 |
|
|
|
 A new study hints that religion and resumes don't always mix well.
July 2nd, 2014
09:24 AM ET
Why you should leave religion off your resumeBy Sara Grossman, CNN (CNN) - If you’re applying for a new job, it may be best to leave religion off your resume, according to a new study. Job applicants who mentioned any form of faith affiliation on their resumes were 26% less likely to be contacted by employers than candidates who didn't, according to the study conducted by sociologists at the University of Connecticut. Muslim, pagan and atheist job applicants were the least likely to get callbacks from potential employers. “People have a fear of the unknown,” said Michael Wallace, a co-author of the study and a sociology professor at the University of Connecticut. The study “implies that when people don't know much about a religion, they have an instinctive fear of that group.” Jewish applicants received the least discrimination of all religious applicants, with evangelicals not far behind. The researchers sent out 3,200 nearly identical resumes to 800 employers around two major cities in the South, changing only a reference to participation in a religious student group while in college, including affiliations to evangelical Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The study does not name the cities. A control group of resumes featured no reference to any religion. The researchers also included a fake religion, called “Wallonism,” to measure the degree to which people discriminate against a completely unfamiliar faith. The fact that employers discriminated against “Wallonians” confirmed this suspicion, Wallace said. The nonreligious resumes received responses about 18% of the time. By contrast, less than 11% of Muslims heard back from employers, followed by 12% of atheists and about 13% of “Wallonians,” Catholics and pagans. Evangelicals heard back just under 16% of the time, while Jews heard back about 16.5% of the time. The study showed that employers in the South - the country’s most religious region by many measures - prefer applicants who are not public about their religious affiliations, according to the University of Connecticut researchers. “While religion is central to Southern life and Southerners more openly display their religious beliefs than citizens in other parts of the country, they also embrace the secular notion that there is a proper time and place for religious expression,” the authors wrote. “Thus, even in the deep South, most employers draw the line against overt expressions of religious belief in the workplace.” Religion in the United States has become “compartmentalized,” Wallace said. It is perfectly acceptable to be religious, he said, but Americans prefer that expression be secluded to certain domains. “Social institutions are where you have a great diversity of people,” Wallace said. The worry that religious people might try to push their beliefs on other people is the biggest reservation of employers, he added. The negative consequences of open religiosity did not seem to apply to Jews, however. Although Jewish applicants received slightly less feedback from employers than applicants who made no mention of religion, this discrepancy was not enough to be statistically significant, Wallace said. The researchers cited a number of theories as to why this phenomenon might be, especially since Jews make up a tiny portion of the Southern population. For one, Jews have integrated well in the region and are not as residentially or occupationally segregated as they are in other parts of the country, Wallace said. Also, evangelicals - who make up the largest religious group in the South - have a close affinity to Jews, even more so than to Catholics, and may feel more connected to members of this religious group, according to Wallace. “Jews, and especially the Jewish state of Israel, feature prominently in evangelical Christian theology; in fact evangelicals express stronger support for Israel than any other ethnic or religious group except Jews themselves,” the researchers wrote. Rachel Kranson, an assistant professor of religion at the University of Pittsburgh, said that part of this phenomenon might be a race and class issue, rather than a religious one, as the vast majority of Jews are white and middle class. “People's religious identities do not exist in a vacuum, and intersect with categories of race and class,” she wrote in an e-mail. “Employers' preference for Jews may also indicate a preference for white workers from well-off backgrounds.” The conclusions of this research largely mirrored those of a study performed last year in New England by the same team of University of Connecticut sociologists. While sociologists found job discrimination in New England, it was not nearly as pronounced as in the South, except against Muslim applicants, according to the study. That study found that resumes that mentioned religious affiliations received 19% fewer responses from employers than the nonreligious control group. Muslims saw the worst of the discrimination, in both the North and South, according to the studies. Muslims received 32% fewer e-mails and 48% fewer phone calls than job candidates who didn’t mention religion on their resume, according to the study. In the South, they received receiving 38% fewer e-mails and 54% fewer phone calls. “This suggests, ironically, that religious discrimination in hiring is most prevalent in regions of the country where religion is most passionately practiced,” the authors wrote.
Next entry »Pope: bishops 'accountable' for sex abuse
« Previous entryThe 8 best tweets about Tim Howard and Jesus
|
  About this blog
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.  |
|
|
|
Gay Marriage News
UN Recognizes Gay Marriages for Staffers
(AP) "The United Nations announced Monday it would recognize the gay marriages of all its staffers, in a major policy shift that opens the door for the spouses of hom.ose.xual employees to enjoy the same benefits as the husbands and wives of their heterose.xual colleagues.":
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/recognizes-gay-marriages-staffers-24457237
======
Evangelicals Are Changing Their Minds on Gay Marriage
"...But last summer, without telling her husband and two kids exactly what she was doing, she boarded a plane for a conference in Kansas whose purpose many evangelicals would plainly consider heretical.":
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/evangelicals-gay-marriage-108608.html#.U7wTv41dXcE
======
Indiana gay marriage ruling puts Mike Pence in a tough spot
"Mike Pence is in a tough spot. The Republican governor of Indiana and potential presidential contender must now decide…":
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/indiana-gay-marriage-ruling-puts-mike-pence-tough-spot
Humans are capable of learning and are capable of compassion. These things are antithetical to religion. A religion changes only when the "immutable word of god" is so unpopular that it threatens to make that religion extinct.
Apparently their God is a slave to popular opinion...
I wonder if god likes or hates the Kardashians... or maybe 'He' just tolerates them because they are his horsemen for the next Apocalypse... things that make you go hmmm....
And yet across time – even to this day, many still ask, "what's a Kardashian?"...
"'He' just tolerates them because they are his horsemen for the next Apocalypse..."
"Hey Kim! Why the long face?" neigh! neigh!
we do learn and have nothing aganist learning and knowledge (look at the Nobel Prize winners-those in the past who make advances in science) and we are also capable of compassion...we ARE human after all and will make mistakes...just like you atheists..i doubt that there is ANY atheist who has shown NOTHING but coimpassion for every single person they ever come across in their entire life! The Bible tells us to LOVE one another...to love OTHERS
Yes, some Christians can be logical and reasonable in spite of their faith just like atheists can be loving and caring in spite of not having any God or religion extorting them to elicit good behavior.
Gay Marriage News in the Americas
6/25 – Mexico's supreme court ruled a law that bans same-se.x marriage in the state of Baja California is unconsti.tutional. Same-se.x Mexicans have been able marry in Mexico City since 2010 and those marriages must be recognized across the country. The court had a similar ruling in the state of Oaxaca back in April. Same-se.x couples are actively seeking to overturn same-se.x marriage bans in several other Mexican states.
====
The Movement for Hom.ose.xual Integration and Liberation, a Chilean LGBT advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on behalf of three gay couples are seeking marriage rights in the country.
====
Two Colombian same-se.x couples have challenged efforts to nullify their marriages in the South American country’s highest court.
====
Four same-se.x couples seeking marriage rights in Puerto Rico on Wednesday joined a federal lawsuit that two women filed in March.
====
Same-se.x marriage in the Americas is currently legal in:
Canada
Mexico (Mexico City, and now several states and municipalities)
U.S. (19 states and D.C.)
Argentina
Brazil
Uruguay
French Guiana, Martinique, Guadeloupe and the Dutch island of Saba
Is there any truth to what the "urban dictionary" says:
"internet atheist: Angry atheist who trolls internet sites denouncing God, Christians and religion; Atheist internet troll who demonstrates a basic ignorance of reason; Atheist internet troll who is ignorant of science and logic while claiming strong adherence to the same; Atheist who contradicts themselves through poor reasoning, especially one who exhibits hypocrisy."
I see more and more evidence that such a mindset plagues this blog.
If I had a nickel for every time I saw this on these message boards: "Atheist internet troll who is ignorant of science and logic while claiming strong adherence to the same" – I'd be rich.
I'm sure we've all taken science courses. There are 2 things I've never heard taught: what fundamentalist creationists preach and also what internet atheists preach.
A lot of these internet atheists preaching science and logic seem to be in love with the ideas of science and logic. But do they carry it out very well? Not really.
"They usually lack any sense of humor if jokes are made about them, but they find nothing wrong with being incredibly offensive to the point of being disgusting when making jokes about religious people. They also love to show off their knowledge about any subject they might know something about."
I have faith in God. I have faith in other people. I have faith in science. I have no faith in religion. I have no faith in the atheists preaching their non-religion religion. I have no faith in people blind to their own hypocrisy.
This one makes me laugh, too:
–
Jane the Theist – "God sure has given us a fine day. He did a great job creating the birds."
Internet Atheist – "'God' didn't give as anything; 'God' doesn't exist. And the birds are a product of years of evolution and natural selection."
–
Red the Atheist – "Christians are morons. They sicken me."
Joanne the Christian – "Ya? Well atheists are jerks."
Red the Atheist – "You're making nonsensical generalizations!"
–
It is nice to know I'm not the only one that has dealt with this.
If 10% of people in the US were complete jerks, that would make 0.5 million jerk atheists and 22 million jerk Christians. Jerk atheists aren't a pressing problem in the US.
Dala
You calim faith in god...but you also claim to know god exists. Knowledge precludes faith.
Why would you need faith, claim faith, when you alredy know god exists, and he is exactly what you imagine him to be.
Faith is trust and confidence in God, who I know exists. I gained the knowledge first and then developed faith.
I never said nor do I believe God is exactly what I imagine Him to be. I don't know exactly what He is.
faith:
1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is NO PROOF (2) : complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
your definition of "faith" doesn't match the accepted definition. please seek correct terminology to allow for an easier conversation.
The accepted definition?
dictionary.com:
faith 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
I have confidence and trust in God. In other people. In science.
I don't have confidence and trust in what the internet atheists preach about logic and science, especially when they don't practice what they preach.
I don't need to correct my terminology. It works fine.
naughty naughty dala; lying sends you to hell.
you are picking a choosing the defintion that suits you. now try using the whole definition.
be honest or your god will smite you.
No, that is the primary definition of faith.
There are other kinds of faith, that I exercise, too. That is why dictionaries give the multiple understanding of the word.
ignorant ignorant ignorant zhilla..its about what the BIBEL says..and the BIBLE shows faith itself as loyalty to God..read hebrews chapter 11 the entire chpater....sodont tell dal he is lying when you dont even know how faith isused in the Bible...by your statement im inclined to think yuo have never read much of the Bible much less even Hebrews 11! It refers to those who is loyal to God and His Promises! not in His existqnce..in fact..NOWHERE in the Bible does it speak of having faith in gods existance..but everywhere faith is used it is referring to Gods Promises
"I gained the knowledge first and then developed faith."
aka "I read a story about leprechauns and now I believe in them! Some of my socks went missing so I know it's true!"
neverbeenhappieratheist
No. Talk about changing the meaning of something to fit your bias.
dala: "I don't need to correct my terminology. It works fine"
a round of applause folks! this shining example of chosen ignorance for his "god and demi-god son"......can't forget the mind numbing holie ghost.
seriously? in any accepted debate terms are used only from the accepted source. dictionaries.
no slang or urban terms are permit because it allows one party or the other to dance around with words and avoid truly answering the question.
webster's dictionary is a commonly accepted source for word definition whether it's from scrabble to law school.
if you wish to debate and i mean debate, not just waste our time with mindless drivel about "how you know god" then accepted terms are the corner stone of a civilized debate.
zhilla1980wasp
When I google 'faith definition"
– complete trust and confidence- is the first thing that appears.
And I'm telling you that is what I mean when I was talking about faith.
oh goody dala, i love defintion games.
so i'm going to use this one for faith: (1) : firm belief in something for which there is NO PROOF.
and that is the defintion that was meant, all the rest aren't important because they don't agree with my one sided view of the world.
aren't i a good example of what my god and demi-god wanted.................completely ignorant and braindead.
The faith I was referring to was a different kind of faith in my OP.
I know there are other kinds. And I exercise those.
If you think I was talking about believing in something with no proof, you are mistaken. I have proof that I can have trust and confidence in God, people and science.
"Talk about changing the meaning of something to fit your bias."
Did you not have to read of your God to be told the definitions of what that God represents to even begin to have faith? Or are you one of the few supposed Prophets who is being given direct divine instruction and thus have no need to read about it? You forget to show how I changed anything but the imaginary creature in your story.
– Did you not have to read of your God to be told the definitions of what that God represents to even begin to have faith?
No. I don't learn of God strictly by reading or being told things. It was by doing things. Action. Faith without works is dead. Now, I do learn more about God in reading. And listening to others. But the trust and confidence comes from the action of following God's will.
– Or are you one of the few supposed Prophets who is being given direct divine instruction and thus have no need to read about it?
No, not a prophet. I don't think I could handle that.
dala: ". I have proof that I can have trust and confidence in God"
PROOF:
1a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
1b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
3: something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4 archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness
5: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
ok so let's see your "proof"
What do you want proof of Zhilla?
I read a story about God and now I believe in him! When I pray to him I get a warm fuzzy feeling in my tummy so I know it's true!
Is that better Dala? Unless you hve sme actual empirical evidence that can be examined and tested then you have just your faith to stand on, which is fine, just own it, don't keep this "I have proof!" crap up because it's not proof until it can be examined and tested by anyone, not just those who believe.
What empirical evidence have you examined and tested personally?
You are right Dala, I didn't do the experiments myself. I have however read much of the peer reviewed accepted science that is open for testing by anyone in those fields and as I said I have "faith that the scientists are doing their work diligently and free from outside influence such as the Church or corporations."
So there is my faith which is placed in those who have no ulterior motive to decieve and put their works up for examination by everyone, wanting to be challenged which is such a refreshing feeling after being bogged down in religion which will kick you out of the Church if you challenge it's claims.
How do you know they have no ulterior motive to deceive? Sometimes peer reviewed studies are wrong.
I don't belong to a church that will kick me out if I challenge claims. In fact I was careful to chose one that doesn't have an ulterior motive to deceive. Scientists are not the only ones capable of doing such things.
And you haven't proven that you have no ulterior motives to deceive.
dala: "What do you want proof of Zhilla?"
well dala darlin' i want from you the samething i would want from the guy selling me an automobile, proof of your claim.
you have stated multiple times that you had "proof" of your god. this proof can be shown seeing it is accepted by others, correct? then it's only logical that is hown to one person the same result will occur on the next person.
I'm not trying to sell you anything, zhilla1980wasp.
I understand you don't have proof in God.
I do have proof of God. But that doesn't logically mean you will accept that, too. Especially when you have failed to prove that you yourself are logical. Look at your "debate": you told me you would not believe any explanation that cannot be scientifically proven. But what about that very explanation itself? It cannot itself be scientifically proven. What is there to "debate"? Your self-refuting philosophy that you can't even prove by your own standards?
Dalahäst
People have "faith is trust and confidence" in things like astrology and not shaving during the playoffs too. These people know that these things work too, so you can see why many people aren't impressed by your answer.
I'm not trying to impress people.
I just don't have faith in the scientism, naturalism and oddly enough even athesim people are preaching to me. It is ok if it works for you. Not all logical, reasonable and well-adjusted people believe in such things as what is preached to me. The preachers seem to imagine it is that way.
"I do have proof of God. But that doesn't logically mean you will accept that, too. "
This is like saying "I have proof that American Football is the best sport ever. But that doesn't mean you will accept that too..."
Another redefined word when you say "proof" but mean "my own opinion".
See how much more truthful this sounds? "I do have my own opinion of God. But that doesn't logically mean you will accept that, too. "
No.
There is no proof that American Football is the best sport ever. That is an opinion.
There is proof that God exists. Just because everyone doesn't see it doesn't logically mean it doesn't exist. That was a logical fallacy, not logic, that was expressed.
proof: 1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
opinion: 1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Please use them properly from now on.
There is proof God exists.
In my opinion it is a good thing to pray to God.
I have proof of God. So I believe.
You don't have proof of God. So you don't believe?
Right?
"How do you know they have no ulterior motive to deceive? Sometimes peer reviewed studies are wrong."
I know because no one who is trying to hide the facts about something would submit their work for testing and review if they knew there were flaws ahead of time. Flaws do occur and are quickly pointed out and if the science was bogus or the tests not repeatable then the conclusions are thrown out which is the exact opposite of how religion works. When flaws are pointed out the Church leaders simply smooth over them with statements like "Who can know the mysteries of God?" or "The way things work in the universe now doesn't mean it's always worked that way..." Yes it does if there is no evidence other than a bronze age book of myths that says otherwise. That is why religion requires faith not proof. So just stop trying to claim your faith has anything to do with proof.
I'm not trying to follow a religion that requires faith not proof. I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. I go to a church with some people that have credentials to back up their knowledge of science. They are quite reasonable and intelligent people. They just draw a different conclusion than you. You really don't seem to know that much about science.
I also don't have Church leaders like that. Sorry.
What is proven by scientific peer reviewed studies may later be proven false as our technology and scientific knowledge grows.
"I go to a church with some people that have credentials to back up their knowledge of science." "They just draw a different conclusion than you." "What is proven by scientific peer reviewed studies may later be proven false as our technology and scientific knowledge grows."
So what it sounds like you are saying is that you go to a church with educated people who have faith in spite of the scientific peer reviewed science that they hope will be proven false some day or just draw a different conclusion to the geological and fossil records. They adapt their faith to fit what facts they can and reserve judgement on those facts that don't support their faith.
No. That is not what I'm saying. But it doesn't surprise me you would imagine that.
Geological and fossil records do not lead everyone to atheism, scientism or naturalism. Some of us Christians fully embrace science to learn more about this world.
There is nothing Jesus said that prohibits or discourages that. And the fact that so many Christians fully embrace science, and have contributed and support science lends me to believe your opinion is missing the point.
Dalahäst
I think that you're trying to apply the last definition of the word "preach" here against your critics. If you went with the first definitions in most dictionaries you'd realize that preaching usually applies to the proclamation of religious concepts. Scientific knowledge doesn't require the fancy wordplay that religious concepts require to be accepted through preaching. The facts speak for themselves, and the fact is that we don't have any objective evidence for God, do we? Every bit of "evidence" for God actually being real depends on personal feelings and opinions, right?
The problem is too many people are not demonstrating anything like science. Just a philosophy about science. Big difference. Hence the reference to preaching.
I mean this definition: to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc.) in speech or writing.
Like, when Colin preaches Anti-theist Humanism at me. Or Asphor preaches Deism at me. Or EdSed preaches scientism at me. All interesting positions, but not one I choose to follow.
Dalahäst
Geological and fossil records do discredit the Bible, however, and since the Bible is the original source for all knowledge about God, a discredited Bible also casts doubt upon God. I believe that we've discussed this before, correct? A belief with such rotten roots simply cannot grow reliable fruit.
If the authors of the Bible could have gotten so many things wrong it demonstrates that they were not drawing upon any secret knowledge that only the divine could be the source of. The inaccuracy of the Bible could demonstrate, however, that all its contains came from ordinary human imaginations. Since it's assumed even by most Christians that all other gods were just human inventions, doesn't an inaccurate Bible also imply a fully invented God?
I think it is quite obvious that the Genesis story is not meant to be taken literally. Only fundamentalists and anti-theists seem to claim otherwise.
The creation myths are not proven to be incorrect. The Genesis creation myth is a story that illustrates the relationship between The Creator and his creature. It uses literary devices to speak to our hearts – which can reveal a lot more than a purely scientific explanation can provide.
The story still reveals truths today that are very relevant. We definitely live in what the story describes as a world that has failed to live up to its ideals. And we inherit this brokedness. Every person I've learned about or met has demonstrated this brokedness.
Maybe God has a different plan than your understanding. Maybe our hearts are more important to God then our ability to discern facts about nature seeking out objective evidence.
As Peter Marty says: "The Genesis story was never meant to tell us how the world was created. It is rather a masterful treatise for informing us who created this floating orb in its magnificent universe. From the story, we learn that God appreciates beauty, design and order over ugliness, nonsense and chaos. One doesn’t have to tread far into Scripture before discovering that humans were created for relationship with God and one another. These convictions of faith are hardly at the heart of scientific inquiry."
Dalahäst
I think that you've accused me of just preaching to you too, right?
Anyway, is there anything in your reasoning for believing that God is real that doesn't rest completely upon your personal feelings and opinions? If not, then what you're actually describing is loyalty to a belief that you love rather than sound judgment, correct?
Yea, you get kind of preachy sometimes.
Yes. No, I don't just have loyalty to a belief that I love rather than sound judgement. Is is possible that is what you have?
Dalahäst
If Genesis is not to be taken seriously then the idea of God being the creator of the universe and humanity, as well as the original sin that necessitated Jesus' sacrifice aren't to be taken seriously either, correct? It also brings Jesus himself under scrutiny as he quoted Genesis 2:24 about marriage. If he wasn't taking Genesis literally this lesson wouldn't have any weight at all, would it?
No creation myth has been proven to be incorrect, but that hasn't stopped people from dismissing them as myth, which is what you're describing. If the Bible is full of myth, where do you draw the line in saying that the descriptions of people's relationship with God isn't just myth? Subsequent books that enter into the age where more reliable history could have been recorded would just be building upon this prior myth that God was real, just as Roman professional historians still referred to their gods.
This kind of "truth" is more poetic, where God may just be a device for illustrating proper relationships with our fellow man.
If I started believing in God again I hope that I seriously ask myself whether I'm just emotionally attached to the idea of him again.
Genesis also taught the ancient Hebrews why women were never to be trusted in decision-making and were the blame for all the troubles that the ruling men had to endure, and why the Canaanites deserved what they got, so it's not all peaches and cream.
I didn't intend to say it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. It is to be read it as literature, not as a science manual. It is revealing a truth about human beings, our nature and our relationship with others and our Creator. For instance, Genesis shows the origin of things like shame and dishonesty – and they didn't originate from God.
care to put your money where your "virtual" mouth is?
you show us something of god, mind you the religious text is in question thus can not be used.
(reason why text are excluded is due to the fact i can use the eygtian religious text to "prove" BAAL.)
i will spend the time i have left at work explaining in detail how not only life but the entire universe as we understand it exists without requiring a creator.
sooooooo deal?
Who is us?
Do you speak for internet atheists that preach about logic and science, but fail to demonstrate it?
dala US was implying to all the lovely viewers out there in internet-land.
if i meant atheists, i would have said so.
2) that was the point of my challenge; i will walk you through the whole process of the universe all the way through to humans.
mind you there will be some gaps because, hey we don't know everything...........yet. lmao
so wat do you say? you show us; the lovely internet world your god and i will show you a universe free of any gods or demi-gods.
Are you wanting to share your opinion? Are you proposing to speak for a group of people? Or are there 2 or more of you posting under that name?
that would accually be a negetive on both counts.
i will only use accepted known science that has been discovered by humans, regardless of their personal lives.
this is between myself and you, if others wish to referee they are welcome.
You want to have a debate, but only talk about accepted known science that has been discovered by humans?
And you will moderate this debate, but anyone who wishes to referee are welcome to moderate with you?
I have no problem with accepted known science that has been discovered by humans. My only problem is limiting myself to accepted known science that has been discovered by humans. That seems completely unscientific. I'm afraid we can only agree about what accepted known science that has been discovered by humans says about .accepted known science that has been discovered by humans. It is accepted known science that has been discovered by humans. It doesn't prove anything worth debating about on the topic of opinions and personal beliefs.
yup i broke my dala; it's already forgotten my debate challenge that's written above it's post. lmao
you can use religion to prove god, just not any religious text as defintive "proof".
reason being let's say you use the bible to "prove" your god the same can be done with any religious text, thus proving all gods, demi-gods, goddesses, halflings, etc etc etc.
so you will have to figureout from scratch exactly how to confur the idea of your god without religious text.
zhilla1980wasp
Your "debate challenge" is a joke. You can't moderate your own debate. Are you really being serious?
"My only problem is limiting myself to accepted known science that has been discovered by humans. That seems completely unscientific."
Well then what you want is a philosphy debate, not a debate on the conclusions that can be drawn from actual hard evidence such as the geological and fossil records.
I really don't want a debate moderated by a debater.
We probably will agree with what the actual hard evidence of geological and fossils records reveal.
I'd rather talk to an expert than listen to a non-geologist/non-paleontologists copy and paste things he found online.
"opinion and personal belief"
"i have proof."
those two statement naturally contridicte each other.
Hey Dala since you complain about links do a simple search for Silicon Valley fossils -we know what it looked like twenty million years ago eh ?
Hey Science Works – What is your point? Did you do any of the work? Do you know that believers in God probably did do the work? Do you know that most religious people fully embrace science? Some actually do more than post off-topic links about science. The contribute to science. And then you marvel at their findings?
you are a blast !
You rarely make sense.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000324
Yes, Dalahast has proof that God exists; millions of Muslims have proof of equal quality that Allah exists; millions of Hindus has proof that Lord Brahma exists. Meanwhile, Australian Aboriginals have proof that the Ancestor Spirits exist and New Guinea highlanders have proof that witches exist.
For so long as feelings, thoughts, voices in one's head or other purely internal sensations are "proof" there will be gods everywhere. Each believer convinced they have the one true god.
Uh, Colin, you are the guy who claimed he gets a warm sensation when he imagines he is right and everyone else is wrong. You offer no "proof" but your feelings, thoughts and voices in your head to back that up.
If you ever applied your own standards to what you preach... the cognitive dissonance would probably prevent that from happening... but you would be shocked to see the hypocrisy you demonstrate.
Not every believer is convinced they have the one true God. That is a short-sighted assumption on your part. Did the voices in your head tell you that? And you believed them?
"who is ignorant of science and logic" but who also "love to show off their knowledge".
I'm sure there are those who fit your profile, though by reading these boards anyone with half a brain will see the fundamentalist moron trolls far outweigh their counterparts.
When I say a young earth Christian is a moron I don't mean they are uneducated, I mean they have been given the facts about the age of our earth and given hard fossil evidence but they choose to keep a belief that, after all the evidence we have, is beyond moronic.
The fact that you claim to have faith in some things and lack faith in others doesn't do squat by the way as faith without works is dead. Also, science requires little to no "faith" other than the faith that the scientists are doing their work diligently and free from outside influence such as the Church or corporations, and that is fairly easy to maintain since science welcomes doubters who want to test its hypothesis unlike religion that ultimately demands unquestioning fealty with no ability to test and verify their claims.
I am an atheist no matter where I am. I don't believe in god(s) because there is no evidence. I find that the other atheists on this blog are generally much more informed about christianity than that religion's defenders.
You, dala, are notorious for ignoring facts and definitions and replacing them with your own. That's why you need to use an "urban" dictionary, instead of a real dictionary. Your feeble insults do not sting because you cannot be taken seriously.
Tallulah
I don't see anyone taking you seriously, though. Except your fellow internet atheists.
I see internet atheists ignore facts and definitions and replace them with their own, too. That is hypocritical to critique me for something you and all people do. That is how language works.
Blah, blah, blah Princess. You are tiresome and argumentative. Get back to us when you have proof of your god.
There are no atheists on this board notorious for inventing their own definitions. You however, Dala, are well known for it, at least well known for it on these boards.
I don't invent my own definitions. I use a dictionary. Or 2 or 3. Words often have different meanings. And through time those meanings change. If i said I'm having "a gay party" 100 years ago it would mean something different than it means today, no?
Tell me one word I define wrong. And how your definition is better.
that is why we update our dictionaries. if terminology becomes under fire, then referencing a commonly accepted book of known knowledge is the most logical thing to do.
is it not?
I was using the primary definition that appears when I Google "faith definition."
For now on I'll say "complete trust and confidence" instead of "faith" so you won't get confused.
"Tell me one word I define wrong. And how your definition is better. "
I am often amazed at the multltude of definitions you find for the word "slavery". To hear you tell it anyone would have wanted to be a slave back in ancient Israel...
There are many many more but that would take a while of combing past posts for some of your greatest hits. I'm pretty sure colin will be able to pull them all up in short order though.
I can't remember talking about slavery like that. Are you sure you are not talking about someone else?
So, you accuse me of constantly redefining words, but you have no examples? Maybe 1. But you might be confusing me with someone else?
"Tell me one word I define wrong. And how your definition is better"
Know
Atheist
religion
belief
indication
angry
science
logic
reason
lie
misrepresent
oh wait, you only wanted one.
the definitions I use are the accepted definitions as defined by dictionaries and encyclopeadias. They are better than your definitions because your definitions are unknown to the people trying to figure out what you say.
igaftr
I asked for an example of how I use them wrong.
Posting a list of words and insisting you define them right, and I define them wrong isn't helpful.
It makes you sound smart, I guess. In your mind?
dala
" I asked for an example of how I use them wrong."
No you did not...must have been YOUR definition of the words said that, but you asked which ones, not how you used them wrong.
Thank you for providing a fine example of you misrepresentinig your own argument.
"Tell me one word I define wrong. And how your definition is better. "
How about this:
Tell me about one word I define wrong. What is wrong about it. And tell me how your definition is better.
And don't just lazily post words and dictate you use the dictionary's definition and I don't.
dala
You are still trying to win an argument that with your own post I proved to you that you were misrepresenting your own argument.
What have you mis defined?
""Tell me one word I define wrong. And how your definition is better"
Apparently to you that meant " Show me what words I misdefine and HOW I USE THEM WRONG, which your own statement DOES NOT SAY.
The example you wanted...look at the above post...you provided a fine example of your own misrepresentation.
FELLOW Bloggers... I am declaring a knockout blow to this argument that dala threw on himself.
Look at the above exchange and you tell me...did dala knock himself out here or not?
igaftr,
I was posting to someone else, and wanted them to tell me about the words I define wrong and explain their definition. Sorry if I didn't phrase that right. You jumped in when I was talking to 4 people at one times. I was hoping someone could clarify what they mean. Not just list words and insist I'm wrong with nothing to back it up.
Here is how I would define these words. Let me know if you have a problem with any of this.
Know – be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information / have developed a relationship with (someone) through meeting and spending time with them; be familiar or friendly with
Atheist – a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
religion -a particular system of faith and worship
belief – an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
indication – a sign or piece of information that indicates something.
angry – having a strong feeling of or showing annoyance, displeasure, or hostility; full of anger
science – the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
logic – reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
reason – a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event / the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
lie – a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
misrepresent – give a false or misleading account of the nature of.
Dalahäst
If we're playing with definitions, how about
Heretic = Any Christian who happens to disagree with my theological opinion. It helps if they're from a weak minority that can easily be slaughtered.
Why should anyone here care what some "urban dictionary" says?
That dictionary reveals some truths. It has some funny and right on comments about Christians, too.
internet atheist = "Atheist internet troll who is ignorant of science and logic while claiming strong adherence to the same; Atheist who contradicts themselves through poor reasoning, especially one who exhibits hypocrisy."
Who here are you thinking of that fits this part?
Add another stall to Noah's Ark. Scientists have just announced the discovery of the largest bird yet discovered. Pelagornis sandersi had a wingspan of 20-24 feet. It was discovered 31 years ago, while construction workers were digging for the Charleston, South Carolina airport.
According to scientists, it lived about 25 million years ago. According to nutjob creationists, it was created about 6,000 years ago along with all other 10,000 odd existing species of bird (not to mention extinct birds). It must have been quite a task for Noah and his half a dozen or so helpers to feed 20,000 birds every day – before they even got to the 5,400 mammal species pairs (many of whom, like lions and bears, were carnivores and would require THEIR food to be kept alive and fed on the ark); to the 8,240 known species pairs of reptiles (again, many of whom, like crocodiles and alligators, were carnivores and would require THEIR food to be kept alive and fed on the ark); to the 5,800 species pairs of amphibians, including carnivorous amphibians; to the 950,000 species of insects; and to the fish and other marine creatures that would not have survived a freshwater deluge.
A lot of work for one family!
And then, of course, we have the 375,000 known species of plants; fungi, micro-organisms, etc.
Creationists are super-stoopid.
My favourite counter-argument is when Creationists say that Noah didn't need two of every species, just two of every kind.
Unfortunately for the creationist, this means that they must accept the evolutionary concept of common descent with each extant species having come from an earlier, similar creature. Their timeline is seriously skewed as to be laughably rapid, but it kind of pops the anti-evolution balloon regardless....
HAHAHA lame argument.first of all...we do believe in MICRO evolution...cats always been cats....dogs always been dogs....no common ancestors...so no problem..only your weak and not thought out argument! we don't deny micro evolution..just the silly macro evolution science prorposes yet never proved (no transitional fossils-though they say they exist, they are not proven to be transitional)
"Micro" and "macro" evolution are obfuscatory terms made up by Creationists when they got backed into a corner and could no longer deny the demonstrable evidence of evolutionary adaptations.
It is akin to calling a raindrop "micro-moisture" and an ocean "macro-moisture".
Matter of degree – not principle.
At what point in the taxonomic tree does evolution stop?
Species, genus, family, order, class, phylum?
Dogs come from dogs – but from whence do mammals in general come? Did Noah have 2 of every creature in the class Mammalia with then, over the course of 4,000 years, split off into 20 orders, 153 families, 1,200 genera and 5.5 million species?
well see..ANY fool knows about size and capacity....and ANY fool would known what is possible to fit inside the ark and not...you make the writer out to be SO frigging stupid that he cant figure millions of animals can NOT fit in the Ark of that size..to make him STUPD enough to think that, his writings would be very irrational all the way thru..much less the Ark story...his wiritings would be very irrational about reoirting families lives (Abraham, Jospeh, etc etc) youwould not be able to understand ANYTHING said...think about it...no one is stupid enough to think millions or even 100s of thousand animals could fit onto the ark..even the ancient writers....
btw the terms genus, family, phyla, etc did NOT exist at the time of the writing of the bible...only in the last couple of centuries did it come about!
kermit
"cats always been cats....dogs always been dogs....no common ancestors"
Incorrect. Canides and felides had a common ancestor, and started to split around 65 million years ago. That is known.
There is no such thing as micro and macro evolution. Those are terms used by creationists... a smoke screen , nothing more. There is evolution and there is time. Large changes normally need more time as each cnahnge is normally slight, but not always. A major change in an environment can cause a more drastic change to a species.
Of course taxonomic classifications didn't exist thousands of years ago.
That doesn't mean that there was less biological diversity because it wasn't filed and sorted by mankind.
However – the taxonomic classifications are currently well defined, useful and proven to be accurate.
There are 5.5 thousand (sorry – million was an error earlier) species of mammal currently inhabiting the Earth.
How many species of mammal were on the ark? Or did Noah just take a "founder" pair from the Class Mammalia? If so, that means that what you label "macro-evolution" took place at blinding speeds over the last 4,000 years.
it does not say exactly what Noah took..the argumebnt by skeptics is foolish though..since they ASSUME that Noah took millions of animals..and thus it was not a true story....the problem is..ANY stupid idiot who writes can know there is no such way to fit that many animals on the ark...so thus "kind" did not mean as we think it did (or skeptics for that matter)...thus their argument is invaild
kermie: "..so thus "kind" did not mean as we think it did..."
It's probably good for you and your kind to recognize the frequent failings of your thinking. But are you sure you recognize it?
"kind:" is NOT a scientific term! as many spectics assume...and again....ANYONE who actually uses logic and reson and read the Book of Gensis can see this was NOT writen by an idiot who knows nothing (look at how he writes...its not babytalk or something..it is very clear and lucid) thus anyone with reason and logic would say that the writer did nOT believe that millions of animals or even hundreds of thousands can fit on the ark! its ridiculous!
HUH? Watchoo talkin' about Willis?
Micro and macro evolution are to each other what snoflakes are to an avalanche.
You talk about cats, but what of the platypus or the shoebill stork. Neither have any living animal relatives according to their DNA (the shoebill stork is not actually directly related to any species of stork or other known bird for that matter). A venomous duck billed beaver tailed mammal that lays eggs? Which species is the platypus directly related to?
kermit4jc,
Since the word "species" hadn't been coined then, how would you describe the MILLIONS of species without using the word "KIND"?
again it is OBVSIOUS that many could NOT fit on the ark and the author did NOT intend that! I mean this is stupid and ignroant reasoning by skeptics! The word kind....MAYBE perhapns like cat..and dog...one tyope of cat..one type of dog..etc...the thing is it is DEfniteLY not species and all
you got to use your brain ok? It is VERY obvious to ANY fool that millions of animals can NOT fit on to the ark...not even hyndreds of thousands! noobne is that stupid..even the ancients..the FACT is The author of Gensis gave PRECISE measurements of the Ark..and if he was smart enough to do that..then he is smart enough to have an idea how many animals would fit in the ark....I personally do NOT know exactly what is kind..but iit is obviously not phyla or such...
@Kermit
If we use the Bible and only the Bible as reference, there are around 120 "kinds" listed throughout the tome.
God said to snag 7 breeding pairs of clean animals, but only 1 set for the unclean critters, making for a bare minimum of 1320 animals.
Not including microscopic / prokaryotic life forms, there are around 1.2 million species definitively catalogued and around 8.7 million total species assumed to exist.
Granted, we don't specifically what the modern taxonomic correlation is to Biblical "kinds" – but given the sheer numbers, it cannot possibly be at the species level.
That would mean the animals of various "kinds" from Noah's Ark would have had to undergo massive, incredibly rapid speciation events in the last 4000 years to account for modern bio-diversity – it would be like hyper-evolution!
According to the BIble (remember, using the Bible as reference as you said) who caused the Flood? who created all the animals? God did...certainly getting more animals reproduced and evolved is childs play....
Yep. Looks like the MILLIONS and MILLIONS of others EVOLVED from those.
@Kermit
So when backed into a corner, your argument is "Cuz God is magic"?
But at least your response includes a tacit acceptance of the evolutionary principle of common descent.
A fine first step.
again NO macro evolution
no kermit. There is only evolution and there is time. The term macro and micro is only a smoke screen from creationists.
And you call others fools...ironic.
not a smoke screen at all...justbecause we have dogs evolving to different breeds, does NOTsipport that dogs and cats have common anceto...same with humans....there is NO common ancestor..NO fossils ha been found to be proven to be transitional forms..thus there IS a micro and a macro evolution....evolution is not merely evolution......
So we come back to the original point.
Since the Ark could not have held enough species to account for current biological diversity, at what level of the taxonomic tree are the Biblical "kinds"? What you term "macro-evolution" would have to have occurred at breakneck speed if "kinds" means genus...
The only other explanation would be that the Ark was actually a TARDIS and was bigger on the inside – something that is most assuredly not mentioned, or even peripherally alluded to in the Bible.
Yes – it's difficult to reason with someone who believes that God brought all the animals to Noah; and was able to snap his manly fingers and create new species at an alarming rate. Of course such a God would have been able to puff up the flat earth into a sphere as soon as His population expansion project reached the appropriate stage... Of course this would be the same God who loosed the Devil on His experiment – just at the right time to perform some plagiarism in reverse time order to try to fool and test his believers...
Doris.
This same magical god that could do all of those things couldn't have found a more efficient way of killing everything. He had to make 5 times the water on the planet appear and disappear, had a guy build a giant boat with stone tools that would have crumbled under the forces of the water rising at a rate of 6 inches per minute, somehow got every animal to the ark, and then somehow dispersed tham throughout the world, and somehow after killing all other life on the planet, populated all the plant and single celled organisms, re-creating all of the needed food chains so the remaining few life forms would actually survive after the flood, then leave absolutely no trace anywhere of this major worldwide cataclysm, and then remove all of the water that the planet never had to begin with, and get the oceans conveyers going again. He could do all those things, but could find an easier way to accomplish his "cleansing of the worlds wickedness".
It is a story for children.
We know it didn't happen on this planet, and shows this god as very, very weak if he couldn't find a better solution than doing all of those impossible tasks. Like simply filling everyone lungs with water, or stopping oxygen from bonding, effectively killing everything with no need for all of the theatrics.
This same magical god that could do all of those things couldn’t have found a more efficient way of killing everything.<–such arrogance...youthink God worried abotu EFFECIEnCY? he does the way HE chooses..not yours..You are not all knowing like God..You don tknow the purpose..who are You to arrogantly say god didnt do it "effeciently" whos to say god was looking for effeciency? this shows you are arrogant
no kermit...not arrogant...practical.
Men made your god out to sound like a vindictive monsterous thing. The whole story of Noah doesn't make any sense at all, and I could come up with thousands of ways to kill everything on the planet that would not require this "god" to break so many laws of physics, and then have SOOOO many of the planets system destroyed and he would have to start all of them again, the oceans conveyers, the food chains etc....come on kermit, the whole story is absurd and OBVIOUSLY made up by men...for children. Too much has been proven wrong kermit. It did not happen, not on this planet anyway.
GOD was NOT concerned with being practical..You are....He has OTHER ideas that YOu don't know about! He has aplan..not you....thus you ARE arrogant to try to tell God how to do it when YOU don't know the whole purpose!
Too much has been proven wrong kermit. It <-noting proven wrong..youre basing your arguments that you think God is more concerned with pratical ways and having to be limited by laws of physics..laws that HE created!
kermit
Yes...proven wrong. There has never been a world wide flood since life began, at least on this planet. The whole story is absurd, and meant for children.
I laugh when Christians say that atheists are arrogant because they don't believe in a god. Oh the irony!
Christians believe that their imaginary sky daddy created this entire universe just for them. It's the ultimate conceited, narcissistic, self absorbed, arrogant view!
Atheists believe in all that is proven and visible and factual. We know that we are just beings that inhabit this universe and make up a tiny blip in time and space. We know our place, without all the Christians' delusions of grandeur!
Christians believe that their imaginary sky daddy created this entire universe just for them. It’s the ultimate conceited, narcissistic, self absorbed, arrogant view!<-–yes..it is a very bad thing to consider yourself loved...its very arrogant to think that..we are special NOT of our own doing...THAT isnOT arrogance...to think the entire universe was made forus based on what we do is arrogant..I would agree...but it is WHO we are (not of our own doing)
The best reasons not to list your religion on your resume:
(bringing the contemporary NT scholars to the masses without any cost to them)
Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.
• There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.
• There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.
• There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.
• Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.
• Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.
• A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings (angels?, tinkerbells? etc) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.
Added details were previously presented.
A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.
e.g. Taoism
"The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.
Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother's womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. "
If you are going to allow Monica7c to continue to post videos, how about opening it up for the rest of us?
And what is the deal with posting an article about the pope but not allowing comments? This is still a blog, right?
It would be nice to comment on the new article on Pope Frank and his lip service to abuse victims but alas CNN has shut off comments for some reason. I will start the thread here.
The PR Pope is apparently full of it....he is only concerned about protecting the image of the criminal organization known as the RCC. Here is what the vatican told the Australian gov't. "The Vatican has declined a royal commission request to hand over docu.ments about child se.xual abuse committed by Catholic priests in Australia."
The Pope article fits better if this article were simply tltled "Why you should leave religion..."
More than likely it is a computer glitch. Commentary on CNN is available by going to the end of the Full Story.
I like the throne. The servant of the servants of God. The servants do well there apparently.
People have a fear of the unknown,” said Michael Wallach...........................
In that lies the beginning of gods....fear of the unknown and the quick answer to everything else and later RELIGIONS ADDED SHAME AND GUILT TO CONTROL THE MASSES...why not...it's quick, easy and takes no time to just say something stupid like.....IT'S THE HAND OF GOD or THERE IS NO POWER GREATER THAN GODS...GOD IS WATCHING.
“The Barbarian hopes — and that is the mark of him, that he can have his cake and eat it too.He will consume what civilization has slowly produced after generations of selection and effort, but he will not be at pains to replace such goods, nor indeed has he a comprehension of the virtue that has brought them into being. Discipline seems to him irrational, on which account he is ever marvelling that civilization, should have offended him with priests and soldiers.... In a word, the Barbarian is discoverable everywhere in this, that he cannot make: that he can befog and destroy but that he cannot sustain; and of every Barbarian in the decline or peril of every civilization exactly that has been true.
We sit by and watch the barbarian. We tolerate him in the long stretches of peace, we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence; his comic inversion of our old certi.tudes and our fixed creed refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond, and on these faces there are no smiles.”
― Hilaire Belloc
Is that some kind of support for a god?
"RELIGIONS ADDED SHAME AND GUILT TO CONTROL THE MASSES"
– not at all, only the stupidity of making claims like these. civilization has long recognized that for safety and security of all there has to be a social contract. part and parcel to that social contract is a central authority to whom a measure of human rights are ceded to in order that peace and order be established. this is a secular contractual system and not religious. read Hobbes,Grotius, Rousseau and others to get the full narrative.
@ santa “RELIGIONS ADDED SHAME AND GUILT TO CONTROL THE MASSES” nothing wrong with guilt..UNLESS it is used wrongly..GUILT CAN be good..it helps us to realize the wrong we have done and (GOOD guilt) would move us to COREECT the wrong and still hold our value, our worth as a human being..Bad guilt is the one that makes us unworthy....the Bible does not support this..for if we were unworthy..god would nOT have done a thing...he would have just let us all die...but in Romans it says "For God showed us His love in this While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" if God didn't think we were worthy..he would not have sent Jesus to die for us....God didn't wait for us to "get better" (whil we were still sinners) He sent Jesus! THAT shows WORTH!
awanderingscot
"civilization has long recognized that for safety and security of all there has to be a social contract. part and parcel to that social contract is a central authority"
Fortunately for our nation, that central authority is not God and the Bible.
JD Crossan notes from his book, Who is Jesus–
"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."
@scot: "human rights are ceded to in order that peace and order be established."
LMFAO! now that is funny.
you know why? look up the war-popes starting from the year 300 and progress forward.
not much peace in war........well minus those that are dead, they get peace.
Silly wabbit!... religious tricks for for kids!
Reality,
I don't agree with Crossman, but if you've read his stuff, you will note he believes Jesus literally healed people.
Robert Brown,
In days of old, snake oil salesmen and fake faith healers were common.
Robert Brown
Don't doctors and nurses literally heal people too?
Observer,
The religious rulers in that day didn't deny that Jesus healed people either.
Kudlak,
Medical pros certainly help people.
So you think religion is valuable because it's "useful". You do know Utilitarianism is a slippery slope. The "central" authority humans in 2014 share is our common humanity. See the UN Charter on Human Rights. No ancient deities are needed in 2014.
"The religious rulers in that day didn't deny that Jesus healed people either"
- There were all sorts of miracle workers wandering around at the time. "Doing miracles" was hardly unique to your wandering preacher man. They were a dime a dozen.
NONE of them claimed to be God and backed up the claims with miracles..and NONE of them had eyewitnesses to death and having been resurrected, except JESUS! He is the exception...
It's Crossan. You say you know what he thinks, but can't spell his name correctly ? Really ?
And why is Crossan being brought into this ? Is it germane to the topic ?
Is that ALL you can Reality is copy paste from your vast library. You do realize no one reads your stuff.
It is called bringing NT scholars to the masses at no cost to them.
kermit4jc
All we have are stories of Jesus claiming for himself to be God and performing miracles. We also only have stories that there were eyewitnesses to these things. Stories written by believers with the intention of either supporting the faith of other believers, or creating new converts. That's all we have in the New Testament.
Most scholars don't accept that Josephus' later comments of his "surprising deeds" and "marvels" were entirely his. Besides, he could just be repeating hearsay, like he supposedly does while reporting about Hercules as though he was also a historical figure. Josephus and Tacitus both wrote that the only person who could claim to be the Messiah of the Jewish people was Vespasian, and there are historical accounts of him performing curing miracles.
Besides, there were other wandering miracle workers operating at the same time as Jesus. Some of the stories we have about Jesus may have originally come from those sources. Who can say? Well-loved heroic figures tend to attract such stories. Just look at what people were saying about Elvis and Davy Crockett while they were still alive!
kermit4jc
All we have are stories of Jesus claiming for himself to be God and performing miracles. We also only have stories that there were eyewitnesses to these things. Stories written by believers with the intention of either supporting the faith of other believers, or creating new converts. That’s all we have in the New Testament.
we have only stories about other ancients..so what? and you say "most scholars" i find that to be a false and old news statement..in other words...you need to update your info..many are now reconsidering the evidence brought by Jospehus..and the hearsay stuff...ALL hisotry writers are hearsay then..and thus we should discount ALL stories of ancients! Second..again Jesus was unique in his claims of ALSO being God in using his miracles..second..the ressureciton account is most reliable of all ancient texts! Jesus was seen dead and burued..his body is NO longer in the tomb..yuocant compare this to elvis! cause ALL one has to do is dig his body up to prove he is dead...Jesus body isgone..its alive...and no it did not decompoise within 3 days or get eaten up by dogs and such.....thats very weak and depserate arguments by people who dont want to believe such a thing
kermit4jc
Other stories of the ancients are called "mythology", are they not? "Mythology" only because they aren't popularly believed-in anymore, but once they were, correct? What's the difference then between an ancient pagan and an ancient Christian? Both believed in what they did, but one set of beliefs is still popular. That's all.
What is generally accepted as "historical" is supported by archeological evidence and multiple attestation. You have to remember that some scholars still argue whether Socrates was a real person. The big difference is that it really wouldn't change anyone's worldview dramatically if this ancient history proved to be incorrect, unlike religious assumptions.
Other people had either claimed to be the Messiah, or were claimed to be the guy by others. Plenty of them were also said to have done miraculous things. It was a prerequisite to the job, correct?
Elvis was "seen" by plenty of his fans after he died too. Most people account for this as some kind of hysterical delusion sparked from the loss of such a believed character. Surely, Jesus' close followers loved him more than Elvis's fans loved their idol?
Do you seriously think that the only explanation for Jesus' body disappearing is the miraculous one?
OINE can go to elvis' grave and dig it up to find he truly is dead.....and there is only one answer for the "missing body" He rose from the grave..ALL other explanaitons are debunked...no one would steal the body (NO reason) people went to wrong tomb (Jospehus knew where his tomb is-could have checked it out) I mean..sersiously..what other explanation is there? and the FACT that others saw Jesus, touched him ate with him.spoke with him....to compare this to Elvis sightings is poor and comparing apples to oranges...
kermit4jc
"no one would steal the body (NO reason)"
lol. Please start trying to insert LOGIC in your statements.
His followers could have stolen his body as "proof he went to heaven" to fool gullible people. They could have also stolen it to keep it away from detractors who might have ridiculed or further desecrated it or just used it as an example of HOW DEAD he was..
Please TRY harder. THINK!!
MY God you got NO logic! first iof all..they didn't KNOW he would resurrect! Second of all...NO ONE dies for something they KNEW to be a lie! LOOK at what the disciples went thru! Crucifixion, stoning etc etc! NO ONE would WILLING:LY go thru that for something they KNEW to be a lie! you are so illogical...YOU should be the one thinking..plus again..they could have PRODUCED the body if they mocved it or such....slow down...think things through before you type here ok?
kermit4jc,
I supplied THREE quick rebuttals to your claim that there was "NO REASON" why anyone would steal the body.
Your response was to go off on a tangent about why he would die.
READ before desperately looking for EXCUSES.
who is the "he?"
Your response was to go off on a tangent about why he would die.<-who is the "he?"
My mistake. I meant "they".
If Jesus was just a corpse lying around, they had little to use to argue with to possible save their lives.
They NEEDED him gone to help them.
Just something else you DIDN'T think of.
"they needed him gone to help them" explain what you mean by that....are you saying they took the body to make it look like he rose from the dead?
kermit4jc,
I'm not SAYING that's what happened. Like you and everyone else, we all have NO PROOF of what happened.
What I am saying is that if the disciples were in as much hot water as you say and there is a dead, smelly corpse laying around for everyone to ridicule, it was going to make things even worse for those guys.
HOWEVER.....there is EVIDEnCE of the church growing Immediately after death of Jesus..when people started poreaching Jesus was resurrected! Hardly ANY scholar denies the church "exploded" in growth ....they preached Jesus resurrected! so then ..adding THAT fact to the argument..the disciples could nOT have stolen the body!
kermit4jc
"they preached Jesus resurrected! so then ..adding THAT fact to the argument..the disciples could nOT have stolen the body!'
lol. The disciples wanted the church to expand. They certainly COULD NOT AFFORD to have a corpse around.
Of course they could have stolen his corpse to increase their chances of living longer themselves since so many people were ready to harm them as you indicated.
Try again using LOGIC please.
LET me sk you this..you think ANYONE would actually die for something they KNEW to be a lie? do YOU think the disciples would willingly be crucified and go thru horrible torture and execution for preaching something they KNEW to be a lie?
kermit4jc
"LET me sk you this..you think ANYONE would actually die for something they KNEW to be a lie? do YOU think the disciples would willingly be crucified and go thru horrible torture and execution for preaching something they KNEW to be a lie?"
Where they TOLD this would happen BEFORE it happened?
If not, your question is irrelevent.
If so, it adds even more credibility that they ABSOLUTELY DID NOT WANT a body laying around.
OMG that silly question...the fact that Jesus was killed should convince them..and even if thaty wasn't it...they COULD have renounced their faith anhd dsaid it was a LIE...but they ALL went to their deaths proclaiming the NEWS! my goodness...YOU are the one not thinking this through....Jesus was executed for his "brand" of preaching..the disciples kept it up! they would KNOW the consequences! sheesh
kermit4jc,
You are so busy trying to make excuses, you aren't thinking.
Again, the disciples had ZERO CREDIBILITY if the freshly killed body of Jesus was laying around and rotting for everyone to see. One way or another they HAD TO HAVE NO BODY laying around. It was to their advantage if they made sure there was NO CORPSE.
There is also NO PROOF that others didn't remove it, like his mother or others who loved him. Again, NO ROTTING BODY should be left.
and then YOU are NOW admitting the disciples would DIE horrible deaths for something they KNEW to be a lie...does NOT sound logical to me
BTW the "rotting corpse" was in a tomb..wasn't left anywhere
kermit4jc,
This is ridiculous. So now you are trying to PRETEND that his distractors could not POSSIBLY get into the tomb to ridicule a decaying body.
THINK!!!!
NOT as ridiculous as yo usaying the disciples would willingly die for something they knew to be a lie...besides....there was no hint of anyone wanting to ridicule the body
kermit4jc
"and then YOU are NOW admitting the disciples would DIE horrible deaths for something they KNEW to be a lie..."
I was using YOUR COMMENTS.
Please PAY ATTENTION.
kermit4jc
You could find a body in Elvis' grave, but that probably wouldn't convince his most ardent fans, especially the ones who "saw" him after he had supposedly died. No amount of counter-evidence is enough to win over some people who were eyewitnesses to something wondrous, be it Elvis sightings, UFO abductions, miracles, or Jesus rising from the dead.
The important thing is that you can still interview some of the people who saw Elvis, where all we have are stories of eyewitnesses to Jesus' rising to go by. That's the apples vs. oranges comparison, and not in your favour.
Why wouldn't someone steal the body? There's something fishy about a group of women going to a presumably sealed tomb without men-folk with levers to unseal it so they could go about their purpose. Why did they wrap him in healing aloes instead of the usual treatments for the dead? Why did they give him something just before he was pronounced dead by the same Roman soldier who also proclaimed him the Son of God, indicating that he was a follower? They didn't even break his legs, as was customary to ensure death. He was only on the cross for hours, while the typical victim could be up there for days of slow, agonizing torture. Really, it doesn't take any degree of conspiracy theorizing to find leeway for a Jesus who wasn't even fully dead after coming off of the cross.
the elvis analogy does ntwork...people are nOT dying or threatened with death for saying they saw Elvis.....frankly, IM tired ofthis Elvis thing since it is comparing apples to oranges...differing times, events, situaitons, political climate..etc etc
sir..apparnelty yuohave NO clue whathapens to the body with FLOGGING AND crucifixion..when Jesus wason the cross..he was ALREADY incritical condition! plus....the accounts did nOT say he drank anything, he was only OFFERED it, and the accounts do NOY say it was same centurion, PLUS>..that stamen the Roman soldier gave does NOT indicate he was a follower! He was only making an observation! and also the romans were well trained in what they do..they made sure the prisoner was dead (yeah, I know they were not doctors, but they done thei jobs long enough to know when a personhas died) IMsorry..but you are leaving out TONS of info...if ALL the info was what YOumentioned..sure..it could sound fishy..but again you skimped out a lot of stuff....(the fogging, btw was not just some leather whips....but whips with sharp metal, bones and balls embedded, thus it causes extreme injuries, some peoplehave died from theflogging alone-what with the greatblood loss and all) thatdoesnot even take into account Jesus condition Before the flogging..being awake more than 24 hours, no food or water over 12 hours....come on man
Total fail. Conan wasn't like that.
so which Barbed tribe are we talking here
Boii
Cotini
Eravisci
Latobrigi
Lugii
Osi
Scordisci
Tulingi
Varciani
Vindelici
Volcae
Anani
Anares
Carni
Cenomani
Comasci
Graioceli
Insubres
Lepontii
Lingones
Orobii
Salassi
Segusini
Senones
Taurini
Veneti
Vertamocorii
Abrincatui
Adenates
Aedui/Haedui
Adunicates
Agenisates/Angesinates
Agnutes
Albici
Allobroges/Allobriges
Ambarri
Ambibarii/Ambivarii
Ambiliates/Ambilatres
Anagnutes
Andecamulenses
Andecavi/Andes – Angers
Antobroges
Armoricani/Aremoricii
Arverni
Arvii
Atacini – Aussière
Atesui
Aulerci (tribal confederation)
Avantices
Avatici – Camargue
Baiocasses – Bayeux
Bebryces (gauls)
Belendi
Belgae[
Bipedimui/Pimpedunni
Bituriges Cubi – Bourges
Bituriges Vivisci – Bordeaux (Burdigala)
Bodiontici
Boui
Boiates
Bramovices
Briganii
Cadurci
Caeresi
Cambolectres
Carnutes
Catalauni
Caturiges
Cavari
Ceutrones/Centrones
Chalbici
Coriosolites/Curiosolitae
Corisopiti
Edenates
Eleuterii
Elycoces
Epomandui
Esubii/Esuvii/Sesuvii
Euburiates
Gaesatae/Gaesati
Garites
Garumni
Geloni
Graioceli/Garocelli
La Tène
Helvii/Elvi
Iconii – Gap
Insubres
Lemovices
Lexovii
Lingones
Mandubii
Medulli
Médoc
Meldi
Namnetes – Nantes
Nantuates/Nantuatae
Nemalones
Nemeturii
Nitiobroges/Nitiobriges
Osismii
Parisii – Paris
Périgueux
Pictones/Pictavi – Poitiers
Quariates
Raurici/Rauraci
Redones – Rennes
Reieni
Ruteni – Rodez
Sagii
Salyes/Salluvii
Santones – Saintes
Savincates
Seduni
Segovellauni
Segusiavi/Segobriges
Segusini
Senates
Senones – Sens
Sentienes – Senez
Sequani – Besançon
Tornates/Turnates
Tricasses/Tricassini
Tricorii
Triviatii
Trones
Turones/Turoni
Uberii/Viberii
Unelli/Venelli
Vadicasses
Veamini
Vediantii
VRuessium
Vannes
Veragri
Vergunni
Veroduni
Vertamocori
Vesubiani
Viducasses
Vocontii
Volcae Arecomici
Volcae Tectosages
look im only a 3rd into the list my point is Barbarian is an offensive term please next time that term is to be used just think about how many variance tribes and different cultures are under that umbrella.
for the full list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Celtic_tribes
So is there no role for imagination to help people handle the fear of the unknown and the fear of forces greater than themselves? Of course, research, study, experience are good ways to address the unknown, but to what extent is it practical to address all potentially fearable unknowns in this way?
Quran says (Islamic Scripture)
“Does the human being not see that we created him from a tiny drop, then he turns into an ardent enemy?” [36:77]
“He raises a question to us – while forgetting his initial creation – "Who can resurrect the bones after they had rotted?" [36:78]
“Say, "The One who initiated them in the first place will resurrect them. He is fully aware of every creation." [36:79]
“Is not the One who created the heavens and the earth able to recreate the same? Yes indeed; He is the Creator, the Omniscient.” [36:81]
“All He needs to do to carry out any command is to say to it, "Be," and it is.” [36:82]
“O people, here is a parable that you must ponder carefully: the idols you set up beside God can never create a fly, even if they banded together to do so. Furthermore, if the fly steals anything from them, they cannot recover it; weak is the pursuer and the pursued.” [22:73]
“They do not value God as He should be valued. God is the Most Powerful, the Almighty.”[22:74]
“If you obey the majority of people on earth, they will divert you from the path of God. They follow only conjecture; they only guess.” [Quran 6:116]
“The example of Jesus, as far as GOD is concerned, is the same as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he was.” Quran [3:59]
“It does not befit God that He begets a son, be He glorified. To have anything done, He simply says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” [19:35]
Thanks for taking time to read my post. Please take a moment to visit whyIslam org website.
The Koran also says:
o "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
o
"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)
"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)
"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:29-)
"It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-)
"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)
"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)
"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)
"Say: 'Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom..." (Surah 17:111)
"'How shall I bear a child,' she [Mary] answered, 'when I am a virgin...?' 'Such is the will of the Lord,' he replied. 'That is no difficult thing for Him...God forbid that He [God[ Himself should beget a son!...Those who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,' preach a monstrous falsehood..." (Surah 19:12-, 29-, 88)
"Fight for the cause of God with the devotion due to Him...He has given you the name of Muslims..." (Surah 22:78-)
"Blessed are the believers...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)...These are the heirs of Paradise..." (Surah 23:1-5-)
"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)
"Shall the reward of goodness be anything but good?...Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents...They shall recline on green cushions and fine carpets...Blessed be the name of your Lord..." (Surah 55:52-66-)
Quran (8:12) – "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Quran (9:5) – "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
And for those Muslims who want to escape, a cure for your situation:
From the studies of Armstrong, Rushdie, Hirsi Ali, Richardson and Bayhaqi----–
The Five Steps To Deprogram 1400 Years of Islamic Myths:
( –The Steps take less than two minutes to finish- simply amazing, two minutes to bring peace and rationality to over one billion lost souls- Priceless!!!)
Are you ready?
Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.
The First Five of the 77 Branches:
"1. Belief in Allah"
aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc. should be added to your self-cleansing neurons.
"2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."
Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gi-b G-nab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "crea-tionist".
"3. To believe in the existence of angels."
A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/de-vils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hitt-ites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ug-ly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as f–airies and "tin–ker be-lls". Modern de-vils are classified as the de-mons of the de-mented.
"4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."
Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.
Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the un-educated masses in line. Today we call them for-tune tellers.
Prophecies are also invali-dated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.
"5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."
Mohammed spent thirty days "fasting" (the Ramadan legend) in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic vi-olence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallu-cinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.
Walk these Five Steps and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!
Unfortunately, there are not many Muslim commentators/readers on this blog so the "two-minute" cure is not getting to those who need it. If you have a Muslim friend, send him a copy and help save the world.
Analogous steps are available at your request for deprogramming the myths of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Paganism..
Quran is also a terror user guide for many people.
imagine that..someone trying to misdrepresent me..I am not referring to the Bible....and I did not say "as much" I said MORE
kermit4jc
"imagine that..someone trying to misdrepresent me.."
WOW! You are the one who CLAIMS to know what is really going on in the mind of MILLIONS of gays who claim they were born that way, but you KNOW BETTER.
You are the one who CLAIMS to know what is really going on in the minds of TWO MILLION women so you know they made their abortion decisions based on CONVENIENCE.
SKIP the HYPOCRISY. The victim card doesn't work for someone so HYPOCRITICAL.
You are the one who CLAIMS to know what is really going on in the minds of TWO MILLION women so you know they made their abortion decisions based on CONVENIENCE.<–apparently you dnot like to look at reports and statisctics..I get this from women ADMITTING to it! I look at reports and statistics..would you like to see them..or are you too afraid of truth? as for gays..its NOT a matter simp;ly of reading the mind..the OTHER factor is the genetics as well..or lack thereof.......try to think before you open your mouth (or in this casem, type) no hypocricy..youre comparing apples to oranges
kermit4jc,
Do you ever read what is written before throwing away all LOGIC?
You were the one to say TWO MILLION women did it for convenience. I even said that many didn't.
Oooops.
I said it because of statistics and reports from the women themselves..ok?
correction – I said that many TOOK ADVANTAGE.
Ooops.
Women do not have to justify their choices to believers, whose ONLY argument is the attempt to impose their belief in "souls" onto others. This is not a theocracy. Keep your religion in your pants. Abortion is legal.
A human zygote is no more a "person" than a human skin cell.
right..and thanjks again for your confirming my thoughts that you have no real value in life of humans....even human zygotes.....
kermit4jc
"I said it because of statistics and reports from the women themselves..ok?"
Please supply ANY statistics that show that TWO MILLION women had abortions just because they were CONVENIENT? None did it for any other reasons, so show the statistics you have.
right..and thanks again for your confirming my thoughts that you have no real value in life of humans....even human zygotes..
No one cares what you think, or what goes on in your chaotic mind.
YOU are the one who devalues human life. YOU equate clumps of undifferentiated cells with human persons.
You also FAILED to explain why a zygote, which is LESS a "human" than a DIFFERENTIATED skin cell has more value. Your Presuppositionalism is showing again. Those who value what is REALLY fully human actually show MORE care and value for it, than those who devalue it by pretending to value ANY old human type of cell. A zygote is not a "person". It has no brain, no neural tube, no nervous system. It's a potential person. The ONLY reason you demand people agree with your simple-minded crap, is that you insist zygotes have souls. You still have never told us when EXACTLY "life" starts.
Life starts at conception Bucky. The only reason abortion is legal in this country is because one judge used foreign law as a basis to interpret ours.
Robert Brown
"The only reason abortion is legal in this country is because one judge "
ONE judge? lol. lol. lol. lol. lol. lol. lol.
Yet somehow YOU cannot define what "life starts at conception" even means. The simplistic notion that the entire structure of US law rests on ONE judge's decision when 1/2 the country is in favor of a woman's right to choose belies your simple-minded NEED for childish black/white an'alysis.
Robert Brown,
Life begins BEFORE conception. Please take a basic biology class.
Pick one and defend it. You can't. Then explain how a clump of cells with no brain, no neural tube, and no nervous system is a human. And while you're at it, define what a "human being" is.
a. sperm approaches egg ?
b. 1st electron of sperm cell enters electron cloud of egg cell ?
c. sperm contacts egg wall ?
d. sperm 1/2 way into egg ?
e. sperm entirely in egg ?
f. DNA of sperm contacts DNA of egg ?
g. DNA replication begins ?
h. DNA replication 0.567534521897 % complete ?
i. 1st DNA replication complete, (poof..soul enters) ?
j. 2nd DNA completes ?
k. zygote forms ?
l. zygote multiplies ?
m. zygote begins to travel ?
l. zygote approaches endometrial wall ?
m. zygote touches endometrial wall ?
n. zygote implants in endometrial wall ?
@Robert Brown,
"Life starts at conception... "
What's your basis for this conclusion?
kermit4jc
If you're saying that abortion is being done just out of convenience, aren't you implying that carrying a pregnancy to full term and delivering is just an "inconvenience"?
I'm curious, have you ever went up to any woman who delivered and told her that?
If you’re saying that abortion is being done just out of convenience, aren’t you implying that carrying a pregnancy to full term and delivering is just an “inconvenience”?<-don't ask me..ask the women who say this...THEy say it is convenient for them...ask them...
Observer,
It has been a while, but that was my take away after reading the majority opinion. Give it a read and see what you think.
Robert Brown,
If your wife/sister/daughter/mother required an abortion to save their life, would you tell them "you have NO CHOICE so you're going to die" or DO YOU SUPPORT ABORTION?
And once again, it comes down to the Brutal Effects of Stupidity. Don't be Stupid!! Practice safe se-x. Details previously presented.
"right..and thanjks again for your confirming my thoughts that you have no real value in life of humans....even human zygotes....."
50% of human zygotes are spontaneously aborted. Seems that your deity who "intelligently designed" things has the most disrespect for human zygotes, now doesn't it.
comparing apples to oranges...GOD reserves right to take life..WE DONT....sheesh....cant tget that can you? God is nOT a human being like us
But then there is this:
From Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous Catholic theologian, his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)
"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .
"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.
Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."
Sounds to me that Schillebeeckx was working his way out of his cultism towards using his own brain. That nonsense makes no more sense than the nonsense of what preceded it. (It also refutes "omniscience"). The same as Bonhoeffer was : "The god who is with us, is the god who forsakes us" (Letters and Papers from Prison). Why not just dump the entire business onto the trash heap of discarded ancient paradigms ?
Regarding the human zygote destruction argument, an atheist cannot use it since there is no god to blame. To an atheist, evolution and the environment we live in are the major causes of miscarriages.
Also, for all of us, valuing human life in all its forms is very important and that is why having intercourse should not be taken as some no-precautions-taken exercise. As Jesse Jackson once noted (obviously he did not follow his own advice), " the problem today is that there is no discourse before intercourse".
Indeed, Schillebeeckx, a liberal, Catholic theologian concluded that his god was not omniscient. Unfortunately, he passed away before making the needed conclusion that there is no god. JD Crossan, an ex-Catholic priest, historian, author, and theologian, is still with us but still he cannot let go of his god. Gerd Ludemann, German professor, NT historian and author and former Protestant is still with us and after searching for his god, failed and is now an atheist.
As an added note: Crossan has concluded, based on his extensive studies of the historical Jesus, that only about 30% of the NT is historically viable. Ludemann has concluded that only 5% of the NT is historically viable. Their analyses are published in their many books on the subject.
Regarding the human zygote destruction argument, an atheist cannot use it since there is no god to blame.
Wrong. An atheist can use any argument he/she wants. The POINT is, *if there were a god* then it WOULD be the most active abortionist. No one is saying there IS one. It's simply pointing out an inconsistency *IF* the presumptions of believers is true. It's perfectly valid to point out inconsistencies in OTHER'S positions.
And BTW, Reality, it's no more invalid than YOU using an argument from Christian theologians.
Au contraire, I am simply pointing out what a least one contemporary Christian theologian noted to add to the needed discussion about the existence of god. Unfortunately, he is no longer with us. If he was, you could debate him as to the viability of his god. I am convinced there is no god.
Regarding the horrors of abortion and STDs and how to dramatically reduce the numbers of sufferers, see the Brutal Effects of Stupidity, previously presented.
"Regarding the horrors of abortion and STDs and how to dramatically reduce the numbers of sufferers, see the Brutal Effects of Stupidity, previously presented."
I had nothing to say with respect to any of the above, thus it is totally irrelevant. You said I could not raise an argument from a belief standpoint, then you did precisely the same thing. I have no wish to argue with dead theologians, and THAT is not the point. The POINT is, if it is valid for YOU to use believers and their POV, it is also for others. You seem to have a problem following the argument AT HAND. I realize your schtick is to always resort to your vast library of copy-pasta, but occasionally it's necessary to actually address the point at hand.
And the point at hand is valuing human life in all its forms, from the zygote to our coffins, whether you are atheist or a theist. Without said valuing, we come quickly to the Brutal Effects of Stupidity where we are now followed potentially by the slippery slope of genocide.
kermit4jc
"GOD reserves right to take life..WE DONT....sheesh"
Yep. God doesn't have morals like he COMMANDS us to follow. Just more HYPOCRISY. DO as I say, not as I do.
WZON..it is BEZCAUSE he has moral..PLUS again HE is JUDGE..we don't..WE are nOT perfect..he is..and we have nOT given all life..HE DOES>...youre misrepresenting me and using only part of my argument and leaving out more key factors...your argument is weak
kermie kermie kermie, so much to respond to so little time.
roe vs wade is law, reason beat religion.
more and more courts are over turning "man-woman" only marriage laws to legalize same gender marriage.
proof of "the garden of eden"
............well that's an easy one.
eden was an alien space craft that bio-engineered humans from the dominant species of giantopithocus that dreweled on the surface. HA HA.
so what???
God is like an abusive angry parent.
Nope..God is JUDGE and He is angry to sin.....nothing wrong with being angry....God gave the people choice..they chose life without Him and they get nothing..for they cannot find it elsewhere
kermit4jc
It's called "Family Planning", and shouldn't we be applauding women for knowing when they are best prepared to raise and support children rather than reproducing irresponsibly, increasing the number of children raised in poverty and neglect?
killing humans under the guise of "family planning" faily planning should start RiGHT from the outset..if they cant handle it..don't do the crime....se x is a good thing...but it needs to be handles responsibly..NOT recklessly to the opint humans get killed over it! I stil don't know why you all cant even support that kind of family planning? andf if the child does get conceived...take care of it..let it be born..btw the poverty thing is a propaganda...people are not so poor they cant do it.......again start right from the very beginning
God is "angry" ? Really ? So then she isn't eternal after all. How interesting. Can't be both now can she.
kermit4jc
".don't do the crime."
So, this is more about the morality of women having se x lives outside of your rules than saving "children". At the end of the day, this is always what the anti-choice argument boils down to; the utter disgust that women can escape the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy as easily as most men do.
Tell me, if you're so set on saving children then you must be in favour of free health care to any pregnant woman and the mandatory harvesting of organs from dead infants. Anything to save a baby, right?
Q: Why you should leave religion off your resume?
A: It is called common sense.
It's like asking; Why you should leave your se.xual preferences off your resume.
I'm not sure why you'd put anything like this on your resume unless it pertained to the position you're applying for; it's relevant to your education; or includes a past job.
Hey topher
Is this your kind of teacher ?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/05/atlanta-biology-teacher-evolution-from-satan-and-the-cause-of-racism-divorce-gay-people/
I believe much of that is true, yes.
The lesson was not vetted and yanked from the class topher .go figure.
Am I supposed to be shocked that people who reject God don't want this in a classroom?
The devil made you do it as the teachers says right topher? (according to her resume? )
IM ure there are Christians out there wo do say "devil made me do it" I personally know no one who believes in that crock...Bible doesn't even support it
What?
You cannot possibly believe that evolution is the cause of racism and gay people....can you ?
midwest rail
I think belief in evolution leads people to think these things are acceptable. If you hold a Biblical worldview there's only one race, so ...
Ooooooooooooookay.
Survival of the fittest.
noahsdadtopher,
MILLIONS of people used their biblical views to support racism.
Which Bible verse supports racism?
noahsdadtopher,
Millions used Noah's horrible treatment of Ham to claim that blacks were bad.
What does one have to do with the other? Ham was Noah's son. He'd be the same color.
Sounds like isogesis reading ... which would be wrong.
evolution teaches the necessity of diversity to a healthy life
it does not teach racism.
Christianity that teaches racism every racist has linked their belief to one of the Abrahamic tradition.
pagan an secular beliefs are inherently non racist., the allow for acceptance in all walk of life.
noahsdadtopher,
As a slave, some apparently equated this with being black. The bible was used to oppose interracial marriages with a similar EXCUSE.
Don't ask me to find logic in what some Christians think.
observer
"As a slave, some apparently equated this with being black. The bible was used to oppose interracial marriages with a similar EXCUSE."
Well, if I wanted to, I could find a verse to support whatever I wanted. The problem is, there's no verse in the Bible that backs up racism. What is does teach is that there is only one race — human. We are all descendants of Adam.
"Don't ask me to find logic in what some Christians think."
On this we agree. This is the problem with "the modern Gospel." It's isogesis ... basically holding a position and then finding a verse that you can use to "match" that position. This is a horribly wrong way to read scripture.
noahsdadtopher,
The Bible contains so many contradictions that it's easy for anyone to find verses to support just about anything. EVERYONE just picks and chooses what they agree with.
observer
There are NO contradictions. And the people who want to pick and choose are calling God a liar ... so I'm not sure I'd listen to their "expertise" on the Bible anyway.
noahsdadtopher,
Get serious. The Bible is LOADED with contradictions.
(Gen. 4:16) “And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him SEVENFOLD. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.”
(Lev. 24:17) “And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.”
Where's the contradiction there?
noahsdadtopher,
Wow! No wonder you don't see any of ALL the contradictions in the Bible.
God: "kill ANYONE who kills anyone"
God: "don't kill Cain who killed someone".
Wow again!
Those charts don't belong in science class because it isn't science. If they were charts about Shakespeare, they wouldn't belong either. There should be no argument about that.
Does anyone think we shouldn't have science classes?
Does anyone think science class should be restricted to science?
observer
noahsdadtopher,
"God: "kill ANYONE who kills anyone""
That's not what it says at all. You're reading your own beliefs on what it says into it. In fact, what it says is DON'T kill anyone. It's even a commandment.
"God: "don't kill Cain who killed someone"."
Might I suggest you read up on the covenants of the Bible?
't
@noahsdadtopher,
Hold on a second... does the bible, in your opinion, say no killing at all, or, as many christians state, no *murdering*? there is a difference.
bostontola
"Those charts don't belong in science class because it isn't science. If they were charts about Shakespeare, they wouldn't belong either. There should be no argument about that."
I don't disagree. Religion doesn't belong in a science classroom.
"Does anyone think we shouldn't have science classes?"
Is anyone arguing that?
"Does anyone think science class should be restricted to science?"
I do. But that also means evolution is out. It's not testable nor repeatable and thus doesn't meet the scientific method.
MidwestKen
"Hold on a second... does the bible, in your opinion, say no killing at all, or, as many christians state, no *murdering*? there is a difference."
Yes, there is a difference. But it all depends on what verse you're using, in what context is the verse talking, and to whom was the verse written. It's difficult because we're now getting into Hermeneutics.
noahsdadtopher,
Lev. 24:17) “And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.”
Have you read a Bible? Did Cain KILL anyone? Thought you'd know that. Wow!
@noahsdadtopher,
"in fact, what it says is DON'T kill anyone. It's even a commandment."
So, is this correct? or is it the interpretation that best fit the argument you happen to be making?
The question becomes is the death just. For instance, the Bible argues FOR capital punishment in certain cases. And it says killing in war can be just. But no, you can't just go around murdering someone willy-nilly.
Ah, so it does not say "don't kill anyone", just don't kill anyone unjustly, eh?
By the way, what verse states that war can be just? Or, does that request only apply to racism/slavery?
Topher,
Evolution is testable and has been tested. Evolution has 2 basic parts:
1. Variation in descent (genetic variation). The hypothesized causes of these innovations are mutation, horizontal gene transfer, etc.
2. Selection. This can be from survival fitness, or human selection, or other selection (e.g. God).
Mutation is directly observable and has been tested. The average number of mutations in each human is 60. Horizontal gene transfer has also been directly observed in the lab and in the wild.
Selection speaks for itself. Most of the plants and animals around us have been modified for our purposes. Cows, wheat, corn, horses, dogs, cats, broccoli, etc are all the result of selection.
To not recognize this is to not understand how science works.
To say you can't directly observe evolution is like saying the Theory of Relativity is not science since we haven't demonstrated that it can determine the path of all the asteroids in our solar system.
@bostontola,
Good explanation, well said!
MidwestKen
"By the way, what verse states that war can be just? Or, does that request only apply to racism/slavery?"
War can be just since we see God sending Israel into many wars/battles. Read ... the ENTIRE Old Testament. And I have no idea what you are talking about with the racism/slavery comment.
noahsdadtopher
"War can be just since we see God sending Israel into many wars/battles. Read ... the ENTIRE Old Testament."
Do you mean where it says that virginal women can be PRIZES of war?
bostontola
"Evolution is testable and has been tested. Evolution has 2 basic parts:"
So how did we test something that takes billions of years to work?
"1. Variation in descent (genetic variation). The hypothesized causes of these innovations are mutation, horizontal gene transfer, etc."
That's not Darwinian evolution. It's natural selection. No one has ever demonstrated a change in kinds ... EVER.
"2. Selection. This can be from survival fitness, or human selection, or other selection (e.g. God)."
Still natural selection. Not Darwinian evolution.
"Mutation is directly observable and has been tested. The average number of mutations in each human is 60. Horizontal gene transfer has also been directly observed in the lab and in the wild."
Mutations make something weaker, not stronger, thus not Darwinian. And they don't continue on into subsequent generations. Also thus not evolution.
"Selection speaks for itself. Most of the plants and animals around us have been modified for our purposes. Cows, wheat, corn, horses, dogs, cats, broccoli, etc are all the result of selection."
Yes. This we observe, but it's not Darwinian evolution. Those farm-things you mention ... they make be different, but the cows are still cows. The wheat is still wheat, etc. Because these things only contain the genetic information to recreate themselves. You will never — even if you were able to observe billions of generations of corn — someday get wheat. Because it doesn't have wheat genetics.
"To not recognize this is to not understand how science works."
I do recognize how science works. It requires something to be testable and repeatable. Darwinian evolution fails at this.
Believe in it if you want, that's fine. But it's just a secular religion with no basis in science. And thus doesn't belong in a classroom.
observer
"Do you mean where it says that virginal women can be PRIZES of war?"
Under which covenant is that?
noahsdadtopher,
"I do recognize how science works. It requires something to be testable and repeatable."
Yes. That's why the Bible CONSISTENTLY FAILS when examined by science.
noahsdadtopher,
Don't you know what the Bible says? You seem completely lost.
Moses passed on that info from God.
observer
"Yes. That's why the Bible CONSISTENTLY FAILS when examined by science."
Actually, science has proven NOTHING in the Bible to be wrong. Though I admit much of what's in there isn't testable or repeatable.
"Don't you know what the Bible says? You seem completely lost. Moses passed on that info from God."
This doesn't answer the question. Which COVENANT is it under? And while you're at it, please provide me the verse.
if people believe your not descendent from Adam then they believe your not human, that was their rational about the Africans.
slavery was more religious thing any was otherwise they would have enslaved the mores, but they claimed decent from Adam, so they didn't and the bible does state the pagan has to accept Jesus and be adopted in to the family of God.
Ephesians 1:5-6
God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. This is what he wanted to do, and it gave him great pleasure. So we praise God for the glorious grace he has poured out on us who belong to his dear Son.
i'm not decedent from Adam thus i'm not human? the only thing about the fertile crescent you can find in my lineage is when my mother and father were sent their by the crown, i grow up in that hell whole and the people their never let my forget that i am no son of Adam. its cool though my matriarch Mórrígan would kick the shit out of Adam any day of the week she also happens to be older then him, her birth dating back some 12,000 years and your what 6,000,
Adam wasn't around till about the time the demi-god Aoibh came to be considering she was Mel(Humans from Greece) and half Sidhe. that would make Adam the father of Humanity quite ridicules but the father of the Jews spot on.
Alright, everyone, I'm outta here for the night. Hope you all have a good one!
noahsdadtopher
"Actually, science has proven NOTHING in the Bible to be wrong"
Nonsense: one example is that the laws of physic say it's impossible for the sun and moon to SUDDENLY stop in orbit.
War PRIZES: (Numbers 31:18) “But do not kill the young women who have never had s3x. You may keep them for yourselves." [Moses]
@noahsdadtopher,
"War can be just since we see God sending Israel into many wars/battles. Read ... the ENTIRE Old Testament. And I have no idea what you are talking about with the racism/slavery comment."
"... the ENTIRE old testament"?
As I recall, you are the one misrepresenting the 10 commandments. "... don't kill anyone"
As for war and slavery does not God supposedly deal with war as He supposedly does slavery, as something that exists but that He would prefer it did not, and therefore He mitigates it with rules? If He condones war does He not similarly condone slavery?
MidwestKen,
Unfortunately, noahsdadtopher apparently needed to run off just when the questions started getting tougher.
Just a coincidence. Seems to frequently happen to Christians on here.
“So how did we test something that takes billions of years to work?”
We make a prediction and see if the available evidence confirms or rejects the prediction. For example: we should see transitional forms in the fossil record that bridge fish and tetrapods (tiktaalik); we should see forms which bridge reptiles and birds (archaeopteryx); we should observe a progressive fossil order which corroborates phylogenetic distances between extant species (we do); we should see molecular and anatomical vestiges of common ancestry (e.g. the hind limbs in whales, our own defunct gene for egg yolk protein, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, male nip-ples, etc); we should observe instances of speciation (we have, both in the lab and the wild); etc, etc. These are examples of positive evidence for evolution. The negative evidence for evolution includes: absence of out-of-order fossils (no humans alongside dinosaurs, no rabbits in the pre-Cambrian); no observations of true chimeras; no observations of actual special creation; etc, etc.
Every time a paleontologist digs, every time a geneticist sequences and compares a genome, etc, we are testing evolution. There will always be an opportunity for truly confounding empirical physical evidence to appear, but as yet, this confounding evidence has not been observed. But it's this ability to falsify evolution that distinguishes it from ID/creationism. When the proposed mechanism is supernatural magic, it can explain any and every possible observation ("God just did it that way"); but in doing so, it effectively explains nothing.
“That's not Darwinian evolution. It's natural selection. No one has ever demonstrated a change in kinds ... EVER.”
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution the fact is a change in allele (gene variant) frequencies in a population over time. This is demonstrable and although natural selection may direct towards a given frequency, natural selection is not the only mechanism, e.g. random genetic drift also results in evolution. Evolution the scientific theory employs evolution the fact along with supporting empirical physical evidence from every relevant scientific (e.g. physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, etc) discipline to explain observable extant and extinct biodiversity. We have observed speciation, but if one places “kinds” at the genus or family level, then we wouldn’t expect to directly observe this level of change within the relevant time frames. However, in the context of microbial diversity, Lenski’s E. coli evolved a non-E. coli trait (aerobic citrate metabolism) which is a phenotypic marker used to distinguish E. coli from other bugs; relative to bacterial diversity, this was effectively a change in kinds. In other words, although we call Lenski’s Cit+ bugs “E. coli,” if they’d been observed first in the environment, they would not have been classified as such. Furthermore, we don’t need to directly observe evolution across “kinds.” All that’s required is the observation of a single form which bridges the allegedly specially-created "kinds" to confound literal creationism, e.g., as noted above, tiktaalik, archaeopteryx, and a number of other fossils do just this.
“Still natural selection. Not Darwinian evolution.”
Evolutionary theory is not bound to Darwin’s understanding. Since Darwin, our understanding of the relevant mechanisms and principles has greatly increased in light of the relevant technology (e.g. molecular biology) and the continuous increase in recovered fossils. Darwinian evolution is not restricted to only those changes which occur at higher levels of taxonomy; it's equally applicable to any scale of evolution, from the molecular to the biome. Furthermore, to concede that changes do occur, but that they cannot acc-umulate over time is akin to accepting that inches exist, but that despite all evidence to the contrary, they somehow cannot add up to miles.
“Mutations make something weaker, not stronger, thus not Darwinian. And they don't continue on into subsequent generations. Also thus not evolution.”
This is patently false. Claims of “weaker” or “stronger” are post-hoc attributes and are contingent on a given environment at a given time. Antibiotic resistance does result in the mutant growing more slowly than the wild type in the absence of the antibiotic (“weaker”); however, in the presence of the antibiotic, the wild type dies and the mutant grows (“stronger”). Lenski’s E. coli demonstrated that random mutations produced a novel functionality not present in the ancestral strains. These organisms were “stronger” because they could access a novel energy source. The principal mutations involved duplication of genes (no loss of function, i.e. not “weaker”) and further mutations which refined these duplicated genes to make them more efficient (greater function, i.e. again, not “weaker”). These mutations, were obviously carried on into subsequent generations because that's how Lenski's group were able to directly trace the particular mutations involved, i.e. by freezing samples along the way and comparing the different generations. Furthermore, the 60 mutations present in human children which are not found in either of the parents are in germline cells, i.e. those that make our reproductive cells; they too obviously carriy on into subsequent generations. When you say “not evolution” it appears that you erroneously believe the word “evolution” is necessarily restricted to changes at the genus level and above. As noted before, this is not the scientific definition nor is it even useful outside of apologetics applications . . .
“Yes. This we observe, but it's not Darwinian evolution. Those farm-things you mention ... they make be different, but the cows are still cows. The wheat is still wheat, etc. Because these things only contain the genetic information to recreate themselves. You will never — even if you were able to observe billions of generations of corn — someday get wheat. Because it doesn't have wheat genetics.”
Again, we don’t expect to directly observe, in real time, evolution above the genus level. What we expect to witness is speciation and we do. What we expect to see is a progressive fossil record which corroborates phylogenetic distances between extant and extinct forms which we do. What we expect to see are fossil forms bridging the allegedly specially-created kinds, which we do. A more recent example is the comparison of H. neanderthalensis and Denisovan hominid genomes to modern H. sapien genomes. What we see is that, although there was some limited gene flow between H. neanderthalensis and European/Asian H. sapiens (but not Sub-Saharan African H. sapiens), H. neanderthalensis remains a distinct form from H. sapien. As Gould noted, "If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?"
“I do recognize how science works. It requires something to be testable and repeatable. Darwinian evolution fails at this.”
Ahh, clearly you do not. Testable means we can make a hypothesis or prediction and then confirm or reject that hypothesis/prediction based on observable physical evidence. Application of the scientific method does not require direct real time observation of a given phenomenon. Repeatable means that the same, or preferably different, researchers can use the same observable physical evidence and generate the same data to confirm or reject the hypothesis/prediction; it does not require complete recapitulation of a given event. For example, we can extract genetic samples from the mother, the child, and suspected fathers and then run the relevant genetic analysis to determine paternity. The identi-ty of the father is testable without having directly observed the act of conception. Furthermore, we gain confidence in the result when the samples are re-tested by the same, or again, preferably different , researchers and the results are the same. We do not need to re-fertilize eggs and produce cloned children.
“Believe in it if you want, that's fine. But it's just a secular religion with no basis in science. And thus doesn't belong in a classroom.”
By this loose definition of “religion” there is nothing that isn’t a “religion.” Germ Theory of Disease is a “religion”; the Theory of Gravity is a “religion”; single-malt scotch is a “religion”; etc. You have already demonstrated a clear miscomprehension of the relevant science and so your declaration of “no basis in science” appears to reflect something of a delusion of grandeur with respect to your own education, understanding, and competency to make such a declaration. Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that in every single trial where evolution has been claimed to be non-scientific or where ID/creationism has been claimed to be a legit scientific alternative, the courts have invariably ruled that ID/creationism is a non-scientific religious proposition and that evolution is currently the only model based on actual positive supporting physical evidence. Unlike ID/creationism which invokes un-falsifiable, untestable, and wholly unobserved supernatural mechanisms, the mechanisms and outcomes of evolution are testable, repeatable, well doc-umented and understood, and most importantly, evolution is capable of being falsified as noted above. In other words, ID/creationism has had many, many years to gain traction within the relevant scientific communities and with the federal judiciary, but it has never failed to fail. ID/creationism's only application is apologetics for religious fundamentalists.
Topher,
Your response clearly demonstrates that you don't understand how the scientific method works. A hypothesis regarding a phenomenon has elemental components (I laid out the evolutionary components above). The components are then tested. The components of evolution have been extensively tested. They have passed all the tests and no test result refutes evolution.
Darwin is irrelevant. We are talking about evolution, the phenomenon, not the man who took the first stab at it. Newton had a theory of gravity. It was incomplete. That doesn't mean gravity isn't science. The phenomenon of gravity doesn't care what theory we apply. Same is true for evolution. The phenomenon has been validated. The theories are incomplete.
Your inability to grasp how science works doesn't change that. This scientific methodology has been applied to nature at many levels and disciplines. It has yielded operational technologies in all those fields. It is curious that it works in all those places, yet you selectively find it to be lacking where it conflicts with your beliefs.
@tophy "But that also means evolution is out. It's not testable nor repeatable and thus doesn't meet the scientific method."
an obvious statement from ignorance...
If you boys are still around I'd be happy to continue the discussion.
"If you boys are still around I'd be happy to continue the discussion."
With all due respect, you have already demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of science in general and of evolution in particular. It's evident that you have little if any training or experience in the relevant disciplines and that your arguments are just the standard litany of creationist claims that have been refuted at the numerous cases pitting ID/creationism v. evolution. Unless you can point to some actual positive supporting evidence for your position, rather than simply parroting negative arguments of incredulity, there's little more to discuss . . .
There are hundreds if not thousands of things wrong in the Bible. It's the reason scholars first began to doubt Moses wrote anything. The list of Edomite kings is in the wrong order, as everyone knows who's taken Bible 101.
There is not one major academic center in the world that doubts evolution is true. The fact it's even being discussed here is a testament to the horrible education system in the US. Dr. Coyne's chart shows the uS is FAR FAR down the chart in the % of people who accept evolution. It's a testament to US idiocy and Fundamentalism in the US.
sorry..BAD argument..your attempt to CORRELATE is noted and dismissed...just cause we don't accept it dfoes not mean we are ignorant..you wish that..but wishes don't make truth
'Q: Why you should leave religion off your resume?
A: It is called common sense.'
-----------------–
Certainly, but it is conventional wisdom for students to include extra-curricular campus associations where they participated. That is what was tested in this study.
The answer is "don't".
If they say have a blessed day they will never get a call back from me. The laziest people I have ever heard were some king of Christian, I don't know what kind , but they answered every question with "I am blessed" then they would say to folks "have a blessed day" If you happen to say that during your interview with me you are no longer under consideration.
Agree, or "God Bless" or any variation.
For the record, have a blessed day is also used with frequency by pagans, though, it isn't always a christian sentiment.
I was gone from the south for several years and this is a new thing I discovered when I returned. It is from some group of churches, I don't know which one
I have to laugh at the arrogance of people who claim that they are blessed. They must believe themselves to be the most special snowflakes of all. Their "blessings" are just the ordinary stuff that occurs to ordinary people. It's life. You don't have to take every tiny event, put a bow on it and pretend that your god gave it special to you as a gift.
It is a crazy way of thinking, if every thing that is good in my life is god's fault then isn't everything that is bad in my life his fault too?
Brainwashing at it's most pathetically obvious.
so you saying it is WRONG and TEzrrIBLE to have a healthy positivce outlook? my my my you party pooper
" special snowflakes ".... LOL
Just curious, is "blessed day" a Christian thing or a Pagan/Wicca thing?
Both
blessed is not own by a single religion, blessed is just the opposite of curse. its a gift from an otherworldly source. it used in various religions and beholding to none.
the phrase blessed day i don't think you can find its roots, goes back far to far in pre history.
Here it is a Christian thing, they call themselves evangelical Christians but I don't know which domination they belong to.
The church of the ignorant.
Depends who your employers are. My employer is a christian and the topic got brought up during scheduling. Told her I wanted off certain hours for church. She then professed her faith and we talked abit. I got the job. No i dont ever add my christian faith to my resume. Most find that information irrelevant for job qualification and ability to fulfill responsiblities of that position. Most jobs are secular with secular employers and they dont want to know about it.
Maybe for younger people who start out getting some experience with leadership, organization, mentoring, etc...in a volunteer or other position that is religiously affiliated, it is unfortunate that you may be tempted to mask the religious affiliation of the organization you worked for just to avoid this sort of censorship.
The whole Jesus story that Vic keeps pestering us with is a steaming pile of bull-do. Vic, how is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
♰♰♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰♰♰
★★★★
Happy 4th of July — Independence Day — Everyone
♪♫
May it be forever so true
Believe in that I really do
God bless the USA
The true Red, White & Blue
♫♪
No, he is not.
"The Two Universal Sects
They all err—Moslems, Jews,
Christians, and Zoroastrians:
Humanity follows two world-wide sects:
One, man intelligent without religion,
The second, religious without intellect. "
Al-Ma'arri
, born AD 973 /, died AD 1058 / .
Al-Ma’arri was a blind Arab philosopher, poet and writer.[1][2] He was a controversial rationalist of his time, attacking the dogmas of religion and rejecting the claim that Islam possessed any monopoly on truth."
And a happy 4th of July to one and all !!!!!!
Thank You Vic. Happy 4th of July to you and everyone. God Bless America. Jesus is Lord.
Why do you have to remind an omnipotent deity what it already knows it's already going to do ?
People do those pious pronunciations to make themselves feel superior. Face it. Vic and blessed137 think they are superior, and have special access to their deity. When you have nothing else, you NEED religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
how about for reminding themselves??? why is it only one option for you on what another says?
I dont think I have special access I know I have special access through Jesus Christ. God bless america and realbuckyball.
Ephesians 3:12
In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence
http://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/three-reasons-why-cosmos-was-one-of-the-best-things-to-happen-to-tv-part-2/
It is also on Blu-Ray.
And I dont have a religion, I have a relationship with the eternal, immortal, and invisible Most High God. To Him all power, glory, and praise.
Hey blessed
Maybe CNN should do the same eh ?
Unable to secure a qualified UK scientist to dispute the findings on the program, the show’s producers turned to retired Australian geologist and climate change skeptic Bob Carter who dismissed the report –put together by hundreds of scientists around the world – as “hocus-pocus science”.
Similar criticism of U.S. media has been offered by astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson who told CNN’s Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter that his network needed to stop giving “equal time to the flat Earthers.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/04/bbc-staff-instructed-to-stop-giving-time-to-science-cranks-for-the-sake-of-editorial-balance/
Hi Science Works. Thank you for the link. I could not view the vidoe but im pretty sure, being a former atheist myselft, what its about. Im not a stubborn christian that doesnt want to look at secular scientific measures of explaining the world's existence. I am very much a science minded person. The existence of the universe to me is not natural. Its supernatural in everyway. Its a miracle. The more I study the earth the more I believe that a great being created everything and something doesnt come from nothing. I believe that something always was and always will be. That something is intelligent and loves creation enough to create it. That something is God. You know that law of energy. Energy cannot be created nor detroyed, It can only be transfered. It energy cannot be created then it always was. If not destroyed then always will be. If this is so, then how can an eternal and immortal God not be possible? Science points to God. This was not an idea that was brainwashed into my head by other christians. No one said anything to me about this. I believe that it was a divine revelation from God. He is willing to meet us where we are if we are truly seeking truth. I have a very scientific mind. That is where he met me. It wanst till much later that I started going to church because of a job taking care of a christian women. I connected to the person of Jesus. That is my belief. I dont expect others to believe what I do. God Bless you and yours Happy 4th of July.
Let me clarify, i said pretty sure, but im not sure. what are the links referring to? My computer is not the best and slow. Cant access videos.
Hey blessed
Slow computer – are you running win3.1 by chance – might want to rethink that all might thingy .
oops – mighty.
Hi SW, No I have macbook. It was given to me and i think Its loaded with viruses. What is the all mighty thing your referring to? I apologize I assumed to know what the video was about other than that please explain.
@bless... " I have a relationship with the eternal, immortal, and invisible Most High God. "
You have a relationship with your IMAGINATION.
♰♰♰ The moon is made of green cheese ♰♰♰
Plenty of Copy & Paste stuff by evolutionists charlatans here today. Yeah, sure like if they were there to see all that happening. On top of that the old "missing link" continues to be MISSING. No female ape or female hominid like creature ever gave birth to the first humans. Unless of course it could have been the first evolutionist.
Yup, nope!
Nobody, no one, not one. No record, no indication, no tell tale or tall-tale story, no tradition, no hieroglyphs, no drawings on cave walls, nothing on clay tablets. No buildings or ruins, nothing ever built that could point to or suggest a transition or any sort. NOPE nothing at all.
The first humans, the first man Adam and the first woman Eve, however they had in their own bodies the Evidence, to show and prove to ALL of their descendants of the times, that they were Created by God.
So the Copy & Paste of the Evolutionists so far has been nothing more than the stuff of what Charlatans are made of.
Yup!
oh and Celery, my matriarch Macha wife of Neimheadh who is the first born of Danu, was alive on this earth before Adam was even a grain of sand
regardless of the tripe your religion is selling, i have absolutely no lineage to Adam and Eve. I'm a descendant of Sidhe not Angels
It seems pretty senseless to try to discuss scientific principles with a moron like you Salero....so, I won't
I don't believe Salero's truly a moron. I believe he's a classic example of a person hopelessly brainwashed and indoctrinated by people that he considered authoritative during the period of indoctrination. He desperately clings to the "god dunnit" nonsense and the fantasy of life after death, even though he provides no credible evidence that any of his beliefs are fact. While I don't believe he's truly a moron, I believe he's truly and extremely annoying.
Salero21
If you're not just a troll, it's clear that you've never actually learned much about evolution. It's all about gradual change, not crocodiles giving birth to ducks, or similar nonsense. Think of it more like having a baby and taking it's photo a few hundred times every day for the rest of its life. You wouldn't see much difference between photos of the same day, or even week, but you would notice differences between photos of different years, right? If each photo is like a generation for a species you'd notice a gradual change in the appearance of those beings until the "elderly" ones don't resemble the "younger" ones much at all.
first of all Geno baseline eve came before Geno baseline adem
the fist homosapien mutation came from Women get over it.
and the Gaian faith said Gaia came to humanity when we still lived in trees and gave us our gift, theirs your oral tradition.
Somebody please call the medics, one of them escaped the asylum.
cellery i am not An atheist i'm a pagan whose roots go back further then 6000 years.
hey guys i shut the Apiaceae
My hovercraft is full of eels...
The Volkswagen is in the basement.
Wrong again Sally Do Wrong. But thanks for reminding me. I meant to post this earlier.
Great piece on NPR today.
http://www.npr.org/2014/07/04/328206581/dance-of-human-evolution-was-herky-jerky-fossils-suggest
Kermit, so, if it’s transitional fossils you want, it’s transitional fossils you’ll get. Roughly speaking, from oldest to youngest, the order of known species between the last common ancestor of man and Chimpanzees down to modern man goes something like this:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Australopithecus afarenses
Australopithecus africanus
Ho.mo habilis
Ho.mo ergaster
Ho.mo ere.ctus
Ho.mo heidelbergensis
Ho.mo neanderthalis (Neanderthal man)
Ho.mo floresiensis
Ho.mo sapiens – modern man.
This does not mean that the progression was a simple, straight line, with Sahelanthropus tchadensis evolving into Australopithecus afarenses and it evolving into Australopithecus africanus, etcetera, in a neat line down to Ho.mo sapiens. It appears that Ho.mo erectus was our immediate ancestor and that Ho.mo heidelbergensis, Ho.mo neanderthalis (Neanderthal man) and Ho.mo floresiensis all went extinct without having had another hominid species evolve from them. That is to say, they were not in our direct lineage, they were our “cousins,” although some interbreeding seems to have occurred. We non Sub-Saharan Africans carry about 15% of Neanderthal genes in our DNA. Sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal genes in their DNA. This suggests that interbreeding between modern man and Neanderthals took place in Europe after modern man had migrated out of Africa.
The above is an over-simplification, omits many other intermediate species and is not without controversy in some areas, but is a useful yardstick to gauge how humans evolved from the last common ancestor we shared with the great apes about 6 million years ago. No hominid fossil earlier than Ho.mo erectus has ever been discovered outside of Africa. This is why anthropologists put the birth of the lineage in Africa.
But the point is, thousands of the above fossils have been found. They have been found in South Africa, in Kenya, in Tanzania, in Ethiopia, in Chad, in Israel, in Georgia (the Republic, not the state where your sister married your brother) in Spain, in France, in Italy, in Germany, in China, in Indonesia and in a host of other countries.
Thousands of examples of the above intermediate species. There you go Kermit, the transitional species you seek.
" The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ."
– Stephen Jay Gould
THANK GOD for punctuated equilibrium , huh?
Just a little suggestion. If you really want to make a case for evolution, stick to the evidence from DNA. The fossil record just isn't going to cut it.
We have REAL fossils to support evolution.
We have NOTHING to support the existence of the Garden of Eden. No bones. Nothing.
The issue at hand was transitional fossils, not the existence of the garden of Eden.
I do not reject the theory of evolution. What I do reject is the notion that, apart from a certain degree of conjecture and speculation, transitional fossils are valid.
lol observer...those fossils are not evidence of evolution..its scientists who try to squeeze it into their idea of what evolution should look like..and those fossils have much controversy and doubt arising from them it isn't even funny..and yet people like you grasp on to it with your dear lives
Kermit, evolution is taught in every major university and college biology program in the World. Not 99% of them, but EVERY one. Universities with extensive evolutionary biology departments include Oxford University, Cambridge University and the Imperial College in England, the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Germany, the École Normale Supérieure and École Polythecnique in France and Leiden University in the Netherlands and the Swiss Federal Insti.tute of Technology in Switzerland. This is just a sample. ALL university and colleges in Europe teach evolution as a fundamental component of biology.
The number of universities and colleges in Europe with a creation science department: ZERO. The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO
In the United States, the following Universities have extensive evolutionary biology departments staffed by thousands of the most gifted biologists in the World; Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Colombia, Duke, the Massachusetts Insti.tute of Technology, Brown, Stanford, Berkley, and the University of Chicago. These are just some of the more prestigious examples. Again, ALL university and colleges in the USA with tertiary level biology classes teach evolution as a fundamental component of biology.
The number of universities and colleges in the United States with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO
In Australia and Asia, the following universities and colleges have extensive evolutionary biology departments manned by more of the most gifted biological scientists in the World; Monash University in Melbourne, The University of New South Wales, Kyoto University in Ja.pan, Peking University in China, Seoul University in Korea, the University of Singapore, National Taiwan University, The Australian National University, The University of Melbourne, and the University of Sydney.
The number of universities and colleges in Australia and Asia with a creation science department: ZERO The number of tenured or even paid professors who teach creation science at any of these universities or colleges: ZERO
The most prestigious scientific publications in the Western World generally accessible to the public include: The Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, Scientific American, Science, New Scientist, Cosmos and Live Science.
Every month, one or more of them publishes a peer reviewed article highlighting the latest developments in evolution. The amount of any creationist science articles published in ANY of these prestigious publications; ZERO.
I could repeat the above exercise for the following disciplines, all of which would have to be turned on their heads to accommodate creation science – paleontology, archeology, geology, botany, marine biology, astronomy, medicine, cosmology and historical linguistics.
Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, have issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a peti.tion supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.
Number of creation science Nobel Prize winners: ZERO
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.
Number made in support of creation science: ZERO
According to The International Federation of Biologists, there are more than 3 million biological scientists globally who rely on the 5 laws of Darwinian evolution for their jobs every single day.
There appears to be three possible explanations for all this:
(i) there is a worldwide conspiracy of universities, colleges and academic publications, including all their hundreds of thousands of professors, editors, reviewers, and support staff, to deny creation science;
(ii) you, Kermit4JC , have a startling new piece of evidence that was right before our eyes that will turn accepted biological science and about 10 other sciences on their heads if ONLY people would listen to you, no doubt earning you a Nobel Prize and a place in history beside the likes of Darwin, Newton and Einstein; or
(iii) you are a complete blowhard who has never studied one subject of university level biology, never been on an archaeological dig, never studied a thing about paleontology, geology, astronomy, linguistics or archaeology, but feel perfectly sure that you know more than the best biologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, doctors, astronomers botanists and linguists in the World because your mommy and daddy taught you some comforting stories from Bronze Age Palestine as a child.
I know which alternative my money is on.
LOL.......let me ask you this...did the majority of people side with Glaileo?
Majority does not always make right.....I go for number one..it is a "conspiracy" though most of the "cons[iricists " themselves are ignorant to it
Doubt is the default scientific mindset. Hypothesize, test, repeat and pass it on to another to repeat some more – all in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis.
As for controversy – that comes primarily from evolution deniers like The Discovery Insti/tute.
They attempt to discredit evolutionary theory because they fear the social and cultural influence of atheistic naturalism will lead people away from religion and doom us all to fiery perdition.
The overwhelming majority of evolutionary biologists see no conflict between evolution and religion – not because they occupy separate, non-competing magisteria but because they recognize religion as a sociobiological phenomenon.
The 5 laws that comprise Darwin's original theory have never been falsified. Indeed, they have only been strengthened and expanded over the last century and a half through the daily application of those principles by thousands of scientists in disparate fields of research. Even the Vatican recognizes this!
The last bastions of denial are fundamentalists Christians, primarily situated in the United States. They are a vociferous and deliberately contentious lot who exert a great deal of economic and political influence.
Their primary goal is to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
But let me put it this way:
Have you ever heard of a Fairy Ring?
Under particular conditions, certain species of mushroom form perfect circles up to 30 feet around.
We understand now that this is a natural phenomenon resulting form the way in which fungal spores distribute themselves, but prior to scientific understanding of fungal reproduction, various cultures concocted supernatural explanations.
Germanic people blamed witches. The Dutch said they were where the Devil set his milk churn.
The Celts said they were the result of fairies dancing and quite a number of people claimed to have joined them in their revelry!
Now, imagine if some Welshmen went before their local school board and demanded that biology text books include the Fairy Design Theory. After all, kids should be exposed to all competing theories. Teach the controversy!
This is what Creationists do in the United States. The only difference between them and the Fairyists is that there aren't enough believers in fairies to exert any kind of pressure on politicians, teachers, textbook manufacturers etc.
Evolution deniers are in the same boat as climate change deniers, flat earthers and geocentrists.
Only through obstinate denial of evidence can they maintain their beliefs.
"kermit4jc": "those fossils are not evidence of evolution"
I'm afraid, as "ausphor" stated in the article on "Hobby Lobby",
"Kermi" is, in fact, a "hoot".
kermit4jc,
Transitional fossils are REAL and can be shown to exist.
The Garden of Eden CANNOT be shown to have existed. Where are Adam's bones?
Save your laughing for your own logic.
LMAO...I think youneed to think this more throughouly..I don't deny there are fosills...MY concern is theat they ar enot PROVEN to be TRANISTIONAL fossils between man and a common ancestor of apes. DO we find evidence of ALL ancient gardens and such? NO...thus you think we can find the "Garden of Eden? tyell me..what do Yo uEXPECT to find or look for..what type of evidence do you suggest for a Garden of Eden to have existed?
and LMAO LMAO on Adams bones..are you really that dense? if you wanna ask for Adams bones..why not the bones of EVERY single human being that ever lived as well? silly argument..cause one is NEVER going to find EVERY bone of EVERY human being tha tever existed....why? cause many are destroyed...many are burned to ashes....etc etc....look at 9/11 did they find remains of ALL of the victims of the Twin towers attacks???
kermit4jc
"Majority does not always make right....."
Yes, that's why Christians cannot establish the Bible as a basis for our laws.
side stepping the issue
kermit4jc,
You are a RIOT! I asked where the bones are for the FIRST MAN in history and you are off on a rant about wanting EVERYONE'S bones.
Wasn't Adam important enough to mark where he died and where his remains are? Guess not.
do YOU need eveidence for EVERY single thing to be proven? do yo uneed evidnce for every ceratin man to be proven that he existed? see...firat of all...the earth is vastr..have we found ALl the bones of every person who has lived that the bones are still present? maybe someday we MIGHT find Adams bones..if we don't..that does NOT mean he did not exist!..thats the issue..you need not bones of every person to know that they existed...and answer the other question...WHAT evidence of garden of Eden are you expecting to find? like plants, fossils of trees?> etc tec?
kermit4jc,
I asked for remains of one of the 3 or 4 MOST IMPORTANT figures in the Bible.
Just ONE. NOT EVERYONE. Just one. Uno. You know, it's half of TWO.
well..if you didn't get the picture by now..we don't KNOW where Adams bones are if they are still around....we have not stoped looking..and even if we don't find them..it does not say he never existed.and IM STILL waiting your answer of what type of evidence you want for existence of Garden of Eden?
kermit4jc
"do yo uneed evidnce for every ceratin man to be proven that he existed?"
I take it that you're not a creationist then? They actually seem to demand a fossil for every thing that ever lived to accept evolution. Too many "gaps" otherwise.
kermit4jc
"IM STILL waiting your answer of what type of evidence you want for existence of Garden of Eden?"
ANY kind of monument honoring the FIRST family; any bones from there: any archeology that shows where it ACTUALLY was; ANY INDICATION at all.
Please tell me EXACTLY where it was. What current city was it near?
FIRST of all..NO bones cause they were THROWN out of the Garden (DID YOU NOT read this???) secondly...no evicdence Adam and eve made monuments...thirdly...going from the story...looks like nothing to be left of evidence of the Garden..that does NOT mean it can NOT have existed....empiracle evidence thing has made you become blind and wayyy too strict on it
kermit4jc
"FIRST of all..NO bones cause they were THROWN out of the Garden (DID YOU NOT read this???) "
So they left NO BONES on the earth? lol.
"secondly...no evicdence Adam and eve made monuments..."
Why would they make monuments to themselves? Adam was alive for HUNDREDS of years. Didn't ANYONE think they should mark where the remains of the FIRST man were? Guess it wasn't that important to the people.
we don't knowhere thje bones are yet....just cause we have not found them yet does not mean we wont....the area is vast..perhaps we did find it...not all graves are marked.....and really..not that important...don't need evidence for every single thing.....
Ddeevviinn, the fossil record is overwhelming evidence of evolution. DNA is independently overwhelming evidence for evolution. Stephen Gould is a strong proponent of evolution. You are misquoting a controversy from within the field as a controversy about the field. What you did is the equivalent of quoting a border dispute between Germany and France as evidence for the non-existence of Europe.
I fully understand the context and implication of his statement. You are simply inaccurate in both your reply and anemic analogy.
Great analogy, Colin. Wow, ddeevviinn, you're really stupid.
@ddeevviinn,
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
– Gould, Stephen Jay 1983.
good quote from Gould...
devlin....why? Because Stephen Jay Gould says so? No thanks....I'll stick with the fossil records AND DNA....you just hang on to your musty 2000 year old bronze age mythology book. That makes sense....
You are certainly ent i tled to stick with your fossil record, but as I stated, it is contingent upon a certain degree of "speculation" and "conjecture". Now you can deny these elements, and you can resort to sophom o ric statements like" you just hang on to your musty 2000 year old bronze age mythology book." but that changes nothing.
Devin: Please read "Why Evolution is True" by Dr. Jerry Coyne. It is a great overview of some of the evidence that exists to support evolution. (It can't cover all the evidence as it's just one book.) It's a quick, well-written and informative way to gain a reasonable understanding of evolution.
Dr. Coyne is a Ph.D, a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and a member of both the Committee on Genetics and the Committee on Evolutionary Biology. He's an expert. He knows what he's talking about.
Evolution is built upon a certain amount of speculation and conjuncture" hey Devin? Just like a round Earth is, right? No scientist has ever built a second Earth. So, I guess the roundness of earth is built on a certain level of speculation.
That is how idiotic your argument is.
Will Devin have something to say about this ?
Ability to Adapt Gave Early Humans the Edge Over Other Hominins
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ability-to-adapt-gave-early-humans-edge-hominin-180951959/#pOWZyUb7tdJRbecI.99
tal
I appreciate your concern, but lack of information is not the issue. I have read pretty much everything by Dawkins and Gould, as well as works by Shubin, Ridley, and that little thingy from Darwin.
I would suggest that my understanding of the evolutionary fossil record ( stay focused, this IS what I am addressing, nothing else) is the more reasonable. I would be more than willing to consider any example you could provide which would unequivocally establish a link between an ancestral form and its descendants. Remember, I said "unequivocally".
devlin.....you want unequivocal evidence of evolution at the same time that you are unable to provide unequivocal evidence of the existence of any god, much less your own god? What is wrong with you people?
Colin
Your analogies are astounding.
Perhaps there is a local Community College in your neck of the woods that offers an Intro. to Logic course?
Great analogy, Colin. Wow, ddeevviinn, you're really, really stupid.
Seth...the really bad thing is....Devin is not quite as stupid as the other religious nuts on this site. Every one of them dispatch bible quotes as if they were miracle pills from a pez dispenser and throw out logic and reason when dealing with anything to do with reality. It is enough to make you crazy, really.
Seth
" stupid ... stupid, stupid."
The depth and breadth of your rebu t tal skills are breathtaking.
I will give you this, your loyalty to Colin is admirable. I imagine the two of you could become close friends. I even have the sne aking sus picion you could form that rarest of friendships in which it becomes as if the two of you are one and the same. Hmm?
The original quote was Gould's response to Darwinian gradualism. The next line from this essay in Panda's Thumb reads: "Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record."
The relevant level of taxonomy here is the species level. Because speciation occurs in relatively small populations and because fossilization is rare across the board, we don't routinely expect to see fine-scale transitions between species. Nonetheless, although Gould argues against gradualism as the dominate pattern, he has acknowledged instances of gradualism are present (e.g. the Foraminifera) in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.
But returning to transitions in the fossil record, from "Evolution as Fact and Theory" from Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History:
"[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?"
And . . .
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Of course, what we also know is that phylogenetic evidence of both extant and extinct species corroborates what we observe in the progressive order of the fossil record. One is free to require an "unequivocal" example, but this sounds very much like a request for satisfaction to one's unreasonable demands for absolute certainty.
A single transitional fossil bearing traits of alleged specially-created "kinds" is sufficient to confound literal creationism (e.g. archeopteryx bearing reptile and bird features, tiktaalik bearing fish and tetrapod features, etc). As for ID, well, negative arguments of incredulity don't replace or excuse the absence of any actual positive supporting evidence.
@ddeevviinn,
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
– Gould, Stephen Jay 1983.
Happy 4th dear Belief Bloggers.
Yes, happy 4th everyone.
Happy 4th. May your neighborhood be free of illegal fireworks.
Some volunteering I do for churches is experience that is relevant to some jobs I could apply for, so I do wonder if I should include it on a resume. It would probably come up eventually if I were interviewed about my skills and experiences.
Dalahast,
I have volunteer work on my resume with no details. I leave that for the interview where the discussion can be fuller.
Yea, I also have volunteer work with secular groups that I'm not entirely sure I need to name, also. Good point.
It really depends on the context of the job.
The study was confined to employers in the south and students (with little experience to distinguish themselves) and the controlled variable was participation in extra-curricular campus religious associations.
Personally I would avoid religious affiliated components on a resume unless it was directly related to the job or they fill in what would otherwise be gaps in a career history.
Tibetans were able to adapt to high alt.itudes thanks to a gene picked up when their ancestors mated with a species of human they helped push to extinction, according to a new report by University of California, Berkeley, scientists.
An unusual variant of a gene involved in regulating the body's production of hemoglobin - the molecule that carries oxygen in the blood - became widespread in Tibetans after they moved onto the high-alt.itude plateau several thousand years ago.
people without the variant died before reproducing at a much higher rate than those with it. About 87 percent of Tibetans now have the high-alt.itude version, compared to only 9 percent of Han Chinese, who have the same common ancestor as Tibetans.
The data revealed that the high-alt.itude variant of EPAS1 is so unusual that it could only have come from Denisovans. Aside from its low frequency in Han Chinese, it occurs in no other known humans, not even Melanesians, whose genomes are nearly 5 percent Denisovan. A high quality sequence of the Denisovan genome was published in 2012.
Alt.itude adaptation in Tibetans caused by introgression of Denisovan-like DNA. Nature, 2014; DOI: 10.1038/nature13408
Interesting.
Should Tibetans that possess EPAS1 in their DNA include it in their resumes? Would they be discriminated against?
It would help them apply for a high-alti.tude job. /pun
Or an athlete.
: )
Does this mean a) Buddha is more powerful than the Christian god, b)The omniscient, omnipotent, and loving Christian god allowed the Tibetans to evolve and adapt to their environment so that they could spend their lives worshipping Buddha and then spend an eternity in his chamber of torture, or c) Evolution happens?
Close call but I've got to go with C. Lol.
D all of the above
A Buddha could talk to rocks so Buddha is greater then Jesus
B sounds like something that asshole would do
C like the inquisition no one expects evolution, well except those of us who believe in it.
destroyingatheism,
What do you believe anyway? It's one thing to tear down the beliefs (or lack thereof) of others, do you have anything you do believe in?
He believes in the power of trolling.
Actually, this is symptomatic of a person who doesn't feel intellectually strong enough to defend their own position. Basically, this is a coward that uses bullying tactics. The problem is, it's arguments are so lame, there is no bullying effect, s/he just looks pathetic.
Bottom line is, s/he should take it's own advice s/he frequently gives out;
s/he should grow a pair.
bostontola,
Have you given any thought to the idea that the pathetic mental case with the long list of names is at it again?
It is likely finisher, same bizarre line of reasoning.
Same as the "atheism is unhealthy" guy.
Prayer changed things.
Told ya so.
Na na.
sounds like awanderingscott to me, and his inane recent question
Suck to be so weak in the faith that they fear other's opinions