Life from non life violates natural law, therefore it is supernatural, No wonder they run away from defending abiogenesis and try to seperate origins from evolution even though they are taught in the same textbooks, they reject the supernatural but want to hide from their own supernatural beliefs.
I believe god as the first cause is a more rational supernatural explanation than life from dead matter.
Great Video finally somthing positive on You Tube. I read a book Total Truth Liberating Christianity from its cultural Captivity by Nancy Pearcey. I highly recomend it. It really shows how world view impacts this debate. Check it out if you can. :)
Moonlightbateman, thank you for this excellent video!
Have you read the book, "Life Comes from Life?" I think you'd really like it -- it speaks to the first falsehood in evolution that you pointed out in this video.
You communicated your point with a seemingly open mind to both sides. It's when us ID believers start pointing fingers and being closed minded that we get the bad image. So thank you.
Ask yourself this question. If creation were so plausible and obvious and true, then why do scientists oppose it? Is it because they hate god? Or is it because they know what they are talking about? The bottomline is that you are rejecting what the thinkers in our society almost unanimously agree on. They aren't on a vendetta against religion (save for Dawkins), but the fact is that "god" isn't required for our universe to work. God isn't needed to answer the questions that we ask.
On the contrary, most scientists are believers, you can find them along with the 5 billion other believers in a church, synagog or mosque. You seem to think that science negates religion, when in fact most scientists are members of organized religion, even Darwin was a Christian. They know enough to know that this is no accident, but rather an intentional act of a higher intelligence. All of the information points to this being true.
Check your sources. Don't ask other christians who was actually a christian. Most scientists believe out of respect for their families and heritages. this is verified. And darwin came from a time where almost everyone was a christian. this is a regional society aspect. Scientists are just in the past few years figuring out what caused the universe to happen. You really should check credible sources. The arguement that darwin was a christian is just a piece of propaganda. look on all sides...
Perhaps you should check your sources, atheist propaganda is simply incorrect- most scientists, doctors, astronauts and presidents (and candidates) etc...are members of organized religion. Darwin was a Christian and there are alot of other intelligent people involved in science who believe in God. Sorry to disappoint you, but your information is simply incorrect.
"Scientists are just in the past few years figuring out...."
Atheist: "Still working on it." I hear this a lot!
I don't accept post-dated checks: I prefer cash on the barrel. The atheist is "still trying to figure it out," using his imperfect senses and imperfect speculative methods, while simultaneously trying to silence anyone who disagrees with his preconceived notions.
Theists are offering finished, complete, intelligent, and logically consistent facts about our origins, which I accept.
The work of Louis Pasteur you referenced was designed to investigate the germ theory of disease. It was NOT an effort in abiogenesis. It's completely irrelevant to this debate. As for Your example of the flagellar motor, I encourage you to read up on bacterial secretory structures. You'll find convincing evidence that it is not irreducibly complex.
Nope, he was looking into abiogenesis and found that science could not create life from non-life. I did read up on it and I disagree with you, there will always be a point when you can't reduce any further without elimination. This irreducible complexity implies intelligent design.
But what happens when science eventually yields a source for life? Then will you continue to deny the benefits for understanding life that science has brought to us? As science continues to bring more answers, theists will nevertheless continue to deny the research.
It won't. What will happen is that atheists will continue pushing an "anything but God" approach to understanding that limits the scope of learning and retards growth by utilizing censorship.
Once again you are relying on the magic of time and big numbers to forward an unproven concept. Creation however says that life came from life- something we see happen everyday. If you want to see that miracle take place, go to your local OB hospital and watch intelligent life come from intelligent life. Nothing magical about that at all.
Another point. About a scientist not being able to prove that life generates from non-life in a lab doesn't mean that that is incorrect. He didn't have the billions of years that the first life had to develop from inorganic material.
I believe I addressed the concept of time interacting with inorganic material in the video. In a day, an inorganic block of granite will still be inorganic, in a week, a year, or a billion years, inorganic material does not suddenly burst forth into life. Time is not the silver bullet in this equation.
but it isn't a block of granite that they are trying to make it form out of. they hypothesize that it was underwater non-organic elements forming a pre-organic chemical that, through a combination of energy and the chemicals, led to the formation of the first simple organisms. they are extraordinary simple, and wouldn't resemble the life of today.
Lets examine that; combine energy, chemicals and inorganic materials (chemical evolution) and you will not be able to form the simplist living organism, no matter how primitive. We have tried this and it has failed.
It isn't a simple process! Think about it. It took billions of years to attain the right conditions for life to originally form. We've known about the process for but a hundred years; you truly cannot expect science to immediatly know the exact manner in which life first came to be. Give it time. Evolution is still a young (but quite accurate) science.
Young? Darwin's theory is over 150 years old and is based on pagan teachings that date back to ancient Summeria. During that entire time there have been zero observable instances of this ever taking place. Phrases like "give it time" are quite faith based, you have faith that science will do the impossible- I don't.
Over a 150 years old considering how long religion has had to devise a feasible theory on life is quite young. Think big numbers. Do not think about your own life, think about the life of the universe in general. We humans have been around for 3 million years, and civilized society for 10,000 years. 150 years is young. And evolution is a science. It isn't 'based' on Summerian text. Evolution is a gradual process, please keep that in mind.
Let me restate- time is not a magical element. Ape plus time does not equal man. Ape plus time equals old ape. It's common sense once you get over being impressed by big numbers.
moonlightbateman, I highly suggest that you read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It puts things in a different perspective. Even though it is written by a human, if you are as intelligent as you seem, you can grasp the important concepts within this book.
No, the question is "What is the origin of life" that would also be the origin of species since life is divided into species. In other words, species are sub groups of life so the origin of species would also be the origin of life.
Yes, I would also add that I believe humans are directly responsible for the majority of extinctions during the last few thousand years (i.e. Wholly Mammoths, the Dodo Bird and the Passenger Pigeon).
I guess that depends on which models you believe, if you are'nt comfortable with science's current model, give it a minute-it will change, remember when there were 9 planets?
The fact that science adjusts its knowledge-base when evidence indicates it should (or must), is a strength and testimony to its integrity.
Pluto is way out there. The remaining eight are more certain. I'm not a scientist, but I trust those that are, because of their diligence and ethics. Ongoing research is one of the most noble of human endeavors. It's allowing us to reach out to the stars.
Yet that 1% makes us a completely different lifeform that has mastered everything from fire to spaceflight.
Possibly, but because we see mass extinction take place at an increased rate, you could make the argument that life is becoming less diverse- look at the last 100 years.
The Bible actually suggests that life on earth was created by a higher life form. Even Darwin agreed with that.
The Bible may suggest that, but it doesn't make it fact.
Life exists today on a range from single-cell, up to complex mammals with advanced neurological systems giving us the ability for greater sentience and comprehension.
The evidence is there that it has not always been so, and there has been a progressive evolution of adaptation for survival from simple to complex.
The universe is full of planets where physical conditions do not permit life.
I simply stated that the Bible, and Darwin agree (see the last paragraph of "Origin of Species" as a reference). After all, Darwin was a Christian and used phrases like "breathed life into" to explain specification of either a single original organism or several original organisms. This is something science and the Bible agree on.
The expression 'breathing life into' carries all the wonder, amazement and pofoundity that certainly life deserves.
Darwin's theories in his time were controversial because they offered new explantions never before known. Today they are accepted as the foundation of biological study.
Also in Darwin's time, microbiological studies had hardly begun, and his principles could only be applied well after. Even today, microbiology is considered in its infancy.
As a reference, most of Darwins ideas pre-date Darwin, some going back to pagan cultures such as those of ancient Summeria and the cultures who first domesticated and bred livestock. One reason Darwin was so controversial is that these ideas had been heard, and rejected prior to his writings.
Natural selection is simply the process of better adapted organisms surviving and reproducing in their particular environment, and others not.
This applies on the cellular level also.
Livestock breeding by man is active participation for his benefit. Look at all the breeds of dogs today. We used our intelligence there, except for the pit-bulls.
New species came to being on their own, long before we got involved.
Two big leaps of faith in that statement that have never been proven, cellular chemical evolution (a theory) and independant species coming into being on thier own without direction (a theory). I do like the reference to intelligent designers (like Michael Vick? :) who breed dogs. That has benn proven, the other theories have not. Both the Bible and Darwin agree on this as well, no small wonder Darwin decided to become a Christian.
What in the world does the continental drift have to do with this? Land masses shift all the time (earthquakes etc..) and never once has that process produced a living organism from non-living matter. Unless you are trying to tell me there is a race of mole men responsible for life on earth or panspermia started in the earths core (lol).
Rejecting belief that life can change over a long period of time is similar to denying that over the same long period of time, slowly but steadily, land masses collide and rise up to become mountains.
In other words, the very small generational changes in organisms, results
after thousands of generations in
an organism extremely different from the earliest ancestor.
This is called evolution, the proven theory that earth's life does change, slowly but steadily.
Not even close, we see land masses shift everyday. We have yet to ever see life come from non-life (it just does not happen). Do you see the fallacy of that comaparison? One is easily observable, the other has never been observed (even in a lab).
Time is indeed magic when we understand what has occurred over the millenia.
Geological evidence proves the continental drift/plate techtonic 'theory'.
The Theory of Evolution establishes that life has changed over the history of earth, based on archeological, anthropological and DNA evidence.
The diversity of life is the result of evolution that has taken place over millions of years. At one time, 'in the beginning', there was no life on earth, only a cosmic molten mass of minerals.
Now you're getting it! Time is magical in your little scenerio and there had to be a begining point for life (Genesis). Evolution is simply a theory (written primarily by a Christian-Charles Darwin) that attempts to explain why life is so diverse, but leaves the origin of life to God. You seem to be coming around, keep up the good work!
It appears we are on the same page in recognizing evolution.
As for the 'beginning', I have to say that the evidence is growing to show that abiogenesis was, and is possible. The research is happening, but lacks a high priority from a living, pragmatic standpoint and the prime significance is the profoundly philosophical considerations as we discuss here.
It troubles me that theists naturally experience a defensiveness as their sense of morality is so tied to the existance of a deity.
Yes, we are coming to an agreement that evolution is a flawed theory. There is absolutely zero evidence that abiogenesis is possible and only someone desperate to prove an unprovable point would resort to a lie. Abiogenesis is impossible. The dishonesty of atheism troubles me, I find atheists the least trustworthy people on the planet and the "anything but God" argument underscores why most people agree with me. Happy Easter (or whatever you celebrate that does'nt involve God- lol).
Sorry, I should have stated that "evolution isn't so much concerned with the origin of *life* as it is with how life changes"...I said "origin of species" and that was incredibly wrong.
Let me guess, at the end of the program Charleton Heston rides his horse past the Statue of Liberty buried in sand and realizes that the planet of the apes is actually earth (could'nt resist).
Should be an excellent program. Apparently a portion demonstrates how some chimps have greater cognitive/problem-solving abilities than an average 6 year-old and very clear tool-making skills.
Hey, if a Border-Collie can have a verbal recognition vocabulary of eighty words, why not?
We have under-estimated/disrespected animals for way too long.
Look at that sadism in the news today about the cattle.
Did you catch the program last week about Stalin's plan to interbreed humans and apes in the 1930's? His aim was to produce a super strong soldier, amazing several Soviet men and women volunteered for the experiment. We do have a long way to go...
A sad thing was that one of the female volunteers was widowed and wanted to do her part for the motherland-sad. Stalin's scientists believed that by breeding a human/ape hybrid they would validate Darwin, prove evolution and take eugenics to a new level. Ironically Hitler ended the program by invading.
Once again, Darwin is discredited- selective breeding, genetic engineering, hgh, super-soldiers, steroids- all the end result of twisted, atheist eugenics, a direct descendant of Darwin-(the term eugenics was even coined by Darwin's brother). Is this really something you believe can in?
Doesn't sound like you are referring to the NOVA program.
Of course eugenics was wrong, and based almost entirely on white supremicism.
McGwire at least only wanted to change himself, not the world.
How about neo-natal testing though? There it's not so black or white.
The NOVA program was all about the amazing and under-estimated kinship we have with primates. Did you see where the chimp took the guys hand to get his co-operation to move the stone? Absolutely incredible.
Sorry I missed it, I got last minute tickets to the Blues/Blackhawks game- (The Blues won 5-1). Do you think chimps exhibit intelligence on a human level? When I hear about stuff like that all I see is a trained animal, like a dog or a parrot- not a distant relative. Chimp plus time does not equal man, chimp plus time equals old chimp.
It will be re-broadcast tomorrow night and is well worth watching.
It shows that apes are far more like us than many are willing to admit, including their ability to learn which equals and at times surpasses that of children.
Of course our great advantage is the ability to consecutively build upon our knowledge generationally, something no other other animal can match.
Seeing the very human-like similarities between apes and ourselves leaves no doubt that we are closely related.
So you are an ape? There is an interesting magazine I read today, Newsweek's "Secrets of Christianity" there is an article that adresses how since 1973 there has been a marked shift away from Darwinism and Copernicus' teachings on our origins. The article suggests there are just too many cosmic coincidences for life and intelligence to be accidental, it is like history has been driven to create everything, including us for a reason.
Man is man, I don't buy into Darwinian eugenics- we are not descended from chimps, we are not chimps. We are created in the image of God. Each of us is uniquely human, endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights and each of us has a distinct purpose. Lumping man in with animals is the first step toward treating man like an animal (like Stalin did), and that is wrong.
re: 'Lumping man in with animals is the first step toward treating man like an animal...., and that is wrong. '
Hope you recognize this postition as one of speciesism. 'Treating man like an animal' suggests that doing so automatically includes an acceptance of cruelty towards animals.
Perhaps recognizing the soul within an animal such as a chimp or a dog or any sentient animal for that matter, is a good measure of the virtue within our own soul.
Nowhere have we been able to witness God either. Have you seen him? I find it far easier to believe in Evolution, than I do the load of nonsense that christianity is.
What happened to your support/defense of the great American value of free-speech ?
Surprisingly I see you are a supporter of Barack Obama, who believes the Iraq war was/is a large mistake and will only inflame middle-eastern animosity towards the U.S., a position you are 180 degrees away from.
Obama and I are all about free speech and polite/civil disagreement. I don't agree with him 100%, but I think he is the future leader our nation needs. We can't change history but we can change the future. Yes we can!
Barak was present in the Illinois Senate when I delivered the Invocation a few years back, (who knows maybe some of it rubbed off on him!). I love being part of history, besides this election is all about the economy. Yes we can!
NOW you agree that the 1.5 trillion spent on war could have been better spent domestically?
How abut this from 2002? :
'I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.'
What part of "I don't agree with him 100%" did'nt you understand? Saddam is gone, Iraq is a democracy and it's time to come home, we won. Barak is all for American success, and so am I (Yes we can!)
I'm a veteran of the first Gulf War and I can tell you that our military objective was to liberate Kuwait, not to overthrow Saddam. Iran has been an avowed enemy of the US since they took our Embassy hostage in 79, my enemy's enemy is my friend as the middle eastern saying goes.
And the flipside of that coin is that the U.S. has been an enemy of Iran since the 1953 coup d'état, wherein the United Kingdom and the United States orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically-elected administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet from power.
Known as Operation Ajax, it was a covert operation by the Central Intelligence Agency motivated by its desire to control Iranian oil fields.
A definitive setback for democratic government in Iran.
True, President Eisenhower approved it.You should show your solidarity with the poor Iranians by never driving a car that uses middle eastern gas or oil, (since it was bought with American blood money). Are you ready to give up driving? flying? travelling? If not, stop hating on/blaming America because it makes you look like a huge hippocrite!
Rather than wasting energy on hate, how about a more productive, peace-motivated recognition that British/American corporate interests succeeded in directing the historical covert overthrow of a current enemy, and we are now in a postition to recognize our own role towards the status of where things stand today.
Recognizing corporate failure to pursue alternative energy sources resulting in growing petroleum-directed foreign policy ranks right up there as well.
I quite agree, stop hating on America. The history is comon knowlege, but placing all the b;lame on America for Irans failures is ridiculous, the Iranians played a huge role in thier failures and now threaten the middle east region. The Iranians are responsible for Iran, just as Americans are responsible for America.
Learning from history is the only way to avoid repeating its mistakes.
How can racism ever be conquered without acknowledging the evil of slavery?
Understanding anti-American sentiment from the middle-east is essential for dealing with it. Western influences in post WWII have been primarily based on resource acquistion regardless of socio-political impact.
There is understanding anti-American sentiment, and then there is agreeing with and promoting anti-American sentiment. When you side with the Iranians against America- you cross the line.
Aversion to understanding middle-eastern dynamics only serves to further delay peaceful resolution to the tensions regionally and globally.
If you were honest with yourself you would recognize your limitations in this regard. Attempting to understand the situation is not the equivalent of promoting any cause other than peace.
Spare me. I've been there, I've put boots on the ground in the Persian Gulf and the Holy land, your expertise is limited to parroting anti-American, atheist hate speak that you've picked up from the hate America, hate God crowd. Get back to me when you get some first hand life experience, your opinion might matter then...
Come on Miles. Your 'America, love it or leave it' attitude only interferes with your own ability to actually give some reflective thought to these very important principles.
I love my country and I will defend her, if you want to avoid my wrath, don't bad mouth America (P.S. - not ready to give up driving yet? admit it- America has given you a pretty sweet life, alittle loyalty is'nt too much to ask, is it?)
Loving your country can and should mean remaining objective about its actions.
Lowering dependence on foreign supplies of oil in favor of self-sufficiency and alternative sources has been ignored because of the profitability of $100 barrels of oil.
Personally, I have reduced my fuel consumption by more than half, so your accusation of hipocracy is unfounded.
So half of a barrel of oil bought with American blood money is better than a full barrel? C'mon- you just admitted to hipocracy of the worst kind, the kind that rationalizes actions inconsistant with principle, that makes you an anti-American Hipocrit. (or are you just a half tank anti-American Hipocrit?)
I believe that you are so in love with loosing and cowering in fear of islamo-facism that you actually sympathize with them. They have lost and you have lost and the world is better off because of it.
Dissent is one thing, anti-american, anti-military propaganda is another. I fully support dissent but to characterize our military as you have is crossing the line. You betray our democracy by abusing it's freedoms. BTW -MSNBC just ran a story that because of our success in Iraq, tours have been shortened and more troops will be coming home sooner than expected. Looks like you were on the wrong side of history...again
And there is an election coming up in nine months.
The one and a half trillion spent to date for the Iraq war has bankrupted the country.The only people happy are Haliburton and General Electric shareholders.
The war has been going on for 5 years, each of those years saw economic growth in the US. It looks like we may be dodging a recession based on the Dow the last couple of days and gas is back to $2.70 (here) and dropping. Iraq has a democratically elected government and things are looking up, cheer up dude, there's even gonna be a new President elected this year!
When wars are fought for profit Eisenhowers warning of the influence of the military-industrial complex has come to be a reality.
Will anyone be surprised when the next major terrorist attack takes place? Or will corporate interests view it as another windfall economic opportunity?
Peace-loving humanity of all religious stripes should be profoundly concerned at the course of events unfolding.
Eisenhower predicted this based on a far older teaching he learned as a child in a Denison Texas Sunday School. The Book of Revelation and the prophetic teachings of Jesus which predict war and rumors of war will herald the end of this time period. It looks like they were all correct, does'nt it?
So you admit your views are based on faith "I have faith", which begs the question, why is your faith better than mine?
Your own words show that the division lies within man himself (you), to blame an institution (religion)for something you just admitted to doing yourself is kind of ridiculous don't you think?
My faith is in the humanitarian nature inherint in all of us regardless of religious affiliation.
Approaching the human condition on a basis of common interests and shared values of peace and prosperity is necessary to move beyond the foolishness and waste of energies competing for title-holder of moral superiority.
The problem is that the secular humanism you extoll is the same as that spouted by Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. This ideology was tried and failed, surely you have enough knowlege of history to see that faith in man and his inherant goodness leads to Gulags, Concentration Camps and Holocausts. Man is flawed, evil and capable of global catastrophe when trusted absolute moral authority.
Your plan "B" was tried and failed in places like the Soviet Union, the world learned from that experience and I doubt it will ever be tried again while there are still people who were victims of that ideology still alive.
Which raises the question, what is good and what is evil? If you are honest with yourself, you have to admit that religion has shaped your thought process as to what is good and what is evil. To deny that is to deny human history.
Human belief in what is good and what is evil exists out of necessity and naturally has been incorporated into religions. And these beliefs evolve (racism, sexism, environmentalism), as should religion.
This doesn't mean that being more 'religious' automatically translates into greater morality or a better sense of good and evil.
Jim Jones is a perfect example of a false prophet (something the Bible warns against).
Another example would be someone who believes that they are the ultimate moral authority (Mao, Stalin etc..). A narcicistic belief that you are above your own humanity, that you know better than billions of people is the begining of the slide into darkness.
'Man is flawed, evil and capable of global catastrophe when trusted absolute moral authority.'
Is this not exactly what has taken place in Iraq with the deaths of 100K+ innocent citiziens defending their own country by a country claiming 'moral authority'?
Perhaps GWBush belongs on your 'axis of evil' list along with Mao and Stalin.
Hardly, America liberated millions from Saddam Hussien and his genocide machine. we saved millions of lives and protected countless others, including you and your family.
BTW Are you saying you are/were pro-Saddam Hussien?
Garnering American public support for the war against Iraq was based on lies regarding the presence of weapons of mass destruction and a non-existant connection with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
A regime change within Iraq did not require an invasion and the killing of innocents defending their homeland the same as you or I would do. The legacy is near certain to be one of spawning future generations of anti-American terrorists.
Are you serious? If left to you Saddam would still be in power.
General Petraeus did the job, he's finishing up and it looks like we won a huge victory. While you were ringing your hands trying to surrender, the US Military did what it does best...Win
Some of the most brilliant, progressive thinkers and scientists in history have been atheists, suggesting that goodness may have as much to do with independant thinking as following a pre-set 'program'.
Most of those "brilliant, progressive" thinkers fell into madness because they imagined themselves to be more than what they were. I've mentioned some of the most notable; Mao, Stalin, Kim Jong Il etc...The atheist model is not one of success, but one of ultimate failure, lonliness and bitterness. It is the fate of those who seek to become thier own God and realize too late the position was already taken.
Admirers of Einstein and other Nobel Prize winning atheists might disagree with you there.
I have to challenge you on your belief of 'faith in man and his inherant goodness leads to Gulags, Concentration Camps and Holocausts'
Do you honestly believe man does not have an inherent good nature and instinct towards peacefullness? Is it not an over-developed sense of defensiveness that corrupts this?
Einstien was raised in the Jewish faith and Nobel was a Christian. Both acknowleged God and are pretty good examples of why atheism failed. Man, when left to his own devices is capable of great evil. History is filled with examples of this.
Oh yeah, I forgot you were the anti-American guy who would like to debate al-quieda or send them an e-mail. The sad thing is that while you were getting your points lined up, they would be slaughtering your family and you. Bush probably saved your life, the surge worked and you need to come to grips with reality.
In a universe where distances can be measured in light years, it is certain that the concept of time and infinity are 'mind-boggling' for most of humanity.
Uncertainty causes anxiety for many and belief in a patriarchal, human-like god brings comfort.
Realists find more comfort in accepting uncertainty over embracing a delusion.
God is not the delusion, the delusion is that you are incapable of imagining any intelligence greater than your own. In the vastness of everything we understand there is an even greater vastness to what we don't understand, that is the realm of God.
The comfort to be gained from 'imagining' a benevolent, loving god or an authoritative, moralistic god is being replaced by a general, global higher consciousness of humanitarianism and scientific knowledge that is independant of historical mythology.
Perhaps in North Korea, and a few other hold out states from the failed secular humanist experiments of the 20th century (such as the Soviet Union) but most forward thinkers have embraced the idea that we are not an accident and that our existance has a purpose. Call it faith, belief or hope, but it is far preferable to the alternatives.
I have faith, belief and hope that global humanitarianism independant but not necessarily exclusive of divisive religious constraints will pervail to pursue our purpose on this earth to survive and thrive.
We have a long way to go and competition vs. cooperation is the greatest obstacle.
As a Christian I'm starting to think that I.D. and debating I.D. against Evolution is pointless. Why would we have to come up with a theory to try and rival Evolution? If we are true believers we could say that God could have created the Earth in 6 days or 6 billion years, any way he wanted too and that to have Faith in God you should believe that his power does not need to follow science. That'd sound silly to most atheists but who are we trying to please, God or Man?
I don't think it is so much about trying to please man as it is to inform man. There are alot of people who have never heard the other side of the argument and are force fed an "anything but God" theory that goes unchallenged and thus is accepted as truth.
I see your point but shouldn't God's word be enough to draw people in? All the others that we have to witness to through I.D., isn't it like throwing seeds on hard ground expecting them to grow? Most of the people that I.D. scholars debate against are so hardcore in their unbelief that it seems like anything that supports God they will be against, no matter what the evidence may or may not say.
Some people will never be exposed to God's word because of personal/situational bias, as Christians we need to be willing to engage the society in order to engage the individual to expose them to Christ.
Christian Colleges/Universities, films,Lecturers and students seem to be the only ones showing the intellectual courage to question, go see Ben Stien's film expelled as a starting point (due for release in Feb), we seem to be the more open minded of the 2 schools of thought.
Unless the evidence points away from evolution:)The latest biblical research refers to a regional flood in Ur (southern Iraq/Kuwait). As to crypto-zoology, look into piltdown man and nebraska man- 2 noted evolutionary hoaxes
There are several biblical references to extinct species (nephalim, behemoth and leviathan come to mind) and Genesis tells of mass extinction during a flood. God' purpose may simply be to get people to look closer at the evidence.
The really frustrating part is that history has been censured to deny religion it's place in free thought and intellectual courage and the beginings of science. Why not simply state that intelligent design/creationism pre-date Darwin and is frecognised by billions of people. Reasonable, accurate and true.
or you get a reasonable answer like "intelligent design" that is immediately labeled and dismissed-that is my point exactly, science did not learn from history, they are making the same bigoted mistakes the church made, the difference is we changed for the better, science has not.
I think we see ourselves as the "errant knights of the new wildernes", it's part of our national identity- we beloieve in right and wrong, good and evil and we feel empowered to use our considerable resources to seek justice (we goof up occasionally), but we still try.
I think the scientific world often dismisses religion without taking an objective look at our ideas, it has become sort of an elite form of anti-religous bigotry that dismisses any idea that might have religous connotations.
I had some of those same reservations until I met a holocaust survivor who explained to me that he saw people pray for deliverance and die later. He told me that it was'nt until he matured that he came to understand God sometimes uses death as a means of deliverance, calling his own home to him.
Evolution is the pseudo-science, it provides no answer to the origin of life, intelligence, matter or energy. It packages known hoaxes as "evidence" and relies on faith in man as a tenant that has proven to be a social disaster killing millions. Look at the mathematical odds of all of this happening accidentally- I don't have enough space to list the # of zeros in the odds that evolution is even possible.
Your problem is that you talk about things you don't understand at all. You have few hoaxes among millions and millions pieces of evidence.
Sorry man but as far as statistics goes you are also dead wrong (Dembski used model which didn't fit problem he was dealing with). I can prove that you don't exist using Dembski's logic.
Technology rocks, but "Lucy" and Homo Erectus appear to be a seperate species from modern humans, to say they are our ancestor is like saying the dead sea scrolls were written by Miles Davis. There simply is no evidence of a link.
No, the catch all for anti-science is the far left.America is over 90% Judeo-Christian and our society is based on those teachings, we owe a great deal to our common morality and the basis for that is our religion. Apes and men are different, we are seperate species and no missing link has ever been found between the 2 species. There have been some hoaxes that gained wide spread acceptance, but no link has been found.
I doubt very much that Christianity would have gotten as far as it has if it's source document had not been what it was. Evolution has become sort of a catch all for extremists who use it as an "anything but God" argument, the facts go largely unchallenged and many are simply incorrect.
The mass graves of the atheist communists of the 20th century disagree.
Have you ever been to the Dead Sea Scrolls travelling exhibit? They have a part of a Scroll translated into 6 different languages/ they all say exactly the same thing. To say that is an accident is as preposterous as to say that life/intelligence/matter or energy are accidents. The chances of those things being accidental are so astronomical that it makes that argument an impossibility.
Incorrect, gravity is a law, evolution is not (law of gravity vs. law of evolution?). No one has really questioned alot of the theory of evolution- the evidence is at best circumstantial, a guesstimate as to what the fossil record shows.
Looks like we're just reiterating the argument below. :)
In all fairness, if evolution is a guessitmate, then the bible is too. For what I remember, the bible is a loose grouping of books assembled at the Council of Nicaea-- by a pagan no less. Not to mention that most of the New Testament was written years after Jesus had died-- from 4 disparate viewpoints (see gospel of John). And then there are many phrases that are impossible to accurately translate from Hebrew to English.
Incorrect-again, the Bible is a living document compiled by hundreds of sources over thousands of years, it is the inspired word of God revealed to man and the best selling book of all time. It is the basis of western law, history and shared morality.Billions believe in it and millions have died for it. To compare that to a 150 year old theory by Darwin is kind of weak.
I simply stated that there is not enough evidence to make that assumption. Evolution is simply a theory. Chimps and apes are seperate species from man. Man alone was created in God's image (see Genesis), to deny that is an affront to God.
I would disagree with humans "evolving" from apes. There simply is'nt enough evidence to back up that claim, alot of false evidence has been put forward-Piltdown man, Nebraska man etc... that make me call this assumption into question.
"Piltdown man" <- proved to be hoax BY SCIENCE decades ago. You are left with millions of other pieces of evidence to disprove. Just admit that you never accept evolution as a valid theory based on some religious reasons.
Thanks for admitting it was a hoax and proving my point- Piltdown man,Nebraska man and other hoaxes all call your theory into question- no missing link to date.
Abiogenesis is the spontaneous generation of life from non-life (an impossibility). Genesis is life coming from life (God is a living entity). We see this take place everyday,reproduction is an intelligent decision, thus life is intelligently designed (your parents are a great example of this).
Almost all other faiths share a belief that life is designed and not accidental.
As a Christian, I can tell you that I view God as both an elaborate machine with observable rules and a personable knowable force guiding human life. I see it as both and not either/or.
If you question man's infallibility you would be in agreement with the Bible which states "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". (4 different men recorded 4 versions of the same story, it happens everyday in the 4 major network newsrooms). So far the ONLY explanation of the origin of life comes from Genesis, why not explore it?
Who said anything about a disguise? Father/Son/Holy Spirit qualifies as a consortium and the bible is much more than a simple book. The biggest "Myth" about human creation is the myth proposed by Darwin.
The atheist believes in the supernatural too.
Life from non life violates natural law, therefore it is supernatural, No wonder they run away from defending abiogenesis and try to seperate origins from evolution even though they are taught in the same textbooks, they reject the supernatural but want to hide from their own supernatural beliefs.
I believe god as the first cause is a more rational supernatural explanation than life from dead matter.
great video.
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
Great Video finally somthing positive on You Tube. I read a book Total Truth Liberating Christianity from its cultural Captivity by Nancy Pearcey. I highly recomend it. It really shows how world view impacts this debate. Check it out if you can. :)
goosejoy20 3 years ago
Moonlightbateman, thank you for this excellent video!
Have you read the book, "Life Comes from Life?" I think you'd really like it -- it speaks to the first falsehood in evolution that you pointed out in this video.
Keep up the good work!
Purushadasa 3 years ago
I applaud you for standing up for what's right.
You communicated your point with a seemingly open mind to both sides. It's when us ID believers start pointing fingers and being closed minded that we get the bad image. So thank you.
Catie175 3 years ago
I'm not a believer, but I'm pragmatic. Churches (as much as I oppose organized religion)truly have power in numbers.
thepatient89 3 years ago
Actually the "power" of the church comes from more than just numbers...
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Ask yourself this question. If creation were so plausible and obvious and true, then why do scientists oppose it? Is it because they hate god? Or is it because they know what they are talking about? The bottomline is that you are rejecting what the thinkers in our society almost unanimously agree on. They aren't on a vendetta against religion (save for Dawkins), but the fact is that "god" isn't required for our universe to work. God isn't needed to answer the questions that we ask.
thepatient89 3 years ago
On the contrary, most scientists are believers, you can find them along with the 5 billion other believers in a church, synagog or mosque. You seem to think that science negates religion, when in fact most scientists are members of organized religion, even Darwin was a Christian. They know enough to know that this is no accident, but rather an intentional act of a higher intelligence. All of the information points to this being true.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Check your sources. Don't ask other christians who was actually a christian. Most scientists believe out of respect for their families and heritages. this is verified. And darwin came from a time where almost everyone was a christian. this is a regional society aspect. Scientists are just in the past few years figuring out what caused the universe to happen. You really should check credible sources. The arguement that darwin was a christian is just a piece of propaganda. look on all sides...
thepatient89 3 years ago
Perhaps you should check your sources, atheist propaganda is simply incorrect- most scientists, doctors, astronauts and presidents (and candidates) etc...are members of organized religion. Darwin was a Christian and there are alot of other intelligent people involved in science who believe in God. Sorry to disappoint you, but your information is simply incorrect.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Its okay. Just pray for us when the oil peak comes, so that society doesn't fall apart. If God saves us, not science, then I'll build more faith.
thepatient89 3 years ago
"Scientists are just in the past few years figuring out...."
Atheist: "Still working on it." I hear this a lot!
I don't accept post-dated checks: I prefer cash on the barrel. The atheist is "still trying to figure it out," using his imperfect senses and imperfect speculative methods, while simultaneously trying to silence anyone who disagrees with his preconceived notions.
Theists are offering finished, complete, intelligent, and logically consistent facts about our origins, which I accept.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"God isn't needed to answer the questions that we ask."
...unless you want a truthful answer.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
The work of Louis Pasteur you referenced was designed to investigate the germ theory of disease. It was NOT an effort in abiogenesis. It's completely irrelevant to this debate. As for Your example of the flagellar motor, I encourage you to read up on bacterial secretory structures. You'll find convincing evidence that it is not irreducibly complex.
thevigiles 3 years ago
Nope, he was looking into abiogenesis and found that science could not create life from non-life. I did read up on it and I disagree with you, there will always be a point when you can't reduce any further without elimination. This irreducible complexity implies intelligent design.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
But what happens when science eventually yields a source for life? Then will you continue to deny the benefits for understanding life that science has brought to us? As science continues to bring more answers, theists will nevertheless continue to deny the research.
thepatient89 3 years ago
It won't. What will happen is that atheists will continue pushing an "anything but God" approach to understanding that limits the scope of learning and retards growth by utilizing censorship.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Once again you are relying on the magic of time and big numbers to forward an unproven concept. Creation however says that life came from life- something we see happen everyday. If you want to see that miracle take place, go to your local OB hospital and watch intelligent life come from intelligent life. Nothing magical about that at all.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Another point. About a scientist not being able to prove that life generates from non-life in a lab doesn't mean that that is incorrect. He didn't have the billions of years that the first life had to develop from inorganic material.
thepatient89 3 years ago
I believe I addressed the concept of time interacting with inorganic material in the video. In a day, an inorganic block of granite will still be inorganic, in a week, a year, or a billion years, inorganic material does not suddenly burst forth into life. Time is not the silver bullet in this equation.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
but it isn't a block of granite that they are trying to make it form out of. they hypothesize that it was underwater non-organic elements forming a pre-organic chemical that, through a combination of energy and the chemicals, led to the formation of the first simple organisms. they are extraordinary simple, and wouldn't resemble the life of today.
thepatient89 3 years ago
Lets examine that; combine energy, chemicals and inorganic materials (chemical evolution) and you will not be able to form the simplist living organism, no matter how primitive. We have tried this and it has failed.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
It isn't a simple process! Think about it. It took billions of years to attain the right conditions for life to originally form. We've known about the process for but a hundred years; you truly cannot expect science to immediatly know the exact manner in which life first came to be. Give it time. Evolution is still a young (but quite accurate) science.
thepatient89 3 years ago
Young? Darwin's theory is over 150 years old and is based on pagan teachings that date back to ancient Summeria. During that entire time there have been zero observable instances of this ever taking place. Phrases like "give it time" are quite faith based, you have faith that science will do the impossible- I don't.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Over a 150 years old considering how long religion has had to devise a feasible theory on life is quite young. Think big numbers. Do not think about your own life, think about the life of the universe in general. We humans have been around for 3 million years, and civilized society for 10,000 years. 150 years is young. And evolution is a science. It isn't 'based' on Summerian text. Evolution is a gradual process, please keep that in mind.
thepatient89 3 years ago
Let me restate- time is not a magical element. Ape plus time does not equal man. Ape plus time equals old ape. It's common sense once you get over being impressed by big numbers.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
moonlightbateman, I highly suggest that you read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. It puts things in a different perspective. Even though it is written by a human, if you are as intelligent as you seem, you can grasp the important concepts within this book.
thepatient89 3 years ago
Thanks, I'll try to check it out. Let me make a plug for the Ben Stein movie "Expelled" which is due to be released in theaters April 18th!
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
interestin' points
TJae1 3 years ago
Luv the wallpaper... kitchen time is the perfect time 4 Utube.
TJae1 3 years ago
re: 'The origin of life is the origin of species.'
What do you mean by this? That species have not evolved and all been there from the beginning?
freespeechcure 3 years ago
No, the question is "What is the origin of life" that would also be the origin of species since life is divided into species. In other words, species are sub groups of life so the origin of species would also be the origin of life.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Do you accept that there are species in existance today that did not exist before?
freespeechcure 3 years ago
Absolutely, they are the direct result of intelligent design (either God or man).
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Would you agree that some species multiply due to success and others disappear due to failure to thrive or compete against other species?
freespeechcure 3 years ago
Yes, I would also add that I believe humans are directly responsible for the majority of extinctions during the last few thousand years (i.e. Wholly Mammoths, the Dodo Bird and the Passenger Pigeon).
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
We can't be blamed for the dinosaurs though.
Since then, man has risen to the top of the food chain, and is now the most plentiful mammal on earth.
A good question now, is that having killed most of the fish in the seas, where will he turn for a replacement?
Archeology tells us there has been six mass-extinctions on earth. The next one could take us out, but other species will carry on.
Our presence has been but one minute in the relative time-scale of life on earth.
freespeechcure 3 years ago
I guess that depends on which models you believe, if you are'nt comfortable with science's current model, give it a minute-it will change, remember when there were 9 planets?
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
The fact that science adjusts its knowledge-base when evidence indicates it should (or must), is a strength and testimony to its integrity.
Pluto is way out there. The remaining eight are more certain. I'm not a scientist, but I trust those that are, because of their diligence and ethics. Ongoing research is one of the most noble of human endeavors. It's allowing us to reach out to the stars.
freespeechcure 3 years ago
The exact same thing can be said about religion.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Maybe you'd like to expand on that.
freespeechcure 3 years ago
Sure thing-
Old Testament/New Testament.
Original Man-Adam/ New Man-Jesus,
Genesis/Revelation (history to prophecy)
I'm a Christian, an aviator (USAF Ret.) and I'm headed to Nasa (KSC) next week to forward man's knowlege and forward my faith.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
In terms of evolution, are you saying you believe there were no humans on earth before the biblical Adam?
freespeechcure 3 years ago
There had to be a first...science actually agrees that we all share DNA from a common female ancestor.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
We also share 99% of our DNA with primates.
If life on earth is seen as a branching process, it suggests the diversity today grew from less in the beginning.
The Bible did not address this concept (how could it?), and suggests that creation of developed, complex life-forms was of a spontaneous nature.
freespeechcure 3 years ago
Yet that 1% makes us a completely different lifeform that has mastered everything from fire to spaceflight.
Possibly, but because we see mass extinction take place at an increased rate, you could make the argument that life is becoming less diverse- look at the last 100 years.
The Bible actually suggests that life on earth was created by a higher life form. Even Darwin agreed with that.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
The Bible may suggest that, but it doesn't make it fact.
Life exists today on a range from single-cell, up to complex mammals with advanced neurological systems giving us the ability for greater sentience and comprehension.
The evidence is there that it has not always been so, and there has been a progressive evolution of adaptation for survival from simple to complex.
The universe is full of planets where physical conditions do not permit life.
At one time, earth fell into that category
freespeechcure 3 years ago
I simply stated that the Bible, and Darwin agree (see the last paragraph of "Origin of Species" as a reference). After all, Darwin was a Christian and used phrases like "breathed life into" to explain specification of either a single original organism or several original organisms. This is something science and the Bible agree on.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
The expression 'breathing life into' carries all the wonder, amazement and pofoundity that certainly life deserves.
Darwin's theories in his time were controversial because they offered new explantions never before known. Today they are accepted as the foundation of biological study.
Also in Darwin's time, microbiological studies had hardly begun, and his principles could only be applied well after. Even today, microbiology is considered in its infancy.
freespeechcure 3 years ago
As a reference, most of Darwins ideas pre-date Darwin, some going back to pagan cultures such as those of ancient Summeria and the cultures who first domesticated and bred livestock. One reason Darwin was so controversial is that these ideas had been heard, and rejected prior to his writings.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Natural selection is simply the process of better adapted organisms surviving and reproducing in their particular environment, and others not.
This applies on the cellular level also.
Livestock breeding by man is active participation for his benefit. Look at all the breeds of dogs today. We used our intelligence there, except for the pit-bulls.
New species came to being on their own, long before we got involved.
freespeechcure 3 years ago
Two big leaps of faith in that statement that have never been proven, cellular chemical evolution (a theory) and independant species coming into being on thier own without direction (a theory). I do like the reference to intelligent designers (like Michael Vick? :) who breed dogs. That has benn proven, the other theories have not. Both the Bible and Darwin agree on this as well, no small wonder Darwin decided to become a Christian.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
You are aware of the difference between scientific theory and the layman's use of the word 'theory'?
freespeechcure 3 years ago
The question is, are you?
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Regarding your comment 'time is not a magical element',
Does this mean you reject the process of plate techtonics and continental drift?
freespeechcure 3 years ago
What in the world does the continental drift have to do with this? Land masses shift all the time (earthquakes etc..) and never once has that process produced a living organism from non-living matter. Unless you are trying to tell me there is a race of mole men responsible for life on earth or panspermia started in the earths core (lol).
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Rejecting belief that life can change over a long period of time is similar to denying that over the same long period of time, slowly but steadily, land masses collide and rise up to become mountains.
In other words, the very small generational changes in organisms, results
after thousands of generations in
an organism extremely different from the earliest ancestor.
This is called evolution, the proven theory that earth's life does change, slowly but steadily.
This includes learning.
freespeechcure 3 years ago
Not even close, we see land masses shift everyday. We have yet to ever see life come from non-life (it just does not happen). Do you see the fallacy of that comaparison? One is easily observable, the other has never been observed (even in a lab).
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Time is indeed magic when we understand what has occurred over the millenia.
Geological evidence proves the continental drift/plate techtonic 'theory'.
The Theory of Evolution establishes that life has changed over the history of earth, based on archeological, anthropological and DNA evidence.
The diversity of life is the result of evolution that has taken place over millions of years. At one time, 'in the beginning', there was no life on earth, only a cosmic molten mass of minerals.
freespeechcure 3 years ago
Now you're getting it! Time is magical in your little scenerio and there had to be a begining point for life (Genesis). Evolution is simply a theory (written primarily by a Christian-Charles Darwin) that attempts to explain why life is so diverse, but leaves the origin of life to God. You seem to be coming around, keep up the good work!
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
It appears we are on the same page in recognizing evolution.
As for the 'beginning', I have to say that the evidence is growing to show that abiogenesis was, and is possible. The research is happening, but lacks a high priority from a living, pragmatic standpoint and the prime significance is the profoundly philosophical considerations as we discuss here.
It troubles me that theists naturally experience a defensiveness as their sense of morality is so tied to the existance of a deity.
freespeechcure 3 years ago
Yes, we are coming to an agreement that evolution is a flawed theory. There is absolutely zero evidence that abiogenesis is possible and only someone desperate to prove an unprovable point would resort to a lie. Abiogenesis is impossible. The dishonesty of atheism troubles me, I find atheists the least trustworthy people on the planet and the "anything but God" argument underscores why most people agree with me. Happy Easter (or whatever you celebrate that does'nt involve God- lol).
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Sorry, I should have stated that "evolution isn't so much concerned with the origin of *life* as it is with how life changes"...I said "origin of species" and that was incredibly wrong.
SharkeyeJones 3 years ago
That is the problem is'nt it? The origin of life is the origin of species.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
tuesday/19 PBS NOVA - Ape Genius
An examination of the greatly under-estimated intelligence of apes, which as distant cousins of man share over 97% of our DNA.
A program not to be missed.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
Let me guess, at the end of the program Charleton Heston rides his horse past the Statue of Liberty buried in sand and realizes that the planet of the apes is actually earth (could'nt resist).
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Should be an excellent program. Apparently a portion demonstrates how some chimps have greater cognitive/problem-solving abilities than an average 6 year-old and very clear tool-making skills.
Hey, if a Border-Collie can have a verbal recognition vocabulary of eighty words, why not?
We have under-estimated/disrespected animals for way too long.
Look at that sadism in the news today about the cattle.
We've got a long way to go.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
Did you catch the program last week about Stalin's plan to interbreed humans and apes in the 1930's? His aim was to produce a super strong soldier, amazing several Soviet men and women volunteered for the experiment. We do have a long way to go...
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Missed that one.
How hard-up for a date do you have to be to volunteer for that?
That experiment likely got shelved when they came up with HGH.
freespeechcure 3 years ago
A sad thing was that one of the female volunteers was widowed and wanted to do her part for the motherland-sad. Stalin's scientists believed that by breeding a human/ape hybrid they would validate Darwin, prove evolution and take eugenics to a new level. Ironically Hitler ended the program by invading.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
It's been done before; the mule, the beefalo, zebra-horse etc.
Trust the military to pursue something like that.
McGwire, Bonds and Clemens have shown it isn't necessary to go that route.
freespeechcure 3 years ago
Once again, Darwin is discredited- selective breeding, genetic engineering, hgh, super-soldiers, steroids- all the end result of twisted, atheist eugenics, a direct descendant of Darwin-(the term eugenics was even coined by Darwin's brother). Is this really something you believe can in?
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Doesn't sound like you are referring to the NOVA program.
Of course eugenics was wrong, and based almost entirely on white supremicism.
McGwire at least only wanted to change himself, not the world.
How about neo-natal testing though? There it's not so black or white.
The NOVA program was all about the amazing and under-estimated kinship we have with primates. Did you see where the chimp took the guys hand to get his co-operation to move the stone? Absolutely incredible.
freespeechcure 3 years ago
Sorry I missed it, I got last minute tickets to the Blues/Blackhawks game- (The Blues won 5-1). Do you think chimps exhibit intelligence on a human level? When I hear about stuff like that all I see is a trained animal, like a dog or a parrot- not a distant relative. Chimp plus time does not equal man, chimp plus time equals old chimp.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
It will be re-broadcast tomorrow night and is well worth watching.
It shows that apes are far more like us than many are willing to admit, including their ability to learn which equals and at times surpasses that of children.
Of course our great advantage is the ability to consecutively build upon our knowledge generationally, something no other other animal can match.
Seeing the very human-like similarities between apes and ourselves leaves no doubt that we are closely related.
freespeechcure 3 years ago
So you are an ape? There is an interesting magazine I read today, Newsweek's "Secrets of Christianity" there is an article that adresses how since 1973 there has been a marked shift away from Darwinism and Copernicus' teachings on our origins. The article suggests there are just too many cosmic coincidences for life and intelligence to be accidental, it is like history has been driven to create everything, including us for a reason.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
You seem hung up on the superiority or inferiority of different beings.
You do accept that man is an animal, right?
I hope you don't reject scientific taxonomy.
freespeechcure 3 years ago
Man is man, I don't buy into Darwinian eugenics- we are not descended from chimps, we are not chimps. We are created in the image of God. Each of us is uniquely human, endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights and each of us has a distinct purpose. Lumping man in with animals is the first step toward treating man like an animal (like Stalin did), and that is wrong.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
re: 'Lumping man in with animals is the first step toward treating man like an animal...., and that is wrong. '
Hope you recognize this postition as one of speciesism. 'Treating man like an animal' suggests that doing so automatically includes an acceptance of cruelty towards animals.
Perhaps recognizing the soul within an animal such as a chimp or a dog or any sentient animal for that matter, is a good measure of the virtue within our own soul.
Part of the 'evangalist' job, right?
freespeechcure 3 years ago
Thanks, Obama is a Christian who has attended the same Church in Chicago for 20 years.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Nowhere have we been able to witness God either. Have you seen him? I find it far easier to believe in Evolution, than I do the load of nonsense that christianity is.
Religion is infantile.
waysgoose 4 years ago
You just basically admitted you dont have evidence for evolution and that you have to BELIEVE in evolution. Sounds like a religion to me.
CravingGod 4 years ago
What happened to your support/defense of the great American value of free-speech ?
Surprisingly I see you are a supporter of Barack Obama, who believes the Iraq war was/is a large mistake and will only inflame middle-eastern animosity towards the U.S., a position you are 180 degrees away from.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
Obama and I are all about free speech and polite/civil disagreement. I don't agree with him 100%, but I think he is the future leader our nation needs. We can't change history but we can change the future. Yes we can!
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Barak was present in the Illinois Senate when I delivered the Invocation a few years back, (who knows maybe some of it rubbed off on him!). I love being part of history, besides this election is all about the economy. Yes we can!
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
NOW you agree that the 1.5 trillion spent on war could have been better spent domestically?
How abut this from 2002? :
'I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.'
Hope you now see that wisdom as well.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
What part of "I don't agree with him 100%" did'nt you understand? Saddam is gone, Iraq is a democracy and it's time to come home, we won. Barak is all for American success, and so am I (Yes we can!)
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
I'm a veteran of the first Gulf War and I can tell you that our military objective was to liberate Kuwait, not to overthrow Saddam. Iran has been an avowed enemy of the US since they took our Embassy hostage in 79, my enemy's enemy is my friend as the middle eastern saying goes.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
And the flipside of that coin is that the U.S. has been an enemy of Iran since the 1953 coup d'état, wherein the United Kingdom and the United States orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically-elected administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet from power.
Known as Operation Ajax, it was a covert operation by the Central Intelligence Agency motivated by its desire to control Iranian oil fields.
A definitive setback for democratic government in Iran.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
True, President Eisenhower approved it.You should show your solidarity with the poor Iranians by never driving a car that uses middle eastern gas or oil, (since it was bought with American blood money). Are you ready to give up driving? flying? travelling? If not, stop hating on/blaming America because it makes you look like a huge hippocrite!
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Rather than wasting energy on hate, how about a more productive, peace-motivated recognition that British/American corporate interests succeeded in directing the historical covert overthrow of a current enemy, and we are now in a postition to recognize our own role towards the status of where things stand today.
Recognizing corporate failure to pursue alternative energy sources resulting in growing petroleum-directed foreign policy ranks right up there as well.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
I quite agree, stop hating on America. The history is comon knowlege, but placing all the b;lame on America for Irans failures is ridiculous, the Iranians played a huge role in thier failures and now threaten the middle east region. The Iranians are responsible for Iran, just as Americans are responsible for America.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Learning from history is the only way to avoid repeating its mistakes.
How can racism ever be conquered without acknowledging the evil of slavery?
Understanding anti-American sentiment from the middle-east is essential for dealing with it. Western influences in post WWII have been primarily based on resource acquistion regardless of socio-political impact.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
There is understanding anti-American sentiment, and then there is agreeing with and promoting anti-American sentiment. When you side with the Iranians against America- you cross the line.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Aversion to understanding middle-eastern dynamics only serves to further delay peaceful resolution to the tensions regionally and globally.
If you were honest with yourself you would recognize your limitations in this regard. Attempting to understand the situation is not the equivalent of promoting any cause other than peace.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
Spare me. I've been there, I've put boots on the ground in the Persian Gulf and the Holy land, your expertise is limited to parroting anti-American, atheist hate speak that you've picked up from the hate America, hate God crowd. Get back to me when you get some first hand life experience, your opinion might matter then...
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Come on Miles. Your 'America, love it or leave it' attitude only interferes with your own ability to actually give some reflective thought to these very important principles.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
I love my country and I will defend her, if you want to avoid my wrath, don't bad mouth America (P.S. - not ready to give up driving yet? admit it- America has given you a pretty sweet life, alittle loyalty is'nt too much to ask, is it?)
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Loving your country can and should mean remaining objective about its actions.
Lowering dependence on foreign supplies of oil in favor of self-sufficiency and alternative sources has been ignored because of the profitability of $100 barrels of oil.
Personally, I have reduced my fuel consumption by more than half, so your accusation of hipocracy is unfounded.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
So half of a barrel of oil bought with American blood money is better than a full barrel? C'mon- you just admitted to hipocracy of the worst kind, the kind that rationalizes actions inconsistant with principle, that makes you an anti-American Hipocrit. (or are you just a half tank anti-American Hipocrit?)
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
I believe that you are so in love with loosing and cowering in fear of islamo-facism that you actually sympathize with them. They have lost and you have lost and the world is better off because of it.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Spoken like someone who has never had the courage to wear a uniform and risk everything for something they believe in.
Soldiers have a word to describe your kind...coward.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
I'm sure there are a few soldiers out there reading this who support my voicing dissent, if they agree with it or not.
It's often said that that is precisely what they are fighting for.
Maybe you've forgotten or feel it is no longer important.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
Dissent is one thing, anti-american, anti-military propaganda is another. I fully support dissent but to characterize our military as you have is crossing the line. You betray our democracy by abusing it's freedoms. BTW -MSNBC just ran a story that because of our success in Iraq, tours have been shortened and more troops will be coming home sooner than expected. Looks like you were on the wrong side of history...again
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
And there is an election coming up in nine months.
The one and a half trillion spent to date for the Iraq war has bankrupted the country.The only people happy are Haliburton and General Electric shareholders.
Eisenhower must be rolling in his grave.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
The war has been going on for 5 years, each of those years saw economic growth in the US. It looks like we may be dodging a recession based on the Dow the last couple of days and gas is back to $2.70 (here) and dropping. Iraq has a democratically elected government and things are looking up, cheer up dude, there's even gonna be a new President elected this year!
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
When wars are fought for profit Eisenhowers warning of the influence of the military-industrial complex has come to be a reality.
Will anyone be surprised when the next major terrorist attack takes place? Or will corporate interests view it as another windfall economic opportunity?
Peace-loving humanity of all religious stripes should be profoundly concerned at the course of events unfolding.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
Eisenhower predicted this based on a far older teaching he learned as a child in a Denison Texas Sunday School. The Book of Revelation and the prophetic teachings of Jesus which predict war and rumors of war will herald the end of this time period. It looks like they were all correct, does'nt it?
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
So you admit your views are based on faith "I have faith", which begs the question, why is your faith better than mine?
Your own words show that the division lies within man himself (you), to blame an institution (religion)for something you just admitted to doing yourself is kind of ridiculous don't you think?
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
My faith is in the humanitarian nature inherint in all of us regardless of religious affiliation.
Approaching the human condition on a basis of common interests and shared values of peace and prosperity is necessary to move beyond the foolishness and waste of energies competing for title-holder of moral superiority.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
The problem is that the secular humanism you extoll is the same as that spouted by Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. This ideology was tried and failed, surely you have enough knowlege of history to see that faith in man and his inherant goodness leads to Gulags, Concentration Camps and Holocausts. Man is flawed, evil and capable of global catastrophe when trusted absolute moral authority.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Associating secular humanism with the evils of particular atheists is no more fair than associating evil with the Christian motivation of GWBush.
Maybe you have something.
It does appear your solution is for the entire world to adopt your particular religion.
Not going to happen.
Better have a plan B.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
Your plan "B" was tried and failed in places like the Soviet Union, the world learned from that experience and I doubt it will ever be tried again while there are still people who were victims of that ideology still alive.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
With or without religion evil people will do evil things and good people will do good things.
A world with true religous freedom would not include totalitarianism.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
Which raises the question, what is good and what is evil? If you are honest with yourself, you have to admit that religion has shaped your thought process as to what is good and what is evil. To deny that is to deny human history.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Human belief in what is good and what is evil exists out of necessity and naturally has been incorporated into religions. And these beliefs evolve (racism, sexism, environmentalism), as should religion.
This doesn't mean that being more 'religious' automatically translates into greater morality or a better sense of good and evil.
I would use Jim Jones as an example.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
Jim Jones is a perfect example of a false prophet (something the Bible warns against).
Another example would be someone who believes that they are the ultimate moral authority (Mao, Stalin etc..). A narcicistic belief that you are above your own humanity, that you know better than billions of people is the begining of the slide into darkness.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Also;
'Man is flawed, evil and capable of global catastrophe when trusted absolute moral authority.'
Is this not exactly what has taken place in Iraq with the deaths of 100K+ innocent citiziens defending their own country by a country claiming 'moral authority'?
Perhaps GWBush belongs on your 'axis of evil' list along with Mao and Stalin.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
Hardly, America liberated millions from Saddam Hussien and his genocide machine. we saved millions of lives and protected countless others, including you and your family.
BTW Are you saying you are/were pro-Saddam Hussien?
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Garnering American public support for the war against Iraq was based on lies regarding the presence of weapons of mass destruction and a non-existant connection with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
A regime change within Iraq did not require an invasion and the killing of innocents defending their homeland the same as you or I would do. The legacy is near certain to be one of spawning future generations of anti-American terrorists.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
Are you serious? If left to you Saddam would still be in power.
General Petraeus did the job, he's finishing up and it looks like we won a huge victory. While you were ringing your hands trying to surrender, the US Military did what it does best...Win
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Some of the most brilliant, progressive thinkers and scientists in history have been atheists, suggesting that goodness may have as much to do with independant thinking as following a pre-set 'program'.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
Most of those "brilliant, progressive" thinkers fell into madness because they imagined themselves to be more than what they were. I've mentioned some of the most notable; Mao, Stalin, Kim Jong Il etc...The atheist model is not one of success, but one of ultimate failure, lonliness and bitterness. It is the fate of those who seek to become thier own God and realize too late the position was already taken.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Admirers of Einstein and other Nobel Prize winning atheists might disagree with you there.
I have to challenge you on your belief of 'faith in man and his inherant goodness leads to Gulags, Concentration Camps and Holocausts'
Do you honestly believe man does not have an inherent good nature and instinct towards peacefullness? Is it not an over-developed sense of defensiveness that corrupts this?
freespeechcure 4 years ago
Einstien was raised in the Jewish faith and Nobel was a Christian. Both acknowleged God and are pretty good examples of why atheism failed. Man, when left to his own devices is capable of great evil. History is filled with examples of this.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Certainly the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld kabal has demonstrated this.
American Christians values have not been served by born-again GWB.
The same could be said for your expressed view to attack multiple Islamic cities immediately in the wake of 9/11.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
Oh yeah, I forgot you were the anti-American guy who would like to debate al-quieda or send them an e-mail. The sad thing is that while you were getting your points lined up, they would be slaughtering your family and you. Bush probably saved your life, the surge worked and you need to come to grips with reality.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
In a universe where distances can be measured in light years, it is certain that the concept of time and infinity are 'mind-boggling' for most of humanity.
Uncertainty causes anxiety for many and belief in a patriarchal, human-like god brings comfort.
Realists find more comfort in accepting uncertainty over embracing a delusion.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
God is not the delusion, the delusion is that you are incapable of imagining any intelligence greater than your own. In the vastness of everything we understand there is an even greater vastness to what we don't understand, that is the realm of God.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
The comfort to be gained from 'imagining' a benevolent, loving god or an authoritative, moralistic god is being replaced by a general, global higher consciousness of humanitarianism and scientific knowledge that is independant of historical mythology.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
Perhaps in North Korea, and a few other hold out states from the failed secular humanist experiments of the 20th century (such as the Soviet Union) but most forward thinkers have embraced the idea that we are not an accident and that our existance has a purpose. Call it faith, belief or hope, but it is far preferable to the alternatives.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
I have faith, belief and hope that global humanitarianism independant but not necessarily exclusive of divisive religious constraints will pervail to pursue our purpose on this earth to survive and thrive.
We have a long way to go and competition vs. cooperation is the greatest obstacle.
freespeechcure 4 years ago
As a Christian I'm starting to think that I.D. and debating I.D. against Evolution is pointless. Why would we have to come up with a theory to try and rival Evolution? If we are true believers we could say that God could have created the Earth in 6 days or 6 billion years, any way he wanted too and that to have Faith in God you should believe that his power does not need to follow science. That'd sound silly to most atheists but who are we trying to please, God or Man?
Oddityworld 4 years ago
I don't think it is so much about trying to please man as it is to inform man. There are alot of people who have never heard the other side of the argument and are force fed an "anything but God" theory that goes unchallenged and thus is accepted as truth.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
I see your point but shouldn't God's word be enough to draw people in? All the others that we have to witness to through I.D., isn't it like throwing seeds on hard ground expecting them to grow? Most of the people that I.D. scholars debate against are so hardcore in their unbelief that it seems like anything that supports God they will be against, no matter what the evidence may or may not say.
Oddityworld 4 years ago
Some people will never be exposed to God's word because of personal/situational bias, as Christians we need to be willing to engage the society in order to engage the individual to expose them to Christ.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Well, anything that lifts Christ up is a good thing. We just need to remember that He should always be first.
Oddityworld 4 years ago
Agreed!
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Christian Colleges/Universities, films,Lecturers and students seem to be the only ones showing the intellectual courage to question, go see Ben Stien's film expelled as a starting point (due for release in Feb), we seem to be the more open minded of the 2 schools of thought.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Unless the evidence points away from evolution:)The latest biblical research refers to a regional flood in Ur (southern Iraq/Kuwait). As to crypto-zoology, look into piltdown man and nebraska man- 2 noted evolutionary hoaxes
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Great, all we are asking for is equal time in other classes.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
There are several biblical references to extinct species (nephalim, behemoth and leviathan come to mind) and Genesis tells of mass extinction during a flood. God' purpose may simply be to get people to look closer at the evidence.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
The really frustrating part is that history has been censured to deny religion it's place in free thought and intellectual courage and the beginings of science. Why not simply state that intelligent design/creationism pre-date Darwin and is frecognised by billions of people. Reasonable, accurate and true.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
or you get a reasonable answer like "intelligent design" that is immediately labeled and dismissed-that is my point exactly, science did not learn from history, they are making the same bigoted mistakes the church made, the difference is we changed for the better, science has not.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
I think we see ourselves as the "errant knights of the new wildernes", it's part of our national identity- we beloieve in right and wrong, good and evil and we feel empowered to use our considerable resources to seek justice (we goof up occasionally), but we still try.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
But still a seperate and extinct species that failed to survive- no real evidence that they are our ancestors, just subjective guesses.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
I think the scientific world often dismisses religion without taking an objective look at our ideas, it has become sort of an elite form of anti-religous bigotry that dismisses any idea that might have religous connotations.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
I had some of those same reservations until I met a holocaust survivor who explained to me that he saw people pray for deliverance and die later. He told me that it was'nt until he matured that he came to understand God sometimes uses death as a means of deliverance, calling his own home to him.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Even more interesting is the fact you admit that half of us do not believe in evolution (your words). Why would you want to silence so many people?
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
I take you are an atheist who has some sort of grudge against America and Christianity? Care to elaborate on why?
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
All seperate species, again-no missing link.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
And your proof?
Do you even know what the definition of the species is? Sorry but this is just pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo talk.
mirekkaleta 4 years ago
Evolution is the pseudo-science, it provides no answer to the origin of life, intelligence, matter or energy. It packages known hoaxes as "evidence" and relies on faith in man as a tenant that has proven to be a social disaster killing millions. Look at the mathematical odds of all of this happening accidentally- I don't have enough space to list the # of zeros in the odds that evolution is even possible.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Your problem is that you talk about things you don't understand at all. You have few hoaxes among millions and millions pieces of evidence.
Sorry man but as far as statistics goes you are also dead wrong (Dembski used model which didn't fit problem he was dealing with). I can prove that you don't exist using Dembski's logic.
mirekkaleta 4 years ago
And I can prove I do exist using common sense (who do you think is writing this?). Thanks for the admission that evolution is riddled with hoaxes.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Technology rocks, but "Lucy" and Homo Erectus appear to be a seperate species from modern humans, to say they are our ancestor is like saying the dead sea scrolls were written by Miles Davis. There simply is no evidence of a link.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
No, the catch all for anti-science is the far left.America is over 90% Judeo-Christian and our society is based on those teachings, we owe a great deal to our common morality and the basis for that is our religion. Apes and men are different, we are seperate species and no missing link has ever been found between the 2 species. There have been some hoaxes that gained wide spread acceptance, but no link has been found.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
I doubt very much that Christianity would have gotten as far as it has if it's source document had not been what it was. Evolution has become sort of a catch all for extremists who use it as an "anything but God" argument, the facts go largely unchallenged and many are simply incorrect.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
The mass graves of the atheist communists of the 20th century disagree.
Have you ever been to the Dead Sea Scrolls travelling exhibit? They have a part of a Scroll translated into 6 different languages/ they all say exactly the same thing. To say that is an accident is as preposterous as to say that life/intelligence/matter or energy are accidents. The chances of those things being accidental are so astronomical that it makes that argument an impossibility.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Incorrect, gravity is a law, evolution is not (law of gravity vs. law of evolution?). No one has really questioned alot of the theory of evolution- the evidence is at best circumstantial, a guesstimate as to what the fossil record shows.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Looks like we're just reiterating the argument below. :)
In all fairness, if evolution is a guessitmate, then the bible is too. For what I remember, the bible is a loose grouping of books assembled at the Council of Nicaea-- by a pagan no less. Not to mention that most of the New Testament was written years after Jesus had died-- from 4 disparate viewpoints (see gospel of John). And then there are many phrases that are impossible to accurately translate from Hebrew to English.
hamburgercastle 4 years ago
Incorrect-again, the Bible is a living document compiled by hundreds of sources over thousands of years, it is the inspired word of God revealed to man and the best selling book of all time. It is the basis of western law, history and shared morality.Billions believe in it and millions have died for it. To compare that to a 150 year old theory by Darwin is kind of weak.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
I simply stated that there is not enough evidence to make that assumption. Evolution is simply a theory. Chimps and apes are seperate species from man. Man alone was created in God's image (see Genesis), to deny that is an affront to God.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
I would disagree with humans "evolving" from apes. There simply is'nt enough evidence to back up that claim, alot of false evidence has been put forward-Piltdown man, Nebraska man etc... that make me call this assumption into question.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
"Piltdown man" <- proved to be hoax BY SCIENCE decades ago. You are left with millions of other pieces of evidence to disprove. Just admit that you never accept evolution as a valid theory based on some religious reasons.
mirekkaleta 4 years ago
Thanks for admitting it was a hoax and proving my point- Piltdown man,Nebraska man and other hoaxes all call your theory into question- no missing link to date.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Oh man!! I just love your logic...
mirekkaleta 4 years ago
Thanks again!
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Abiogenesis is the spontaneous generation of life from non-life (an impossibility). Genesis is life coming from life (God is a living entity). We see this take place everyday,reproduction is an intelligent decision, thus life is intelligently designed (your parents are a great example of this).
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Almost all other faiths share a belief that life is designed and not accidental.
As a Christian, I can tell you that I view God as both an elaborate machine with observable rules and a personable knowable force guiding human life. I see it as both and not either/or.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
If you question man's infallibility you would be in agreement with the Bible which states "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". (4 different men recorded 4 versions of the same story, it happens everyday in the 4 major network newsrooms). So far the ONLY explanation of the origin of life comes from Genesis, why not explore it?
moonlightbateman 4 years ago
Who said anything about a disguise? Father/Son/Holy Spirit qualifies as a consortium and the bible is much more than a simple book. The biggest "Myth" about human creation is the myth proposed by Darwin.
moonlightbateman 4 years ago