OT: Do you believe modern humans descended from a lower life form?(poll)

[Chaotic]

Originally posted by Echoes The University of Houston Political Science dept. completed research into the sources our Founding Fathers used most frequently in forming our present system of government. From the pool of nearly 15,000 documents from that period, the researchers selected 3,154 documents considered most significant to the Founding Fathers. After 10 years of investigation, the researchers determined that the Founding Fathers quoted most heavily from 3 intellectuals: Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Locke. However, the most interesting conclusion from the research was that the Founding Fathers were even more dependent upon the Bible than they were dependent upon these 3 men. The Bible was quoted 4 times more often than Montesquieu, and 16 times more often than Blackstone or Locke. 94% of the quotes of the Founding Fathers were based on the Bible: 34% were direct quotes from Scripture and the remaining 60% were taken from quotes where they had used the Bible to arrive at their conclusions. The book quoted most often by the Founding Fathers was Deuteronomy. So explicit was the relationship between law and religion, that Charles Finney (the 'Billy Graham' of the 1800's) came to faith in Jesus Christ simply by reading Blackstone's "Commentaries On Law", because each time Blackstone cited a principle of law, he gave chapter and verse to the Biblical passage which contained the foundation of the principle... Source for the 3 Branches of Government: Isaiah 33:22... "For The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our King; He will save us." Tax exemption for churches: Ezra 7:24... "Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribune, or custom, upon them." Liberty Bell inscription: Leviticus 25:10... "And you shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all it's inhabitants; it shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his family." The National Seal: Benjamin Franklin wanted Moses standing over the Red Sea with arms outstretched, with the motto: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God"... Thomas Jefferson proposed: the children of Israel wandering in the wilderness, being led by a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night. The first 'American Bible'.. was the result of George Washington asking Congress, by means of an "Emergency Act", to provide his troops with Bibles since they had run out of them. Immediately, 20,000 Bibles were imported and rushed to the troops. In order to prevent any future dependence upon foreign Bibles, on September 10, 1782, Congress commissioned Robert Aiken, publisher of "The Pennsylvania Magazine", to print what later became known as the "Bible of the Revolution", which has become today one of the world's rarest books. want some more???

Actually, I'd like to see something from the Federalist papers or the Constitution seeing as that was the political system that the founding fathers set up.

Quoting things from the Bible and acting like they relate to something else is a tired Christian tactic.

Until you find something in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Federalist Papers you are just spouting hot air.


p.s. Here is an editorial that talks in length about the data you posted: www.nashville-au.org/editorials_xnation.html

[Echoes]

Originally posted by Chaotic Actually, I'd like to see something from the Federalist papers or the Constitution seeing as that was the political system that the founding fathers set up. Quoting things from the Bible and acting like they relate to something else is a tired Christian tactic. Until you find something in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Federalist Papers you are just spouting hot air.

 

 

founded on Biblical principle and decidedly NON RELIGIOUS as they wanted to avoid a scenario as in England with the Church of England enmeshed with it's government...

 

does not deny the foundations of our government on Christian principle...

 

I have 4 pages front and back with quotes from our Founding Fathers...giving supreme acknowledgement to God and the Bible as it's foundation....if I thought for 1 second that you were a sincere guy I would attempt to type it out...

 

you just seem to be an antagonistic ass....and it will amount to a waste of my time...

 

if someone is interested TRULY ...PM me and I will make it available by scanning the documents.

[dav2321]

Originally posted by CliffC8488 This is why our current society is so screwed up. Scientific method has been replaced by opinion polls. Despite overwhelming evidence for (insert topic here, i.e. global warming, evolution, etc.), the public is brainwashed by propaganda from those with an agenda. The administration censors facts that go against policy, deliberately tries to replace truth with dogma and cultures an environment of general distrust of science and those who dare speak out against them. It's precisely this kind of mentality that eventually leads to things like Auschwitz. Just look at this forum. There was a post the other day where someone was advocating killing the relatives of those who are linked to terrorism. WTF?!!!!! So in answer to the question, all scientific evidence says a resounding yes. And so what? Is this so bad? What does it matter if I descended from pond scum? Is this any worse than descending from some dude who wore a fig leaf and ate an apple? CC

 

+1

[CliffC8488]

The founding fathers may or may not have built this country on Christianity. But the 1st Amendment is all I need.

Nutcases like you who believe the Earth is center of the universe and that science is a conspiracy to overthrow Christianity make it all the more important to separate church and state.

CC

[trey85stang]

Originally posted by someones_tired i vote yes, at least it has an explination other than, POOF... life

Either answer would still have resulted in: "poof" life.

Originally posted by blargh Like I said, if you find something better supported by evidence, let me know. I know evolution happens for sure, why else would I get the flu every few years, and why else would drug companies spend billions on developing antibiotics?

Evolution happens every day somewhere in the world... it still doesnt leave undeniable proof that humans evolved from an ape.

Originally posted by AgentOrange No good scientist will tell you than any perticular theory denies the exitence of god. But certainly in my opinion, earth is not 6000 years old and we are not the centre of the universe. Of course, there could be a god that created the universe 14 billion years ago when it was formed, even Proffessor Hawking doesnt deny the possibility, but we just cant say for certain just yet right bed time James

I dont agree with evolution as presented by some, but I also do not agree with the earth only being 6000-8000 years old

[Echoes]

Originally posted by CliffC8488 The founding fathers may or may not have built this country on Christianity. But the 1st Amendment is all I need. Nutcases like you who believe the Earth is center of the universe and that science is a conspiracy to overthrow Christianity make it all the more important to separate church and state. CC

 

 

no, you misunderstand me...it's actually much worse for you than that...science was FOUNDED by Christianity (as with modern mathematics etc...) and I believe that science is TOTALLY on my side...not yours. If you are an intellectually honest person (which I do not believe you are...) the scientific 'evidence' is in favor of DESIGN ....if you want to deny what science has uncovered since Darwin's 'Origin' book, that is up to you...if you are honest, the answers are there...if not? keep chasing after Darwin's dream.

[Chaotic]

Originally posted by Echoes no, you misunderstand me...it's actually much worse for you than that...science was FOUNDED by Christianity (as with modern mathematics etc...) and I believe that science is TOTALLY on my side...not yours. If you are an intellectually honest person (which I do not believe you are...) the scientific 'evidence' is in favor of DESIGN ....if you want to deny what science has uncovered since Darwin's 'Origin' book, that is up to you...if you are honest, the answers are there...if not? keep chasing after Darwin's dream.

 

 

Algebra was invented in the middle east.

 

Trigonometry and Geometry were invented by the Greeks and the Babylonians.

 

The origins of integral Calculus were attributed to the Greeks, before Leibniz and Newton refined them. Many of Newtons ideas were embraced by deists and people attribute the decay of an interventionist God to Newtonian mechanics.

 

Abstract algebra came about in the 20th century and there is nothing to support any ideas that it was founded by Christianity.

 

As for evidence of the development of complex life on Earth there has been exactly one scientific paper on intelligent design as opposed to tens of thousands on evolution.

 

Intelligent design isn't a theory, it's an argument of ignorance. It is basically saying that people are too dumb to understand things so they must of been created by something else. The problem with it as a scientific theory is it is just passing the buck. If you just simply say Googlfastoikina the Great created everything then what the {censored} created Googlfastoikina?

 

Since you mentioned mathematics, let me explain how bad the theory of ID is with math.

 

There are an infinite number of possible creation explanations to the Earth. Each of these is equally probable. There is no scientific reason to suppose that God is more likely than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

Also any omnipowerful creator must be mutually exclusive with all other omnipowerful creators. This means that you have an infinite number of mutually exclusive events with the same probability. The probability of any one of them being true is infinitely small.

 

Now Evolution has a rich body of supporting evidence. The fossil history of Earth, genetics, biology and geology all support the theory and have been written in countless scientific papers. This means its probability is much higher than any other theory which doesn't have supporting evidence.

[Loghead]

Originally posted by Chaotic If you just simply say Googlfastoikina the Great created everything then what the {censored} created Googlfastoikina? There is no scientific reason to suppose that God is more likely than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

 

Is Googflastoikina the Great the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

Personally, I think the Giant Purple Marshmallow Who Inhabits the Next Room could kick Googflastoikina the Great's butt.

[potaetoes]

Originally posted by Echoes no, you misunderstand me...it's actually much worse for you than that...science was FOUNDED by Christianity (as with modern mathematics etc...) and I believe that science is TOTALLY on my side...not yours. If you are an intellectually honest person (which I do not believe you are...) the scientific 'evidence' is in favor of DESIGN ....if you want to deny what science has uncovered since Darwin's 'Origin' book, that is up to you...if you are honest, the answers are there...if not? keep chasing after Darwin's dream.

 

 

actually... you're absolutely full of {censored}. i hope you don't feed your worship groups the same stream of crap you like to spread all over this board, in every single thread you pop up in. they deserve better than to be victims of your abject ignorance.

 

you can thank the ancient egyptians, greeks, and later the muslims for most of what makes up "science" as we understand it. the building blocks of the scientific method (repeatable experimentation, peer review, open discussion, focus on empirical data, etc.) come largely from the muslims. the chinese also had similar development going on, coming up with advances in math, astronomy, engineering, stuff like gunpowder and other things, but it didn't develop as much into a formal system.

 

as for the scientific contributions of early christianity, you may have heard of a period almost a thousand years long, known as the "dark ages"... during which people practicing anything resembling scientific research were generally persecuted by the church. science was eventually assimilated into christianity after hundreds of years of fierce resistance, when there was essentially no other option. they simply could not continue to deny science and retain any semblance of credibility.

[paulintheuk]

+1

The church has always thrived on ignorance and fear, the "opiate of the masses" indeed... How better to subjugate the people?

And yes, until recently the church was where all the power was... The pope ruled more than the supposed "rulers" adn definitely had more money. Read the history of Christianity and see how much "goodness" you find.

Makes me laugh

Also, if there is "one true god" then why did the "one true religion" not pop into existence in all places at the same time? Why didn't the Australian Aborigines and the native Americans (north and south) share the same belief? Why did they have to be "taught the errors of their ways"?

Religion has to rely on faith, coz it makes no {censored}ing sense.

[ermghoti]

The argument that the theory of evolution is untrue is no stronger than the argument that the Holocaust never occured.

I believe that science is TOTALLY on my side...not yours. If you are an intellectually honest person (which I do not believe you are...) the scientific 'evidence' is in favor of DESIGN

Utter nonsense. The first premise in intelligent design is that there is a creator. There is no possible test for the existence of a creator. The first element of a theory is that it is a testable hypothesis. Therefore, ID is not a theory, it is a belief, which is entirely outside of science. Science will never support ID, not because of some secret cabal, but because ID is not scientific.

On the other hand, there is an enormous, interweaving, cross-disciplinary body of evidence, all of which invariably points to evolution. National Geographic published a pretty good primer a few years back, for those of you with the capacity to follow empistematic logic.

Where exactly is all this "evidence" (I appreciate your use of qualifying quotation marks around "evidence," to distiguish it from actual evidence, BTW) disproving evolution? Every single argument I have seen is factually wrong, or simply pointing out a lack of evidence in the body of knowledge supporting evolution (if there were no holes in our knowledge, it would be a scientific law, not a theory). There are more biologists named Steve who recognise evolution as a valid theory than all "biologists" who oppose it, regardless of name.

[jeverist]

The evidence for intelligent design lies in the statistical improbabilities that certain patterns would exist without an intelligence behind it. Of course, any nitwit can come along and say the probability of anything that came into existence is 1, nonetheless that doesn't discount the fact that the creation of even the very first cell was a miraculous result of something infintesimally improbable.

How can I state factually that the creation of a living cell is almost infintesimally improbable? Easy. No one has ever witnessed the transformation of nonlife to life, even in the creation of simple single-celled organisms. We cannot recreate, nor can we observe in nature, what it takes to actually create a living cell from non-life.

I'm not saying intelligent design is right or that evolution is wrong, but I am saying that ID has the potential of becoming a valid theory just like evolution is a valid theory. Statistics is one way of validating that theory. Showing that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics(i.e. forms of energy tend to degrade, not increase) is another possibility of demonstrating an intelligence that causes evolution to occur.

Originally posted by ermghoti The argument that the theory of evolution is untrue is no stronger than the argument that the Holocaust never occured. Utter nonsense. The first premise in intelligent design is that there is a creator. There is no possible test for the existence of a creator. The first element of a theory is that it is a testable hypothesis. Therefore, ID is not a theory, it is a belief, which is entirely outside of science. Science will never support ID, not because of some secret cabal, but because ID is not scientific. On the other hand, there is an enormous, interweaving, cross-disciplinary body of evidence, all of which invariably points to evolution. National Geographic published a pretty good primer a few years back, for those of you with the capacity to follow empistematic logic. Where exactly is all this "evidence" (I appreciate your use of qualifying quotation marks around "evidence," to distiguish it from actual evidence, BTW) disproving evolution? Every single argument I have seen is factually wrong, or simply pointing out a lack of evidence in the body of knowledge supporting evolution (if there were no holes in our knowledge, it would be a scientific law, not a theory). There are more biologists named Steve who recognise evolution as a valid theory than all "biologists" who oppose it, regardless of name.

 

[Echoes]

Originally posted by jeverist The evidence for intelligent design lies in the statistical improbabilities that certain patterns would exist without an intelligence behind it. Of course, any nitwit can come along and say the probability of anything that came into existence is 1, nonetheless that doesn't discount the fact that the creation of even the very first cell was a miraculous result of something infintesimally improbable. How can I state factually that the creation of a living cell is almost infintesimally improbable? Easy. No one has ever witnessed the transformation of nonlife to life, even in the creation of simple single-celled organisms. We cannot recreate, nor can we observe in nature, what it takes to actually create a living cell from non-life. I'm not saying intelligent design is right or that evolution is wrong, but I am saying that ID has the potential of becoming a valid theory just like evolution is a valid theory. Statistics is one way of validating that theory. Showing that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics(i.e. forms of energy tend to degrade, not increase) is another possibility of demonstrating an intelligence that causes evolution to occur.

 

 

just sit and think for a few minutes-hours how many incredible 'coincidences' there are in life...both physical and 'soft science' emotional/spiritual....sun, moon earth...orbit, rain, warmth, smiles, tears, joy, DNA, atoms, wind, clouds, heart, vascular system, brain, water, ice, eyes, ears, taste, vision, feel, touch....etc...etc...etc....then look DEEPER into each and every one of these 'words'...the 'picture' becomes crystal clear after a short while..

[blargh]

Originally posted by jeverist The evidence for intelligent design lies in the statistical improbabilities that certain patterns would exist without an intelligence behind it. Of course, any nitwit can come along and say the probability of anything that came into existence is 1, nonetheless that doesn't discount the fact that the creation of even the very first cell was a miraculous result of something infintesimally improbable. How can I state factually that the creation of a living cell is almost infintesimally improbable? Easy. No one has ever witnessed the transformation of nonlife to life, even in the creation of simple single-celled organisms. We cannot recreate, nor can we observe in nature, what it takes to actually create a living cell from non-life. I'm not saying intelligent design is right or that evolution is wrong, but I am saying that ID has the potential of becoming a valid theory just like evolution is a valid theory. Statistics is one way of validating that theory. Showing that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics(i.e. forms of energy tend to degrade, not increase) is another possibility of demonstrating an intelligence that causes evolution to occur.

 

You're assuming life could only happen here on earth, now, and exactly in this way. Sure, the probabilites of life evolving the same exact way are infinitesimal, but the Earth is far from the only place in the universe.

The second law of thermodynamics argument doesn't work because the law applies to closed systems, not systems which recieve massive amounts of energy from the sun.

[telephant]

So what is the Creationist explanation for the missing link between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens?

[Echoes]

Originally posted by Chaotic Algebra was invented in the middle east. Trigonometry and Geometry were invented by the Greeks and the Babylonians. The origins of integral Calculus were attributed to the Greeks, before Leibniz and Newton refined them. Many of Newtons ideas were embraced by deists and people attribute the decay of an interventionist God to Newtonian mechanics. Abstract algebra came about in the 20th century and there is nothing to support any ideas that it was founded by Christianity. As for evidence of the development of complex life on Earth there has been exactly one scientific paper on intelligent design as opposed to tens of thousands on evolution. Intelligent design isn't a theory, it's an argument of ignorance. It is basically saying that people are too dumb to understand things so they must of been created by something else. The problem with it as a scientific theory is it is just passing the buck. If you just simply say Googlfastoikina the Great created everything then what the {censored} created Googlfastoikina? Since you mentioned mathematics, let me explain how bad the theory of ID is with math. There are an infinite number of possible creation explanations to the Earth. Each of these is equally probable. There is no scientific reason to suppose that God is more likely than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Also any omnipowerful creator must be mutually exclusive with all other omnipowerful creators. This means that you have an infinite number of mutually exclusive events with the same probability. The probability of any one of them being true is infinitely small. Now Evolution has a rich body of supporting evidence. The fossil history of Earth, genetics, biology and geology all support the theory and have been written in countless scientific papers. This means its probability is much higher than any other theory which doesn't have supporting evidence.

I wonder if 'straightening you out' is worth my time..

if you do not see design around you EVERY WHERE...I can do nothing for you....

[Echoes]

Originally posted by telephant So what is the Creationist explanation for the missing link between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens?

humans appeared on earth full developed...as a matter of fact, because of entropy...we are actually 'fallin apart' not 'evolving'...these 'rocket scientists' around here should be able to understand that:rolleyes: ...but they throw laws of thermodynamics out the window when it comes to their GOD: EVOLUTION....

enter dramatic music here as all the white lab coated 'scientists' bow down before the god of their own making...

[ermghoti]

Originally posted by Echoes humans appeared on earth full developed...as a matter of fact, because of entropy...we are actually 'fallin apart' not 'evolving'...these 'rocket scientists' around here should be able to understand that:rolleyes: ...but they throw laes of thermodynamics out the window when it comes to their GOD: EVOLUTION.... enter dramatic music here as all the white lab coated 'scientists' bow down before the god of their own making...

Entropy occurs within a closed system. Neither a species, an individual organism, or even the Earth is a closed system. This is an unbelievably simple point.

[telephant]

Originally posted by Echoes humans appeared on earth full developed...as a matter of fact, because of entropy...

 

 

 

So what about all the fossil evidence that clearly show a humanoid being similar to our own, but different? Are you suggesting Neanderthals didnt exist?

["sasquatch"]

Originally posted by telephant So what is the Creationist explanation for the missing link between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens?

 

 

it would be interesting to know.

 

not all Christians are creationist/fundamentalists, in fact, most aren't. The Catholic Church accepts evolution.

[telephant]

Originally posted by doggage5050 it would be interesting to know. not all Christians are creationist/fundamentalists, in fact, most aren't. The Catholic Church accepts evolution.

Exactly. Im NOT looking for the "God put fossils on earth to tests mans faith" answer.

What gets me though, is that if God created man in his image, what about Neaderthal? Was tyhat just some jackass he was practicing on?

["sasquatch"]

Originally posted by telephant So what about all the fossil evidence that clearly show a humanoid being similar to our own, but different? Are you suggesting Neanderthals didnt exist?

 

 

I saw a tv show on national geograpic about 2 months ago, that some famous geologist dude found 2 very different pre-homo sapien skulls, differring greatly. it was assumed that these 2 different species lived on the earth at much different times, but both dated to the same age.

 

to think science knows everything (not saying you do, just in general) is very ignorant; we don't know {censored} about junk at the bottom of the mariana trench, among other examples. imvho, it could be possible there were other things around back in the day that became extinct from lack of their adaptation/evolution. look at the dodo bird, a more modern day example.

[tequila_titan]

OT: Do you believe modern humans descended from a lower life form?(poll)

 

Only Arabs.

[telephant]

Originally posted by doggage5050 I saw a tv show on national geograpic about 2 months ago, that some famous geologist dude found 2 very different pre-homo sapien skulls, differring greatly. it was assumed that these 2 different species lived on the earth at much different times, but both dated to the same age. to think science knows everything (not saying you do, just in general) is very ignorant; we don't know {censored} about junk at the bottom of the mariana trench, among other examples. imvho, it could be possible there were other things around back in the day that became extinct from lack of their adaptation/evolution. look at the dodo bird, a more modern day example.

 

 

Well I know Neanderthals became extinct. But they were still Humanoids. So how does this factor into Christianity specifically?

 

I mean, they werent Christians obviously. But from the timeline of the Bible, it seems they almost would have existed BEFORE God created man.

[telephant]

Originally posted by tequila_titan OT: Do you believe modern humans descended from a lower life form?(poll) Only Arabs.

Now THATS ignorant.