Personally, I like to compress the entire universe into one brand of spiritual entity, to which we are all a part. I don't believe in any brand of spiritual continuity after death, or anything to that effect, but belief isn't really pertinant.

Disfunction
Wiser words have never been spoken.

I also feel that intelligent design is christian propaganda disguised poorly as a valid scientific theory, however, i'll go one step farther and hypothesize that Christ was actually a pepsi spokesman and that he has done battle with Santa Claus many times in the past. It only makes sense that someone should profit off of the best spread and most widely enforced and profitable propaganda campaign in the world.

Most of Religion needs to grow the fuck up, it's like, constantly about 70 years behind the rest of social evolution and some religions are even more backward.

"Teh gays are comings!, OMG!!" .. uh .. really.

Does this apply to all religion?, of course not. Maybe that's why some atheists seem against religion except when you ask them specifically if they're against religion. Not all religions are stupid, just most of the big ones and their proponents.

I quite like the idea of Super Atheism though, so long as I get to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

http://www.stargazing.com/atheism/

This is the most pretentious site I've seen all week.

First, having some kid take a whizz on a cross, OH LOOK AT US WE DON'T BELIEVE IN JESUS!!!1

Secondly, "DALnet's gathering place for the freethinker" because we all know religious people can't think freely and atheists nver follow the words of someone else EVER.

They're open to people of all religiouns, supposedly, but I wouldn't trust to not be torn apart. I didn't survive 2 minutes on Outpost Gallifrey, I don't want to know how long I'd last there.

I started reading the book of genesis the other night and I don't understand a relatively huge part of it, which is actually just passed over without regard.

It claims god made Adam, then Eve from Adam's rib. Adam was the the first man, correct? and Eve was the first woman, correct? So then they go on to have Cain and Able, but Cain kills his brother Able out of jealousy, basically, and in turn is cast out of the garden.

Here's the part I don't get. Cain goes off to do his own thing and while doing his own thing he takes a wife and has kids, who have kids who have kids. Uhm, where did that wife come from? Is it ever mentioned, anywhere in the bible? Maybe later on somewhere that I haven't gotten to yet? Is it a sister, maybe? That wasn't mentioned because she's female and isn't as important or something, as all the sons mentioned?

Or did God create another Adam and Eve in the next garden over, that had daughters instead of sons?

Also, why is it that it states 'Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness"'? The words us and our suggest more than one, but God is suppose to be only one True God, is he not? So, which is it?

These are things to think about.

~E.D.

Yeah Raven.

Would that be in reference to the flood? Because if you think about it, once Noah released everything off the boat, that could be considered a second creation. Or maybe you're referring to something else I haven't gotten to yet. I'm still on genesis. Already tho, I'm seeing so many things that just don't make sense. Makes me wonder if I'm reading an extremely summarized version, or if this is really the way the full thing goes. I can't help but wonder, is this what all the raucous is about? This isn't my first time going through it tho, its just been so long that I bothered, that I don't remember it being so... simple. Actually, it is the first time I've ever deliberately tried reading it from start to finish. I know the basic gist of it.

You are right tho, faith and logic do not mix. I'm gonna start taking notes on all the points I find that are ridiculously illogical.

As for the concept of this thread, I tend to gravitate toward the idea that its a blend of both ID and evolution. I don't agree with either one wholly by itself. I've watched countless hours of documentaries on scientists and archaeologists arguing the concept of human evolution and they fail to provide enough evidence of it to lift it out of being more than just a theory. Asside from the fact that there are a at least a few missing links in their evolutionary chain that no one's been able to find after all their digging, there are other points that still don't make sense. Like, if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? And if whites and asians evolved from africans then why are there still africans? (please nobody feed any racial slurs into that because I'm not racist). I'll never buy into the idea that we turned white because we went north. That just doesn't make any damned sense at all. Asians went north and east, and they didn't turn white. Anyway, there are other points, and I have my own theories on it all but they tend to get rather controversial when discussed.

But the concept of Intelligent Design doesn't hold up either, at least not in the format that Genesis presents it in. My first question to that would be why. What reason would a god, who claims to be so almighty, have for creating man, other than pure, personal amusement. Maybe that's it. We're just god's toys. Action figures for the God(s). But aside from that, man was created from dust? Hmmm. What's that smell in the air? And then woman was created from man's rib? Sounds like genetic engineering or cloning to me.

So combine intelligent design with natural evolution. Here's one theory that might seem a bit more logical, at least to some. Let's say that maybe somewhere along the lines monkeys, or apes I guess I should say, did learn to walk upright and start losing their fur, etc etc. Then somebody - in this case god - comes along and decides he/she wants to help the little guy out a bit, give him some better parts, or hell, just experiment with some newly discovered technology, and creates a slightly more sophisticated version of the primate, using the primate's dna, crossed with possibly god's own dna. Hence the concept of creating man in his own image. Or more specifically, in "our" own image, as it was stated in the book of Genesis. Maybe this happened a few times over the millennia. Maybe God made a few return visits, dropping in here and there to see how things were progressing. And perhaps, just perhaps, the whole monkey walking upright thing had something to do with crossing some dna too.

Or maybe not. It's just a theory.

ED,

I was referring to the second creation story. After Adam and Eve's version there is a second story, still in genesis. In the second one the only thing god says to man is "Go and be fertile" or something to that effect. The order is a bit different too. Man is the first living thing created in one story, and the last in the other. You really shouldn't try to read from start to finish. You'd be better off finding a very very patient bible study group (that's what I did a few years back, after I left catholic school) to walk you through the book. The great thing about doing it that way is you get to see the bible from the believer's point of view, a boon when trying to understand them.

Remember the bible was written by men (and I do mean males). Eve being made from Adam is supposed to show that women are to be subservient to men. If you missed that, don't worry, god will flat out say it a few times. This is why the story of Lilith is so popular with strong, independent women (and why the feminists named their big concert "Lilith Fair").

I think you may also try brushing up on the theory of evolution; the more recent revisions to the theory answer your questions about it.

Well, we share a common ancestor, but that ancestor would probably be called a monkey. Take two monkeys born of one, one of the monkeys was living in a forest, but it starts to slowly die, so its children and children's children evole to cope, part of their changing environment makes them grow bigger brains and stand upright to reach high shelving. Very long bam, homo-sapien. The other's environment doesn't change so much, very long bam, remains a monkey.

According to a slightly different hypothesis on evolution would be that stuff changed more quickly and a group who was most mutated had children of a different species. Shorter bam, humans and monkeys.

One group moved north and adapted, one group stayed the same, this was only a slight variation in skin pigment, since there's less sun the further north you go, you need less skin pigment to protect you from the sun. Not only do things evolve forward, they lose redundant features. The variation is so slight that it makes racism look silly. You don't see black and white kitties with prejudices against tortoise shell ones.

Asians are the inbetween skin pigmentation group.

More of a supposition, established theory with proof of it is, in non-scientific terms, a fact, like germs (theory of) or gravity (theory of). How the stuff works in scientific terms is a hypothesis. Most people say theory when they mean hypothesis. I do it myself since I tend to avoid scientific language unless everyone else is using the same terms to mean the same things.

Its obvious you love to twist shit around and manipulate it into your concept of what you think somebody is trying to say. Especially when its somebody that you've decided you don't like. You really should be a politician, or even a televangelist.

I have never once stated, here or anywhere else, that I hate Jesus. Nor have I ever once stated, here or anywhere else, that I don't believe Jesus existed. More importantly, I never once mentioned Jesus in either of the two posts that I've posted in this thread. On the same note, I've never once stated that Christianity is illogical or stupid. If I have then please show me, and everybody else here, where I've made these statements.

You assume too much, too much of the time.

If tossing a different opinion, idea or theory out there for others to consider is, and I quote, "self-serving antagonism", then I guess I'm guilty of being an antagonist, as are you, and everybody else whose posted their own ideas and/or opinions in this thread. As well as those elsewhere - from scientists to preachers to school kids - who believe in either evolution or intelligent design, and who have ever once expressed those beliefs to any other living individual.

Also, please show me where I ever stated, and I quote, "that it should not only NOT be taught in school, but it shouldn’t be taught out of school as well."

That's just another blatant example of you feeding something into what I said or meant, in order to twist shit around and make me out to look like the bad guy.

On the contrary, very much contrary to your (prejudice) assumption I might add, I don't see a problem with either concept being taught in school, so long as #1: both are taught as theory and #2: they are offered as elective choices and not mandatory learning. The best bet, as I see it, would be to teach them both together in the same elective course.

The only teachings that should be mandatory for students to learn are those that are proven as fact. Example: Mathematics are factual; the structure of the English language, and other languages, is factual; the history of our country is factual. The concepts of both Intelligent Design and evolution are both theory.

When I was in high school, in the early '90s, nothing related to religion of any form was taught in school. At least not in my school(s) - I went to two different high schools, both in the same district and county. The only ecxeption being world history, and even then religion was only mentioned in relation to the predominant beliefs of whatever civilization we happened to be studying at the time.

My biology teacher - Mr. Berkowski - was very much Jewish, and when he lectured on evolution he did it the only way it should be done, and that is as theory. He made it very clear to all his students that evolution is theory, and when students questioned him about more religious aspects, such as intelligent design, he also made it very clear that it too was theory. But he didn't lecture on ID, in or out of class, because it was, at least at that time, against the rules of our school for any teacher to discuss any form of religious concepts with their students. He gave limited answers as best he could when people asked about his religion (for some reason a lot of kids found it odd that he was Jewish, I never understood why). I'll also add that I was never one of those who questioned him, unless he stated something that I didn't understand (he and I went round and round on the subject of dna because at the time I just couldn't understand it. I do now, but I didn't understand the way he was trying to explain it). I respected him as a person and as a teacher, and I also respected the fact that he was jewish, regardless of whether or not I personally agreed with his religion.

To make assumptions of what I believe in or don't believe in, Mr. Stone, is egotistical and arogant, especially since I have never stated to you, or to anybody else here on these forums, exactly what it is that I do and do not believe in.

My commenting on the fact that passages from the bible - or more specifically the book of Genesis - are, in my opinion, illogical DOES NOT state that I find Christianity to be illogical, whether I do or do not. All I said was that there are many passages, or statements I should say, in the book of Genesis, that are illogical.

I agreed with Raven when he stated that faith and logic do not mix. They don't. Pure and simple. In order to have faith in what I have read thus far, one would have to be intelligent enough to be able to seperate faith from logic in their own minds, otherwise nothing in it makes sense.

And for your information, I'm not reading the bible to prove or disprove anything, my own ideas or anybody elses. I am reading as reference with a completely open and objective standpoint, as I happen to be working on a novel - and have been for quite some time - of which, as I have realized recently, the storyline has developed to the point where religion plays a very significant role, especially in regards to one specific character. Therefore I decided my best bet would be to read the bible in order to be as accurate as I possibly could with that character's views and opinions on religion.

I have never read the bible in its entirety, nor did I ever state that I had. I said that I have read parts of it here and there, which is true. I did not say that I, and I quote, "read [it] before but that it didn’t make any goddamn sense then either". I DID NOT FUCKING SAY THAT! That is YOU trying to force shit into what I said.

I do not hate Jesus. I do not hate God. I do not hate anybody, christian or otherwise. I strongely detest a lot of people, especially people like you, but I do not hate anyone. NOR do I find those who believe in Jesus or chrisianity to be stupid. I, as I have stated before, do not believe anybody is stupid.

People have to believe in something, regardless of what that something is, in order for them to continue living in this world. Because without belief, people feel lost. I believe Jesus represents hope in people, that there is a reason they go on day to day, week after week, year after year, because they know they are not going to live forever in their physical bodies. Because they know that, at some point in time, they're going to die - either by natural causes or by the hand of another person. People fear death more than anything else in the world. Nobody understands exactly what death is, until the moment they actually experience it for themselves. By then it's too late to go tell your family or your friends what you experienced. So they use symbolic figures such as Jesus to give them hope that there is something beyond death that waits for us; that death is not the end. I don't believe humans would have survived as long as they have if it weren't for religion, and figures like Jesus.

I, personally, do not believe Jesus was a god, or the son of a god. That is my personal belief, which I have developed after years of contemplating the concept of Jesus, and god, and analyzing what it is that I believe a true GOD consists of. It is not logical, based on my personal views, that a true GOD could be contained within the flesh of a human body.

That does not mean that I hate Christians, or that I hate Jesus. I have NEVER once said anything like that.

YES, I hate what Christians do, how they try to force their beliefs and morals down other people's throats and how they - as a whole - hold no regard for anybody else's belief system. That is egotism. But that does not mean that I hate Christians.

I've run out of time here.

I will reitterate, do not assume you know what the hell I'm talking about, when I have not said what my beliefs are.

The concepts?, the how and why is theory, but evolution does happen. Like gravity, they both obviously exist, the theory is the how and why. Unless you mean in scientific terms, in scientific terms only mathematics is proven, history certainly isn't.

On the other hand, Intelligent Design is supposition, not theory, and certainly not scientific theory. By directly comparing them by two different meanings of the same word is just dishonest.

You owe him no respect as a teacher. It's disgusting that a science teacher would even give intelligent design marketing the faintest veneer of scientific credibility by saying they're both theories as if they're even comparable.

That job is the politician's, not a teacher's. They are supposed to teach, not confuse terms.

Here's an interesting fact: Humans when raised in the absence of language (this is based purely on one particular psychological case study of a girl who spent the first 13 years of her life treated more poorly than most house pets) tend to lack anything that we would label as a definable personality.

In this particular case study, she knew only very rudimentary language (most often the words used against her as a child such as "No" but also a very broken structured attempt at communication. She could convey points and stuff, but essentially, she was lacking in some basic concepts.

Now contemplate this in tandem with evolutionary theory. What was it that made us successful on an evolutionary scale? The opposable thumb. What beyond that, though, as there are several other species with this same trait? Language.

If you are going to tie intelligent design into anything, it would be sooner applicable to language, perhaps even our own mental capacity. Think of dolphins now. They have a very rudimentary language, though I think it would be fairly safe to assume that given an extended period of time, dolphins will have their own developed language, which would eventually lead to proving evolution correct.

If not, here's an interesting thing to consider: Imagine if Adam and Eve were the firts humans introduced to complex linguistics, and they introduced others to this same system. That would be pretty cool. Not as cool as when I write love letters to myself to feel socio-romantically adequate.... but that's another story.

Long version:

Theory:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


Let's interpret the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific context, and theory in a colloquial context.

...not the same.

Let's interpret the meaning of evolution as a scientific theory, and intelligent design as a theory.

...not the same.

Short version:

Your teacher was an idiot.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN - New from Intel.

No, I think you missed my meaning. I'm sure they could separate Faith from logic, many of them don't. I'm talking about the benefactors of the ID campaign here (read: not all Christians). They have a major tendency to substitute Faith for logic. Hence why getting in a debate with them is like getting into a land war in Asia, you won't win because they won't listen.

I think this "reasoning with your faith" is fascinating, and I am a little bit envious. I however, as a child of the Church of Reason (and if you get this reference, you'll get why I find ID in the classroom so very offensive), can not function this way.

Oh, and evolution as an elective? That must be a joke.
I really do think you need to brush up on your definitions; it'll save you a lot of grief. Here, hit some familiar ground and check numbers 1 and 6. One definition if for Evolution, one is for ID (though there is another ID fits in). Can you guess which is which?

i submit this...

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~michaelr/images/rockin.gif

cuz this thread is fuckin' ROCKIN' !!!

Poor word choice on my part. As she can't convey her personality verbally, she became, essentially, an animal. Behaviourally, at any rate.

Funny thing, as I was writing that out, I began to realize that I was splicing two aspects of psychology together, but I didn't feel like starting all over again. It had to do with the cerebrum and a human capacity to exist without one, but to lack anything beyond the urges presented by the hind/midbrain.

I highly suggest everyone ignore that first post.

That is effing halarious, and if I am the 50 billionth person to say that then I don't care.
But anyways, I think God created monkeys and was too busy to create anything else so he just set an egg timer and went "Fuck it, they'll cook eventually." If you catch my drift than good for you.

I have had no problem reconciling evolution and creationism. I believe that one can be a Christian (like myself) and still believe in evolution. I call it the "starter life-form" theory. My idea is that God made certain kinds of animals and then let nature take over and make them into whatever they needed to be to be best suited to survival and their environment. In my private Christian schools (which I attended until 8th grade) we were taught both evolution and creation. I think teaching creationism isn't necessarily endorsing it. The teacher could say,"This is a theory." I mean, come on, even evolution is a THEORY, not a fact. It hasn't been proven beyond a doubt.