60 minutes = $188 million in new debt

I read this today and it summarizes the evolution discussion nicely.

"Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well. Evolution is not some recondite backwater of science, ignorance of which would be pardonable. It is the stunningly simple but elegant explanation of our very existence and the existence of every living creature on the planet. Thanks to Darwin, we now understand why we are here and why we are the way we are. You cannot be ignorant of evolution and be a cultivated and adequate citizen of today."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...FUYJ_blog.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

But I am already nuts in most members views here because I believe in God. The choice is purely mine. I think it only goes to say I would believe in Genesis Chapter 1.

---

Belief in God doesn’t make you nuts. Most people in world start life indoctrinated into one religion or another which usually requires a belief in one or more deities. Religion is often an important shared belief system that holds communities, social life and families together. It’s not insane to adhere to the belief system one was indoctrinated into from birth, especially if you never had occasion to question those beliefs critically.

What is not so understandable is adherence to a religion when it comes into conflict with well established facts and well understood science and you have become aware of the conflict. Persistence of religious beliefs that contradict well established science (as well as persistence of ideological belief that contradicts established scientific facts) is indicative of a psychological inability to give up a childhood dependency. It is a sort of mental illness. But that doesn’t make you nuts or crazy. Though it can make you a obstruction and one who reinforces social injustice.

Here’s what’s crazy. Taking your garden variety religion and adding on ludicrous doodads like the time-traveling Christ. Doodads which are not recognized by the great majority of religious authorities or the vast majority of the practitioners of your faith. Doodads for which the evidence (even granting all the bizarre peripheral apparatus that one has to grant when arguing from within religious belief) is tenuous, ephemeral and dissolves at a touch. It’s especially crazy when the people who believe these things present themselves as skeptics in other areas in which they have no expertise, no knowledge and no honest interest. These clowns have opinions on evolution and climate change but couldn’t give two fucks about any of the other important areas or advances in science. Do you have an opinion on the energy of Higg's boson or whether it's there to be found? Is the law of entropy fundamental, or does it derive from cosmological boundary conditions? Do favor the Lagrangian approach to general relativity or the traditional approach through differential geometry? What's your opinion on the Church-Turing hypothesis? Does it generalize? Are you a string theory man or not? Dark matter or MONDO? That one has strong opinions in two politicized areas of science and no interest in science is a clue that your opinion derives from a point of view outside of science per se; i.e. their evaluation is not a scientific one. It's not hard to imagine Faldur siding with the conservative POV against Galileo and the Copernican Theory had he lived during the Renaissance. BTW, it's still called the Copernican Theory.

In any case, have a great vacation Faldur. Don’t strain your brain.

(Hello Nicole, I appreciate the appreciation. And I do enjoy and appreciation or contributions both in this forum and in the general discussion. Missed you when you were gone).

How did we get back on this evolution silliness?

It only took me 6 days to put all this together. Almost fucked up by creating light first, so I had to create stars to give all you brainy know-it-alls a source to point to. Anyway, y'all've been very entertaining & all, but I'm gonna have to pull the plug pretty soon. Sometime in the next billion years or so. Think I might try a contracting universe this time. See ya in the funny papers...
~ Blasphemers Я us ~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

How did we get back on this evolution silliness?

It only took me 6 days to put all this together. Almost fucked up by creating light first, so I had to create stars to give all you brainy know-it-alls a source to point to. Anyway, y'all've been very entertaining & all, but I'm gonna have to pull the plug pretty soon. Sometime in the next billion years or so. Think I might try a contracting universe this time. See ya in the funny papers...
~ Blasphemers Я us ~

---

I think most people's creative imagination is limited. God is defined in the Bible and other texts as creating the universe, But time for us, is measured in earth revolutions. How can we say, the universe was created in six earth days, when the unverse is billions of planets, and entities we know not yet of? One day for God, may be an age for us, (mankind). Six days, six ages, or what galaxy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

No thanks, not wasting my time. 52 years since Darwin published his "theory of evolution" and today it is still just that, a theory. That speaks for itself.

---

Ummm. Darwin published his theory in 1859. That's 152 years by my reckoning. Maybe you're still using Archbishop Usher's method for calculating time.

But I'm joshing. Have a good vacation Faldur, and come back ready for the fray. You're in a distinct minority on this particular issue, but I do like your persistence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

Ummm. Darwin published his theory in 1859.

---

Yup, my bad I had googled it quickly and saw this, He published his theory with compelling evidence for evolution in his 1859 book, and read 1959.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Here’s what’s crazy. Taking your garden variety religion and adding on ludicrous doodads like the time-traveling Christ.

---

Your doodad is the theological belief of most biblical scholars. God the Father has never appeared to any man. Anytime in the old testament that "God" appears it is God the Son who is present. That seems to be a shock to you but its been the belief of the Christian Church since the beginning.

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4

John 1: 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Only Timothy had powers of time-travel, I thought everyone knew that.

And thanks for the kind comments, its much appreciated. Now, lets get back to, (what was it Trish said?), "A public spanking and a little humiliation".

Sorry but an appearance of the Captain of the Lord is not necessarily an appearance of the Trinity, and you have yet to explicitly demonstrate that a majority of Christian scholars regard it as such. You could start with the Catholic Church if you want. Does the Pope think the Captain of the Lord is the indeed the Trinity?

BTW, I thought you were on vacation. Have you found an internet cafe in Venice somewhere. Or perhaps you're posting from Katmandu. Just curious.

Of course if you start with a logical inconsistency like 3=1 you can derive anything. For example. Start with 3=1. Subtract 1 from both sides to obtain, 2=0. Now multiply both sides by 5. You get 10=0. Now again subtract 1 from both sides. This time you get 9=-1. Take the principle square root of both sides (denoting the square root of -1 by the traditional i) and you obtain 3=i. So i=3 and 3=1, so i=3=1. In words, the Trinity is imaginary.

It might be time for some people to start paying taxes again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Sorry but an appearance of the Captain of the Lord is not necessarily an appearance of the Trinity, and you have yet to explicitly demonstrate that a majority of Christian scholars regard it as such. You could start with the Catholic Church if you want. Does the Pope think the Captain of the Lord is the indeed the Trinity?

BTW, I thought you were on vacation. Have you found an internet cafe in Venice somewhere. Or perhaps you're posting from Katmandu. Just curious.

Of course if you start with a logical inconsistency like 3=1 you can derive anything. For example. Start with 3=1. Subtract 1 from both sides to obtain, 2=0. Now multiply both sides by 5. You get 10=0. Now again subtract 1 from both sides. This time you get 9=-1. Take the principle square root of both sides (denoting the square root of -1 by the traditional i) and you obtain 3=i. So i=3 and 3=1, so i=3=1. In words, the Trinity is imaginary.

---

God how I do love debating you. You forgot the 1 in the beginning, 1=3=1 and yes the Catholic Church, (for what it is), believes in the Trinity doctrine. If I'm not mistaken it was about 206 AD they adopted the following, and included the Apostles Creed adopted 390 AD.

New Advent, "The Blessed Trinity"

To me Holiday is a short break, vacation is a week or longer. Took the little lady to a beautiful small city where her daughter lives, had a nice visit, and attended my best friends daughters wedding Saturday. So, back again.. refreshed and ready.. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helvis2012

It might be time for some people to start paying taxes again.

---

Amen brother!