Here is Reggie in a Ron Paul thread, here is prffsrx during my Xmas day post, here is Maurice when I posted the documentary "No End in Sight." All telling people to go learn that Evolution is false and that we all must bow to our God, it's basically a Lee Strobel fan site.
During a simpler time I would assume that this commentator is practicing the art of satire.
Perhaps, amusing us by joining the debates as a mock character, I hope this is the case, I actually think this AOLer legitimately doesn't believe in the theory of evolution. So for Maurice, Reggie or whatever you call yourself today, please watch this educational film about evolution. I am no scientist, but I think the jury is sold on this topic. Please, join us as we progress our species and move on, it'll be fun.
/via the sift
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 9)
46. Thats why the pope says evolution is real. OK Dena, catch up, you are about 150 years behind the times.
a born atheist at 9:23PM on Jan 1st 2008
47. Dena
Seriously.
You do know that God did not author the bible, right? It was written by men.
Now, some men who weren't around when the world was created, have written that God put only two people to procreate and inhabit the earth. And that these two people were fooled by a "serpent" and ate some "magic" fruit that ruined their lives forever.
Dena, I am not telling you that there is no God. I am saying that I think he would not want you to take that literally. Fair enough?
I just hope that you open your mind just a little bit. It won't mean that you are betraying him. That's what our brains are for, to think for ourselves.
amekf at 10:00PM on Jan 1st 2008
48. this is like watching tennis.
/grabs some popcorn..
DENA,read my post.
and father john,im guessing greek orthodox.
which is cool,but also one of the more "liberal"
denominations who dont take much of the bible,especially the old testament, literally.
this is not the case with fundamentalist and evangelical denominations.
while evangelical will loosely interpret some scripture,it adhere's to a much more rigid interpretation than say..roman catholic's or,as your own..greek orthodox.
you can include episcopalian,lutheran and methodist in there also.
but now i see the discussion is going into creationism and "intelligent design".
as i have stated,i believe in a creator,i just dont use the bible or the book of genesis to prove it.
if people knew the history of that book,and the bible itself..
well..it would be a rather retarded argument.
love your posts father john.
till next time..peace.
Enoch D.D.S
enoch at 1:10AM on Jan 2nd 2008
49. Hi Dena. Happy New Year.
Here's the thing. First you paste some stuff from "intelligent design" which sorta follows evolution and sorta not.
Then, when asked if a creator created man, why wasn't he created perfectly, you resort back to the fundamentalism of the literal story of adam and eve
Your "intelligent design" people (so called scientists) do not believe in the literal genesis story.
Linda at 12:02PM on Jan 2nd 2008
50. To paraphrase a great author,"Any sufficiently complex natural process is indistinguishable from divine intervention."
alan at 2:01PM on Jan 2nd 2008
51. 50. To paraphrase a great author,"Any sufficiently complex natural process is indistinguishable from divine intervention."
alan at 2:01PM on Jan 2nd 2008
xxx
To quote another, Carl Sagan, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'. There is a plethora of extaordinary proof of evolution, but only claims and no proof of divine intervention.
Clif Kuplen at 3:01PM on Jan 2nd 2008
52. #51 - Cliff - Thanks for a non-paraphrased quote and better coming from a full-time scientist (vs. a science writer).
alan at 4:05PM on Jan 2nd 2008
53. And sorry for misspelling your name.
alan at 4:06PM on Jan 2nd 2008
54. 53. And sorry for misspelling your name.
no problem. think of the ways to spell 'alan' you've seen!
Clif Kuplen at 4:32PM on Jan 2nd 2008
55. I hope to add to the discussion. A theory is all that we are left with after observation, experimentation and prediction. Electricity, evolution, magnetism, gravity, ad infinitum are all theories. Science does not produce fact or laws.
It goes like this. All of science is based upon paradigms (like the rules of a game). We accept the paradigm that best fits our observations. Physics is the easiest example to understand. Ptolemy explained the universe in a very satisfactory way according to the observations of his time. Then Copernicus, skipping ahead to Newton, then Einstein and now Hubble or Hawkings.
Each found something that didn't fit within the old paradigm or theory. Are we at an end. No, there will be new questions and/or observations that will change the way we understand the universe and physics will be ruled by another set of rules.
Now since all of science is reduced to "mere" theory, what about evolution? Many people prefer to call it "The theory of Evolution" somehow thereby reducing its importance. As it turns out, evolution is one of the most documented and supported sciences. It poses no threat to most established religions, unless one actually believes that Jesus rode on a dinosaur. Carbon dating, fossil record, DNA testing and many other techniques have resulted in quite a bit of evolutionary theory that is universally supported.
Now having said that, let me tell you about a program that I saw on TV over the holidays. A preacher and man named Carl, dressed in a doctor's lab coat were discussing the folly of evolution. They claimed that the Earth was only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs were still living. Unfortunately, the dinosaurs only came out at night and their breath was toxic. Therefore, if you were lucky enough to see a dinosaur you were also unlucky to be killed by its breath. Ergo, no living observers. Then it was pass the plate and donate to their research. What a masterful research proposal.
So, if you are really interested in the theory of evolution, study, learn and prepare to be amazed. Did you know that through DNA testing we have found that all of humanity has come from around 550 female humans. What do you think about that, cousin. Did you know that all of our huminoid ancesters were black and came from a group of huminoids in upper Africa. Many of us, Asians and Europeans needed more melatonin to survive in a more temporate climate so our skin became lighter to be able to absorb more of the sun's radiation to produce more melatonin. How about Neandertals. They died out. Yes sir, completely extinct. You see these charts of Neandertals slowly advancing through the ages until they are modern man. Throw them away. It just wasn't so. The recent paradigm (well supported) is that all of the world's population came from about 1000 northern African individuals that were very handy with tools and that they spread from Africa about 75,000 years ago. Evidently, they spread up to Asia and Europe just as the Neandertals were dying out.
Lets cut to the chase,are we mere pests of this planet or was there a creator that made this majesty just for us? Don't ask science. Faith is something personal. If it could be proven we wouldn't call it faith.
My only wish is that those who dismiss evolution spend some time studying and understanding it. Its kinda fascinating when you get in to it.
Steve Seivers at 5:06PM on Jan 2nd 2008
56. 46. Thats why the pope says evolution is real. OK Dena, catch up, you are about 150 years behind the times.
a born atheist at 9:23PM on Jan 1st 2008
The Pope cannot believe in the bible AND evolution, except that God created the same way evolutionists claim. The following is taken from the NY Times;
Pope says evolution can't be proven
Updated 265d ago | Comments244 | Recommend40 E-mail | Save | Print |
Enlarge By Gregorio Borgia, AP
Pope Benedict XVI's new book, Creation and Evolution, praises progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.
Digg del.icio.us Newsvine Reddit Facebook What's this? By Melissa Eddy, Associated Press
BERLIN — Benedict XVI, in his first extended reflections on evolution published as pope, says that Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven and that science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity's view of creation.
In a new book, Creation and Evolution, published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.
"The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science," the pope said.
HERALD TRIBUNE: Pope Benedict and his ex-students holding seminar on evolution
He stopped short of endorsing intelligent design, but said scientific and philosophical reason must work together in a way that does not exclude faith.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Benedict | John Paul II | Evolution | Creation
"I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science," the pope was quoted as saying in the book, which records a meeting with fellow theologians the pope has known for years.
In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin's theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin's theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis."
"The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this," Benedict said. "But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."
DENA at 5:18PM on Jan 2nd 2008
57. hey Linda and Happy New Year to you to...This is for you, Enoch and amekp. I was asked questions specifically about biblical accounts and I answered with biblical referrences. Some may believe that the bible should not be referred to when rejecting evolution, but the scriptures within is the foundation and basis of study by many scientists, evolutionists and creationists, so those scriptures are THE blueprints which are being proven.
No one disputes that God did not 'write' the bible. The first few books were written by Moses, as dictated by God, so that we all would know who He was, why He created everything, including man, and what He is about. He told us our beginning and then He told us, through the Spiritual vision of John, our final destinations, giving us a choice where we end up. But He left the door open for salvation. When we try to understand things with human perspectives and experience, it wouldn't make sense. It seems fairy-tale. That is why He said He would pour out HIS Spirit on all flesh, to know Him and His love for us, that we may become Spiritual in our lives and know HIM. The old Testament was the Old Law and was right for its time, before Jesus. Many things in the old Testament is what Moses said, but the New Testament is God's Holy Word, what He declared. Scriptures also reflect the lives of certain people and their accounts. Yes, Genesis is literal. There are symbolic passages within certain scriptures that are obvious, but are discerned. Jesus spoke parables, so that His listeners would understand. But when He started off with, "There was a certain.....", these are things that actually took place.
Linda, the scientists who studied evolution for years, but who started digging deeper, finally conceded that there were flaws in their earlier teachings and studies, which led them to start studying the possibility of creationism. After studying this side, they realized that it was the only explanation of how things, in science, had to have happened. This is what made believers of them. Like I said earlier, more and more evolutionists are seeing things now they hadn't before and are switching sides.
DENA at 5:52PM on Jan 2nd 2008
58. Dena - The Pope is correct; science can prove nothing. Faith allows you to be certain in your heart, but unable to prove it to anyone. Science allows you to prove what you have observed, but unable to be certain that you are completely correct. Theories are the best explanation for what we have observed. They will change as we learn more.
And darn those scientists for narrowing the possibilities. Our moon is not made of green cheese after all, despite what my father told me.
Please consider re-reading post 55.
alan at 6:03PM on Jan 2nd 2008
59. Everything is constantly evolving, constantly changing. 10 years ago mosquitoes buzzed. Now they are silent. Why? Because all the buzzing ones got swatted. Humans breed dogs and horses and cats, etc. Mother Nature does the same.
I was on a farm one time, and I watched a cow give birth to a calf. The cow was obviously in pain while in labor. I thought of the quote from Genesis, in which it says that because Eve ate of the apple, her punishment would be to have painful childbirths. So, was Eve a cow? Or did the writer of Genesis never get outside to look at farm animals?
The Goddess Athena at 6:41PM on Jan 2nd 2008
60. thanks dena.
um..
did you READ my post?
ah well..no matter.
dena,i am a cultural religious history teacher at a local college.
so while i am not here to disparage your belief,
i would ask you refrain from posting in-accurate
literary commentary to make your point about evolution.
you believe it's the way genesis states..
ok..thats your choice.
but if you persist on posting biblical translations to make your points..
i will vivisect them point by point,
with references and links.
let me make just one point.
you state that the old testament may have some fallacies in it.
not genesis i presume,but others which you dont state.
then you proceed to say that the NEW testament is the true word of god.
ok..would it be safe to assume you are talking about old covenant/new covenant?
good..
who wrote the new testament?
which are basically the gospels.
saul..
i know i know..your saying it was paul,
and you would be right,and so am i.
saul changed his name to paul after his epiphany(meeting with an angel,who told saul jesus was the messiah).
so saul wrote the new testament,
but where did he come from?
tarsis.
and what was the main cult religion in tarsis at the time?
mithra.
who seems to have a remarkable similarity to the story of jesus we all grew up with.
coincidence?
also there were 24 gospels,yet only 4 in the bible..
hmmm,
now why were these other "good news" stories omitted?
and why did they use the book of john which has almost verbatim the revelation written by enoch almost 500 yrs earlier?
why didnt they use the revelation of paul?
it's a far better manuscript than john's.
so dena,believe what you wish to believe,
for whatever reason you wish to believe it.
just dont use scripture to make your argument.
but i do thank you with gratitude and blessings for your response.
and if i offended,please forgive.
till next time..peace.
Enoch D.D.S
enoch at 1:08AM on Jan 3rd 2008