Kevin's Watch

The thing is, believing the evidence for Evolution, the Big Bang, or whatever, does not remotely rule out a creator. Evolution could be the creator's way of ensuring that the creation can change and grow. The BB could be how the creator got the ball rolling.

There's certainly good evidence for BB, things that made them come up with the theory in the first place. Sort of like when you put enough pieces of a puzzle together, you begin to see the picture. And when they said, "Well, if it did happen, there should be this certain type of background radiation everywhere." And they looked for it, and found it. Making predictions about a theory, and then confirming those predictions, is a rather good indicator that the theory is accurate. (If the predictions don't pan out, you either throw the theory away, or modify it.) But it doesn't say one little thing about whether the BB was the work of a creator.

IMO, science can only be used to find out how things work, and cannot be used to figure out why, or if there is an intelligence behind it.

MixoLocrian wrote:You know, as superficial as it may sound, I am bothered by the fact that no good fossils or other legitimate proof of "linking" species have been found whatsoever, despite the amount of varying types from varying ages already discovered. And it also bothers me the sheer amount of hoaxes about finding such tangible things (national geographic's "chicken bones" anyone?). Ahh, I don't really know. Evolution, as far as I am concerned, is still quite an ambitious theory.

In general, I tend to be lost at any meaningful way to approach "the beginning" as it were. Big bang? Maybe. But thats just one, arbitrary theory trying to explain probably the most unexplainable event in the history of the universe. I tend to lean towards Creation, but I don't really know. I think that the truely open minded approach to this question is simply "... lets consider other possibilities." Afterall, it takes alot of apparant knowledge of the universe's origins to say that either it was the big bang or it was creation.




I do say this: there is just as much proof (none) that a divine will cannot/does not exist as there is that a divine will can/does exist. So as its been said before, its all really just a matter of how one thinks, or tackles the problem.

Ahhh, but to me, I think that the most important thing to do in life is the obligation to live it. Personally, I believe that there is a God, just because I tend to think that way (general romantic), but I don't really think that it matters if we believe in it or not. But I do find, atleast, that given life by it we are obligated to endulge life; obligation to action. I think having been given this life we should not waste it, hide from it, or seperate ourselves from it. That is the only "rule" to life that I live by.

I find you wise. You have not embraced one or the other and yet accept the possibility of either. Please do not succumb to the charms of the many simply because it is easy to do so by popularity’s acceptance.

I do have differing beliefs. I suggest things that people have not considered as a possibility because they lock themselves into a viewpoint and close themselves to any other possibilities. I have, in my life, drifted between the obvious authenticity of dinosaur fossils which suggest a long record of life on earth and the illogical reasoning of the seven days of creation. I have accepted the impossibility of the Bible’s stories and its contradictions, and I have also looked at the impossibility of sudden life by chance and its contradictions. I come to the conclusion that neither view is provable. Mostly for the fact that no one living, not even a California Redwood giant can tell us of anything accurate before its own experience. I see historical references which have long been marred by the political correctness of their times, whether it be now or a few hundred years before now. We still don’t even know who discovered America for real. Some say Christopher Columbus and some say a great Viking, but nevertheless the land was inhabited far before any of them came to the America’s. They simply brought history with them and in accurate versions at that.
Again and again, the Bible is proven to be authentic by its age and remains the most read script in history. Again and again it is fought against with hatred. We do not say Dan Johnson Dammit. Only one name is cursed and that is of the very God that created humanity and so we say Jesus H Christ and God Dammit even while Satan’s name is raised and accepted in movies long after the epics of old, ‘the ten commandments’ are not remade and instead we remake and sequel everything else to disprove God in any way possible and God Damn is a curse that is one of the very first cuss words accepted on television. And we move faster and faster to accepting the number of the beast, so that we are confused by our very technology and money becomes a credit card and a credit card becomes a microchip implant in Florida as has just recently been established. Yet all are blinded and thinking that this is wisdom, to accept such a token which would “prevent crime and identity theft” although I myself see a different reality in the eventual outcome of such blatant compromises with the legions which Satan controls. You think of yourselves are do-goods and people of the world who would stand against atrocity; but at the last you will accept whatever speech is given by the coming king of hatred just as the germans accepted the speeches of a mad leader in Adolf Hitler.

Is there a hell here? Is there a God?

He’s all about you. All around you! He is the essence which keeps the universe together, that which you have decided to call dark matter. He is everywhere and within everything. His time knows no boundaries and no known realm. He is here and not here. A memory. A myth. He lives in our dreams. But he answers our prayers. Prayer is the last overt power men have been given. We have tainted all the rest we were once in command of having through availability of the holy spirit who is now grieved to the end of its patiences with us. There is hell to pay and hell shall come to earth and all of its inhabitants and all the animals and all the very plant life shall despair at the reckoning of the coming power which will transform this world when the last of the saints has perished and no one remains to hold the torch of light against the coming night and arriving wind.

He still waits though, even while babies are scraped from unwanting mother’s wombs and men’s faces are battered in the streets. He still holds patience while his innocent children are tortured by mistaken men in their insolent, malcontent, incestual, violences. He still contends even while men in another country’s war are chopping the forearms off of every man that inhabits the country which is called enemy. He stirs in his sleep, giving us chance after chance to change over to wave his banner of hope and to accept his son as reality, even while entire nations go hungry while American’s selfishly inhabit mansions and king’s ransoms by comparison. He waits and he watches with growing horror at the choices of his people, the creation of his very image, who have the ability to choose freely and choose death as freely as they possibly can, accepting no reality instead of a singular meaningful reality.

God weeps as he waits for the final saint to turn or perish, when the last Lot is dead and he must come to reap the world of both good and bad for the final, last time.

Learn of this God. Learn if you are open-minded. Be aware of the other possibilities which might be as real as your own viewpoints which were taught to you. Choose as you will. But those with wisdom will choose hope and hope that their children will have hope beyond the grave instead of merely existing by coincidence and simple chance.

Fist and Faith wrote:The thing is, believing the evidence for Evolution, the Big Bang, or whatever, does not remotely rule out a creator.

I am still struggling with Genesis. It is very illogical. It suggests miracles beyond comprehension. It suggests to relieve myself from rational thought.

Thomas Covenant had to remove himself from such thought. But it was costly. I suspect that those who are truly willing to believe are either easy to transform and extremely open-minded or they are hurt in some way along their path to accept it. I don't mean hurt as in wounded but that it becomes more and more difficult to accept and still bear the belief and that this hurts. A reluctance, perhaps. Nevertheless, I keep an open mind for your view as well, even though my own does indeed hurt me in my unbelief.


(also, I like you. You've listened to me and made jokes. You seem willing to talk now.)

Fist and Faith wrote:The thing is, believing the evidence for Evolution, the Big Bang, or whatever, does not remotely rule out a creator. Evolution could be the creator's way of ensuring that the creation can change and grow. The BB could be how the creator got the ball rolling.

There's certainly good evidence for BB, things that made them come up with the theory in the first place. Sort of like when you put enough pieces of a puzzle together, you begin to see the picture. And when they said, "Well, if it did happen, there should be this certain type of background radiation everywhere." And they looked for it, and found it. Making predictions about a theory, and then confirming those predictions, is a rather good indicator that the theory is accurate. (If the predictions don't pan out, you either throw the theory away, or modify it.) But it doesn't say one little thing about whether the BB was the work of a creator.

IMO, science can only be used to find out how things work, and cannot be used to figure out why, or if there is an intelligence behind it.

That makes sense. I should have thought about it a bit more, I rushed to my response. I guess what I was trying to say is that BB, as in its current absolute state, versusesa chrisitian Creation story itself, only make up small permutations of the possibilities. But you are right; what's really important is the discourse of science itself, not a current hypothesis. But the concept of BB itself, in a way, might be reading alot of predictions, but may eventually finding itself morphing into something conceptually different from what BB means at a central core. BB, afterall, cannot be the word to describe the larger science of the universe's origins; it has some central theme, and its always important to consider other central themes. But I understand what you're saying, and I agree.

zephalephelah wrote:After the dinosaurs, very few mammals even survived the cataclysm of the asteroid-induced ice ages or whatever you want to believe caused the extinction of those beasts. Then we have a few mammals. What is the reasoning for those animals to become so diverse? There should have been enough food for them all to get along quite happily without morphing into hunters and prey. If anything, this would appear to be a devolution back to the state of the dinosaur age. There is no need for the few mammals to diversify. There’s no point to it. They survived a long and harsh climate change that killed the prior kings of the world, so there is no point in changing.

The very fact that so many species were wiped out *caused* the increased diversity of mammals. Without as many predators or competing animals, more of a species would survive to breed, and the population of that area would increase. With a population increase, the amount of food for that population would become slightly less sufficient for the whole group. Once the population reached a certain point, food and comfort in the area would start to become a problem. Thinking of it one way, this should stop thep opulation reaching a certain point and an equilibrium will be reached. There are, however, two different things which occur in these situatuions.
Firstly, the point above does not take into account that these are sentient beings. They do not want to die, so when their environment becomes less sufficient to sustain them, some will inevitably begin looking for new areas, new food supplies. Those that do this will begin a new population in a new area, which will begin to grow. However, when this continues to happen, the species will eventually move into areas with different environments. In these areas, a new factor could be present - more water, a new predator, harder to reach food, temperature changes - which the species will have to learn to cope with. There is the first factor - those who learn new habits more easily will survive longer in a new environment, and its offspring would be more likely to learn. Then, there are physical differences between individuals in the same species - perhaps only the strongest can break the shells on a fruit, so that the stronger members survive longer, and their offspring are more likely to be strong. Spread this over generations, and you find that the average adaptibility or strength of the species in that area has increased.
The second thing that occurs when a population reaches the point where it becomes a problem is based on a mathematical process which occurs in all of known physics, called 'symmetry-breaking'. This form of speciation happens very quickly (over a relatively small number of generations) and results in two different species occupying the environment where there had been one. It happens because often two different species are stable where the one overpopulated species was unstable. Once a species becomes unstable, speciation can occur suddenly and rapidly. For example, look at the tiny random changes in, say, beak size in finches. Anything that changes the characteristics of the food supply even slightly can bestow an advantage on birds with slightly above or below average beak size. Mathematical modelling shows that once the advantage no longer favours the average, there is collective pressure for the species to divide into two groups which do not directly compete for food, by exploiting distinct niches. "This demolishes the argument that the whole population ought to evolve in the same direction, and it opens the door to species divergence in a uniform, interbreeding population." The two groups become seperate because although they can still interbreed at first, behaviuoral studies show that they favour their own group, and become more and more separate, until their opposite directions of adaptation leave them unable to interbreed and therefore seperate species.

Zeph wrote:Okay then... Speaking of dinosaurs, they were on the earth for hundreds of millions of years and humanity was only here a very short time by comparison. Doesn't that seem strange to you as well? Why wouldn't evolution be able to create a sentient dinosaur over all that time??????????????????

Dinosaurs were sentient.

Zeph wrote: Why wouldn't evolution be able to create a sentient dinosaur over all that time?????????????????? One could easily assume by the insignificant timeline of humanity and its dominance of the world that one or more species in those many eras of dinosaurs would have evolved to a state of being able to communicate.

There you go again Zeph, anthropomorphizing the process of evolution. I thought we dealt with this issue in our last post but let me reiterate: Evolution does not aspire to a purpose. There is no ultimate or perfect evolutionary being or creature. You are assuming, incorrectly, that the ability to communicate (I'll assume you mean the development of a written language because it is a well known fact that many animals do communicate.) is a pinnacle of development and this is nothing but your own opinion.

Zeph wrote: The fallacy inherent in your rebuttal is that elephants existed at all due to evolution. Their species makes no rational sense. Evolution is always making a better mouse trap, but it has to start somewhere and you exclude creation as a possibility because of evolution. This is a closed minded viewpoint. I could much sooner accept Noah's ark being a spaceship by which aliens destroyed the dinosaurs and planted men and animals here. But even then, one must consider their planet and what transpired there.

Once again Zeph your trying to put words in my mouth. It seems that you now want to debate biogenesis versus abiogenesis and I haven't stated my position on this either way. If I'm mistaken please provide me a quote where I state support for one theory over the other. Regardless, this is a common mistake made by those who are not versed in evolutionary theory. To put it in simple terms, evolution is the change in the gene pool over time, while the theory of abiogenesis (which is what you are arguing against as well) states that all life on Earth is descended from a small number of primordial cells. It is a separate and distinct argument from evolution.

Zeph wrote: You know, when it comes down to defending evolution, you are excellent at misunderstanding simple logic. But that's okay. I have pity on you. I mean, you didn't think about this for yourself. You made none of your own assertions. Like everyone else, you just blindly accepted what the education system, popular opinion, and the media told you. It's a lot easier to walk with the rest of the cattle following each other even if you're wrong at the outset

Was this directed specifically at me or was this geared to the collective masses? Ask around Zeph...I'm not one who is easily characterized as following the masses.

Zeph wrote:In the end you will only prove to yourself that life is meaningless; a 75 year occupation in an evolved body; no God to hope for, and no reason to live. If evolution is true, you might as well kill anyone you don't like, rape anyone you desire, steal whatever you wish, and cheat your way to whatever heights of power your mad ambitions would take you. It has all been replaced by the teaching of evolution and evolution has no open-mindedness and no tolerance for the possibility of any other model which might interfere with the removal of any individual thought or belief in anything except itself.

Did I not already state my belief in God? And as Fist so eloquently stated "science can only be used to find out how things work, and cannot be used to figure out why, or if there is an intelligence behind it."

IMHO evolution consistently explains the interlocking evidence from paleontology, microbiology, and genetics and does not disprove the existence of God. They are not mutually exclusive. You on the other hand have not offered your theory on the existence of life and have refused to acknowledge the visible proof of micro-evolution presented by the peppered moths (I could give you many more examples of visible and proven evolution as well). You obviously feel that the tone of your posts and an occasional insult rather than intelligent discourse will carry the argument all the while your posts are riddled with random assumptions, mischaracterizations, and factual errors. It makes you look uneducated and petulant.

I truly believe that God gave us our abilities to learn and discover the mechanisms of the natural world through science and mathematics. You claim to be open-minded yet you seek to deny these god-given gifts and like a lemming, choose to rely on the claims of religious theology.

In conclusion I will note that you have chosen to ignore the request I posted previously. I will reprint the text again here for your convenience.

Brinn wrote:Please provide me one source for evolutionary theory that states "genes think of generations" or plan. It is not stated, it is not implied. Your assumption that the theory of evolution assumes thinking genes is a mischaracterization. Once again your fundamental misunderstanding of the subject is rearing it's head. If you cannot provide a source than have the integrity to retract that statement or at least preface it with the words "In my opinion..." so that I won't get your opinions and established facts confused.

Based upon your lack of either response or retraction I must conclude that you are either still researching the subject or simply ignoring it and hoping that nobody will notice that you choose to throw accusations around but will not address any counter arguments when they do not suit your line of propaganda. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and anxiously await your response or your retraction. And please, while you're at it, provide me with your theory of how life on Earth came to be. I await your wisdom.

Cheers,

Brinn

Brinn wrote:Evolution does not aspire to a purpose. There is no ultimate or perfect evolutionary being or creature.

This concept is so incredibly important that it cannot be overemphasized. Trying to understand evolution without this is impossible.

Brinn wrote: provide me with your theory of how life on Earth came to be. I await your wisdom.

Cheers,

Brinn

Let's say that the impossibility of Genesis is the reason life came to be. Let's say that the impossibility of chance is the reason. Either way is beyond comprehension. In order for life to spontaneously "evolve" there first had to be millions of protein molecules of an exacting configuration. The chances for just one of these molecules to suddenly exist from the matter around it is 10 to the 600th power billions of years. I find it far easier to simply believe in a God.



I don't believe in evolution, at least not to the point that evolution is responsible for me in any way. At any rate, I find it much more agreeable to believe that I was created or that my species was created than that I came from some goo that became a fish that walked on the land to become apes & monkeys to become a person. Anyway, if even all that hojoe was all true, how come there are still apes & monkeys?

Too many holes in the argument of evolution. It's silly, provides no hope in life, offers no clues to the perfection of the universe, suggests no reason for good and evil, makes no connection to why human women don't go into heat, doesn't explain why a stupid pig is closer to our anatomy than an ape, and does nothing to explain why humanity has suddenly risen to its current point of dominance when for millenia it did nothing remotely close to what it is now accomplishing.

Oh, I have a theory; not of the beginning but of the history of the world. It's different from other theories because it is my developed theory of what's been happening, what is happening, and what will happen. But if I were to speak it, then the followers would discount it regardless of its legitmacy or application. When people follow a lie and call it truth, there is nothing that can be done. They are cattle following to close to the ass in front of them to notice anything but the stink of that lie. They follow it because it was taught to them. They never thought of anything else. They were told this by the media, by the discovery channel, by their parents, and by the education system. They were brain-washed & they let it happen. These are the people that would believe that aliens dropped us off if they were told that instead, or that we grew from trees that began to walk away from the flora long ago in the past if they were told that, or that the yeti is the missing link. They will believe anything that they are told if they are told it enough. The followers have been told enough. They've been told all their lives until they themselves are leading the other cows with their banter. None have the ability to think of anything else for their minds were all closed long ago.

Adolf Hitler's: the bigger the lie the more people that will believe it.

It fits perfectly here.

There's weapons of mass destruction. Let's go bomb Iraq. It was um, ah, um "a magic bullet" yeah, that's it. And all the cows go "moo".

Now because you are so brain-washed, when someone says evolution is folly, you cannot accept it. This isn't because the arguments are good and well, for you have heard things in your life which say such. But you deny them anyway because your mind has long been closed to anything except this thing which has grown in your mind like a great tree nurtured and watered daily through your lives. You cannot accept anything because you haven't tried to learn anything else.

Thank you for addressing my final request. My repsonse follows:

Zeph wrote:Let's say that the impossibility of Genesis is the reason life came to be. Let's say that the impossibility of chance is the reason. Either way is beyond comprehension. In order for life to spontaneously "evolve" there first had to be millions of protein molecules of an exacting configuration. The chances for just one of these molecules to suddenly exist from the matter around it is 10 to the 600th power billions of years. I find it far easier to simply believe in a God.

Fair enough. We agree. However it appears we have arrived at our respective conclusions for different reasons; You, out of convenience and I, out of, and proceeding from, an analysis of the available evidence.

Zeph wrote:I don't believe in evolution, at least not to the point that evolution is responsible for me in any way. At any rate, I find it much more agreeable to believe that I was created or that my species was created than that I came from some goo that became a fish that walked on the land to become apes & monkeys to become a person.

Your faith in your convictions is admirable. I, myself typically subject what I hold as truth to a slightly more rigourous examination but, to each his own. If you are comfortable differentiating fact from fiction based upon convenience and discarding any and all concepts that offend your personal vanity than so be it. After all, why let science get in the way of a good argument. As you say,

Zeph wrote:When people follow a lie and call it truth, there is nothing that can be done.

Zeph wrote:Anyway, if even all that hojoe was all true, how come there are still apes & monkeys?

The simple fact that you would ask this type of question is simply one more indicator that you have a fundamental lack of understanding about evolution and its precepts. I will answer this one for you (and already have in the past) but would recommend that you read up on the subject to develop a basic understanding of the theory/facts. There are many good books and websites on the subject and I would be more than happy to suggest a few.

To answer your question; Evolution claims that apes, monkeys and humans represent seperate and distinct lineages that are descended from a common ancestor whose population split into the three groups you mention. Once again, Evolution does not aspire to purpose. Humans are not necessarily the pinnacle of evolution thus it follows that monkeys and apes are not on the evolutionary path toward eventual Homo Sapien. Let me ask you this: if some Americans and Australians are descended from the French, why are there still Frenchmen around?

Zeph wrote:Adolf Hitler's: the bigger the lie the more people that will believe it...It fits perfectly here.

It is only ever a matter of time.

Godwin's Law: As a forum discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many groups that once this occurs, that thread is over and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost the debate in progress. Godwin's Law thus almost assuredly guarantees the existence of an upper limit on thread length.

To conclude, I would note that because you are so brain-washed, when someone says evolution is fact, you cannot accept it. This isn't because the arguments are good and well, for you have heard things in your life which say such. But you deny them anyway because your mind has long been closed to anything except this thing which has grown in your mind like a great tree nurtured and watered daily through your life. You cannot accept anything because you haven't tried to learn anything else.


P.S.

You still haven't responded to my other request. For the second time I will reprint the text for your convenience.

Brinn wrote:
Please provide me one source for evolutionary theory that states "genes think of generations" or plan. It is not stated, it is not implied. Your assumption that the theory of evolution assumes thinking genes is a mischaracterization. Once again your fundamental misunderstanding of the subject is rearing it's head. If you cannot provide a source than have the integrity to retract that statement or at least preface it with the words "In my opinion..." so that I won't get your opinions and established facts confused.

I'm beginning to suspect that your continued lack of response or retraction may constitute nothing more than avoidance. Are you still researching the subject or simply hoping that I will stop asking you to address this?

Cheers,

Brinn

Let's say that the impossibility of Genesis is the reason life came to be. Let's say that the impossibility of chance is the reason. Either way is beyond comprehension. In order for life to spontaneously "evolve" there first had to be millions of protein molecules of an exacting configuration. The chances for just one of these molecules to suddenly exist from the matter around it is 10 to the 600th power billions of years. I find it far easier to simply believe in a God.

First of all, you are perfectly correct that scientists say the molecules came about by random chance in some way - which is, of course, very hard to believe. However the theories are also based on proven scientific knowledge which makes it seem more likely than it at first appears to be. Newton's second law of thermodynamics is involved - when a chemical is heated to certain points, it spontaneously rearranges itself into a more complex structure which better transfers heat (You'll have to read it up yourself to know more, cos I can't remember much, but theres a thing about transfer of exergy used to explain this). This will rise to more and more complex forms, until the heat is too much and the molecule deforms and returns to a structureless form. The theory is that in the water around sulphur vents (where there are lots of minerals, and where it is thought the first life developed) this near-random increase in complexity, under some special conditions that probably didn't happen very often, was able to form a self-replicating molecule - a precursor to RNA.
Still, all seems very, very unlikely, but when you consider the timelines involved, and the many, many different arrangements which must have been present at various points....

Well stated Murrin. I would ask you to consider two essential facts in the matter. 1: Sir Isaac Newton believed in God. 2: If you throw enough time at anything, everything is possible.

Now I myself believe that the world is not so very old. Consider a vacation to the mesas in Arizona. While you are there a pebble falls. All around this formation there is rubble, but the mesa still stands, even though it is constantly falling apart. By now it should be a pile of sand blown about by the wind.

It is said that given enough time, monkeys could rewrite Shakespere. I find this time argument too convenient. This is also why they keep throwing more time at the equation. The world is 3 billion years old, no 4, no 5. The universe is 8 billion years old, no 10, no 12, no 15. At what point does throwing time at an argument become the argument? Perhaps in the year 2250, people will be led to believe that the universe is 400 trillion years old. Because as people become more accustomed to the lie, the lie must be exaggerated to prevent dissension from that lie.

Brinn wrote:
Please provide me one source for evolutionary theory that states "genes think of generations" or plan. It is not stated, it is not implied. Your assumption that the theory of evolution assumes thinking genes is a mischaracterization. Once again your fundamental misunderstanding of the subject is rearing it's head. If you cannot provide a source than have the integrity to retract that statement or at least preface it with the words "In my opinion..." so that I won't get your opinions and established facts confused.

Provide your source that it isn’t.

No one has been providing any source than that which they have developed personally. The sole exception being my link to 28 great scientists who were also Christians.

Nor will I retract my statement as I think you just misinterpret what I’m suggesting. When I am saying that genes think. my sarcasm was that it made no sense that an elephant would develop a trunk in the first place. The trunk would be unnecessary if the elephant became a smaller creature. Lions don’t have to spray themselves down. You could say, well the elephants use their great weight to communicate through the ground, but if they needed a trunk to cool themselves because of this great weight then which came first the weight or the trunk? Then you come to my sarcasm, which would say that it makes no sense that genes would think this a good way to go in the first place.

Why is it that women don’t go into heat when the rest of “the animal kingdom” has mating built in? This is an essential difference which in my view points to the divine.

As to the rest of your rhetoric, I am not the follower. I was not taught by a television or at school every day of my life that evolution was the truth. Well, I was taught that, but I rejected it. I will not be molded by what society thinks is best. For instance, when you go home, you might envy the guy’s house across the street which is larger or his car which is more expensive. When I go home, I think of how I live better than all the kings of old. I think of how I have indoor plumbing, electricity, heat in every room, a refrigerator. When I want a concert, I don’t have to send a messenger out to the musicians, I pop in a CD. When I want to see a play, I don’t have to wait for the traveling play to come by my town, I simply pop in a DVD. I have access to immense knowledge via the internet. My food is always fresh. I can always have strawberries, even out of season. I live better than all of the kings of old. You see, not very many people think this way. We take things for granted. We EXPECT this great life and all its wonders. But I see it as a great blessing to live in this time and I see it that way all the time.

No sir, it is the people who view the world through the world’s eyes which are the followers. Those who EXPECT to be paid for their work and believe that they DESERVE to have a computer or a house or a car, they are the true followers. There are people in this world who live in huts, who can’t remember the last time they had a solid meal, who have never seen the awesome wonders of our lives that we have at our fingertips daily. There are people who cannot read and have missed out on such things as the Thomas Covenant Series, which although merely entertainment is still a wonder in its own respect. But even those people who are not blinded by what they think they SHOULD have by rights for some insane reason, they see the world for what it is. They have not been brainwashed. They feel the hunger, the flies which constantly walk about their faces until they no longer twitch, the never ending struggle of just getting through the next day. There is no evolved goodness in their lives. Better if they were monkeys or lions. You sit in your comfortable chair, in your comfortable house, next to your fresh food and cold drink and you tell them that they came from nothing and they’ll believe you. Tell them that evolution brought them to the height of all the world’s creatures and they will laugh at you.

My point is that you are not looking at the whole picture; just your “educated” version of it. But education first meant someone thinking about things in depth and with understanding. But you cannot have that kind of thought if you simply gather it from other places. It has to come from within. You can have sources to begin, but you cannot rely on those sources, that is not thought, but only more following of thought. Do you have any original ideas that few other people could also call their own or is your face so far up the next cow’s butt that you couldn’t think a personal thought without causing the guy in front of you to fart? I mean come on! You dare call yourself open-minded and yet you deny anyone else that opposes your widespread follower viewpoint? That is not open-minded. That is closed; as closed as a door locked, welded, and walls built up in front of it, with a dam of water before it, and rocks in front of that, and then cemented the whole thing in a half-dome.

I don’t expect to get through to you. You are so far away from being open-minded, close-minded people think you’re dense. Like I said, I’m not here for you. I’m here to learn how better to speak to someone who is available to new ideas; who is brave enough to listen to my theories as a listener not as someone just waiting to speak, just waiting to discount. My point is that *I* have my own theories. I have not been brain-washed. I have thought for myself. I don’t expect to be right all the time & my theories change and develop as anyone else brave enough to think on their own and keep an open mind will change and grow in their knowledge. Why do you hate the unfettered so much? What is all this insecurity about? Do I somehow endanger you personally? You have millions more ready to take up the flag of the following of evolution. Don’t worry yourself that a few disbelieve what the multitudes think. The multitudes EXPECT that they SHOULD have ALL that they have. The few understand that they were lucky to be born here or there at that precise moment in human history. How does it harm you that some very few should walk contrary to your ingrained beliefs? It never harmed me that you were told these things from the cradle and believed them wholesale. Why should it harm you that I should be brave enough to find my own way?

Surely goodness and mercy will follow you. Judge not. This is the test. Perhaps your mind should be even more open than you believe it to be. Beware the folly of any form of elitism. Move everything from your head to your heart. Consider compassion, truly consider it in all things you do. The answer is much simpler than it appears. All is one. As above, so below...

Fangthane the Render wrote:Surely goodness and mercy will follow you. Judge not. This is the test. Perhaps your mind should be even more open than you believe it to be. Beware the folly of any form of elitism. Move everything from your head to your heart. Consider compassion, truly consider it in all things you do. The answer is much simpler than it appears. All is one. As above, so below...

Very true. I merely attack harder than I am attacked. If someone like you comes about & does not judge and states a means to end judging, then I am humbled. Taunt me & I will become the taunter. I am not afraid to raise the bar to any level including my banishment from these forums. I care not for anything that the cliques would attack me with. They choose not to accept anything other than their own beliefs & this is common, common but unacceptable. People must open their minds. I am willing also. But there must also be a compelling argument to do so, not all this common rhetoric that has been spawned about since their childhood. I want new views. I want someone to say, look at this & consider that, without sounding pretentious, otherwise I myself will engage in that same battle. I have no qualms with discussing this at a level which would be without insult, but the masses are so very sure of themselves that it makes them more arrogant than I would desire to be. But I can be such & I will do such if they cannot come up with more than the common fodder with which they were weened upon. I want some real thought. You can't ask is there a god & not expect evolution or hitler or satan or big bang to become a part of it, for these are the examples we have in life to choose from. I will not accept anything less than true individual thought in this matter. If I see it & it is defended as someone's true thoughts then I will accept that and disagree or agree as I see fit and will not argue it. BUt when I see regurgitated pathetic weak following crap that comes from the ass of those cattle in front of them on which they feed, then I do & certainly will call it out as follower matter, the fecal matter on which they exist and base all their own pretentious myths as factual simply because they heard it on the radio, television, education system, parents, and so on and so forth. They DO NOT THINK FOR THEMSELVES! and it angers me when they come at me with their steely blades so forged with lies and generations of deceit that have gotten them nowhere nearer to the truth than that of school shootings and the highest incarceration rates in all of history. Evolution gives no hope. It is a fascade of hate and despair that provides nothing for future generations except to live & die on a whim & no one really belives it in their deepest deepest heart because if they did then all would etch out their lives as wanton desires to be fetched like a dog to a bone, without mercy to rape kill and maim and to climb over each other's backs not on a corporate ladder but a ladder of selfishness that this world does not currently see. There is a good and bad a right and wrong to which we aspire or deny or fall or triumph over. We all make daily sins in our thoughts and actions out of free will, a gift of such power that angels are below us, and yet we still fail continually. YOu may ask, if there is a God then why is there suffering? Why would this or that people feel hurt while this or that people do not? I exclaim to you from the top of my voice, it is because we have undone ourselves. Evolution is another piece of duct tape in the Worm's arsenal to defeat our willingness to come to the true power of the universe. Want to see a symbology? Look in the Thomas Covenant series, it talks of these things plainly, though those who deny all possibility of creation would say that there is no connection. The connection is obvious! Creator, satan, people on the line, free will, the weak, the meek, are the strong. It is so plain that I am amazed that people see it as simply a fantasy. Thomas, perfect or not, is a savior. It is plain! SRD is a Christian, it is plain. But all those who claim "education" claim otherwise. This is the tragedy. They have read a sort of Bible, a sad tale of a God who wanted to save the world and did at a cost, but to enter the world would be to destroy his plan and therefore they did not believe in him entirely. AND STILL !!!!! STILL those who read it do not understand or simply, utterly, refuse. It is a very, very sad thing to desire nothing at all but chance instead of the possiblity of a God which would hold you in his love forever if you would merely believe in him. It tears my eyes out. It cracks my throat. It makes my ears hurt from the clamor of the cavewights who engage quietly against the good until they are a vast army of those who would rather serve hatred and despite than simply believe in a God. Wealth, power, plastics, petroleum, the destruction of the amazon, the failing of the ozone, the attack on the land called earth is US!!!!!! We ARE DOING THIS! WILLINGLY!!!!!! WE are the cavewights and the urviles!!!!! WE ARE DESTROYING!!!!!!

I take this too far. You meant no offense. But I have digressed. All I suggest is that people look at the problem. The biggest problem in the world is us, through sheer population. The second biggest problem in the world is lack of belief. It has stunted us as surely as lack of proper nurishment will stunt a child. WE NEED GOD! And God wants us to need him. If all of us believed in him then this would be paradise. But only a few do believe. This is like the white gold wielder. Some believe in him while others find him a fool. The whole deal was foolery until he showed up. Do you really need God to show up? At any rate, he cannot. You already know why. It would destroy free will. You cannot have faith in that which you know. Knowledge and faith are seperate entities.

Take heart. The lord lives. No other religion has a living God or a living son of a God. Take heart. The skies that are were once not the same. The mountains were once plains. Take heart for the coming of the King of kings will eventually come. I, unlike my other kindred, believe this will be hundreds of years from now, but it will arrive. When the patience of the infinite is troubled and mankind is tinkering with things now unimaginable and insane, then will the end come. Take heart, for we live in a time to see the beginning of the end, when humanity rises out of the farms and industries into worldwide economies and technlogies beyond all comprehension of times before and into ages beyond. We live in a delicate time. But take heart, for I see this as the best time in which to live. The top of human development before God cuts out the legs from under it. Not that God is cruel or mean, but that all humanity will eventually forsake him and will say that this is all because of them and that this all their doing and that they are great and that they have become gods. Then, on that stormy day, will the clouds gather. But take heart for I have read enough of the signs to know that this is far away. Yet, it will come to be. Your children's children may live to see the beginning of the last of the Christians. That will be a saddened time when all other thought outside of the cows of the followers are extinguished by force. There will be no free speech. And perhaps, in that far technilogical time, no free thought as well.

Before I answer, allow me to re-quote a couple of your prior allegations:

Zeph wrote:The point is that evolution is silly. It implies that genes think of generations. I am utterly astounded that people who claim to be sane and intelligent will blindly accept anything the media, populace, and education factories pump out such as genes thinking and continuing to change each generation of a species as if it had the end result "creatively planned" out. And then these very same people will say that anyone who believes in God is educationally challenged.

and

Zeph wrote: If you aren't going to believe in God, then at least find something more logical than a series of future-thinking genetic accidents.

Zeph wrote:Nor will I retract my statement as I think you just misinterpret what I’m suggesting.

Hmmm…Seems pretty clear to me that you are suggesting that genes think. You may try to back away from your assertions but when they’re in writing it makes revisionism a bit more difficult. Moving on…

Zeph wrote:Provide your source that it isn’t.

It seems you are as well-versed in the practices of proper debate as you are on evolutionary theory. You made the previous statements characterizing gene intelligence and behavior in a manner that would lead one not familiar with evolutionary theory to believe that you are stating fact. This is simply not true. If you make a statement and wish for us to accept that statement as fact than the onus of proof lies upon you to provide support for your assertion. It is not my responsibility to disprove your mischaracterizations. That is how an open-minded debate is conducted. But, because I’m a nice guy I’ll provide you with a source to show that I am debating in good faith. I quote the following snippets from talkorigins.org TalkOrigins:

“Natural selection does not have any foresight. It only allows organisms to adapt to their current environment. Structures or behaviors do not evolve for future utility.”

And:

“When [Natural] selection is spoken of as a force, it often seems that it is has a mind of its own; or as if it was nature personified. This most often occurs when biologists are waxing poetic about selection. This has no place in scientific discussions of evolution. Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity; it is simply an effect.”

And finally:

“Often conscious motives are seemingly imputed to organisms, or even genes, when discussing evolution. This happens most frequently when discussing animal behavior. Animals are often said to perform some behavior because selection will favor it. This could more accurately worded as "animals that, due to their genetic composition, perform this behavior tend to be favored by natural selection relative to those who, due to their genetic composition, don't." Such wording is cumbersome. To avoid this, biologists often anthropomorphize. This is unfortunate because it often makes evolutionary arguments sound silly. Keep in mind this is only for convenience of expression.”

I’ve done as you requested. Now it’s your turn Zeph. Show me your source.

Zeph wrote:Why is it that women don’t go into heat when the rest of “the animal kingdom” has mating built in? This is an essential difference which in my view points to the divine.

It could…or it could be an evolutionary characteristic unique to humans. There are many hypotheses as to the adaptive advantage of not “going into heat”. This concept is known as concealed estrus and is often referred to in conjunction with constant receptivity in humans. Some adaptive advantages that have been suggested are; greater cooperation within the group and reduction of competitiveness among males (Etkin 1963, Pfeiffer 1969, Fox 1972, Daniels 1983), the emergence of monogamy (Etkin 1954, Morris 1967, Lovejoy 1981), the intensification of paternal behaviour (Alexander and Noonan 1979; Symons 1979; Strassmann 1981; Turke 1984, 1988), the possibility of acquiring greater quantities of protein through males’ hunting (Symons 1979, Hill 1982, Parker 1987), and the possibility of deceiving males as to their paternity (Benshoof and Thornhill 1979) and thus reducing the risk of infanticide on the part of males (Hardy 1981). Other hypotheses include the concealment of ovulation from the female herself, supposedly to increase the effectiveness of deceiving males about females’ fertility (Alexander and Noonan 1979). Still others have treated the loss of estrus as a side effect of the increase in androgen levels associated with endurance in walking and the pursuit of prey (Spuhler 1979) or of the lengthening of the period of female responsiveness in response to longer lactation (Kourtovik 1983). Where you see proof of the divine, I search for pattern which, in turn, reveals the mechanisms that god has created.

Zeph wrote:You dare call yourself open-minded and yet you deny anyone else that opposes your widespread follower viewpoint?

What I truly find humorous is that you do not appreciate the irony and hypocrisy in this statement. I deny you nor others nothing. Is it not you that judges, rails against and belittles opposing viewpoints using ad-hominem attacks, bully tactics, insults, misinformation, stereotypes and the like? Let me show you a few examples from this thread alone…

These you directed at others:

Zeph wrote:The point is that evolution is silly. It implies that genes think of generations. I am utterly astounded that people who claim to be sane and intelligent will blindly accept anything the media, populace, and education factories pump out such as genes thinking and continuing to change each generation of a species as if it had the end result "creatively planned" out. And then these very same people will say that anyone who believes in God is educationally challenged.

Zeph wrote:The point is that I don't care about you, personally. I can't and I don't have any delusions that I can, especially though this poor portal behind which so many of you hide together in your little cliques, prepared to mob up on anyone that disagrees with *****your***** views.

Zeph wrote:The reason I'm debating this at all is that I know that soon I'll have the opportunity to talk to someone that I get to know in person, someone who doesn't have a closed mind & can think outside of the box. So I'm sharpening my viewpoint on your dull wit.

Zeph wrote:The difference between me and you is that I'm willing to believe anything as long as it isn't stupid.

Zeph wrote:You think of yourselves are do-goods and people of the world who would stand against atrocity; but at the last you will accept whatever speech is given by the coming king of hatred just as the germans accepted the speeches of a mad leader in Adolf Hitler.

These you directed at me personally:

Zeph wrote:You know, when it comes down to defending evolution, you are excellent at misunderstanding simple logic. But that’s okay. I have pity on you. I mean, you didn’t think about this for yourself. You made none of your own assertions. Like everyone else, you just blindly accepted what the education system, popular opinion, and the media told you. It’s a lot easier to walk with the rest of the cattle following each other even if you’re wrong at the outset.

Zeph wrote:Now because you are so brain-washed, when someone says evolution is folly, you cannot accept it. This isn't because the arguments are good and well, for you have heard things in your life which say such. But you deny them anyway because your mind has long been closed to anything except this thing which has grown in your mind like a great tree nurtured and watered daily through your lives. You cannot accept anything because you haven't tried to learn anything else.

Zeph wrote:I don’t expect to get through to you. You are so far away from being open-minded, close-minded people think you’re dense.

After this you have the gall to ask me the following question:

Zeph wrote: How does it harm you that some very few should walk contrary to your ingrained beliefs? It never harmed me that you were told these things from the cradle and believed them wholesale. Why should it harm you that I should be brave enough to find my own way?

My answer is that it does not harm me in the slightest. Not even your childish insults. It only offends my sense of decency and courtesy. I will not allow you to spout misinformation and then further compound your errors by adopting a hostile and insulting tone. The people of this forum are kind, patient and possessed of good hearts. They have tolerated the diatribes that you try to pass off as intellectual individualism and responded with respect, humor and direction. It is well nigh time that you reciprocated.

1. When you debate with Brinn, you better bring your A game.

2. There's a great book called Einstein's Dreams that goes on about differing theories of time, space, other dimensions, etc. Bacially, thought experiments about the nature of reality. Review here. Just thought I'd recommend it.

Brinn wrote: I will not allow you to spout misinformation and then further compound your errors by adopting a hostile and insulting tone. The people of this forum are kind, patient and possessed of good hearts. They have tolerated the diatribes that you try to pass off as intellectual individualism and responded with respect, humor and direction. It is well nigh time that you reciprocated.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA!!!!! You are the one spouting misinformation. You quote little pieces of my statements that allow to best argue against me & don't even have the decency to take time to understand what I'm saying. When I wrote about genes thinking, it was out of sarcasm & I said so. But you continue to take my words out of context for your own benefit.

You do fear that you've been brain-washed don't you? Imagine, spending all of your life a coward, unable to think away from those that told you what you should think. It must be a heavy burden for you to bear, that fear. Because you defend it like a crazed idiot.

I don't give a damn about anyone that isn't ready to stop ganging up on someone because they are new or don't fit in. I don't really care about you in the slightest Brinn. If I decide that I've learned enough information then I'll move on. It makes no difference to me. So far, very few people have had any kind of respect toward me here. WHich is why I am the way I am here. If I were to have been accepted without the reproaches I received them maybe I would be a much more agreeable guy. I am the result of the cliques attacking someone's idea which wasn't like theirs. But I'm not going to back down. I deserve to be here just as they do. And should someone find it intolerable, who unlike you actually has power here you little boy, then I'll come back as a different login but the same person again & again & again & again & again. Because I feel slighted you cretin, closed-minded, arrogant, pathetic, little worm. And it angers me to be attacked by people who claim to be what you called them but in truth they are all prepared to back up each other in a beating or two if they can get away with it.

You want to deny something Brinn, go ahead. I might actually care. You seem to care a great deal about the thoughts I have. You seem to be right along to rip apart what I said & make it useful to what YOU want to say. So tell us something Brinn. Make your clique proud of you boy. Good boy. Speak boy! Good dog.

zeph, I don't neccesarily disagree with you on all topics, like everyone sometimes I agree and sometimes not. I don't think even you with all of your diverse and resourceful thinking could suggest that i am part of a clique. What I do disagree with is how offensive you are, you have every right to voice your oppinions, and others have every right to agree or disagree as they feel fit, but it is not necesary to deliberately cause offence... this goes to you and to others

This is a place for discussion.

Leave Brinn alone Zephalephelah, and stop being a bloody twat.

I'm sorry for the language everyone, but I'm not the type of guy to beat around the bush. Don't insult members like that here, or you'll get it straight back Zephalephelah.