:~(

This is true, however if you must choose to believe one theory over another without concrete proof either way, why not go for the one that makes the most sense.

For example:
If you compare evolution to a series of numbers, where the blank is the missing “unproven” part:

2,4,6,_,10,12,14,16

Evolution is believing the blank is 8 and there is a pattern, and ID is believing there is no pattern…its 51 because god said so.

I am going to try to sum up the conclusions so far:
1) An animal is social if survival of the fittest implies survival of the group.
2) In order to survive as a group, morals or a code of behavior is required.

If I have these right:
A) If an individual only acts in a group for safety, not for the benefit of the
group, does it have morals or code of behavior?
B) Does acting only for the individual mean the individual is not social?
C) Are morals/code of behavior are what cause an individual to act in benefit for others in a group?

————————————————————
You said:
“…don’t feel that any dehumanizing is necessary…master of her own body…long as that fetus is in her body, it is under her jurisdiction, if you will.”

So, by this, do you mean that an unborn fetus has just about as much importance as a cancer growth or virus? That it has no more rights than a bacterium or scar tissue? That it is in the womans body and she has “the right to choose” to suck her unborn fetus through a tube into a sink?

That is dehumanization. Removing the value and rights of a born human from an unborn one so abortion becomes acceptable.

————————————————————
You said:
“The government has nothing say about it. The government can’t make a woman give birth. And if the government tries to force it, we’ll go back to the days of coathanger
abortions. And nobody wants that.”

The government is expected to protect the rights of an individual human being. Sure, the government can’t
make you do anything if you don’t want. But that doesn’t mean that you escape the consequences to be
carried out by the government. Saying nobody wants coathanger abortions is like saying nobody wants
meth dealers or mass murder. Big surprise. That doesn’t mean that it is right, or that it should still
be legal. All it says is that people who used made bad decisions used to have to deal with the
consequences, where today they don’t.

It isn’t removing freedom that people fear, it is increasing personal responsibility for their actions.

————————————————————
You said:
“I think popular culture is far to concerned with [fluff stuff other than evolution] to be thinking about
evolution and its moral implications.”

Exactly my point. Just because people don’t sit back and think about how things affect their life doesn’t mean
the affect isn’t there. Everything about our lives, how we grew up, how we view ourselves, has an affect on us,
whether we want to admit it or not. How man views his origins, be it of the species or just a specific
individual’s lifeline, changes the behavior of the individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_effect_of_evolutionary_theory

————————————————————
You said:
“I do not [think] we live in a culture largely affected by the logical conclusions that one might draw from evolution.
Since when did one’s sex drive have much to do with logic?”

You missed the point. One logical conclusion is that if our origins were not from a creator, but chance, then we alone
are the masters of our actions, and we are responsible to nobody but ourselves. If we are not held responsible by some
creator or supreme being, then we are free to do whatever we want whenever we want without consequence to be carried
out by that supreme being.

————————————————————
You said:
“Besides, I don’t think it is right to censor scientific findings or theories based on what conclusions you think
people might draw from them.”

There we agree. But, you must be aware scientists do this all the time. Even Einstein is known to have fudged numbers
in calculations. Science may not have a bias, but scientists do.

————————————————————
You said:
“That is a false dichotomy. One does not automatically become an amoral atheist/hedonist when one accepts
evolution as the process by which new species come to be. I’m certainly neither an atheist nor a hedonist.”

I at no point said you become an amoral athiest/hedonist. I didn’t say go eat till you puke, drink till you pass out, and sleep with anyone who will have you and make fun of everyone who doesn’t. I was trying to say that if there is no ultimate creator of humanity to be responsible to, all the restraints on our actions predicated on avoiding divine punishment or gaining divine favor are unnneccesary.

Your understanding of purpose in life is predicated on what you believe. If there is no afterlife, then after you are dead, no fame or glory or wealth will mean anything to you. Getting your name in the books does nothing for you after you are dead. So, if nothing after this life matters, there is no reason to not do something because of morality based on teachings from a divine being.

————————————————————
You said:
“Many many Christians (and people of other religions) accept evolution. It is not a religious or philosophical matter.”

First off, just because people say they are Christian in a survey, doesn’t mean they are. Secondly, just because
something is popular, doesn’t make it right or mean it should be acceptable. Thirdly, theory of evolution with regards to intra-species evolution (adaptation) is well accepted. What is contested is to what extent the inter-species evolution aspect of the theory can be accepted.

The Genesis account gives a chain of events of how creatures were created:

Plants => Water Creatures & Birds => Land Creatures => Man

But man was created “different” from the rest:
Genesis 1:26 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the
sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move
along the ground.”

The theory of evolution as is taught today states man isn’t specially created, just lucky. I would find it very
hard for a Christian to accept that we both are and are not special without creating a paradox. To accpet that
birds were created at the same time as sea creaures, yet evolution would have them appearing further down the
line.

Evolution is a rock dropped into a pond, and the effects are far further stretching than just the original rock.
You are acting as if ideas have no effects, and that is dangerously ignorant of history.

————————————————————
You said:
“Water Canopy “theory” is an answer to the question of where all the water came from for Noah’s Flood. And yes,
it is lunacy. Ask any question about the details…all you get is lunacy.”

Right, so explaining how old bones are using radiocarbon dating is real effective when it only has a valid window out
to about 62K years old. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/arizona/rdc/2001/00000043/00000002/art00008

And explaining the huge amount of fossils we have, yet no complete intermediary fossil chains to show for it. Still
tons of “missing links”. Not even between Archaeopteryx and the “fuzzy dinosaurs” found in China is there a clear,
distinct, small change that allowed the one species to go to the other.

So, there are controversial theories within evolution like punctuated equilibrium which allow “on a short geological
timeline”, huge changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Using a the argument, that “our fossils are the remains of large central populations…In the peripheral
region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the
event occurs so rapidly in such a small population.”

In other words:

“All the fossils we have are from the population that wasn’t evolving. The ones that were evolving were inbreeding amongst each other because they were concentrated and set apart from the main population. So, the evolution would be fast because the result of the inbreeding would quickly change the genetic makeup and physical disposition, and there would be no inter-mediary form at all.”

The problem with recapitulation is that it presupposes the mutation within the population, but that it is so diluted, the feature rarely ever shows up. It is presupposing that the mutation is already there, just that the small population is needed to purify out the non-mutated genes so the new mutation can take form.

————————————————————
You said:
“That is fine because science is not about proving anything. It is about formulating and honing theories which
explain the natural world based on evidence.”

Please, explain to me how you “formulate and hone” theories without proving or disproving anything. That is the whole
point of “falsifiability” in the scientific method. You have to prove that the alternatives are not possible. After
that you refine or re-write, and start the falsifiability process over again.

Without proving or disproving anything, science can no longer be a tool for gaining knowledge, let alone refinement of
theory.

————————————————————
You said:
“You’re only picking on evolution because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.”

Wait, I thought that my “religious” beliefs and evolution had nothing to do with each other? Are you saying that I
believe differently from other “Christians”? Are you differentiating between “spiritual” Christianity and “religious” Christianity? Do you know which I believe in comparison to those “other Christians”?

So, which is it? Does evolution conflict with my beliefs, or doesn’t it? You can’t both claim that “evolution isn’t
a religious or philosophical issue”, then say that is the only reason why I am “picking” on it.

Please clear up this contradiction.

————————————————————
You said:
“Assumptions don’t validate anything. They’re just assumptions.”

An assumption is, by definition, to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit.

I won’t argue that just because you make an assumption doesn’t make it valid. But I will say that there are some
assumptions closer to the truth than others. We call those “gut feelings” or “good guesses.” What I am saying in
my assumptions is that those are the only guesses I need to make, and that everything else, if those guesses are
true, can be taken or extrapolated from them.

————————————————————
Where you said:
“Only one assumption is needed…can be explained without invoking supernatural agents. This doesn’t mean that supernatural agents are not somehow involved…they are not required to explain things.”

So, for the things we will never see or hear, such as inter-species evolution which supposedly takes longer than known human history, how can we be so sure that what we are being told happened is what happened?

It hasn’t been proven that one species can through random mutations become a different species (not adaptation). It hasn’t been proven that one species can’t through random mutations become a different species.

Either way, you have to believe without proof.

Will try to post as soon as I am happy with my response. Thanks for patience. ^_^

Where in the Bible does it say you have a soul? As a permanent entity that continues after death? If there is no “soul” then salvation is not necessary for nothing has sinned, and Jesus and God are unnecessary because there is nothing to save. If you say the soul exists because Jesus saves it, it’s like saying you are guilty just because a cop arrests you. Cart before the horse.

So, Christians, instead of telling about your experiences of God, how about describing something even more intimate and “knowable” for those of us who are atheist or agnostic. Describe your “soul” and all of it’s manisfestations. If you say “it is a feeling”, non Christians have “feelings” too. And even feelings are temporary and changeble

On the flip side, believing in Evolution provides none of those psychological rewards. Knowing we came from monkeys and apes doesn’t help with day to day living and coping with stress and fears. So to defend their coping mechanism for life, Christians and all “Faith based religions” must deny anything that threatens that mechanism. Including denying reality, scientific observation, geological and fossil records, astronomy, biology, chemistry and physics. Deny all that, but accept the Bible as “Truth.” Because the Bible is limited, so many pages and so many words, can be handled by insecure people, they can see the boundaries. But REALITY as observed by science is OVERWHELMING for the Christian. Just the size of the Solar system in comparison to one person renders that person so miniscule, the size of the galaxy and the universe just blows the mind. So to avoid the reality of their insignificance in the universe, Christians need to believe that they are somehow special and chosen by the creator of the universe.

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/15/1845200

Honestly I had no idea we were that bad. Maybe I have a scewed perpective because I live in massachusetts, and have never visitted the bible belt, but honestly…. 50%!?!?

I have never been more ashamed to be an American.

As Matthew mentioned, evolution doesn’t disprove an afterlife and nothing can. You act as if atheists/agnostics have some huge incentive not to believe in god or an afterlife. Most of us don’t go around doing irresponsible things because we don’t fear eternal retribution.

I for one am an atheist, and I try to look at religion in an unbiased manner. If there was a god, and an afterlife, that would be great. I don’t see any reason why I would get the (*insert religious punishment), but I can’t just believe it because it would be nice. Religion just doesnt make any sense to me. It is logically unsound and inconsistent, and I can’t see any reason to believe it other than that it would be nice. I don’t believe it because it I seek the truth, however unpleasant.