to do as they please with no responsibility or consequence, no one to answer to, so to speak.

Posted by on 08/03/05 at 01:32 AM from United States

I must take time to check out this “Flying Spaghetti Monster” thing that keeps getting mentioned in several threads.

Posted by Lee on 08/03/05 at 03:08 AM from United States

So, basically there is no harm in my believing in God.  Correct?

Absolutely none whatsoever.

What if you are wrong, and he does exist?  You had a fun life, but what about the consequence in the end?  What about that hot spot Debsay mentioned?

Like anything else, you make your decision and you live with the consequences.  Religion simply doesn’t make sense to me.  I’m more than open to the concept of a Supreme Being of some description.  But if such an entity exists, I cannot possibly imagine that an all-seeing, all-knowing, timeless, universe-spanning being would honestly give a fuck about where I choose to stick my penis.  It would be like me caring about what the two amoebas in my toilet are doing.  It’s so inconsequential as to defy belief.  And I also can’t resolve a universe in which God gives me the power to question His existence and then would punish me for all eternity for doing so.  How can anyone claim that God has infinite love when he would condemn me to hell for eternity just for doing something that He gave me the ability to do in the first place? 

Let me put it this way.  You have kids , and being a good mother you have told them not to play in the street.  You’ve probably told them a million times, right?  You expect them to follow your instruction not to play in the street.  Well let’s say you look out your kitchen window one day and your kid is playing in the street, and a truck is heading right for them.  You love your kids; do you run out and push them out of the way, or do you let the truck run over them and say “I told you so!”

It’s bullshit.  A Supreme Being that has infinite love for me would not condemn me to hell no matter what I did.  Love should not be conditional.  I’ve led a good life.  I treat people well, I try to do right by my fellow man, and so on.  I am simply not able to grasp the concept of how a God who supposedly loves me could look at my life and sentence me to an eternity in torment in hell simply for not believing.

Remember, this is the same fate that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao are all eligible for.  You think that my life is worthy of the same level of torment that these monsters receive?  Bullshit, I just don’t get it. 

If I go to hell then so be it.

Some here have suggested that we believe in God because it makes life easier to handle, and as Padder’s said, we fear what might happen if we don’t believe.

Well, of course.  How many times have you heard Christians refer to themselves as “God-fearing.” What do you think that means?  I realize that you believe in God because you believe, but you have to admit that a large part of that belief comes from the fear of what would happen to you if you didn’t.

With that train of thought, I could just as easily say that those who deny God’s existence do so to make their life easier.

And there’s probably something to that.  It’s a hell of a lot easier to engage in whatever carnal desire strikes your fancy than it is to live up to the moral code prescribed by a religion.

Posted by on 08/03/05 at 07:50 AM from United Kingdom

Repmom, I am sorry for misquoting you. I saw the part when you responded to the quote and made the mother of all fucks ups by assuming you had also said it previouisly. My apologies.

Despite that, you do seem to believe it:

Now, how about an answer to the second part of the question.  What if you are wrong, and he does exist?  You had a fun life, but what about the consequence in the end?  What about that hot spot Debsay mentioned? 

Your justification for beliving this seems to be that no harm can come from believing it, but not beleiving can be dangerous. Sounds like a decision based on fear to me.

Furthermore, you are completly wrong about the danger of not beleiving it. There are numerous religions and I am sure some of them have “bad” consequences for people who not do what they are meant to do / believe what they are meant to beleive. To follow your religion of fear you would have to spend the rest of your life trying to find out about any possible religion and do your utmost to follow their rules, just in case it is that religion that turns out to be true. What you would do in case of conflicts I don’t know; luckily I don’t think any of the major religions have any issues with pirate costumes so you should be ok there at least.

With that train of thought, I could just as easily say that those who deny God’s existence do so to make their life easier.  To give themselves liberty to do as they please with no responsibility or consequence, no one to answer to, so to speak.

You make a fair point here. If you are gay it must be a hell of a lot easier not being Christian than not being so. It would also help if you where not born in China or an Islamic theocracy; or even most of the Western World when Christian morality controlled law so much closer.

The problem though, is perhaps religion makes some things much harder, for which there is no point (food laws, sexual morality etc) but makes the really hard things easier (questions about purpose of life, where we come from, fate of humanity etc). Religion appears to allow people to escape the difficult mental questions and problems and at the same time impose arbritary limits on conduct. I am not sure which is living easier, not sure it matters either.

Like anything else, you make your decision and you live with the consequences.  Religion simply doesn’t make sense to me.  I’m more than open to the concept of a Supreme Being of some description.  But if such an entity exists, I cannot possibly imagine that an all-seeing, all-knowing, timeless, universe-spanning being would honestly give a fuck about where I choose to stick my penis.  It would be like me caring about what the two amoebas in my toilet are doing.  It’s so inconsequential as to defy belief.  And I also can’t resolve a universe in which God gives me the power to question His existence and then would punish me for all eternity for doing so.  How can anyone claim that God has infinite love when he would condemn me to hell for eternity just for doing something that He gave me the ability to do in the first place? 

Couldn’t agree with you more Lee. Its one of the parts of intelligent design that *horror* makes sense. Not the design of humans or any animals, but the design of the universe. The universe has so many properties that if they where not “just so” would have no life. I can see only three possible reasons for this - there are infinite universes so being in the one that supports life is non surprising, that time is infinite so infinite universes have been created/destroyed over time or that the universe was created by a being and designed to create life.

Posted by on 08/03/05 at 11:12 AM from United States

In answer to both Lee and Padders -

First off, as I have mentioned before, though I am a Christian, my knowledge and understanding of the Bible is quite lacking.  Shipman or someone else could probably address your issues better than I can.  But I will take a stab at it, anyway. 

Lee, God doesn’t punish you for questioning him, only for denying him, and denying Jesus Christ as your personal savior. 

Both of you seem to think that you have to live by a set of rules to get to Heaven.  That is false.  God forgives our sins.  Jesus died for our sins.  The way to Heaven is by believing in Jesus Christ. 

And my understanding is that non-believers will get a second chance in the end to accept Christ.  Those more knowledgeable than myself, feel free to jump in here.

Lee, whether or not God cares where you stick your dick isn’t the issue.  If he does care, and you believe in him, he will forgive you.  I’ve written before about my belief in that regard.  I don’t think homosexuality is what God intended.  He made man and woman for the purpose of procreation. 

These are just my beliefs, as a born-again Christian.  The argument, or discussion, of what God, or what religion, is the correct one, is a whole different one.

Padders, I don’t fear God, and I personally have never understood the term “God-fearing”.  If you believe in him, and in Jesus Christ, there is nothing to fear.

Posted by Lee on 08/03/05 at 04:13 PM from United States

Lee, God doesn’t punish you for questioning him, only for denying him, and denying Jesus Christ as your personal savior.

But that’s the thing.  I don’t deny Jesus or God.  Using the ability to question that God Himself gave to me, I have decided that, logically, the idea of a God (as presented in Christian scripture) makes no sense.  I believe that there was a man named Jesus who was crucified, but as to the significance o this man in a religious sense I cannot say.  I don’t *deny* Jesus, because by doing so it implies a steadfast belief on my part that Jesus was *not* the Son of God, and that is just as much an article of faith as steadfastly believing that he was.

If you give your child the ability to make decisions for themselves, you don’t stand by and watch them make those bad decisions (using the playing in the street example from before), and you don’t punish them for eternity for doing so.  The whole “infinite love” concept cannot, in my mind, be reconciled with the “infinite condemnation” concept, no matter whether I accept Jesus or not.

I don’t think homosexuality is what God intended.  He made man and woman for the purpose of procreation.

Fair enough, but we do all sorts of things that were not what was intended.  Birth control pills, heart transplants, tattooing, pierced ears, and countless other things we do with our bodies, none of these were what was “intended,” yet they are perfectly acceptable.  I just can’t see that a God who infinitely loves us would care all that much about whether or not I have sex with a man or whether I like to do my girlfriend up the butt.  It just seems so totally insignificant.  If God made us biological organisms with biological urges and gave us free will, can he really be surprised when so many people ignore His message and go with the urges?

I don’t fear God, and I personally have never understood the term “God-fearing”.  If you believe in him, and in Jesus Christ, there is nothing to fear.

Yes, but the point is that a large part of Christian theology is the threat of what will happen to you if you don’t believe and act accordingly.  This has been standard church doctrine since the church began.  As I said before, you believe in God not because you were commanded to but because you choose to.  However, you can’t deny that you fear going to hell after you die, because you rightly assert that you’re not going to go there by virtue of being Christian.  But the undercurrent is there.

Next entry: Borderline

Previous entry: Manufacturing Outrage

<< Back to main