By Arielle Hawkins, CNN
Here's the Belief Blog’s morning rundown of the top faith-angle stories from around the United States and around the world. Click the headlines for the full stories.
From the Blog:
CNN: Lawyers seek to limit New York police surveillance of Muslims
Civil rights lawyers filed papers in federal court Monday seeking to prohibit the New York Police Department's surveillance of Muslim communities when there is no evidence that they are linked to terrorism or other illegal activities. The department's demographics unit – or zone assessment unit – was put together with the CIA's help after the September 11, 2001, attacks. The unit has acknowledged that it engaged in monitoring that included Muslim-owned business and mosques across the New York region.
CNN: Saudi Islamist preacher on trial in daughter's slaying
Outrage is mounting in Saudi Arabia about the case of a 5-year-old girl who died after allegedly being beaten and tortured by her father, who activists say is an Islamist preacher. Activists say the girl's father, Fayhan Al-Ghamdi is an Islamist evangelist popular in Saudi Arabia for his televised appearances and for speaking on air about the rewards of repenting to God. But they also say he only fancies himself as a cleric and is not recognized by the clerical establishment.
CNN: Catholic hospital says it was 'morally wrong' to argue fetus is not a person
A Catholic hospital in hot water for claiming in a Colorado court that a fetus is not a person backtracked on Monday, saying it was "morally wrong" to make the argument while defending itself in a wrongful death lawsuit. The flip-flop concerns the case of Lori Stodghill. She was 28 weeks pregnant with twins when she went to the emergency room of St. Thomas More Hospital in Canon City, Colorado, vomiting and short of breath. She went into cardiac arrest in the lobby and died. That was New Year's Day 2006.
Photos of the Day:
. 
. Photo credit: NARINDER NANU/AFP/Getty Images
Indian Baba 'Avtar' Singh, a member of the traditional Sikh religious warriors, wearing an oversized 500 meter-long turban, pays his respects at The Golden Temple in Amritsar on February 4, 2013. The most visible symbol of Sikh pride and identity, the turban is an eight-metre (26-foot) piece of cloth, used by Sikh men to manage the long hair which their religion forbids them from cutting.
An Indian sadhu holy man sits on a swing of nails during the Maha Kumbh festival in Allahabad on February 4, 2013. The Kumbh Mela in the town of Allahabad will see up to 100 million worshippers gather over 55 days to take a ritual bath in the holy waters, believed to cleanse sins and bestow blessings.
Enlightening Reads:
Reuters: German Catholic Church may back some morning-after pills after cardinal’s rethink
Germany’s Catholic Church may approve some so-called morning-after pills for rape victims after a leading cardinal unexpectedly announced they did not induce abortions and could be used in Catholic hospitals. Cardinal Joachim Meisner of Cologne, an ally of German-born Pope Benedict, changed his policy after two Catholic hospitals refused to treat a rape victim because they could not prescribe the pill, which is taken after sex to avoid pregnancy.
Aljazeera: First Muslim college in the US
A Muslim college in the United States is the first of its kind, which mission is to join Islamic scholarship with the Western academic emphasis on free inquiry and developing critical intellectual capacities. Zaytuna College in Berkeley California is a fledgling institution with only 31 students, operating out of space rented from a Baptist seminary.
Al Jazeera's Rob Reynolds reports from California.
Reuters: Ministers urge religious chiefs to oppose genital mutilation
Religious leaders must convince women carrying out female genital mutilation that it is not required by scripture and it can cause infection, infertility or even death in young girls, African ministers said on Monday.
Tablet Magazine: The Brief History of Jews and the Super Bowl
Seeing a Jewish player in the National Football League these days is like seeing a blonde in Jerusalem. In fact, according to the Jerusalem Post, exactly eight Jewish players have ever won Super Bowl rings before. While last night’s big game, in which the Baltimore Ravens won 34-31, didn’t have anything in the way of Jewish sports heroic, that doesn’t mean the game itself wasn’t thick with Jewish themes.
The Guardian: Justin Welby confirmed as archbishop of Canterbury
A little after half past 12 on Monday, Justin Portal Welby stood beneath the dome of St Paul's Cathedral and promised, with the help of God, to "promote unity, peace, and love among all Christian people, especially among those whom you serve". Twenty-five minutes later, with the arcane and archaic legalities duly addressed, the final decree porrected and any opposition to the election declared contumacious, the 57-year-old former oil executive was confirmed as the 105th archbishop of Canterbury, in the presence of several senior bishops.
Huffington Post: Church Of Scientology Super Bowl Ad Raises Eyebrows
Millions of Super Bowl viewers were treated to a myriad of advertisements - from alcohol distributors, snack brands and even Scientologists - on Sunday night. An ad for the Church of Scientology aired during the Super Bowl, shortly after the game went into halftime around 8 p.m., notes The Hollywood Reporter. The ad is part of the church's "Knowledge" campaign.
Join the conversation…
CNN: A killing, a life sentence and my change of heart
Jeanne Bishop is the sister of Nancy Bishop Langert, who, along with her husband and their unborn child, was shot to death by a juvenile. Since the murder of her family members, Jeanne Bishop has been an advocate for gun violence prevention. Through God she learned to forgive her sister's killer, and is now for abolition of the death penalty. Bishop is a criminal defense attorney in Chicago.
hello
hey matt! How are you? The council welcomes you to the blog!
Good morning, everyone! What shall we talk about today?
How small your brain is and how thick your skin is? Unless you have finally come up with some evidence for your delusional beliefs. . .
How about the topic of "insecure people".
Why do they feel the need to insult and tear down other people to feel better about themselves?
@December
Who's more insecure? The person doing the insulting or the person who comes back all the time to be insulted?
Or how believers cannot provide a single bit of evidence for their delusional beliefs but think they should be considered normal just because they have gotten away with their bullsh!t for thousands of years.
Maybe because we know what Topher wants to say, despite all the evidence previously presented.
Would the "one that keeps coming back" be me?
What about the idea that there existed an exclusive place or paradise. Why would god create the earth and then create a separate part of earth that was perfect and then outside of it he created imperfect places. Was he prepared to exile everything?
Let us talk about Peace and atheism, never seen or heard a peaceful atheist. Have you?
I'm a peaceful atheist.
>> Chuckles
The person doing the insulting.
But, also, you bring up another good point. I see most insecure people as being immature. What they want to do is insult you and bring them down to their level. If you can walk away without being as ugly as them that shows you have a lot of security in yourself.
@MBT
"Let us talk about Peace and atheism, never seen or heard a peaceful atheist. Have you?"
Technically, I think Buddha and Buddhists in general are considered atheists.
What about the insecurity and immaturity of believers that bluster on about their imaginary friends and childish beliefs for which they can't provide a shred of supporting evidence?
@MBT
Bizarre question, of course there are peaceful atheists.
@December
Possibly. I can agree with you that having the security, when being insulted, to not throw it right back and just walk away is being secure, but there's a difference when say, being insulted on the street and returning over and over again to be insulted. Yes, sometimes people who begin insulting a random stranger right off the bat belies a certain amount of insecurity, but when you begin to figure out a person and speak to that person day and day out, the insecurity falls on the one coming back for it day after day.
@ME II
I don't think you can call someone who is religious an atheist, regardless of their belief in a god or not, that seems to go against the idea of atheism at its very core. Technically buddhists are extremely agnostic, but if they identify as buddhists then they are, by definition, not atheists. The caveat here is if you think that buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion, which you could make that argument.
>> What about the insecurity and immaturity of believers that bluster on about their imaginary friends and childish beliefs for which they can't provide a shred of supporting evidence?
If it makes you feel better about yourself to insult them, go ahead and do it. Best thing to do is probably try and make them upset. Show them how you are better by putting them down.
Hopefully they will get upset enough to examine the insanity of their beliefs and begin to find their way out of their death cult.
.Hopefully they will get upset enough to examine the insanity of their beliefs and begin to find their way out of their death cult.
your ways sound worst. d
Anyone hear what the Boyscouts decided on last night?
@Chuckles,
You may be correct, although I would disagree about the "..religious... go against the idea of atheism at its very core. " If a "religion" does not entail belief in god(s) then technically it is an atheistic religion, e.g. Jainism, I think.
Although this becomes a study in semantics and isn't really important, IMO.
Peace is a verb not a noun!
Buddhists are not atheists.
Atheists- Prove that you are peaceful until then it is a delusion you live in.
@Chuckles,
I would also say that religon does not inherently prevent atheism. Religion requires a group of people with a shared belief, tenants of faith, and commonly (though not necessarily) agreed upon rituals; with teh primary element being the active decision to belong. Buddhism, in its original form, clearly states that there are no Gods ro higher beings. that isn't even really agnostic atheism, that's just straight up, there are no gods. If you try an dtie atheism, directly or inversly, to religion, it is like agreeing with the ridiculous believer sentiment that "atheism is it's own religion". it's not, it's a belief, it's a type of faith, I think most of us would say that it's a conclusion, but it is certiainly not a religion, and it is a thought that can be held as part of, or independent of a religion as the case may be.
Why anyone would use this forum to get current news is beyond me but I will help our resident idiot. . .
Looks like the scouts will take the usual hypocritical christian position that from a national organization perspective so that corporate sponsorship money might flow again gays are ok but local troops will be free to continue their discrimination.
@MBT,
1peace noun \ˈpēs\ – from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peace
Your move.
@BRC and ME II
I guess I'm slightly confused then or maybe I'm just focusing too much on the literal definition but atheism is, at it's most basic fundementals, not theism. Theism is a general word but I considered that to include pretty much all religion, anything with shared tenants and rituals and a shared belief in a diety. You could argue that Buddhism falls under philosophy, like confucianism, because of it's lack of a diety and it's focus on the internal rather than the external. I believe that buddhism is a religion but the godlike deity, the buddha is just more human than most gods. He still is thought to have waltzed out the womb walking and talking and survived on inhuman nourishment and buddhists certainly revere him. Not to mention, unlike confucianism or daoism, buddhists have monks, and monastaries, rituals and doctrine and proselytization.
I don't want to say that being atheist means you can't follow other doctines however. I think it is possible to be an Athiest Jew or an Athiest confucian only because of the cultural aspects (judaism and hinduism) or the focus on philosophy (confucianism, taoism), but to be a buddhist, or christian or a muslim, that is mutually exclusive to atheism.
@Chuckles,
I think the root you are looking for is "atheos" or without god, not "without" – theism.
@Chuckles,
I think we're just worknig with different deffinitions. For what I know theism is the belief in gods or a god, and is in itself entirely independent of religion. You can be a theist, who thinks that all religions are full of crap, that there was a god who started teh universe, and proceeded to no longer and just watches. the flip side is of course a-theism, you do not believe in a god or gods. In my view, these beliefs can be held etirely independent of any religion. Interesting point, as I said the original Buddhism specifically sai there are no gods, it wasn't until later that tehre was a branch that decided that the Buddha was so wise, he could only have been a god, and they changed their tenants practices to reflect the new belief. I think there are still practicing Buddhists that follow the original path, that believe that Siddartha Guatama was an enlightend man, but still just a man.
Just read my last post. I need to get an editor. Apologies to all for the rather horrid typing.
Glad you took the first step to look up the meaning in the dictionary. Don't let peace remain a noun as an 'idea'. Take the next bold step, act on it as in a verb not just a noun.
@ME II
That's just it though, I'm focusing on the religion itself, not the belief in god or not. Atheism doesn't really address whether or not there is a god. Sure, it's implied that if you reject religion your are also rejecting all the gods that have been made up, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are rejecting a possibly sentient being.
This is of course my opinion as I am well aware that being an "atheist" is different for everyone and my version of atheism might be not enough or too much for other people, but like I pointed out, atheism is rejection of religion and religious dogma. If you are a buddhist and you believe in being stuck in samsara, the eight-fold path, karma and nirvana, all of that, in my mind, goes against the idea of atheism which is belief in silly things without evidence just because you read about it or someone told you so.
Are we done talking about Topher's brain and skin? Perhaps December would like to talk about the length of his penis.
BRC
Ok, I am one of those religious types that think "atheism is a type of faith”.
The early faith of Abraham (before God filled promise after promise) comingled the faith of an atheist (faith in the thoughts and ways of man i.e. naturalism) with the traditions of faith from Noah. The defining point was when Abraham began to step away from naturalism as God fulfilled promises and the faith of believers was concentrated in that which is not visible.
The faith of an atheist and a believer exists and both are grounded in perceived promises fulfilled.
fred, given that you cannot provide foundation for your own irrational beliefs, you should not attempt to explain other's, but please do tell us what perceived promises fulfilled atheism is grounded upon.
@BRC
Interesting, at least from what I learned, no sect of buddhism believes that the buddha was a god, but it varies how supernatural he was in his wiseness. The core belief though that they all hold is that the buddha broke the bonds of karma and got out of the cycle of samsara and achieved nirvana. One sect believes that buddha chose to then come back to earth in other earthly forms to help us all achieve nirvana, known as the bodishativas, and that he has chosen to the last remaining soul on earth until everyone does. I guess the point though is that buddhists believe in silly dogma just as much as your average christian, which is why I place buddhists squarely in the "theists" pile, regardless of their belief in a higher diety or not.
HotAirAce
Perceived promises of naturalism: man is but evolved organic matter responding to chemical stimuli, there are no moral absolutes because we have observed moral and social behavior in primates, reality is comprised only of that which can be measured or evaluated by scientific method, there is no reason for existence or purpose for existence outside of Philosophical Naturalism.
These are a few that come to mind.
@fred
HotAirAce is making a good point, I don't think you can comment on other peoples beliefs until you have a better idea of what they actually are. I trust your comments on christianity because you have clearly done your study, but to call atheism a belief means you still aren't quite getting it. When I say I'm an atheist, it means I looked at christianity and said, "i don't believe in that", same with hinduism, buddhism, judaism, etc.... This is different from looking at a scientific theory or law, which does not hinge on whether or not I believe it's right, it's right regardless as proven through a series of tests and equations. More to the point, those theories can be changed and hypothesies can be overturned when new evidence is brought to light. Science does not "promise" me anything.
fred,Chuckles nailed it and you. Atheism doesn't make any promises, unlike your christian death cult that dangles everlasting life if you only believe in the unsupported myths strung together 2,000+ years ago by ignorant desert dwellers.
So what else should we talk about?
Topher, what do you make of Austin claiming to be some kind of prophet?
Austin?
@Topher
You never responded to my question about why god would create earth, and then create a utopia on that earth but then create a place around that designed for exile. Why not make the entire world eden? Why only a specific spot? Lets ignore the fact that we have yet to actually find this spot even after all the sattelites and information and globalization.
Nevermind, I guess you missed that yesterday.
Chuckles
Well, you wouldn't need a very big spot. There was only two people. God told Adam to tend it, so it couldn't be something too big for him to take care of. And why was the rest for exhile? Just my guess, but it probably had something to do with God know they would sin and He'd have to cast them out.
Oh, and we don't have to ignore why we haven't found it. First, I believe the Bible says God put an angel there to guard it. Second, since the flood would have destroyed it, it's not strange we haven't found it.
Chuckles
“ a scientific theory or law, which does not hinge on whether or not I believe it's right, it's right regardless as proven”
=>I get that. Is there an underlying faith that develops when scientific method produces results that are perceived reliable (at the time) over an extended period of time. In other words the faith you have that the sun will rise is not a belief but it is faith which is the same “faith” a believer has in God. Is the argument not about exactly what is perceived reliable rather than belief?
I would not believe in God if I did not have perceived reliable results from God. Perhaps the foolish part would be where I believe in the promises God fulfilled in the past. These results are not provable without faith whereas scientific results are provable with or without faith. Believers are then left with defending that which is not subject to measurement if they attempt to justify belief with the faith of a scientist.
The same holds true when I speak of a current real experience with God (or the Holy Spirit) that transforms mind and body. Your “faith” is only in that which fits the pattern of acceptable evidence whereas my faith incorporates observed miracles, life transformations, visions and belief in a living God.
I understand you do not discount the possibility of some sentient being yet your faith is self limited. I imagine you would agree we only know that which exists within our time line because that is all we have ever known since the beginning. We only know past, present and future because that is how we have marked off time since carbon (i.e. we are all carbon based evolved things). Last I heard you could not comprehend anything not of the present time line without reference to it. That is self limited faith. Believers of course have faith in the eternal to the extent they know there is a soul with eternal presence. The faith of the believer is not limited to the restricted “faith” of an atheist.
@Chuckles,
"...atheism is rejection of religion and religious dogma. "
I think most definitions of atheism are a disbelief in a deity (weak) or a belief in no gods (strong). Rejection of religion is often termed as anti-theism.
@Topher
"God know they would sin and He'd have to cast them out." – Ok.... so what was the point of going through the whole exercise? To taunt us? That seems like the cruelest joke of all. This is god putting his favorite creations in the most kicka.ss place ever, puts some super duper special fruit in there, adding in other creatures to speak to adam and eve to tempt them and then gets angry and kicks them out? How does this not sound the least bit strange or highly suspect? Let's ignore the impossibilities for a moment and really ask ourselves, why would a loving god create a piece of land so amazingly awesome only to dangle it in front of his creations and then cruely kick them out and then as you believe, completely destroy it in a flood even though it was being guarded by an angel?
@ME II
"I think most definitions of atheism are a disbelief in a deity (weak) or a belief in no gods (strong). Rejection of religion is often termed as anti-theism."
–That's agnosticism, which is a stance on god itself, atheism is leveled at religion. Anti-theism, IMO is action taken by an individual to take down religion, not just passively disbelieve but actively fight against.
Chuckles
"Ok.... so what was the point of going through the whole exercise? To taunt us? That seems like the cruelest joke of all. "
Putting them in Eden? I don't see it as cruel at all. I see it as God showing His unmatchable love and kindness. The garden was a good thing. He was saying, 'See what I give you if you stick with me?" It's kinda similar to what He's promised us now. If we repent and trust Him, He'll give us paradice. But like Adam and Eve, we reject it because we think there might be something better for us. What foolishness.
@Topher
But you just said that god already knew that we wouldn't "stick with him" so the real question is "look at all this stuff that you aren't going to get soon". PLUS why would god then blame all the future generations for one couple's mistakes? Shouldn't cain and abel been allowed back into Eden while their parents were only exiled? If you're going to go with the whole "original sin" trope, then why not create a new eden and admit everyone after jesus died for our sins? I honestly don't understand how you can call that "love" when it's clearly god taunting us. It would be one thing if god created this place completely unaware that he was going to exhile its inhabitants, that's one thing. It's a whole different thing altogether once you acknowledge that god knew he was going to exile all of mankind from this paradise for eternity and then use a flood to destroy it. It just seems like an excerise in extereme futility or a really mean joke, neither of which are anything close to "love" except in the most maschositic POV
@Chuckles,
Sorry to keep harping on this, but I think you are incorrect. Atheism, whose root is 'atheos' is without god, not against religion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
Agnostic is usually either "without knowing" (a-gnostic) or simplly not claiming knowledge.
Definition of ATHEISM
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
First Known Use: 1546
@ME II
Interesting, I guess on technicalities you win, I concede. However I'm going to stick with my current version of atheism because it makes the most sense to me and I'll also sticking with buddhists being mutually exclusive with atheism because of their belief in Buddha as supernatural in a loose sense.
Personally I think my definition makes more sense anyways, maybe I'll write Webster
Topher
I don’t think God tempts anyone yet provides the way and makes that way very clear. God did not dangle a tasty apple in order to kick Adam out. There were two trees in that garden. One was the tree of life and the other was the tree of knowledge of good and evil (wisdom of man without God). God gave man everything as a gift because of His perfect goodness. In the image of God that gift included the choice to live outside of unity with God. This is where we are today.
God is perfect goodness as always and that gift (the tree of life) is still available to all that truly want it. God’s plan has been in place since the beginning.
Chuckles
"But you just said that god already knew that we wouldn't "stick with him" so the real question is "look at all this stuff that you aren't going to get soon"."
He knew that's the choice they'd make, but they made it. If God just put them immediately into a fallen world, how would that be loving? Why punish them when they didn't deserve it. Remember, not only is God loving, but He's just.
"PLUS why would god then blame all the future generations for one couple's mistakes"?"
Well, when they sinned, everything in Creation came under a curse. So while yes, we do have a sin nature, we also choose to sin. So it's our own fault.
"Shouldn't cain and abel been allowed back into Eden while their parents were only exiled?"
They weren't necessarily born in Eden. I don't think their birth is mentioned until after the exile.
"If you're going to go with the whole "original sin" trope, then why not create a new eden and admit everyone after jesus died for our sins?"
Well, that's kind of what's going to happen. After Christ returns, there will be "a new Heaven and a new Earth" ... basically God is going to restore everything on Earth to how it was before the fall.
" I honestly don't understand how you can call that "love" when it's clearly god taunting us"
Says you. No offense.
"It would be one thing if god created this place completely unaware that he was going to exhile its inhabitants, that's one thing."
Then He wouldn't be omniscient.
"It's a whole different thing altogether once you acknowledge that god knew he was going to exile all of mankind from this paradise for eternity and then use a flood to destroy it. It just seems like an excerise in extereme futility or a really mean joke, neither of which are anything close to "love" except in the most maschositic POV"
You're throwing out free will. The people of the world at the time of the flood chose to be that vile.
fred
I agree with all that ... I think.
@Chuckles,
Fair enough.
Cheers!
Topher
How is the air made you suck in for free 24/7
God orchestrates plants to produce it. Why?
@Topher
"Why punish them when they didn't deserve it. Remember, not only is God loving, but He's just."
- A "just" god wouldn't have put the temptation there to begin with, or at least not allowed the snakes to talk. Sure, if god wants the ti.tle of "loving, placing humans immediately into a non-utopia would be screwed up (then again, how would we know what a "fallen world is if we didn't have an eden to compare it to?). But if god was well aware we would sin, then why not change the course before it happened? That would be the most just and loving thing of all.
"we also choose to sin" - How does a baby choose sin? A fetus?
The whole idea that we are choosing sin in the face of utopia just because seems a little ridiculous. And you are right, if god created eden without knowing we would sin, that wouldn't make him omnicient, but it seems crueler that an omnicient god would still create a paradise knowing he was going to take it away after a very short amount of time. We unwillingly were given a sort of morphine, or herion and then told we would NEVER get it again. That's not fair, that's not just, that's just mean.
Chuckles
" – A "just" god wouldn't have put the temptation there to begin with, or at least not allowed the snakes to talk"
God allowed the choice to be presented. I wouldn't say He tempted us. The sin is the "snake's".
. Sure, if god wants the ti.tle of "loving, placing humans immediately into a non-utopia would be screwed up (then again, how would we know what a "fallen world is if we didn't have an eden to compare it to?). But if god was well aware we would sin, then why not change the course before it happened? That would be the most just and loving thing of all.
"we also choose to sin" – How does a baby choose sin? A fetus?
The whole idea that we are choosing sin in the face of utopia just because seems a little ridiculous. And you are right, if god created eden without knowing we would sin, that wouldn't make him omnicient, but it seems crueler that an omnicient god would still create a paradise knowing he was going to take it away after a very short amount of time. We unwillingly were given a sort of morphine, or herion and then told we would NEVER get it again. That's not fair, that's not just, that's just mean.
Sorry ... didn't mean to post that last one yet. But since I'm going to work soon, let me just address one other point of yours ...
"How does a baby choose sin? A fetus?"
Let's just say a baby or "fetus" don't sin. So what?
@Topher
"God allowed the choice to be presented. I wouldn't say He tempted us"
–That only makes sense if god didn't know the outcome, but as we've established, god supposedly knew which means that allowing the choice to even happen is in essence a temptation.
"Let's just say a baby or "fetus" don't sin. So what?"
–That's just it. god hasn't created a new eden where people who would rather live like neandethals in a utopia can go. It doesn't seem like much of a choice if god allows for every person born on earth to be born into a fallen world right? Where's the justice? What choice does a baby really have if, born into this fallen world, it's either recognize that it's evil or don't recognize it.
There's no freedom of choice, there's no free will here at work here, all this is is just one humongous carrot on a giant stick that god, through a bible, is trying to force humanity to ackowledge that it existed but we'll never reach it.
Topher
Hint: the biblical purpose of temptation is to cause failure whereas the purpose of testing is to refine and assure success. This is why in God perfect eternal all knowing state all things work to the good of those who believe.
Chuckles
" –That only makes sense if god didn't know the outcome, but as we've established, god supposedly knew which means that allowing the choice to even happen is in essence a temptation. "
Or maybe it's time we take responsibility for our actions. Stop trying to blame God and admit you are the one who has lied, stolen or looked at someone with lust. Those were our choices.
" –That's just it. god hasn't created a new eden where people who would rather live like neandethals in a utopia can go."
What? Who want to live like a neanderthal? The "utopia" is yet to come.
"It doesn't seem like much of a choice if god allows for every person born on earth to be born into a fallen world right?"
You make choices every day. Start making the right ones, repent and trust the Savior.
"Where's the justice?"
It's coming. God said it is appointed unto a man once to die and after this the judgment.
"There's no freedom of choice, there's no free will here at work here, all this is is just one humongous carrot on a giant stick that god, through a bible, is trying to force humanity to ackowledge that it existed but we'll never reach it."
You won't reach God or Heaven on your own, that's for sure. That's why you need a Savior. And God loved you so much that He provided that Savior. Why in the world would you reject it?
Well, off to another day at the office ... have a good one. And God bless.
@Topher
"Or maybe it's time we take responsibility for our actions. Stop trying to blame God and admit you are the one who has lied, stolen or looked at someone with lust. Those were our choices."
- Why? How is it fair for god to blame me for Adam and Eve's initial original sin and why should I take responsibility for living in a fallen world that I no choice in the matter. You aren't going to jail because Joe Shmo committed a crime in Moscow, so why should you have to suffer for his sins?
"What? Who want to live like a neanderthal? The "utopia" is yet to come. "
–Living in a peaceful society in a "utopia" that seems to be all nature before technology. Sounds exactly what life was like for neadrathals which is what killed because they weren't aggressive enough.
The whole point about what I'm pointing out is, we've been rejected by god simply because he let us, knowing full well that it would happen, to really scre.w ourselves over and then lets us keep scre.wing ourselves over because he's too lazy to send down his son.
That's not right.
Chuckles
Are you just jerking Topher’s chain because you know that is not what the Bible even remotely implies?
And once again Topher shows he's pretty much the dumbest believer here. Anyone want to bet he comes back for more?
@CHRIS-topher: "Well, when they sinned, everything in Creation came under a curse."
well seeing you believe in curses and magic, i'm going to sit here at my computer and put a curse on you.
ROFLMFAO!
23 THOUSAND RPM MOTOR “UNBELIEVABLE” 02/05/13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXU8_TMLsBM&feature=player_embedded
Let's put a hair net on and take a closer look . . .
LEVITATION CIRCLE USING SUPER CONDUCTION 02/05/13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyOtIsnG71U&feature=player_embedded
Pretty cool stuff
INFINITY TRACK SUPER CONDUCTION 02/05/13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lmtbLu5nxw&feature=player_embedded
What is important to you in your daily life?
If we could know the actual, verifiable beginning of the universe, would it change your life right now?
If we could know the actual, verifiable truth of what happens when we die, would it change your life right now?
1st question: My wife.
2nd question: No
3rd question: depends on if and what the afterlife consequences are.
I find that if all your energy is focused on what happens in an afterlife, everyday life becomes meaningless.
NEW MONORAIL MAGNET DESIGN 02/05/13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo2-Qb3fUYs&feature=player_embedded
Don't be loaded down with metal objects as you approach the platform.
If anyone has any contact information for, or personally knows the gentleman pictured with the large turban, I'd be interested in borrowing the hat for a costume party Friday this coming. I'd be sure to have it back before Gurgadi Guru Har Rai.
Maybe a little Ravi Shankar in honor of the hat?
Ah, meif – I was pondering Ravi as I was pondering John McLaughlin yesterday when I posted several songs of Mike Oldfield (late in the day – primarily: Ommadawn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Xq7P-DDpE )
To those that post on here a lot, how can you afford to be on here so often? Bob, Akira, Hawaii Guest, Chad, Chuckles, lol?? – and all the others: Do you have rich parents? Were you so succesful in the past that you don't need to work anymore?
Aw. Someone's desperate for attention.
I can't speak for anyone else, btu I for one have an under-engaging desk job, and I need something to kill time.
Me, too, BRC. I pop in from time to time, and it is amazing under the "Recent Comments" heading, I notice the same names. Day and night. Doing the same thing over and over. If they are expecting different results from these actions they might be in trouble.
Because that is a definition of insanity.
Or maybe the ICR needs to go away !
@ al: nah most of us are on here DURING WORK.
ROFLMFAO!
XD
Cold in the cave 6 more weeks
Nah, I'm not arguing the same thing over and over; if you'd read my comments, you'd know that.
I don't really argue about anything; I just comment. Like you.
@Skeptic,
I can understand their activity, there have been periods where I was equally active, and usually had at least 1 or 2 active exchanges going. When you're having and intelligent exchange with someone who either agrees or dissagrees with you, I always felt very engaged, and enjoyed the differences in opinion, and the different points of view on a topic. BUT, I finally just couldn't take the walls anymore, people who don't have intelligent exhanges, they just ahve their one point and it's gith and everyone's wrong and they never adapt or update their arguments; or employ critical thinking. Plus the obvious trolls that just kill the flow of conversation (I refuse to believe that Truth Be Told is expressing any rela thoughts or feelings, because I would be depressed to think that there really are humans that stupid). So, I understand the high levels of activity and posting, and would be happy to keep up with it as well, but for now I need a bit of a hiatus from the impotent sound and fury.
Ya, I'm at work, When its slow I come to play with you all.
Thanks BRC. That puts things in good perspective for me. I see some sick behavior, behavior I'm guilty of and capable of doing, pretty common around here. I'm going to forgot about 'em.
I also post from work. I sure don't come here in my off time. Except for one time I was waiting at the dr's office.
@Skeptic Al
Awwww you mentioned lil ole me? You shouldn't have.
It's already been pointed out ad nasuem, but I too have an under engaging desk job and I get bored when I have nothing to do and exhaust the news articles on all the sites I frequent. I guess it behooves me to point out that if you are noticing the same people pop up day in and day out you must be on here as much as we are, you just choose not to comment as much.
It is pure coincidence that almost all of my posts occur mon-fri between 0800 and 1630.
But if my boss asks, we're discussing white papers pertaining to SQL.
SQL is the spawn of a serious god called Datatrieve!
My job deals with a lot of computers going through tasks, so I have time to post.
Aw. Somebody's desperate for attention.
I AM I AM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOW STROKE MY EGO.
ROFLMFAO!
For early apologists, one way to make excuses for the gospel stories being copy-cats was to say earlier similar stories were a pre-emptive strike by Satan; another way was to claim the original stories were actually referring to the copy-cat story much later and call these prophesies. Let's erase a character here and add 'em back in over here.
And I suppose that Dracula was a preemptive strike against Twilight? How can anybody actually buy such ridiculous dribble?
Isn't it crazy? It was early Christian apologists that started with that kind of ridiculous defense.
Preventing , perverting, politicing
Matt 4 :8
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.
Daniel 10:13
But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.
The prince of the kingdom of Persia – From the context this is not human prince (for a human could not stand against a supernatural being) but is an evil spirit, a fallen angel, a demonic force, who is "over" the empire (government) of Persia! This highly placed demon (some think it could refer to Satan himself given that this was the world's leading empire at the time) somehow exerts a power or force that is able to prevent the good angel from bringing the message to Daniel. In Da 10:20 the angel predicts the coming of the prince of Greece, which in context is a demonic spirit over the empire of Greece. While one cannot be absolutely dogmatic these passages suggest that every empire or possibly every country has a demonic spirit which presumably can exert a godless, anti-God influence over the government. One must be wary in saying much more.
Donald Campbell...
A number of things are of compelling interest regarding this "prince of the kingdom of Persia."
First, it is obvious that he was not a man, for no human being could have resisted a messenger from God.
Second, since he did oppose God's emissary, he must have been one of Satan's evil messengers or demons.
See, the excuses remain inside the circle.
Austin
My kids use to play Prince of Persia. Is it still a fun game?
The talking snake and creation in a test tube.
EVOLUTION IN A TEST TUBE Jan. 30 2013
News Release
3-D structure of the evolved enzyme (an RNA ligase), using 10 overlaid snapshots. In the top region, the overlays show the range of bending and folding flexibility in the amino acid chain that forms the molecule. The two gray balls are zinc ions. (University of Minnesota)
University of Minnesota researchers unveil first artificial enzyme created by evolution in a test tube
Thanks Doc.
Thanks to whoever copied this here
Live4Him : How does one falisify evolution?
1) Evolution needs millions of years to take place. If organic material survived a million years, be it DNA, soft tissue, or even bone, then evolution would be falsified. Not for atheists!
2) Evolution needs more than a centillion species to justify today's current diversity. If a centillion species could not be identified, then evolution would be falsified. Not for atheists!
3) Evolution should be able to be duplicated in a labratory setting. If evolution could not be duplicated in a labratory setting that simulates evolution over a million+ years, then evolution would be falsified. Not for atheists!
So, WHAT does it take for an atheist to falsify evolution?
Responses from: Belief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Monday, February 04, 2013 , page 1
----------------
hawaiiguest February 4, 2013 at 4:38 pm Well for one you might want to actually demonstrate you know what you're talking about.
Everett Dubois February 4, 2013 at 4:41 pm Those are the stupidest reasons I've heard to date against evolution.
Chuckles February 4, 2013 at 4:44 pm I guess one way to "falsify" evolution is if your god came down from heaven and said, "you got it all wrong", that'd do it for me.
TANK!!!! February 4, 2013 at 4:52 pm Now I see that you merely an id-iot.
TANK!!!! February 4, 2013 at 4:54 pm Yep. Definitely a few screws loose in your mind.
meifumado February 4, 2013 at 4:56 pm Sigh.... Please do not even bother with this guy.
Tom, Tom, the Other One February 4, 2013 at 5:05 pm A good start on falsifying evolution would be to show that it is not necessary ... The flow and change of genetic information through generations.
In Santa we trust February 4, 2013 at 5:06 pm Lie4Him, The parts of this that almost make sense have been answered each time you post.
Cal February 4, 2013 at 5:13 pm we've just been waiting for you to come along and report your indisputible arguments to a scientific journal.
The Truth February 4, 2013 at 5:22 pm It's funny how a creationist see's this and says "Aha!!
TANK!!!! February 4, 2013 at 5:31 pm Unfortunately our resident sophist is not too skilled at her craft.
RickK February 4, 2013 at 6:21 pm None of the evidence for evolution, from fossils to DNA, was created by MEN.
midwest rail February 4, 2013 at 6:24 pm More pseudo-science nonsense, all in the name of the wedge strategy, from L4H.
Science February 4, 2013 at 6:36 pm They have seen this NEWS FLASH !!!
----------------
Only one atheist was even willing to try to address the question asked. The rest resorted to mockery and diversion tactics. No wonder it is so difficult to get a meaningful discussion going on these forums!
@Tom, Tom – We know that genetics works. We can see that with the offspring of every human couple. However, this is different from evolution, which holds that a species changes progressing to a better species, until we see the emergence of modern man. The problem is that we've never witnessed a speciation event – even in a labratory setting. So the question becomes: Why SHOULD we believe in evolution?
People do get irritated with stupid questions. From people who don't want to learn, but want to arrive at their own conclusions and then try to have everyone else help them get there since they really can't do it on their own. So try a better question.
@¿¿lol : People do get irritated with stupid questions.
So, you think is it irritating to consider the possibility of falsifying evolution? You think that evolution is above reproach. You cannot be objective in this issue. Got it.
@Live4Him
"How does one falisify evolution?"
Someone famous once said, and it's true, 'a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian period' would effectivly end the Theory of Evolution.
"1) Evolution needs millions of years to take place. If organic material survived a million years, be it DNA, soft tissue, or even bone, then evolution would be falsified. Not for atheists!"
What does "soft tissue" survivability have to do with evolution? Nothing.
"2) Evolution needs more than a centillion species to justify today's current diversity. If a centillion species could not be identified, then evolution would be falsified. Not for atheists!"
If this is from your references to Dawkins' work then, as I have said before, he was talking about changes, not species.
"3) Evolution should be able to be duplicated in a labratory setting. If evolution could not be duplicated in a labratory setting that simulates evolution over a million+ years, then evolution would be falsified. Not for atheists!"
Generally, it takes a long time for evolution to occur, but one example is Lenski's long-term experiment.
http://lenski.mmg.msu.edu/ecoli/index.html
"So, WHAT does it take for an atheist to falsify evolution?"
Simple, evidence to the contrary.
Only stupid in that you should have expected no new information here with such a question. It is certainly not above reproach. Ergo, ask a better question; or state why you think it may be false and maybe that will illicit better responses.
not illicit, but yield
@..lol,
"elicit" perhaps?
@Live4Him,
"So, WHAT does it take for an atheist to falsify evolution?"
Simple, evidence to the contrary.
ps I would add that a better theory would work too. One that explains everything that evolution does and more or better, but realize that evolution explains a huge amount of data and research; finding something better would be extremely difficult.
Top O' the mornin' to you Liv4him, how goes it for you today?
@him: you have some serious anger issues on the whole religion thing. we atheists have no quoms debating the exsistance of your god or most any topics for that matter. the most rational people i have met have typically been atheists.
in this -(You cannot be objective in this issue. Got it.)- statement you used a commandive word (got it.) this word when vocalized it typically followed with a physical display either by finger pointing at the person's chest or by thrusting the head in the person's direction. it's a sign of aggression, thus a sign of inward anger toward said person of topic.
if you don't like having the vision of whom you are questioned and thusly made angry by the opposing groups ideals, then it is typically best to avoid such areas of confrontation. this begs the question; why are you here getting yourself so worked up over we simple atheists?
could it be that our refusal to accept your dogma is how you choose to validate your own exsistance?
all the questions you have and all the objections to our way of thinking we have can be solved by simply looking at the information yourself.
if you think we can fool the world with evolution then find the information and study it for yourself. don't let your religious leader lead you around by your nose. findout for yourself what we see in this world; or not. we truly couldn't care less because eventually you will be gone along with your dogma.
science is continuing to improve life and explain the things your religion can't answer; as we continue to learn more about the universe around us the less humans require religious leaders and religion itself to guide our lives.
so here is a question whom has THE MOST TO LOSE IF SCIENCE CONTINUES TO ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS BEFORE IT?
The difficulty in reproducing a speciation event in a laboratory is the time frames involved.
It can take dozens, hundreds or thousands of generations for subtle genetic differences to manifest in a measureable way.
However, we have seen examples of speciation.
In 2006, the paper "Speciation by hybridization in Heliconius butterflies" was published in Nature.
As Jesus Mavarez, Molecular Evolution Fellow at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Insti.tute described it, "We recreated the evolutionary steps that may have given rise to Heliconius heurippa, a hybrid butterfly species, in the lab."
In 1992, the peer-reviewed paper "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." was published and confirmed.
The Australian Journal of Zoology released the study "Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies" in 1991.
February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.
As far back as 1979, the study "Macroevolution: Pattern and Process" used the example of rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
yes, thank you ME II
L4H,
So, you think is it irritating to consider the possibility of falsifying evolution? You think that evolution is above reproach. You cannot be objective in this issue. Got it.
It is statements like this that are irritating. You start with a bad assumption, add another and come to a ridiculous (and insulting) conclusion.
It is abundantly obvious that you do not have the scientific knowledge to argue against the actual science of evolution (and your grasp of the vocabulary required is tenuous at best. I mean really? Falsify? You do realize that means "Alter (information or evidence) so as to mislead" do you not? Or are you actually being honest here?).
@ME II : Someone famous once said, and it's true, 'a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian period' would effectivly end the Theory of Evolution.
I've already pointed out that fossils are used to date the strata, so this would be impossible.
@ME II : What does "soft tissue" survivability have to do with evolution? Nothing.
Maybe I'm older than you, but when I was in school, evolution taught that dinosaurs were so long ago, neither soft tissue nor original bone would survive. Rather, the fossilized remains of bones were where minerals replaced the original calcium. An the flesh would decay too soon to leave fossilized remains.
@ME II : If this is from your references to Dawkins' work then, as I have said before, he was talking about changes, not species.
So you claimed, but your advancement was contrary to his words. After all, a human species has many traits, but these traits don't lead to a new species. Rather, is it intra-species variation. So, to pass extra-species traits requires a new species.
@ME II : Generally, it takes a long time for evolution to occur, but one example is Lenski's long-term experiment.
And what new species came about? Only a variation of an existing species.
@ME II : Simple, evidence to the contrary.
Like soft tissue? Or the lack of evidence? What evidence would suffice for you?
"If organic material survived a million years, be it DNA, soft tissue, or even bone, then evolution would be falsified"
The creature is still dead. The length of time it takes organinc material to decay does not effect other creatures ability to reproduce.
You did not post my complete post, You left out the best part.
I repeat " For a evolutionist to argue with a creationist is like a reproductive scientist arguing with someone who believes in the stork theory "
"Evolution should be able to be duplicated in a labratory setting."
Um, so if we can't reproduce X in a laboratory, X is false. Suppose X equals God.
@myweightinwords : You start with a bad assumption, add another and come to a ridiculous (and insulting) conclusion.
I don't mean to insult, but his/her response was a ridiculous conclusion. Why do you disagree? Also, why don't you address the issue at hand (how to falsify the theory of evolution)?
Most of a person's life is based upon beliefs (I believe that I'm going shopping today, I believe that I'm going to work today, I believe that I'm going to safely cross this street, etc.). It is a simple matter to falsify each of these beliefs (i.e. if I don't get in an accident, if my car will start, as long as no traffic comes, etc.). So, one should always be prepared to know what will falsify a given belief.
@myweightinwords : Falsify? You do realize that means "Alter (information or evidence) so as to mislead" do you not?
In science, one cannot prove a theory. One can only provide evidence to support a theory or to falsify said theory. In practice, if a theory only has supporting evidence and no opposing evidence, that theory is considered a scientific law. If opposing evidence is found, that theory is considered falsified (i.e. invalid). Once a theory is falsified, then it is either discarded or revised.
"Evolution needs more than a centillion species to justify today's current diversity."
Does this figure include all species today and extinct, or just today living?
This works too (U-Pb) dating
@ME II : ps I would add that a better theory would work too.
Waht if that "better theory" is contrary to today's popular belief?
There is no evidence to support any god and lots of evidence against, so religion and gods should have been discarded centuries ago.
I love how the citations I provided to peer-reviewed, scientific studies demonstrating speciation are being completely ignored.
@Live4Him,
"I've already pointed out that fossils are used to date the strata, so this would be impossible."
You may have asserted such, but that does not make it true. What is your source for this information?
"...evolution taught that dinosaurs were so long ago, neither soft tissue nor original bone would survive. Rather, the fossilized remains of bones were where minerals replaced the original calcium."
In general, this is true, however, this is not a requirement of Evolution. In other words, evolution is not dependent on survivability of soft tissue after the organism is dead.
I suspect, what you are trying to claim is actually a two-part argument, 1) evolution requires significant amounts of time and 2) soft tissue survival gives an upper bound on the amount of time available.
I would agree with 1) to a certain extent, but 2) has not been shown to be true.
"So you claimed, but your advancement was contrary to his words."
Incorrect, the link you provided (although I don't have any more) did not state "speciation" or related words at any point within that section. It was specifically talking about the number of "changes" necessary for development of the eye and did not go into any calculation of the number of "species". The number of generations might be inferred, perhaps, but not "species".
"After all, a human species has many traits, but these traits don't lead to a new species. Rather, is it intra-species variation. So, to pass extra-species traits requires a new species."
I don't understand what you are getting at. Please clarify.
"And what new species came about? Only a variation of an existing species."
The question asked was about evolution in a laboratory settings and Lenski's experiment docu.ments that. Evolution does not have to produce a new species, but it can.
"Like soft tissue? Or the lack of evidence? What evidence would suffice for you?"
As I said soft tissue survival is not directly related to evolution. If you want to discuss the age of the earth / universe, that's another discussion.
Absence of evidence, (which is not the case with evolution) is not evidence of absence. Common logical fallacy.
Precambrian rabbits would suffice, which, if Genesis is true, should be readily available along with many other equivalent fossils, humans in the Triassic, birds in the Ediacaran, mammals before reptiles, reptiles before fish, etc.
@lunchbreaker – Top O' the mornin' to you Liv4him, how goes it for you today?
Pretty good. And yourself?
@WASP : we atheists have no quoms debating the exsistance of your god or most any topics for that matter.
Except how to falsify your own beliefs.
@WASP : could it be that our refusal to accept your dogma is how you choose to validate your own exsistance?
I could care less what you believe. It is a waste of time to try to change a person's opinion if they are unwilling to change. However, what I AM interested in is if any new information has come out that could impact my own beliefs.
@WASP : all the questions you have and all the objections to our way of thinking we have can be solved by simply looking at the information yourself.
I do.
@WASP : don't let your religious leader lead you around by your nose.
People tend to follow religious leaders blindly. Atheists follow those that tickle their ears (i.e. scientists, media, evolutionists, etc.) and many Christians tend to follow their pastor/priest. Those who follow their own path can justify their beliefs, while those who are lead cannot. I prefer to find my own path.
@WASP : whom has THE MOST TO LOSE IF SCIENCE CONTINUES TO ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS BEFORE IT?
REAL science doesn't answer questions. Rather, it is a method for determining the truth – if it is strictly followed. What is passed off as today's science is pseudo-science or pathological science.
Hello Doc
Know how you feel. L4H does not like peer reviewed papers.
Live4Him
"[What] if that 'better theory' is contrary to today's popular belief?"
"Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. ... 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process."
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx )
Like Evolution, you mean?
If it is supported by the evidence, verified, and explains the phenomena better than anything else, then it is likely to be true.
Lie4him
In science you CAN prove theories. Just absolute proof is veery hard to come by, but look at all the technology, the advances in mdecine. You will find many theories that have been proven.
You like pulling up flawed science (polywater, soft tissue, the flwed ramblings of aquinas) to somehow bolster your theory of god, but you clearlt don't understand actual scienrtific method.
I don't mean to insult, but his/her response was a ridiculous conclusion. Why do you disagree? Also, why don't you address the issue at hand (how to falsify the theory of evolution)?
I don't address your silly theory because I don't care. I think evolution provides the most reasonable explanation for the development of the world we live in, but when it comes to the origins of the universe, it really doesn't matter all that much to me.
You responded to "people do get irritated by stupid questions" with what I quoted. How is that a ridiculous conclusion? It's a simple statement of opinion. Why didn't I address it? I tend to agree with it.
Most of a person's life is based upon beliefs (I believe that I'm going shopping today, I believe that I'm going to work today, I believe that I'm going to safely cross this street, etc.).
We take a lot of things on faith in life. What defines us is where we put that faith.
It is a simple matter to falsify each of these beliefs (i.e. if I don't get in an accident, if my car will start, as long as no traffic comes, etc.). So, one should always be prepared to know what will falsify a given belief.
You keep using that word. If you are falsifying something you are purposefully and with intent making an attempt to deceive. So, what you're saying is that you should always be prepared to deceive?
I think what you are trying to say is that we should always be prepared to accept that our belief has been placed in the wrong place. That is something I agree with. Why is it that every time someone shows you that your belief is in the wrong place (your ridiculous assertion about the dinosaur bones), you don't adjust your belief?
In science, one cannot prove a theory. One can only provide evidence to support a theory or to falsify said theory.
And again, you're still using the word wrong.
In practice, if a theory only has supporting evidence and no opposing evidence, that theory is considered a scientific law. If opposing evidence is found, that theory is considered falsified (i.e. invalid). Once a theory is falsified, then it is either discarded or revised.
It isn't falsified, it is proven false. There is a world of difference.
@Live4Him – "Rather, it (science) is a method for determining the truth"
That's incorrect. "Truth" is the business of philosophy, not science. Science makes observations and uses the information gathered to develop theories that are useful for explaining natural phenomena. You assert that you possess higher education in the sciences and don't even know the aim of science. I think I call B.S.
@myweightinwords,
Live4Him is, I think, referring to the concept of Falsification or Falsifiability, which is a valid use of the term, I think.
@lunchbreaker : Does this figure include all species today and extinct, or just today living?
All species that were involved in the evolution of the eye, living and extinct.
------
@Science : This works too (U-Pb) dating
How was U-Pb calibrated? Can you provide evidence that it was calibrated to a known date, where that date is known beyond fossils, strata layers and other radiometric dating methods?
------
@Doc Vestibule : We recreated the evolutionary steps that may have given rise to Heliconius heurippa, a hybrid butterfly species, in the lab.
A POSSIBILITY of how an existing species came into being. Not very credible. Where's the evidence of a new species evolving from a materially different species?
------
@lunchbreaker : The length of time it takes organinc material to decay does not effect other creatures ability to reproduce.
The question isn't the length of time it takes organic material to decay, but the length of time between speciation events, combined with the number of steps needed to begat today's species. The number of steps is universally accepted to be above a thousand, so it has a relatively minor impact on the issue. But, if it were only 20 or so then evolutionists should be able to identify the steps between man and the first species.
But, the number of years between speciation events is significant. If it is a million+ years, then dino soft tissue and bones would be non-existent. If it was a mere decade or so, then evolution should be happening before our eyes.
...if a theory only has supporting evidence and no opposing evidence, that theory is considered a scientific law.
This however is wrong.
@Me II,
In some of the uses, I could accept that. But not for all of them.
myweightinwords
"In some of the uses, I could accept that. But not for all of them."
Agreed.
@Live4Him –
By the way, in a previous post you claimed to posses a background in statistics and then proceeded to conflate standard error and confidence interval. Let me guess, the institution where you obtained your higher education had the word "bible" in it's name, right?
Uranium lead dating, used to mine for nukes BOOM
Can determine im millions of years to 0.00000000000000000000.1
Peace
@Live4Him
You're cherry picking the one study that gives an ambiguous word in the description.
Check the other ones.
And to re-iterate:
Reproducing speciation in a lab is extra-ordinarily difficult due to the time frames involved.
Frogs do not suddenly give birth to mice. Noticeable changes normally take hundreds of generations to manifest.
The division between species is not a black-and-white issue. Rather, speciation occurs as many different sorts of traits (physical, behavioral, and genetic) diverge from one another along a continuum.
Regardless, I have provided you reference to numberous studies from the past 30-40 years detailing laboratory instances of observed speciation.
The best way to get a grasp on the evolutionary law of gradualism is to study the fossil record of some notable transitional species, like the Tiktaalik.
The 5 laws of evolution are applied by scientists in a vast array of disciplines on a daily basis.
Modern pharmacology, neurology, oncology etc etc. would not be possible were it not for 150 years of building on Darwin's original theory.
But here's a nice, easy example.
For 40 years, biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant have studied "Darwin's" Galapagos finches.
in 1981, a hybrid finch arrived from a neighboring island. The immigrant paired up with a local female ground finch and the Grants followed these birds' descendents for the next 28 years.
After four generations, the island experienced a severe drought, which killed many of the finches.
In December of 2009, the Grants announced that, since the drought, the new lineage has been isolated from the local finches: the children and grandchildren of the survivors have only produced offspring with one another.
@Really-O? : "Truth" is the business of philosophy, not science.
How can you claim such? Science is a branch of philosophy.
"Science makes observations and uses the information gathered to develop [accurate or true] theories that are useful for explaining natural phenomena."
Not too many people want untruthful theories, right?
------
ME II : referring to the concept of Falsification or Falsifiability, which is a valid use of the term, I think.
Correct. This is the concept used to define scientific theories. If a theory is not falsifiabile, then it isn't scientific. And I only use it in regards to presumed scientific theories.
------
ME II : [theory is considered a scientific law.] This however is wrong.
What's your definition of a scientific law?
------
Really-O? : then proceeded to conflate standard error and confidence interval.
What do you mean "standard error"? Are you talking about the MAPE or the individual errors? Regardless, individual errors (i.e. PE) are used to determine the CI, but the MAPE doesn't factor in at all.
------
Science : Uranium lead dating, used to mine for nukes BOOM
Radiometric dating of U-Pb has little to nothing to do with nukes (other than the usable life span of such).
Find the fossilized remains of a modern human that is old as the dinosaurs and you have disproved evolution. All it would take is one fossil.
@him: (IN ALL CAPS ONLY TO SEE REPLYS EASIER)
"@WASP : we atheists have no quoms debating the exsistance of your god or most any topics for that matter.
Except how to falsify your own beliefs.
@HIM: HOW CAN WE FALSIFIY THINGS THAT ANYONE CAN READ AND CHECK? WE CAN'T.
@WASP : could it be that our refusal to accept your dogma is how you choose to validate your own exsistance?
I could care less what you believe. It is a waste of time to try to change a person's opinion if they are unwilling to change. However, what I AM interested in is if any new information has come out that could impact my own beliefs.
@HIM: IF THAT WAS TRUE YOU WOULD BE STUDYING SCIENCE RIGHT NOW INSTEAD OF HERE ARGUEING WITH US ATHEISTS OVER OUR BELIEFS.
@WASP : all the questions you have and all the objections to our way of thinking we have can be solved by simply looking at the information yourself.
I do.
@HIM: NO YOU ONLY LOOK AT INFORMATION THAT AGREES WITH YOUR GOD SEARCH; NOT AT EVERYTHING.
@WASP : don't let your religious leader lead you around by your nose.
People tend to follow religious leaders blindly. Atheists follow those that tickle their ears (i.e. scientists, media, evolutionists, etc.) and many Christians tend to follow their pastor/priest. Those who follow their own path can justify their beliefs, while those who are lead cannot. I prefer to find my own path.
@HIM: I DOUBT THAT, YOU SIT HERE A SPEW THE SAME BRAINWASHING AS ALL THE REST.
@WASP : whom has THE MOST TO LOSE IF SCIENCE CONTINUES TO ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS BEFORE IT?
REAL science doesn't answer questions. Rather, it is a method for determining the truth – if it is strictly followed. What is passed off as today's science is pseudo-science or pathological science.
@HIM: HMMMMM PSEUDO-SCIENCE YOU SAY? OK THEN LET'S SEE YOUR CREDITIALS, HOW MANY EARTH SHATTERING FINDINGS HAVE YOU MADE FOR YOUR GOD? ...........................WHAT CRICKETS? THOUGHT SO. TODAYS "PSEUDO-SCIENCE" AS YOU SAY GAVE YOU THAT COMPUTER YOUR BASHING SCIENCE WITH. 🙂
The talking snake and creation in a tube.
Dover trial too
Have a great day lunch time
EVOLUTION IN A TEST TUBE Jan. 30 2013
News Release
3-D structure of the evolved enzyme (an RNA ligase), using 10 overlaid snapshots. In the top region, the overlays show the range of bending and folding flexibility in the amino acid chain that forms the molecule. The two gray balls are zinc ions. (University of Minnesota)
University of Minnesota researchers unveil first artificial enzyme created by evolution in a test tube
Thanks Doc.
@Live4Him –
"Science is a branch of philosophy."
-Technically, yes, if your using the term philosophy as the ancient Greeks did; however, if you think philosophy (as studied at university) and science are the same things, your glaringly ignorant. The word "truth" is not part of the scientific method. Did you not know that or are you just equivocating?
"What do you mean "standard error"? Are you talking about the MAPE or the individual errors?"
-I mean standard error. In statistics, "standard error" has a specific meaning and there is a specific formula for determining standard error. MAPE is a different measure. How can you have a background in statistics and not know that?
Keep digging the hole deeper, L4H.
@Live4Him,
"What's your definition of a scientific law?"
My point was that Theories don't get promoted to Laws if the have "no opposing evidence"; they are different things.
While I don't think there are universally accepted definitions, these are a good starting point:
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circu[]mstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
( http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work )
@ME II – re: "What's your definition of a scientific law?"
Well done. Those are, without question, the accepted meanings of the terms as used in the sciences. How is it that Live4Him, who claims to higher education in science, seems not to understand that fact?
Cheers
In, the long term E-Coli experiment a species of E-Coli that could not grow on Citrate in an oxygen rich environment, evolved the ability to do so. The inability to grow on citrate was considered a defining characteristic of the species. Therefore, once the E-Coli began to grow on citrate it had to be classified as a new species.
I fully expect Live4Him will return tomorrow and claim that nobody was able to answer his questions simply because he didn't like the answers he got. When faced with scientific proof of evolution he had to slink away.
Thomas Jefferson (POTUS #3, principle author of the Declaration of Independence)
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
John Adams (POTUS #2, Patriot of the American Revolution)
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With the rational respect that is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill or might fill the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history.
James Madison (POTUS #4, chief architect of the U.S. Constitution & the Bill of Rights)
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
Thomas Paine (Patriot of the American Revolution)
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
TBT you know who are!!!!!
I am a God Don,t make me smite u!?!!!!!!!
All so called atheists are liars, proven ever day on these blogs. All morally decent peoples with common sense recognize the so called atheist for the liar it is. So called atheists only fool their own.
All so called aliens are liars, proven ever day on these blogs. All morally decent peoples with common sense recognize the so called alien for the liar it is. So called aliens only fool their own
All so called mimes are liars, proven ever day on these blogs. All morally decent peoples with common sense recognize the so called mimefor the liar it is. So called mimes only fool their own
All so called honest people are liars, proven every day on these blogs. All morally decent peoples with common sense recognize the so called honest people for the liar it is. So called honest people only fool their own
Thanks to the low end so called atheist who stole the name and proved the Truth of my original statement.
Thanks to the low end so called god-like creature who stole the name and proved the Truth of my original statement
I'm sorry, "truth be told", but your repeated assertions regarding atheism are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your repeated unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL". Perhaps the following book can help you cope with the problem of repeating unfounded assertions:
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
Baba Singh has quite the hat.
As an avowed "hat person" I was quite impressed.
I love hats!
His is most impressive!
I will never understand u a$$hats.
Pray without ceasing in 20 13
Prayer changes things
I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but your repeated assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your repeated unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL". Perhaps the following book can help you cope with the problem of repeating unfounded assertions:
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
Hey prayerbot,, Just die already!
Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!