By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor
America’s Protestant pastors overwhelmingly reject the theory of evolution and are evenly split on whether the earth is 6,000 years old, according to a survey released Monday by the Southern Baptist Convention.
When asked if “God used evolution to create people," 73% of pastors disagreed - 64% said they strongly disagreed - compared to 12% who said they agree.
Asked whether the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, 46% agreed, compared to 43% who disagreed.
A movement called Young Earth creationism promotes the 6,000-year-old figure, arguing that it is rooted in the Bible. Scientists say the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
The Southern Baptist Convention survey, which queried 1,000 American Protestant pastors, also found that 74% believe the biblical Adam and Eve were literal people.
“Recently discussions have pointed to doubts about a literal Adam and Eve, the age of the earth and other origin issues," said Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, a division of the Southern Baptist Convention, in a report on LifeWay’s site. “But Protestant pastors are overwhelmingly Creationists and believe in a literal Adam and Eve.”
The phone survey was conducted in May 2011, sampling ministers from randomly selected Protestant churches. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percent, LifeWay said.
A 2010 Gallup poll found that 40% of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, versus 54% who said humans developed over millions of years.
Willy wrote, "Why don't you start by explaining the all millions of "missing links" What do those mean? Can science make any claims to to all that absence of evidence?"
The problem is that real science doesn't use term "missing link". Rather, we see creationists use the term in various ways. Sadly, all too often folks like Willy demand to see all the half birds half cats. Or demand to seea bird with half a wing. This shows the profound ignorance of creationists.
However, if you are talking about transitional fossils and transitional species – then we have thousands. It usually works like this. We have species A and species E. We state that species E descended from species A. The fundies yell ISNOT ISNOT ISNOT, and demand to see what came between A and E. So we give them species C, which has characteristics of A and E. Then the fundiots scream that C is a distinct separate species. And we say, yes it is. And they claim that proves it can't be a transitional – again showing their profound ignorance. Then the fundies demand to see what came between A and C, and C and E. So we trot out species B and D. And it starts again.
Darwin's example of the irreducible complexity with the human eye is an example of the falsehood of the theory within its own defined context of living systems. Sure, it is possible to decompose an eye using other branches of science, but they invalid evolution all together!!! In my opinion, physics can be used to invalidate biology, but biology can't be used to invalidate physics because one is more fundamental than the other.
I swear – it's like listening to someone who has never learned Spanish, say something that makes sense in Spanish.
I'm sorry but... What?
"Darwin's example of the irreducible complexity with the human eye is an example of the falsehood of the theory"
Here we meet one of the most commonly used quote mines in the creation-evolution controversy, also from The Origin of the Species. So much so, in fact, that Answers in Genesis, a well-known creationist website, advises its readers not to use this quote. As usual, it is taken here utterly out of context. Darwin's intended meaning is "yes, this seems weird, but it happened", and he goes on to describe how it could be possible for light-sensitive cells to progressively become eyes.
I gotta go with Nonimus here, what?
Let me ask you, do you think that all the science around evolution is a threat to God or the Bible? You can chill out on that because in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Then later on we see God made man from the dust of the earth. You will find much greater comfort by digging into the Hebrew word "created" verses the Hebrew word "made" rather than digging up Neanderthal eye balls. Everything in the Bible holds great treasure for the believer but is foolishness to everyone else. This is the way it was designed and you cannot change that by exposing lack of transitional fossils in evolution. I think the gaps in evolution are better supported than lack of transitional fossils between the talking snake and todays hissing Cobra.
Ok, for those who keep on stating that God and Jesus Christ does not exist because there is no scientific evidence or just plain evidence, I must say, requesting for evidence is almost a cop out, if not that. To ask for scientific evidence of Jesus' existence is truly absurd at the highest level. There's a heavy problem of proving anything about a person or an event in history. I mean, can Napoleon's or Alexander the Great's or even Julius Caesar's existence be proven?
Scientific proof is based on showing something is a fact by repeating the event in a controlled environment where observations can be made, data drawn, and hypotheses verified. Dr. James B. Conant, former president of Harvard Univ. stated that "Science is an interconnected series of concepts and conceptual schemes that have developed as a result of experimentation and observation and are fruitful of further experimentation and observation."
Now, to prove that a person existed or an event in history actually happened, there is what is called legal-historical proof, which shows that something is a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The scientific method is only good to prove repeatable things; it isn't useful for proving or disproving the historicity of a person or an event. For example, science can't answer questions like, "Was this mountain taller in the past than it is now?" We can only know if it was taller because of written testimony that it was. Or, "Did George Washington live?", or "Was MLK Jr. actually a civil rights leader?", or "Was Robert Kennedy Attorney General of the USA?" or "Did you actually go to school today?" or the best one yet, "Did Jesus Christ really resurrect from the dead?" These examples are out of the realm of scientific proof, but they must placed in the realm of legal proof. Besides, Jesus Christ never intended for us to have a blind faith but rather an intelligent faith. He said in John 8 [You shall KNOW the Truth.]. And what is the greatest commandment of all? He said, "To love the Lord with all your heart and all your MIND." The issue with most people is that they seem to stop at the heart. The facts about Jesus never seems to go to their minds. One of the many historical proofs of Jesus' existence and His miracle workings, His life, death and resurrection were eyewitness accounts and written testimony. In Roman literature, there are mentions of the apostle Paul's life and even the deaths of some of the other apostles. And Paul of course as we know him, was an eyewitness to Jesus Christ's appearance. Besides, Jesus appeared to 500 witnesses after His resurrection. Prior to His death, thousands witnessed His miracles.
To prove 'creation' over 'evolution', one must consider all these above FACTS. Darwin based his evolutionary conclusions on observations, never repeatable experiments. So why trust his conclusions?
I mostly agree with you, but I would add that most people let the facts of Jesus Christ go to their minds and NOT their heart. I think this is the opposite of what you said? Jesus wanted people to know the truth, but even more important, He asked them to live out of their hearts.
BoldGeorge. You base your statements and questions on a very sad misunderstanding of the scientific method. Perhaps you should take some classes at your local university. With a few basic science classes under your belt, you will be able to see how your reasoning is flawed.
One more thing. Proving or disproving Jesus' existence doesn't matter much to atheists. Undoubtedly there were a bunch of guys named "jesus" in Judea at the appropriate time - it was a common name. And quite a few "teachers" at that time claimed to be the "messiah" and/or some such.
We do repeatable experiments in evolution all the time. And so far not a single solitary one of them has falsified ToE. Instead, they all get added to the HUGE mountain of evidence that confirms the ToE over and over.
"Ok, for those who keep on stating that God and Jesus Christ does not exist because there is no scientific evidence "
Get it right dude, we're saying there is no scientific proof your God exists.
Yes, Yo, and as I've already stated, mathematics and science are not going to offer you definitive proof of God, but it is a matter of Faith and understanding God's word.
From science, you just get 50/50 uncertainty for a creative design element.
From Theology, you just get the sign of Jonah.
"From science, you just get 50/50 uncertainty for a creative design element."
Making up stuff is fun!
@ momoya..."Proving or disproving Jesus' existence doesn't matter much to atheists."
Your statement above is most certainly true. I have no doubt that proof or lack thereof of Jesus does not matter in one bit to unbelievers. It didn't even matter to some that were actually there with Him, or at least witnessing His sermons, miracles, etc.
@ Primewonk..."We do repeatable experiments in evolution all the time. And so far not a single solitary one of them has falsified ToE."
Would love to read about these repeatable experiments in evolution you are stating here. Play fair now. I gave you searchable/verifiable information about history, the Roman empire, about the Apostle Paul, etc. Now please offer me some verifiable info on these repeatable experiments that you claim has been done. I;m always looking out for stuff like this, never seen any. Thanks!
...and Evangelicals still cry foul when reasonable people laugh at them. Whether or not science makes religion unnecessary might be debatable. But ignoring fact because it conflicts with belief warrants nothing but scorn. Evangelicals need to realize that they won't be taken seriously about anything as long as they refuse to accept simple facts. 6,000 years old? This is not a debate, it's silliness.
One specific example that fails within the context of Darwin's "living system" is the human eye. At the level of the biological system, the human eye itself is not complex irreducible, therefore we have a counter example and Darwin is false.
It seems as though his entire theory could be discredited in a single sentence. Let's help him out a bit. By theoretical construct, it is possible to decompose the human eye down to its fundamental elements. However, the fundamental elements and rules that govern how the eye operate, are not evolving!! This is the part where all hell breaks loose on the theory and you can't use other disciplines to support his ideas.
At first, your ignorance bothered me. But then I realized that you, in all likelihood, aren't an educator or a policymaker of any sort, so your ignorance doesn't really matter.
This too shall pass.
"However, the fundamental elements and rules that govern how the eye operate, are not evolving!! "
LOL! Yes, it did, we use to have a third eyelid that we used, now we don't so you don't even know it's there. LOL!
LOL. According to Mrs. Momoya, I'm Rick Santorum. She yawns at everything I say. In a way this makes sense because I'm just stating the obvious. People always love to ignore the obvious truth. It's too boring and they want rebel rousing.
"In a way this makes sense because I'm just stating the obvious."
That you are an ignorant fool.
Here's a little project for you:
Collect an assortment of current-day creatures with eyes.
Get your note pad, camera and other recording devices ready.
Follow them for 2 million years, or so.
Get back to us then with your results showing change or lack of it.
Bye... enjoy your journey.
p.s. Bumper, perhaps somewhere along the line in your study you can die and come back with verified evidence of an afterlife with "God" and Jesus and other supernatural happenings.
"At the level of the biological system, the human eye itself is not complex irreducible, therefore we have a counter example and Darwin is false."
I think the human eye has been shown to be a product of evolution: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14756332, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-of-the-eye.
As to the rest, if you are saying that the fundamental elements, e.g. atoms, protons, quarks, etc. are not evolvable, then I would say that you misunderstand the theory of evolution in that it only applies to living organisms. Without reproduction evolution is not possible.
Except, of course, that you're lying (again? still?)
From an index to creationist claims –
The eye is too complex to have evolved.
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust
All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circu mstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
Lindsay, Don, 1998. How long would the fish eye take to evolve? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html
Darwin, C., 1872. The Origin of Species, 1st Edition. Senate, London, chpt. 6, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html
Nilsson, D.-E. and S. Pelger, 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, 256: 53-58.
Shimeld, Sebastian M. et al. 2005. Urochordate βγ-crystallin and the evolutionary origin of the vertebrate eye lens. Current Biology 15: 1684-1689.
Dawkins, Richard, 1996. Climbing Mount Improbable, New York: W.W. Norton, chpt. 5.
Land, M. F. and D.-E. Nilsson, 2002. Animal Eyes. Oxford University Press.
Fernald, Russell D. 2006. Casting a genetic light on the evolution of eyes. Science 313: 1914-1918.
Ah, the irreducible complexity of the human eye. Dumper's trying a new tune, at last. Too bad it was refuted long ago. What's next, the ole' "banana-fits-into-the-human-hand" nonsense?
Good info, thanks.
Bumper wrote, " According to Mrs. Momoya, I'm Rick Santorum."
No Bumper. You are not Rick Santorum. You are santorum. Big difference.
"One specific example that fails within the context of Darwin's "living system" is the human eye"
You've been saying that for days. People keep pointing out what a flawed and easily debunked argument this is, but you keep it up. Talk about not removing the blinders!
In the scientific community there is some disagreement on the details of certain evolutionary process. That is not only true, but an integral part of how science works. Science is always looking for a better explanation of the current data. By studying how different data affects the overall "evolution picture" we build up a better understanding of how evolution does what it does.
I don't know if any atheists think that evolution "gives them an edge" over religious belief, they merely acknowledge that it destroys the literal interpretation of various religious myths throughout history. Certainly the theory of evolution discredits myths whereby a crocodile created other animals by spitting water or whereby plants predate stars–stuff like that. Since most believers have no problem incorporating the facts of evolution into their form of belief, it's largely a moot point.
Fortunately, science hasn't found all the answers. When and if it does, there will be no need for science, anymore. Science describes our universe in the most consistent, predictable measures possible. Baptist scientists and Muslim scientists use the same processes and come to the same conclusions because science "works" predictably, not like their religious beliefs.
Neither evolution nor atheism make any claims about "materialism." Atheism says that the claim that god exists is false (much like you saying you have a blue chevy, and I say that you don't have a blue chevy).
If the bible contained everything humans needed to understand the world, then science would not exist, or rather, it would be our science texts. Science gives us data about the stars and the earth that negate many of the bible's claims, forcing the bible thumpers to claim that the bible is figurative where it has been proven wrong. Why does everybody use the same mathematics, regardless of what god they claim to serve? You'd think he'd want to at least be as obvious as math so as to reach as many of his creatures as possible.
Nobody, but nobody, knows what happens after death. Quit pretending. You don't have to make up answers for every space. Just admit you don't know and move on.
The "truth" is that no religion can show why it is more valid than any other religion. If it's up to faith, then you can always find a believer of a different god who has more faith than the last guy who had almost as much faith in a different god. Until you god-believers can actually demonstrate a standard by which ANYONE can realize an error or truth according to that standard, then you're useless. Basically, you guys are running around saying "mizrpel plus crintip equals zumbela" without having a system whereby "mizrpel," "crintip," and "zumbela" can be weighed and evaluated so that anybody can work with the three concepts according to how they really act. Do some research on the monomyth and compare the myths in the bible with the environmental and societal pressures that existed during the depicted time. Peace.
Mrs. Momoya's usual drivel.
With the possible exception of the bit at the end...
@Dumper, I'm sure it looks that way to you. It's appreciated.
Bumper, I can't help but notice that you failed to refute anything Momoya posted. I wonder why?
I believe in God, but I'm not a creationist, fundamentalist or stated any known religious affiliation. I believer in the veracity of God's word as revealed through the great men of faith, minor/major prophets, but most importantly, Jesus himself. We've argued a lot over the Old Testament, but one of the major points of the New Testament Biblical text is that Jesus is a fulfillment of OT prophesy and we are to follow His teaching which actually supplanted (not really just fulfillment) the somewhat shadowy OT. Jesus never failed or got anything wrong and I put my faith and trust in Him. My flesh rests in hope (OT) and my hope is in Christ (NT).
Many of you are just stating points that I've already made. For example, I already said that you can't prove the existence of creative elements using a single set of mathematical axioms. At best, with purely binary statistics and non-Bayes probability, you do arrive at 50/50 uncertainly scenario for the creative element. If you construct your arguments with pink polka dotted elephants, you are not using pure Bayes stats. Also, to say it is a God or anything else enters the realm of theology and based on personal faith of the individual and not science. I believe this is the way God ordained the universe. God understands that an individual truly believes with their heart through faith and not by sight. He understands that if you are given sight (definitive proof), most will reject Him anyway and this was blatantly proven through the life of Jesus. The sing of Jonah is supposed to be the ultimate proof of God's existence, but most people fail to believe.
i applaud you bumper, your best statement was the first few words. " i believe" we can agree on that, you believe in the bible and god; i believe in the world i can interact physically with. the rest of your statement was same ol' song and dance.
Your Jesus said several times in the NT that the OT was still in play. That the laws/rules are in play until heaven and earth pass away.
It's incomplete because it does not take into consideration fast+slow, micro+macro and simple+complex adaptations. It only considers slow, macroscopic and complex change. Darwin himself admitted that any counterexample to a slow gradual process would totally invalidate the theory. Further, Darwin's theory of evolution does not actually work at the near/sub microscopic level for reasons I've already explained in detail. Perhaps that's why he didn't go there.
"Darwin's theory of evolution does not actually work at the near/sub microscopic level for reasons I've already explained in detail. Perhaps that's why he didn't go there."
Dude, there is NO proof of a God therefore your creation theory cannot be tested or proven. Your ignorance of science only makes you look more delusional.
Dumper, obviously that's the only song you can play, and you can't explain the tune nor the lyrics. When pressed to explain yourself, you make yourself and your crackpot ideas look even more ridiculous. When will you publish your research and become world famous?
It's only IDiots that bring up the fictional micro/macro and slow/fast ideas.
Even scientists in the field do not agree on all aspects of evolution and certainly scientific investigation will bring further changes to previous consensus. Atheists think that evolution gives them some edge over the faithful who believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Unfortunately, science cannot or at least has not to date found the tools that can evaluate the other side of our very existence. Arguing that everything is and must consist only of that which a materialist can accept is as insane as arguing that the Bible explains all one needs to know about the material world. Arguments for and against a creator have the same amount of validity from the standpoint of acceptable scientific evidence as does the atheist argument for eternal nothingness upon death verses paradise for a Christian.
The sad part is that the majority of Christians understand evolution and accept it where as the atheist is locked in denial with regards to their faith in the unknown. The atheist fully exhibits this faith and claims that faith to be greater than the Christians faith then goes on to prove how the atheist faith exhibits greater intelligence. Yeah……the Bible gets this round because it says non believers are blinded to the truth. The truth is in that which they cannot see.
Arguments for and against a creator have the same amount of validity from the standpoint of acceptable scientific evidence as does the atheist argument for eternal nothingness upon death verses paradise for a Christian.
There is NO scientific proof of a God so your argument is moot.
“The atheist fully exhibits this faith and claims that faith to be greater than the Christians faith then goes on to prove how the atheist faith exhibits greater intelligence.”
Once they have proven there really is a God, then you’ll have more faith than a Atheist.
Here I have to agree with Fred. He is presenting both sides of the argument.
I would agree with some of what you said, e.g. "scientists ... do not agree on all aspects of evolution" and "Arguments for and against a creator have the same amount of validity from the standpoint of acceptable scientific evidence", but that does not weaken or change the evidence that evolution has and does happen. While there are many ongoing debates about how evolution happens, very few, if any, in the field would argue that it did and does actually happen. And, while technically true that arguments for and against a creator have equal standing, i.e. no evidence either way, that has no bearing on the evidence for evolution.
Other areas don't quite seem accurate to me. For example, "science cannot ... evaluate the other side of our very existence." To what "other side" are you referring? Science, of course, can't evaluate something that does not exist; not that we *know* it does not exist, but we also have no evidence that it does. And, for example, "the atheist is locked in denial with regards to their faith in the unknown." To what "faith" are you referring? And, "Atheists think that evolution gives them some edge over the faithful." Actually, it is Creationists and IDists that conflate evolution with Atheism. Atheism itself makes no claims about evolution, just a statement of a lack of belief.
... and evolution makes no claims about Atheism, or Theism for that matter.
Christians have varying amounts of faith and their outward and inward response to that faith is as different as there are individuals on the face of this earth. I suspect the same is true with atheists with regard to their faith in eternal nothingness in the afterlife and nothingness as a first cause in creation.
There is a common ground and that is sin. If there is no sin we do not need a savior thus no need for Christians or the Bible. Atheists will insist there they do not sin however eventually are backed into a corner and resort to semantics claiming sin does not exist. Based on this atheists have faith that Christians will join them in eternal nothingness. Considering eternal nothingness is achieved in some afterlife beliefs upon reaching the highest level of reincarnation the atheist has joined the fourth largest religious group on earth by reaching that sin free state.
“I suspect the same is true with atheists with regard to their faith in eternal nothingness in the afterlife and nothingness as a first cause in creation.”
LOL! Your excuses are hilarious. By the way, lying is a sin, I don’t have faith in eternal nothingness. I don’t think about death constantly the way you do. Every day for me is a good day to die because we only exist in the now.
“ Atheists will insist there they do not sin however eventually are backed into a corner and resort to semantics claiming sin does not exist.”
It doesn’t exist because your god doesn’t exist, no semantics needed. LOL!
I agree with you regarding evolution that has and does happen to the best we know today. Some feel the implications of evolution tread on the Bible with respect to timing and order of creation launching some crazy defense strategies. Personally it simply reinforces the necessity of faith in God rather than the things of man. God went so far as to express this clearly throughout the Bible so I really wonder why be defensive at all.
“Science, of course, can't evaluate something that does not exist; not that we *know* it does not exist, but we also have no evidence that it does.”
=>Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? Of course you do not believe, even though we have no evidence it does not exist. You do not believe God exists. Is there a difference in your mind between God and the Tooth Fairy?
“And, for example, "the atheist is locked in denial with regards to their faith in the unknown." To what "faith" are you referring?”
=> Atheists explain the eternal nothingness as to shape, color, time and the impact of meaningful existence on this earth in view of their afterlife.
“Atheism itself makes no claims about evolution, just a statement of a lack of belief.”
=>interesting I assumed when I see atheists beating Christian fundamentalist over the head with Darwin and the likes their arguments often degrade into personal insults.
"Every day for me is a good day to die because we only exist in the now."
Way to much Star Trek for you "today is a good day to die" as Kahn was set to destroy the universe. Perhaps that was the thought of Stalin and Mao.....................
Such a contrast with Jesus who died so others may have life to the fullest. The contrast between the tree of knowledge of good and evil vs the tree life both of which were in the Garden. The contrast between one criminal who mocked Jesus as they hung on the cross vs the other criminal that said "you are innocent we deserve this, remember me"
"I agree with you regarding evolution that has and does happen to the best we know today."
I am undecided about the Tooth Fairy and God, but see no reason to believe that either exists.
I'm not sure what you mean by "explain the eternal nothingness as to shape, color, time...".
My experience has been that both sides of the evolution/creation argument frequently devolve into insults and personal attacks. It is unfortunate, but true. However, my experience has also been that Atheists will frequently demand evidence for belief in Christ, God, etc., and Theists will frequently resort to the Bible as evidence, Atheists will then frequently resort to science in order to disprove the Bible.
Another common ocurrance is a Theist claiming from the beginning that there is no evidence for evolution, which I and I suspect many others, feel obligated to refute.
Admittedly though, there are many times where non-theists are attacking believers from the beginning as well.
It is definitely not one-sided.
For me it boils down to the point that the evidence is wholly on the side of science in the creation/evolution debate and any definitive evidence is not (yet?) available in the God/no god(s) debate. Inductively, I think, the evidence points to no god(s), but that is not definitive by any stretch, and I try not to belabor the point.
Hope that helps.
“Such a contrast with Jesus who died so others may have life to the fullest.”
No true, there is no life once you are dead. Oh, and try telling that to those that are starving to death.
“The contrast between the tree of knowledge of good and evil vs the tree life both of which were in the Garden. The contrast between one criminal who mocked Jesus as they hung on the cross vs the other criminal that said "you are innocent we deserve this, remember me"”
Total babbling, you have no proof outside of the bible there was any garden.
“I am undecided about the Tooth Fairy and God, but see no reason to believe that either exists.”
=>Even before I believed in God I somehow knew there was a difference between an imaginary Tooth Fairy and God who cannot be seen or proven to exist in the absence of faith. By faith something that cannot be seen, has no physical properties to measure and is not subject to scientific method suddenly becomes very real and alters previous perspectives revealing a radically new reality. Other gods retained their previous true nature as did the Tooth Fairy. Scientific theories or constants were not altered and retained their previous nature / truths as before. There was clarity between what is of man and what is of God. Clarity not only as to purpose but why some things are the way they are.
In looking back I noticed that my instinct or gut without any thought whatsoever dismissed the Tooth Fairy. The God of Abraham had to be actively dismissed after review of evidence combined with supernatural stories typical of that day. I went to great lengths to reject God. This being the case I assume my efforts were required to override instinct or was I overriding that soul God spoke of when He said “for I knew you before I knit your bones together in the womb”. Someday evolutionists may identify the source of the instinct but the soul is for God.
“I'm not sure what you mean by "explain the eternal nothingness as to shape, color, time...".
=>I cannot imagine nothingness so when an atheist explains it is eternal or forever I scratch my head. When nothingness is without light and without boundaries I scratch my head. Even before my conversion experience I could never see or imagine nothing or a complete void. At best I could imagine vastness but that is the opposite of nothing. This is why I say some level of faith must be at work in the atheist when they tell me about their pending afterlife.
You may do well to drop the old "why does God allow children to starve" routine. Starvation is something man has the knowledge and resources to end and has had that capability for a long time. We choose to allocate our wealth of both knowledge and resources to other areas that appear to give greater pleasure than feeding children.
"By faith something that cannot be seen, has no physical properties to measure and is not subject to scientific method[,] suddenly becomes very real and alters previous perspectives revealing a radically new reality."
What exactly is this new reality and is it evidenced by anything other than faith? If faith reveals this new reality, then is any faith equivalent to yours? e.g. Islam, Judaism, Druidism, Hinduism, etc. If not, then why not?
In essence, this may have convinced you, but why should it convince anyone else?
"...when an atheist explains [nothingness] is eternal or forever I scratch my head."
I would too. I'm not sure why an Atheists would say that nothingness is eternal or forever. If you are refering to the Big Bang theory, then I would think that an Atheist would state honestly, "no one knows what came before the Big Bang."
p.s. I would suggest that your lack of faith in the tooth fairy was directly proportional to the perceived amount of stories related to the tooth fairy, versus the Christian God.
“What exactly is this new reality and is it evidenced by anything other than faith?”
=>A radical permanent change in the person observable by others
“is any faith equivalent to yours?
=>a love for God and love for others greater than self is not limited to religion. Different religions may limit outward expression or exaggerate it but truth revealed is truth revealed. Some revelations may well be false but faith is assurance that those who can hear the truth will hear it. Many Christians as well as non Christians are very deceived.
"...when an atheist explains [nothingness] is eternal or forever I scratch my head."
=>mostly related to the afterlife in attempt explaining nonexistence.
Okay, behavioral changes... interesting. I wonder if the motivation for a particular behavior can be identified by the behavior itself? For example, if someone risks their life to save someone else, is that alturism or are they looking for a reward, tangible or not? i.e. love of neighbor or love of self?
As to nothingness in the afterlife, perhaps the difficulty you are having is because there wouldn't be anyone to experience nothingness or any afterlife to imagine. If there is no afterlife, then after death you will experience exactly what you experienced for the 13+ billion years prior to being born.
“ alturism or are they looking for a reward, tangible or not? i.e. love of neighbor or love of self?”
=>Ah, can go either way, but if they are looking for a reward that is not a sign of truth. Some faiths promise a reward. The way it should go is that you do it because you love your neighbor and love God. Because you love God these acts of kindness are natural for you. Another reason God does the judging of others not us as we could never really know the heart of another.
“If there is no afterlife, then after death you will experience exactly what you experienced for the 13+ billion years prior to being born.”
=>If the earth then is smashed to dust by an asteroid you never existed. If you say that you must have existed then you are relying on something internal or external to self for authentication. This is a reality your mind knows exists which you overwrite with materialism while all others attempt to fill in that space with God. All of mankind from the beginning of known human history have done the same thing and will continue. Beginning with Ho-mo neanderthalensis provision for the afterlife has been discovered with remains. To claim we are only attempting to deal with the unknown is true. Thus the truth is that “unknown” is not if there is an afterlife rather what is in the afterlife.
I was trying to see if there was some objective way to measure whether or not someone had a true revelation of "a radically new reality," or they were just acting that way, but it sounds like it "can go either way."
"If the earth then is smashed to dust by an asteroid you never existed."
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here, but technically, no, I still existed. Any being sufficiently far enough away and with sufficiently advanced equipment will be able to see me existing for billions of years yet. However, regardless of witnesses, I still will have existed at one time, or at one space-time, but there may not be any evidence of that existence. I know this because I am here now and because I know that I do exist, I think therefore I am, then I know that in all futures of this universe, baring time travel or some as yet unknown law of nature, I will have existed.
I suppose if you want to argue that outside of this universe, that may not be true, I wouldn't debate too hard, because no one knows what, if anything, is beyond this universe. If, however, you are saying that without an afterlike I won't know that I existed, then I would agree, I won't, but I also won't care.
You are suggesting that in an eternity without God or some everlasting record keeper Nonimus only exists because you know that you exist now. If we are but chemical reactions and organic matter that cease to exist upon death then that which you think you know clearly without doubt never happened. This is why there must be alternatives to non existence upon death. Going back as far you can man must make sense of this. In your case you have constructed an elaborate scientific / materialistic justification while I on the other hand understood a talking serpent.
Seems to me you have boxed yourself in while I found an escape hatch. Yes, it is possible I did that because I am the kind of personality that needs one. Perhaps that is why it is called hope.
“You may do well to drop the old "why does God allow children to starve" routine. Starvation is something man has the knowledge and resources to end and has had that capability for a long time. We choose to allocate our wealth of both knowledge and resources to other areas that appear to give greater pleasure than feeding children”
People who are starving that claim to believe in your god are praying for the end of their starvation but your god does nothing and allows them to die. That is why it is proof prayer doesn’t work and your god is not real.
“ we are but chemical reactions and organic matter that cease to exist upon death then that which you think you know clearly without doubt never happened. This is why there must be alternatives to non existence upon death.”
That doesn’t proof crap, except for the fact you’ve come up with yet another excuse to justify your belief in a fairy tale.
“Going back as far you can man must make sense of this. In your case you have constructed an elaborate scientific / materialistic justification while I on the other hand understood a talking serpent.”
Ok, you believe in talking snakes, now that’s delusional.
“Seems to me you have boxed yourself in while I found an escape hatch.”
The only escape hatch you’ve found is not having to deal in the reality of this life.
“Perhaps that is why it is called hope.”
So, you’re hoping a god is real because there is no proof of one.
“People who are starving that claim to believe in your god are praying for the end of their starvation but your god does nothing and allows them to die. That is why it is proof prayer doesn’t work and your god is not real.”
=>prayer is active communication with God. If those who pray do so with a sincere heart (not just because they are hungry) and have a relationship with God then those prayers have been answered. God is also sovereign and can do anything He pleases. You seem to have many preconceived notions regarding prayer and unless you know God and understand His true nature the explanations of answered prayer would be of little value to you.
“That doesn’t proof crap, except for the fact you’ve come up with yet another excuse to justify your belief in a fairy tale.“
=>and you also have many excuses to deny the possibilities of God
“Ok, you believe in talking snakes, now that’s delusional. “
=>The Bible contains some allegory, metaphors and historic facts in order to paint the truth as God would have you understand it.
“The only escape hatch you’ve found is not having to deal in the reality of this life. “
=>If you know how to escape reality please me know, I am pretty much living it.
“So, you’re hoping a god is real because there is no proof of one.”
=>I actually know that God is very real and that all gods are dead and man made
"If we are but chemical reactions and organic matter that cease to exist upon death then that which you think you know clearly without doubt never happened."
I guess I'm misunderstanding something here. If a person ceases to exist upon death, how does that imply that said person *never* existed? As I understand it, they existed, now they don't, but that doesn't mean that they didn't exist at one time.
In other words, I haven't always existed. I exist now. I will ceast to exist at some future time, after which I will have existed in the past. I don't see how that is an "elaborate scientific / materialistic justification" or how I have "boxed" myself in. What am I missing?
cease not ceast
You are boxed in because in your world view you only exist because you know that you exist now. That same world view limits your knowing that you exist as being confined to active chemical reactions in your mind. That “knowing you existed” never happened unless you expand your own world view.
Buddhists’ go to great length to expand that window yet Christians take a simple Deity worship approach tested from the day of Neanderthal and perhaps not that much different when boiled down to its basics. Consciously or subconsciously the majority of humans are aware that there is something more and their mind will rationalize the position.
"You are boxed in because in your world view you only exist because you know that you exist now."
Technically, no. I don't think existence relies on knowledge of that existence. However, that brings up the question of how does one know that something existed? Knowing that one exists relies on fundamentals like Descartes', "Cogito Ergo Sum", as in, I know that I exist but I can't know, for certain that you exist. However, my lack of knowing does not invalidate your actual existence, if you do actually exist, it simply means that I can't be certain.
Put another way I exist whether I know it or not, e.g. when I sleep I don't cease to exist. However, since "I think," I therefore know that I exist and because I know that I exist, that existence, at one time, will not, I presume, be invalidated when I cease to exist. Here again though, I don't know, that everything will cease to exist we I cease, but whether everything else ceases or not does not depend on my knowing.
Willy, you say that pastors are rejecting evolution for the wrong reasons. What reasons do you mean?
You say that the theory of evolution is "incomplete." How is it incomplete?
We'll get to provability and testability later.
Why don't you start by explaining the all millions of "missing links" What do those mean? Can science make any claims to to all that absence of evidence?
I love the missing link argument. It shows that the poster doesn't understand the process of fossil formation or the conditions necessary for that fossil to survive for millions of years. It also exposes the poster's lack of ability to recognize that if you have one 'missing link' between A and C and you add a middle link B, you now have TWO "missing" links. It's an straw man argument that fails to understand it's logical fallacies.
what do you mean, "missing links?" Every single individual is potentially a "missing link" if you insist on using that term. Science has found many, many "links" that show adaptation. When these fossils are found they are studied and dated and the material in which they were found is studied and dated. Each fossil founds either supports the theory or it helps us to understand the theory in slightly more detail. But the sheer volume of data that comes in every day from all parts of the world confirms the overall theory.
Of course not every individual that has lived on the planet has been fossilized, so by definition, science will never have "every link," and so the nay-sayers will always have the silly "missing link" argument. If you have ever put together a puzzle, you should be able to understand this: Suppose you have a puzzle with several missing pieces, and you don't have the box-top picture. Imagine that every piece you place is a frog or a part of the frog, no matter if it goes on the top, the side, the middle, or center-right, it's a part of a frog or it completes an already-placed frog. It's reasonable for you to assume that the puzzle picture is a bunch of frogs.
People who discredit evolution because of the "missing links" are really saying that although every piece proves that the puzzle is a bunch of frogs, it's really not a puzzle at all, but a kitchen blender, and that the missing pieces might be tea cups or hydrogen bombs instead of little colored pieces of cardboard.
Now, why is it that most pastors reject evolution for the wrong reasons? What are these "wrong reasons?"
It's incomplete because it does not take into consideration fast+slow, micro+macro and simple+complex adaptations. It only considers slow, macro and complex change. Darwin himself admitted that any counterexample to a slow gradual process would totally invalidate the theory. Further, Darwin's theory of evolution does not actually work at the near/sub microscopic level for reasons I've already explained in detail. Perhaps that's why he didn't go there.
@bumper: dude seriously you are sounding like a broken record. always with the same irrelevant, ignorant, misunderstood points. how is the theory of evolution not explained on the macro/micro scale? virus' adapt and change sometimes overnight to their enviroment. now more complex organisms such as anything with more then one cell or a reproductive rate that is slower then that of an ant will mathmatically take longer for obvious adaptations to be visible. in humans there are hundreds of adaptations that you can see merely by walking down the road. i have explained my stance and provided verifiable information in it's simplest terms to you, yet you avoid answering me like the plague due to the fact you have no factual information to support your claim. (for those of you curious, my stace is found on page 62) i will say again to you bumper, i am still awaiting your rebuttal.
What are "fast+slow, micro+macro and simple+complex adaptations"?
And I presume this is coming from someone who might give creedence to UFO's, 9/11 truthers, other plots by any combo of the following: the Vatican, the CIA, and the Jews, er, I mean, the State of Israel.
"And I presume this is coming from someone who might give creedence to UFO's"
They actually believe that the change in intelligence to humans was because people from other planets visited earth and bred with them. They also believe that we misinterpreted it as being gods because we couldn't explain it. LOL!
It seems to me that although many preachers reject evolution for the wrong reasons, they are in fact onto something. Evolution is an utterly incomplete, and heretofore un-provable theory. The evidence is not there for evolution.
You said, "It seems to me that although many preachers reject evolution for the wrong reasons, they are in fact onto something. Evolution is an utterly incomplete, and heretofore un-provable theory. The evidence is not there for evolution."
May I suggest an education? Ninth grade science sounds about right.
Just because you either aren't aware of, or reject the evidence for evolution doesn't mean it isn't there. Closing your eyes doesn't make the world disappear.
I am aware of the evidence of some kind of evolutionary development among species. I must admit that I am unware that the THEORY of evolution has be declared a scientific fact by any one but ignorant 9th grade science teachers
It's pretty hard to see evidence if you keep your head buried in the sand. I guess that most biology Ph.D.s are ignorant, huh? Maybe you should try to actually educate yourself.
Please provide a link to any published paper, or science encyclopedia, or even non-scientifc encyclopedia that proves the THEORY of Evolution is in reality a FACT. The article can be written by a Ph.D., or a 9th grade science teacher, take your pick.
I found this interesting link though: http://www.atenizo.org/evolution-quotes.htm
That someone would post such an inane declaration on CNN indicates that America's conservatives are truly pathetic. This placement of belief above objective rational thought is why the US is in such pathetic shape. This shows just why democracies have such trouble maintaining themselves as it requires an enlightened electorate and what the US electorate has shown is that it is more interested in operating from ideology, such as the right insisting on promoting failed free market ideology.
Then again, the prime reason that the US is in the position that its in is due to the fact that we are fundamentally a Calvinist nation, which inherently supports failed free market ideology because it aligns well with the postulate that wealth is evidence of god's grace and no man has the authority to refute god's will. So, that the Republican Party promotes the free market as the answer to the financial crisis it has caused should make the fact that pastors refute evolution obvious.
Please post ANYTHING that PROVES that gravity is a FACT.
Then go and educate yourself.
Science as such assuredly has no authority, for she can only say what is, not what is not.
"I must admit that I am unware that the THEORY of evolution has be declared a scientific fact by any one but ignorant 9th grade science teachers"
Not sure if this qualifies, but here's what the National Academies of Science say in the article, 'Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?'
"It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words 'theory' and 'fact.'"
@Nominus: I must rebuke that. A scientific theory has much more weight behind it then the everyday use of the term. In the way you are using "theory", you should be saying "hypothesis".
I'm not sure I follow, are you refuting (rebuking?) the way I used 'theory' or the way the quote and linked article use it? Can you point out the text to which you are referring, just so I know which use you are talking about?
I've found the website below to provide an easy to understand way of explaining the difference between scientific fact, theory, hypothesis and law.
From a scientific standpoint, creationism, or intelligent design, barely qualifies as a hypothesis. It is certainly not a scientific theory as it is unsupported by facts.
Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific theory that is supported by facts. There is evidence in support of the theory of evolution in a multitude of scientific disciplines.
To discard the theory of evolution because you claim it is "un-provable", is utterly ridiculous and says a lot more about you and your understanding of science, than it says about evolution.
Hey! I thought I sent you back to your room to do your homework!!! Now stop trolling here until you've read some philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. You are nothing but a wind bag, angry former fundi.
Now if I have to tell you again, I'm going to take your GameBoy away, and no TV for a week.
Create- To give rise to and Evolution- a gradual process of change or development are both one and the same. Theistic Evolution(God Evolution)- God selection not natural selection is in the Bible. It took god 6 days to create the things within the Earth using creation and evolution. The Bible tells that God give rise to(create) the creatures of the seas, then continues to create using a gradual process of change and development (evolution) as he move from the creatures seas to the creatures of the AIR, then to the creatures of land and finally man.
i will give you that you made a very clear point. the only problem i see is the difference between bible depicition of creation and the theory of evolution is "The Bible tells that God give rise to(create) the creatures of the seas, then continues to create using a gradual process of change and development (evolution) as he move from the creatures seas to the creatures of the AIR, then to the creatures of land and finally man." the bible said creation went from the sea to the air then to land. evolution on the other hand saids as creatures changed they went from sea to land to air.
The earth ws not created before any stars. There was no vegetation on land before there was a sun. There were no flying creatures before there were land creatures. Population genetics precludes all humans coming from one breeding pair.
Wasp & Primewonk- True Evolution states seas, land and Air however we having the flying fish that says to contrary.
@ken ben: i will give you using flying fish was a good example; except i doubt fish evolved into birds as we know it. it is understood due to bone structure of both birds and dinosaurs share similar characteristics.
Kenrick Benjamin: "The Bible tells us..."
The Bible tells us that to cure leprosy you should kill a dove, dip a live bird in the dead dove's blood and let it fly around (that's in addition to a few lucky #7 spells and incantations).
The Bible tells us that a ra.pist should marry his victim.
The Bible tells us lots and lots of bunk. Just because there are *some* valid bits of wisdom for beneficial human behavior, does not mean that *everything* in that book is true.
There is not a whit of verified evidence for the supernatural beings and events in that book.
Wasp- Fish has the same characteristic as they claim dinosaurs do, hollow bones and scales that turned into feathers and a light structure. I don't know of any research that has been done in this area validate my theory, but the Bible.
@ken ben: most fish don't have bones, they have cartilage that serves in place of heavier bones. sharks the largest fish on earth, have cartilage for bones. reason we only find a megladons tooth fossils and not bone fossils. things progressed from water,land then air. prey animals looking to escape from predators were the first ones to make the changes from water to land, once the land was crowded, then went from land to air. you can watch fish do the samething today as a million years ago, a predator comes at them, they will run close to shore to escape sometimes getting stuck on shore. sharks, orcas and other ocean predators will beach themselves to chase prey.
"True Evolution states seas, land and Air however we having the flying fish that says to contrary."
Actually, evolution says fish, amphibians, reptiles, etc.... Generally that means sea, land, then air, but regardless of when flying fish evolved, the Bible, if I understand correctly refers to "all winged creatures" or something like that, not just flying fish.
"Fish has the same characteristic as they claim dinosaurs do, hollow bones and scales that turned into feathers and a light structure. "
I don't think that works, all land vertebrates, including birds, are tetrapods, or came from tetrapods in cases like snakes. This transition is supported by the Tiktaalik fossil and fossils in that area. So birds have the ho.mologus bone structures to humans, e.g. finger bones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HoREMOVEmology_vertebrates.svg).
WASP- Then how do you explain the Penguin.
Wasp & Nominus – How do you explain the PENGUIN and note it's not a land creature.
I'm still looking for the next evolution of man. What's it going to be? Any ideas? The fact that any pastor professing faith in the Bible also professes faith in evolution is evidence that synchretism is alive and well. Read the first verse of your Bible pastors (those of you professing evolution). If you don't believe in God's creative work, then step aside and make room for true believers in those pulpits you occupy.
Go germany or Norway and ask a pastor about evolution, they will say it is a fact. Those who deny evolution have few parishioners if any at all.
You really need some basic education - or some therapy.
90% of the world's 2 billion Christians belong to sects whose position is that there is no problem with a faith in the Christian version of a god and an understanding that evolution is a fact. It is only amongst the fundamentalists that we see this problem. And sadly, a majority of these fundamentalists live in the US.
"I'm still looking for the next evolution of man. What's it going to be? Any ideas?"
Evolution is not directed, there is not some plan being followed, so no one knows what will happen for certain. However, if you are looking for evidence of ongoing human evolution, try http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1931757,00.html, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve.html?pagewanted=all, or http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2006/september/evolution.htm, which were just the first three hits from a google search on "evidence for humans evolving today".
If that's too much reading then consider the fact that most humans, primarily from Asia and Africa I think, cannot digest milk after adolescence. Most Europeans, however, can digest milk throughout there lives. Similarly, not all humans grow wisdom teeth. Other similar possibilities: http://listverse.com/2009/01/05/top-10-signs-of-evolution-in-modern-man/ (caveat: not a known source) or from this blog's science sister blog, http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/03/best-evidence-so-far-that-humans-are-still-evolving-scientists-say/ or National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html. Many of these also have references or links to the underlying scientific paper, study or article.
You are about to get stung with some intelligence, so brace yourself. I just read over your blog posting. Apart from the horrific grammar and sentence structure, you have no valid points for debate. Have a nice day Sir....
lmao ok that was the intelligence i was to be stung by? seriously? where is the intelligence in your statement? i am still waiting for any information for your rebuttal. i have explained that by definition religious people believe in majick and extraterristrials. i also explained clearly that if evolution was a stair case, adaptation would be the steps because evolution is a process of change.
If you had read the book of Matthew, you would realize that you may have already committed the unforgivable sin. Perhaps it is all for naught to convince you to read the Biblical texts of Matthew and Job. By the way, Jeremiah and Hosea are completely irrelevant for you. It does not take anyone with a theology degree to figure this out.
Evolution is just a theory. The Bible is Truth. I don't see how evolution is allowed to be taught in school and Biblical truth is not.
George look up the scientific definition of theory and then post again.
You said, "Evolution is just a theory."
Yes, it is a scientific theory, supported by evidence.
You said, "The Bible is Truth."
Don't be ridiculous. Of course it isn't. It's a fairy tale.
You said, "I don't see how evolution is allowed to be taught in school and Biblical truth is not."
Evolution is science. It belongs in the science curriculum. And we don't teach the story of Jack and the Beanstalk as fact, so why should your fairy tale deserve anything else?
All other issues aside, what is biblical truth? Science contains a method for discovering what is true among competing hypotheses (ideas). This is arguably the core of science. Religion has no such method. The ideas of both Rick Warren and Westboro Baptist Church are equally founded on the bible. Which one of these (or the thousands of other interpretations) are biblical truth?
George, if the scientific definition and requirements of a theory were applied to religion, which is very much a theory, religion would have been discarded centuries ago.
You don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is. Why not?
And since the bible is truth, I guess bats are birds? Rabbits do chew their cud? Grasshoppers have 4 legs? pi is 3.0?
Evolution = Theory -- True
Gravity = Theory - Also True
Now be a good creationist and let the rotational spin of the earth fling you into space....
About a year and a half ago, I decided on conducting my own research and forming my own conclusion. Though I'm still trying to learn as much as I can outside my working hours as a banker (trying to learn about all religions, plus science), there are some aspects of evolution that raises questions in my mind. I still don't understand the "how" in regards to convergent and parallel evolution. Separate lineages evolving the similar traits? Wikipedia provides numerous examples and a general explanation on cause; however, but I don't find the "cause" to be a satisfying answer. Any recommendations on books would definitely be helpful.
Anything by Richard Dawkins, including, or even starting with, "The God Delusion." You might want to check out richarddawkins.net.
You're trying to learn biology from Wikipedia? Why?? Why aren't enrolling in some basic freshman level biology classes at your nearest accredited college or university?
The cause is God. Just pick your favorite one.
If you looking at Dawkins for evolution, I'd recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth" over the "God Delusion"; it's more about the evidence than Delusion.
Others you might look at: "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne, or "Evolution for Everyone" by David Sloan Wilson.
Admittedly though, these are all books for the non-scientist. If you are looking for more technical sources, you might try college textbooks or some of the science journals.
Primewonk, I don't even think you read my post (I'm just glad you can barely read). What I'm trying to learn on my own time are my opinions on science and religion. As I mentioned, I have a full time job and its completely ignorant to pay tuition and enroll in a biology class so I can pick out a few key pieces of information I'm seeking sometime between 5pm and bedtime. Hence my request for recommendations on those things called books. BTW, thanks to everyone else for the book recommendations. I'm not sure on Dawkins (too opinionated), but thanks anyway.
some very good introductions to evolutionary biology written by experts for a general reader are;
Carroll, Sean B.
2005 "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" New York: Norton
Carroll, Sean B.
2006 “The Making of the Fittest” New York: Norton
Coyne, Jerry A.
2009 “Why Evolution is True” New York: Viking Press
2007 "Evolution: What The Fossils Say and Why It Matters" Colombia University Press.
2008 “Your Inner Fish” New York: Pantheon Books
Ivan R Schwab
2011 “Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved” Oxford University Press
Deamer, David W.
2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press
You specifically mentioned questions re: evolution, but I would also recommend reading;
Dalrymple, G. Brent
2005 “Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The age of the earth and its cosmic surroundings” Berkley: University of California Press
Young, Davis A., Ralf F. Stearley
2008 "The Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth" Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press
momoya if we have learned anything about bumper is he has no arguemenitive skills, lacks true knowledge outside the bible and results to petty defencive statements. his best response to my explaination of evolution/adaptation was "learn to spell" lmao i've written him off. when he is capable of holding an intelligent discussion while supplying founded information, then i will acknowledge him and his point.
Please enlighten me about Hosea and Jeremiah? What did you mean?
No. At this point, my sense of decorum would have me demand that you first explain some two or three dozen statements you've made with no regard for common reason, logical format, or discipline specifics, and I just don't care anymore.
Bumper, by now you should have realized that talking to momoy is like talking to a donkey.Good luck with your conversation.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.