Evolution vs Creationism

414 posts / 0 new

Comments

That's the point ,we are making everything up ,it's called make believe .Science has concluded that nothing which is observed is unaffected by the observer.Spirituality told us this centuries ago ,now science has caught up,science has to do double blind experiments to come close to accuracy.

So are we not looking at an illusion from within the illusion is every conclusion not an illusion,it's called make believe and we are making real what we believe ,beliefs create behaviors ,that my friend is the only way we can change our destructive insane path that we are heading on change what we believe about the world to beliefs that are based on new understandings that science has given us ,that in fact are old understandings that spirituality gave us long ago.Do away with our Organized religions who take us away from where we say we want to go a world of diverse peoples living in harmony in peace and abundance for all.

Blessed are the peace makers

humanitys team's picture
humanitys team
Joined:
Dec. 24, 2010 4:53 am

I know what you mean, but I think taxing the rich and ending poverty, giving free health care to the poor, and food, housing, and freedom for everyone is not an illusion, nor is it illusory.

A change is gonna come.

Be here now and we'll be there then.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Yes you are right but the illusion it has to be this way is so strong that we can't see where we would like to be,and again you said just be there ,life is about being not doing ,are we not human being,s not human doing,s ,we have to change who we are being in relation to our environment as for example the earth exists for the exploitation of the dominant species ,but if we change our idea of who we are in relation to our environment and everything in it we can act in another way a beneficial way.

This is a matter of consciousness and we to raise consciousness before we can change consciousness.

humanitys team's picture
humanitys team
Joined:
Dec. 24, 2010 4:53 am

Do you have to raise consciousness to raise conscience? Because concscience is dead from most daily reports, and that is a dead worth raising.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Theory of mind has an experiment that proves the pemise earlier that 23 chromosomes are human and 24 are republican. The chimp in the test is getting food from 3 democrats on the couch, but from only one at a time. The chimp is shown 2 different colored sunglasses to try on and explore. The yellow pair is blacked out so you can't see, the blue one is not. Both pairs are given to the democrats on the couch. The yellow pair democrat also has the food. The blue one doesn't. The chimp goes to the one with the yellow pair, the chimp/republican doesn't care whether that person can see or not, he wants the food even its from a blind democrat. Evolution is amazing.

The theory of mind is what measures and describes empathy. Altruism is a cousin of empathy. Altruism is the most despised trait of humans in the eyes of Ayn Rand. One of the most vocal acolytes of Ayn Rand was just chosen to be #2 on republican ticket.

It takes 23 chromosomes to have empathy or altruism.

Someone with 24 would think they are better than 23, too.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

I love this stuff. Now to see there is an 'astro biology ambassador' explaining the goals of the Mars landing gives one sense of awe, and a sense of hope.

Which leads to the 24 to 23 chromosonal leap in evolution question I was pondering above. Is the advance due to less chromosone [though it's not less total, just a fusion of 2], or an odd number since primates below us are 24 an even number. Or is it necessary for the next leap to also pursue a prime number and make 19 the next likely leap in evolution, if we haven't destroyed ourselves before then.

These are hugely unanswered questions. The amount of DNA in any given species far outnumbers the amount of *used* DNA. So that begs the question, what does the amount of chromosomes matter? Is there something more special about chromosomes than the DNA that makes them up?

Quote douglaslee:

In one of the clips on time travel a physicist said the advances necessary for time travel for us were akin to the advances necessary for an amoeba to achieve space travel. I would say that's long term, a longer term goal than most care to commit to.

Keep in mind that just because a scientist says something, that doesn't make it true. It's the scientific method that makes something accepted (and in science that's *always* provisional). So, the real question is, was he just hyperbolicly making a point, or is there real scientific information (based on observation, measurement, and experimentation) that predictably results in " time travel for us were akin to the advances necessary for an amoeba to achieve space travel?" I don't know. I suspect he was just trying to say, "we don't yet understand enough to achieve time travel."

Quote douglaslee:

The religious sector that thinks god created the universe from the beginning just for us on earth was given an equivalency by Mark Twain. The comparison was the Eiffel Tower, and the part of the Eiffel Tower that compares to us homosapien is the outer coating of paint on the little ball at the peak of the radio antaena. So of course the creators of the Tower built that massive structure over that period of time from the planning and foundation to the end for that coat of paint on that ball at the top, And that is the whole purpose of the Eiffel Tower, exclusively for that coat of paint on that ball Then he finshed with 'They might have, I don't know'. [mind you I think some might consider the paint chips that think so to be a bit arrogant]

These are good arguments against a creator, or at least against a creator that intended us as the purpose. We are the dust of the dust of the dust of the big bang and in cosmic terms are mostly undetectable (meaning, even if there is a creator, it's possible it doesn't know we even exist; that's how insignificant we really are).

However, if we're being philosophical with scientific information, it's also possible that jump starting biological life requires so much energy that this entire Universe is needed in order to create us (and/or other life on other planets). That wouldn't be the case for paint on the Eiffel tower, but in that case we can detect a more appropriate purpose for its structure. In the case of the Universe, what would its purpose be if not for conscious life to at least ponder it (assuming there is a purpose at all)? Also of note, if the "required energy" hypothesis is true, that means any such creator is beholden to the laws of physics and is thus not an ultimate creator; making most religions on Earth false (especially Biblicaly based religions).

But that's philosophy, not science. Science can neither confirm nor deny the existence of life beyond the observable Universe.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote humanitys team:

Why do people always have to be right ,leave the mystery of the universe alone and enjoy the journey?

It seems more appropriate to satisfy our curiosity than to suppress it. is there a valid reason to stuff our natural tendencies into a dark corner and pretend something magic exists? Certainly there are people who don't care, and those people should just "enjoy the journey" if they so choose. But why pressure people who don't so choose to suppress their interests?

Quote humanitys team:

How do you know that the genetic stuff of life was not placed on this planet and there was some plan in place so both evolution and creation are one of the same !!

Why should we assume anything just because the question is not answered? Furthermore, due to our current understanding, we do know *probable* answers, and that list gets smaller every year. God, or Creator, or Purpose is not necessary to explain any of it. That doesn't mean there isn't one of these things, but it does mean there isn't likely one. For anyone interested in rational thought, that must be admitted.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote humanitys team:

The above post has nothing to do with creationism ,some creationist don't believe in the fallacies of old books such as the bible ,what I am saying here is you can think to death all this stuff but what good will that do !

The same good as you constructing this paragraph. Clearly you're thinking about it all, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to apply pressure to others to think as you do. Pondering is natural, for what ever reason, and there is no need to pressure others to stop thinking about things: that's the attitude of tyrants.

Quote humanitys team:

The universe is living ,nothing is dead in the universe,we are part of creation ,part of life ,nothing is separate in the universe ,that is why two particles can change similtaneously but be separated by great distances.

The same stuff that was born in stars is now you,you are made up of star stuff.This energy can never die it just changes form,we get to create with this energy participants in a participatory universe ,creators of our own reality.This is not mumbo jumbo but science fact,does it matter the movement of evolution is always towards unity not separation ,infact that is what the word means ,I for one believe in the perfection of life and the sanctity of life,when you look in the mirror what do you see,I see the divine,when humans come from this understanding that life as prime value a new earth and a new species of human will emerge.

Most of this is New Age BS, as made up as any religion. If people truly did make up their own reality, the Universe would be left with just one person -- as that's how many different ideas of how existence should be there are. Empirical reality is so because it transcends the expectations and beliefs of people, and particularly just one person. Thinking that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects never made it reality. Thinking that the Sun revolves around the Earth never made it reality. Thinking New Age people will go away doesn't make it reality. The only things humans have power over, is the unfolding of events within the laws of physics -- and that often requires collective decisions, not individual.

Quote humanitys team:

Are we not the creators of our own reality,did the people who droped the two atomic bombs not create hell on earth so then why can we not create heaven,on other planets in our universe I,am sure they live close to a state of perfection ,life is not put together haphazardlly you know there must have been a plan ,all you can do is trust the process and live in the now.

Wow, you create some pretty amazing contradictions here. We create our own reality, but there's a plan so we should just shut up and let it happen. Which is it?

Atomic bombs were made with the expressed understanding of the laws of physics. No one magically willed them into existence.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote humanitys team:

That's the point ,we are making everything up ,it's called make believe .Science has concluded that nothing which is observed is unaffected by the observer.Spirituality told us this centuries ago ,now science has caught up,science has to do double blind experiments to come close to accuracy.

This is the problem with spiritual/religious babel. It speaks in ambiguous, nonsensical, and contradictory tongues in hopes that its minions will think its merely beyond their comprehension and just see faces in the clouds. Show someone an ink blot, and they're likely to interpret some meaning, especially if they don't understand it. That's the foundation of this BS. In one full swoop, you've implied that everything is made up, and that there is an "accuracy" at the same time.

By the way, science has concluded no such thing as "nothing which is observed is unaffected by the observer." The very basis of the scientific method is to have observable, measurable, predictable, and reproducible experiments. That is, anyone who tries gets the same result, and the principles involved will predict the results. If that doesn't pan out, science does not accept it. If you drop any given object it will fall at the same rate regardless of the observer. Only wind resistance on Earth will change the rate (e.g. a feather falls at a slower rate because it is highly affected by the air it moves through).

Blind experiments in the physical sciences are certainly used, but are rare and usually not necessary unless the experiment has highly cutting edge results and the researchers want to ensure they aren't just getting their hopes up and messing up the math.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Jason, thanks for the responses, More eloquent than my planned response to

what good will that do !
with 'Said the nun to the priest observing non-celibates'.

The Secret is like amway for the soul.

btw, you're right on the mirror and image, I had even adopted it from Einstein. Now please say 'Class dismissed'.

ps, Have you seen Martin Gardner's 'The New Ambidextrous Universe' (c.1990) ?

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
In pondering lately, which is what I do, and referencing the Bible by way of Oxford's Dictionary of the Bible, I looked up humor. No reference at all. Joke? nothing, happiness? nothing, laughter? aha..'There is not much in the bible in praise of laughter as an expression of pleasure and paradox; Ps. 126: 2 is one of the rare instances.....but at least there is a promise of laughter in the kingdom of God (Luke 6: 21).

OK, now since we all know we don't last forever, and 95% of our demise leaves carbon dioxide and water what could this kingdom be like?

Carbon and Oxide had been together forever and monogomous, that's why as a couple they are carbon monoxide [In Swedish marriage is gift, a synonym for poison ironicly]. Carbon is bitching and bored." I saw Hydrogen last week, aside from his pompous attitude ..I swear every other sentence is I'm #1..well he was looking at taking in a third partner. His mate is an Oxide too, and I'd like to try something and experiment with her and you together. Well, Oxide says let me talk to her first.'

She reports back to Carbon,' Wow they went for it, but you know Oxide went for another Hydrogen and not the other way around. I think they're going to make it permanent, the papers are drawn up, Dihydrogen Oxide wouldn't fit on the mailbox so like ours they just went for H2O. But not all is bliss all the time, two guys that think each is number one raises temperatures, I mean they were steaming when I went by there'.

Oxide thought, shit her cousin seemed happy with two guys, she better start looking, but when she got home Carbon had another Oxide waiting already, and this one was an exact duplicate of herself and they signed the papers and became Carbon Dioxide, and mail address CO2. Still, how she wondered had he found a copy so close to herself. He was so successful when the word got out, he patented his method and he called it the Carbon Copy.

The End by douglaslee

ps I went by the beighborhood recently to see how this leap from monogomy was going along in the kingdom. Volatilty was normal over at the DihydrogenOxides. Glasses flying, plates breaking, hell their big table has been out in the street, too. Everyone knows it as the periodic table now because it is periodicaly overturned, or outside, and if it's outside they know temperatures are rising inside, rumor has it that their windows are fogged because of it.

The other day Oxide had thrown the periodic table outside, it was upside down now, and she was ranting at Hydrogens that they were threw taking her for granted 'You think you're #1,not anymore'. Hydrogens rolled their eyes, the she says 'I'm going to start my OWN magazine' Hydrogens snicker, chuckle, 'I'm going to name it after ME, Oxygen my maiden name before you fools. I'll call it O' Hydrogens were rolling, guffaws could be heard all over the neighborhood in the kingdom.

A little polish and it could be a bedtime story, if you want to read it to an up and coming chemical engineer.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Just remember there are many holes in the "theroy" of evolution. 2 of them are listed below:

You cannot get something from nothing. Someone or something had to make the first mass, make the sun and start it on fire, etc, etc.

The process of having things become more complex, single celled organisms "evolving" into lizards and fish for example, completely violates the second law of thermdynamics. And no one denies the validity of the second law of thermodymnamics.

And that's just for starters.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am

Fascinating that this debate is taking place in the US... in 2012...

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The definite of evolution is..... change over time

Mauiman2..... are you denying change over time?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote Mauiman2:

Just remember there are many holes in the "theroy" of evolution. 2 of them are listed below:

You cannot get something from nothing. Someone or something had to make the first mass, make the sun and start it on fire, etc, etc.

The process of having things become more complex, single celled organisms "evolving" into lizards and fish for example, completely violates the second law of thermdynamics. And no one denies the validity of the second law of thermodymnamics.

And that's just for starters.

Not if it's a continuus cycle like a mobius strip, or expansion... contraction...expansion...contraction. Time has no beginning or end, it just is. Physics or P is expanding itself, if it's to infinity or eternity, we are at Intro P.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jan in iowa:

The definite of evolution is..... change over time

Mauiman2..... are you denying change over time?

Oh there is change over time, but species are not created, only destroyed. Species can get bigger, stronger, faster etc. to adapt to their environment better, but that does not create a new species.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am

Bush Wacker wrote;

If something cannot come from nothing then who created God?

poly replies: Look at the Buddhist definition of nothing. Nothing = no thing.

When people stop making some "thing" out of no "thing", they become enlightened.

Nothing is probably the biggest "nothing" you can experience. However, when you attempt to describe it, you create a thing out of a no thing with the definition....which is why enlightenment can't be explained.

God absolutely couldn't use evolution. It was done the way creationists insist He had to do it. God definately isn't omnipotent...creationists are.

The word for "day" in Genesis was a word that meant an infinite amount of time. The word for a 24 hour day wasn't used. Some words don't translate well from one language to another.

interestingly, however, Genesis describes the same sequence of events that evolutionists do...beginning with a dark void (before the big bang). So what's the fuss?

Perhaps we should discuss a centuries-old debate that has never been resolved. "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" LOL

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote jan in iowa:

The definite of evolution is..... change over time

Mauiman2..... are you denying change over time?

Oh there is change over time, but species are not created, only destroyed. Species can get bigger, stronger, faster etc. to adapt to their environment better, but that does not create a new species.

HAHAHAHAHA! What dream world do you live in?

Go ahead and deny science, it won't change how nature really works at all.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

Well, take the Gulf Oil Spill.

Probably the shrimp being born blind and reproducing better than ones with eyes will one day be labelled a distinct species if they continue to evolve in a direction separate from the rest of the species.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote jan in iowa:

The definite of evolution is..... change over time

Mauiman2..... are you denying change over time?

Oh there is change over time, but species are not created, only destroyed. Species can get bigger, stronger, faster etc. to adapt to their environment better, but that does not create a new species.

HAHAHAHAHA! What dream world do you live in?

Go ahead and deny science, it won't change how nature really works at all.

OK, when's the last time a new species was made? I'm talking about a group of whatever that went off by themselves and could no longer mate and produce offspring with the group it left. Hasn't happened yet, and will never happen.

Besides evolution violates the scientific principal of the Second law of Thermodynamics. All the evolutionists here have been totally silent on that point, probably because they do not know what I am talking about. If they did, they would realize what a powerful daggar this confirmed principal of science is to evolution. It makes it impossible. To believe in evolution is to deny science, sorry.

Go ahead, study a little Thermodynamics to understand what I am saying here. I had to take a college level course on it, and I did pass the class.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote polycarp2:

Well, take the Gulf Oil Spill.

Probably the shrimp being born blind and reproducing better than ones with eyes will one day be labelled a distinct species if they continue to evolve in a direction separate from the rest of the species.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

The "new shrimp" would not be a new species, they could still mate with the "old shrimp" and produce offspring. It would be like creating a new breed of dog. Yes they are different, but they are not a new species.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am

New species are being discovered all the time.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/world/americas/eco-new-species-suriname/in...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/pictures/120215-smallest...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/01/pictures/120125-suriname...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/01/110125-whales-hybrids-an...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1119_031119_rorqualwhale...

http://www.earthtimes.org/nature/paucidentomys-vermidax-new-rodent-speci...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3284843.stm

Now if you want to watch a species appear like magic, can't give you that. It takes thousands of years of species to develop through adaptation.

Evolution is change over time...... simple.... organism/things change over time.

But I suppose you think there is some old man with a penis sitting on a throne up in space somewhere?

BTW.... what do you think the Second Law of Thermaldynamic means?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote jan in iowa:

New species are being discovered all the time.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/world/americas/eco-new-species-suriname/in...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/pictures/120215-smallest...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/01/pictures/120125-suriname...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/01/110125-whales-hybrids-an...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1119_031119_rorqualwhale...

http://www.earthtimes.org/nature/paucidentomys-vermidax-new-rodent-speci...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3284843.stm

Now if you want to watch a species appear like magic, can't give you that. It takes thousands of years of species to develop through adaptation.

Evolution is change over time...... simple.... organism/things change over time.

But I suppose you think there is some old man with a penis sitting on a throne up in space somewhere?

BTW.... what do you think the Second Law of Thermaldynamic means?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics means that left on its own, a system becomes more random over time. That law prevents the notion that single celled organisms can "evolve" into fish, lizards, etc.

Besides, who or what created the initial mass that became the sun, the earth and the other planets? Evolutionists have no answer for that. Someone or something had to make something out of nothing. And that violates the law of conservation of mass and energy.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote Mauiman2:

Besides, who or what created the initial mass that became the sun, the earth and the other planets? Evolutionists have no answer for that. Someone or something had to make something out of nothing. And that violates the law of conservation of mass and energy.

Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Design-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0739344269

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-c...

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=12325

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/02/stephen-hawking-explains-t...

http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers/2011/10/22/documentary-wit...

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote norske:
Quote Mauiman2:

Besides, who or what created the initial mass that became the sun, the earth and the other planets? Evolutionists have no answer for that. Someone or something had to make something out of nothing. And that violates the law of conservation of mass and energy.

Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

And I say it is created by God, so what? Besides I took a look at one of your links and even it declared that Mr. Hawking had not made his point!

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote Mauiman2:The Second Law of Thermodynamics means that left on its own, a system becomes more random over time. That law prevents the notion that single celled organisms can "evolve" into fish, lizards, etc.

The theory states that all energy will stay stable. Energy transfers, but energy stays stable as energy.

Quote Mauiman2:Besides, who or what created the initial mass that became the sun, the earth and the other planets? Evolutionists have no answer for that. Someone or something had to make something out of nothing. And that violates the law of conservation of mass and energy.

Science does not have a provable theory (yet) as to the basic building blocks of the Universe, and that is why science is still investigating how it all began. That is the purpose of science, to explore and figure out life and the universe though physical evidence.

Religion makes up stories about life and the universe. That is why all cultures have a "creation mythology." Man through religion tries to explain existence using mythical forms. It is NOT science, which is based in physical evidence.

Religion has NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and is based on belief, therefore, it is by it's own nature mythology.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote Mauiman2:

And I say it is created by God, so what? Besides I took a look at one of your links and even it declared that Mr. Hawking had not made his point!

The religious concept of a god is just that, a concept, a belief.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

It is indeed a marvel that we still talk about this stuff with so little understanding and so much knowledge. Thanks for the physics lessons. And the cosmology, although that is where we get speculative rather than observational about how it all began.

What the Original Post expressed was about a social liberal Christian buying into this "prove God" questions about "science." I can assure you that whatever it is that Nature has done in evolution, it is what "The Creator" did, and how. But, that is a theological assertion about the relationship of our being to being alive here and now. It is not a scientific theory and operates is a different arena. The idea that they conflict in some scientific theory v. myth and holy story battle for truth is a dead end road to be avoided if you want to get anywhere that matters.

While I throw up my hands in frustration at this religious fantasy and its appeal to liberal social/conservative dogma Christians, I do commend them for getting Jesus right even if they have some strange ideas about God. The demographics of those who have strange ideas about God is damn near inclusive. The demographics of those who get Jesus right is far more limited.

Just because theism was a darn good metaphor and metaphysical way to talk about the value of being human in this world does not mean that it continues to overcome the problems of scientific inquiry. The Hebrew God hovered over us in "the firmament" and was present in our lives. This God did not care much about "belief" because that was hardly questioned. It was which God, not whether God. What was clear about human life was that we were not in control and were looking for all the signs and revelations we could find to keep up with the mystery.

Newtonian Physics led us to knowledge that overwhelmed its model. Theism is going through a similar crisis. Attempts to re-imagine "God" still run into the distance any actual "being" would have to be from us "in heaven." We have to give up real time and space to come up with mystical belief in some "higher power" or numinous presence. On the other hand, it can make excellent psychological sense to use such imagery and metaphors.

Newtonian Physics can not explain the universe it revealed to us. I think Theism is like that. The model has run out of gas. It is not about discovering that God is a Fraud and that everything that human beings have ever said or thought about "divinity" is exposed as crap. It is about keeping faith about intellectual and moral integrity instead of the adoption of dogma in its place.

I find both scientists and theologians in agreement on this point. If we accept the above definition of "faith." That is word that has been deeply corrupted by this foolishness.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Along with the basic question "Did Adam and Eve have navels" I always wondered why the bible had no Copyright or date of publication. Turns out I was not alone, and research has been done by others:

Why God Never Received Tenure at Any University

1. He had only one major publication.
2. It was in Hebrew.
3. It had no references.
4. It wasn't published in a referred journal.
5. Some doubt He wrote it by Himself.
6. He may have created the world, but what has he done since?
7. The scientific community can't replicate His results.
8. He never got permission from the ethics board to use human subjects

9. When one experiment went awry, He tried to cover it up by drowning the subjects.

10. He rarely came to class and just told students, "Read the Book."

11. Some say He had His son teach class.

12. He expelled His first two students.
13. His office hours were irregular and sometimes held on a mountain top.
14. Although there were only 10 requirements, all students failed save His Son.

btw an edit in my travel journals to the kingdom, monogamy and monogamous [if I try to correct, it throws the whole post out of order]
Since Physics [P] as stated earlier is evovling and we are at Intro P clausius inequality under Carnot gets complicated. Newton coudn't solve the time arrow, but why does the transition order to disorder prevail over disorder to order?

simple example: Simple cells and gases constant or evolving . Yeast is a simple cell organism, it floats in the air unseen to most eyes. It comes to rest in a vessel of liquid with other simple cells [in this case maltose, from barley] this cell eats the the maltose, creates 2 wastes like humans make urine and fecal, yeast waste is alcohol and CO2. Beer from nothing? No CO2 until sugar sacrifised itself in the alter of wort. Sugar knew it was going to a greater afterlife of, alcohol and bubbles. This is the seed that was planted in the earth that grew to be barley then sprouting to malt was then fed to the yeast to make the ale that jack drank.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Scientific Theory VS. Mythology

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

I don't understand why there has to be a controversy.

Science is science and religion is religion.

We need BOTH.

BOTH help us to be better humans.

Personally I cannot put "god" in so small a box, between the pages of a tiny book. The Divinity, the Universe is so complex and absolutely incredible it can't be put into words, since words only limit a thing. It was wise how ancients would not allow the name of god to be spoken because of the limiting nature of words. Did you ever read, I think it was Asimov who wrote it, the short story - The Billion Names of God? Once they found all the names.... the universe ended. Puts a smile on my face.

So let science continue to explore and let religion help us to treat each other better. Or get back to helping us treating each other better since it's not doing such a good job of it at the present moment.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

Nyanaponika Thera wrote:

"Like ignorant people who want to pick flowers where none can be expected, since time immemorial men have sought in vain for an abiding core and substance within themselves and in the world they inhabit. Or they have hoped to find it beyond their own world, in celestial realms and in their gods. Man is driven to that unceasing but futile quest for something immortal by his longing for a state of security, living as he does in an entirely insecure world which he constantly sees crumbling around him and below his own feet. Not that the vast majority of men would care for the boredom of living forever in the immobility which any stable and secure condition implies. But they long for it as a temporary refuge to which they can resort, as children resort to the soothing arms of their mother after becoming sore and tired by their wild and reckless play.

Behind that longing for security, be it temporary or constant, there looms a still stronger driving force: the fear of death, the desire for self-preservation. This holds true for the coarsest as well as the subtlest form of that search for permanency, be it a wish for the perpetuation of sense enjoyment in a sensuous heaven, or the expression of a "metaphysical need," or the deep yearning for a unio mystica. This quest for permanency and security may also manifest itself as an urge for absolute power or for absolute self-surrender, for absolute knowledge or for absolute faith.

Since man's early days, as soon as he first started to reflect upon his life situation, he turned his glance everywhere in search of something stable in a world of instability. He looked for it in the personified forces of nature, in stellar bodies, in the four great elements of matter, believing one or another to be the ultimate matrix of life. But chiefly he sought it in those changing forms and symbols of the divine which he had created in the image of his own longings, within the scope of his own understanding, and for the furtherance of his own purposes, noble or low.

Firm belief in an Absolute, whether a god or a state, has appeared to man to be so absolutely necessary that he has used all subtleties of his intellect and all autosuggestive devices to persuade himself to accept this or that form of religious or political faith. He has also used every possible means, fair and foul, either to coax or to coerce others to recognize and worship his religious or political idols. Often not much coercion was needed, as there were always those who were only too glad to sacrifice their intellect and surrender their freedom at the altars of those idols, to win in return a feeling of security and doubt-free certainty.

Men have too easily believed, and made others believe, that when there is a word there must also be a "real thing" corresponding to it: thence an abiding core, an eternal substance, within or behind this transient world. It was the Buddha who urged men to desist from their vain search for the non-existent and see reality as it is:

Entirely coreless is the world.
Sutta Nipata, v.927

He, the Awake, cleared the way to the open, leaving behind the towering edifices of ideologies and the debris in which they inevitably end. Showing up in their hollowness the claims of diverse Absolutes, he pointed out that only the hard way of critical examination, our precarious and limited freedom of choice, and the road of morally responsible thought and action can lead us to freedom from suffering.

And only a world that is entirely changeable can give us hope for final liberation. Anything permanent found in the world would necessarily bind us to it forever, making liberation impossible.

But one who is instructed by the Buddha, "the Knower of the Worlds," will not find any core of permanency in any form of existence high or low, nor a core of lasting happiness or of an abiding personality. Such a one will not cling to the here nor yearn for a beyond; he will remain unattached to either side. Seeing world and self as void of an abiding core, he wins the unclouded vision of reality and, finally, Nibbana's peace."

Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

bamboo's picture
bamboo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote Mauiman2:The Second Law of Thermodynamics means that left on its own, a system becomes more random over time. That law prevents the notion that single celled organisms can "evolve" into fish, lizards, etc.

The theory states that all energy will stay stable. Energy transfers, but energy stays stable as energy.

Quote Mauiman2:Besides, who or what created the initial mass that became the sun, the earth and the other planets? Evolutionists have no answer for that. Someone or something had to make something out of nothing. And that violates the law of conservation of mass and energy.

Science does not have a provable theory (yet) as to the basic building blocks of the Universe, and that is why science is still investigating how it all began. That is the purpose of science, to explore and figure out life and the universe though physical evidence.

Religion makes up stories about life and the universe. That is why all cultures have a "creation mythology." Man through religion tries to explain existence using mythical forms. It is NOT science, which is based in physical evidence.

Religion has NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and is based on belief, therefore, it is by it's own nature mythology.

2 points:

You have no clue what the Second Law of Thermodyamics is. I may be a right wing idiot, but I do have a Chemical Engineering degree, so I can speak with more authority than most on that topic.

You seem to expect that somehow, someone will come up with an explanation of how something got created from nothing. Good luck on that one, and if you believe that, then I have some prime swampland in Florida for sale.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am

I have some prime swampland in Florida for sale.- quote from Maui

uh, Disney may challenge you on that.

Which came first?

The introduction of man in to a system does create disorder, but so does an asteroid, or volcano, or earthquake, or hurricane....

over time, corrections establish order again, for a time, until the next disruption. If man seized to exist there could be an even longer time to achieve equilibrium. Humans are overseeing nuclear waste and contamination. If that oversite ended contamination on a Russian/Japanese scale times a 100 would render dead zones all over the planet for even microbial life. But only for a time, say 25,000 years or so.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote Mauiman2:The Second Law of Thermodynamics means that left on its own, a system becomes more random over time. That law prevents the notion that single celled organisms can "evolve" into fish, lizards, etc.

The theory states that all energy will stay stable. Energy transfers, but energy stays stable as energy.

Quote Mauiman2:Besides, who or what created the initial mass that became the sun, the earth and the other planets? Evolutionists have no answer for that. Someone or something had to make something out of nothing. And that violates the law of conservation of mass and energy.

Science does not have a provable theory (yet) as to the basic building blocks of the Universe, and that is why science is still investigating how it all began. That is the purpose of science, to explore and figure out life and the universe though physical evidence.

Religion makes up stories about life and the universe. That is why all cultures have a "creation mythology." Man through religion tries to explain existence using mythical forms. It is NOT science, which is based in physical evidence.

Religion has NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and is based on belief, therefore, it is by it's own nature mythology.

2 points:

You have no clue what the Second Law of Thermodyamics is. I may be a right wing idiot, but I do have a Chemical Engineering degree, so I can speak with more authority than most on that topic.

My husband is a scientist. We have had long discussion on this subject and I may be crude in my description but it is acurate. Energy stays energy and does not change from energy.

Everything is energy. The law states that energy does not change it remains energy. If energy comes in the form of a lizard or a fish, it is still ENERGY. It is a scientific fact that single cell organism (bacteria) have changed a sodium molecule into a potasium molecule (biotransformation - which man cannot do), and the energy is still the same.

I suppose we can continue this discussion, but I don't believe it will be to any purpose, neither of us will change our opinions.

I find it interesting that someone with your education, though you are simply technician with a degree, does not have a clear understanding of the term evolution. You acknowledge that things change through adaption but yet do not understand the basis of evolution.

Quote Mauiman2:You seem to expect that somehow, someone will come up with an explanation of how something got created from nothing. Good luck on that one, and if you believe that, then I have some prime swampland in Florida for sale.

If you are happy to believe in a bronze age creation myth of an old bearded man who sits upon a throne in the clouds (which sounds a lot like Zeus) did it all in the blink of an eye, then be happy in your superstition.

I am content with say "I don't know" and find it unnecessary to fall back on mythology to give me peace. I will continue to rely on science and the endless curiosity of human beings to persist in the quest to unravel the mysteries of the Universe.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote polycarp2:

Well, take the Gulf Oil Spill.

Probably the shrimp being born blind and reproducing better than ones with eyes will one day be labelled a distinct species if they continue to evolve in a direction separate from the rest of the species.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

The "new shrimp" would not be a new species, they could still mate with the "old shrimp" and produce offspring. It would be like creating a new breed of dog. Yes they are different, but they are not a new species.

Please note the bold text above.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Mauiman2:

You have no clue what the Second Law of Thermodyamics is. I may be a right wing idiot, but I do have a Chemical Engineering degree, so I can speak with more authority than most on that topic.

It looks like you still haven't given up on this parlor trick of conflating the thermodynamic concept of the entropy of our entire universe with the biological concept of order on our infinitesimally small planet. I thought when you quit posting on this subject last time, you must have seen the light:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/03/war-science-heads-tennessee

When a cup of water is placed in a freezer and becomes ice, it is still H2O molecules but at a lower entropy (ie more ordered). The energy that was removed from the higher entropy water was just moved somewhere else via the Carnot Cycle. Does that make refrigerators magic evolution machines and Carnot God? If you must mix your thermo and your biology, then why couldn't order be created here on earth via transferring the disorder to somewhere else in the universe?

The entropy vs evolution argument is not so much a scientific one, but a religious or philosophical one masquerading as science.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Laborisgood:
Quote Mauiman2:

You have no clue what the Second Law of Thermodyamics is. I may be a right wing idiot, but I do have a Chemical Engineering degree, so I can speak with more authority than most on that topic.

It looks like you still haven't given up on this parlor trick of conflating the thermodynamic concept of the entropy of our entire universe with the biological concept of order on our infinitesimally small planet. I thought when you quit posting on this subject last time, you must have seen the light:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/03/war-science-heads-tennessee

When a cup of water is placed in a freezer and becomes ice, it is still H2O molecules but at a lower entropy (ie more ordered). The energy that was removed from the higher entropy water was just moved somewhere else via the Carnot Cycle. Does that make refrigerators magic evolution machines and Carnot God? If you must mix your thermo and your biology, then why couldn't order be created here on earth via transferring the disorder to somewhere else in the universe?

The entropy vs evolution argument is not so much a scientific one, but a religious or philosophical one masquerading as science.

No, sorry I have not "seen the light" as you define it. Bottom line we'll have to agree to disgree and both move on.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote polycarp2:
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote polycarp2:

Well, take the Gulf Oil Spill.

Probably the shrimp being born blind and reproducing better than ones with eyes will one day be labelled a distinct species if they continue to evolve in a direction separate from the rest of the species.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

The "new shrimp" would not be a new species, they could still mate with the "old shrimp" and produce offspring. It would be like creating a new breed of dog. Yes they are different, but they are not a new species.

Please note the bold text above.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

A great story, but that has never happened.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote Mauiman2:
Quote jan in iowa:
Quote Mauiman2:The Second Law of Thermodynamics means that left on its own, a system becomes more random over time. That law prevents the notion that single celled organisms can "evolve" into fish, lizards, etc.

The theory states that all energy will stay stable. Energy transfers, but energy stays stable as energy.

Quote Mauiman2:Besides, who or what created the initial mass that became the sun, the earth and the other planets? Evolutionists have no answer for that. Someone or something had to make something out of nothing. And that violates the law of conservation of mass and energy.

Science does not have a provable theory (yet) as to the basic building blocks of the Universe, and that is why science is still investigating how it all began. That is the purpose of science, to explore and figure out life and the universe though physical evidence.

Religion makes up stories about life and the universe. That is why all cultures have a "creation mythology." Man through religion tries to explain existence using mythical forms. It is NOT science, which is based in physical evidence.

Religion has NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and is based on belief, therefore, it is by it's own nature mythology.

2 points:

You have no clue what the Second Law of Thermodyamics is. I may be a right wing idiot, but I do have a Chemical Engineering degree, so I can speak with more authority than most on that topic.

My husband is a scientist. We have had long discussion on this subject and I may be crude in my description but it is acurate. Energy stays energy and does not change from energy.

Everything is energy. The law states that energy does not change it remains energy. If energy comes in the form of a lizard or a fish, it is still ENERGY. It is a scientific fact that single cell organism (bacteria) have changed a sodium molecule into a potasium molecule (biotransformation - which man cannot do), and the energy is still the same.

I suppose we can continue this discussion, but I don't believe it will be to any purpose, neither of us will change our opinions.

I find it interesting that someone with your education, though you are simply technician with a degree, does not have a clear understanding of the term evolution. You acknowledge that things change through adaption but yet do not understand the basis of evolution.

Quote Mauiman2:You seem to expect that somehow, someone will come up with an explanation of how something got created from nothing. Good luck on that one, and if you believe that, then I have some prime swampland in Florida for sale.

If you are happy to believe in a bronze age creation myth of an old bearded man who sits upon a throne in the clouds (which sounds a lot like Zeus) did it all in the blink of an eye, then be happy in your superstition.

I am content with say "I don't know" and find it unnecessary to fall back on mythology to give me peace. I will continue to rely on science and the endless curiosity of human beings to persist in the quest to unravel the mysteries of the Universe.

You are giving a good description of the law of conservation of energy and matter. Matter can be turned into energy (when you burn wood for example) and energy can be turned into mass (photosynthesis, which requires sunlight energy). That's not the second law of thermodynamics which states that a system tends to gravitate to disorder rather than order. I'll argue that law (which no one disputes) is completely inconsistant with the notion that single celled species can "evolve" into fish, lizards, etc. Obviously there are some on this board who disagree with me, but we are all free to make up our own minds on the subject.

And that's only one problem the evolutionists have. Another is the problem of how to create something from nothing at the beginning of time, directly violating the above mentioned law of conservation of energy and matter. Even you have to say "I don't know" to that one. If that was the only problem with evolution, even I might take that one one on faith. But there are way too many things out there that simply could not have been slowly evolved by accident. And microbiologists keep finding more and more of these things all the time. At a minimum there is someone or something behind it all. The same force that created something from nothing.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am

Very clever to always deny science and twist theory while never giving any support to "the old guy in the sky" theory you base Creationism on. Never answering any challenge of your myth/theory.

But I do have one question, one problem creationist have ..... where did the old man in your myth, god, come from? Did god spontaneously appear from nothing?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

By this line of thought, "God" is definitionally Who/What is "behind it all." Does that make the Hebrew God of the Abrahamic Trio the real "Creator" or is that "God" bigger and more real than any of the human religious lenses and metaphysics about their God? In other words, it does beg the question of whether or not evolution is how we find ourselves where we are today or some Magic story must be true because we cannot figure out how it happened.

A scientific dissent to the theory of evolution is one thing. A theistic implication in the mystery is purely imputed and does not follow the analysis. Even if we could not explain a thing about evolution, it would not prove that God existed. The idea that this is just all too wonderful not to have been the work of some Great Power does not begin to explain why religions have been used to deal with the actuality of real life and that great mystery. It is also tragic and threatening, not just wonderful. There is no simple moral formula or passport to a great life. Testimony, witnesses, guides and gurus, yes, but none of the simple stuff works except that simplicity on the other side of complexity where perspective helps sort out the narrative. Slogans are simple and mocked by life.

Like the entire religion v. science polemic, this debate is misplaced and misguided. Any God dependent upon the confirmation of cosmologists and observational science has already become disqualified. The validity of metaphysics is how it works here on earth, and there the religionists might even have some points we would have to accept. Believing in a conversation with a Higher Power may be good therapeutic or spiritual technique and discipline. It may increase mental health, but not if it becomes the reification of the metaphsics. That is why we are not talking about physics in the first place.

Narrative rather than scientific treatise is how human beings have always explained the world and themselves. Stories are easier to remember and hold the audience much better than "facts." Good stories tell the truth, sometimes even more of the truth than the facts can. The human predicament/condition puts "the facts" into human context where morality's rubber hits the road. It is why Jesus taught in parables where the hearer had to enter the story as a participant rather than render external judgement.

Religion, or theology, and science have a nice relationship which is not quite "separate." At its very best, religion ought to be guided by the question of what it takes to make and keep human life human in this world. Being for life as the steward of creation and respectful participant in life in this world is not something science claims to be. Science is about knowing what is with human curiosity and moral compass if you want; but it is not driven by the concern for the meaning of being human as religion ought to be.

It is time to get over the triumph of secular science over Biblical myths. Maybe the Ark really is up there on Arrarat, but what difference would it make if it were? A lot of the miracles of the prophets have good science answers. More to the point, if the body is part of the resurrection, which one do we get for eternity? See what I mean? The metaphysics that declares that we are not just spirits in decadent flesh does not get proved in the grave. That does not make the alternative interpretation correct. Human life is embodied, not just the imprisoned sacred in the secular body.

I really don't understand the need to "disprove" evolution. Improve upon it or find a better theory for sure. Darwin salutes you. But please stop the quibbling irrelevant nattering about why the theory does not explain it all. What do you think a scientific theory is? More to the point, why does it threaten your religious convictions? What about it cannot be allowed to be true, or else the sky will fall?

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Denying science is just the Creationist song and dance. They cannot defend their position and prove that a god exists, so they bait and switch by getting us to defend science.

If the creationists are so sure of their position..... defend it with proof.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

Can anyone name ten (10) people throughout the history of the world who have been executed by means of: crusified; burning at the stake; drawn and quartered; beheaded or any other method of execution for disagreeing with, holding, or proposing and new/different/unusual Scientific Theory? ---- Does not include those killed by religious oranizations/groups --------

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm
Quote jan in iowa:

Denying science is just the Creationist song and dance. They cannot defend their position and prove that a god exists, so they bait and switch by getting us to defend science.

If the creationists are so sure of their position..... defend it with proof.

Can't prove creationism, but cannot prove it wrong wither. You can prove evolution wrong, dead wrong..

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am
Quote jan in iowa:

Very clever to always deny science and twist theory while never giving any support to "the old guy in the sky" theory you base Creationism on. Never answering any challenge of your myth/theory.

But I do have one question, one problem creationist have ..... where did the old man in your myth, god, come from? Did god spontaneously appear from nothing?

You are the one putting words in my mouth. I have not discussed what form God is, the comments about "an old guy with a Penis" and "the old guy in the sky" are 100% your words not mine. I have my thoughts about who God is and what form he is in, but I''ll keep those thoughts to myself here.

You are rigtht, I am only attacking evolution here, not proving creationism. Creationism cannot be proven right, but it cannot be proven wrong. Evolution can and has been proven wrong. And I understand that is a bitter truth for all those who refuse to believe there is a God, which seems to be where you are coming from. Sorry about that.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 7:24 am

Evolution cannot be proven wrong.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

If you are going to keep throwing around the second law of thermodynamics then you should at least know the complex reality of it.

There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS — yes, predicts firmly — the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry precisely deals with the structure and behavior of all types of matter.

To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously.

Also, to repeat a caution: The foregoing only describes energetic relationships involving the second law. It does not mean that most complex substances can be readily synthesized just by mixing elements and treating them in some way. The second law has nothing to do with pathways or procedures of synthesis – only with energy and its tendency to spread out/disperse.

http://2ndlaw.oxy.edu/evolution.html

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote drc2:I really don't understand the need to "disprove" evolution. Improve upon it or find a better theory for sure. Darwin salutes you. But please stop the quibbling irrelevant nattering about why the theory does not explain it all. What do you think a scientific theory is? More to the point, why does it threaten your religious convictions? What about it cannot be allowed to be true, or else the sky will fall?

I was reading this thread and came to the same exact conclusions. Why would religious convictions threaten theories? Why, if they were allowed to be true, would the sky fall? Why the overall need to mitigate religion?

You call it quibbling irrelevant natter, I call it paying attention to details. At what point did details become unimportant in scientific study?

I don't know what the answer is. Evolution cannot be proved, and has many holes in the theory. Religion cannot be proved, and has many holes in the theology. Both rely on the same thing; faith. To argue that one person's faith is more credible than another person's faith is folly. Especially, since for the nonce, neither side has hard cold facts (you know... "quibbling irrelevant natter") to fully support their belief. Until the facts are proven, the sky will not fall if all sides are allowed to exist.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Wll stated Paleo and BW....

The constant need to prove the theory of evolution wrong, in my mind, only shows that those espousing creationism are weak in their faith.

As I stated earlier, let religion be religion and science be science.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

Currently Chatting

End. Fracking. Now!

California is already dealing with the worst drought in that state's history. So, the last thing residents needed was to learn that some of their dwindling water supply has been contaminated.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system