Politics & Religion: A Simple Question

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Just a couple quick points, to what is becoming a far-ranging thread!

First of all, I did not contradict myself on the concept of one-on-one evangelism. If a famous evangelist 'converts' 1,000 people a night at rallys, 7 days a week, they would be overwhelmed in a short while by one person 'converting' another person, who then converts others, in binary multiples. Neither of these examples ever happen, but it is possible. And it is in this on-on-one basis that religious discussions that could result in a conversion are 'in context'-- both parties are interested in the discussion. One thing I try hard not to do, is jam Christianity down anyone's throat, or use forums like this to preach (the Bible thread excepted, where religious/Christian discussions are welcome!).

I will not be necessarily 'converted' by being shown Scientific 'facts'. I choose to be a Christian, but also am a student of many of the sciences. Many famous scientists were Christians as well (James Clerk Maxwell comes to mind as an example). I am always interested in hearing about new theories or research-- as long as they pass the 'smell test' (which most legitimate research does).

The protection for religious beliefs in our Constitution is in the first amendment, along with freedom, of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to peacefully assemble. The second amendment deals ONLY with the right to keep and bear arms.

As far as citizens stopping a modern army, it can and has been done, and will be done again. Unless weapons of mass destruction are used to 'take out' a large area or population, citizens can fight back pretty effectively, as they know where they live (and this is the whole reason for the second amendment). If you haven't, go see 'Red Dawn, where a citizen's group takes back a city from heavily-armed occupiers, with relatively rudimentary equipment.

[Mako]

Many famous scientists were Christians as well (James Clerk Maxwell comes to mind as an example).

Albert Einstein was at least religious and it's debated that Charles Darwin was a Christian as well.

I would suggest that perhaps it's not a question about whether or not God exists or not, but rather a question of who's right.

Here's an interesting thought: IIRC, about 45-49% of the world are Christian, and another 45-49% are Muslim - both of whom declare themselves to be the one Truth. This means, no matter what, over half of the world are wrong. Perhaps that changes the logic slightly?

Actually not quite. Here's an interesting fact for you: The Islamic God and the Christian God are the same God. Muslims and Christians disagree on salvation. Yes, it does mean that a lot of people are going to be wrong one day, but if anything the logic is strengthened by that point.

Now, I will do my best to respond to the statements by Kekerusey in a cohesive manner below.

I would go further and say that the number believing in something rarely means it is correct...in Columbus's time, 99.99% of the population of the known knew it was flat, not much earlier (may even have been around the same kind of time) everyone knew the Earth was the centre of the universe, earlier still (early biblical and pre-biblical times) it was believed that the Earth had 4 corners, edges and the sky was a literal dome that held the stars in the sky.

I would agree with you that a lot of people were wrong, but there's an interesting counter fact here: Contrary to popular belief, the Hebrew and Greek Bible do not in fact teach any of the above theories, and in many cases it teaches the opposite (and correct) ones. For example, years before everyone believed that the Earth was indeed round and hung in the middle of what we now know is our solar system, the Bible made the claim.

He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the Earth on nothing.

It often surprises me at how quickly people assume things about the Bible without having read it. It's proper practice to understand both sides of an argument in order to make a fair case for either side, and yet I would ballpark a figure for how many secular opponents of the Bible have read every word of it around 10%, if that.

I'd also like to point out that the Bible gives a very accurate description of the hydrologic cycle long before our scientists could describe it as well

Perhaps although I'd say that statistic is likely to be off because this forum, whilst open to the world, probably isn't evenly representative of it ... probably much more "western hemisphere" or some such. In my country I'm not really a minority except perhaps that I am relatively well educated and fairly cynical/sceptical. In the US in particular, though still fairly small in actual population terms, atheist groups are fairly numerous, organised and often quite militant. In the US atheists seem to number around 10%, in Canada around 30%.

Atheism is not nearly as prevalent in the US as 10%, in fact I don't even think it's that high in liberal US colleges. I would like to see a source for this statistic.

I am.

Then I say ask away!

All of this can be summed up by a quote from a very famous person.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

They were never meant to be on opposite sides, but rather compliment each other.

Hope this provides an interesting side of the argument for everyone involved.

EDIT:

I agree with you on the part about it being a question of who's right if you include non-believers too. Sadly, asking this question seems to lead to lots of fighting.

Ma Nyx, I just now saw this but I have something to say about it. It's the truth, and the reason why is because everyone's scared about what happens after this thing called life. Something most people don't understand is that religions aren't about subverting you and stealing your free will to do whatever you want. Nor is it about killing thousands of people because God supposedly told you to. No matter how spot on the 99% are, the 1% of extremists will always make primetime news. This is also the reason that I've never believed in religion.

I know from experience that if not all religions, at least Christianity is about knowing that there's more to life then just living and dying. I can't put into words how much my heart aches for people to believe this truth, and even now I'm having trouble. People think that Christianity is about a list of dos and don'ts? I can't tell you how far from the truth that is. Christianity is about knowing God. To give an example, it's about knowing God in the same way that the Na'vi know Eywa, that intimate, personal relationship. Anything I say about my own experiences will get written off as "spiritual bull****", but just know that I firmly believe that God is accessible, and that He enjoys talking with us.

Again, any questions, please ask.

[Niri Te]

quote author=Reyona te Tsateka Ray'i'itan link=topic=23063.msg565633#msg565633 date=1354291655]

I know from experience that if not all religions, at least Christianity is about knowing that there's more to life then just living and dying. I can't put into words how much my heart aches for people to believe this truth, and even now I'm having trouble. People think that Christianity is about a list of dos and don'ts? I can't tell you how far from the truth that is. Christianity is about knowing God. To give an example, it's about knowing God in the same way that the Na'vi know Eywa, that intimate, personal relationship. Anything I say about my own experiences will get written off as "spiritual bull****", but just know that I firmly believe that God is accessible, and that He enjoys talking with us.

Again, any questions, please ask.

As a person who was raised a Christian from birth,  and spent most of her life studying the Bible,  over a year at an SDA Bible College,  I can  only WISH that God were a fraction as "hands on" with Humans on This "fallen planet" as Created goddess was in a movie. That interaction between "Eywa" and the Na'vi tugged at the heartstrings of a lot of people that wish that there was a God that would interact as closely as "Eywa" does in a movie,  or the Judeo-Christian God does in the Old Testament.  A great many of my friends who believe that God exists,  believe that He created everything,  set it on auto pilot,  and just walked away.

[Kekerusey]

Albert Einstein was at least religious and it's debated that Charles Darwin was a Christian as well.

No Albert Einstein was not religious, he made that absolutely clear when he said, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

As for Darwin, I assume you refer to the oft-trotted out "Lady Hope" tales? Darwin was brought up to be a preacher (at least lay clergy) but his theory of evolution began to erode his faith and claims that he turned back to god (or creationism as I usually hear it) or that he relinquished his theory just before he died are just urban myths ... completely unsubstantiated!

The Islamic God and the Christian God are the same God

Not really, ask most Bible Belt Americans, ask most Muslims and I think you'll find that is again just another spurious claim ... perhaps one you happen to believe but not one shared by the vast majority of Christians and Muslims.

I would agree with you that a lot of people were wrong, but there's an interesting counter fact here: Contrary to popular belief, the Hebrew and Greek Bible do not in fact teach any of the above theories, and in many cases it teaches the opposite (and correct) ones. For example, years before everyone believed that the Earth was indeed round and hung in the middle of what we now know is our solar system, the Bible made the claim.

No it doesn't ... one relevant passage is Isaiah 40:22:  "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." however the bible, with special but not sole reference to this statement, makes it clear that:

•   It says "circle", it does not say "sphere" (not withstanding that the Earth is not a sphere it is an oblate spheroid)
•   The statement is consistent with other neighbouring cultures of the time (which also believed in a flat Earth).
•   Genesis (in particular) repeatedly refers to "the firmament" (implicit of a flat Earth).
•   Genesis 7:11 & Genesis 8:2 refer to "windows in the heavens" being opened for the flood water to pour through (consistent with a literal celestial dome).
•   Isaiah 11:12: makes specific reference "the four corners of the earth" (consistent with a flat Earth).

I can't really comment on the Greek or Hebrew texts until you tell me exactly (in English) what it is they say. Until then it remains just another unsubstantiated claim.

Job 26:7: He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the Earth on nothing.

The Earth does not hang on nothing, it orbits the sun based on the precise forces that are gravity, mass, velocity etc., and a casual reading actually rather implies hangs at [insert your god here]'s commands ... in no way does this kind of scriptural claim constitute any kind of scientific statement or even validate your claim that it was known way back when.

I'd also like to point out that the Bible gives a very accurate description of the hydrologic cycle long before our scientists could describe it as well

If your bible were meant to be such a scientific tome then why didn't [insert your god here] state it precisely and directly and not in some codified form that perchance can be warped by others to make it sound vaguely like if might have some kind of predictive value?

Atheism is not nearly as prevalent in the US as 10%, in fact I don't even think it's that high in liberal US colleges. I would like to see a source for this statistic.

Wikipedia: 2004 BBC poll and trust me on this, that's 8 years old and society is sliding more towards a secular/humanistic/atheist character faster than you might want. I've read Britain is near 70% non-believer yet believers still command far more than their fair share of power in our society.

Then I say ask away!

I'm interested in hearing, not asking ... I'm not trying to be brutal there, I just don't have any questions to ask religious people. I'm not that interested. I also got the impression (based on your last post) that you were somewhat more objective than your most recent post reveals so I was more interested then than I am now. On balance I guess I would now withdraw that statement.

All of this can be summed up by a quote from a very famous person.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

And another from the same source to be added to my earlier quote: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

They were never meant to be on opposite sides, but rather compliment each other.

There is no "meant" involved ... at one time (when we were technologically ignorant) religion provided the explanations, the why's and wherefores of our existence but over time we gained a better understanding of the universe around us and now science occupies that role. Whenever any real claim is put up there by religions science defeats it, where science treads, religion falls back. The current situation is that religion exists in the spaces that science has not been able to investigate ... yet! One day that will change.

Hope this provides an interesting side of the argument for everyone involved.

I'm a non-nonsense kinda bloke so I'll just say it ... to me this kind of debate achieves little but to highlight the need for me and those like me to strive harder to dispel this kind of superstitious nonsense. It achieves nothing; it proves nothing; it predicts nothing ... to my mind religions have little value beyond that of a spiritual comfort blanket, a way of believing we [as some kind of superior animal] are somehow superior to our animal ancestors.

Keke

[Mako]

No Albert Einstein was not religious, he made that absolutely clear when he said, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

I consider Agnosticism under the "religious" title. After all, it is its own religion. And AE was not Atheist, in fact he was rather adamant that he not be identified with the Atheists of his day.

As for Darwin, I assume you refer to the oft-trotted out "Lady Hope" tales? Darwin was brought up to be a preacher (at least lay clergy) but his theory of evolution began to erode his faith and claims that he turned back to god (or creationism as I usually hear it) or that he relinquished his theory just before he died are just urban myths ... completely unsubstantiated!

No, not quite. But we'll never know about that last bit. And even then, the theory of Evolution is still just that, a theory.

Not really, ask most Bible Belt Americans, ask most Muslims and I think you'll find that is again just another spurious claim ... perhaps one you happen to believe but not one shared by the vast majority of Christians and Muslims.

I am a Bible Belt American, and there was a reason that I said it's not something that a lot of people are privy to/believe is the truth. The hate between the two religions causes people to be blinded to the truth. There's a reason that from a Christian perspective that Muslims are the easiest to show Jesus, and that's because we believe in the same God. Fascinating conference: http://jaq.org/

No it doesn't ... one relevant passage is Isaiah 40:22:  "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." however the bible, with special but not sole reference to this statement, makes it clear that:

•   It says "circle", it does not say "sphere" (not withstanding that the Earth is not a sphere it is an oblate spheroid)
•   The statement is consistent with other neighbouring cultures of the time (which also believed in a flat Earth).
•   Genesis (in particular) repeatedly refers to "the firmament" (implicit of a flat Earth).
•   Genesis 7:11 & Genesis 8:2 refer to "windows in the heavens" being opened for the flood water to pour through (consistent with a literal celestial dome).
•   Isaiah 11:12: makes specific reference "the four corners of the earth" (consistent with a flat Earth).

Let me ask you, what shape would the earth appear from someone seated above it?

English translation leading to "the firmament" is highly inaccurate (which is the reason that most modern day Bibles read "sky" or "expanse")

raqia: an extended surface, expanse
Original Word: רָקִ֫יעַ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: raqia
Phonetic Spelling: (raw-kee'-ah)
Short Definition: expanse

Source: http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/7549.htm

I can't really comment on the Greek or Hebrew texts until you tell me exactly (in English) what it is they say. Until then it remains just another unsubstantiated claim.

See above.

The Earth does not hang on nothing, it orbits the sun based on the precise forces that are gravity, mass, velocity etc., and a casual reading actually rather implies hangs at [insert your god here]'s commands ... in no way does this kind of scriptural claim constitute any kind of scientific statement or even validate your claim that it was known way back when.

Ahh, but therein lies the rub. Common belief in the Colombian era was that the earth was spread out and resting on something, like a table for example. And yet here we have solid contextual proof that that's not in fact the case. From a scientific standpoint it is true that the earth does orbit the sun due to gravity, however gravity does not account for any vertical force on the Earth, solely horizontal. So "hangs the earth on nothing" is still an accurate statement.

Force Diagram of the earth:
   
      ?
      ^
      |
?<---E--->G
      |
      V
      ?

If your bible were meant to be such a scientific tome then why didn't [insert your god here] state it precisely and directly and not in some codified form that perchance can be warped by others to make it sound vaguely like if might have some kind of predictive value?

Not something so specific as:

For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.

and:

All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.

As you can see, they're not vague statements with a probability of being randomly correct. They're very descriptive explanations of the water cycle, years before we supposedly knew how it worked.

Wikipedia: 2004 BBC poll and trust me on this, that's 8 years old and society is sliding more towards a secular/humanistic/atheist character faster than you might want. I've read Britain is near 70% non-believer yet believers still command far more than their fair share of power in our society.

Two things: Never use Wikipedia as a source. There's a reason we're not allowed to use it for any term papers or the like.
Also, you misread the article, and in fact I think that the title might be a bit of a misnomer. Simply because someone doesn't identify with any particular religion doesn't make them Atheist any more than me being in a garage makes me a car.

The latest statistics show that a lack of religious identity increased in every U.S. state between 1990 and 2008.[45] However less than 2% of the U.S. population describes itself as atheist.

Depending on your source, I've found anywhere from 2-6% in the US.

I'm interested in hearing, not asking ... I'm not trying to be brutal there, I just don't have any questions to ask religious people. I'm not that interested. I also got the impression (based on your last post) that you were somewhat more objective than your most recent post reveals so I was more interested then than I am now. On balance I guess I would now withdraw that statement.

*shrug* Your loss.

There is no "meant" involved ... at one time (when we were technologically ignorant) religion provided the explanations, the why's and wherefores of our existence but over time we gained a better understanding of the universe around us and now science occupies that role. Whenever any real claim is put up there by religions science defeats it, where science treads, religion falls back. The current situation is that religion exists in the spaces that science has not been able to investigate ... yet! One day that will change.

I think that after examining my above responses, my statement still stands. The Bible remains, and will remain consistent with any and all true scientific facts.

I'm a non-nonsense kinda bloke so I'll just say it ... to me this kind of debate achieves little but to highlight the need for me and those like me to strive harder to dispel this kind of superstitious nonsense. It achieves nothing; it proves nothing; it predicts nothing ... to my mind religions have little value beyond that of a spiritual comfort blanket, a way of believing we [as some kind of superior animal] are somehow superior to our animal ancestors.

It's a shame that you feel that way, but your beliefs are yours, and mine are mine.

[Nì'awtua Eyktan]

As for Darwin, I assume you refer to the oft-trotted out "Lady Hope" tales? Darwin was brought up to be a preacher (at least lay clergy) but his theory of evolution began to erode his faith and claims that he turned back to god (or creationism as I usually hear it) or that he relinquished his theory just before he died are just urban myths ... completely unsubstantiated!

No, not quite. But we'll never know about that last bit. And even then, the theory of Evolution is still just that, a theory.

Oh no, not this one again. The word "theory" in science does not mean "guess".

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."


"Evolution is Only a Theory"

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Just as Einstein showed us that gravity is something much different than what we thought it was, I believe we will eventually find the same thing out about evolution-- it is something totally different than what it appears to us to be.

[Mako]

Oh no, not this one again. The word "theory" in science does not mean "guess".

I'm simply claiming that not everything that falls under the category of "evolution" is true. The only section of evolution we have concrete evidence for is micro-evolution by means of natural selection.

[Kekerusey]

I'm simply claiming that not everything that falls under the category of "evolution" is true. The only section of evolution we have concrete evidence for is micro-evolution by means of natural selection.

No .. that is completely and utterly  untrue and all you are demonstrating is complete and utter creationist ignorance. Do you really think that the some of the very best brains in this world are either wrong (i.s. stupid) or lying (corrupt or engaged in a global conspiracy) because I think I'll put my money on the scientists rather than some wingnuts trying to prove a 2000 year old book is relevant to today's science. For this reason I can't be bothered to take the time to answer you properly so I'm simply going to cut & paste a piece I wrote some time back.

Introduction
One of the biggest charges laid at the door of science by creationists is that the Theory of Evolution requires as much faith as a belief in a god and, as such, the "theory" of creation should be taught in schools alongside evolution as a science.

In this article I will demonstrate that the Theory of Evolution fully adheres to scientific principles and that creation, and particularly, creation "science" cannot be considered as a science at all.

Creationist Questions and Assertions
1. Creationism/Creation "Science" does not oppose modern science but is simply science working under the assumption (and acknowledgement) that there is a creator.
2. The Theory of Evolution (Darwin, 1859), unlike other scientific disciplines, does not fit the required scientific model i.e. observation, repeatability and falsifiability.
3. Many evolutionists disagree with each other, many doubt that spontaneous evolution can have occurred, many do not know and many believe that if evolution did occur then God started it.
4. Unsupported speculation is not an acceptable scientific method, as it cannot be reproduced.
5. Evolutionists present unproven theory as fact and thus attempt to discredit creationism!
6. The Theory of Evolution is a religion just like creation in that it requires faith to believe.
7. Creation is a science just like evolution.
8. Proof/disproof of God is within the scope of science

Abstract
* Science determines how the observable universe around us works and scientific method is the process by which we observe, hypothesise, test and confirm those findings. Any scientific theory must be observable, reproducible and falsifiable.
* For the past 100 years or more Darwinian Evolution has been the theory generally considered as explaining how life of Earth evolved.
* Creation "science" rests on the dogmatic proposal that the universe around us was formed "by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis."
* Faith is the 'belief, or the acceptance of something, in the absence of evidence'" i.e. a belief in the supernatural.
* There is significant evidence to indicate that the universe & Earth evolved over vast time-scales (many billions of years) and, as such, the scientific community can no longer seriously entertain the claim of divine creation as per Genesis.
* That evolution occurs is fact ... it is observable in the universe around us and demonstrable in the laboratory.
* The Theory of Evolution lies within the purview of science and is supported by evidence the vast majority of which has been derived by scientific method.
* Darwin's Theory of Evolution is now so firmly established it is generally regarded as fact.
* Creation "science" is not true science because of its basic teleological nature i.e. it starts and ends with the dogmatic proposal that the universe around us was formed "by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis."
* Creation "science" is opposed to everything that true science stands for because it works under the assumption (and acknowledgement) that there is a creator.
* Creation "science" fails to meet the essential requirements for it to be considered in any scientific.
* Creation "science" leaders re-interpret the evidence (observed by true scientists), distort the truth and lie to their followers: 'There is no observational fact imaginable, which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model' (Henry Morris, ICR).
* Science does not generally accept supernatural hypotheses on the basis that there is no evidence to refute them and that it is not possible to define or execute a test for the same.
* Despite creationist claims to the contrary The Theory of Evolution is not currently considered to be under threat and it is the nature of science to be subject to peer-review and of scientists to disagree.
* Adherence to evolution does not require faith, but creationism does.

Discussion
Is a given discipline science or religion? To decide that it is necessary, first and foremost, to define science, scientific method and faith.

Science determines how the observable universe around us works by using scientific method (VonRoeschlaub, 1998). Scientific method is the process of observing (though not necessarily directly), hypothesising, testing and confirming data and theories within that universe. In other words, to adhere to scientific methodology, we:

* Look to the universe around us to provide the phenomena to explain
* Suggest something to explain why that might be so.
* Test our hypothesis with new experiments from which we gain additional data (reproduce it) i.e. looking again to the universe around us to supply the answers.
* Assuming our data confirms our hypothesis accept that hypothesis as a working theory.

A valid scientific theory must be observable, reproducible and falsifiable. The last point is particularly important ... it means that we must be able to define a test that will, if true, disprove our theory ... this last is typified by the question "what piece of evidence would make this theory untrue?"

A definition of faith is more difficult. To quote Ken Harding, one of the more active members of the Talk Origins web site, "for the purposes of this argument, faith is defined as: 'belief, or the acceptance of something, in the absence of evidence'". Harding goes further to say that "much of the time it (faith) is belief in spite of evidence to the contrary."

Evolution (accepted as fact long before Darwin published "The Origin of the Species), like any scientific theory, is not guesswork or an approximation but an extensive explanation developed from well-documented and reproducible sets of data derived from experiments that repeatedly observe natural processes. From such data models are developed and it is important to note that these models (and their subsequent outcomes) are not decided in advance but can be modified and improved, as new empirical evidence is uncovered. Science is constantly subject to peer-review and is a self-correcting attempt to understand nature and the observable universe. Science is not teleological -- that is to say theories do not start with conclusions, refuse to change and acknowledge only data that the initial conclusions support. Further, science does not base theories on untestable collections of dogmatic proposals but is characterised by questions, hypothetical proposals, design of empirical models and conceptual frameworks with the aim of researching natural events.

So is creation "science" a true science? To understand the nature of creation research it is necessary to examine one of their leading organisations more closely ... The Creation Research Society (CRS). The following is quoted from original CRS material:

The Creation Research Society is one of the leading organisations researching special creation and claim to have founded their membership from members who are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history. All of it's members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Saviour for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Saviour.

The society publishes a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal which emphasizes original research and the reinterpretation of existing scientific data within the creationist framework. The journal carries both technical and popular articles in most major scientific and allied disciplines, and thus is of interest to individuals from a wide range of backgrounds. CRS encourages a broad spectrum of research to develop and test a creation model, and administers a research grant program whereby modest funds are distributed to qualified researchers for the conduct of creation-related research.

CRS claims to be a scientific society and it was deemed at the outset that its government should be in the hands of scientists. The highest levels of membership of the society (voting members) are required to hold at least one earned post-graduate degree in a recognized area of science.

From the above it can be seen that creation "science" is not true science because of its basic teleological nature i.e. it starts and ends with the dogmatic proposal that the universe around us was formed "by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis." Since science does not work in this manner it can be seen that creation "science" is, effectively, opposed to everything that true science stands for because it works under the assumption (and acknowledgement) that there is a supernatural creator.

From the US Legal system the following definitions of "creation-science" and "evolution-science" were necessarily established (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1996):

"Creation-science" means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

* Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
* The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
* Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
* Separate ancestry for man and apes;
* Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a world-wide flood; and
* A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.

"Evolution-science" means the scientific evidences for evolution and inferences from those scientific evidences. Evolution-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:
* Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter  and emergence of life from non-life;
* The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about  development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
* Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds  from simple earlier kinds;
* Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
* Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by  uniformitarianism; and
* An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat  later of life.

However, caution should be exercised when using these definitions ... the trial notes make it clear that every theologian who testified, including defence witnesses, believed that "creation" referred to a supernatural creation which was performed by the Christian God.

During the trial the essential characteristics of science were established:
* It is guided by natural law;
* It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
* It is testable against the empirical world;
* Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word;  and
* Its is falsifiable.

It was found that creation "science" failed to meet these essential characteristics in all respects.

Creationists sometimes tell us "There is no reason to disbelieve the biblical claim (Genesis) that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people." Even assuming claims of a "disinterested creation" (creation prior to the beginning of the current universe/big-bang) there is no evidence to support such a claim. Science does not generally accept hypotheses on the basis that there is no evidence to refute them. Whilst there has been speculative research concerning events prior to the "big-bang" it is not currently known what did occur. The claim that a god may or may not have instigated the "big bang" is irrelevant ... it is generally assumed that the lack of evidence to support any form of divine creation means it did not happen.

The theory of evolution (which is supported by many scientific disciplines e.g. biology, biochemistry, zoology, geology, cosmology and physics to name but a few) is now so firmly established it is generally regarded as fact. There is, in fact has been for a very long time, a significant amount of evidence to indicate that the universe, Earth, plants, animal & people evolved over vast time-scales i.e. 4.5 billion years for the Earth and 13 billion for the universe. Nowadays there is little tolerance for claims of divine creation (as per Genesis) within the serious scientific community.

It is also important to understand that Darwin's theory is not dogmatic (like the Bible) as creationists claim nor has it persisted 140 years unscathed. Darwin believed in a non-Lamarckian version of use & disuse that has since been discarded i.e. there are aspects of Darwin's original theory that have changed or been discarded. Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been subject to change within itself in other respects and since it was first defined in 1859 has absorbed punctuated equilibrium, kin selection, and most of our current knowledge of DNA and genetics (including Mendel's work then unknown to Darwin). Darwinian evolution has changed so significantly that some scientists now refer to it as neo-Darwinism.

Neo or modern Darwinism can be looked upon as having two facets. Firstly it deals with explaining the origin of life under primitive earth conditions and occurring within a strictly physico-chemical framework. Secondly it encompasses neo-biogenesis (speciation) which explains the production of new species from pre-existing species.

As a direct result of this the leaders of creationism, fully aware that Darwinian evolution is so heavily supported by the available evidence resulting in it being (effectively) proven, are forced to re-interpret the evidence, distort the truth and lie to their followers. Darwin's Theory of Evolution has existed for 140 years and, though it has itself evolved, has resisted all attempts to destroy or displace it.

Some scientists (by this it must be understood that we refer to true scientists ... for reasons described above there is no such thing as a "creation scientist") hold religious beliefs and that is not a problem ... despite claims to the contrary faith is not in direct conflict with science. Other scientists, again the vast minority, are willing to speculate that life did not evolve as per Darwin's theory but as yet no theory has been advanced with evidence significant enough to be accepted. It is unfortunate, however, that creationists attempt to claim that such disagreements within the scientific community are significant and indicative of vast problems with the Theory of Evolution. Despite the claims of creationists the world over Darwinian evolution is not currently considered to be under threat ... it is the nature of science to be subject to peer-review and of scientists to disagree.

Evolutionists are scientists and it is wrong to claim that a belief in evolution requires faith. Evolutionary scientists do not require faith to predict events proceed according to theory -- they have evidence that allows them to expect it. In philosophical terms the religious amongst us have faith the sun will rise in the East tomorrow but the true scientist, based on past experience, simply expects that it will.

It is important to understand that scientists do not "believe" in evolution so much as accept it as the inevitable and inescapable conclusion which is drawn from the evidence. Religion, according to adherents, is an unchanging and inerrant guide. Evolution, on the other hand, is not a religion and makes no such claim. It is certainly not unchanging (no scientific subject is immune to change) and makes no claims to being inerrant (as our methods and technology improve, so our theories more closely represent reality). Evolution remains as the inference of the currently available evidence, whether creationists accept it or not, and evolution, as a theory, in no danger of being "overturned" by creationism (Harding, 1998).

With regard to the difference between creationism and science or evolution Harding goes on to say "Creationists have their literal biblical interpretation to protect, and are willing to say anything to do so. When Henry Morris (former president of the Institute for Creation Research) says 'There is no observational fact imaginable, which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model' how can anyone trust the 'science' of creationism?" To further emphasise creationist attitudes with regard to science Dr. Henry Morris (Institute of Creation Research) said 'It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture' ('Scientists Confront Creationism', Ed. Laurie R. Godfrey). There is not the slightest possibility that the *facts* of science can contradict the Bible"

Finally it is worth noting that evolution and those that support it do not typically care about creation ... it is religion and as long as it stays that way then fine. But when creationists try to insist that their ideas are in any way scientific then they have over-stepped the mark. Scientists may well ignore the Christian God ... if it exists at all it is supernatural, untestable and irrelevant to science.

Conclusion
Evolution is a science in itself and is supported by most, if not all, major scientific disciplines, that is to say it is impossible to attack one evolution without attacking them all. It does not require faith to believe evolution -- just observation, theory and awareness of what it would take to prove it wrong.

It is important to understand that evolution occurs ... it is observable in the universe around us and demonstrable in the laboratory. Evolution is a fact. Whether Darwin's Theory of Evolution explains the methods by which evolution proceeds and the huge variety of species found on the Earth is more debatable. Aside from punctuated equilibrium (in reality a subset of Darwin's Theory of Evolution) it's only plausible contender has been the Lamarckian Theory of Evolution (see glossary) but subsequent experiments failed to support it and added further weight of evidence to the Darwinian version of events.

Creation, on the other hand, is not now and never will be a science. It starts with the unshakeable conclusion that the Christian God exists, it ignores or attempts to destroy that evidence which denies it's tenets and re-interprets evidence in such a way that it is unjustifiably forced to fit into the ideas in which they have so much faith. The demand that it should be taught as a science alongside evolution is, quite frankly, an insult to rational thinking humans of any kind. Its divine precepts are not testable or falsifiable and, in many cases, not observable. The charges it levies at science and evolution are not only wrong but often reflective of the flaws endemic within the concept of divine creation.

Had it not been for the recent massive rise in interest in creationism and their newfound access to technological media, which has allowed them to spread their lies across the world, they would not be a great danger. But the fact that they are spreading as insidiously and certainly as a plague (1 in 4 Americans believe in a literal creation) and threaten the Freedom of Intellectual and Scientific Thought is no longer tolerable.

References
* The Nature of Faith and the Nature of Science, Ken Harding
* Punctuated Equilibria, Wesley Elsberry (1997)
* Darwin's Precursors and Influences (Introduction), John Wilkins (1997)
* Talk Origins Feedback, December 1998 (Ken Harding)
* God and Evolution, Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub (1998)
* The Creation Research Society Creed (1988)
* Chambers Dictionary of Science & Technology
* McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, US Legal System (1996)
* What's Wrong with These Books, National Center for Science Education (US)

It's an unfortunate thing (for us) that it's extremely easy for people like you to make assertions about major scientific theories being wrong whereas it takes a significant amnmount of research on our part to defend against them ... for that reason I'll come back to your other post later.

Truth be known (and I freely admit I'm as responsible as any other) I think this thread has been derailed far enough and should probably be locked.

Keke

[Clarke]

Since we've wound up discussing the Bible's authenticity, people might be interested to know I once invented a method of mathematically guaranteeing that the Bible was genuine if it were delivered from God. However, since He didn't use it, we'll just go round in circles. I'll elaborate on the details if anyone's interested.

I will not be necessarily 'converted' by being shown Scientific 'facts'. I choose to be a Christian, but also am a student of many of the sciences. Many famous scientists were Christians as well (James Clerk Maxwell comes to mind as an example). I am always interested in hearing about new theories or research-- as long as they pass the 'smell test' (which most legitimate research does).

Keep in mind that, even if you genuinely accept all the conclusions that science produces, then your belief in God still means you aren't accepting science "into your heart", to borrow the expression. It's not scientific/rational to believe in a proposition being true without justification.

Of course, you can easily argue that there are good reasons to not be scientific in this instance and believe anyway, and I'm not going to stop you, but I thought it worth pointing out.  

The protection for religious beliefs in our Constitution is in the first amendment, along with freedom, of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to peacefully assemble. The second amendment deals ONLY with the right to keep and bear arms.

It bears keeping in mind that the protection is not for religious beliefs - it is for all speech. This includes my godless heathen denunciations of religion, if I were to make any.

Albert Einstein was at least religious and it's debated that Charles Darwin was a Christian as well.

Einstein was "religious" only ostensibly - he believed that the universe itself was divine, and so makes a rather crap example of an important scientist who believed in god, because the god he believed in bears no resemblance to capital-G God.

Darwin, however, was entirely Christian - and did have his faith shaken by his conclusion contradicting the Bible. Have a video.
Horrible Histories Charles Darwin Evolution song

Actually not quite. Here's an interesting fact for you: The Islamic God and the Christian God are the same God. Muslims and Christians disagree on salvation. Yes, it does mean that a lot of people are going to be wrong one day, but if anything the logic is strengthened by that point.

Being rigorous, I looked this up. The largest fraction there is 33% - which means, no matter which God you believe in, the majority of the world disagrees with you. This confusion suggests to me that the cause of belief is not a God who intends to be clear - which in turns immediately rules out all mainstream gods. (All of whom allegedly deliver the truth in their holy texts.)

I would agree with you that a lot of people were wrong, but there's an interesting counter fact here: Contrary to popular belief, the Hebrew and Greek Bible do not in fact teach any of the above theories, and in many cases it teaches the opposite (and correct) ones. For example, years before everyone believed that the Earth was indeed round and hung in the middle of what we now know is our solar system, the Bible made the claim.

Ah, the "Let's justify/question the Bible's logic" game! Yaaaay!  

It often surprises me at how quickly people assume things about the Bible without having read it. It's proper practice to understand both sides of an argument in order to make a fair case for either side, and yet I would ballpark a figure for how many secular opponents of the Bible have read every word of it around 10%, if that.

That's probably on the right lines - but the fraction of religious people who have read the Bible cover to cover is not as close to 100% as you'd like.  

All of this can be summed up by a quote from a very famous person.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

They were never meant to be on opposite sides, but rather compliment each other.

This isn't quite true. While it's true that science technically needs a value system to "fuel it" (else it's just a tool that we have no motivation to use) that value system isn't necessarily what we think of as "religion." It could be something else.

I know from experience that if not all religions, at least Christianity is about knowing that there's more to life then just living and dying. I can't put into words how much my heart aches for people to believe this truth, and even now I'm having trouble. People think that Christianity is about a list of dos and don'ts? I can't tell you how far from the truth that is. Christianity is about knowing God. To give an example, it's about knowing God in the same way that the Na'vi know Eywa, that intimate, personal relationship. Anything I say about my own experiences will get written off as "spiritual bull****", but just know that I firmly believe that God is accessible, and that He enjoys talking with us.

There's a large hole in the logic that connects this to the rest of Christianity's theology. It's large enough to write an entire novel around, (which I'm doing ) but it boils down to: how do you know that God is who He says he is?

I consider Agnosticism under the "religious" title. After all, it is its own religion. And AE was not Atheist, in fact he was rather adamant that he not be identified with the Atheists of his day.

See above. Atheism is also not a religion - it is not coherent enough a system of beliefs for it to be a single religion.

No, not quite. But we'll never know about that last bit. And even then, the theory of Evolution is still just that, a theory.

I normally try to be patient and encouraging no matter what I'm discussing, but there's only one appropriate response to this:


"Theories," like evolution underpin literally all technology. The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nano-electronics; the theory of General Relativity describes how to make GPS satellites work and not be so inaccurate as to be worthless, and the theory of statistical mechanics predicts the weather. Theories are the ultimate Swiss army knife in scientific modelling - almost no improvement is possible.

I am a Bible Belt American, and there was a reason that I said it's not something that a lot of people are privy to/believe is the truth. The hate between the two religions causes people to be blinded to the truth. There's a reason that from a Christian perspective that Muslims are the easiest to show Jesus, and that's because we believe in the same God. Fascinating conference: http://jaq.org/

Jahweh and Allah behave very differently, and are described very differently, in their various Holy Texts. If they are the same entity, then He's being somewhat unclear about Himself.

Let me ask you, what shape would the earth appear from someone seated above it?

If they've got really, really accurate depth perception? Spherical.  

Ahh, but therein lies the rub. Common belief in the Colombian era was that the earth was spread out and resting on something, like a table for example. And yet here we have solid contextual proof that that's not in fact the case. From a scientific standpoint it is true that the earth does orbit the sun due to gravity, however gravity does not account for any vertical force on the Earth, solely horizontal. So "hangs the earth on nothing" is still an accurate statement.

You're forgetting something: we can spin space any way we like so as we do the bookkeeping right. Two perhaps more coherent ways to arrange the diagram are with gravity pointing either up or down. If gravity is pointing up, then clearly the Earth hangs on the Sun's gravitational pull. If gravity is pointing down, then it is "hanging" on its own momentum.

Either way, I wouldn't really describe either of these situations as "hanging" at all, since there's no physical entities resisting the local gravity.

As you can see, they're not vague statements with a probability of being randomly correct. They're very descriptive explanations of the water cycle, years before we supposedly knew how it worked.

My turn at quoting now.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Now, we have a problem. If we assume that "Let there be light" is a command for the Big Bang to happen, there's a paradox here that isn't immediately obvious: water exists before light does. Now, contrary to what you'd expect, light and electromagnetism (for they are the same thing) has not existed since the beginning of time - it has only existed since about 300,000 years after that. (The point where the universe cooled down enough for "light" to be a distinguishable thing) Water is held together by electromagnetism, and so can not possibly exist before light did.

But perhaps that's not what "Let there be light" means? Perhaps this verse is describing the prehistoric Earth - but this is also impossible, because the primordial Earth did not start off with an ocean, and only acquired one later on in its life. Although my research isn't bringing up exact numbers, it seems as though the ocean formed after the Moon did, which obviously contradicts verses later on in this chapter. Also, if the Earth is already there, then what is the light? The Sun is created "days" later, and the stars are created later still. What could possibly be generating the light?

Depending on your source, I've found anywhere from 2-6% in the US.

This survey says as high as 13% do not believe in "God" in the US. This contrasts to 44% in the UK.

I think that after examining my above responses, my statement still stands. The Bible remains, and will remain consistent with any and all true scientific facts.

AFAIK, there is no historical record of a Jewish exodus from Egypt.  

I'm a non-nonsense kinda bloke so I'll just say it ... to me this kind of debate achieves little but to highlight the need for me and those like me to strive harder to dispel this kind of superstitious nonsense. It achieves nothing; it proves nothing; it predicts nothing ... to my mind religions have little value beyond that of a spiritual comfort blanket, a way of believing we [as some kind of superior animal] are somehow superior to our animal ancestors.

You're making the mistake of assuming that everyone is as mechanically rational in their beliefs as you are. Religions have immense value to individuals because they are a "comfort" in some fashion. It is only a specific extension of religion (that faith is prized above and beyond adaptation to evidence, natch) that is problematic.

[Mako]

Okay, let's de-escalate this thread to the civilized conversation it was 3 posts ago.

Everyone good? Cool.

Einstein was "religious" only ostensibly - he believed that the universe itself was divine, and so makes a rather crap example of an important scientist who believed in god, because the god he believed in bears no resemblance to capital-G God.

Which it was why it was only an aside and does not pertain to the discussion at hand.

Darwin, however, was entirely Christian - and did have his faith shaken by his conclusion contradicting the Bible. Have a video.

Yes I'm aware. However, sarcasm has no place here.

Being rigorous, I looked this up. The largest fraction there is 33% - which means, no matter which God you believe in, the majority of the world disagrees with you. This confusion suggests to me that the cause of belief is not a God who intends to be clear - which in turns immediately rules out all mainstream gods. (All of whom allegedly deliver the truth in their holy texts.)

I agree with this up to "This confusion...". Someone please explain to me why everyone seems to have a problem with a lot of people being wrong?

That's probably on the right lines - but the fraction of religious people who have read the Bible cover to cover is not as close to 100% as you'd like.  

Thank you, and agreed.

This isn't quite true. While it's true that science technically needs a value system to "fuel it" (else it's just a tool that we have no motivation to use) that value system isn't necessarily what we think of as "religion." It could be something else.

However, nowadays it would seem like science isn't fueled by values at all. Simply put, it seems that to everyone who puts their faith in the "unshakable" science of science seems to think that it exists only to prove religion wrong.

There's a large hole in the logic that connects this to the rest of Christianity's theology. It's large enough to write an entire novel around, (which I'm doing ) but it boils down to: how do you know that God is who He says he is?

It's hard to give just one example for this. Let's just say that He's answered prayers in situations that there was physically no way of them happening by chance.

See above. Atheism is also not a religion - it is not coherent enough a system of beliefs for it to be a single religion.

Haha, I wasn't trying to make the argument. I was just making a statement.

"Theories," like evolution underpin literally all technology. The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nano-electronics; the theory of General Relativity describes how to make GPS satellites work and not be so inaccurate as to be worthless, and the theory of statistical mechanics predicts the weather. Theories are the ultimate Swiss army knife in scientific modelling - almost no improvement is possible.

And yet with evolution we still encounter problems. Cruxes in the equation. Things that could not have evolved simply because it would mean life or death to not have them. The common one is "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" But the not so common are "Which came first, the woodpecker, or the ability to close its eyes every split second it pecks a tree so that its eyes don't fly out?" Or "Which came first, the bombadier beetle or the ability to exactly mix the right amount of chemicals every time it fires them?" In both of these cases, if the animal came first, then the first animal would have died and hence, no more animal. Likewise, if the ability came first, show me where it came from.

And therein lies the question that many scientists avoid about evolution: "If macroevolution is true, where are the links or stairsteps between species?" And to this day I have never seen a credible response to this question.

Simply out of curiosity, which would you say came first, the chicken or the egg?

Jahweh and Allah behave very differently, and are described very differently, in their various Holy Texts. If they are the same entity, then He's being somewhat unclear about Himself.

Yaweh.

But even still, there's reasons for why the Jews and the Muslims fight over Jerusalem, there's reasons why Christianity and Islam developed in the same area of the Middle East. Christians and Muslims disagree on the nature of God, which I can see leading to different behaviours on both parties part. One of the main ones I'm privy to is that Muslims believe that Allah is distant and doesn't interact with humanity while Christians believe that Yaweh is open and accessible and in fact wants to interact with us. Some of my closest friends are missionaries in Jordan, so I've got some solid background on this topic. If I had to sum up my argument on this topic for easier evaluation here's how I would say it:

Necessary premises.
Tf,
Christianity and Islam have different interpretations of the same God.

If they've got really, really accurate depth perception? Spherical.

Another instance where sarcasm has no place here.

You're forgetting something: we can spin space any way we like so as we do the bookkeeping right. Two perhaps more coherent ways to arrange the diagram are with gravity pointing either up or down. If gravity is pointing up, then clearly the Earth hangs on the Sun's gravitational pull. If gravity is pointing down, then it is "hanging" on its own momentum.

Either way, I wouldn't really describe either of these situations as "hanging" at all, since there's no physical entities resisting the local gravity.

Even in the fact that we can spin space any way we like you constitute the "hangs on nothing" part. And what's to say that the "nothing" that is spoken of is constituent of the force of gravity, which is an invisible force?

My turn at quoting now.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Now, we have a problem. If we assume that "Let there be light" is a command for the Big Bang to happen, there's a paradox here that isn't immediately obvious: water exists before light does. Now, contrary to what you'd expect, light and electromagnetism (for they are the same thing) has not existed since the beginning of time - it has only existed since about 300,000 years after that. (The point where the universe cooled down enough for "light" to be a distinguishable thing) Water is held together by electromagnetism, and so can not possibly exist before light did.

But perhaps that's not what "Let there be light" means? Perhaps this verse is describing the prehistoric Earth - but this is also impossible, because the primordial Earth did not start off with an ocean, and only acquired one later on in its life. Although my research isn't bringing up exact numbers, it seems as though the ocean formed after the Moon did, which obviously contradicts verses later on in this chapter. Also, if the Earth is already there, then what is the light? The Sun is created "days" later, and the stars are created later still. What could possibly be generating the light?

Several things in response to this.

I need to say this first in order for this next statement to even have a chance at making sense. There is evidence that suggests that the universe is far younger than we currently believe it is. As it currently stands, C-14 dating is only accurate up to 50-60,000 years. I read a study once that made the claim that it's far less accurate than that. I don't recall the exact details of the study, but I do remember this: Whoever came up with the formula for carbon dating forgot to include very specific components dealing with a younger atmosphere and other factors that affect carbon decay rate. The conclusion of the study was that due to these errors, carbon dating is only accurate in predicting the age of objects less than or equal to 10,000 years. I'm not saying I believe this, there are numerous possibilities about our past which still are unexplained.

In light of this, have you considered the possibility that A. Electromagnetism could have preceded light, or B. That the light itself came from God?

And now a word on paradoxes.

God is fully capable of existing both within and beyond human paradoxes.

That's been a word on paradoxes.

Last thing:
Despite our best guesses, scientists still have no idea where the moon came from, exactly. Pick your theory, I'll show you how it doesn't work.

This survey says as high as 13% do not believe in "God" in the US. This contrasts to 44% in the UK.

Just goes to show you how reliable survey statistics really are

AFAIK, there is no historical record of a Jewish exodus from Egypt.  

However there's more facts about history that lend credibility to the story than not. Until such a time as it can be definitely stated that the Exodus did not happen, the burden of proof remains on those who are seeking to disprove it.

I eagerly await the next cycle of responses.

EDIT:

No .. that is completely and utterly  untrue and all you are demonstrating is complete and utter creationist ignorance. Do you really think that the some of the very best brains in this world are either wrong (i.s. stupid) or lying (corrupt or engaged in a global conspiracy) because I think I'll put my money on the scientists rather than some wingnuts trying to prove a 2000 year old book is relevant to today's science.

To answer this question, yes. I do. See my above reasons.

[Tìtstewan]

Interesting thread.

"Theories," like evolution underpin literally all technology. The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nano-electronics; the theory of General Relativity describes how to make GPS satellites work and not be so inaccurate as to be worthless, and the theory of statistical mechanics predicts the weather. Theories are the ultimate Swiss army knife in scientific modelling - almost no improvement is possible.

And yet with evolution we still encounter problems. Cruxes in the equation. Things that could not have evolved simply because it would mean life or death to not have them. The common one is "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" But the not so common are "Which came first, the woodpecker, or the ability to close its eyes every split second it pecks a tree so that its eyes don't fly out?" Or "Which came first, the bombadier beetle or the ability to exactly mix the right amount of chemicals every time it fires them?" In both of these cases, if the animal came first, then the first animal would have died and hence, no more animal. Likewise, if the ability came first, show me where it came from.

And therein lies the question that many scientists avoid about evolution: "If macroevolution is true, where are the links or stairsteps between species?" And to this day I have never seen a credible response to this question.

Simply out of curiosity, which would you say came first, the chicken or the egg?

Neither of these.
Because you have to define the "chicken". The "chicken" there was certainly not before 50 million years ago. I hope you understand, what I meaning.

My turn at quoting now.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Now, we have a problem. If we assume that "Let there be light" is a command for the Big Bang to happen, there's a paradox here that isn't immediately obvious: water exists before light does. Now, contrary to what you'd expect, light and electromagnetism (for they are the same thing) has not existed since the beginning of time - it has only existed since about 300,000 years after that. (The point where the universe cooled down enough for "light" to be a distinguishable thing) Water is held together by electromagnetism, and so can not possibly exist before light did.

But perhaps that's not what "Let there be light" means? Perhaps this verse is describing the prehistoric Earth - but this is also impossible, because the primordial Earth did not start off with an ocean, and only acquired one later on in its life. Although my research isn't bringing up exact numbers, it seems as though the ocean formed after the Moon did, which obviously contradicts verses later on in this chapter. Also, if the Earth is already there, then what is the light? The Sun is created "days" later, and the stars are created later still. What could possibly be generating the light?

Several things in response to this.

I need to say this first in order for this next statement to even have a chance at making sense. There is evidence that suggests that the universe is far younger than we currently believe it is. As it currently stands, C-14 dating is only accurate up to 50-60,000 years. I read a study once that made the claim that it's far less accurate than that. I don't recall the exact details of the study, but I do remember this: Whoever came up with the formula for carbon dating forgot to include very specific components dealing with a younger atmosphere and other factors that affect carbon decay rate. The conclusion of the study was that due to these errors, carbon dating is only accurate in predicting the age of objects less than or equal to 10,000 years. I'm not saying I believe this, there are numerous possibilities about our past which still are unexplained.

In light of this, have you considered the possibility that A. Electromagnetism could have preceded light, or B. That the light itself came from God?

And now a word on paradoxes.

God is fully capable of existing both within and beyond human paradoxes.

That's been a word on paradoxes.

Interesting that there are other methods of measuring time, not only C-14.
What about uranium or thorium for example?

Last thing:
Despite our best guesses, scientists still have no idea where the moon came from, exactly. Pick your theory, I'll show you how it doesn't work.

Quite simply because no human has ever seen it.

------------

I wouln't comment on this topic, because, that what is being discussed here is basically a zero-sum game. Why I think that? Let me make an example:
If you ask yourself, what was before the Big Bang, you will never get an answer. But why? -> Because there has no time before the Big Bang. Which means that there was no process and it may also have been no process because a process takes time. Immediately raises the question of what triggered the big bang? To this question there is no answer yet. --> The sciencist don't know the answere.

The similar one can ask for all religions that believe in a creator (god, allah, jahwe etc). I feel weird every time I ask myself, where did god come. But exactly that is basically the same problem like the "what was before the Big Bang" question. The answer to that we will never know. Religious people will not hear such a question like, simply because they can not answer it, then in particular, if they have to try to answer objectively. Many do not even want to hear it because it's simply threaten their world view and conception of the world.

Note:
Because this subject is very difficult (and my english is not soo good), I hope that my opinion is not hurtful.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Reyona te Tsateka Ray'i'itan writes:

I need to say this first in order for this next statement to even have a chance at making sense. There is evidence that suggests that the universe is far younger than we currently believe it is. As it currently stands, C-14 dating is only accurate up to 50-60,000 years. I read a study once that made the claim that it's far less accurate than that. I don't recall the exact details of the study, but I do remember this: Whoever came up with the formula for carbon dating forgot to include very specific components dealing with a younger atmosphere and other factors that affect carbon decay rate. The conclusion of the study was that due to these errors, carbon dating is only accurate in predicting the age of objects less than or equal to 10,000 years. I'm not saying I believe this, there are numerous possibilities about our past which still are unexplained.

In light of this, have you considered the possibility that A. Electromagnetism could have preceded light, or B. That the light itself came from God?

Last thing:
Despite our best guesses, scientists still have no idea where the moon came from, exactly. Pick your theory, I'll show you how it doesn't work.

Let's take a look at these.

First of all, radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating does have flaws, but works fine for many things. There are many other ways to date things besides Carbon. In fact, there are much better ways to age the earth than C14. All credible evidence points to an age of about 4.5 billion years. As far as the entire universe goes, there is better and better evidence that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. These dating methods are enough that it is hard to question these dates, especially the age of the earth.

The second point is moot-- electomagnetism is light-- at least the energy form of electromagentism. Light is only light because we have high-fidelity sensors built into our heads that can sense a narrow band of electromagnetic energy.

All of the moon theories do have problems. But all of them (except maybe one) point to a time when the earth was so hot that oceans weren't even in the picture.


Tìtstewan writes:

I wouln't comment on this topic, because, that what is being discussed here is basically a zero-sum game. Why I think that? Let me make an example:
If you ask yourself, what was before the Big Bang, you will never get an answer. But why? -> Because there has no time before the Big Bang. Which means that there was no process and it may also have been no process because a process takes time. Immediately raises the question of what triggered the big bang? To this question there is no answer yet. --> The sciencist don't know the answere.

The similar one can ask for all religions that believe in a creator (god, allah, jahwe etc). I feel weird every time I ask myself, where did god come. But exactly that is basically the same problem like the "what was before the Big Bang" question. The answer to that we will never know. Religious people will not hear such a question like, simply because they can not answer it, then in particular, if they have to try to answer objectively. Many do not even want to hear it because it's simply threaten their world view and conception of the world.

I will hear a question like this and answer it honestly, and that honest answer is "I don't know". And in a lot of ways, it is not important to know (although this should not preclude us from trying to find out). We do not know much about the 'third heaven' (Christian term) where God is. And this isn't something we are likely to ever be able to measure with scientific or speculative means. My bet is that the realm God dwells in is so very different than where we are that we cannot recognize or appreciate it. To understand it, we have to get to where He is, and no one alive has ever gotten more than a glimpse of it.

This, then, is part of the 'mystery of faith'-- we have to take certain things on faith, as we cannot measure these things, no matter how hard we try. In the meantime, let's use science to figure out how God's wonderful universe works!

[Nì'awtua Eyktan]

"Theories," like evolution underpin literally all technology. The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nano-electronics; the theory of General Relativity describes how to make GPS satellites work and not be so inaccurate as to be worthless, and the theory of statistical mechanics predicts the weather. Theories are the ultimate Swiss army knife in scientific modelling - almost no improvement is possible.

And yet with evolution we still encounter problems. Cruxes in the equation. Things that could not have evolved simply because it would mean life or death to not have them. The common one is "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" But the not so common are "Which came first, the woodpecker, or the ability to close its eyes every split second it pecks a tree so that its eyes don't fly out?" Or "Which came first, the bombadier beetle or the ability to exactly mix the right amount of chemicals every time it fires them?" In both of these cases, if the animal came first, then the first animal would have died and hence, no more animal. Likewise, if the ability came first, show me where it came from.

And therein lies the question that many scientists avoid about evolution: "If macroevolution is true, where are the links or stairsteps between species?" And to this day I have never seen a credible response to this question.

Simply out of curiosity, which would you say came first, the chicken or the egg?

You're talking about so called irreducible complexity.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU

Here's a possible hypothesis for the gradual evolution of the bombardier beetle's defense mechanism.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE

If you define "microevolution" as change, no matter how big, that doesn't result in a new species and "macroevolution" as change, no matter how small, that does result in a new species, then both have been observed.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI

Now, contrary to what you'd expect, light and electromagnetism (for they are the same thing) has not existed since the beginning of time - it has only existed since about 300,000 years after that. (The point where the universe cooled down enough for "light" to be a distinguishable thing) Water is held together by electromagnetism, and so can not possibly exist before light did.

According to the big bang theory, electromagnetism (along with the three other forces) had taken their current form during the quark epoch between 10^(–12) seconds and 10^(–6) seconds after the big bang.
About 380,000 years after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe fell to the point where nuclei could combine with electrons to create neutral atoms. As a result, photons no longer interacted frequently with matter, the universe became transparent and the cosmic microwave background radiation was created.

For water to form you need oxygen which was first formed in the first generation of stars. This happened around 100-200 million years after the big bang. So light before water is what I'm getting at or something. I don't know. I'm tired.

I'm not very good at explaining things (I'm more of a "learner" than a "teacher"), so sorry for all the video links.

Also, what's wrong with the hypothesis for the origins of the Moon ("The current most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body.")? Maybe it should be in it's own thread. Feels like I'm derailing abit.

So where was I? Oh yes, sleep. Sweet dreams, or good evening for those on the other side of the pond.

[Kekerusey]

I don't even know why anyone is bothering any more ... creationism is a belief fit only for the scientifically illiterate so I'm just going to post this fun item because Reyona te Tsateka Ray'i'itan's posts are basically no better than the fictional person to whom this is an equally fictional reply:

Smithsonian Institute Rejects Important Hominid Skull Discovery.

Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labelled "211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull." We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Franklin County two million years ago."

Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie". It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen, which might have tipped you off to its modern origin:

•   The material is moulded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.
•   The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimetres, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.
•   The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that:
A.   The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.
B.   Clams don't have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in it's normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name Australopithecus spiff-arino. Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound like it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly.

You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard. We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it.

We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

Yours in Science,

Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities

I know this isn't going to go down well and, to be brutally honest, I'm past caring so a note to the moderators, especially those who seem to think we should respect everyone else's point of view ... you cannot mandate respect for stupidity!

My basic philosophy is to strive for rationality, I don't always achieve it but I do try ... creationists do not appear to want to even try to embrace reason and that is what we are seeing here, a fundamentalist religious claim being dressed up as the equal of science when it is nothing near, when it is the equivalent of saying there is man in the moon, that superman is real or that there are faeries at the bottom of the garden.

Ultimately there are two sides, the truth does not always lie in the middle (doesn't lie anywhere near in this case, and (as Dawkins said) one side is completely out of step with the other ... not just slightly but utterly and hopelessly out of step. This is not a trivial error ... either science has it right or a fundamentalist religion does. Creationists typically believe the Earth to be 6, maybe 10, thousand years old as compared to science which currently demonstrates the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old ... it is not a small error, it is not really even an error, it is intentional ignorance of the available evidence. It is like claiming the Empire state Building is 2" (probably less) in height, like claiming the Pacific Ocean is a puddle, like claiming Route 66 is 20 feet long ... it is absolutely and utterly illogical, intentional and non-trivial. Science accepts all the major scientific theories (including the creationist hated theory of evolution), it accepts them so much so that no respected scientist works on whether evolution occurs but instead works on the mechanisms by which it occurs. Creationists and IDots want us to believe that science has got it wrong ... think on what that means for a moment. A bunch of religious fundamentalists are saying that not just one scientist, or two or a group but every single evolutionary & biological scientist (plus virtually all the rest no matter the discipline) have got it wrong which means they are either lying to us or stupid ... there is no other explanation that could account for such a claim, if true. They genuinely believe that the academic elite of humanity have either deviously defrauded us all or are really, really stupid, thick, daft beyond belief. I mean really ... this is what their claims imply. Someone is wrong here ... whilst I accept that science can make mistakes, science is by nature self-correcting in a way that no religion ever can be and I don't see how we, how science, can be that far off the mark My faith (no not the religious kind) is on science and until I see hard evidence that it isn't working I will continue to keep that faith.

This isn't funny, it is intentional stupidity and whilst I feel like laughing at it because it's so pathetic I know I shouldn't and yet Mods here (and it's unfortunate that the Mod who said this is someone for whom I otherwise have a great deal of respect, have even considered as near a friend as one can through and internet forum) are on record as saying we should respect this drivel, to play nice with those who promote it? Get real ... I know it doesn't make for the best community atmosphere but such views DO NOT deserve respect, they should be treated with the absolute contempt they deserve ... crap like this relies on the fact that the politically correct peacemakers amongst us want us to tolerate such crud.

We shouldn't! I won't! And yes I know this is likely going to get me banned but better that, better to leave behind the language I loved so much to learn than to allow myself to be part of a culture of tolerance that allows religious stupidity to claim itself the equal of the science by which all of us have progressed so far.

My rant is over but I say again to you MODS!!! YOU CANNOT MANDATE RESPECT!!!! ... do what you feel you must but, please (I know what I'm doing), no half-measures!

I'm not even drunk yet

Keke

[Clarke]

Now, contrary to what you'd expect, light and electromagnetism (for they are the same thing) has not existed since the beginning of time - it has only existed since about 300,000 years after that. (The point where the universe cooled down enough for "light" to be a distinguishable thing) Water is held together by electromagnetism, and so can not possibly exist before light did.

According to the big bang theory, electromagnetism (along with the three other forces) had taken their current form during the quark epoch between 10^(–12) seconds and 10^(–6) seconds after the big bang.
About 380,000 years after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe fell to the point where nuclei could combine with electrons to create neutral atoms. As a result, photons no longer interacted frequently with matter, the universe became transparent and the cosmic microwave background radiation was created.

For water to form you need oxygen which was first formed in the first generation of stars. This happened around 100-200 million years after the big bang. So light before water is what I'm getting at or something. I don't know. I'm tired.

You are must likely having problems arguing this point because it is mine, not his.

Yes I'm aware. However, sarcasm has no place here.

I agree with this up to "This confusion...". Someone please explain to me why everyone seems to have a problem with a lot of people being wrong?

According to the Abrahamic group, and others, God is trying to impart truth to everyone, and claims to be powerful enough to do so. (Because when you know [close to] everything, convincing a few monkeys to believe what you want them to is pretty trivial.) Yet, for some reason, somehow, He's failed to do that - He's not even convinced the majority of people of the "truth". This implies that God is either far less powerful than omniscient, or doesn't want to impart truth straightforwardly; either way, that rules out all branches of Christianity and Islam, who assert both. 

However, nowadays it would seem like science isn't fueled by values at all. Simply put, it seems that to everyone who puts their faith in the "unshakable" science of science seems to think that it exists only to prove religion wrong.

It exists to produce reliable knowledge - it's not its fault if people believed incorrect things for whatever reason. When people continue believing incorrect things in face of evidence to the contrary, they have a problem. Proving religions wrong shouldn't even be an issue.

It's hard to give just one example for this. Let's just say that He's answered prayers in situations that there was physically no way of them happening by chance.

Would you like to provide an example? Probability is far harder to calculate than it looks.

And yet with evolution we still encounter problems. Cruxes in the equation. Things that could not have evolved simply because it would mean life or death to not have them. The common one is "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" But the not so common are "Which came first, the woodpecker, or the ability to close its eyes every split second it pecks a tree so that its eyes don't fly out?" Or "Which came first, the bombadier beetle or the ability to exactly mix the right amount of chemicals every time it fires them?" In both of these cases, if the animal came first, then the first animal would have died and hence, no more animal. Likewise, if the ability came first, show me where it came from.

You cannot possibly demonstrate that these things are irreducibly complex - you can only point to a lack of discovered answer and say, "God did it." Nobody involved in this argument ever has - and I'm sure fairly sure, never can - prove that any organism or even part of an organism is irreducibly complex. That would involve showing that, of the nigh-infinite number of variations possible in an organism, none of them are viable.

Also, Talkorigins has a pretty decent explanation of where it came from. 

And therein lies the question that many scientists avoid about evolution: "If macroevolution is true, where are the links or stairsteps between species?" And to this day I have never seen a credible response to this question.

I have no qualification nor significant background knowledge in biology, and yet even I can answer that question definitively: everywhere. That's because "macroevolution" as you're using the term is a lie - every creature is a step between its ancestors and its descendants. Every creature has variation from its parents, and the only thing separating "species" (or even bigger groups, like genii or families) is lots of those variations stacked together.

To pre-empt any question along the lines of "Where are the fossils?," the answer is a matter of statistics: we've found a few billion fossils, having spent centuries looking for them. A very sketchy estimate for the lower bound on the amount of creatures that have existed in the last 100M years is thousands of trillions.

Simply out of curiosity, which would you say came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg, by about 35 million years. Because dinosaurs laid eggs.

Yaweh.

Whoops.

But even still, there's reasons for why the Jews and the Muslims fight over Jerusalem, there's reasons why Christianity and Islam developed in the same area of the Middle East. Christians and Muslims disagree on the nature of God, which I can see leading to different behaviours on both parties part. One of the main ones I'm privy to is that Muslims believe that Allah is distant and doesn't interact with humanity while Christians believe that Yaweh is open and accessible and in fact wants to interact with us. Some of my closest friends are missionaries in Jordan, so I've got some solid background on this topic. If I had to sum up my argument on this topic for easier evaluation here's how I would say it:

Necessary premises.
Tf,
Christianity and Islam have different interpretations of the same God.

So there's a God who's near enough all-powerful, all-knowing, and wants to communicate a specific way of life to us. So why on Earth do I get two diametrically opposite, mutually contradictory views of what Him?

Another instance where sarcasm has no place here.

Since the passage quoted describes God's perspective, "circle", like "hanging," is misleading if accurate at all.

Even in the fact that we can spin space any way we like you constitute the "hangs on nothing" part. And what's to say that the "nothing" that is spoken of is constituent of the force of gravity, which is an invisible force?

But you're still describing something that's in free-fall as "hanging." That's needlessly obfuscated, and anyone intent on communicating clearly would not use that wording.

I need to say this first in order for this next statement to even have a chance at making sense. There is evidence that suggests that the universe is far younger than we currently believe it is.

An example I easily pulled is the galaxy Abell 1835, which 3.3 billion lightyears away, and is not the furthest known object. The only possible method for the universe to be younger than 3 billion years or so (which is still orders of magnitude longer than any Biblical implication) is for the speed of light to be variable. This idea causes far, far far more problems than it solves.

As it currently stands, C-14 dating is only accurate up to 50-60,000 years. I read a study once that made the claim that it's far less accurate than that. I don't recall the exact details of the study, but I do remember this: Whoever came up with the formula for carbon dating forgot to include very specific components dealing with a younger atmosphere and other factors that affect carbon decay rate.

The rates of nuclear decay are dictated by the laws of quantum chromo- and electro-dynamics. Nothing macroscopic can affect them.

The conclusion of the study was that due to these errors, carbon dating is only accurate in predicting the age of objects less than or equal to 10,000 years. I'm not saying I believe this, there are numerous possibilities about our past which still are unexplained.

The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, ± 1%. (I'm aware a couple of those are behind paywalls, but that's modern IP for you.)

In light of this, have you considered the possibility that A. Electromagnetism could have preceded light, or B. That the light itself came from God?

As mentioned, electromagnetism is light. And sure, the light itself could come from God... but that still leaves a host of problems involving the water coming before the light does. It's quite clear that the authors were not aware of the relationship light has to water's structure - which is expected, since they were ancient desert tribesmen, not quantum physicists.

God is fully capable of existing both within and beyond human paradoxes.

Sorry, paradoxes are absolute. You cannot discuss a paradoxical God, nor consistently believe in one - doing so results in absurdity.

Despite our best guesses, scientists still have no idea where the moon came from, exactly. Pick your theory, I'll show you how it doesn't work.

Large object impact sounds plausible enough to me.

Just goes to show you how reliable survey statistics really are

I've found the BBC to be very reliable, yes. Haven't you? 

However there's more facts about history that lend credibility to the story than not. Until such a time as it can be definitely stated that the Exodus did not happen, the burden of proof remains on those who are seeking to disprove it.

Jake himself would cringe at this 'argument'. The number of sources to the contrary would have him running away with his tail between his legs.

No .. that is completely and utterly  untrue and all you are demonstrating is complete and utter creationist ignorance. Do you really think that the some of the very best brains in this world are either wrong (i.s. stupid) or lying (corrupt or engaged in a global conspiracy) because I think I'll put my money on the scientists rather than some wingnuts trying to prove a 2000 year old book is relevant to today's science.

To answer this question, yes. I do. See my above reasons.

So which one is it? Wrong or lying? And why?

[Nyx]

*puts on her mod hat* It seems I need to say this:

Keke, respect for other people shouldn't have to be mandated, it should be a given, you can think what you want about people's opinions and you can argue all you want, but don't resort to personal attacks or insults. I'm not sure if anyone took anything like that, but I wanted to put this out there just in case. Play nice. PM me if you have a problem with this, or questions, or anything else for that matter.

Also. in case anyone's wondering, I'm gonna let you guys derail this as much as you want, because there seems to be a need to discuss. And as long as everyone plays nice I see no problem.

[Tìtstewan]

Simply out of curiosity, which would you say came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg, by about 35 million years. Because dinosaurs laid eggs.

I think no. When there were no land animals, there were no eggs with firm skins. The precursor of the egg was the spawn. Now we also have a problem: What exactly do we mean by an egg? An egg shell with fixed or spawn includes the egg, in the sense of the question "What was there before, chicken or the egg?". And if we would include the spawn to the egg, gets even another problem: I have not seen any bacteria that lay eggs. The question of which cames first, does not make sense.
In order to answer this question, you have to define the frame first. What is an egg? -> How long was the egg? - Which creatures had the ability to lay eggs? (And by that I mean not only the dinosaurs) Oh and note: The egg was it not happen overnight.
As such, this question is not be answered, without first setting certain definitions.

[Kekerusey]

*** EDITED ***

*puts on her mod hat* It seems I need to say this.

Keke, respect for other people shouldn't have to be mandated, it should be a given, you can think what you want about people's opinions and you can argue all you want, but don't resort to personal attacks or insults.

TWO CORRECTIONS:
* I didn't insult Reyona, I was highly critical of his posted views. Saying his views are stupid or whatever is not the same thing as saying he is ... to me it's as obvious that he has a brain as it is that he is refusing to use it rationally with respect to this "discussion". As Michael Shermer said, "intelligent people defend stupid views intelligently"
* You SHOULD NOT demand it (no, it SHOULD NOT be a given)

I respect everyone's right to hold whatever belief they wish (that includes good guys, bad guys, nutters, scientists, religionists, Nazi's, pinko lefty's, communists and [dare I say it] paedophiles) BUT, and this is the key point you (ALL OF YOU MODS) need to UNDERSTAND, any belief (no matter what it is), stands or falls on its own merits and the moment someone brings that belief out into a public arena (such as here) it becomes subject to entirely more sceptical examination. In this case Reytona brought his pseudoscientific claptrap into this public arena, he could do that because today's society encourages what is called "tolerance" ... I've realised what others apparently don't! "Tolerance" (as practised in places like this where it is mandated)  is wrong ... we SHOULD NOT be tolerant of garbage like the stuff Reytona is spouting because it has absolutely no value except to demonstrate how people like him and his ilk promote their crud in a a so-called "tolerant" society.

It boils down to this ... ALL VIEWS ARE NOT EQUAL! Rationally they cannot be ... would you give the same credence to a Nazi as you would a "normal" person? A Communist? A paedophile? Of course you wouldn't so why should I put up with Reyona's garbage? You could argue creationism is less harmful (directly [individually] perhaps, globally, I'm not so sure) and in my view this isn't fun, it isn't a game! We should ABSOLUTELY call anyone out on the crap they come out with ... science, reason and society demand we do so, we should NOT tolerate stupidity disguised as reason.

Reyona's views are non-evidence supported religious rubbish masquerading as the equal of science ... they are not now and never will be the equal but he and his ilk will not admit that!

*Also. in case anyone's wondering, I'm gonna let you guys derail this as much as you want, because there seems to be a need to discuss. And as long as everyone plays nice I see no problem.

I am playing nice ... have I sworn? Have I directly insulted him? Not as far as I know and if I have I will absolutely apologise. But the same DOES NOT (CANNOT) apply to a stated point of view and whilst I may end up going ballistic directly at him (I sincerely hope not) the worst anyone can say to date is that they don't like the way I have said what I have said.

Keke

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

tl;dr the whole thread, but in my opinion this pattern stems from postmodernism. Postmodernism is averse to any type of attempt at changing the beliefs of others, especially strong ones like religion. Politics is forgoed because, well, politicians need to debate 

I am pretty much opposed to postmodernism and, no offense, blame it for the lackadaisical attitude people now hold for seeking truth in spiritual, political, or even scientific aspects. Take the creationist/evolution debate. Rational people do exist on both sides, but most evolutionists just yell "stop the dumb pseudoscience based on a dumb ancient book" and creationists just yell "omg evolutionists are a conspiracy to overthrow religion."

I disagree that religion is not based on reason. Yes, perhaps, some religions are not (extremely ancient animism rituals that nobody knows the origins) but most modern mainstream religions are founded by somebody using reason and philosophy. For example, Islam was founded by Mohammad, who definitely had a lot of philosophical thinking (I am not a Muslim). Thus, it should be viable, though perhaps difficult, to reasonably discuss and even debate about religions.

Most "believers" though are just dumb drones who got indoctrinated by a system that does not allow other opinions to be heard. These people do not even know their own reasons to believe and often arguing with them is a waste of time - they should learn logic first. I know many people may disagree with me, but as a Christian 14-year-old born in atheist China into a non-Christian family, I feel that the "Christians" who just dumbly followed their mom/dad (who were equally ignorant) and reads but never thinks about the Bible really doesn't deserve being called a Christian at all. Even the most fervently religious person should as a basic virtue constantly examine, think about, and even question his own beliefs. I cannot recall how many ridiculous and tremendous misunderstandings about my own religion I would have accumulated had I not been rational about Christianity.