| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"loose cannon" |
| Date: |
14 Jun 2005 04:47:26 AM |
| Object: |
Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/11867477.htm
Evolution debate confounds evangelicals
'Intelligent design' theory at center of conflict
BY PAUL NUSSBAUM
PHILADELPHIA - Can God and evolution coexist?
For many evangelical Christians, the debate over teaching evolution in
public schools touches a vital spiritual nerve. Some see evolution as a
path to perdition, while others see it as a crowning example of God's
handiwork.
A legal battle in Dover, Pa., over the teaching of evolution and
"intelligent design" has focused attention on the issue, as have
proposals in Kansas to change how evolution is taught.
For David Wilcox, a biology professor at the evangelical college of
Eastern University, the challenge is to teach students that it's
possible to embrace evolution "without intellectual schizophrenia."
"They've been taught that evolution is another way of saying atheism,
and they just shut it out," said Wilcox, author of "God and Evolution:
A Faith-Based Understanding." "They say, 'Why do I have to learn this
stuff - don't you know that God hates science?' "
"God doesn't hate science - he invented it. We try to get them to see
that evolution happened, and it's not so scary ... that evolution is
the way God did it."
"Evolutionary theists" such as Wilcox are part of an effort by the
scientific establishment to defend evolution against advocates of
creationism, intelligent design and other concepts that challenge the
theory of natural selection in whole or in part.
Evangelical Christians are as divided as much of the rest of the
nation.
"No topic in the world of science and Christianity has created the
intensity of discussion and disharmony with evangelicals as the source
of biological diversity," asserts the American Scientific Affiliation,
an organization of scientists who are Christians. "Today's spirited
discussion often pits Christian versus Christian and scientist versus
scientist."
The nation's leading science organizations and the majority of
scientists accept the theory of evolution as the explanation for the
origin of all living things, but Americans in general are much less
convinced.
Offered three explanations for the origin of humans in a CBS News/New
York Times poll six months ago, 13 percent of respondents said they
believed "we evolved from less-advanced life forms over millions of
years, and God did not directly guide this process." Twenty-seven
percent believed "we evolved from less-advanced life forms over
millions of years, but God guided this process." And 55 percent
believed "God created us in our present form." The poll, which
questioned 885 people, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3
percentage points.
Evangelicals who are "young Earth" fundamentalists dismiss evolution
and subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of
creation, believing Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
They often see the teaching of evolution as undermining Christianity
and paving the way to immorality.
"What you believe about where you came from directly affects your
worldview," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a
fundamental creationist organization that is building a
50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky. "If you can use
man's ideas to reinterpret the book of Genesis, then why not use man's
ideas to reinterpret morality?"
One of the newest wrinkles in a debate that has percolated ever since
Charles Darwin published his "On the Origin of Species" in 1859 is
"intelligent design."
That is the concept at the heart of the battle in Dover, 25 miles south
of Harrisburg.
Eleven parents have filed a federal lawsuit to stop the Dover school
board from requiring biology teachers to present "intelligent design"
as an alternative to evolution.
The parents say intelligent design is a religious argument and teaching
it violates a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against teaching
creationism as science.
Intelligent design holds that natural selection cannot explain all of
the complex developments observed in nature and that an unspecified
intelligent designer must be involved. Its adherents say it is a
scientific, not a religious, concept based on scientific observations,
although they acknowledge its theological implications.
Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in
Bethlehem, Pa., and the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution," is an intelligent-design proponent and is
scheduled to be an expert witnesses for the Dover school board when the
case goes to trial in the fall.
He says religion is "clearly why (intelligent design) evokes such
emotion. ... It's not just another issue of science. If it were, no one
would care."
Christian supporters of evolution say intelligent design seems to
require periodic intervention by the designer.
Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and the
author of "Finding Darwin's God," is an ardent proponent of evolution
and opponent of intelligent design.
He is slated to be an expert witness for the parents in the Dover case.
"I think there is a God, and he is the creator of the universe," said
Miller, who is Catholic. "But the God of the intelligent-design
movement is way too small. In their view, he designed everything in the
world and yet he repeatedly intervenes and violates the laws of his own
creation.
"Their God is like a kid who is not a very good mechanic and has to
keep lifting the hood and tinkering with the engine."
Many evangelical Protestants, like many Catholics and other Christians,
argue that faith and science complement each other and need not collide
over evolution.
The scientific establishment is trying harder to present evolution as
something apart from, not a threat to, religion.
"It's not science versus religion - that misses the point entirely,"
said Jay Labov, senior adviser for education and communication for the
National Academy of Sciences. "Science cannot begin to look into the
supernatural. That's beyond the realm of science."
The president of the National Academy, Bruce Alberts, sent a letter in
March to members, urging them "to confront the increasing challenges to
the teaching of evolution in public schools."
The academy also gathered the signatures of more than 4,000 Christian
clergy - including evangelicals - supporting evolution as "a
scientific truth." The clergy, in the letter, "ask that science remain
science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but
complementary, forms of truth."
The theory of intelligent design holds that natural selection cannot
explain all of the complex developments observed in nature and that an
unspecified intelligent designer must be involved.
.
|
|
| User: "brutus" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 05:21:07 AM |
|
|
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118724445.912910.59980@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/11867477.htm
Evolution debate confounds evangelicals
'Intelligent design' theory at center of conflict
I'm an evangelical. The evolution debate doesn't confound me. What gives?
Brutus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 05:51:51 AM |
|
|
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in message
news:7Ptre.4048$jX6.760@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
Evolution debate confounds evangelicals
'Intelligent design' theory at center of conflict
I'm an evangelical. The evolution debate doesn't confound me. What
gives?
You haven't mentiond GOD once in your posts.
You haven't even given him credit for anything and you don't reference The
Word.
No - you're just another garden variety Militant, posing as a Christian.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 03:15:55 PM |
|
|
"Sanders Kaufman" <NNTP@kaufman.net> wrote in
news:Xfure.1093$Nz2.599@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in message
news:7Ptre.4048$jX6.760@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
Evolution debate confounds evangelicals
'Intelligent design' theory at center of conflict
I'm an evangelical. The evolution debate doesn't confound me. What
gives?
You haven't mentiond GOD once in your posts.
You haven't even given him credit for anything and you don't reference
The Word.
No - you're just another garden variety Militant, posing as a
Christian.
Another Jesusland retard weighs in as Sanders Kaufman.
--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 06:20:09 AM |
|
|
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in message
news:7Ptre.4048$jX6.760@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
Evolution debate confounds evangelicals
'Intelligent design' theory at center of conflict
I'm an evangelical. The evolution debate doesn't confound me. What
gives?
You haven't mentiond GOD once in your posts.
You haven't even given him credit for anything and you don't reference The
Word.
No - you're just another garden variety Militant, posing as a Christian.
Science is not about religion. Unlike relgion, it is not dogmatic.
Scientists observe the relevant facts avaialble at that time and draw
their conclusions. When new facts emerge they adjust their explanations
if neccesary.
A recent example is the case of the discovery of "Hobbit man" ( Homo
floresiensis) which has clearly evoved from Homo erectus. The disvoery
has incresed our understanding of the hominid family tree.
B C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 10:59:41 AM |
|
|
<bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1118730009.405215.177090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
I'm an evangelical. The evolution debate doesn't confound me. What
gives?
You haven't mentiond GOD once in your posts.
You haven't even given him credit for anything and you don't reference
The
Word.
No - you're just another garden variety Militant, posing as a Christian.
Science is not about religion.
Evangelical scientist?
My bad - when you said "Evangelical" I thought you meant religious whacko.
But you're a science whacko, aren't you?
I applied for a job at Microsoft as a "Visual Studio Evangelist" once.
Is it like that?
Unlike relgion, it is not dogmatic.
HAHAHAHHAHA. Science isn't dogmatic. HAHAHAHHA
The "Scientific Method" iself is the penultimate of Dogma.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 05:11:50 PM |
|
|
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
<bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1118730009.405215.177090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
I'm an evangelical. The evolution debate doesn't confound me. What
gives?
You haven't mentiond GOD once in your posts.
You haven't even given him credit for anything and you don't reference
The
Word.
No - you're just another garden variety Militant, posing as a Christian.
Science is not about religion.
Evangelical scientist?
My bad - when you said "Evangelical" I thought you meant religious whacko.
But you're a science whacko, aren't you?
I applied for a job at Microsoft as a "Visual Studio Evangelist" once.
Is it like that?
Unlike relgion, it is not dogmatic.
HAHAHAHHAHA. Science isn't dogmatic. HAHAHAHHA
The "Scientific Method" iself is the penultimate of Dogma.
What is dogmatic about looking at the available facts and drawing a
reasonable conclusion from them?
Do you prefer a talking snake, a spare rib, Noah's Ark with wild
African elephants, hippopotami, polar bears, kangaroos and Uncle Tom
Cobleigh and all?
B C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 09:16:08 PM |
|
|
<bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1118769110.900366.214520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
HAHAHAHHAHA. Science isn't dogmatic. HAHAHAHHA
The "Scientific Method" iself is the penultimate of Dogma.
What is dogmatic about looking at the available facts and drawing a
reasonable conclusion from them?
That's no the Scientific Method dogma.
That's a really weak summarization.
Do you prefer a talking snake, a spare rib, Noah's Ark with wild
African elephants, hippopotami, polar bears, kangaroos and Uncle Tom
Cobleigh and all?
Well - since religious freaks are the greatest threat to the US today, it's
at least topical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 04:59:05 AM |
|
|
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
<bernard_connor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1118769110.900366.214520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
HAHAHAHHAHA. Science isn't dogmatic. HAHAHAHHA
The "Scientific Method" iself is the penultimate of Dogma.
What is dogmatic about looking at the available facts and drawing a
reasonable conclusion from them?
That's no the Scientific Method dogma.
That's a really weak summarization.
We use both deductive and inductive methods. I chose the deductive
method to explain how we have such overwhelming evidence of it from the
available facts. Also we readjust our explanations when new facts
become available.
The best recent example is the discovery of "Hobbit man" (Homo
floresiensis) whos is clearly a descendant of Homo erectus. We have
redrawn our Hominid family tree accordingly.
B C.
Do you prefer a talking snake, a spare rib, Noah's Ark with wild
African elephants, hippopotami, polar bears, kangaroos and Uncle Tom
Cobleigh and all?
Well - since religious freaks are the greatest threat to the US today, it's
at least topical.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Otis B. Driftwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 06:21:26 AM |
|
|
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote:
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118724445.912910.59980@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/11867477.htm
Evolution debate confounds evangelicals
'Intelligent design' theory at center of conflict
I'm an evangelical. The evolution debate doesn't confound me. What gives?
Now *that* is irony.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry Trotter" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 07:04:35 AM |
|
|
In the great debate about "Evolution debate confounds evangelicals" in
alt.atheism, "loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> catapaulted the
following boulder:
Some see evolution as a
path to perdition, while others see it as a crowning example of God's
handiwork.
God and evolution cannot possibly coexist. The one disproves the other
because evolution explains how intelligence came about, and why it
cannot have pre-dated life.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 07:31:14 AM |
|
|
"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:f80ta19h0ejljc0gkioa2f5vn64r2n86vu@4ax.com...
God and evolution cannot possibly coexist.
Of course they can.
The one disproves the other because evolution explains how intelligence
came about, and why it
cannot have pre-dated life.
Also incorrect.
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry Trotter" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 06:49:41 PM |
|
|
In the great debate about "Re: Evolution debate confounds
evangelicals" in alt.atheism, "Jeff Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> catapaulted the following boulder:
"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:f80ta19h0ejljc0gkioa2f5vn64r2n86vu@4ax.com...
God and evolution cannot possibly coexist.
Of course they can.
The one disproves the other because evolution explains how intelligence
came about, and why it
cannot have pre-dated life.
Also incorrect.
Do you believe that cause and effect are interchangeable? Is the
relationship between cause and effect symmetrical?
Which came first? matter or intelligent life?
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 06:54:42 PM |
|
|
"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:mj9ua1tdail4isl82ijimb7utd1hkqm6o7@4ax.com...
In the great debate about "Re: Evolution debate confounds
evangelicals" in alt.atheism, "Jeff Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> catapaulted the following boulder:
"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:f80ta19h0ejljc0gkioa2f5vn64r2n86vu@4ax.com...
God and evolution cannot possibly coexist.
Of course they can.
The one disproves the other because evolution explains how intelligence
came about, and why it
cannot have pre-dated life.
Also incorrect.
Do you believe that cause and effect are interchangeable? Is the
relationship between cause and effect symmetrical?
Which came first? matter or intelligent life?
.....the chicken, or the chicken fried steak?
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 04:58:20 AM |
|
|
Chicken-Fried steak, with PARVE gravy please... *chuckle*
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooX.com> wrote in message
news:SJFre.52848$PR6.41077@tornado.texas.rr.com...
:
: "Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
: news:mj9ua1tdail4isl82ijimb7utd1hkqm6o7@4ax.com...
: > In the great debate about "Re: Evolution debate confounds
: > evangelicals" in alt.atheism, "Jeff Welch"
: > <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> catapaulted the following boulder:
: > >
: > >"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
: > >news:f80ta19h0ejljc0gkioa2f5vn64r2n86vu@4ax.com...
: > >
: > >> God and evolution cannot possibly coexist.
: > >
: > >Of course they can.
: > >
: > >> The one disproves the other because evolution explains how
intelligence
: > >> came about, and why it
: > >> cannot have pre-dated life.
: > >
: > >Also incorrect.
: > >
: > Do you believe that cause and effect are interchangeable? Is the
: > relationship between cause and effect symmetrical?
: > Which came first? matter or intelligent life?
:
: ....the chicken, or the chicken fried steak?
:
: --
: -Donald in Austin
: AA #2104
: Apatriot #22
: Atheist FF/EMT
: ....and ordained minister
: Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry Trotter" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 07:01:08 PM |
|
|
In the great debate about "Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds
evangelicals" in alt.atheism, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahooX.com> catapaulted the following boulder:
"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:mj9ua1tdail4isl82ijimb7utd1hkqm6o7@4ax.com...
In the great debate about "Re: Evolution debate confounds
evangelicals" in alt.atheism, "Jeff Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> catapaulted the following boulder:
"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:f80ta19h0ejljc0gkioa2f5vn64r2n86vu@4ax.com...
God and evolution cannot possibly coexist.
Of course they can.
The one disproves the other because evolution explains how intelligence
came about, and why it
cannot have pre-dated life.
Also incorrect.
Do you believe that cause and effect are interchangeable? Is the
relationship between cause and effect symmetrical?
Which came first? matter or intelligent life?
....the chicken, or the chicken fried steak?
Well, come to think of it, the only reason that particular chicken
existed is because of chicken fried steak, but let's not cross that
road.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Mysterious Limestone Cowboy" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 07:11:22 PM |
|
|
"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:89aua1tfd6k9737gbu365feagbo5ggh0kp@4ax.com...
In the great debate about "Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds
evangelicals" in alt.atheism, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahooX.com> catapaulted the following boulder:
"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:mj9ua1tdail4isl82ijimb7utd1hkqm6o7@4ax.com...
In the great debate about "Re: Evolution debate confounds
evangelicals" in alt.atheism, "Jeff Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> catapaulted the following boulder:
"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:f80ta19h0ejljc0gkioa2f5vn64r2n86vu@4ax.com...
God and evolution cannot possibly coexist.
Of course they can.
The one disproves the other because evolution explains how
intelligence
came about, and why it
cannot have pre-dated life.
Also incorrect.
Do you believe that cause and effect are interchangeable? Is the
relationship between cause and effect symmetrical?
Which came first? matter or intelligent life?
....the chicken, or the chicken fried steak?
Well, come to think of it, the only reason that particular chicken
existed is because of chicken fried steak, but let's not cross that
road.
Well, that's pretty chicken *****.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 07:59:43 PM |
|
|
"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:mj9ua1tdail4isl82ijimb7utd1hkqm6o7@4ax.com...
Do you believe that cause and effect are interchangeable?
Nope.
Is the relationship between cause and effect symmetrical?
Nope.
Which came first? matter or intelligent life?
What kind of intelligent life are you referring to?
-Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 04:58:59 AM |
|
|
Obviously, not himself.
"Jeff Welch" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118779179.ff622972db6e12416a5f3f5966b2a8ed@meganetnews2...
:
: "Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
: news:mj9ua1tdail4isl82ijimb7utd1hkqm6o7@4ax.com...
:
: > Do you believe that cause and effect are interchangeable?
:
: Nope.
:
: > Is the relationship between cause and effect symmetrical?
:
: Nope.
:
: > Which came first? matter or intelligent life?
:
: What kind of intelligent life are you referring to?
:
: -Jeff
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 04:57:25 AM |
|
|
How did matter come about???
"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:mj9ua1tdail4isl82ijimb7utd1hkqm6o7@4ax.com...
: In the great debate about "Re: Evolution debate confounds
: evangelicals" in alt.atheism, "Jeff Welch"
: <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> catapaulted the following boulder:
: >
: >"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
: >news:f80ta19h0ejljc0gkioa2f5vn64r2n86vu@4ax.com...
: >
: >> God and evolution cannot possibly coexist.
: >
: >Of course they can.
: >
: >> The one disproves the other because evolution explains how
intelligence
: >> came about, and why it
: >> cannot have pre-dated life.
: >
: >Also incorrect.
: >
: Do you believe that cause and effect are interchangeable? Is the
: relationship between cause and effect symmetrical?
: Which came first? matter or intelligent life?
:
: David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 06:08:23 AM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in news:4pOre.87031
$lQ3.29974@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
How did matter come about???
Appears to have condensed from a high energy vacuum state once the energy
density dropped low enough. However, the "how" of the high energy vacuum
state is unkown at this time. You might propose that a supernatural being
was the cause. However that forces the question of the origin of the
supernatural being. Such explanations have been tried in the past and
didn't work (angry gods causing volcanoes, thunder etc). This is called
putting a god into the gaps of knowledge. There aren't too many still
around that worship volcano or thunder gods.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 06:15:01 AM |
|
|
Unfucking believable!
Sorry my definition of God is not your, and my religion is obviously not
what you think religion is.
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9676B87E4922EKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
news:4pOre.87031
: $lQ3.29974@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
:
: > How did matter come about???
: >
:
: Appears to have condensed from a high energy vacuum state once the
energy
: density dropped low enough. However, the "how" of the high energy
vacuum
: state is unkown at this time. You might propose that a supernatural
being
: was the cause. However that forces the question of the origin of the
: supernatural being. Such explanations have been tried in the past and
: didn't work (angry gods causing volcanoes, thunder etc). This is
called
: putting a god into the gaps of knowledge. There aren't too many still
: around that worship volcano or thunder gods.
:
: Klazmon.
:
: <SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 10:21:33 PM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
news:yxPre.88006$lQ3.80266@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
Unfucking believable!
Sorry my definition of God is not your, and my religion is obviously
not what you think religion is.
So which gap are you hiding your god in?
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
16 Jun 2005 01:26:49 AM |
|
|
Which gap?
Come back to me after you have read Maimonides' 'The Guide to the
Perplexed'.
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns96776957D79EDKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
: news:yxPre.88006$lQ3.80266@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
:
: > Unfucking believable!
: >
: > Sorry my definition of God is not your, and my religion is obviously
: > not what you think religion is.
:
: So which gap are you hiding your god in?
:
: Klazmon.
:
:
: <SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
16 Jun 2005 03:03:08 AM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in news:6u4se.16474
$zm.6395@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
Which gap?
The gap you are hiding your god(s) in. I can't help with the particulars as
I don't know which particular god or gods you believe in.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
16 Jun 2005 04:25:45 AM |
|
|
Come back to me after you have read Maimonides' 'The Guide to the
Perplexed'.
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns967799154B256Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
news:6u4se.16474
: $zm.6395@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
:
: > Which gap?
: >
:
: The gap you are hiding your god(s) in. I can't help with the
particulars as
: I don't know which particular god or gods you believe in.
:
: Klazmon.
:
:
: <SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
16 Jun 2005 11:25:33 PM |
|
|
"ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in news:O%6se.99150
$CR5.25014@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
Come back to me after you have read Maimonides' 'The Guide to the
Perplexed'.
So you don't know which god you believe. Whatever.
Klazmon.
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns967799154B256Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" <riain@zion.org.il> wrote in
news:6u4se.16474
: $zm.6395@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
:
: > Which gap?
: >
:
: The gap you are hiding your god(s) in. I can't help with the
particulars as
: I don't know which particular god or gods you believe in.
:
: Klazmon.
:
:
: <SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "NefeshBarYochai" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
16 Jun 2005 04:29:40 AM |
|
|
Like you understand the Rambam. I'm impressed most Arabs could care
less about Jewish literature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
16 Jun 2005 05:22:46 AM |
|
|
Prove I am an ARAB, you GOY FUCKER.
"NefeshBarYochai" <tachnan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118896180.471571.301360@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: Like you understand the Rambam. I'm impressed most Arabs could care
: less about Jewish literature.
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Azrael" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
15 Jun 2005 09:36:24 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:31:14 -0700, "Jeff Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:f80ta19h0ejljc0gkioa2f5vn64r2n86vu@4ax.com...
God and evolution cannot possibly coexist.
Of course they can.
The one disproves the other because evolution explains how intelligence
came about, and why it
cannot have pre-dated life.
Also incorrect.
-Jeff
Your ignorance of the topics that you discuss is astounding. I would
plonk you but I think this is going to be fun.
Azrael
The thiest/diest defense:
1)I believe in god, ergo god exists
2)I believe in god, ergo I know what god wills, wants, the path to god, etc.
3)I believe in god, ergo I am right/correct
4)You don't agree with me, you are wrong (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
5)You dont' beleive as I do then you are wrong (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
6)You want proof of god? (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
7)You have evidence god does not exist (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
8)If you don't believe as I do you are wrong (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
There was no "before" the beginning of our universe, because once upon a time there was no time.
John D. Barrow
Question #1: If I get im my spaceship and fly to the very edge of the universe what do I see out the front window?
Question #2: What is the most mass/matter that a black hole can obsorb and what happens after it reaches that point and trys to absorb more matter?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution debate confounds evangelicals |
14 Jun 2005 07:19:33 AM |
|
|
"Barry Trotter" <trotb02@hogwash.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:f80ta19h0ejljc0gkioa2f5vn64r2n86vu@4ax.com...
In the great debate about "Evolution debate confounds evangelicals" in
alt.atheism, "loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> catapaulted the
following boulder:
Some see evolution as a
path to perdition, while others see it as a crowning example of God's
handiwork.
God and evolution cannot possibly coexist. The one disproves the other
because evolution explains how intelligence came about, and why it
cannot have pre-dated life.
You have pretty limited ideas of both god and evolution.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
