G.W. Bush's Creationist beliefs

[Newbie]

"There is LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of evidence for Evolution, which a more informed person could display for you, and some already have."

You state that there is "LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of evidence for Evolution". You then continue with the words "which a more informed person could display for you". How can you feel so certain of it's existence, magnitude, and quality if, by your own admission, you are not informed enough to provide any? You seem to be placing a lot of faith in scientists on the issue as opposed to researching it for yourself.
I am of the opinion that the evidence in support of evolution is not as great as most people believe. I also have issues with the evidence that does exist. Additonally, I have questions that I feel evolutionary theory fails to address adequately. I have not expressed many of them here, as I have been forced to spend the majority of my time addressing criticisms that have been levied against me.

"You can either choose to believe it, or to ignore it; it is entirely up to you."

That is where you are wrong. I also have the option of questioning it's validity, even though I acknowledge it's existence.

"Now, if Jesus appeared to me on a flaming pie and explained to me in great technical detail how his Dad created the universe in six days"

You seem to be stating that Creationism must be explained to you in great detail before you will consider it's merit as a scientific theory. From a scientific viewpoint, I agree with this stance.

"Until I see evidence of a better theory, Evolution has my vote."

This stance rules out the possibility of discarding evolution solely on the basis of it's being discredited. It seems to require that another theory be provided. Why must an alternate theory be provided as a prerequisite for discarding evoltionary theory? Is the prospect of acknowledging complete uncertainty of our origins so threatening that we should feel compelled to believe in whichever scientific theory that we feel most confident in as regards to the subject?

[Ronin]

Newbie:

I am not an evolutionary biologist. I have training in International Relations and computer-science, neither of which has a damn thing to do with evolution. However, as the son of a scientist, and as a scientific sort of person, I place GREAT STOCK in the opinions of individual scientists and the scientific community in general. I do not have the time or inclination to research this topic, as, to me, it is beyond debate (I have already stated my opinion on this).

You can take pot-shots at evolution all you want, but you will be flying in the face of established scientfic wisdom. You may make some good points here and there, but the body of evidence (such as fossil records) will remain.

And yes, generally a prevailing theory has to be replaced by another, better theory, before we abandon it entirely. I think, like many devout people, you are letting your beliefs infringe on your objectivity. IMO, this is not good. The world is what it is, beyond what we would like it to be - or what the Bible or Koran might say.

There is a place for faith, and a place for reason, but do not confuse one with the other.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving, my friend.

[david a]

Ronin,

How can you assert that evolutionary thinking is fact when science states that scientists can never be sure that a given explanation is complete and final?

You say that," I place GREAT STOCK in the opinions of individual scientists and the scientific community in general. I do not have the time or inclination to research this topic, as, to me, it is beyond debate (I have already stated my opinion on this). "

You are stating a faith here, my friend, and a blind one at that,(I do not have the time or inclination to research this topic, as, to me,it is beyond debate) -this is blind faith.

You state,"There is a place for faith, and a place for reason, but do not confuse one with the other." I'm sorry but you have just replaced reason for faith and assumption without backing your claims, so really your arguement has no merit because you have confused reasonable faith with blind faith.

To everyone: Please, if you are moved to state your position on either side of this debate, have the courtesy to at least research the topic, and not just regurgitate "hearsay" or fire empty shots at one another.

[Joe Manco]

David:

You seem like a nice guy, but a simpleton. A tremendous simpleton.

There is TONS of evidence that supports the theory of evolution ... and ZERO evidence that supports Genesis and Adam and Eve, save a poorly-written book of fables.

True, ultimately we must have "faith" in either evolution or creationism, but to try to suggest that the evidence in support of each theory is even CLOSE to being equal is absolutely preposterous.

To compare the TANGIBLE fossil remains of an infinity of extinct animals; the consistency of carbon dating; our knowlege of the galaxy, space and time; our understanding of chemistry, DNA, etc., etc. ... to a poorly-written book of fables that can't make it through a page w/o committing laughable errors ... IS SIMPLY RETARDED. I mean f*cking retarded.

Yours truly,

Joe

[Mr. Miyagi]

EL FIN

[david a]

Joe,

In dealing with science, what does the Bible have to do with the theory of intelligent design? There are many scientists who are neither christian nor hold to the scriptures as truth, but still hold to an intelligent design theory. Some scientist also hold to a designer and then evolutionary process that follows. Should we immediately disqualify their theories because they hold to these views. Of course not. To say that these theories are not scientific thought, is just plain ignorant.
eg. The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) was caught with its hand in the cookie jar. In 1995, they released a statement about evolution describing it as, among other things, unsupervised and impersonal. Such theological/philosophical concepts should have no place in a "scientific" statement. A storm of controversy sparked both within and outside the teachers' ranks culminated in a reconsideration of the statement by the NABT board. At first the board voted unanimously to uphold the statement, and then a few days later, voted to remove the offending words. The New York Times remarked that "This surprising change in creed for the nation's biology teachers is only one of many signs that the proponents of creationism, long stereotyped as anti-intellectual Bible-thumpers, have new allies and the hope of new credibility."

Also, as has been pointed out before in another thread,
an intelligent design theory, nor a naturalistic theory cannot, by the definition of science,be proven to be the correct theory of our origins, because we were never there to witness it! Even Steven J Gould points this out in his article in Time magazine "Will we ever know how life originated?" April 2000.

Finally, as I have also discussed before, I do not use science to demonstrate the truth of the Bible although I believe that science can point to an intelligent designer which may be debated and I can agree with that.

What I do use however, to demonstrate that the Bible IS devine rather than human in origin, is by the process of manuscript, archaeological, prophetic, and statistical probabilities. What do I mean by this?


The Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other work of classical literature- including Homer, Plato, Aristotle, or Ceaser. For eg. More than 5000 New Testament greek manuscripts are in existence today in comparison to Homer's Iliad(bible of the ancient greeks) which has fewer than 650 greek manuscripts which were composed in 800 B.C. The earliest New Testament writings date as early as 100.bc
by the gospel of John.Some fragments of ther gospel date even earlier. A litany of prominent paleographers including, C.H Roberts, Sir Fredrick Kenyon, Sir Harold Bell,Ulrich Wilcken, e5c. have agreed with this assesment. By the way, in addition to Greek manuscripts, there are also over 8000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts. and 8000 more from other languages, in all 21000 to 24000 manuscripts.

Over and over again archaeology and careful biblical interpretation affirm the reliability of the bible. For eg.
For years, critics dismissed the book of Daniel, partly because there was no evidence that a king Belshazzar ruled in Babylon during that period. Recently however, archeologists have discovered that the reigning monarch,Nabonidus, appointed Belshazzer as his coregent while he was waging war away from Babylon.
On another note, then Skeptic Sir William Ramsay an archeologist, set out to disprove the historical reliability of the books of Luke and Acts in the bible. But as he delved further and further throughout the mediteranian, he became converted, as one by one, the historical allusions of Luke were proven accurate.

Since Christ is the culminating theme of the Old Testament and the LIving word of the New Testament, it should not supprise us that the prophecies of Him outnumber all others. Many of his prophecies would have been impossible to deliberately conspire-including His Descending from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesse, His birth in Bethelehem, his crucifixion with criminals, the piercing of his hands and feet on the cross, the piercing of his side and his bones not being broken upon his death, the soldiers gambling for his clothes, his burial among the rich.
Other old testament prophecies were fulfilled including the city of Tyre that it would be opposed by many nations, its walls would be destroyed and towers broken down, and its stones and debris would be thrown into the water, and it would never be built again. Similiar prophecies of Babylon and Sidon were fulfilled as well. Many other illustrations could be mentioned save for time.

It is statistically preposterous that any of the Bibles specific, detailed prophecies could have been fulfilled through chance, good quessing, or deliberate deciet.
The Bible was written over a period of about 1600 years, by forty authors, in three languages, on hundreds of subjects, and yet there is one uncontradictory theme that runs through it. God's redemptive plan for mankind.

What sets Christianity different from other religions is the resurection. Without it we have no hope for mankind. Do you know that the disciples of Jesus could have saved themselves alot of hardship if they had just stated that Jesus rose from the dead spiritually. Anyone would have believed that. But no, even history apart from the bible says that they did it the hard way. They said He rose phyisically from the grave and they were willimg to die by that statement. Sure lots of people die for causes they believe are true, but what if they knew it was a lie? Would you die for something you knew to be a lie? Think about that.

Peace.

[Joe Manco]

David:

I did not say I didn't believe in either a god or an intelligent design. In fact, I do.

What I said was I don't believe in "creation" as defined in the Bible. I believe Christianity is but one of MANY of man's organized attempts to define his sense that there "is" a god ... but (as with the rest of the religions) Christianity is incomplete, and ultimately MADE UP.

I believe the design of the universe, its laws, its evolution, as well as human morality, virtues, etc. ARE the "fingerprints" of god (if you will), but I nevertheless believe Jesus is NOT the son of god ... nor was the Bible "inspired" by God.

You said,
"The Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other work of classical literature- including Homer, Plato, Aristotle, or Ceaser."

So? All of the above contained nothing but fables and exaggerated stories, didn't they? Sure, there was some truth underlying many of the fables, but ALL of it was blown up and romanticized ... or do you really believe Odysseus tied himself to the mast to keep the Sirens from luring him to steer his ship into the rocks?

Wake up, David.

As for Jesus' predictions, if he were the son of god then they should ALL have come true, shouldn't they? And how could mere mortals have killed him? If you really think this guy was the son of god because a few (or even many) of his prognostications did in fact come true (many of which did so via a stretch of his believers' imaginations) ... then I guess Muhammed Ali is another son of god ... because many of his predictions of when his opponents would fall came true too

Bottom line, David, is SURE - there is some factual basis in the Bible, of course. People really did write it, and they lived on this earth when they did. Naturally they would get "some" of their facts straight.

But the bottom line is many of their "facts" are flat out WRONG ... and if the Bible were "divinely-inspired" that simply would not happen.

Yours truly,

Joe

[david a]

Joe,
-----------------------------------------------------------
I said,
"The Bible has stronger manuscript support than any other work of classical literature- including Homer, Plato, Aristotle, or Ceaser."

So? All of the above contained nothing but fables and exaggerated stories, didn't they? Sure, there was some truth underlying many of the fables, but ALL of it was blown up and romanticized ... or do you really believe Odysseus tied himself to the mast to keep the Sirens from luring him to steer his ship into the rocks?
-------------------------------------------------------------
What I was trying to communicate is the fact that not only is there overwhelming manuscript evidence to support the Bible but that compared to other ancient compositions the dates prescribed to many of these manuscripts are so close to the original time they were written that there is little room to exaggerate the content. There is also very little change in manuscript content when you analize them, save for small variances in language and grammer. This is maybe why some of the other classical compositions include such fables, because there is room for it.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"As for Jesus' predictions, if he were the son of god then they should ALL have come true, shouldn't they? And how could mere mortals have killed him? If you really think this guy was the son of god because a few (or even many) of his prognostications did in fact come true (many of which did so via a stretch of his believers' imaginations) ... then I guess Muhammed Ali is another son of god ... because many of his predictions of when his opponents would fall came true too "
------------------------------------------------------------

1. I'm interested to know which predictions of Jesus did not come true and, do you have evidence to support this notion?

2. Muhammed Ali made many predictions that were wrong as well so, in essence, he is a false prophet- since you used that arguement. The problem here though, is that Ali never proclaimed himself the son of God and there are no prophecies written about him.

3. What also is the "stretch of His believers imaginations", since you brought it up?

----------------------------------------------------------
To compare the TANGIBLE fossil remains of an infinity of extinct animals; the consistency of carbon dating; our knowlege of the galaxy, space and time; our understanding of chemistry, DNA, etc., etc. ... to a poorly-written book of fables that can't make it through a page w/o committing laughable errors ... IS SIMPLY RETARDED. I mean f*cking retarded.
---------------------------------------------------------
If, as you say, the issue here is of inteligent design, "in which you believe", then why are you bringing the Bible into this?? What is the use of comparing the Bible to science since it is not in question here?? You brought it up, not me.

Maybe we can label you a "bible thumper" as well then, if you associate the intelligent design theory to the creation theory of the Bible as you clearly seem to be.

Why are people quick to label anyone who may not agree with evolution, but hold to a inteligent designer?
As I said before, Science clearly regurgitates this notion.

[Rob B]

Carbon Dating

Ok, guys you'll have to bare with me here, University was a little while ago but this is what I remember.

The age of organic material can be calculated using carbon 14; now this isotope of carbon is radio-active and has a half life of 5,730 years. Now C14 combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide; C14 is then aquired by plants during photo-synthesis (only a small part of carbon dioxide contains C14, so the amount of C14 in a living thing is very small); then by animals when they consume the plants. When a plant or animal dies , it stops aquiring C14 and the C14 it contains decays back into nitrogen.

The way calculate the amount of C14 in a specimen is by the differential equation:

y = x e to the exponent (k multiplied t)

x = the original amount of C14
y = final value of C14
k = fixed rate
t = time period, in this case 5730 years
e = constant 2.71828

Now y can be measured using a Geiger counter, x can be replaced with the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. k can be calculated ( if you want to know how exactly I'll explain the algebra ) to -0.000121. leaving only one variable Time ( the age of the material )which can be solved for.

The method is completely sound except for one variable, x. We use the amount of C14 in our present day atmosphere because we simply do not know the amount that was present during the life of the specimen. There is room for error obviously, with the amount of C14 in the atmosphere varying throughout time, so it is at best an approximation. It is a pretty safe approximation though, the only way amounts of C14 could have *drastically* changed throughout history is a worldwide nuclear event which there is no evidence for.

Now the Church states that the universe is 6000 years old, that would mean that carbon 14 has gone through approximately 1 half life decay. Through Geiger measurements of organic substances, this is simply not the case.

[Ryu (non-working password]

Oh for ****'s sake...

I'm sorry for getting annoyed here, but no real church states the universe is 6000 years old. Christ...go to an Orthodox Christian church. They're for Evolution, they do not think the earth is 6000 years old, or any other weird garbage. Plus it is the first Christian religion there ever was....

this is getting stupid, and boring. I don't know what "church" claims the universe is 6000 years old, but it sure as hell isn't THE historical church.


This place is getting boring...

Ryu

[Atomic]

David--

Intelligent design has been shot down numerous times. Many sources do this and you should pick up the book, "The Blind Watchmaker," but Dawkins.

As for faith, we already covered that evolution and science do not require faith, so people, quit saying it does!

Atomic

[Martial Artist]

Evolution is nothing more than a damn theory.There is actually evidence that it doesnt exist.There is proof that the sun is shreinking at 5 feet per hour.There is hard,documented, evidence that the sun is shreinking.And a scietist did the math and crap and came up with this.Since evolutionist say that the world is 4.6 billion years old(He didnt say that but I think thats right,but he did say this...)If the sun is shreinking at 5-feet per hour(Which it is)then if the world was even 20,000 years old,then the sun would be touching the earth or have swallowed it up. (I cant remember which one)

Another,first,Evilution was supposed to have happend so slow we cant see it.Now it's so fast we cant see it.You see,once they get proved wrong,then they change there story.Also fact you mite like is that there is more of a chance of Ezolution happending than 5 monkeys typing "Look were monkeys typing" that perfectly in less then 24 hours.Also,people found a footprint of a persons shoe and there was a bug than died out in the 2nd stage of evolution.Also,why have we stopped evolving.


There is alot more but these are all I remember.

[Martial Artist]

Another thing.I guess evolutionist think that a sudden blast (Big bang theory) that made the earth,how did the sun and earth become close enough to stay warm but far enough away to not be too hot?Random chance?I think not.Also,The human eye is so complex that id would be IMPOSSIBLE for it too happend by random chance.THE SAME THING WITH A ATOM!

Also,for evolution to be true,that animals would have to evolve in steps.Which means if it is in steps,they have to be slowly deformed until it changes into a completely different species.Nothing wrong with that?WRONG! Animals insticts when they have younge,if some are or even one,are deformed,they push it off to the side which means certain death.Another thing,for there to have been the first birth to younge,2 species(Of the same)have to be around at the same time,on the same part of the earth(Which means they have see each other and hump),and have to be male and female.There is so much evidence that it doesnt exist,it's scary.And all I know is what I can remember it my 14 year old brain!


I have not read every post so if there is any overlap,I'm sorry.

[david a]

Ryu is right.

I don't know of any churches that hold to a 6000 year universe. I know that some churches hold to a 6000 year creation of the universe. I also know of some churches that hold to a 6 day creation, but no 6000 year universe.

Atomic,

I am looking into the blind watchmaker right now, and I already see some major problems with it. I certainly hope this isn't what you hinge your beliefs on. Will get back to you soon on this.

---------------------------------------------------------
"True, ultimately we must have "FAITH" in either evolution or creationism, but to try to suggest that the evidence in support of each theory is even CLOSE to being equal is absolutely preposterous."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say that. Your evolutionist/inteligent design/bible thumper friend said that.




Tommorow............

[Mr. Miyagi]

Thanks Rob for doing what I was too lazy to do.
Martial Artist, you totally lost me. You said the sun is "shreinking" and you said that twice. What the hell is "shreinking"? If you mean shrinking then why would a shrinking sun swallow up the earth, in fact the sun's surface would get farther away from earth, right? I've never heard that the sun is shrinking and if it is it must be at a very small rate because it is not made a big deal of.
Evolution can be caused by isolation, adaptation, or freaks of nature. For example of isolation, take the Eastern Bullfrog. It spans on the east coast of the US from Florida to Maine. Studies of this species have shown that a frog from Florida can be mated with one from Georgia successfully. A frog from Georgia can be mated with a frog from Virginia successfully. A frog from Virginia can be mated with a frog from Pennsylvania. A frog from Pennsylvania can mate with a frog from Massachussets. A frog from Massachussets can be mated with a frog from Maine. Very surprisingly and significantly, however, a frog from Maine is different enough from the frogs of the Southern states so they cannot reproduce together. That makes a very strong case that being in different environments for hundreds or maybe thousands of years changed the species in some regions enough so this occurred. An example of adaption could be made for animals which are most suited for a particular climate surviving and reproducing similar offspring that possess the same tendencies. Then there is always room for genetic freaks of nature that are better off than the rest of their species because they were born with an oddity which gave them a superior role in natural selection. Their offspring may also possess their characteristics.
So, imagine various species of australopithecines existing a few millions of years ago and they in turn were isolated from each other by geography and climate and evolved differently. Most examples that were found had punctures in vital areas suggesting a warlike death at the hands of another subspecies of homo erectus or at the jaws of a predator.
Short term evolution has occurred in humans as well. People who originate from near the equator are darker skinned, darker eyed, and darker haired than those from the poles. A person from Kenya has much more melanin in their skin, darker eyes, and dark hair, all characteristics that help against bright sunlight. People from Sweden are pale as the snow, blue eyed, and blond. It hasn't been long enough so that the species has changed and with modern man, isolation is no longer an issue.
I hope that some of you will read this and consider it.