Science is only a piece of the puzzle, but when you exalt this over wisdom, understanding and spiritual discernment, then you have stepped into the Satanic tree of knowledge deception, and have cut yourself of from knowing and understanding God along with His revelations and Manifestations backed up by prophecy and documeneted history.
maybe there is a higher power but every religion out there got it all wrong. I always wondered, how is it that thousands of years ago in egypt through china through central america and through europe, they all had never met eachother but they all had something in common? A belief in a higher power. Whether it was one or many gods. Maybe the higher being appeared to all of them a some point and they all came up with their own weird way of giving praise to them?
@glendaweil "What an idiot compairing religion to knitting..."
I agree. Knitting never motivated a person to commit to suicide bombing, ignoring scientific evidence, enslaving millions in a totalitarian tyranny , or taking gullible people's money. Knitting is way more moral than religion.
@glendaweil Spoken by another Christian apologist who ignores the abysmal record of Christian history and thinks that no Atheist has read the Bible or were once adherents to Christian belief.
Note the Hitchens test: Name a moral act that a religious person would do that an atheist would not. Now name an immoral act that only a religious person would do because of their faith. The 1st is hard and the 2nd easy.
The beautiful thing about knitting is that it's extremists don't commit immoral acts.
@Ramohog" Love your enemy" is neither a moral act nor one exclusive to the faithful. Love your enemy is a profoundly immoral act. It is good and proper to hate those that will harm you and yours. Example: Loving your would-be assassin.
"Forgive... daily" is also not exclusive to the faithful.
Pray for those that have hurt you" is an abrogation of responsibility, ergo immoral act.
"Bless them... " depending on definition, blessing is either not an act or something atheists do too
@drfoxcourt Yes I will love my assassin, in the hope he repents and will not go to hell, as he is doing me a favor to die as a martyr. These examples can be done, but doing it as a life style, so it will come to you naturally is a whole different ball game. Pray and obey is the key to see the blessing, and is highly responsible. It's all about understanding the spiritual laws that govern life, and applying them. That's why Jesus came, and that's what He did and taught, for us to follow!
@Ramohog " I will love my assassin" Do you realize that is the same thinking that suicide bombers use? Kill the unbeliever to appease God and secure the proper place for both the victim and the bomber. Feh.
Anti-social (assassination/terrorism/sadism...) behavior should be resisted, not "loved"
As for pray, it does nothing. As for obey, how do your KNOW what God wants? How do you know any better than a Muslim, a Kali worshiper...?
You know what is moral without a god telling you so.
@drf No... it's actually the exact opposite of suicide bombers. I would never kill, but forgive and love, so we both might go to heaven. Yes hate evil but love the person so he might repent and turn to God.
I had many answered prayers, and it does everything. God says what He wants, and when you do it, then you will find out about it. History and current world affairs, have proven what works and what does not. All foretold by God's more sure Word of prophecy. Moral consciousness is God given.
Don 't be too quick to push religion out - even with all of it's imperfections & even if there is no god it has served a purpose to buffer society from the reality of evolution driven dominance. Humans are cold blooded killers at heart & without some threat of moral judgement you'll be surprised at what people will do - I see this stuff in the streets every single day. I do NOT believe in the natural goodness of man for I have seen a different reality. Maybe religion just needs to be reinvented.
@CaneFu Not true at all, Homo Sapiens have been evolving as a separate, social species for hundreds of thousands of years before any organized religion took hold, and were obviously very successful. Humans have the capacity to be cold blooded but we are very social at the same time. A quick glance at the atrocities committed in the old testament, and the suicide bombers of islam show that religion does not have a monopoly on moral values.
Religion is misused by men all the time for their own selfish purposes - it doesn't necessarily fault having an established code of principles to follow.
Go PZ. Yes, lets put religion in a place where it can't cause wars, it can't victimize minorities, subjugate women and is not the first question asked of an American president want to be.
Maybe PZ should have got a free ticket and not EXPELLED from expelled. Better luck next time.
These quotes cannot be said to be taken out of context. If they were merely one or two short sentences with abrupt endings (signalling an edit) then maybe, but these are long passages of speech with many statements within them.
They dont want to take away our knitting they should just be treated a fools
What a fascist statement and who gave them the right to decide for us.
Atheist dont realise they are just exposing there contempt for us and waiting for the chance to take full control over society because we are inferior in their eyes.
The proper term would be "atheists perspective." Dawkins and Meyers are atheists more so than they are scientists. Neil deGrasse Tyson (agnostic) has criticized dawkins for being insensitive to religious people. I feel the same. This is the reason why religious people will continue to oppose and deny modern science. They don't want the atheists to win. Atheistic scientists misrepresent science as atheistic, when it's really agnostic. Science cannot prove or disprove gods.
I'm a huge fan of Tyson and what he states but the methods of science are about getting rid of bad ideas. Christianity is one of the most visibly wrong things out there. If there were a man telling you he could cure cancer by sticking your hand in woodchipper, you would say 1. It won't cure it and 2. Your idea is so stupid it would get me hurt or killed. If science displays that God didn't create the world then science is in conflict with religion, it's that simple.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ugh, what an ass of a man! For millions of people, religion is a WAY OF LIFE!! Not just something smarmy and fun to do on weekends! Are you kidding me with this? His dream will never become reality. He can thank religious fanatics for that.
Richard Dawkins summed it up.. people who don't believe in God use the 'religion' of evolution to EXPLAIN AWAY their faith... even thought it is faith itself.
Repent and believe in Jesus Christ or face eternal consequences.
If it is true that evolution "can only occur once life exists," where did the life come from in the first place? Read the Laws of Thermodynamics. But all of this is missing the central point. Stein's point was not that evolution is wrong, nor that all evolutionists are nazis. Stein's main point was that scientists have the right to believe in Creation if they wish without the censorship and bullying by Evolutionists. Funny Constitutional thing called "freedom of speech."
Single-celled organisms evolved into more complex cell-structures. Evolution is a process of adaption to environment. And it happens at different rates and intervals based on the niches that a certain species adapts to; if there is, for example, a mass extinction in an area and a gradual reemergence of nature within the environment, the plants will flourish and the eventual migration of animal species will be forced into a state of adaptive radiation based on their new ecological niches.
No, you have no understanding of evolution. Evolution can only occur once life exists. I recommend Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins. Basically, those "several genetic mutations" are macroevolutionary traits. Big, noticable, important things. However, they do not have to occur all at once. They can and do happen in very small, almost unnoticable steps, that eventually make a HUGE difference, which are the large genetic mutations. You can't get from 1 - a million without going 1 - 2.
Not really... Read the book Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It basically proves taht white people took over the world because europe and the fertile crescent had the most resources, not because the people were more intelligent. By natural selection, new guineans were actually more intelligent than whites because they needed to evolve intelligence genes so as to be able to avoid homicide and survive in the wild of the forests. In ways, they are much smarter than whites. So, no, that's bull
This movie was rubbish. The way they selectively edited these guys to paint them as monstrous, intolerant bad people is just reprehensible. However, despite that, their words were 100% accurate.
this movie is such propaganda against darwinism and atheism. it's trying to find a connection between nazism and darwinism. ok, let's evaluate: darwinism is a peaceful theory that simply says man evolved, he was not created. the nazis took that idea and warped it into "let's evolve people our self, and decide who lives and dies" that is not darwinism, that is not what darwin suggested AT ALL. this is one of those movies that says atheists can't proove anything, but religion can't either.
You can say something's evil even if there is no moral law giver. Its just a subjective thing. When it comes to reasonable application of subjective morality (such as in law), it is the subjectivity of a society as a whole which decides what to deem right and wrong, good and evil.
Yes it would be subjective, it is an opinion after all. That doesn't mean to say that I would personally deem it morally right, good or acceptable, but my opinion is no more significant than that entire society's view. If one person says abortion is right, and another says it is wrong, how do we know who is correct? They're just 2 conflicting opinions. When it comes to a decision as a society, some form of democratic process and reason decides whether abortion is good or bad for society.
To simplify in more, two people who disagree about the pronunciation of "tomato". Whether they pronounce it one way or the other doesn't have any major socio-cultural impact, but the dilemma is no different than a dilemma on abortion other than the profound effects in might have.
For the common person it is hard to live a life without direction because with instructions and guidelines people feel insecure.
I think this is the main impetus for both religious and secular dogma.
Wow. It seems to me that Stein & co are using the problems that scientists have with religion in order to scare believers over to the side of ID. The editing, camerawork and music makes them sound very sinister.
He was saying it takes more faith to believe something came from nothing than something came from something. Take a watch apart, take all the pieces and put them into a box and shake them up. Look in the box and see if the watch is assembled. If it's not, shake it again and again until it is fully assembled. Is this possible?
Are be talking about the Big Bang , Abiogenesis or eviolution.
Evolution only works when life is present , Not from nothing , Abiogenesis only happens when organic compunds are present and when a currently unknow set of conditions are present not from nothing, The Big Bang is an expansion of existing space time and not as i offten assumed and explosion of nothing.
The process of evolution is not random its deterministic with random elements.
//The process of evolution is not random it's deterministic with random elements//
It's Deterministic Do you know what that means? It means while the Mutations may be random the process that acts upon the mutations are not and that exactly what I said. Go Learn about evolution before making comments.
How dare you tell me to go back to learn evolution you pig.I can just tell by your page that you don't even give a CHANCE to other creationists to explain what they think.
Rating
5* evolution video
5* evolution is correct
1* creation videos
Evolution is based on chance. Fossils don't count. seriously. ALL athiests say fossils count and later in debate they always rephrase that fossils don't count. Learn your side first.
Since you Busy crying about this crap let me continue to insult your world view even more.
Evolution is not a debatable topic it happened so dig the big bang there is not scientific argument of either of these ideas.
The only argument that exists are ones that are created by creationists.
I rate Creationist videos poorly because they often contain lies , quote mines and straw men. Come back to the table when you have some real debatable points.... stupid YEC
Wow. You really think I would waste my time trying to debate ?
Its not worth it through internet. ITS NOT a real conversation. not even videos.
The only reason soo many religious not "creationists" people try to avoid debates throught internet is because you soo many athiest just waiting... to just BOOM
"God is not real idiot" I mean.. you guys are pricks!
JImmyChiffels:"Big Bang couldn't happened becuase Law of motion"
So when your god created this universe, did he create the "Law of Motion " first ? Where do you find this in Genesis ? And what material did he use, to start creating ?
Want a chance to have a say make a video and difrect it to me ill make a video responce cause im sure YOU and YOU alone have the one argument that will destroy evolution were everyone else has failed for 150 years.
@SolsticeHalcyon I don't think it's ironic at all. I became an Athiest because i started learing about religion and reading the Bible. It's a product or learning.
Hmm, I don't know. Since National Geographic, the Smithsonian, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel all credit the Bible's historical validity and use it to learn about Hebrew, Phillistine and Egyptian culture in Biblical times?
Once again, a non-Christian who's never read the Bible takes verses out of context and the culture of Biblical times. This guy just went to some atheist website and grabbed a list of verses it provided then pasted it here.
In the Bible slave is a worker who was paid for his services you idiot. No whips, no chains, etc.
So what if they were paid? It still clearly says in the Bible that they are 'property' and that children of ones slaves become slaves (irrespective of their will). The same when talking about men 'selling their daughters' as sex slaves. You say slavery didn't include whips or chains etc but it does say that one would not be punished for hitting a slave with a rod, so long as the slave survives 'a day or two', which suggests that this was a common practice for slave masters.
That's the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard! You can't claim that someone is taking quotes out of context! It's not like there is written book from god on how to interpret the bible. That's why there are so many different branches of Christianity because so many people think different verse mean different things.
Gravity is a fact. Gravitation theory has come along way since Newton, Einstein (and others) in trying to EXPLAIN how gravity works. Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory tries to best EXPLAIN how it works, the evidence for it, and the highly supportive fossil record. Darwin was a Christian, but the evidence led him to the discovery of how life diversifies through the godless, magic-less, unguided process of evolution. I'm sorry if your fairytales have deluded you into rejecting reality.
Question for the Christians: as Ben Stein is Jewish and does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but does believe in God, will his punishment in afterlife be the same as the athiests Myers and Dawkins, or will it be milder? What does the bible say? Does the fact that Ben believes in creation make his sin of disbelief in the divinity of Jesus any less damning? Lastly, is the sin of believing in evolution worse than the sin of pride, blasphemy, anger towards enemies, or is it the same?
I am sorry if this idea conflicts with your faith and directly assaults your own beliefs, but science really doesn't care. One does not have to see the object, message, or encoded signal being made in order to conclude that it had an intelligent cause.
It has been great fun; I hope your research is successful! Thanks again for the information; I have it saved in a separate folder.
Let us humbly confront the mysteries of our universe.
Were the bacteria able to construct or even repair a flagellum?
You also repeatedly reference other varieties of this machine, but that can obscure the evidence of their differences. It is fine to imagine a pathway that will lead you to the motor, but it is quite different to demonstrate the pathway's existence. Natural selection and evolution work with the details; we should be considering this too whenever one decides that the flagellum arose by undirected processes.
The information is not inherently contained in matter. The arrangement of the nucleotides on the helix determine how such is processed and creates the machines the cell needs to function. Where did this information come from? You have the advantage of seeing where the preliminary steps will lead, but the ideas you have put forth require an intelligent being to guide it. Have experiments been done on bacteria where parts are removed and selection pressures enhanced to see what happened?
I will tell you again that expecting science to know everything about the origin of life is extremely unreasonable. Try not to fall into that ID trap.
Yes that type of experiment has been done and it is still done quite often. That type of experiment is very useful for determining the function of specific proteins within a cell or their necessity.
I also think that your broad scenarios of one protein binding here, another transferred here, and another reconfigured here, along with the suggestion that missing parts may have come from other systems conceals an immense problem: the details. You need specific proteins, with specific functions, meeting in specific areas, with specific information (wherever that came from) in order to get this flagellum. The details are what evolution and natural selection have to deal with.
I was simply giving you general information behind the evolution of the flagellum. I did not think it was appropriate to write 2500 words in these 500 character boxes.
How could evil possibly know what evil is when you've never even seen personally the definition of good? Those same comments are the exact reason why Hitler threw out all faith in love in his life and proceeded to murder over 40 million people worldwide, because it was the logical choice to preserve the species!! Because when you are so imbalanced by "LOGIC" and "REASON" love holds no place for you or anyone else in this world you become hate. You become DISEASED by your own mind!!
Hitler was a devout roman Catholic. All the Nazi soldiers wore belt buckes that said "Gott Mit Uns". Not once has Hitler ever spoken about Darwin, but he often spoke about God. Hitler also hated Atheists and burned the Origin of Species. In fact, in many ways, Hitler was ripping off Martin Luther.
But Ken Ham, and other creationist never said that Darwinism (or similar ideas within the evolutionary idea) was the main reason for the way Hitler acted, it just added to the reasons for him doing what he did. The sin nature of man is the main cause, from a biblical view. Sin in man manifest itself in different ways, this just happen to be the worst manifestation of it.
The sin nature is the cause of suffering in the world. People are selfish, greedy, prideful, etc. If there was none of this, every starving people would be fed, every person would get medical attention, every person would be provide quality education, etc. We have enough resources to supply the world with food, education, and care(I'm not just speak of America, but all the countries of the world).
No it did not. Hitler BURNED Darwin's books. Hitler never even mentioned Darwin. He also hated Atheists. You blame "The nature of man" for hitler's deeds. Gandhi was also human and he never killed anyone. Hitler was mainly influenced by CHRISTIANITY. He targeted the Jews in paticular because Catholic Doctorin at that time taught that Jesus was killed by teh jews. Can you bring me even ONE quote from Hitler that indecates he had even the slightest bit of respect for Darwin?
Hatred toward any person of another religion is sin according to God's Word. Hilter wasn't influenced by Christianity, he himself did not intentionally gather the ideas of Darwin, but he tried to preserve his "race" and saying the the jews are "useless eaters" which says to me that he though different types of people are lower on the evolutionary chart. Hilter may have believed in a god but God wasn't his inspiration.
Yes it was. Catholic Doctorin at that time taught that The Jews killed Jesus. Also, look up "The Curse of Ham" for an idea of the connection between the Bible and racism. Besides, if you actually read the Old Testiment, Moses makes Hitler look like Gandhi. Jesus wasn't a huge fan of Gentiles, either.
What was the Curse of Ham? Show me a passage where Moses makes Hilter(20 mil people) like Gandhi? Where does it say that Jesus hated Gentiles? Remember that Christians are not Catholics.
I like to encouage people to look things up for themselves rather than just preaching at them.
I don't blame you for not knowing what the Curse of Ham is, there's an entire article aboutit on Wikipedia. I also encourage you to actually read your own Bible.
And dont give me that "Christians are not Catholics" No True Scotsman crap.
I didn't say I didn't know. I just wanted you to tell me. Many say "theres contradiction in the Bible" um Where? "God did this" and that" um Where? "The Bible said this" um Where is the Passage? The Bible teaches that Women are to submissive to their Husbands um where? and What does it mean? No other book has been attacked throughout history as the Bible. Some intentional some unintentional just misled by others.
Notice a slight difference between "Expelled" and "The root of All Evil?". In Expelled, Some Scientists just talk about freethought and they have spooky music behind them. In The root of all evil, Dawkins interviewed an ex Jewish Muslim who basically promoting Genocide, which mor than demonstrates Dawkin's point that Religion is a huge problem in the world, yet there was no background music at all.
Remember, scientists know that a flagellum was the end product; they do not know how it was formed from natural selection or other Darwinian processes. I do not know the answer either. So it is important not to impose the idea that the observable evidence must match evolution because we have no alternative. We should approach this problem with impartiality, going where the evidence leads. You also referenced information in your post, where did the information for the flagellum come from?
If we don't know something yet, then it is eroneous to jump to any conclusion based on a LACK of knowledge. That's called "Putting God in the gaps". It's unscientific and it violates Occum's Razor.
The flagellum is not the "end product." It is still evolving and there are MANY variations on the flagellum. It isn't like there is one flagellum that all flagellated species have.
I am sorry if the evidence perfectly complements evolution. The evidence leads nowhere else. You do not have to put any effort forward in order to see evolution. It is extremely obvious when analyzing protein structures and sequences.
The information came from various journal articles.
I accept that other subsystems have some of these parts, but they do not have all of them. So where did the new proteins come from? Where did the assembly instructions come from as well? There are a number of molecular machines that cannot be accounted for by blind, Darwinian processes. So what did this? The problem remains open to debate.
Please refer to the definition of irreducible complexity (the ID argument) that I posted earlier and notice that what I have told you totally refutes it.
The new proteins may have come from other cellular apparatuses or systems. For example, the motor proteins are found in other systems in all bacterial species in one form or another. Therefore, it is entirely plausible to assume that they were transferred between various species via horizontal gene transfer.
Let me approach this issue as an outsider. The scientific community has discovered a miniature motor on the bacteria. It is a machine, which means it was designed for a purpose, for matter has no purpose until information is present and dictates how it is to be arranged to form new things. This suggests intelligent design. You keep stressing that evolution did it, but you have not done so because science lead you to such a conviction. You merely excluded the possibility of design a priori.
I didn't exclude the possibility of intelligent design a priori. Science is EXACTLY how I came to my conclusion about intelligent design. That and some basic critical thinking skills.
"Let me approach this issue as an outsider." Why would you approach a scientific issue as an outsider with no knowledge of science. That will not get anywhere and of course if you know nothing about the flagellum you will pick the simplest (and also most idiotic) explanation.
How do you know that it is idiotic? You have not proven that undirected natural processes constructed this machine. At the very least, therefore, you should confess the possibility of being mistaken. Do not assume that because you're familiar with a little science that the universe has divulged its secrets to you, it has not. So I will thus conclude that you do not wish to consider this possibility because you think it's too stupid. Fine, but don't think this is a scientific conclusion.
I know that ID is idiotic because it does not stand up at all to the science, let alone the fact that it does not get anywhere close to meeting the other criteria for a scientific theory.
I have proven what I intended to prove in the first place. Behe is incorrect.
I do think ID is stupid, but I have come to that conclusion after looking at everything that ID has to offer. I also think the motives behind the people promoting ID are despicable.
And the motives of the Darwinists are meritorious? Have they not used this theory for other purposes?
I am not persuaded that your statements of extreme confidence have any substance to them. You chide us for being unscientific in how we approach this issue, yet you offer no formidable argument against the intelligent design community. I asked how one scientifically determines what is designed from what is not, and you did not answer this question. What method would be used here?
Their motive is to follow the evidence. So, yes that is meritorious since they are doing their jobs properly. They have used the theory to advance science (you would be surprised to know how useful it is and how much scientific progression owes to this theory).
I don't really care too much if you aren't convinced. I was just trying to help you get started understanding the problems with ID so that you could further look into it by yourself.
If you would prefer to remain ignorant about the whole issue and simply reassure yourself that ID is actually an alternative to evolution then by all means do that. But don't be surprised if you get laughed at when you reveal that to someone with a science education.
Why do you listen to scientists for so many other things and then when it comes to a theory you deem not to coincide with your religion, all of a sudden the scientists must be wrong?
All the examples you gave- phones, cars, chairs- are nowhere near as complex and intricate as life. So, what is the explanation for this? Science must consider the origin of molecular machines, information in DNA, and the diverse number of new structures in organisms if they are to think clearly about this theory. Can natural processes alone account for these? Well, no. So let us consider both natural and intelligent explanations thereby extending science and making it more robust.
I used those examples because they are items that I or someone else has actually seen being designed. So therefore, they are designed.
Science DOES consider the origins and evolution of molecular machines, DNA, and diverse structures. Do you actually think they are not researched? Who told you this? And yes, natural processes can account for these. You simply saying they cant does not make it so.
I am now acutely aware that you do not understand what science is. Science is restricted to natural phenomena. You must be able to observe, test, replicate, generate new hypotheses, etc. ID offers none of these. ID is restricted to the supernatural, and is by definition NOT science. It never will be. The entire ID "theory" is several arguments (that have all been discredited) against another theory. Does that seem like science to you, at all?
I can scientifically tell that something is designed if I or others observe it being designed (i.e. a car, chair, phone, etc.). Or, alternatively, if there is no evidence it evolved, in the case of cellular apparatuses. Even if there is no evidence at the time, only a fool would declare it designed due to insufficient research.
I am not entirely convinced that intelligent design is the right theory. I only utilized the arguments used in its favour to see how Darwinists, and invariably atheists, confront the possibility. It seems that you have to dismiss 700 or so dissenters from biology's premiere doctrine. I have not dismissed your arguments; I only asked how you would assess design scientifically, and your answer was being able to see the thing made and being told that random processes could not make it.
Understanding science does not equate to atheism. There are many religious scientists; most importantly Ken Miller, who is one of the more outspoken opponents of ID.
I do not have to dismiss 700 or so dissenters. There are only a few actual scientists who disagree with evolution.
Considering that we have no evidence of anything being designed, and only evidence for evolution, I think your question was a little ridiculous.
I understand that Darwinian evolution offers a decent explanation for small changes in organisms, but the creation of new forms presents a greater difficulty. Now, I may be completely wrong and the ideas advanced here may be entirely vacuous. The reaction, however, of the Darwinian community has been curious. People who have overwhelming evidence on their side do not scruple to tell us what that is. They do not merely declare we our ignorant without telling us why.
Most evidence is quite complex. Regardless of that fact, there are many pieces of evidence that most people are aware of. Such as transitional fossils (even though there is a laughable attempt by the ID community to say there actually aren't any), antibiotic resistance acquisition, the age of the earth, the independent genomes of the mitochondria and chloroplast, etc.
For scientists, evolution is not a question. It is a fact, explained by Darwin's theory. The distinction between the fact and theory of evolution is crucial and many people neglect to understand that.
This is how a scientist reasons? Fascinating. Design could surely be discerned in hieroglyphics, signals from space, messages encoded in things, not just created, physical entities. So it is science; I am glad you could confess that, for it must have been difficult. Now, can we apply your reasoning to biological life? Sure we can. We can see how a car is made, with all its intricate machinery, and speculate on how a cell could be likewise created intelligently.
I think every scientist agrees that what we see in the natural world looks designed. There are thus two answers to this question: is it real or is it apparent? We have only considered one. Now the scientific community encounters new evidence on the cellular level that challenges Darwinian hypotheses. Your quick dismissal- even after you told me the pathways may never be known- of this idea has convinced me that there is more here than scientists are willing to confess.
The things we see in the natural world do not seem designed, because no one in their right mind would design humans (or anything else that exists) the way they are. Humans are very flawed. You may need to brush up on your physiology. If someone intentionally designed humans (I am just using humans as the example) then they would have to be quite a cruel individual.
What is this "new evidence on the cellular level?" I get the feeling you are making this up as you go along. Currently there are no real challenges to evolution. Maybe you have the piece of evidence that will do it.
I did not tell you the pathway will never be known. I said it is not definitive since it is still being researched and debated.
The molecular machines that you may be referring to that cannot be "accounted for by blind Darwinian processes" simply have not been researched enough. That is a common critical error made by IDists. They seem to think that because something has not been researched and understood fully, they have the right to say "god did it." That kind of argument from ignorance just wont fly with scientists.
I see that you have offered a number of hypothetical ideas on how the flagellum could have evolved. This is evident in your use of the words "may", "plausible", and "assume". I must tell you that I never thought such weak language would be used for a scientific fact.
Then you continually tell me to go see a journal article on the subject. Well, I am a historian, not a scientist, so which article do you suggest? Please choose the most salient ones; I cannot peruse a multitude of these papers.
I cannot say some things definitively because we do not know them definitively. The exact pathway is not a "scientific fact." The pathway is still being debated and researched by scientists.
Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system, Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104.
From the origin of species to the origin of bacterial flagella, Nature Reviews Microbiology, vol. 4
I am an outsider. Since I see no indication that you are a research scientist yourself, then so are you. Science did not lead you to the conviction that the bacterial flagellum arose by evolutionary processes; more research still has to be done. Your unshaken belief in evolution has been the guiding impulse of your critical thinking.
Please tell me what you mean by "basic thinking skills"? How did these help you determine that Behe was wrong?
Actually I am in research. That being said, you still don't need to be in science in order to see the flaws of intelligent design. Any simple understanding of the philosophy of science and an open mind will lead you away from ID. I think the problem is more that religion leads people to ID rather than allowing them to look at the issue critically.
You have not told me how we could get the flagellum. If you need roughly 40 protein parts in order to have a functioning flagellar motor, then how did natural selection or other random processes accomplish this? If the machine is missing one part, you don't have a flagellum. Evolution needs to progress by offering some kind of advantage for the organism. How does a defective flagellum accomplish this? How could it be built?
Depending on which part is missing, you could still have a flagellum that functions quite well. Just look at the differences in flagella from different species. I would prefer not to go through proposed pathways for the formation of a flagellum. Many scientists have done just that and you can search for articles that they have written. If you choose not to, then just be aware that, contrary to what the IDists will have you believe, a lot is known about the evolutionary history of the flagellum.
Given the evidence about the existence of molecular machines in the cell, what would convince you that these are designed? Imagine that you have come across this structure in the laboratory. When studying it, you have no preconceptions about how it came to be. How would you scientifically determine if this is real design or only apparent? If the pathways are not known and may never be known, how do you confirm that evolutionary processes made this?
That another cellular apparatus can be made from the removal of one or more parts is not disputed in the ID movement. How did you get the flagellum, which must have all its parts in order to function, from these preliminary steps? The argument has not been answered. Furthermore, most of the arguments you produce against irreducible complexity provide a lot of circumstantial evidence. Well, these proteins have similarities to the proteins in other species.
"How did you get the flagellum, which must have all its parts in order to function."
I just told you how this is incorrect. Did you even read my posts? The evidence I have provided for you effectively voids the irreducible complexity argument. If you want more on the subject then go read some journal articles.
Jbooth002, tell me one book that you have read by the intelligent design community, and give me your scientific critique of it. Choose, for the sake of brevity, their most significant arguments in favour of the idea. I am afraid that the Darwinian mechanisms, which refer to the environment, genetic drift, sexual reproduction, natural selection, gene mutations, and other random processes have not been demonstrated as capable of creating the complexity of life. So what did? Now we have a debate.
"A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." - Behe
This argument is from the book he wrote entitled "Darwin's Black Box." I did not read this book, but I have read a shorter version of his argument on irreducible complexity in an anthology.
Behe's argument has been dismantled quite easily by a number of scientists. All current research on the flagellum (referred to as the "poster boy" of irreducible complexity) has further provided evidence that the bacterial flagellum is, in fact, not irreducibly complex. Most of the devastating evidence against this idea has come from DNA sequencing followed by a bioinformatic analysis of those sequences.
By sequencing the genes that code for flagellar proteins, it was realized that the entire hook-basal-body portion of the flagellum shows extensive sequence homology to the type 3 secretory system (TTSS). This indicates that some of the components of the flagellum can be removed and still leave a functioning cellular apparatus (the TTSS is used as a mechanism for bacterial pathogenesis). There are also many other pieces of evidence that reveal the evolutionary history of the flagellum.
The flagellin protein that makes up the "tail" is highly conserved (across species it has only small variations in sequence), which indicates its importance to flagellar function.
Numerous other proteins are homologous to proteins found in many other species. These genes were likely transferred through horizontal gene transfer and kept because of their gain of function.
A great number of the proteins show sequence homology to others within the same flagellum, which indicates gene duplication.
There is a difference between spontaneous generation and evolution of a universe, but then again, you wouldn't know that would you? Science readily admits it does not yet hold the awnsers to the creation of the Universe however, the Big Bang theory has scientific backing whereas the writings of men who believed the world was round does not. You can choose to place your blind faith in your Bible, I choose however to open my mind to scientific developments and social contexts.
Oh, you know...you're right. We SHOULD take a look at the actual "science" of the "evolution of a universe" as you called it. So, we've got however many millions of years of however many millions of these organisms evolving from lower order species to higher order species, countless fossils preserving the "evidence" of evolution all over the world, scientists for generations doing their best to contrive the facts to fit their THEORY and yet.........
...we still don't have even ONE tiny, little, minute, faint piece of evidence showing the evolution of one species to another completely different species. INTRA-species, sure...natural selection is fine. INTER-species, nada. Curious, isn't it? I guess all that evolving from one species to another took place SO FAST (so fast that not even one organism died during the transformation) that we're left with absolutely zero record of it.
Shouldn't TRUE scientists maintain an open mind to all theories until they are each, in turn, disproven? That's what I was saying in the previous post: evolutioniary science ISN'T science at all...it is absolutely as much a faith-based religion as Christianity.
Just because people think evolution disproves their religion does not make it a religion as well. That is the equivalent of saying that physiology or molecular biology are religions.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
PZ Meyers: "We do not want to take religion from people".
Woow, THANK YOU PZ MEYERS, it is nice you want to allow us to keep religion!. Who do you think you are? Perhaps you are one of the less than 10% intelligent people in the world that should be selected to determine the next evolution step. By "WE" you probably mean you and the other members of the Darwinian church.
The answer is yes. My question to you is, what do you believe about the intrinsic nature of man? Are we basically good, or basically evil in our nature?
Neither? Seeing as the definition stems from our existance and is thus not a constant. It's basically something trying to describe itself, as if it were not itself. Quite paradoxical.
Robert Jastrow (a self-confessed agnostic) ends his book GOD AND THE ASTRONOMERS- in regards to the incapablity of science to explain what happened before the universe was created -ends his book this way, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, is is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over...he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
"He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, is is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over...he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
If after all these years of scientific discoveries, after all the things we have learned about the universe, if the cause of everything ends up being "a magic man in the sky made everything" it's going to be a bit of a let down I think.
I think the author of that book would agree with you. I suppose it all depends on your view of God. Personally, these scientific findings only serve to renew my faith in a loving God. The universe is revealed to be more complex the more we learn about it,- that makes it harder for me to accept that it just evolved that way on its own. It seems to be tailored to our precise needs. I think that makes us special in the grand scheme of things - and i don't see why that would be such a bad thing.
This has been flagged as spam show
Science is only a piece of the puzzle, but when you exalt this over wisdom, understanding and spiritual discernment, then you have stepped into the Satanic tree of knowledge deception, and have cut yourself of from knowing and understanding God along with His revelations and Manifestations backed up by prophecy and documeneted history.
Ramohog 1 week ago
So according to Dawkins intelligence behind information is a fairy tale?
Ramohog 1 week ago
i want to like this video, but I dont want to like it... but i want to like it. LOL Im over complicating this, so keep the bar even!!!
fallingskyz 1 month ago
Jeebus, I don't know whether to like or unlike this vid.
Jornev 5 months ago
maybe there is a higher power but every religion out there got it all wrong. I always wondered, how is it that thousands of years ago in egypt through china through central america and through europe, they all had never met eachother but they all had something in common? A belief in a higher power. Whether it was one or many gods. Maybe the higher being appeared to all of them a some point and they all came up with their own weird way of giving praise to them?
deathmortis03 7 months ago
God is awesome
jjkramer82 7 months ago
@jjkramer82
So is Santa. He brings me presents every year on December 25th.
mellowmark1 5 months ago
What an idiot compairing religion to knitting the arrogance and stupidity of that statment speaks for itself.
glendaweil 8 months ago
@glendaweil "What an idiot compairing religion to knitting..."
I agree. Knitting never motivated a person to commit to suicide bombing, ignoring scientific evidence, enslaving millions in a totalitarian tyranny , or taking gullible people's money. Knitting is way more moral than religion.
drfoxcourt 1 month ago
@drfoxcourt Another dumbass atheist that knowns nothing about the christian
religiIion I am reffering to,every belief system has it's extremist.
glendaweil 1 month ago
@glendaweil Spoken by another Christian apologist who ignores the abysmal record of Christian history and thinks that no Atheist has read the Bible or were once adherents to Christian belief.
Note the Hitchens test: Name a moral act that a religious person would do that an atheist would not. Now name an immoral act that only a religious person would do because of their faith. The 1st is hard and the 2nd easy.
The beautiful thing about knitting is that it's extremists don't commit immoral acts.
drfoxcourt 1 month ago
@drfoxcourt Like I said just another dumbass atheist.
glendaweil 1 month ago
@drfoxcourt Name one moral act.... Love your enemy, forgive 70 times daily, pray for those who have hurt you, bless them that curse you.
Ramohog 1 week ago
@Ramohog" Love your enemy" is neither a moral act nor one exclusive to the faithful. Love your enemy is a profoundly immoral act. It is good and proper to hate those that will harm you and yours. Example: Loving your would-be assassin.
"Forgive... daily" is also not exclusive to the faithful.
Pray for those that have hurt you" is an abrogation of responsibility, ergo immoral act.
"Bless them... " depending on definition, blessing is either not an act or something atheists do too
drfoxcourt 1 week ago
@drfoxcourt Yes I will love my assassin, in the hope he repents and will not go to hell, as he is doing me a favor to die as a martyr. These examples can be done, but doing it as a life style, so it will come to you naturally is a whole different ball game. Pray and obey is the key to see the blessing, and is highly responsible. It's all about understanding the spiritual laws that govern life, and applying them. That's why Jesus came, and that's what He did and taught, for us to follow!
Ramohog 1 week ago
@Ramohog " I will love my assassin" Do you realize that is the same thinking that suicide bombers use? Kill the unbeliever to appease God and secure the proper place for both the victim and the bomber. Feh.
Anti-social (assassination/terrorism/sadism...) behavior should be resisted, not "loved"
As for pray, it does nothing. As for obey, how do your KNOW what God wants? How do you know any better than a Muslim, a Kali worshiper...?
You know what is moral without a god telling you so.
drfoxcourt 1 week ago
@drf No... it's actually the exact opposite of suicide bombers. I would never kill, but forgive and love, so we both might go to heaven. Yes hate evil but love the person so he might repent and turn to God.
I had many answered prayers, and it does everything. God says what He wants, and when you do it, then you will find out about it. History and current world affairs, have proven what works and what does not. All foretold by God's more sure Word of prophecy. Moral consciousness is God given.
Ramohog 1 week ago
Don 't be too quick to push religion out - even with all of it's imperfections & even if there is no god it has served a purpose to buffer society from the reality of evolution driven dominance. Humans are cold blooded killers at heart & without some threat of moral judgement you'll be surprised at what people will do - I see this stuff in the streets every single day. I do NOT believe in the natural goodness of man for I have seen a different reality. Maybe religion just needs to be reinvented.
CaneFu 9 months ago
@CaneFu Not true at all, Homo Sapiens have been evolving as a separate, social species for hundreds of thousands of years before any organized religion took hold, and were obviously very successful. Humans have the capacity to be cold blooded but we are very social at the same time. A quick glance at the atrocities committed in the old testament, and the suicide bombers of islam show that religion does not have a monopoly on moral values.
nietzschean23 8 months ago
@nietzschean23
Religion is misused by men all the time for their own selfish purposes - it doesn't necessarily fault having an established code of principles to follow.
CaneFu 8 months ago
Go PZ. Yes, lets put religion in a place where it can't cause wars, it can't victimize minorities, subjugate women and is not the first question asked of an American president want to be.
Maybe PZ should have got a free ticket and not EXPELLED from expelled. Better luck next time.
ptango101 1 year ago
These quotes cannot be said to be taken out of context. If they were merely one or two short sentences with abrupt endings (signalling an edit) then maybe, but these are long passages of speech with many statements within them.
YinHoNg 1 year ago
They dont want to take away our knitting they should just be treated a fools
What a fascist statement and who gave them the right to decide for us.
Atheist dont realise they are just exposing there contempt for us and waiting for the chance to take full control over society because we are inferior in their eyes.
beginization 1 year ago
The proper term would be "atheists perspective." Dawkins and Meyers are atheists more so than they are scientists. Neil deGrasse Tyson (agnostic) has criticized dawkins for being insensitive to religious people. I feel the same. This is the reason why religious people will continue to oppose and deny modern science. They don't want the atheists to win. Atheistic scientists misrepresent science as atheistic, when it's really agnostic. Science cannot prove or disprove gods.
JohnEdwardIAF 2 years ago
@JohnEdwardIAF
I'm a huge fan of Tyson and what he states but the methods of science are about getting rid of bad ideas. Christianity is one of the most visibly wrong things out there. If there were a man telling you he could cure cancer by sticking your hand in woodchipper, you would say 1. It won't cure it and 2. Your idea is so stupid it would get me hurt or killed. If science displays that God didn't create the world then science is in conflict with religion, it's that simple.
MalachorWraith 1 year ago
Damn, those guys are assholes
mattstank 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ugh, what an ass of a man! For millions of people, religion is a WAY OF LIFE!! Not just something smarmy and fun to do on weekends! Are you kidding me with this? His dream will never become reality. He can thank religious fanatics for that.
whiteclaudia9 2 years ago
Those are some scary people. Lord help us
kg6120 2 years ago
They might seem scary to you because how this propaganda documentary portrays them.
fyourcouchnigga 2 years ago 15
@fyourcouchnigga Yeah, PZ Myers looks like a teddy bear!
MomSaysImCool 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins summed it up.. people who don't believe in God use the 'religion' of evolution to EXPLAIN AWAY their faith... even thought it is faith itself.
Repent and believe in Jesus Christ or face eternal consequences.
1wingsolja 2 years ago
Btw, its not a religion. If you can define religion so 'Darwinism' qualifies I'd be very interested to see what else qualifies.
firthio2 2 years ago
One thing i hated what darwin just said. WTF IS DARWINISM!? i am not a OBAMAIST because i support some of his ideas.
zombieiscool 3 years ago
If it is true that evolution "can only occur once life exists," where did the life come from in the first place? Read the Laws of Thermodynamics. But all of this is missing the central point. Stein's point was not that evolution is wrong, nor that all evolutionists are nazis. Stein's main point was that scientists have the right to believe in Creation if they wish without the censorship and bullying by Evolutionists. Funny Constitutional thing called "freedom of speech."
missnimblefoot 3 years ago
Single-celled organisms evolved into more complex cell-structures. Evolution is a process of adaption to environment. And it happens at different rates and intervals based on the niches that a certain species adapts to; if there is, for example, a mass extinction in an area and a gradual reemergence of nature within the environment, the plants will flourish and the eventual migration of animal species will be forced into a state of adaptive radiation based on their new ecological niches.
vikingligrveldi 3 years ago
It's called abiogenesis.
watch?v=XhWds7djuWo
SpazzyMcGee1336 3 years ago
their freedom of speech is infringed by no one. they have extremely well funded publications awash with right wing money.
the one with no free speech is poor carolyn croker who charges a preposterous fee to hear her bleat lies about persecution.
steins point is simply this- he will say and do pretty much anything, like eg soiling himself in a concentration camp, for money.
not a single one of these "victims" can withstand a moments scruntiny- NONE was expelled from anything.
McMonster65 3 years ago
No, you have no understanding of evolution. Evolution can only occur once life exists. I recommend Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins. Basically, those "several genetic mutations" are macroevolutionary traits. Big, noticable, important things. However, they do not have to occur all at once. They can and do happen in very small, almost unnoticable steps, that eventually make a HUGE difference, which are the large genetic mutations. You can't get from 1 - a million without going 1 - 2.
atlant80 3 years ago
Not really... Read the book Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It basically proves taht white people took over the world because europe and the fertile crescent had the most resources, not because the people were more intelligent. By natural selection, new guineans were actually more intelligent than whites because they needed to evolve intelligence genes so as to be able to avoid homicide and survive in the wild of the forests. In ways, they are much smarter than whites. So, no, that's bull
atlant80 3 years ago 2
This movie was rubbish. The way they selectively edited these guys to paint them as monstrous, intolerant bad people is just reprehensible. However, despite that, their words were 100% accurate.
lostn65 3 years ago
dARWINISM??!?!?!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA WHO THE FUCK CALLS IT DARWINISM EXCEPT STUPID PEOPLE WHO DONT UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION. HAHAHAHAH DARWINSIM HAHAHHAA
I BET THEY ASK SUCH COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS AS "WHY DIDN'T ALL OF THE MONKEYS EVOLVE?"
"SOMETHING CANT BE CREATED OUT OF NOTHIN"(this is actually creation theory)""
AND MANY MORE.
ragnar336 3 years ago
this movie is such propaganda against darwinism and atheism. it's trying to find a connection between nazism and darwinism. ok, let's evaluate: darwinism is a peaceful theory that simply says man evolved, he was not created. the nazis took that idea and warped it into "let's evolve people our self, and decide who lives and dies" that is not darwinism, that is not what darwin suggested AT ALL. this is one of those movies that says atheists can't proove anything, but religion can't either.
ballaboy5000 3 years ago 4
How can Atkins determine what is evil if religion is false?
FAITHandLOGIC 3 years ago
Empathy?
Orlor 3 years ago
He's not saying religion is false. He's saying what it teaches is false. Religion still exists to be evil.
aaronweingott 3 years ago
You can say something's evil even if there is no moral law giver. Its just a subjective thing. When it comes to reasonable application of subjective morality (such as in law), it is the subjectivity of a society as a whole which decides what to deem right and wrong, good and evil.
firthio2 2 years ago
So by that rationale if a society chooses that murder, rape and persecution of women is right and moral, it is subjective?
Don't give me that relativism BS.
FAITHandLOGIC 2 years ago
Yes it would be subjective, it is an opinion after all. That doesn't mean to say that I would personally deem it morally right, good or acceptable, but my opinion is no more significant than that entire society's view. If one person says abortion is right, and another says it is wrong, how do we know who is correct? They're just 2 conflicting opinions. When it comes to a decision as a society, some form of democratic process and reason decides whether abortion is good or bad for society.
firthio2 2 years ago
To simplify in more, two people who disagree about the pronunciation of "tomato". Whether they pronounce it one way or the other doesn't have any major socio-cultural impact, but the dilemma is no different than a dilemma on abortion other than the profound effects in might have.
For the common person it is hard to live a life without direction because with instructions and guidelines people feel insecure.
I think this is the main impetus for both religious and secular dogma.
fyourcouchnigga 2 years ago
Wow. It seems to me that Stein & co are using the problems that scientists have with religion in order to scare believers over to the side of ID. The editing, camerawork and music makes them sound very sinister.
Norcator 3 years ago
Pro Darwin...geesh, what dumb buzzwords. Expelled is one of the worst films Ive seen in years.
inmendholevision1 3 years ago 3
Lee Strobel has said it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God.
tastreetman 3 years ago
Trust me it doesnt
alunhughes 3 years ago
He was saying it takes more faith to believe something came from nothing than something came from something. Take a watch apart, take all the pieces and put them into a box and shake them up. Look in the box and see if the watch is assembled. If it's not, shake it again and again until it is fully assembled. Is this possible?
tastreetman 3 years ago
Are be talking about the Big Bang , Abiogenesis or eviolution.
Evolution only works when life is present , Not from nothing , Abiogenesis only happens when organic compunds are present and when a currently unknow set of conditions are present not from nothing, The Big Bang is an expansion of existing space time and not as i offten assumed and explosion of nothing.
The process of evolution is not random its deterministic with random elements.
alunhughes 3 years ago
Dude,
That went right over my head! I have no idea.
tastreetman 3 years ago
Maby you should look check out the Mde easy series by potholer.
alunhughes 3 years ago
Will do.
tastreetman 3 years ago
At least someone in this thread has some sense. Well said.
evolve749 3 years ago
thank you :)
alunhughes 3 years ago
No idiot. It IS random mutation. Look it up. Be more "open-minded"
JimmyChiffels 3 years ago
//The process of evolution is not random it's deterministic with random elements//
It's Deterministic Do you know what that means? It means while the Mutations may be random the process that acts upon the mutations are not and that exactly what I said. Go Learn about evolution before making comments.
alunhughes 3 years ago
How dare you tell me to go back to learn evolution you pig.I can just tell by your page that you don't even give a CHANCE to other creationists to explain what they think.
Rating
5* evolution video
5* evolution is correct
1* creation videos
Evolution is based on chance. Fossils don't count. seriously. ALL athiests say fossils count and later in debate they always rephrase that fossils don't count. Learn your side first.
JimmyChiffels 3 years ago
Since you Busy crying about this crap let me continue to insult your world view even more.
Evolution is not a debatable topic it happened so dig the big bang there is not scientific argument of either of these ideas.
The only argument that exists are ones that are created by creationists.
I rate Creationist videos poorly because they often contain lies , quote mines and straw men. Come back to the table when you have some real debatable points.... stupid YEC
alunhughes 3 years ago
"contain lies,quote mines and strawmen"
Come back when I have debatable points?
Wow. You really think I would waste my time trying to debate ?
Its not worth it through internet. ITS NOT a real conversation. not even videos.
The only reason soo many religious not "creationists" people try to avoid debates throught internet is because you soo many athiest just waiting... to just BOOM
"God is not real idiot" I mean.. you guys are pricks!
Big Bang couldn't happened becuase Law of motion.
JimmyChiffels 3 years ago
Your a prick your first comment to me was calling me an idiot.
//Big Bang couldn't happened becuase Law of motion.// Sure why not you cant be bothered so im not.
alunhughes 3 years ago
Nothing to simply start the big bang.
btw Thanks for ending this discussion. You can make another reply if you must..
My beliefs.. and yours. Lets leave it alone.
JimmyChiffels 3 years ago
JImmyChiffels:"Big Bang couldn't happened becuase Law of motion"
So when your god created this universe, did he create the "Law of Motion " first ? Where do you find this in Genesis ? And what material did he use, to start creating ?
Philos2006 3 years ago
Want a chance to have a say make a video and difrect it to me ill make a video responce cause im sure YOU and YOU alone have the one argument that will destroy evolution were everyone else has failed for 150 years.
alunhughes 3 years ago
You don't even have to give me a chance. You don;t have to give anything.
"Fail,fail fail" All you athiests say.
The ONLY reason we can't disprove evolution is because we can't observe it.
Just like how you guys think we can't disprove god because he live out of matter time and space.
Evolution was built on a toothpick by C.D
and idiots put ideas on it...
JimmyChiffels 3 years ago
sure what ever
alunhughes 3 years ago
Lee Strobel is a Buffoon.
evolve749 3 years ago
whats with the dark shading in these scenes?!
MEpianist 3 years ago
It's ironic how atheists know more about religion and where it comes from than theists.
SolsticeHalcyon 3 years ago 18
yup. No surprise really, who needs to ask questions when you have an awesome ally like God? Never ask questions when god's on your side
ytzuigt 3 years ago
@SolsticeHalcyon I don't think it's ironic at all. I became an Athiest because i started learing about religion and reading the Bible. It's a product or learning.
marsjacobvolta 1 year ago
@SolsticeHalcyon I'm hoping that's sarcasm.
jmasterdude89 7 months ago
Exodus 21: 32 - God gives a price value for slaves at 30 shekels of silver.
Leviticus 22: 10 - Here God shows that the children of slaves are slaves themselves.
Leviticus 25: 44 - God specifies that slaves are property to be bought, sold and handed down.
Luke 7: 2 - Here Jesus shows that he is completely comfortable with the concept of slavery.
Colossians 3: 22 - God encourages slaves to work hard.
Titus 2: 9 - God says that slaves are to "show entire and true fidelity."
SolsticeHalcyon 3 years ago
I'm wondering if a believer could point at any single thing in that book which is actually true.
Number1BadBoyInnit 3 years ago
Hmm, I don't know. Since National Geographic, the Smithsonian, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel all credit the Bible's historical validity and use it to learn about Hebrew, Phillistine and Egyptian culture in Biblical times?
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
FAITHandLOGIC 2 years ago
'Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?'
You tell me....
firthio2 2 years ago
Once again, a non-Christian who's never read the Bible takes verses out of context and the culture of Biblical times. This guy just went to some atheist website and grabbed a list of verses it provided then pasted it here.
In the Bible slave is a worker who was paid for his services you idiot. No whips, no chains, etc.
FAITHandLOGIC 2 years ago
So what if they were paid? It still clearly says in the Bible that they are 'property' and that children of ones slaves become slaves (irrespective of their will). The same when talking about men 'selling their daughters' as sex slaves. You say slavery didn't include whips or chains etc but it does say that one would not be punished for hitting a slave with a rod, so long as the slave survives 'a day or two', which suggests that this was a common practice for slave masters.
firthio2 2 years ago 4
That's the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard! You can't claim that someone is taking quotes out of context! It's not like there is written book from god on how to interpret the bible. That's why there are so many different branches of Christianity because so many people think different verse mean different things.
JesusWasStupid 2 years ago
I can't claim quotes are taken out of context? What planet are you from?
FAITHandLOGIC 2 years ago
Prove they are out of context!
JesusWasStupid 2 years ago
(CreationCreed)
Okay get out your bible, let's play. Your completely imaginary god happens to love slavery. Want passages from the "good" book?
Genesis 17: 12 - God wants slaves circumcised in the same way as non-slaves.
Exodus 12: 43 - God singles out slaves for special treatment.
Exodus 21: 1 - God describes how to become a slave for life, and endorses the branding of slaves through mutilation.
Exodus 21: 20 - God is fine with slave-beating, as long as you don't kill them.
SolsticeHalcyon 3 years ago
Gravity is a fact. Gravitation theory has come along way since Newton, Einstein (and others) in trying to EXPLAIN how gravity works. Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory tries to best EXPLAIN how it works, the evidence for it, and the highly supportive fossil record. Darwin was a Christian, but the evidence led him to the discovery of how life diversifies through the godless, magic-less, unguided process of evolution. I'm sorry if your fairytales have deluded you into rejecting reality.
SolsticeHalcyon 3 years ago 2
Question for the Christians: as Ben Stein is Jewish and does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but does believe in God, will his punishment in afterlife be the same as the athiests Myers and Dawkins, or will it be milder? What does the bible say? Does the fact that Ben believes in creation make his sin of disbelief in the divinity of Jesus any less damning? Lastly, is the sin of believing in evolution worse than the sin of pride, blasphemy, anger towards enemies, or is it the same?
scpotts101 3 years ago
I am sorry if this idea conflicts with your faith and directly assaults your own beliefs, but science really doesn't care. One does not have to see the object, message, or encoded signal being made in order to conclude that it had an intelligent cause.
It has been great fun; I hope your research is successful! Thanks again for the information; I have it saved in a separate folder.
Let us humbly confront the mysteries of our universe.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
Those poor poor men. I pray that they'll make themselves right with God before Judgement Day. :( God is real. And He's everywhere.
diligentlyseekhim 3 years ago
Every knee will bend to Christ.
EnderGate 3 years ago
Were the bacteria able to construct or even repair a flagellum?
You also repeatedly reference other varieties of this machine, but that can obscure the evidence of their differences. It is fine to imagine a pathway that will lead you to the motor, but it is quite different to demonstrate the pathway's existence. Natural selection and evolution work with the details; we should be considering this too whenever one decides that the flagellum arose by undirected processes.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
The information is not inherently contained in matter. The arrangement of the nucleotides on the helix determine how such is processed and creates the machines the cell needs to function. Where did this information come from? You have the advantage of seeing where the preliminary steps will lead, but the ideas you have put forth require an intelligent being to guide it. Have experiments been done on bacteria where parts are removed and selection pressures enhanced to see what happened?
LUCAN22 3 years ago
I will tell you again that expecting science to know everything about the origin of life is extremely unreasonable. Try not to fall into that ID trap.
Yes that type of experiment has been done and it is still done quite often. That type of experiment is very useful for determining the function of specific proteins within a cell or their necessity.
jbooth002 3 years ago
I also think that your broad scenarios of one protein binding here, another transferred here, and another reconfigured here, along with the suggestion that missing parts may have come from other systems conceals an immense problem: the details. You need specific proteins, with specific functions, meeting in specific areas, with specific information (wherever that came from) in order to get this flagellum. The details are what evolution and natural selection have to deal with.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
I was simply giving you general information behind the evolution of the flagellum. I did not think it was appropriate to write 2500 words in these 500 character boxes.
jbooth002 3 years ago
How could evil possibly know what evil is when you've never even seen personally the definition of good? Those same comments are the exact reason why Hitler threw out all faith in love in his life and proceeded to murder over 40 million people worldwide, because it was the logical choice to preserve the species!! Because when you are so imbalanced by "LOGIC" and "REASON" love holds no place for you or anyone else in this world you become hate. You become DISEASED by your own mind!!
sweetbilly 3 years ago
Hitler was a devout roman Catholic. All the Nazi soldiers wore belt buckes that said "Gott Mit Uns". Not once has Hitler ever spoken about Darwin, but he often spoke about God. Hitler also hated Atheists and burned the Origin of Species. In fact, in many ways, Hitler was ripping off Martin Luther.
dechha1981 3 years ago
But Ken Ham, and other creationist never said that Darwinism (or similar ideas within the evolutionary idea) was the main reason for the way Hitler acted, it just added to the reasons for him doing what he did. The sin nature of man is the main cause, from a biblical view. Sin in man manifest itself in different ways, this just happen to be the worst manifestation of it.
Creationcreed 3 years ago
You can link just about anything to evil in some way. Do we then blame everything for evil.
hitoallandme 3 years ago
The sin nature is the cause of suffering in the world. People are selfish, greedy, prideful, etc. If there was none of this, every starving people would be fed, every person would get medical attention, every person would be provide quality education, etc. We have enough resources to supply the world with food, education, and care(I'm not just speak of America, but all the countries of the world).
Creationcreed 3 years ago
No it did not. Hitler BURNED Darwin's books. Hitler never even mentioned Darwin. He also hated Atheists. You blame "The nature of man" for hitler's deeds. Gandhi was also human and he never killed anyone. Hitler was mainly influenced by CHRISTIANITY. He targeted the Jews in paticular because Catholic Doctorin at that time taught that Jesus was killed by teh jews. Can you bring me even ONE quote from Hitler that indecates he had even the slightest bit of respect for Darwin?
dechha1981 3 years ago
Hatred toward any person of another religion is sin according to God's Word. Hilter wasn't influenced by Christianity, he himself did not intentionally gather the ideas of Darwin, but he tried to preserve his "race" and saying the the jews are "useless eaters" which says to me that he though different types of people are lower on the evolutionary chart. Hilter may have believed in a god but God wasn't his inspiration.
Creationcreed 3 years ago
Yes it was. Catholic Doctorin at that time taught that The Jews killed Jesus. Also, look up "The Curse of Ham" for an idea of the connection between the Bible and racism. Besides, if you actually read the Old Testiment, Moses makes Hitler look like Gandhi. Jesus wasn't a huge fan of Gentiles, either.
dechha1981 3 years ago
What was the Curse of Ham? Show me a passage where Moses makes Hilter(20 mil people) like Gandhi? Where does it say that Jesus hated Gentiles? Remember that Christians are not Catholics.
Creationcreed 3 years ago
I like to encouage people to look things up for themselves rather than just preaching at them.
I don't blame you for not knowing what the Curse of Ham is, there's an entire article aboutit on Wikipedia. I also encourage you to actually read your own Bible.
And dont give me that "Christians are not Catholics" No True Scotsman crap.
dechha1981 3 years ago
I didn't say I didn't know. I just wanted you to tell me. Many say "theres contradiction in the Bible" um Where? "God did this" and that" um Where? "The Bible said this" um Where is the Passage? The Bible teaches that Women are to submissive to their Husbands um where? and What does it mean? No other book has been attacked throughout history as the Bible. Some intentional some unintentional just misled by others.
Creationcreed 3 years ago
Notice a slight difference between "Expelled" and "The root of All Evil?". In Expelled, Some Scientists just talk about freethought and they have spooky music behind them. In The root of all evil, Dawkins interviewed an ex Jewish Muslim who basically promoting Genocide, which mor than demonstrates Dawkin's point that Religion is a huge problem in the world, yet there was no background music at all.
dechha1981 3 years ago
Remember, scientists know that a flagellum was the end product; they do not know how it was formed from natural selection or other Darwinian processes. I do not know the answer either. So it is important not to impose the idea that the observable evidence must match evolution because we have no alternative. We should approach this problem with impartiality, going where the evidence leads. You also referenced information in your post, where did the information for the flagellum come from?
LUCAN22 3 years ago
If we don't know something yet, then it is eroneous to jump to any conclusion based on a LACK of knowledge. That's called "Putting God in the gaps". It's unscientific and it violates Occum's Razor.
dechha1981 3 years ago
The flagellum is not the "end product." It is still evolving and there are MANY variations on the flagellum. It isn't like there is one flagellum that all flagellated species have.
I am sorry if the evidence perfectly complements evolution. The evidence leads nowhere else. You do not have to put any effort forward in order to see evolution. It is extremely obvious when analyzing protein structures and sequences.
The information came from various journal articles.
jbooth002 3 years ago
I accept that other subsystems have some of these parts, but they do not have all of them. So where did the new proteins come from? Where did the assembly instructions come from as well? There are a number of molecular machines that cannot be accounted for by blind, Darwinian processes. So what did this? The problem remains open to debate.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
Please refer to the definition of irreducible complexity (the ID argument) that I posted earlier and notice that what I have told you totally refutes it.
The new proteins may have come from other cellular apparatuses or systems. For example, the motor proteins are found in other systems in all bacterial species in one form or another. Therefore, it is entirely plausible to assume that they were transferred between various species via horizontal gene transfer.
jbooth002 3 years ago
Let me approach this issue as an outsider. The scientific community has discovered a miniature motor on the bacteria. It is a machine, which means it was designed for a purpose, for matter has no purpose until information is present and dictates how it is to be arranged to form new things. This suggests intelligent design. You keep stressing that evolution did it, but you have not done so because science lead you to such a conviction. You merely excluded the possibility of design a priori.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
I didn't exclude the possibility of intelligent design a priori. Science is EXACTLY how I came to my conclusion about intelligent design. That and some basic critical thinking skills.
"Let me approach this issue as an outsider." Why would you approach a scientific issue as an outsider with no knowledge of science. That will not get anywhere and of course if you know nothing about the flagellum you will pick the simplest (and also most idiotic) explanation.
jbooth002 3 years ago
How do you know that it is idiotic? You have not proven that undirected natural processes constructed this machine. At the very least, therefore, you should confess the possibility of being mistaken. Do not assume that because you're familiar with a little science that the universe has divulged its secrets to you, it has not. So I will thus conclude that you do not wish to consider this possibility because you think it's too stupid. Fine, but don't think this is a scientific conclusion.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
I know that ID is idiotic because it does not stand up at all to the science, let alone the fact that it does not get anywhere close to meeting the other criteria for a scientific theory.
I have proven what I intended to prove in the first place. Behe is incorrect.
I do think ID is stupid, but I have come to that conclusion after looking at everything that ID has to offer. I also think the motives behind the people promoting ID are despicable.
jbooth002 3 years ago
And the motives of the Darwinists are meritorious? Have they not used this theory for other purposes?
I am not persuaded that your statements of extreme confidence have any substance to them. You chide us for being unscientific in how we approach this issue, yet you offer no formidable argument against the intelligent design community. I asked how one scientifically determines what is designed from what is not, and you did not answer this question. What method would be used here?
LUCAN22 3 years ago
Their motive is to follow the evidence. So, yes that is meritorious since they are doing their jobs properly. They have used the theory to advance science (you would be surprised to know how useful it is and how much scientific progression owes to this theory).
I don't really care too much if you aren't convinced. I was just trying to help you get started understanding the problems with ID so that you could further look into it by yourself.
jbooth002 3 years ago
If you would prefer to remain ignorant about the whole issue and simply reassure yourself that ID is actually an alternative to evolution then by all means do that. But don't be surprised if you get laughed at when you reveal that to someone with a science education.
Why do you listen to scientists for so many other things and then when it comes to a theory you deem not to coincide with your religion, all of a sudden the scientists must be wrong?
jbooth002 3 years ago
All the examples you gave- phones, cars, chairs- are nowhere near as complex and intricate as life. So, what is the explanation for this? Science must consider the origin of molecular machines, information in DNA, and the diverse number of new structures in organisms if they are to think clearly about this theory. Can natural processes alone account for these? Well, no. So let us consider both natural and intelligent explanations thereby extending science and making it more robust.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
I used those examples because they are items that I or someone else has actually seen being designed. So therefore, they are designed.
Science DOES consider the origins and evolution of molecular machines, DNA, and diverse structures. Do you actually think they are not researched? Who told you this? And yes, natural processes can account for these. You simply saying they cant does not make it so.
jbooth002 3 years ago
I am now acutely aware that you do not understand what science is. Science is restricted to natural phenomena. You must be able to observe, test, replicate, generate new hypotheses, etc. ID offers none of these. ID is restricted to the supernatural, and is by definition NOT science. It never will be. The entire ID "theory" is several arguments (that have all been discredited) against another theory. Does that seem like science to you, at all?
jbooth002 3 years ago
I can scientifically tell that something is designed if I or others observe it being designed (i.e. a car, chair, phone, etc.). Or, alternatively, if there is no evidence it evolved, in the case of cellular apparatuses. Even if there is no evidence at the time, only a fool would declare it designed due to insufficient research.
jbooth002 3 years ago
I am not entirely convinced that intelligent design is the right theory. I only utilized the arguments used in its favour to see how Darwinists, and invariably atheists, confront the possibility. It seems that you have to dismiss 700 or so dissenters from biology's premiere doctrine. I have not dismissed your arguments; I only asked how you would assess design scientifically, and your answer was being able to see the thing made and being told that random processes could not make it.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
Understanding science does not equate to atheism. There are many religious scientists; most importantly Ken Miller, who is one of the more outspoken opponents of ID.
I do not have to dismiss 700 or so dissenters. There are only a few actual scientists who disagree with evolution.
Considering that we have no evidence of anything being designed, and only evidence for evolution, I think your question was a little ridiculous.
jbooth002 3 years ago
I understand that Darwinian evolution offers a decent explanation for small changes in organisms, but the creation of new forms presents a greater difficulty. Now, I may be completely wrong and the ideas advanced here may be entirely vacuous. The reaction, however, of the Darwinian community has been curious. People who have overwhelming evidence on their side do not scruple to tell us what that is. They do not merely declare we our ignorant without telling us why.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
Most evidence is quite complex. Regardless of that fact, there are many pieces of evidence that most people are aware of. Such as transitional fossils (even though there is a laughable attempt by the ID community to say there actually aren't any), antibiotic resistance acquisition, the age of the earth, the independent genomes of the mitochondria and chloroplast, etc.
jbooth002 3 years ago
For scientists, evolution is not a question. It is a fact, explained by Darwin's theory. The distinction between the fact and theory of evolution is crucial and many people neglect to understand that.
jbooth002 3 years ago
I get the feeling you are not totally aware of how scientifically and philosophically unsound ID is. Which aspect of ID do you find so convincing?
(Please answer my other posts as well).
jbooth002 3 years ago
This is how a scientist reasons? Fascinating. Design could surely be discerned in hieroglyphics, signals from space, messages encoded in things, not just created, physical entities. So it is science; I am glad you could confess that, for it must have been difficult. Now, can we apply your reasoning to biological life? Sure we can. We can see how a car is made, with all its intricate machinery, and speculate on how a cell could be likewise created intelligently.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
Are we not talking about the cell. Is the cell not a physical entity?
What did I say is science? I don't know which post you are replying to.
jbooth002 3 years ago
I think every scientist agrees that what we see in the natural world looks designed. There are thus two answers to this question: is it real or is it apparent? We have only considered one. Now the scientific community encounters new evidence on the cellular level that challenges Darwinian hypotheses. Your quick dismissal- even after you told me the pathways may never be known- of this idea has convinced me that there is more here than scientists are willing to confess.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
The things we see in the natural world do not seem designed, because no one in their right mind would design humans (or anything else that exists) the way they are. Humans are very flawed. You may need to brush up on your physiology. If someone intentionally designed humans (I am just using humans as the example) then they would have to be quite a cruel individual.
jbooth002 3 years ago
What is this "new evidence on the cellular level?" I get the feeling you are making this up as you go along. Currently there are no real challenges to evolution. Maybe you have the piece of evidence that will do it.
I did not tell you the pathway will never be known. I said it is not definitive since it is still being researched and debated.
jbooth002 3 years ago
The instructions are found in the DNA.
The molecular machines that you may be referring to that cannot be "accounted for by blind Darwinian processes" simply have not been researched enough. That is a common critical error made by IDists. They seem to think that because something has not been researched and understood fully, they have the right to say "god did it." That kind of argument from ignorance just wont fly with scientists.
jbooth002 3 years ago
I see that you have offered a number of hypothetical ideas on how the flagellum could have evolved. This is evident in your use of the words "may", "plausible", and "assume". I must tell you that I never thought such weak language would be used for a scientific fact.
Then you continually tell me to go see a journal article on the subject. Well, I am a historian, not a scientist, so which article do you suggest? Please choose the most salient ones; I cannot peruse a multitude of these papers.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
I cannot say some things definitively because we do not know them definitively. The exact pathway is not a "scientific fact." The pathway is still being debated and researched by scientists.
Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system, Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104.
From the origin of species to the origin of bacterial flagella, Nature Reviews Microbiology, vol. 4
jbooth002 3 years ago
I will read the articles you posted here.
I am an outsider. Since I see no indication that you are a research scientist yourself, then so are you. Science did not lead you to the conviction that the bacterial flagellum arose by evolutionary processes; more research still has to be done. Your unshaken belief in evolution has been the guiding impulse of your critical thinking.
Please tell me what you mean by "basic thinking skills"? How did these help you determine that Behe was wrong?
LUCAN22 3 years ago
Actually I am in research. That being said, you still don't need to be in science in order to see the flaws of intelligent design. Any simple understanding of the philosophy of science and an open mind will lead you away from ID. I think the problem is more that religion leads people to ID rather than allowing them to look at the issue critically.
jbooth002 3 years ago
Please reply directly to my comments rather than starting a new thread. I don't get a message if you start a new message.
jbooth002 3 years ago
You have not told me how we could get the flagellum. If you need roughly 40 protein parts in order to have a functioning flagellar motor, then how did natural selection or other random processes accomplish this? If the machine is missing one part, you don't have a flagellum. Evolution needs to progress by offering some kind of advantage for the organism. How does a defective flagellum accomplish this? How could it be built?
LUCAN22 3 years ago
Depending on which part is missing, you could still have a flagellum that functions quite well. Just look at the differences in flagella from different species. I would prefer not to go through proposed pathways for the formation of a flagellum. Many scientists have done just that and you can search for articles that they have written. If you choose not to, then just be aware that, contrary to what the IDists will have you believe, a lot is known about the evolutionary history of the flagellum.
jbooth002 3 years ago
Given the evidence about the existence of molecular machines in the cell, what would convince you that these are designed? Imagine that you have come across this structure in the laboratory. When studying it, you have no preconceptions about how it came to be. How would you scientifically determine if this is real design or only apparent? If the pathways are not known and may never be known, how do you confirm that evolutionary processes made this?
LUCAN22 3 years ago
That another cellular apparatus can be made from the removal of one or more parts is not disputed in the ID movement. How did you get the flagellum, which must have all its parts in order to function, from these preliminary steps? The argument has not been answered. Furthermore, most of the arguments you produce against irreducible complexity provide a lot of circumstantial evidence. Well, these proteins have similarities to the proteins in other species.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
"How did you get the flagellum, which must have all its parts in order to function."
I just told you how this is incorrect. Did you even read my posts? The evidence I have provided for you effectively voids the irreducible complexity argument. If you want more on the subject then go read some journal articles.
jbooth002 3 years ago
Jbooth002, tell me one book that you have read by the intelligent design community, and give me your scientific critique of it. Choose, for the sake of brevity, their most significant arguments in favour of the idea. I am afraid that the Darwinian mechanisms, which refer to the environment, genetic drift, sexual reproduction, natural selection, gene mutations, and other random processes have not been demonstrated as capable of creating the complexity of life. So what did? Now we have a debate.
LUCAN22 3 years ago
"A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." - Behe
This argument is from the book he wrote entitled "Darwin's Black Box." I did not read this book, but I have read a shorter version of his argument on irreducible complexity in an anthology.
jbooth002 3 years ago
Behe's argument has been dismantled quite easily by a number of scientists. All current research on the flagellum (referred to as the "poster boy" of irreducible complexity) has further provided evidence that the bacterial flagellum is, in fact, not irreducibly complex. Most of the devastating evidence against this idea has come from DNA sequencing followed by a bioinformatic analysis of those sequences.
jbooth002 3 years ago
By sequencing the genes that code for flagellar proteins, it was realized that the entire hook-basal-body portion of the flagellum shows extensive sequence homology to the type 3 secretory system (TTSS). This indicates that some of the components of the flagellum can be removed and still leave a functioning cellular apparatus (the TTSS is used as a mechanism for bacterial pathogenesis). There are also many other pieces of evidence that reveal the evolutionary history of the flagellum.
jbooth002 3 years ago
The flagellin protein that makes up the "tail" is highly conserved (across species it has only small variations in sequence), which indicates its importance to flagellar function.
Numerous other proteins are homologous to proteins found in many other species. These genes were likely transferred through horizontal gene transfer and kept because of their gain of function.
A great number of the proteins show sequence homology to others within the same flagellum, which indicates gene duplication.
jbooth002 3 years ago
All hail the great PZ Myers
rytallica898 3 years ago
ok my comments were supposed to be a reply to drushforth88 below. Please take a look. Sorry for the double post.
jopo009 3 years ago
There is a difference between spontaneous generation and evolution of a universe, but then again, you wouldn't know that would you? Science readily admits it does not yet hold the awnsers to the creation of the Universe however, the Big Bang theory has scientific backing whereas the writings of men who believed the world was round does not. You can choose to place your blind faith in your Bible, I choose however to open my mind to scientific developments and social contexts.
drushforth88 3 years ago
Oh, you know...you're right. We SHOULD take a look at the actual "science" of the "evolution of a universe" as you called it. So, we've got however many millions of years of however many millions of these organisms evolving from lower order species to higher order species, countless fossils preserving the "evidence" of evolution all over the world, scientists for generations doing their best to contrive the facts to fit their THEORY and yet.........
jopo009 3 years ago
...we still don't have even ONE tiny, little, minute, faint piece of evidence showing the evolution of one species to another completely different species. INTRA-species, sure...natural selection is fine. INTER-species, nada. Curious, isn't it? I guess all that evolving from one species to another took place SO FAST (so fast that not even one organism died during the transformation) that we're left with absolutely zero record of it.
jopo009 3 years ago
Shouldn't TRUE scientists maintain an open mind to all theories until they are each, in turn, disproven? That's what I was saying in the previous post: evolutioniary science ISN'T science at all...it is absolutely as much a faith-based religion as Christianity.
jopo009 3 years ago
Just because people think evolution disproves their religion does not make it a religion as well. That is the equivalent of saying that physiology or molecular biology are religions.
jbooth002 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
PZ Meyers: "We do not want to take religion from people".
Woow, THANK YOU PZ MEYERS, it is nice you want to allow us to keep religion!. Who do you think you are? Perhaps you are one of the less than 10% intelligent people in the world that should be selected to determine the next evolution step. By "WE" you probably mean you and the other members of the Darwinian church.
irocivan 3 years ago
Without religion, does evil still exist?
jayceetee1 3 years ago
The answer is yes. My question to you is, what do you believe about the intrinsic nature of man? Are we basically good, or basically evil in our nature?
pocobull 3 years ago
both are interinsicly _human_ concepts, and seeing as most modern democracies stive for the former, I'd say good.
ngarey 3 years ago
Read Nietzsche, and stop flaunting your superiority complex.
fluorophoric 3 years ago
Neither? Seeing as the definition stems from our existance and is thus not a constant. It's basically something trying to describe itself, as if it were not itself. Quite paradoxical.
Nerusai 3 years ago
man is inherently evil.
gandgbell 3 years ago
"Without religion, does evil still exist?"
Yes. Although there would be allot less evil without Religion.
dechha1981 3 years ago
Not religion exactly, people are sinful so they commit sins.
Creationcreed 3 years ago
Robert Jastrow (a self-confessed agnostic) ends his book GOD AND THE ASTRONOMERS- in regards to the incapablity of science to explain what happened before the universe was created -ends his book this way, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, is is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over...he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
WhitStar007 3 years ago
"He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, is is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over...he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
If after all these years of scientific discoveries, after all the things we have learned about the universe, if the cause of everything ends up being "a magic man in the sky made everything" it's going to be a bit of a let down I think.
StealthDonkey007 3 years ago
I think the author of that book would agree with you. I suppose it all depends on your view of God. Personally, these scientific findings only serve to renew my faith in a loving God. The universe is revealed to be more complex the more we learn about it,- that makes it harder for me to accept that it just evolved that way on its own. It seems to be tailored to our precise needs. I think that makes us special in the grand scheme of things - and i don't see why that would be such a bad thing.