Christine the Lioness (3122)
Christopher the Pyro (1985)
ProphetJoe the Irreverent (1234)
Trouble the Pirate (600)
Keith the Director (573)
Mara the Peacemaker (532)
eric the Lil' Devil (351)
AJ the Zen Master (305)
Ben the Kingpin (213)
Haas the Addict (187)
Christine 2 the Mercenary (131) Lei the Mercenary (124) Katie the Mercenary (115)
Ben2 the Soldier (56) ProphetJoe the Irreverent mentioned
How about the missing link? Evolution is still a theory, not a fact, Christopher.
It’s a little like asking people if they believe in aliens (no, not the Mexicans here illegally!). There is a large portion of the population who says “sure, there are other life forms out there who have visited Earth”. While others think that if there were extraterrestrials out there, we would have an alien body or a space ship or SOMETHING tangible by now… I mean how many times can the Air Force cover up the flying saucers in this day and age???
ProphetJoe the Irreverent commented
I hear Jib-Jab has a new Hillary-Obama Disco video… isn’t it time you and Christine showed us some more dance moves???
benz the Groupie commented
the question could go both ways…
“What is wrong with people who believe in evolution?”
ProphetJoe the Irreverent up'n wrote this
To adhere to either Evolution and Creationism requires a degree of faith, don’t you agree?
ProphetJoe the Irreverent asserted
sorry, Evolution OR Creationism
Need more 
Christopher the Pyro got all philosophical
PJ,
I would have to disagree with you about evolution requiring any type of faith.
The fact is that evolution requires us to dig up fossils that are awful rare to begin with to find the “missing link”.. really doesn’t mean there is a hole at all. The reality is evolution has been proved countless times… (think of a mutating virus that is the simplest example).
Being that your in academia I’m pretty sure that your realize when evolution is referred to as a “Theory” it means that is a extensively tested idea that has yet to ever fail in testing. Similar to Einstein’s theory of relativity. Almost everything in science is considered a “Theory” and there are very few actual laws. Off the top of my head only Newton’s Laws of Motion come to mind. This is because scientists by their very nature are skeptical until something is proven without a doubt.
There was a lengthy discussion on some of these ideas on this very blog a few years ago that you might find interesting.
http://www.chrisvschris.com/splitting-the-difference-intelligent-design/
ProphetJoe the Irreverent chimed in with
Let me clarify: evolution is a proven scientific process. Bacterium mutate. Viruses mutate. Animals mutate, and so on. I am not denying that. It is a fact that on a DNA level, humans and chimpanzees exhibit very close genetic markers (roughly 95% of our genes are the same). More often than not, the differences seen between species are phenotypical, not genotypical — that is, the phenotype is:
genotype + environment + random-variation → phenotype
So, while DNA and environment DO most certainly have an effect, there has NEVER been a proven example of a physical link between the two (i.e. — no missing link has ever been found) species. So, you either have faith that there was a common (missing) link or you don’t… and if you don’t, then I guess you’d be a die-hard fundamentalists (who also has to have faith to Believe) — hence my statement that either needs faith.
Of course, the modern theory suggests that ALL life evolved from the same building blocks — viruses, bacterium, plants, animals, — everything. This tends to lead some of us people to believe in Intelligent Design.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent up'n wrote this
P.S. — since it is not a proven fact. it is still called a Theory. Once we can prove Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, it will become “A Law” — until then, these are all considered “commonly accepted theories” — nothing more, nothing less.
Trouble the Pirate mentioned
People please… Everyone knows that in the relative latter part of the preCambrian SuperEon, Tardigrades arrived here en masse, after journeying through space in a state of suspended animation. They were released from the gravitational field of extra-solar planets orbiting Gliese 581 during solar-flare stages, and attained near light-speed on their trip here. Upon entering our atmosphere they were spread over the Earth, and depending on where they ‘landed’, and the food sources there, evolved into the different species which inhabit the planet today… We are ALL extra-terrestrial…
Christine the Lioness said this
Duh. Women are from Venus and Men are from Mars. I don’t understand why people are still so confused about this… there’s a book and everything.
PJ… I think what Christopher is saying is that the theory of evolution does, yes, require an presumption that there is a missing link that will be found and hasn’t yet, or was destroyed and will never be found. But it’s a stretch to call that presumption “faith” in the same way those who believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design have “faith” in an omnipotent being that created man.
Carbon dating has proven that the Earth is older than the Bible suggests it is, which should compel most to toss their Bibles into the nearest lake but instead their “faith” has caused them to either reject that fact and rely solely on faith or accept the fact and try to find a way to incorporate irrefutable scientific data into their theory, thus the birth of Intelligent Design.
To simply say that because the missing link has never been nailed down 100% that to accept it requires the same type of “faith” as the faith needed to believe that there is a God who created Adam and then took one of Adam’s ribs to create Eve and we are all descended from such, is twisting the word “faith” just a bit.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent spake, and sayeth
umm, some of us are a little more extra-terrestrial than others! 
ProphetJoe the Irreverent hunt n' pecked this
Sorry, ‘tine, that wasn’t aimed at you, but TtP
As far as twisting faith… well, having a basic conviction in something that is not factually in evidence is…. well… whatever you want to call it… but I call it faith. You may choose to call it belief if you prefer. Do you believe in God? Do you believe in Evolution? Do you believe in aliens from another island planet?
ProphetJoe the Irreverent spake, and sayeth
So, Christopher, do you believe:
A) we will evolve into a higher life form — perhaps the 10-toed couch sloth,
B) just fade away, or
C) that another bolide impact will bring about our ultimate demise during the Holocene Epoch?
Just curious…
Christopher the Pyro stated
PJ.
I generally believe that human evolution has slowed to a crawl… why?
The way current man adapts to external stresses is very different then lower animals and even ancient man. Because of medicine’s and technology survival of the fittest means something very different to modern man… meaning external factors rarely affect us long enough to create change.
For example, if global warming occurs in the next 20-50 years, human might not survive, that is not enough time for us to adapt to the environmental changes.
Mara the Peacemaker penned this
Christopher: I think you’re right. Humans have the ability to evade natural selection due to modern technologies in medicine, etc which definitely slows the process. I tend to think that without modern technology, humans would evolve into another lifeform and possibly, depending on the its ability to survive, might eventually become extinct.
PJ: I think having faith in creationism and believing in Evolution are very different.There are lot of things we do not know with certainty, but we can still calculate probabilities based on what we observe in nature. There is more than enough evidence supporting the theory of evolution that we can make educated guesses, if you will, concerning less certain aspects of the theory, i.e., the missing link. There is no such thing as that in faith.
Faith is, by definition, irrational and is not based on any concrete source of knowledge. What does it mean to have faith? To me, it means that one simply suspends rationality and chooses to believe in something with absolutely NO, not even a scintilla of evidence.
Evolution does not suffer from this fatal flaw. Creationism (which is based on faith) has absolutely no basis or support from anything we have observed in nature. There is nothing about nature that tells us the universe or the world was created. How do we usually know that things are created? We observe its creator or designer. We know that cars are designed or created because we have observed its designer actually creating the car. No one has observed the world being created or designed. No one has observed the creation or design of the universe. Thus, it would be irrational to assert that the universe and/or world is the product of creation. Moreover, even if one did believe that the world was created by some supernatural being, that still provides no evidence of the “thing’s” attributes as are commonly claimed in many religions (god = eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, a single god as opposed many, etc). Aside from that, I find that no most people do not even know what they have “faith” in since no one can seem to adequately provide a definition of this so-called being in which they commit their belief in a way that isn’t utter nonsense.
I have no problem with people asserting faith as a basis for their beliefs. I just do not see the comparison to one who subscribes to evolution.
Mara the Peacemaker said this
“God put animal fossils on the earth to test our faith. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED GOD! ”
I think people tend to say this in response to anything that contradicts what they believe. I’ve heard the same said when contesting carbon dating. The funny thing is most people are just handed a Bible one day, told it’s the word of god and they run with it. I’m telling you. Jesus was right. People are sheep.
Honestly, I think if there such a concept as a “god” (whatever that means; is a god a “thing?”), it is so incomprehensible and inaccessible that to assert a “belief” in it would be meaningless.
Christine the Lioness got all philosophical
The other point I’d like to bring up in addition to the notion that the word “faith” can accurately apply to those who subscribe to Creationism, but doesn’t apply to those who believe in Evolution for the reasons that both Mara and I suggested in previous comments, is that in the same way those who believe in Creationism and I.D., twist the use of the word “faith,” they also tend to twist the use of the word “Theory.”
To say that I.D., Creationism, and Evolution are all “theories,” is an attempt to put them in the same category and imply that they are all EQUALLY viable because none of the three have been proven as “laws.” This is getting to what Christopher mentioned earlier. But the reality is, they are not equal. Evolution is backed with scientific proof and has evolved in and of itself to accommodate new data over time. I.D. includes elements that are backed by scientific proof– those elements that come from the same proof that supports evolution. Creationism is based in no scientific proof at all and can never be because the very nature that it is based on “faith” doesn’t allow for proof.
So this notion that all three are somehow viable, possible theories that should be taught in school, or accepted as viable theories is based on a flawed argument to say the least. To accept that all three of those theories are equally viable, you would also have to agree that a theory about Zeus and Aphrodite and all the other Greek/Roman gods that were once accepted as theories of how the Earth came to be, are also viable. Which they are clearly not.
And what’s also incredibly interesting about this way of thinking, is that some hold the theory of Evolution to this incredible expectation of proof and we intentionally neglect that level of proof as being rational in other instances. For example, take a murder case. When someone is arrested and tried for murder, the don’t require members of the jury to have witnessed the murder itself. Often, there are no witnesses at all. But based on motive, evidence, etc., we can come to a logical, reasonable conclusion that certain people make more logical suspects than others. Not every human being is a viable suspect simply because we have no concrete “proof” that one person committed the crime and therefore everyone else is eliminated. We operate under the guise that the evidence we do have can lead us to logical conclusions that some individuals are more likely suspects than others.
I’m not saying that people who believe in Creationism or I.D. are stupid. But religion serves a much deeper purpose than the simple understanding of Evolution. And because we naturally seek, as humans to not only confirm what we already believe, but to maintain comfort levels (objective re-evaluation of one’s core belief system is obviously takes a great deal of effort and in doing so, one must accept that in doing so, he/she may experience emotional pain, confusion, discomfort, etc., and may ultimately have to accept a difficult premise that they simply don’t know what will happen to them after they die), most prefer to hang on to their religious beliefs and try to find ways to reject the logical premise of Evolution or try to make them co-exist to avoid the process objective evaluation.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent scribbled
An interesting supposition, Christine, but I believe the same logical analysis you present above can be used to advocate for the exact opposite viewpoint. Unfortunately, time constraints prevent me from crafting my response today — but have FAITH, I will respond respond! You just have to BELIEVE in me
Christopher the Pyro asserted
rofl
ProphetJoe the Irreverent thought this
Hmm, I suspect that isn’t the same Christopher the Pyro (since it’s not a blue background).
ProphetJoe the Irreverent scribbled
Wait a minute — it does say “The Pyro”, but with no blue background…
Mara the Peacemaker remarked
Well, I will have to say that my basic issue with BOTH creationism and intelligent design is that there are too many suppositions that are never addressed by its proponents and I find that frustrating. To assert that the universe exhibits design really articulates nothing and the fact that there are religions constructed around this very concept is really quite amazing. First, we have to provide evidence of design. This is distinct even from Christine’s murder example because even still, though we don’t require the jury to have witnessed the murder, the jury is using reason to figure out who committed the crime. We know that sometimes people are murdered and using probabilities together with the evidence, we can make educated guesses. Yes, it’s still a GUESS, but it’s an educated guess, not merely a baseless guess. The jury just doesn’t randomly point a finger at Bob and declare that he did it. That is the differerence.
Intelligent design doesn’t even allow for an educated guess because to declare that a supernatural being or “god” made the universe is not an educated claim. There is no evidence that such a “being” even exists, not even on a micro-level (ie, no one has witnessed the “intelligent designer” designing an animal or the great creator creating life from nothing). Moreover, what does intelligent design, even if we accept it as true, tell us about this so-called designer? Nothing. It doesn’t tell us whether the designer still exists, it doesn’t tell us the nature of the designer (supernatural v. natural, finite v infinite)…it doesn’t tell us much of anything other than the universe was possibly designed. A leap of gigantic proportions must be made to get from ID to any sort of organized religion.
If I sound cynical, I admit I am toward religion. It isn’t that I find religion completely illegitimate. I just think that religion gets into trouble when it tries to fit itself within the realm of reason.
Christine the Lioness added
I don’t think it’s a matter of being cynical or not. Saying you don’t believe in something that has no proof isn’t being cynical.
I certainly believe that it is possible for an omnipotent power like God to exist without having to also believe all the fallacies of the Bible. As a matter of fact, the Bible is inherently fallible because (1) it was written by man who is fallible, and (2) it utilizes language which, although it is our best means of communication, falls short in most cases in accurately trying to convey thoughts and ideas.
Christine the Lioness pontificated
Besides that, religion and spirituality are very different things. One can be spiritual without ever reading the Bible and one can read the Bible and not be spiritual at all. They really have nothing to do with each other except the “meaning” that certain religions assign to the relationship between spirituality and the Bible.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent stated
Ok, I am short on time again today — too many damned emergency response plans — some whacked-out nut-jobs go and shoot people on university campuses and now I have to think of contingencies on what to do if we have an “active shooter” in the building! Oh well, since I prefer to follow the KISS (Keep It Short and Simple) Principle, I think my contingency plans are FIGHT OR FLIGHT!! OK, now back to the topic at hand:
Mara, you said “There is no evidence that such a “being” even exists, not even on a micro-level (ie, no one has witnessed the “intelligent designer” designing an animal or the great creator creating life from nothing).”
Yet, you seem to be advocating a theory (evolution) which not only provides us with no fossil evidence of the “missing link”, (and to clarify here — the Missing Link is NOT a link of evolution from chimpanzee TO man, but the foundational “creature” which produced BOTH chimpanzee and man) but it also offers no evidence nor a clear and consistent premise as to the origins of life… I fail to see how that is magically acceptable and deemed scientifically factual in your eyes without you having to accept a great deal “on faith”.
Christine, you said: “To say that I.D., Creationism, and Evolution are all “theories,” is an attempt to put them in the same category and imply that they are all EQUALLY viable because none of the three have been proven as “laws.” This is getting to what Christopher mentioned earlier. But the reality is, they are not equal. Evolution is backed with scientific proof and has evolved in and of itself to accommodate new data over time. I.D. includes elements that are backed by scientific proof– those elements that come from the same proof that supports evolution. Creationism is based in no scientific proof at all and can never be because the very nature that it is based on “faith” doesn’t allow for proof.”
The fact that the theory of evolution has “evolved” over time (sorry, couldn’t resist) indicates that it is not a “law”. Humanoids have only been around for about 150-200 million years (according to the best scientific evidence so far) and the earth is somewhere in the 5-6 billion year old range (our best guess), so mankind evolutionary period is an incredibly short time in the grand scheme of things. While I agree that human science (with all of its human failings and imperfections) is not going to predict nor prove the existence of an omnipotent divine being, we have seen convincing evidence that the Great Flood happened and that the Egyptians were killed in the Red Sea — both ancient Biblical events which many people don’t believe.
Furthermore, the fact that only 50% of the population believes in evolution (Chris’ statistic) indicates that the other 50% must believe in something like creationism, or I.D. or ProphetJoe-ism — if that’s the case, don’t all of them deserve to be touched upon in the education system? I’m not asking for the 5th grade teacher to preach Genesis to the class, but I think it should be discussed as a theory which is believed by a significant portion of society — after all, what are “facts” until society as a whole agrees to believe them?
In terms of your trial analogy — well, I can cite a few rapists who were positively identified by their victims and who were convicted as guilty “beyond any reasonable doubt” who were proven innocent by DNA testing. It just goes to show that scientific study is like anything else — it changes with time and our (limited) understanding of the world we live in…
Christopher the Pyro chimed in with
“Furthermore, the fact that only 50% of the population believes in evolution (Chris’ statistic) indicates that the other 50% must believe in something like creationism, or I.D. or ProphetJoe-ism — if that’s the case, don’t all of them deserve to be touched upon in the education system? I’m not asking for the 5th grade teacher to preach Genesis to the class, but I think it should be discussed as a theory which is believed by a significant portion of society — after all, what are “facts” until society as a whole agrees to believe them?”
The answer to this is a resounding NO. What society accepts does not affect the truth.
Just because people believe it, doesn’t make it anything close to the truth. As the old saying goes, history would be great if it was true. For example, teaching grade school children that Christopher Columbus discovered America, proved the world wasn’t flat. (He didn’t and the globe had already been invented by the 1400’s and it was a well accepted fact that the world was NOT flat” The reality is that Washington Irving during the 1800’s had enough influence and spun such a wonderful tale that his version of history became common truth…. even tho it was 100% inaccurate. Who is served by this?
On another note… I love your Fight or Flight plan.
Mara the Peacemaker hunt n' pecked this
PJ, you wrote “I fail to see how that is magically acceptable and deemed scientifically factual in your eyes without you having to accept a great deal “on faith”.
I think there is a distinct difference between advocating evolution (for which there is plenty of evidence even if the theory doesn’t explain everything) and ID/creationism for which there is NO evidence and which must be accepted on faith. Based on the information we do have, we can make educated guesses and so forth concerning the missing link. Sure, the guesses could be wrong, but the point is that you at least have some basis for asserting the guess in the first place. That is not faith. Faith is accepting a proposition for which there is absolutely no evidence or proof whatsoever. Faith is not even an educated guess. It’s a baseless guess. Faith is looking around our world and randomly declaring that a god was responsible without any evidence that anything was actually designed or created, that there is a god or that the god that supposedly actually created/designed the universe is even the same god. Faith takes the irrational and attempts (unsuccessfully, I might add) to make it rational. Now if you’re (general you) a person who subscribes to faith that is perfectly acceptable. It simply isn’t comparable, however, to a person who subscribes to evolution. I was once a person of faith but I always understood that my faith was, by definition, illogical.
Christine the Lioness scribbled
Your example, PJ, about the flood and Egyptians is interesting because you seem to be suggesting it’s proof that the Bible is correct. Are you? Because just because parts of the Bible may be based on true accounts doesn’t mean that Genesis is true. Just because many people don’t believe something happened and it did, doesn’t mean that EVERYTHING people don’t believe in the Bible happened.
And to defend my rather pathetic analogy about the murder trial– of course eyewitness accounts could be wrong because people lie or remember things incorrectly, etc., but my point was… we accept that if there’s enough evidence to support that Bob killed Fred, we put Bob on trial and can possibly convict Bob even if no one saw Bob kill Fred. We don’t randomly choose to try John for the crime if there is absolutely no evidence that John could’ve committed the crime.
I am short on time too. 
Christopher the Pyro uttered
Findings about the flood are also very disputable, many many cultures with no Christian basis at all have stories of a flood which suggests “the flood” is a myth far older then the old testament and something that has been passed down and affected many cultures.
Additionally the evidence for the flood does point to it focusing generally on the area of the world where people actually lived at that time.. and not a world wide flood. Finding ocean fossils in Denver does NOT point to a world wide flood it points to plate tectonics, ice ages, ect.
Raff the Virgin penned this
i mean, just to drop the rock in the lake. lets say that man was created first and monkeys followed on after us? is that a possiblity? just thinking outside the box.
Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.
